|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Shiiiiiiiiit if Comey put all his comuncations with Trump on memos isn't that FOIA territory?
Guy should have gone out on CNN and had the most epic mic drop moment ever recorded.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 17 2017 09:57 Sermokala wrote:
Shiiiiiiiiit if Comey put all his comuncations with Trump on memos isn't that FOIA territory?
Guy should have gone out on CNN and had the most epic mic drop moment ever recorded.
It would be beneath someone of Comey's stature to go out and try to make a name for himself via CNN, which has at this point become little more than yellow press journalism.
|
And thus more leakers were created. It's a self forfilling prophecy now since he's incapable of respecting people other than himself.
|
On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Everyone is going to seem obtuse when you make shit up. Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up.
Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have.
|
On May 17 2017 10:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:57 Sermokala wrote:
Shiiiiiiiiit if Comey put all his comuncations with Trump on memos isn't that FOIA territory?
Guy should have gone out on CNN and had the most epic mic drop moment ever recorded. It would be beneath someone of Comey's stature to go out and try to make a name for himself via CNN, which has at this point become little more than yellow press journalism.
The guy could/should be thinking of retirement and CNN would probably pay more then msnbc for that news drop live. That's all I'm saying.
I think xDaunt is trying to make an argument that trump would have fired Flynn a little later once he settled into the job and could concentrate on getting just one new person.
But I think that's going to be the model case of how bad of just a president he's going to be remembered for. He should have just chopped the wound away and carry on with the chaos.
|
|
|
On May 17 2017 10:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:00 LegalLord wrote:On May 17 2017 09:57 Sermokala wrote:
Shiiiiiiiiit if Comey put all his comuncations with Trump on memos isn't that FOIA territory?
Guy should have gone out on CNN and had the most epic mic drop moment ever recorded. It would be beneath someone of Comey's stature to go out and try to make a name for himself via CNN, which has at this point become little more than yellow press journalism. The guy could/should be thinking of retirement and CNN would probably pay more then msnbc for that news drop live. That's all I'm saying.
if he was in it for the money he wouldn't work for the fbi; private sector careers pay better. (admittedly going back and forth to build up rank also makes you worth more in the private sector).
|
On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have.
And yet, the only thing Trump did after finding out Flynn lied and was a foreign agent, but before the leaks made him 'to toxic' to announce his public support.
No temporary leave from the National Security Council, no evidence of an internal investigation. Just a declaration that Flynn had Trumps total confidence, right up to the day he became 'to toxic'.
It's almost like Trump had no intention of getting rid of Flynn despite knowing the facts right up to the point where everyone else knew the facts aswell...
|
On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Do you think Flynn was going to be fired/resign without the leaks, then? That's an interesting conclusion. It isn't as though the White House gained any information from them. Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have.
So then do you agree the Flynn leak is the answer to your question about which leak was justified? Since it resulted in a more rapid firing and removed a potential security threat faster than otherwise? And that that is not "made up" like you said earlier?
|
On May 17 2017 10:09 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:07 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2017 10:00 LegalLord wrote:On May 17 2017 09:57 Sermokala wrote:
Shiiiiiiiiit if Comey put all his comuncations with Trump on memos isn't that FOIA territory?
Guy should have gone out on CNN and had the most epic mic drop moment ever recorded. It would be beneath someone of Comey's stature to go out and try to make a name for himself via CNN, which has at this point become little more than yellow press journalism. The guy could/should be thinking of retirement and CNN would probably pay more then msnbc for that news drop live. That's all I'm saying. if he was in it for the money he wouldn't work for the fbi; private sector careers pay better. (admittedly going back and forth to build up rank also makes you worth more in the private sector).
Again but if he wanted to retire now after his stint at the top of his profession a quick payday at CNN would be best.
|
|
|
Is this the route they really want to take? Lol...
|
On May 17 2017 10:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. And yet, the only thing Trump did after finding out Flynn lied and was a foreign agent, but before the leaks made him 'to toxic' to announce his public support. No temporary leave from the National Security Council, no evidence of an internal investigation. Just a declaration that Flynn had Trumps total confidence, right up to the day he became 'to toxic'. It's almost like Trump had no intention of getting rid of Flynn despite knowing the facts right up to the point where everyone else knew the facts aswell...
And like I have pointed out before, Trump always publicly supports his people until he cans them.
|
United States42695 Posts
On May 17 2017 10:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. And yet, the only thing Trump did after finding out Flynn lied and was a foreign agent, but before the leaks made him 'to toxic' to announce his public support. No temporary leave from the National Security Council, no evidence of an internal investigation. Just a declaration that Flynn had Trumps total confidence, right up to the day he became 'to toxic'. It's almost like Trump had no intention of getting rid of Flynn despite knowing the facts right up to the point where everyone else knew the facts aswell...
Careful, if you keep this up he'll start whining about you in website feedback.
|
On May 17 2017 10:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:09 zlefin wrote:On May 17 2017 10:07 Sermokala wrote:On May 17 2017 10:00 LegalLord wrote:On May 17 2017 09:57 Sermokala wrote:
Shiiiiiiiiit if Comey put all his comuncations with Trump on memos isn't that FOIA territory?
Guy should have gone out on CNN and had the most epic mic drop moment ever recorded. It would be beneath someone of Comey's stature to go out and try to make a name for himself via CNN, which has at this point become little more than yellow press journalism. The guy could/should be thinking of retirement and CNN would probably pay more then msnbc for that news drop live. That's all I'm saying. if he was in it for the money he wouldn't work for the fbi; private sector careers pay better. (admittedly going back and forth to build up rank also makes you worth more in the private sector). Again but if he wanted to retire now after his stint at the top of his profession a quick payday at CNN would be best.
true, it would be a good way for a quick payday; though of course if you start making the money now, then it hurts your credibility a bit.
I doubt he could get more than a million for something like this though; sure it's big news, but there's only so much advertising money CNN can make in one night off hyping this; and once the news is out it's out, and residual effects won't give cnn nearly as mcuh cash.
there's more money in a book deal I suspect. an advance on a book deal can easily run into the millions.
|
On May 17 2017 10:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:10 Gorsameth wrote:On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. And yet, the only thing Trump did after finding out Flynn lied and was a foreign agent, but before the leaks made him 'to toxic' to announce his public support. No temporary leave from the National Security Council, no evidence of an internal investigation. Just a declaration that Flynn had Trumps total confidence, right up to the day he became 'to toxic'. It's almost like Trump had no intention of getting rid of Flynn despite knowing the facts right up to the point where everyone else knew the facts aswell... And like I have pointed out before, Trump always publicly supports his people until he cans them.
Which by total coincidence just happens to be shortly after the inevitable truth comes out and making the position publicly untenable. But he was totally going to fire them anyway despite not taking any action one would do in preparation of said firing like stopping a compromised foreign agent who lied about his status to the VP from having access to the National Security Council....
Gimme a break.
|
None of this matters until it all matters.
The Republicans are realizing they can't co-exist with Trump. I could have told them that back in early 2016.
|
I think we will be seeing more clashes between the Trump and what he calls archaic, just as I predicted. If something serious start to happen he'll probably start playing to his voters and publicly say un-elected is trying to destroy the elected, the will of the nation. However, the process will likely put an end to Trump's political life, but grant a huge gate for incoming Trumps.
The liberals will call it as the protection of law and democracy, while Trump will be saying it was a direct attack to the democratic values.
I think this is the inevitable dilemma of the democracy system where it gets broken when human factor kicks in. A good amount of people would probably have voted for Hilary if they had known the actions Trump will take.
The point is, the human campaigners promise lots of stuff to do, new policies, removal of error policies of previous politicians, and with a great help of propaganda they get elected. Whether they do what they promised or not, there's always things that the voter will never know, like Flynn, like the lobbying we're sorta proud of in democracies, and hidden personal agendas that may easily be illegal, like how Trump leaked the classified info, but get over it because he's the elected president. So basically its like he's there and he did the leak because Republicans are (in theory, should be) okay to sharing the info with the Russians. After all, he always said that he wants great relations with Russia.
Is there a way to beat this? Seems like a no, he can keep firing people if he goes completely rogue, or he can fail but future Trump will be planning to find a way to overcome what destroyed the former Trump. It will be a win for Trump on a longer run, I think.
The only way I see as a solution for pure democracy is the removal of both bureaucracy and the government itself. We can produce an AI who can store the wishes of every citizen and put the popular policies on public vote with referendums. Do you like enhanced relations with Russia? Yes or no, if you say yes then it's asking you about how far the relations go, on military level, on shared intelligence etc etc. Then it can ask how far this policy should keep up, like 5 years, after 5 years, same question. Now you may complain about what if the AI asks for going War because the polls wanted it, waging a war is anti-humane or what if it asks for something against the constitution? Well, people aren't for the democracies, democracies are for the people. It's still a millions of people's choice to go war, not some hidden elites or 1 man's. Checks and balances aren't always democratic if human factors involved, I say this because in my previous home judges were bringing down the elected so often because the army wanted it so, for example.
|
On May 17 2017 10:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:12 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Who knows? Trump may have. Trump isn't afraid to can people whom he perceives to be political liabilities. Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. So then do you agree the Flynn leak is the answer to your question about which leak was justified? Since it resulted in a more rapid firing and removed a potential security threat faster than otherwise? And that that is not "made up" like you said earlier?
No, leaking FISA information in this case was not warranted here. There is no information showing that Flynn was so compromised as to justify the leak.
|
given the known information on wisdom of crowds effects; a hivemind/ai aggregate is likely to produce poor decisions a lot of the time.
it's well documented that referenda yield lousy decisions a lot of the time.
it's far better to use filtration mechanisms to weed out the foolish.
better fix is to devise better forms of government than democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
