President Trump Thread...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The #goldenshowers and #yellowjournalism jokes on twitter from this are pretty funny though
 
L.T. Fan said:
You might consider taking this down. It been pretty well proven as a fairy tale. :lol
Click to expand...

They are unconfirmed, not proven false. Why would Obama and Trump have been briefed on it if it were proven false? The fact that McCain believes this report is important says to me that there is something more here than just partisan rumor mongering. Hopefully it is false, but we should focus on proving that not dismissing it as a fairy tale.
 
dallen said:
They are unconfirmed, not proven false. Why would Obama and Trump have been briefed on it if it were proven false? The fact that McCain believes this report is important says to me that there is something more here than just partisan rumor mongering. Hopefully it is false, but we should focus on proving that not dismissing it as a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

The Trump messenger who supposededly had a meeting in Prague with the Russians has never been in Prague and was confirmed to be in the US on the dates in question for one. Even the publisher of the report said they thought it wasn't credible and other News Agencies said it was nonsense.
 
L.T. Fan said:
The Trump messenger who supposededly had a meeting in Prague with the Russians has never been in Prague and was confirmed to be in the US on the dates in question for one. Even the publisher of the report said they thought it wasn't credible and other News Agencies said it was nonsense.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/u...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
How did American intelligence officials come to brief President Obama, President-elect Donald J. Trump and lawmakers about supposed Russian plans to try to blackmail Mr. Trump? There are far more questions than answers. But here is a look at the story so far.
What We Know
･ Last year, a Washington political research firm, paid by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals, hired a retired British intelligence officer to investigate the candidate’s ties to Russia.
･ After it became clear that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee, Democratic clients began to pay the firm for this same “opposition research,” standard practice in politics.
･ The former British spy, who had long experience in Russia and a network of connections there, compiled dozens of reports detailing what he heard from his contacts. The memos he wrote, mostly one to three pages long, are dated from June to December.
･ The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail him with sex tapes and bribe him with business deals. They also claim that the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives to discuss the Russians’ hacking and their leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
･ The Washington firm and the former British spy, not identified here because of a confidential source agreement with The New York Times, gave the memos first to their clients but later to the F.B.I. and multiple journalists at The Times and elsewhere. The memos, totaling about 35 pages, also reached a number of members of Congress.
･ Last week, when the F.B.I., C.I.A. and National Security Agency gave a classified report on the Russian hacking and leaking and efforts to influence the presidential election to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders, they attached a two-page summary of the unverified allegations in the memos.
What We Don’t Know
･ Whether any of the claims in the memos are true. American intelligence agencies have not confirmed them, and Mr. Trump has said they are a complete fabrication. In addition, one specific allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with a Russian official in Prague in August or September — has been denied by both Mr. Cohen, who says he has never been to Prague, and the Russian, Oleg Solodukhin.
･ Who concocted the information in the memos, if it is entirely false or partially so, and with what purpose. Did the British intelligence officer accurately report what he heard? Who gave him the information that, if false, amounts to a very sophisticated fabrication?
･ What exactly prompted American intelligence officials to pass on a summary of the unvetted claims to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and Congress? Officials have said they felt the president-elect should be aware of the memos, which had circulated widely in Washington. But why put the summary in a report going to multiple people in Congress and the executive branch, virtually assuring it would be leaked?
･ What will happen now. The F.B.I. has been investigating the claims in the memos, and Democrats are demanding a thorough inquiry into the reports that Trump representatives met with Russian officials during the campaign. But as of Jan. 20, Mr. Trump will be in charge of the bureau and the other intelligence agencies, and he may not approve such an investigation.
 
Knowing Comey, he'd probably be happy to drop the whole thing. It's pretty clear he had a dog in the race.
 
townsend said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/u...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
･ The former British spy, who had long experience in Russia and a network of connections there, compiled dozens of reports detailing what he heard from his contacts. The memos he wrote, mostly one to three pages long, are dated from June to December.
･ The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail him with sex tapes and bribe him with business deals. They also claim that the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives to discuss the Russians’ hacking and their leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
Click to expand...

This portion here tells me this is a story about a non story. You're not just talking about hearsay, you're talking about hearsay within hearsay from an anonymous source. It's the equivalent to rumors.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
This portion here tells me this is a story about a non story. You're not just talking about hearsay, you're talking about hearsay within hearsay from an anonymous source. It's the equivalent to rumors.
Click to expand...

Hearsay and rumors deemed important enough by officials to take seriously. It's no smoking gun, but added to Trump's lack of transparency, unwillingness to trust American intelligence, praise of Putin it certainly creates questions.

If the allegations had been made about Hillary in a leaked email you'd be assuming she was guilty, and so would DJT.
 
 
townsend said:
Hearsay and rumors deemed important enough by officials to take seriously. It's no smoking gun, but added to Trump's lack of transparency, unwillingness to trust American intelligence, praise of Putin it certainly creates questions.

If the allegations had been made about Hillary in a leaked email you'd be assuming she was guilty, and so would DJT.
Click to expand...

Wait!!! You can't defend a presidential candidate. It isn't allowed by some. You might be an apologist. :art
 
townsend said:
If the allegations had been made about Hillary in a leaked email you'd be assuming she was guilty, and so would DJT.
Click to expand...

Actually I wouldn't and they wouldn't either. The level of evidence you're talking about wouldn't be admissible in court, it wouldn't be able to be used on an application for search warrant, the court system for example would give zero weight to this type of evidence. I guess I look at things from an attorney's perspective but this is to the level of not even worth investigating. A leaked email at least has a sender with a name on it. That someone actually wrote. Who can then be questioned. Your comparison would be like if we actually saw a video of Trump pissing on a girl. Or at least the person who video taped it and their name.

When Trump does or says stupid shit I have no problem calling him out for it. But to put any credence in this at this point is a massive overreaction. Now if someone with actual evidence comes forward let me know. I'll take that seriously. (Personally I don't care if he pissed on hookers but giving Russia the ability to blackmail our President is scary).
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Actually I wouldn't and they wouldn't either. The level of evidence you're talking about wouldn't be admissible in court, it wouldn't be able to be used on an application for search warrant, the court system for example would give zero weight to this type of evidence. I guess I look at things from an attorney's perspective but this is to the level of not even worth investigating. A leaked email at least has a sender with a name on it. That someone actually wrote. Who can then be questioned. Your comparison would be like if we actually saw a video of Trump pissing on a girl. Or at least the person who video taped it and their name.

When Trump does or says stupid shit I have no problem calling him out for it. But to put any credence in this at this point is a massive overreaction. Now if someone with actual evidence comes forward let me know. I'll take that seriously. (Personally I don't care if he pissed on hookers but giving Russia the ability to blackmail our President is scary).
Click to expand...

You wouldn't but you know Trump would come on. (unless you thought he meant the Justice Department, then I'd agree and withdraw this comment)
 
2233boys said:
You wouldn't but you know Trump would come on. (unless you thought he meant the Justice Department, then I'd agree and withdraw this comment)
Click to expand...

:lol

Sorry, I thought he was speaking of the Department of Justice. But yeah, Trump would latch on to anything to attack someone he see's as an enemy. With or without merit. Of course the media almost always makes fun of him when he does that. And they should.
 
L.T. Fan said:
Wait!!! You can't defend a presidential candidate. It isn't allowed by some. You might be an apologist. :art
Click to expand...

That's funny. Here is what I see from you "Yes, I am a Trump apologist. So what? But don't call me a Trump apologist!". That was my point. And it stands. Defend him all you want, just don't cry about being "dressed down" or getting "the third degree" every time someone who has a problem with his behavior points out that you doggedly defend him at every turn. That is all.
 
E_D_Guapo said:
That's funny. Here is what I see from you "Yes, I am a Trump apologist. So what? But don't call me a Trump apologist!". That was my point. And it stands. Defend him all you want, just don't cry about being "dressed down" or getting "the third degree" every time someone who has a problem with his behavior points out that you doggedly defend him at every turn. That is all.
Click to expand...
You are really obsessed by this. :lol. Who's crying?
 
E_D_Guapo said:
That's funny. Here is what I see from you "Yes, I am a Trump apologist. So what? But don't call me a Trump apologist!". That was my point. And it stands. Defend him all you want, just don't cry about being "dressed down" or getting "the third degree" every time someone who has a problem with his behavior points out that you doggedly defend him at every turn. That is all.
Click to expand...

You are so irked about anyone who defends Trump. Now why is that?
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Actually I wouldn't and they wouldn't either. The level of evidence you're talking about wouldn't be admissible in court, it wouldn't be able to be used on an application for search warrant, the court system for example would give zero weight to this type of evidence. I guess I look at things from an attorney's perspective but this is to the level of not even worth investigating. A leaked email at least has a sender with a name on it. That someone actually wrote. Who can then be questioned.
Click to expand...
I by no means think this stands up to legal scrutiny. What we're talking about is raw intelligence. More or less it seems like "leads" some of which are provably false.

But let's not pretend you didn't bring up unproven info on the Clintons. You've alleged and, I assume, continue to believe that Clinton's been involved in giving out favors, as Secretary of State, to her charities donors.

The reason this story has legs is the same reason people think the primary was rigged against Bernie. It answers a question that the politician failed to answer themselves.

Why won't Trump release his tax returns, why has he (unlike the rest of his party) been opposed to criticizing Putin, why has he had so many kremlin friendly cabinet nominees?

These are allegations that he, like Clinton, invited on himself by his lack of transparency.
 
L.T. Fan said:
You are really obsessed by this. :lol. Who's crying?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am obsessed by it {eyeroll}. I am not irked every time someone defends Trump nor I am irked by you defending him most of the time. You don't care that the man who will be president behaves like a a reddit troll and that is your prerogative. I have seen you take offense to someone "dressing you down" or whatever other term you want to use many times though. As much time as you spend telling other people how pointless their complaining is you really should be used to it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom