Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[Ibanez]

Hey look its the other broken record

Now all we need is JSO to drop by to complete the set


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A broken record is right at least twice a day.

I just want to make sure I've got this right. We should now just trust government and what the President says to other foreign leaders, regardless of whether it's harmful to the country, is none of our business? If the President is sliding off the rails it doesn't really matter because leaking is illegal?

Sounds like Trump is creating his own disloyalty.

A broken clock...not record


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

A broken record is right at least twice a day.

I just want to make sure I've got this right. We should now just trust government and what the President says to other foreign leaders, regardless of whether it's harmful to the country, is none of our business? If the President is sliding off the rails it doesn't really matter because leaking is illegal?

Sounds like Trump is creating his own disloyalty.

A broken clock...not record


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can lead kalm to water, but he can't gather no moss.

[CID1990]

Hey look its the other broken record

Now all we need is JSO to drop by to complete the set


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A broken record is right at least twice a day.

I just want to make sure I've got this right. We should now just trust government and what the President says to other foreign leaders, regardless of whether it's harmful to the country, is none of our business? If the President is sliding off the rails it doesn't really matter because leaking is illegal?

Sounds like Trump is creating his own disloyalty.

The answer is no - and you are intentionally oversimplifying the issue. I say intentionally because I know you aren't stupid

Once again, for the 100th time, if these leaks are substantive and show criminal wrongdoing then they should be made to the appropriate Congressional subcommittees. NOT the NYT or CNN. The media is and always has been the last resort in classified matters, in the most desperate of circumstances- where Congress is not willing to take its oversight responsibilities seriously and the wrongdoing is so serious that it threatens our institutions. Congress has been willing to probe Trump so there's no case for leaking to the media- other than the sole purpose of creating political turmoil

These leaks are nothing more than clickbait- and theres nothing CNN's audience can do about Trump anyway... if he is to be found liable for illegal activities it us Congress that must do it. Speculative rage over Trump from the WaPo is not revealing anything the Intel Subcommittee can't do.

AND in case everyone has forgotten- the FBI has been investigating the Russia issue from way back before any of these media leaks started going into high gear. So their value in terms of transparency is moot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

A broken record is right at least twice a day.

I just want to make sure I've got this right. We should now just trust government and what the President says to other foreign leaders, regardless of whether it's harmful to the country, is none of our business? If the President is sliding off the rails it doesn't really matter because leaking is illegal?

Sounds like Trump is creating his own disloyalty.

The answer is no - and you are intentionally oversimplifying the issue. I say intentionally because I know you aren't stupid

Once again, for the 100th time, if these leaks are substantive and show criminal wrongdoing then they should be made to the appropriate Congressional subcommittees. NOT the NYT or CNN. The media is and always has been the last resort in classified matters, in the most desperate of circumstances- where Congress is not willing to take its oversight responsibilities seriously and the wrongdoing is so serious that it threatens our institutions. Congress has been willing to probe Trump so there's no case for leaking to the media- other than the sole purpose of creating political turmoil

These leaks are nothing more than clickbait- and theres nothing CNN's audience can do about Trump anyway... if he is to be found liable for illegal activities it us Congress that must do it. Speculative rage over Trump from the WaPo is not revealing anything the Intel Subcommittee can't do.

AND in case everyone has forgotten- the FBI has been investigating the Russia issue from way back before any of these media leaks started going into high gear. So their value in terms of transparency is moot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get what you're saying but it seems like an awful lot of risk to take, circumventing the legal process. Are they scoundrels, idiots, or do they have a reason to doubt the principles of congress and the process? How many current congressmen would you trust to be principled?

[CID1990]

The answer is no - and you are intentionally oversimplifying the issue. I say intentionally because I know you aren't stupid

Once again, for the 100th time, if these leaks are substantive and show criminal wrongdoing then they should be made to the appropriate Congressional subcommittees. NOT the NYT or CNN. The media is and always has been the last resort in classified matters, in the most desperate of circumstances- where Congress is not willing to take its oversight responsibilities seriously and the wrongdoing is so serious that it threatens our institutions. Congress has been willing to probe Trump so there's no case for leaking to the media- other than the sole purpose of creating political turmoil

These leaks are nothing more than clickbait- and theres nothing CNN's audience can do about Trump anyway... if he is to be found liable for illegal activities it us Congress that must do it. Speculative rage over Trump from the WaPo is not revealing anything the Intel Subcommittee can't do.

