-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
Ok - so you've got evidence of that?
Is this a wind-up?
Is there evidence of candidates being offered dirt in this manner and then going and trying to find out what it is?
The candidates themselves? I very much doubt it.
But they've obviously done it?
The candidates themselves? I very much doubt it.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election.His track record is pretty good. His credentials are outstanding. .. he is a democrat who heavily supports Hilary. Plus his arguments are great.
Feel free to point out a counter argument to his point. Some experts and doctors also support homeopathy.....
And no not everything has be decided in courts just because a political party throws a tantrum because they lost.
The main point in this is the left just carrying on about an issue most voters have low down the priority queue as it is beltway bullshit.Are you forgetting the very legitimate investigation into Russian interference in the election?
Forget? Unlikely. It is all the left and media seeem to want to talk about.
I think the investigation is just more political games.
Mueller is doing a good job of discrediting it anyway with his hirings and close relationship with a key witness.yeah, that would be mueller the pretty much universally well-regarded republican, fbi director appointed by republican president george bush, with bipartisan support on appointment in his current role, and his limited working relationship with republican comey. paranoid bullshit.
He can be all those things and still not the right choice for the role as soon as Comey became a key witness....
-
Is there any evidence to support the claim that Comey and Mueller are friends and have a close relationship?
-
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
-
@Kirwan did you see the Vice tv series on hacking etc? It was pretty cool, and farking scary at all sorts of levels. Interesting that the US managed to track down some Chinese hackers (Chinese ARMY hackers, ahem) and they even issued warrants for them. Didn't have any traction but showed that they could find and identify some of the perpetrators - not without a lot of effort though.
-
It is worth remembering the only actual crimes that have been committed so far is the leaking of classified information - committed by anti-Trump leakers.
In addition to this, there is the issue of unmasking. According to the headline in Fox today, - "The source said more than a half-dozen former senior Obama administration officials are now of interest to House committee investigators.". This is an expansion.
The question will be whether the unmasking of names in the Trump team was legal, or not.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
BSG stated they had a close relationship - Im asking if theres any evidence of such a relationship.
Im happy to entertain the foxnews article as factual if theres evidence to support their claims. -
Far left activist gives a good summation of Trumps Russia scandal.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
That would be the rosenstein who 'fired' comey? Whose credentials and decision making was strongly defended by trump supporters on here at that time? Or are we accepting trump's own words that he was just going to do it regardless anyway now, because of the Russia thing?
Comey is a witness. He's not under investigation.
There's no reason Mueller isn't qualified for the job, it is just typical undercutting of the people investigating something in case they find something you don't like. -
@reprobate said in US Politics:
Comey is a witness. He's not under investigation.
We'll see about that
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
That would be the rosenstein who 'fired' comey? Whose credentials and decision making was strongly defended by trump supporters on here at that time? Or are we accepting trump's own words that he was just going to do it regardless anyway now, because of the Russia thing?
Comey is a witness. He's not under investigation.
There's no reason Mueller isn't qualified for the job, it is just typical undercutting of the people investigating something in case they find something you don't like.His credentials were fine. They are now undermined because any special prosecutor should not have a significant relationship to any key witness.
And that's ignoring some of his other dubious hiring decisions. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
That would be the rosenstein who 'fired' comey? Whose credentials and decision making was strongly defended by trump supporters on here at that time? Or are we accepting trump's own words that he was just going to do it regardless anyway now, because of the Russia thing?
Comey is a witness. He's not under investigation.
There's no reason Mueller isn't qualified for the job, it is just typical undercutting of the people investigating something in case they find something you don't like.His credentials were fine. They are now undermined because any special prosecutor should not have a significant relationship to any key witness.
And that's ignoring some of his other dubious hiring decisions.so like rosenstein then. was fine. totally independent. great credentials. universally well-regarded. men of known integrity.
until they started doing things you don't like. in situations they know far, far more about than you do. then they're compromised, dodgy, corrupt. while the guys being caught lying are sweet as. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
And....as it turns out, this former liberal darling, is being rejected for publication by the NY Times because he presents an opposing view on the legality of Trump Jr's actions.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
That would be the rosenstein who 'fired' comey? Whose credentials and decision making was strongly defended by trump supporters on here at that time? Or are we accepting trump's own words that he was just going to do it regardless anyway now, because of the Russia thing?
Comey is a witness. He's not under investigation.
There's no reason Mueller isn't qualified for the job, it is just typical undercutting of the people investigating something in case they find something you don't like.His credentials were fine. They are now undermined because any special prosecutor should not have a significant relationship to any key witness.
And that's ignoring some of his other dubious hiring decisions.so like rosenstein then. was fine. totally independent. great credentials. universally well-regarded. men of known integrity.
until they started doing things you don't like. in situations they know far, far more about than you do. then they're compromised, dodgy, corrupt. while the guys being caught lying are sweet as.Ok now you are just making stuff up that you wish I had said.
It is a well known precedent to recuse yourself form any legal case or investigation if you have close ties to a main player.
Muellers character being good and him being compromised are not mutually exclusive things. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
There would have been a lot of people who could have done this who were not regarded by Comey as his "mentor" and Mueller regarding Comey as his "protege". Rosenstein also could have chosen someone who had not worked closely with Comey for many years. It is absurd he was even considered. There should not even be a hint of a personal relationship. In this case, you are asking are they good buds? That is a very low standard. There is doubt, so he should never have been chosen.
That would be the rosenstein who 'fired' comey? Whose credentials and decision making was strongly defended by trump supporters on here at that time? Or are we accepting trump's own words that he was just going to do it regardless anyway now, because of the Russia thing?
Comey is a witness. He's not under investigation.
There's no reason Mueller isn't qualified for the job, it is just typical undercutting of the people investigating something in case they find something you don't like.His credentials were fine. They are now undermined because any special prosecutor should not have a significant relationship to any key witness.
And that's ignoring some of his other dubious hiring decisions.so like rosenstein then. was fine. totally independent. great credentials. universally well-regarded. men of known integrity.
until they started doing things you don't like. in situations they know far, far more about than you do. then they're compromised, dodgy, corrupt. while the guys being caught lying are sweet as.Ok now you are just making stuff up that you wish I had said.
It is a well known precedent to recuse yourself form any legal case or investigation if you have close ties to a main player.
Muellers character being good and him being compromised are not mutually exclusive things.ah right, so similar to how Sessions shouldn't have been involved in firing Comey you mean - which you defended.
Why are you critical of his hirings as well then? That has nothing to do with his supposed relationship with Comney. Is that incompetence, corruption, something else? -
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
And....as it turns out, this former liberal darling, is being rejected for publication by the NY Times because he presents an opposing view on the legality of Trump Jr's actions.
there are quite a number of republicans pretty bloody negative on the whole trump jr thing too frank.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
And....as it turns out, this former liberal darling, is being rejected for publication by the NY Times because he presents an opposing view on the legality of Trump Jr's actions.
there are quite a number of republicans pretty bloody negative on the whole trump jr thing too frank.
You obviously didn't read the article.
-
I listened to the Sam Harris Triggered podcast on Trump with Scott Adams last night / this morning. The first hour wasn't too bad but the second hour I found my interest waive. I found often that the varying pace of the discussion resulted in many topics only being explored superficially. It didnt help that Harris at times didn't really seem to be listening and seemed more intent on talking. Adams certainly did far better in that regard and his composure was far more measured than Harris.
It'll be interesting to see what Adams position is in another 6 months if Trump has still failed to deliver on his promises. Hopefully he isnt a goal post shifter.
I did laugh after Harris implored Adams to discuss his two movie analogy, Harris then raises an analogy as a counter argument to which Adams rebuts by discrediting all analogies.
I didn't find the idea that Trump is some kind ofconmanmastermind persuader who is going to figure things out as he goes along to be very convincing; Ive just not seen any evidence that Trump is learning anything of substance and I dont see that Trumps track record supports this reasoning.
US Politics