AND in case everyone has forgotten- the FBI has been investigating the Russia issue from way back before any of these media leaks started going into high gear. So their value in terms of transparency is moot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get what you're saying but it seems like an awful lot of risk to take, circumventing the legal process. Are they scoundrels, idiots, or do they have a reason to doubt the principles of congress and the process? How many current congressmen would you trust to be principled?

That concern doesnt hold water either

Among all the clickbait coming out of the "reputable" news sites is the articles about the absolute oppo to Trump among Dems, and the NeverTrumper GOP.

A better question to ask would be how hard would it be to find a Congresscritter who would cover for Trump? Surely not Schiff

The real issue here though doesn't fall in that category. The reason Congress wouldnt hold oversight hearings is because there's no criminal activity - not because they want to cover for The Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I get what you're saying but it seems like an awful lot of risk to take, circumventing the legal process. Are they scoundrels, idiots, or do they have a reason to doubt the principles of congress and the process? How many current congressmen would you trust to be principled?

That concern doesnt hold water either

Among all the clickbait coming out of the "reputable" news sites is the articles about the absolute oppo to Trump among Dems, and the NeverTrumper GOP.

A better question to ask would be how hard would it be to find a Congresscritter who would cover for Trump? Surely not Schiff

The real issue here though doesn't fall in that category. The reason Congress wouldnt hold oversight hearings is because there's no criminal activity - not because they want to cover for The Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, solid points. So why are the leakers risking their career and felony charges?

Sorry for being a skeptic.

[UNI88]

That concern doesnt hold water either

Among all the clickbait coming out of the "reputable" news sites is the articles about the absolute oppo to Trump among Dems, and the NeverTrumper GOP.

A better question to ask would be how hard would it be to find a Congresscritter who would cover for Trump? Surely not Schiff

The real issue here though doesn't fall in that category. The reason Congress wouldnt hold oversight hearings is because there's no criminal activity - not because they want to cover for The Trump

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, solid points. So why are the leakers risking their career and felony charges?

Sorry for being a skeptic.

While I agree with CID that there are Congress-peoples that they could go to that would hear them out and not cover for Trump I have to ask if they could really do so anonymously. Someone, somewhere would leak who it was that spilled the beans and that could also damage their career. You know Trump and his allies would demonize the individual. Does Congress need a way for government bureaucrats to anonymously report wrong-doing?

The other question is why are these people doing this only 4+ months into the administration? These people were vetted and selected by Trump and his staff and they're already so disillusioned that they're leaking information that makes the administration look bad? And this is on top of risking their career and felony charges.

[Skjellyfetti]

The reason Congress wouldnt hold oversight hearings is because there's no criminal activity - not because they want to cover for The Trump

Oversight isn't simply about criminal activity.

Was any criminal activity ever even alleged re: Benghazi?

[BDKJMU]

Again, solid points. So why are the leakers risking their career and felony charges?

Sorry for being a skeptic.

While I agree with CID that there are Congress-peoples that they could go to that would hear them out and not cover for Trump I have to ask if they could really do so anonymously. Someone, somewhere would leak who it was that spilled the beans and that could also damage their career. You know Trump and his allies would demonize the individual. Does Congress need a way for government bureaucrats to anonymously report wrong-doing?

The other question is why are these people doing this only 4+ months into the administration? These people were vetted and selected by Trump and his staff and they're already so disillusioned that they're leaking information that makes the administration look bad? And this is on top of risking their career and felony charges.

Some but not all of these people were not vetted by Trump and his staff.

"....Prominent Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz described the leaks on CNN as acts of “civil disobedience,” and said that some have been illegal.

The Trump administration has yet to appoint nominees to 455 key executive branch positions, and Obama administration holdovers are still in control in many sections of the bureaucracy.

The Washington Free Beacon also reported that many Trump loyalists weren’t brought into the administration. Prominent Trump critics hold key positions, such as Brian Hook, State Department director of policy planning, and Helen Aguirre Ferre, the White House’s director of media relations.

Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone recently said, “If you employ people who aren’t loyal to you, you can’t be surprised when they leak.”

Stone told The Daily Caller Friday that to solve the leaking Trump should order Attorney General Jeff Sessions to bring former national security adviser Susan Rice, former Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, and former FBI Director James Comey before a grand jury. “Subpoena Obama in front of the same grand jury,” Stone said.

He added that wiretaps should be placed on “suspected leakers – including [deputy national security adviser Dina Powell and national security adviser H.R. McMaster] and the scum [Trump] has surrounded himself with.”..."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/19/as-le ... own-staff/

Like I've said before for high level foreign meetings kick almost everyone else out of the room, no recordings/notes = no leaks.

[Skjellyfetti]

Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone recently said, “If you employ people who aren’t loyal to you, you can’t be surprised when they leak.”

Stone told The Daily Caller Friday that to solve the leaking Trump should order Attorney General Jeff Sessions to bring former national security adviser Susan Rice, former Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, and former FBI Director James Comey before a grand jury. “Subpoena Obama in front of the same grand jury,” Stone said.

He added that wiretaps should be placed on “suspected leakers – including [deputy national security adviser Dina Powell and national security adviser H.R. McMaster] and the scum [Trump] has surrounded himself with.”..."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/19/as-le ... own-staff/

Like I've said before for high level foreign meetings kick almost everyone else out of the room, no recordings/notes = no leaks.

The comedy writes itself.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Bannon is gonna end up being one of the leaks I bet.

Kushner on anything that gets back an Bannon maybe as well.

[CID1990]

The reason Congress wouldnt hold oversight hearings is because there's no criminal activity - not because they want to cover for The Trump

Oversight isn't simply about criminal activity.

Was any criminal activity ever even alleged re: Benghazi?

I didn't say it was.

I said it was the reason THIS Congress won't hold oversight hearings-

Particularly when there's nobody to talk to... they cant haul Trump or Lavrov in

They WERE preparing to hold hearings based on the smell of a coverup - the same reason for the Benghazi hearings

But thats all going away now

On a side note, why havent you posted anything about the WH preparing to question Mueller's eligibility to lead the investigation due to atty-client privilege issues with Trump's son, and I think Manafort? THAT'S strange, and since it would be a very bad case of self sabotage for Trump...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm not worried about it. Rosenstein was aware and granted waiver because Mueller hadn't worked on any of Manafort/Ivanka/Jared's cases.

Congress can question it if they want to - but, it's the AG's decision (and Sessions has recused himself - so, it's Rosenstein's).

[CID1990]

I'm not worried about it. Rosenstein was aware and granted waiver because Mueller hadn't worked on any of Manafort/Ivanka/Jared's cases.

Congress can question it if they want to - but, it's the AG's decision (and Sessions has recused himself - so, it's Rosenstein's).

So the fact that the WH is floating the possibility doesn't smell like desperation to you?

This is the one thing thus far that doesn't fit with my thinking on this case. Very unusual and unexpected

If they roll with it I may lean a bit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

I'm not worried about it. Rosenstein was aware and granted waiver because Mueller hadn't worked on any of Manafort/Ivanka/Jared's cases.

Congress can question it if they want to - but, it's the AG's decision (and Sessions has recused himself - so, it's Rosenstein's).

So the fact that the WH is floating the possibility doesn't smell like desperation to you?

This is the one thing thus far that doesn't fit with my thinking on this case. Very unusual and unexpected

If they roll with it I may lean a bit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, how was Chincoteague? You managed to post a lot while you were there. Glad you had WiFi in your tent. Or were you "glamping"?

[CID1990]

So the fact that the WH is floating the possibility doesn't smell like desperation to you?

This is the one thing thus far that doesn't fit with my thinking on this case. Very unusual and unexpected

If they roll with it I may lean a bit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, how was Chincoteague? You managed to post a lot while you were there. Glad you had WiFi in your tent. Or were you "glamping"?

The other family bailed due to the possibility of rain. So we went to their house in Chesapeake and I smoked ribs while all the kids went to the local fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I get what you're saying but it seems like an awful lot of risk to take, circumventing the legal process. Are they scoundrels, idiots, or do they have a reason to doubt the principles of congress and the process? How many current congressmen would you trust to be principled?

That concern doesnt hold water either

Among all the clickbait coming out of the "reputable" news sites is the articles about the absolute oppo to Trump among Dems, and the NeverTrumper GOP.

A better question to ask would be how hard would it be to find a Congresscritter who would cover for Trump? Surely not Schiff

The real issue here though doesn't fall in that category. The reason Congress wouldnt hold oversight hearings is because there's no criminal activity - not because they want to cover for The Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Govt Oversight isn't just investigating criminal activity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

So the fact that the WH is floating the possibility doesn't smell like desperation to you?

This is the one thing thus far that doesn't fit with my thinking on this case. Very unusual and unexpected

If they roll with it I may lean a bit

Ah, I got you now. It is desperate. But, almost everything they've done in the past month in regards to this story reeked of desperation to me.

Trying to prevent Yates from testifying. Firing Comey because of Russia investigation (and, trying to lay it on Rosenstein). Threatening Comey on Twitter. Calling special counsel a 'witch hunt'. Etc. (I'm prob leaving out quite a bit).

[Skjellyfetti]

Speaking of desperation...

This isn't coming from the White House... but, "conservative" media has been all over this this week... and, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump is tweeting this story before long...

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a stalwart supporter of President Trump, used a Sunday-morning appearance on “Fox and Friends” to spread the conspiracy theory that former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was killed last year to cover up the true story of how WikiLeaks obtained tens of thousands of hacked Democratic Party emails

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... b8fb53b31d

[Ivytalk]

Speaking of desperation...

This isn't coming from the White House... but, "conservative" media has been all over this this week... and, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump is tweeting this story before long...

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a stalwart supporter of President Trump, used a Sunday-morning appearance on “Fox and Friends” to spread the conspiracy theory that former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was killed last year to cover up the true story of how WikiLeaks obtained tens of thousands of hacked Democratic Party emails

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... b8fb53b31d

Don't go all Spandos on us, now.

[CID1990]

That concern doesnt hold water either

Among all the clickbait coming out of the "reputable" news sites is the articles about the absolute oppo to Trump among Dems, and the NeverTrumper GOP.

A better question to ask would be how hard would it be to find a Congresscritter who would cover for Trump? Surely not Schiff

The real issue here though doesn't fall in that category. The reason Congress wouldnt hold oversight hearings is because there's no criminal activity - not because they want to cover for The Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Govt Oversight isn't just investigating criminal activity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go back and read post 612, McFly

[CID1990]

So the fact that the WH is floating the possibility doesn't smell like desperation to you?

This is the one thing thus far that doesn't fit with my thinking on this case. Very unusual and unexpected

If they roll with it I may lean a bit

Ah, I got you now. It is desperate. But, almost everything they've done in the past month in regards to this story reeked of desperation to me.

Trying to prevent Yates from testifying. Firing Comey because of Russia investigation (and, trying to lay it on Rosenstein). Threatening Comey on Twitter. Calling special counsel a 'witch hunt'. Etc. (I'm prob leaving out quite a bit).

Those all feel like petulant anger to me. They're too obviously over the top.

This is different. Trump's supporters have leeway to get behind him on the other actions

But this guy's reputation is largely unimpeachable. Trump will find himself completely isolated if he goes after Mueller.

[Ibanez]

Govt Oversight isn't just investigating criminal activity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go back and read post 612, McFly

Thanks, chop.

[Skjellyfetti]

Those all feel like petulant anger to me. They're too obviously over the top.

Yeah, I certainly don't disagree that it's petulant anger. But, I think it's also pretty desperate. I guess we isagree on that... but, it's not that important.

What do you make of the reports that Kushner advocated for Comey's firing - while people like Bannon cautioned against it? Maybe Kushner is more like Trump than everyone thought and reacts impulsively toward threats and is a petulant manchild.

But, perhaps he is starting to feel some heat - heat Bannon probably isn't feeling personally.

This is different. Trump's supporters have leeway to get behind him on the other actions

But this guy's reputation is largely unimpeachable. Trump will find himself completely isolated if he goes after Mueller.

I agree and I don't think they'll be successful. So, I'm not that worried about it.

[CID1990]

I think its a matter of opinion on why people wanted Comey fired, and trying to read the tea leaves on that one is impossible- because everybody in the entire country (with a few exceptions) have had changing opinions on Comey. Depending on when you asked most people, Comey was either a saint or not.

Personally, I think they wanted to get rid of Comey because he's true to his oath only. I think Trump lives in a world of where loyalty takes precedence, and just the idea that the FBI director was loyal only to his oath was a personal aggravation to him. I think that is independent of whether Trump is privy to any wrongdoing or not.

In other words, Trump's actions on Comey can be understood whether Trump is dirty or Trump is clean- equally. That's why I don't base my opinion on the whole matter on how the administration is behaving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk