UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums > STEVEN E. YUHAS MEMORIAL LOUNGE > Off-Topic Gibberish

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Advertisement
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 05-20-2017, 10:35 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Cover up....

Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
.......This is an "investigation" with no clear genesis or apparent crime to investigate. It's a politically motivated, "let's investigate, and hope that something turns up." In the meantime, the liberal press will throw any unsubstantiated rumor at the wall and see what sticks.
Fudd, you are correct and not the only one to point this out, i.e., the appearance of a cover up without a crime. But, since such efforts have been made to "cover up" something, doesn't that simply suggest a cover up of an unknown crime?

People don't put themselves in such jeopardy, going to such pains, to conceal something that's legal and above board, do they? Another possibility is covering up something that, while not at all a crime, would be entirely unacceptable and inappropriate for a president to be involved in.
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
  #402  
Old 05-20-2017, 11:08 PM
cj's Avatar
cj cj is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,723
Thanks: 2,007
Thanked 2,522 Times in 1,308 Posts
cj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond reputecj has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Fudd, you are correct and not the only one to point this out, i.e., the appearance of a cover up without a crime. But, since such efforts have been made to "cover up" something, doesn't that simply suggest a cover up of an unknown crime?

People don't put themselves in such jeopardy, going to such pains, to conceal something that's legal and above board, do they? Another possibility is covering up something that, while not at all a crime, would be entirely unacceptable and inappropriate for a president to be involved in.
Benghazi?
__________________
"There cannot be good living where there is no good drinking." Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 05-20-2017, 11:44 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Fudd, you are correct and not the only one to point this out, i.e., the appearance of a cover up without a crime. But, since such efforts have been made to "cover up" something, doesn't that simply suggest a cover up of an unknown crime?

People don't put themselves in such jeopardy, going to such pains, to conceal something that's legal and above board, do they? Another possibility is covering up something that, while not at all a crime, would be entirely unacceptable and inappropriate for a president to be involved in.
Cover up? Of what? How can there be a cover-up when even the accusers cannot define the crime?

The absurdity of this situation will someday be appreciated by history.

Last edited by Fudd; 05-20-2017 at 11:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 05-21-2017, 08:42 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Cover up

Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Cover up? Of what? How can there be a cover-up when even the accusers cannot define the crime?
The absurdity of this situation will someday be appreciated by history.
Fudd, when Mueller completes his investigation I hope you'll look back and re-read statements like the one you made.

Consider, please:

1) Crime: There is no difficulty defining possible crimes. But so long as a cover up is effective it's not possible to specify what the crimes were,... specifically.

2) Doesn't need to be a crime: There are many things a president can be involved it that while not crimes are impermissible for a president.

That's why investigations are in progress. Do you think that after Mueller is finished his bottom line conclusion is going to be.... "Found nothing out of the ordinary folks, no crimes, no improprieties whatsoever,....back to work everyone".

I'm a bit hazy re the following, but I'll try to remember: When Kushner, I believe, was completing the forms required for his top secret security clearance there were major omissions re foreign connections....Russian, I think,...These omissions were discovered over time and were explained as unintentional oversights, slip ups, etc. What? I have gone through that security process myself....no one makes "slip ups" like that. It's inconceivable! And, of course, in Kushner's case his lawyers were involved in completing the forms. The omissions were a deliberate attempt to conceal information vital to the process...a crime.

Every time you turn around there is something like this involving some key person in Trump's inner circle. The more time passes the deeper the Flynn morass becomes. The key word that best describes all this stuff is "concealment". That can involved illegalities or unacceptable improprieties. Whatever, the president's camp has gone out of its way to cover up these things. That's what has led us to Mueller.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 05-21-2017, 11:18 AM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Xubrew, it appears that the GOP does not want to ignore Democratic complaints. Does this explanation satisfy you?



http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...518-story.html


According to Durbin, Rosenstein said he named Mueller to “make certain the American people thought this would be handled fairly and justly.”
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 05-21-2017, 12:36 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
If there was absolutely nothing to be concerned about he would not appoint a special counsel. There is too much smoke not to. From Page to Manafort to Flynn to Kushner there are things to investigate. Firing Comey in the midst of that, probably in frustration about loyalty, narcissism and outsized sense of presidential power was incredibly stupid. Especially with a constantly changing story as to why and comments to the Russians, regardless the reasons.

Trump just can't help shooting himself in the head. The use of investigations for political purposes is a time honored tradition. There is as much here as any since Watergate. And potentially as much as Watergate if Trump's actions rise to the level of obstruction. That's why the independent counsel. Expecting evidence before the investigation would be virtually unprecedented. The investigation isn't the prosecution
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 05-21-2017, 02:49 PM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
If there was absolutely nothing to be concerned about he would not appoint a special counsel. There is too much smoke not to.
You do not know that, that is pure speculation.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 05-21-2017, 03:49 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
I don't know what? His exact motivations? Of course not.

A lot of smoke - any objective person not kissing Trump's arse recognizes they need an independent counsel. You cant have the POTUS trot out his administration to say one thing, then come back and say he fired Comey with the Russian thing on his mind, have reports of Comey memos saying Trump asked for a pledge of loyalty (something very Trump-like), have multiple unreported contacts with his aides with the Russians (something you don't forget in security clearance requests), have the FBI investigation appear to have a criminal element to and have a target in the White House and have FinCen records subpoenaed by Congress without an independent counsel. Not once the POTUS may have already crossed the line with respect to independence of Justice.

So yes, just like you have no idea if the appointment is just to appease Dems I don't know if Roaensteins motivations were just to appease Dems. But I definitely suspect they weren't. And I think the public would have little faith in the objectivity of a justice department investigation at this point.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 05-21-2017, 04:12 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Mich Flyer View Post
We know nothing. It is all made up. Looks to me like Seth Rich, a Democrat, is behing the WikiLeaks. It was Comey, with Obama's "suggestion", that let criminal Hillary off the hook. It is an obvious injustice. Hillary was made above the law. The Democrats and never Trumpers are doing all they can make up to destroy Trump.
Your first sentence refutes your second.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 05-21-2017, 04:20 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
That's a new one. What are you talking about? He was lining his pockets with billions before his Presidency. He doesn't need political power to make himself rich.

This is an "investigation" with no clear genesis or apparent crime to investigate. It's a politically motivated, "let's investigate, and hope that something turns up." In the meantime, the liberal press will throw any unsubstantiated rumor at the wall and see what sticks.
What's new about it. Even Joni Ernst has said much the same thing a couple months ago. She is neither left wing media, a Dem or part of the establishment that doesn't want their power challenges. You are smarter than this Fudd. you don't have to kneel before the almighty Trump. Willingness to excuse anything in the name of partisanship will be the ruin of this country.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 05-21-2017, 04:20 PM
ud69's Avatar
ud69 ud69 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,895
Thanks: 1,697
Thanked 3,932 Times in 1,727 Posts
ud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond reputeud69 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
And I think the public would have little faith in the objectivity of a justice department investigation at this point.
Perhaps, but that would still be a step up from the public's faith in a justice department headed by Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder or Loretta "Phoenix Tarmac" Lynch.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 05-21-2017, 06:23 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,548
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 1,163 Times in 773 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Your first sentence refutes your second.
Posted via Mobile Device
We know nothing. I said it looks like Seth Davis was behind the leaks to WikiLeaks.

An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer --*generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder -- showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.

The federal investigator, who requested anonymity, said 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from January 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21.

“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ator-says.html

I say we know nothing because a definitive verdict has not been agreed upon.
There is no proof Trump had anything to do with the leaks to WikiLeaks. In fact, the evidence so shows he had nothing to do with it, and it had nothing to do with the Russians.
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 05-21-2017, 07:40 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Your second sentence was "it's all made up". You don't know that any more than people who believe it is not made up.

The Russian investigation is about more than the source of Wikileaks. Rich could be the source and there could still be illegal matters between the Trump administration and the Russians.

Both Flynn and Kushner could be charged with criminal offenses and have nothing to do with Wikileaks's. Those charges could lead to other issues with Trump. That's why there should be an independent counsel.

There is no credible evidence beyond conspiracy theory fake news sites that Rich is the Wikileaks source. Out of these sites, and those on the left, are going to be embarrassed big league, much like Infowars who is beginning to be forced to retract much of their reporting.
[i]Posted via Mobile Device[/

Last edited by UDDoug; 05-21-2017 at 08:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 05-21-2017, 09:59 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,548
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 1,163 Times in 773 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Your second sentence was "it's all made up". You don't know that any more than people who believe it is not made up.
[i]Posted via Mobile Device[/
So what do we know. Nothing. Some believe it is all made up. Some believe it is not made up. Where is the proof? The burden is on proving there is collusion. Till something is proven to me, the talk of collusion is all smoke and talk.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Mich Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
Showme Flyer (05-21-2017)
  #415  
Old 05-21-2017, 10:09 PM
Showme Flyer's Avatar
Showme Flyer Showme Flyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 96
Thanks: 308
Thanked 35 Times in 25 Posts
Showme Flyer is a splendid one to beholdShowme Flyer is a splendid one to beholdShowme Flyer is a splendid one to beholdShowme Flyer is a splendid one to beholdShowme Flyer is a splendid one to beholdShowme Flyer is a splendid one to beholdShowme Flyer is a splendid one to behold
http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...p-camp-russia/

Even Senator Dinosaur Feinstein says no evidence of collusion, so lets make some up
works for the MSM
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 05-21-2017, 10:12 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Your second sentence was "it's all made up". You don't know that any more than people who believe it is not made up.

The Russian investigation is about more than the source of Wikileaks. Rich could be the source and there could still be illegal matters between the Trump administration and the Russians.

Both Flynn and Kushner could be charged with criminal offenses and have nothing to do with Wikileaks's. Those charges could lead to other issues with Trump. That's why there should be an independent counsel.

There is no credible evidence beyond conspiracy theory fake news sites that Rich is the Wikileaks source. Out of these sites, and those on the left, are going to be embarrassed big league, much like Infowars who is beginning to be forced to retract much of their reporting.
[i]Posted via Mobile Device[/
Could, might, maybe. What kind of actual evidence is there, after months of investigation, that leads anyone to believe that we need another investigation? Every time that someone from one of the current investigations is interviewed, they say that there is no evidence of collusion. We need another investigation because the liberals are upset that Trump was elected President? That is what it sounds like to me.

"Let us investigate, so that we can find some kind of crime. There just has to be something there that we can nail him on."

This whole thing started as political cover for Hillary because she was being exposed in all of her campaign lies through her own and the DNC's e-mails. She could not deny the truth of Wikileaks and the investigation into her disappearing e-mails, so she needed to frame it as a Russian plot with Trump. It's political fiction. Podesta gave up his password to hackers and she had all kinds of bad stuff going on with her illegal secret server in order to hide her nefarious activity as Sec of State.

It's a total misdirection, so that the conversation would shift away from all of the laws that she broke and the mysterious immunity and allowed destruction of evidence by the FBI.

Last edited by Fudd; 05-22-2017 at 08:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Fudd For This Totally Excellent Post:
cj (05-21-2017), Showme Flyer (05-21-2017)
  #417  
Old 05-21-2017, 10:44 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,548
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 1,163 Times in 773 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Could, might, maybe. What kind of actual evidence is there, after months of investigation, that leads anyone to believe that we need another investigation? Every time that someone from one of the current investigations is interviewed, they say that there is no evidence of collusion. We need another investigation because the liberals are upset that Trump was elected President? That is what it sounds like to me.

This whole thing started as political cover for Hillary because she was being exposed in all of her campaign lies through her own and the DNC's e-mails. She could not deny the truth of Wikileaks and the investigation into her disappearing e-mails, so she needed to frame it as a Russian plot with Trump. It's political fiction. Podesta gave up his password to hackers and she had all kinds of bad stuff going on with her illegal secret server in order to hide her nefarious activity as Sec of State.

It's a total misdirection, so that the conversation would shift away from all of the laws that she broke and the mysterious immunity and allowed destruction of evidence by the FBI.
Yes, that's pretty much it.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 05-21-2017, 10:59 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Imagine if Trump's e-mails were subpoenaed and he decided to have his people destroy them instead of turn them over. Do you guys think that he could get away with that? Would the press just gloss it over as unimportant? Would the government agency that demanded those e-mails just let it slide?
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Fudd For This Totally Excellent Post:
rollo (05-22-2017), Showme Flyer (05-22-2017)
  #419  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:08 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,187
Thanks: 376
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,005 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Could, might, maybe. What kind of actual evidence is there, after months of investigation, that leads anyone to believe that we need another investigation? Every time that someone from one of the current investigations is interviewed, they say that there is no evidence of collusion. We need another investigation because the liberals are upset that Trump was elected President? That is what it sounds like to me.

"Let us investigate, so that we can find some kind of crime. There just has to be something there that we can nail him on."

This whole thing started as political cover for Hillary because she was being exposed in all of her campaign lies through her own and the DNC's e-mails. She could not deny the truth of Wikileaks and the investigation into her disappearing e-mails, so she needed to frame it as a Russian plot with Trump. It's political fiction. Podesta gave up his password to hackers and she had all kinds of bad stuff going on with her illegal secret server in order to hide her nefarious activity as Sec of State.

It's a total misdirection, so that the conversation would shift away from all of the laws that she broke and the mysterious immunity and allowed destruction of evidence by the FBI.
What investigation are you talking about?? Which one is being led by liberals??

You mention months of investigations. It is not uncommon for investigations to take years, and for those who are doing the investigating to be very dismissive in their comments.

But, the real point I'm trying to make is this. You're absolutely right about there currently being no proof. Anyone who jumps to conclusions is making a mistake. Having said that, I think anyone who is not suspicious of anything is a complete fool. To use a sports analogy, if a group of players walk into the AD's office and say that they feel the coach is shaving points, and point out how he makes substitutions at certain points and tells them that they don't need to try and score anymore, at that moment in time there is no proof of anything. It's only could, might, and maybe. But you'd have to be a complete imbecile to just dismiss it and say "Well, it's all heresay. There's no proof." That is what a lot of Trump supporters are doing.

I can see dismissing any claims and investigations made by the liberals. But, exactly which ones are those?? His own party is who is taking the lead here. They are the ones that continue to be persistent on this. And....YOU'RE NOT EVEN SUSPICIOUS??

If it were actually the liberals, then I could see your point. But...it's not. And I agree that it is foolish to jump to conclusions, but I feel that works both ways. If you've already concluded that there is nothing to see here, then that is every bit as foolish as concluding that there definitely was collusion.

If you're dismissing all this simply because you think that the liberals are behind it all, then your reason for dismissing it is categorically false. The Republicans control pretty much everything, including these investigations.

Last edited by xubrew; 05-22-2017 at 01:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 05-22-2017, 02:17 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Those dismissing are every bit the fool as those who have concluded that everything is proven. The reason for an investigation is to determine if something untoward occurred. If there are suspicions you investigate, not once there is proof. If there is proof you pursue charges or other actions.

And there is plenty of suspicious behavior and actions - including Flynn likely taking the fifth.

And the investigations are about many things other than whether there was collusion.


Posted via Mobile Device

Last edited by UDDoug; 05-22-2017 at 02:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
xubrew (05-22-2017)
  #421  
Old 05-22-2017, 03:29 PM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
What investigation are you talking about?? Which one is being led by liberals??

You mention months of investigations. It is not uncommon for investigations to take years, and for those who are doing the investigating to be very dismissive in their comments.

But, the real point I'm trying to make is this. You're absolutely right about there currently being no proof. Anyone who jumps to conclusions is making a mistake. Having said that, I think anyone who is not suspicious of anything is a complete fool. To use a sports analogy, if a group of players walk into the AD's office and say that they feel the coach is shaving points, and point out how he makes substitutions at certain points and tells them that they don't need to try and score anymore, at that moment in time there is no proof of anything. It's only could, might, and maybe. But you'd have to be a complete imbecile to just dismiss it and say "Well, it's all heresay. There's no proof." That is what a lot of Trump supporters are doing.

I can see dismissing any claims and investigations made by the liberals. But, exactly which ones are those?? His own party is who is taking the lead here. They are the ones that continue to be persistent on this. And....YOU'RE NOT EVEN SUSPICIOUS??

If it were actually the liberals, then I could see your point. But...it's not. And I agree that it is foolish to jump to conclusions, but I feel that works both ways. If you've already concluded that there is nothing to see here, then that is every bit as foolish as concluding that there definitely was collusion.

If you're dismissing all this simply because you think that the liberals are behind it all, then your reason for dismissing it is categorically false. The Republicans control pretty much everything, including these investigations.
See my post #405...


http://www.udpride.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=405

It is just as likely IMO that they want to appease the Dems. No one knows exactly why a special counsel was appointed.

The official WH explanation for the appointment of a SC: appease the Dems.
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 05-22-2017, 03:34 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,187
Thanks: 376
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,005 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
See my post #405...


http://www.udpride.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=405

It is just as likely IMO that they want to appease the Dems. No one knows exactly why a special counsel was appointed.

The official WH explanation for the appointment of a SC: appease the Dems.
I suppose that's possible. But, until now any desire from the GOP to appease the Dems has been noticeably lacking.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 05-22-2017, 03:44 PM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
But, until now any desire from the GOP to appease the Dems has been noticeably lacking.
How about the budget deal, that was just passed, where Trump was trashed for caving into Democratic demands?
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 05-22-2017, 03:48 PM
jack72's Avatar
jack72 jack72 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 9,748
Thanks: 7,863
Thanked 4,399 Times in 2,460 Posts
jack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond repute
It may be an attempt to appease the Dems, but I doubt it. The Dems will carry on this con game as long as Trump is in office. They know there is nothing there, but it is doing its job of focusing the media on nonsense, instead of what Trump is doing and accomplishing. And by the way, be ready for the same garbage once the next Democrat is elected president. The only difference will be a lot less media coverage. It is the new politics, so get used to it.
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 05-22-2017, 03:49 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Those dismissing are every bit the fool as those who have concluded that everything is proven. The reason for an investigation is to determine if something untoward occurred.
Posted via Mobile Device
Doug, if this investigation is aimed at finding out if Trump obstructed justice by impeding the FBI investigation, that has already been addressed by Comey and McCabe. I think that we can dismiss it based on their testimony that it never took place.

So, what is the purpose of the investigation again?
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 05-22-2017, 04:59 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
It's about much more than obstruction. And obstruction of justice charges don't have to come only after the investigation is obstructed. Obstruction statutes are the intent to obstruct. Trump's actions could have risen to a level effectively telling Comey to shut it down, and Comey said no and told the FBI to carry on. Ergo McCabe says the investigation was not affected, but Trump could have committed obstruction.

Nobody has addressed the memos Comey wrote. McCabe may or may not be privy to any of the details relating to Comeys firing or past interactions with Trump.

The special counsel was put in place by Rosenstein, who was appointed by Trump. Not the Democrats.

The investigations in the House and Senate include Russian interference through Wikileaks, fake news in social media, undisclosed meetings between. trump officials and Russian agents (of which 18 have been documented), potential violatiins of financial crimes (likely Page, Manafort and Kushner as targets), other potential violations of law by Flynn, if there was any collusion by Trump or his campaign aides (likely Flynn, Page, Manafort), and possible obstruction.

The purpose of investigations is to determine what happened, how can it be prevented in future, and if any violations of law occurred. All of these investigations are initiated and led by Republicans. Not Democrats. Many Republicans have publicly stated they see things as problematic.

I think there is more than enough smoke to conduct the investigations. The person to blame for them is Trump.

And this is all self inflicted.

If the only thing that comes out of these is Flynn is charged or cleared of criminal charges the investigations were warranted.
Posted via Mobile Device

Last edited by UDDoug; 05-22-2017 at 05:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 05-22-2017, 05:08 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
How about the budget deal, that was just passed, where Trump was trashed for caving into Democratic demands?
Budget deals happen all the time because they have to or you have shut down. Same with debt limits.

The more telling is tax reform and health care on a party line basis. Turn about doesn't make it right and likely results in equal chance of success.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 05-22-2017, 08:36 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,548
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 1,163 Times in 773 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
'Complete panic' at highest levels of DNC over internet hacker Kim Dotcom's claims murdered Democratic aide Seth Rich WA

Self inflicted by the Democrats.

'Complete panic' at highest levels of DNC over internet hacker Kim Dotcom's claims murdered Democratic aide Seth Rich WAS the source of WikiLeaks.

Internet hacker Kim Dotcom took to Twitter over the weekend and said he was involved in releasing the Democratic National Committee's emails to Wikileaks, along with murdered staffer Seth Rich.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ton-storm.html
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 05-22-2017, 09:05 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Rich could be the sole source of the leaks and it may not matter. Trump allegedly reached out to intelligence agencies to state there was no evidence of collusion and to help get Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn. Sure smells like possible obstruction.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 05-22-2017, 09:12 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,548
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 1,163 Times in 773 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Rich could be the sole source of the leaks and it may not matter. Trump allegedly reached out to intelligence agencies to state there was no evidence of collusion and to help get Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn. Sure smells like possible obstruction.
Posted via Mobile Device
Allegedly. Where is the proof? Who said so - another anonymous source?

It does matter about Rich. It proves the Democratic BS for about a years is just that - BS - cover for Hillary's loss. It makes them BIG liars, doesn't it.
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 05-22-2017, 09:26 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Where is the proof? A tweet from a hacker who likes to stir up things. If course that's credible when it supports your view of the world.

There is a lot more to back up the NSA like contemporaneous memos than a twitter post by a hacker. You also have finCen records that have been subpoenaed, undisclosed meetings in security clearance applications. All of which are potential violations of law. But we shouldn't investigate?

And since much if this is classified we will likely never see whatever evidence there is.

It doesn't matter if Ruch is the leak if Trumo obstructed justice for some reason. Whether it be loyalty to Flynn, or some other unknown reason.

And again, if this was all Dem doing, there would be no congressional investigations and no independent counsel. All of those were initiated by and run by Republicans. Blaming it on Dems is ridiculous. They have zero power.
Posted via Mobile Device

Last edited by UDDoug; 05-22-2017 at 09:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:19 PM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Budget deals happen all the time because they have to or you have shut down. Same with debt limits.
Xubrew asked me to show proof of the GOP lately appeasing the Democrats. I showed such proof.

Trump and the GOP averted a shutdown.

Last edited by ud2; 05-22-2017 at 11:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 05-23-2017, 06:43 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Rich could be the sole source of the leaks and it may not matter.
Posted via Mobile Device
Only a fool who does not really want to investigate this would dismiss it. Imagine if this whole Russia collusion thing was a charade the whole time and there was evidence to support it. Aren't you curious if the liberals have been concocting this story and lying to everyone the whole time? Wouldn't this be at least the equal of "obstruction of justice"? Think of the waste of taxpayer money on this. Think of the false investigation and unmasking of innocent citizens under false pretenses. Wouldn't that be a violation of their Constitutional rights? If this is just a huge conspiracy to smear the President, doesn't someone need to be accountable for the lies?

Last edited by Fudd; 05-23-2017 at 07:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 05-23-2017, 06:49 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Imagine if Trump's e-mails were subpoenaed and he decided to have his people destroy them instead of turn them over. Do you guys think that he could get away with that? Would the press just gloss it over as unimportant? Would the government agency that demanded those e-mails just let it slide?
Is this obstruction of justice? Anyone? Anyone?

If the FBI director ignored it for political reasons would that be obstruction of justice? Bueller? Do we need an investigation? Don't we need to know?

Last edited by Fudd; 05-23-2017 at 06:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:02 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Democrat Dershowitz says that he sees no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, and even if there is evidence, collusion with Russia is not a crime.

Last edited by Fudd; 05-23-2017 at 10:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Fudd For This Totally Excellent Post:
ud2 (05-23-2017)
  #436  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:14 AM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Only a fool who does not really want to investigate this would dismiss it. Imagine if this whole Russia collusion thing was a charade the whole time and there was evidence to support it. Aren't you curious if the liberals have been concocting this story and lying to everyone the whole time? Wouldn't this be at least the equal of "obstruction of justice"? Think of the waste of taxpayer money on this. Think of the false investigation and unmasking of innocent citizens under false pretenses. Wouldn't that be a violation of their Constitutional rights? If this is just a huge conspiracy to smear the President, doesn't someone need to be accountable for the lies?
Who said dismiss it and don't investigate it? I said that it may not matter who the leak came from in terms of whether or not Trump obstructed justice.

A proper investigation, which is being led by Republicans, will consider alternatives.

All of it should be investigated. Much of it was. And some is still ongoing.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:16 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Washington Post today

Many Priders will have read by now of the "smoking gun"-type story in today's Washington Post,...reporting that in March president Trump personally called his Director of National Intelligence and his National Security Agency director asking them to publically state that there was no evidence of collision with the Russians as the FBI was investigating. Both directors refused to do so.

The Post claims that many people have confirmed this story. Of course, this sort of thing goes well beyond asking Comey if he could go easy on Flynn, who is a nice guy.

I suspect that the president isn't even aware that actions like this are illegal and constitute obstruction of justice. Depending on how far Trump went trying to persuade authorities to back off the investigation,...as evidence mounts this could get out of hand, it seems to me. Just opinion.

Last edited by UACFlyer; 05-23-2017 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 05-23-2017, 10:29 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Many Priders will have read by now of the "smoking gun"-type story in today's Washington Post,...reporting that in March president Trump personally called his Director of National Intelligence and his National Security Agency director asking them to publically state that there was no evidence of collision with the Russians as the FBI was investigating.
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
I suspect that the president isn't even aware that actions like this are illegal and constitute obstruction of justice.
Is asking the Director of National Intelligence and the NSA to inform the public of a lack of evidence of collusion a crime if there really is a lack of evidence? If this story is true, how would it obstruct justice? Every time that I see an official in the government asked if there is any evidence of collusion, they all say there is not. Are they all guilty of the crime of obstructing justice?

Last edited by Fudd; 05-23-2017 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Fudd For This Totally Excellent Post:
ud2 (05-23-2017)
  #439  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:02 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Crime or no crime...

[QUOTE=Fudd;508211]....Is asking the Director of National Intelligence and the NSA to inform the public of a lack of evidence of collusion a crime if there really is a lack of evidence?....QUOTE]

__________________
Fudd, I am not a lawyer...but, in answer to your question, yes, I believe it is a crime, i.e., obstruction of justice. Note, that investigations were underway and in relatively early stages. For the two directors to state publically that "there is no evidence" makes no sense and it would have been inappropriate for either one to say anything. Apparently they explained that to the president, because neither one agreed to his request.

Re the "crime" obstruction of justice. To be a crime "intent" is required....and that is hard to prove. That's why I said that I don't think the president was even aware that his requests were most likely illegal. I really don't think he knows any better. Nixon did similar things; but he was a lawyer.

Nonetheless, ignorance of law does not mean a person can violate a law with impunity, as you well know. And a president has a personal WH lawyer to help him with things like this. The Post story just adds to Trump's troubles. If more instances of actions like this come out during investigations the president may find himself in serious trouble. As I said, ignorance of law does not excuse breaking a law, especially in numerous instances. What it could show in DJT's situation is unacceptable incompetence. Grown ups know better.
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:10 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
As I said, ignorance of law does not excuse breaking a law, especially in numerous instances.
What law did Trump allegedly break? You throw out obstruction of justice. How did this potentially obstruct justice?

Destroying evidence that is under subpoena seems like obstruction of justice. That would be a good example of obstructing justice. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

Asking agencies to reveal a lack of evidence in an investigation does not seem like obstruction of justice to me. In fact, it seems to be happening daily in the Congressional hearings. Is there a reason that the current state of the evidence should be kept secret from the public? Why does disclosure of the evidence or lack of evidence "not make sense" to you?

Last edited by Fudd; 05-23-2017 at 11:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #441  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:19 AM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
That's why I said that I don't think the president was even aware that his requests were most likely illegal. I really don't think he knows any better. Nixon did similar things; but he was a lawyer.
No, Nixon did not do similar things. Nixon actively engaged in a cover up. Trump has done no such thing, all Trump did was ask for a statement declaring that no evidence has been found. There is a world of difference between the two.

What Trump did might have been inappropriate, but it was certainly not illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:43 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Obstruction of justice...

Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
What law did Trump allegedly break? You throw out obstruction of justice. How did this potentially obstruct justice?

Destroying evidence that is under subpoena seems like obstruction of justice. That would be a good example of obstructing justice. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

Asking agencies to reveal a lack of evidence in an investigation does not seem like obstruction of justice to me. In fact, it seems to be happening daily in the Congressional hearings. Is there a reason that the current state of the evidence should be kept secret from the public? Why does disclosure of the evidence or lack of evidence "not make sense" to you?
Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
No, Nixon did not do similar things. Nixon actively engaged in a cover up. Trump has done no such thing, all Trump did was ask for a statement declaring that no evidence has been found. There is a world of difference between the two.

What Trump did might have been inappropriate, but it was certainly not illegal.
Guys, as I said, I'm not a lawyer. But, I'm pretty sure that for a president to in any way interfere with, involve himself in, pressure heads of executive agencies who work for him to do or not do things,...in relation to ongoing investigations is a clear cut example of obstruction of justice. In order for such actions to be a crime, however, "intent" has to be proven. And that's not easy.

In a single instance of interference it might be nearly impossible to prove intent. But, if there are several such instances involving different people and actions by the president,....since the president is an educated man the only argument against intent is that he simple doesn't know any better. That's not exactly an endorsement of presidential competence.

I'm sure that among Priders there are lawyers that can shed more light on this matter. If so, kindly speak up.
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 05-23-2017, 12:03 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Guys, as I said, I'm not a lawyer. But, I'm pretty sure that for a president to in any way interfere with, involve himself in, pressure heads of executive agencies who work for him to do or not do things,...in relation to ongoing investigations is a clear cut example of obstruction of justice. In order for such actions to be a crime, however, "intent" has to be proven. And that's not easy.
You may not be a lawyer, but did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

How do you define Trump "involving himself" with the investigation? Is "being involved" the crime?

Do you know that he "pressured" anyone?

Is this really a clear cut case of "obstruction of justice"?

The entire Executive Branch works for Trump. He tells a lot of people what to do. He has an awful lot of Constitutional and legal authority to do so.

I maintain that the release of the state of the evidence to the public is not an illegal request from the President, if it even really happened.

Last edited by Fudd; 05-23-2017 at 12:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 05-23-2017, 12:28 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Very difficult to reason with...

Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
You may not be a lawyer, but did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

How do you define Trump "involving himself" with the investigation? Is "being involved" the crime?

Do you know that he "pressured" anyone?

Is this really a clear cut case of "obstruction of justice"?

The entire Executive Branch works for Trump. He tells a lot of people what to do. He has an awful lot of Constitutional and legal authority to do so.

I maintain that the release of the state of the evidence to the public is not an illegal request from the President, if it even really happened.
Fudd, I suggest you take some time to read/listen to what has been reported in the last 24 hours re the president and WH staff contacting various agency personnel, incl directors, that work for the president,.....asking/pressuring them to do things related to an ongoing investigation in which the president himself is involved.

That is the potential crime, Fudd, not what the president or any campaign workers may/may not have done in the past....but involvement/interference re the ongoing investigation. Potentially, at the very least, that is obstruction of justice. You're just not supposed to do things like that, Fudd, whether or not anything illegal was ever done that prompted the investigation(s) in the first place.

Are you saying you don't understand that, or don't believe it?
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 05-23-2017, 01:47 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
What law did Trump allegedly break? You throw out obstruction of justice. How did this potentially obstruct justice?

Destroying evidence that is under subpoena seems like obstruction of justice. That would be a good example of obstructing justice. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

Asking agencies to reveal a lack of evidence in an investigation does not seem like obstruction of justice to me. In fact, it seems to be happening daily in the Congressional hearings. Is there a reason that the current state of the evidence should be kept secret from the public? Why does disclosure of the evidence or lack of evidence "not make sense" to you?
One, you don't know there is no evidence. One statement made was that Trump requested they make untruthful statements. Whether that concerns evidence of collision I do not know. It might be something else. Like something related to Flynn.

Second, there is a reason to keep whatever there is away from the public. Or does mishandling classified information only apply to Clinton? Beyond that revealing evidence during an investigation before questioning all relevant witnesses is stupid.

Asking the security officers to lie to the public to obfuscate their understanding of what is going on is not a crime. Our politicians can lie any time they want. It's a little like going out and telling the public Benghazi was related to a video. You were ok with that too. Oops.

Finally, he supposedly did more than ask them to talk to the public. He asked for their help is shutting Comey down. That likely is obstruction.

Destroying emails under subpoena is a crime. Before subpoena or a legal demand to preserve is not. There are also laws that apply to preserving government records. It is also a separate matter. One potential crime does not excuse the other, and potential crimes by the POTUS take precedent.

Somehow if the 2016 election were cancelled and Obama was given a term till 2019 so we could start over with new candidates and this related to Rich (for which there is also scant evidence) you would be singing a different tune.

Odd too that you believe Trump when he says no evidence of collusion, but not when he says it was the Russians.
Posted via Mobile Device

Last edited by UDDoug; 05-23-2017 at 01:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 05-23-2017, 01:49 PM
flyercasey's Avatar
flyercasey flyercasey is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 44
Thanks: 219
Thanked 32 Times in 21 Posts
flyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to behold
According to the MSN everything Trump has done since the election has been illegal.
This all reminds me of Swampy. Anything some of you can find that is negative regarding Trump is proof that he is a criminal, and should be run out of office!

Last edited by flyercasey; 05-23-2017 at 02:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to flyercasey For This Totally Excellent Post:
Showme Flyer (05-23-2017)
  #447  
Old 05-23-2017, 02:06 PM
flyercasey's Avatar
flyercasey flyercasey is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 44
Thanks: 219
Thanked 32 Times in 21 Posts
flyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to beholdflyercasey is a splendid one to behold
It seems in politics recently that you cannot just dislike a person. Instead we now must destroy them!
Politics will never be the same.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to flyercasey For This Totally Excellent Post:
jack72 (05-23-2017)
  #448  
Old 05-23-2017, 03:24 PM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
...and this related to Rich (for which there is also scant evidence) you would be singing a different tune.
Scant evidence? How about hundreds or thousands of emails transmitted to Wikileaks by Rich?
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 05-23-2017, 04:21 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Where is the proof of that? Keep in mind FoxNews retracted the story.

Hannity is destroying whatever credibility he may have once had. He is the Fox version of Madow

If I were the Rich family I would start lawsuits against Fox, Breitbart, Infowars and Hannity personally. Rich is not a public figure and as such the bar is lower. Multiple sources close to the investigation have denied any such emails are in his laptop. The stories rely in part on Kim Dotcin who is a known forger if need be to push conspiracy theories to attract attention and make bank. Infowars is already an admitted purveyor of fake news - see Chobanni. Proving malice won't be hard either.

Fox should fire Hannity now to save face.
Posted via Mobile Device

Last edited by UDDoug; 05-23-2017 at 04:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 05-23-2017, 05:12 PM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: GameofThronesPlex
Posts: 11,121
Thanks: 11,054
Thanked 9,202 Times in 4,250 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by flyercasey View Post
It seems in politics recently that you cannot just dislike a person. Instead we now must destroy them!
Politics will never be the same.
Posted via Mobile Device
Which is exactly why I don't initially believe anything I read or hear politically. You can't trust any source; red or blue, right or left, D or R. It's full of nothing but exaggerations, opinions and BS. Hannity is full of the same stuff Pelosi ingests...Rush and Biden follow the same directives...all of them, professional truth exaggerators.

King Rollo the Truth Serum...OUT!
__________________
ôLiberals are acting like Trump is going to kill all the gays, make slavery legal again and take away women's rights...like he's muslim or something." M Philips
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to rollo For This Totally Excellent Post:
jack72 (05-23-2017), Sea Bass (05-24-2017)
  #451  
Old 05-23-2017, 06:44 PM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
Where is the proof of that? Keep in mind FoxNews retracted the story.

Hannity is destroying whatever credibility he may have once had. He is the Fox version of Madow

If I were the Rich family I would start lawsuits against Fox, Breitbart, Infowars and Hannity personally. Rich is not a public figure and as such the bar is lower. Multiple sources close to the investigation have denied any such emails are in his laptop. The stories rely in part on Kim Dotcin who is a known forger if need be to push conspiracy theories to attract attention and make bank. Infowars is already an admitted purveyor of fake news - see Chobanni. Proving malice won't be hard either.

Fox should fire Hannity now to save face.
Posted via Mobile Device
FNC just retracted the story within the last hour or 2.

And Hannity is not retracting anything...he is standing by his story.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/se...rticle/2623974
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 05-23-2017, 07:43 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Flynn

The ever-emerging saga of Mike Flynn is one for the books. The guy was a three-star general out of URI's ROTC program. To get to that level he must have impressed many people over a long time....including relatively recently when Obama appointed Flynn director of defense intelligence.....but later fired him.

Fast forward to just a few months ago. Knowing that Flynn was very active in then President-elect Trump's campaign and in line for a post in the new administration, of all the things out-going president might of had to say to his successor, one of them was to warn Trump not to add Flynn to his WH team. Just recently Chris Christie said that he also warned Trump about Flynn.

So what did Trump do? He appoints Flynn to the highly sensitive position of national security advisor....a post he held for only a few weeks before getting in deep trouble.

Now Flynn finds himself in really deep yogurt, risking a contempt of Congrees charge by refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents, which are not protected by the 5th amendment. If Congress presses the issue Flynn could wind up in jail.

What the hell could those documents contain that warrants such a risk for Flynn?

Meanwhile, as for Trump himself, while former CIA director Brennan's testimony today was not at all favorable for the president, proving at least that the Russian investigations are not simply a witch hunt, nothing was said that indicated that Trump was involved in or even knowledgeable aboutany illegal activity.

That prompts many observers to ask, "Why are the president's activities and behavior so typical of someone who is concealing something if there is nothing illegal to conceal?" I don't have a clue or even and idea. But, for sure. before this is over we're going to find out.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UACFlyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
zmz723 (05-24-2017)
  #453  
Old 05-23-2017, 09:57 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,548
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 1,163 Times in 773 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
FNC just retracted the story within the last hour or 2.

And Hannity is not retracting anything...he is standing by his story.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/se...rticle/2623974
Time will tell. Hannity has been correct before when the mainstream media has been wrong.

Although Fox removed the story from its website, its statement did not say the story was wrong. The network said it will continue to investigate the story and provide updates as warranted.
The network had no other comment beyond the published statement on Tuesday. It also made no mention of Fox News Channel star Sean Hannity, who has done stories about the case on his prime-time television show.

"I am not backing off asking questions even though there's an effort that nobody talk about Seth Rich," he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/...C-staffer.html
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:46 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
FNC just retracted the story within the last hour or 2.

And Hannity is not retracting anything...he is standing by his story.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/se...rticle/2623974

They retracted when they found how poorly sourced this was and how poorly researched. Even before they retracted it wasn't hard to find that most of what was reported had very little substance. A high school journalism student would flunk if they turned this in.

Since you want proof, a story based on what? A named source who has stated he has never seen any evidence. An unnamed source who says the FBI told him certain things, while law unfircement has said the laptop or its contents have never been examined or provided by the FBI. Kim dotcom.

This is the absolute worst of reporting. Zero corroboration, sources who deny what is attributed to them, conspiracy theorists, forgers and known liars.

The Fox newsroom may implode if they don't do something.

I find it amazing that people who want proof to continue investigations will accept things like this as truth.
Posted via Mobile Device

Last edited by UDDoug; 05-23-2017 at 11:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 05-24-2017, 01:07 AM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
I think this sums up where we currently are with the Russia collusion investigation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...re_is_one.html:



Now there may be, we could get an avalanche of evidence of collusion. But so far there is none. The president insists that there is no 'there' there, but he acts as if the there is everywhere. And that, I think, is the origin of what's happened here. He's trying to get people -- I can understand sort of the motive. He says I didn't do anything, so let me get the people who are in charge of some of these agencies to come out and say we have no evidence. I don't see that as obstruction, but I think it is improper. It's something you shouldn't be asking these people to do. And that creates this firestorm.
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to ud2 For This Totally Excellent Post:
Mich Flyer (05-24-2017)
  #456  
Old 05-24-2017, 03:16 AM
Chris R's Avatar
Chris R Chris R is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 10,033
Thanks: 984
Thanked 10,024 Times in 3,023 Posts
Chris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond reputeChris R has a reputation beyond repute
I refuse to watch MSM news anymore. I watched the IndyCar Pole Day in ABC over the weekend. After it was over the news came on. They talked about Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia. By nearly all accounts, it had gone swimmingly so far. Despite all the racist, bigoted remarks about Trump hating Muslims, one of the most Muslim countries in the world was literally falling over themselves with smiles and glee to seem him there. Everyone was having a grand ol time. He had only given one speech and it was quite pedestrian. Yet the only thing ABC focused on for nearly 15 minutes of their lead-in was how Trump has shocked and tormented the free world by completely behaving in a way totally opposite of how he spoke during the campaign. In other words, Trump went to Saudi Arabia and behaved and said everything someone on the left would want him to do and say, and it upset them tremendously and they could not reconcile it and wanted an immediate explanation on the ground as to what was going on. I literally fell out of my chair. I then turned on CBS News I think because it was the next "up arrow" channel on my clicker. It was literally the exact same broadcast. I dont think Trump even buttoned his collar properly -- he buttoned it in a sort of Nazi way.

I had not watched an evening newscast from the Big-3 in probably 5 years before Sunday night, and not surprisingly, nothing at all had changed. The level of bias and forced narrative was so obvious no one was even pretending to hide it. It might as well have been the Daily Kos doing the reporting.

Which is to say when I turn on guys like Hannity, I feel the exact same way. Or Rush. More bathwater guzzlers that take objection to objective opinion when their horse is stumbling. About the only guy that seems to simply report the news and leave the commentary out of it is Brett Baier. He lets everyone else take sides.

Admittedly, the right has Fox on TV and thats about it. They are outnumbered about 7 to 1, unless you start counting other left-of-center narrative networks like OWN, BET, MTV, LOGO, Oxygen, Comedy Central, etc. Then its a beatdown. Still, that doesn't excuse Fox News. You can't trust anybody.

Who do I trust? The 28-yr old with a cell phone camera standing in London or Stockholm videotaping a cop being run out of the village by Muslim refugees, then posting it to social media or their blog. I dont need commentary. Just roll the camera and get out of the way. Let history unfold in front of me and I can decide what it means to me. I dont need to read about what some guy told an ABC News correspondent about the dangerous immigrant sections of London. I got a Twitter feed where someone is physically standing there showing me with his camera. The big corporate MSM is getting beat at their own game by folks not even on the news-gathering payroll. Anyone with a cell phone or small video camera and a microphone is now in the same business and there are literally hundreds of millions of those now. The MSM can still investigate General Motors for racketeering. But those kinds of stories are Page 8 backstories anymore. People want the saucy stuff. The outrageous. The TMZ headline. And Fred the skater dude from Cali can just as easily break a story on Twitter as the news reporter with a $30,000 Ikegami and two bread trucks to broadcast from.
__________________

C. M. Rieman | Publisher | 937.361.4630 | Get the latest here:

Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Chris R For This Totally Excellent Post:
Sea Bass (05-24-2017)
  #457  
Old 05-24-2017, 08:18 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Evidence

Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
I think this sums up where we currently are with the Russia collusion investigation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...re_is_one.html:



Now there may be, we could get an avalanche of evidence of collusion. But so far there is none. The president insists that there is no 'there' there, but he acts as if the there is everywhere. And that, I think, is the origin of what's happened here. He's trying to get people -- I can understand sort of the motive. He says I didn't do anything, so let me get the people who are in charge of some of these agencies to come out and say we have no evidence. I don't see that as obstruction, but I think it is improper. It's something you shouldn't be asking these people to do. And that creates this firestorm.
I watched Brennan's testimony yesterday. The reason there still is no evidence of collusion is because the details of the Russian-Trump camp contacts remain unknown. Brennan's issue was that he was concerned by the "number and frequency" of contacts between Russian "officials" and "persons within the Trump campaign"...such that he alerted the FBI and warned his Russian counterpart to knock it off. And Brennan was concerned that the campaign people likely did not realize they were communicating with Russian spys...not just "interested Russians".

Now a reasonable person would wonder why persons connected to a presidential candidate's campaign would have any contacts with Russian officials...numerous, frequent contacts....and then go to such pains to conceal that fact. The Russians are not our friends.

Bottom line: Such contacts are unusual, indeed, unprecedented. Those involved, Flynn and the president himself have gone to great lengths to prevent investigation re the nature of the contacts. Innocent people having nothing to hide don't behave that way. The fact that there is no "evidence" of illegal collusion (yet) is hardly the issue. One reason there is no evidence is that those involved are doing everything they can to cover up the contacts and thwart the investigations, inlc the president. That behavior alone is obstruction of justice.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 05-24-2017, 09:30 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
I watched Brennan's testimony yesterday. The reason there still is no evidence of collusion is because the details of the Russian-Trump camp contacts remain unknown. Brennan's issue was that he was concerned by the "number and frequency" of contacts between Russian "officials" and "persons within the Trump campaign"...such that he alerted the FBI and warned his Russian counterpart to knock it off. And Brennan was concerned that the campaign people likely did not realize they were communicating with Russian spys...not just "interested Russians".

Now a reasonable person would wonder why persons connected to a presidential candidate's campaign would have any contacts with Russian officials...numerous, frequent contacts....and then go to such pains to conceal that fact. The Russians are not our friends.

Bottom line: Such contacts are unusual, indeed, unprecedented. Those involved, Flynn and the president himself have gone to great lengths to prevent investigation re the nature of the contacts. Innocent people having nothing to hide don't behave that way. The fact that there is no "evidence" of illegal collusion (yet) is hardly the issue. One reason there is no evidence is that those involved are doing everything they can to cover up the contacts and thwart the investigations, inlc the president. That behavior alone is obstruction of justice.
Having contact with Russians is not illegal. The Trump campaign has to have contact with the rest of the world, as they would be possibly be taking over the reigns of the most powerful country in the world. The Trump campaign has not taken great pains to conceal their contact with Russia. They have taken great pains to defend themselves from the slanderous attacks of the Clinton Campaign which has been accusing them of improper collusion with the Russians as a defense against all of the horrible things that were discovered from DNC and Hillary e-mail leaks. Do you understand the difference?
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Fudd For This Totally Excellent Post:
jack72 (05-24-2017), Mich Flyer (05-24-2017)
  #459  
Old 05-24-2017, 09:51 AM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Matter of interpretation

Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Having contact with Russians is not illegal. The Trump campaign has to have contact with the rest of the world, as they would be possibly be taking over the reigns of the most powerful country in the world. The Trump campaign has not taken great pains to conceal their contact with Russia. They have taken great pains to defend themselves from the slanderous attacks of the Clinton Campaign which has been accusing them of improper collusion with the Russians as a defense against all of the horrible things that were discovered from DNC and Hillary e-mail leaks. Do you understand the difference?
Having contact with Russians is not illegal. Neither is having "numerous, frequent" contact with Germans, Poles, Italians, et al. But the contacts were only with the Russians....not with the "rest of the world".

As for not trying to conceal contacts with Russia.....Fudd, have you been following the Flynn saga? Have you heard about the president's efforts to stifle the Russian investigation, "to get the pressure off" as he told the Russians.

None of this has anything to do with the Clinton campaign. And you're asking if "I understand the difference?" Good grief!
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 05-24-2017, 09:53 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,187
Thanks: 376
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,005 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Having contact with Russians is not illegal. The Trump campaign has to have contact with the rest of the world, as they would be possibly be taking over the reigns of the most powerful country in the world. The Trump campaign has not taken great pains to conceal their contact with Russia. They have taken great pains to defend themselves from the slanderous attacks of the Clinton Campaign which has been accusing them of improper collusion with the Russians as a defense against all of the horrible things that were discovered from DNC and Hillary e-mail leaks. Do you understand the difference?
Do you understand that the Clinton Campaign is not who is heading up the investigations against Trump? Do you understand that all of the people who are are in the same political party that he is?

At this point being concerned with the Clintons is like being concerned with your former next door neighbor who you didn't like while your house is being searched, and not being concerned at all about the police officers that are actually searching your house.

If it were simply the "Clinton Campaign" (BTW, what is it exactly that the Clintons are campaigning for these days?) then there would be almost nothing to worry about or be suspicious of. But, it clearly is not, and there clearly is. Well, let me rephrase. It SHOULD be clear. Apparently it's not clear to you.

I didn't realize those who headed up Clinton's election campaign also moonlighted as intelligence agents who were members of the GOP.
Reply With Quote
  #461  
Old 05-24-2017, 10:04 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
Do you understand that the Clinton Campaign is not who is heading up the investigations against Trump? Do you understand that all of the people who are are in the same political party that he is?

At this point being concerned with the Clintons is like being concerned with your former next door neighbor who you didn't like while your house is being searched, and not being concerned at all about the police officers that are actually searching your house.

If it were simply the "Clinton Campaign" (BTW, what is it exactly that the Clintons are campaigning for these days?) then there would be almost nothing to worry about or be suspicious of. But, it clearly is not, and there clearly is. Well, let me rephrase. It SHOULD be clear. Apparently it's not clear to you.

I didn't realize those who headed up Clinton's election campaign also moonlighted as intelligence agents who were members of the GOP.
The role of the Clinton Campaign has been taken up by Congressional Democrats, the Trump Resistance and the Liberal Press since the general election. They still continue to push the attack in an attempt to obstruct the Trump agenda. I thought that was obvious enough not to include in my previous post.

I think it is important to acknowledge where this "Russia Collusion" attack began and what it's motivations were. This was a purely political play that has morphed into the focus of the Trump resistance and a convenient excuse for the election loss.

The Russia Collusion narrative was also the excuse that was put forward so that the Trump Campaign could be monitored/secretly surveilled by the Obama Administration (Think about how Watergatish that is). They were able to unmask Trump Campaign associates and then, unbelievably, spread those unmasked communications far and wide within the government in the final days of the Obama Administration (after the election loss). This spreading of the information was quietly made possible by a change in law (after the election loss) that allowed Obama to push that information far and wide into corners of the government that would allow it to be leaked after Trump was in office. Think about that whole mess for a while. How "inappropriate" and abusive of power was that whole affair?

Last edited by Fudd; 05-24-2017 at 10:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 05-24-2017, 10:09 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,187
Thanks: 376
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,005 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
The role of the Clinton Campaign has been taken up by Congressional Democrats and the Liberal Press since the general election. They still continue to push the attack in an attempt to obstruct the Trump agenda. I thought that was obvious enough not to include in my previous post.
The Republicans control everything. I mean EVERYTHING! The Democrats, and even more specifically the "Clinton Campaign" (which is completely irrelevant now that the election is over) will never be more out of the way than they are right now. They can't really obstruct anything that the Republicans and Trump are together on. What is happening would not be possible if it were only the Democrats and the "Clinton Campaign." Do you understand the simple civics of that?
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 05-24-2017, 10:12 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
XuBrew, do you understand that the Congressional Trump Resistance and the Liberal Press are able to work hand-in-hand to create tremendous political noise with the use of anonymous sources and plants within the government? Surely that has not escaped your notice. Turn on any MSM outlet right now and watch the propaganda flow.
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 05-24-2017, 10:38 AM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,187
Thanks: 376
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,005 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
XuBrew, do you understand that the Congressional Trump Resistance and the Liberal Press are able to work hand-in-hand to create tremendous political noise with the use of anonymous sources and plants within the government? Surely that has not escaped your notice. Turn on any MSM outlet right now and watch the propaganda flow.
Yes, I've noticed and agree to a point. But as you yourself say it's just a bunch of noise. The actual investigations and the people leading them do not work for CNN and did not have anything to do with the Clinton Campaign. If the president and the rest of the GOP cannot accomplish the things on their agenda then it ultimately won't be because of the Democrats.
Reply With Quote
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to xubrew For This Totally Excellent Post:
IAFlyer (05-24-2017), zmz723 (05-24-2017)
  #465  
Old 05-24-2017, 11:14 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
Yes, I've noticed and agree to a point. But as you yourself say it's just a bunch of noise. The actual investigations and the people leading them do not work for CNN and did not have anything to do with the Clinton Campaign. If the president and the rest of the GOP cannot accomplish the things on their agenda then it ultimately won't be because of the Democrats.
See post #461 for my reasons in keeping the link to the Clinton Campaign alive when discussing "Russian Collusion" allegations.

I am surprised that you claim that CNN and the Clinton Campaign are unrelated, especially in a thread about political collusion. I consider them two arms of the same political movement. I think there is a lot of evidence to back that up.

Last edited by Fudd; 05-24-2017 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 05-24-2017, 11:24 AM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Having contact with Russians is not illegal. The Trump campaign has to have contact with the rest of the world, as they would be possibly be taking over the reigns of the most powerful country in the world. The Trump campaign has not taken great pains to conceal their contact with Russia. They have taken great pains to defend themselves from the slanderous attacks of the Clinton Campaign which has been accusing them of improper collusion with the Russians as a defense against all of the horrible things that were discovered from DNC and Hillary e-mail leaks. Do you understand the difference?
Of course contact with foreign governments during a campaign is neither illegal or unusual. Trump met with the president of Mexico, and I believe he met with Teresa May. And likely many others. Nothing at all unusual there, nor would a meeting with Putin be completely out of bounds.

But the number, the frequency, and who they were allegedly meeting with is apparently unprecedented. And that is in large part why the CIA and FBI started investigations - why are they meeting with Russian agents (read spies) among others, and why so often. Maybe it's totally innocent and inadvertent, related to business interests. And maybe it's not. After all, Flynn may find himself facing criminal charges.

As for taking no great pains to conceal the contact, I would disagree. There are nearly 20 documented cases of failure to report. What else is failure to report, except an attempt to conceal. A few could be forgotten, but reportedly Kushner had more than a handful and reported one. That's as hard to believe as "I don't recall".

Evidence of collusion may never be found. It may not exist. But if obstruction is found, regardless the reason, it's likely a problem. That's why there should be an investigation. And it's likely to last for years.

If I had to guess, the investigations will find no hard evidence on collusion. They may find obstruction, and not because of a coverup, but because Trump could not stand to have his name associated with the investigations and was too impulsive and narcissistic to let things play out, so he tried to shut it down. That and loyalty pledges fit with his past behavour.

And really, more with the Dems and liberal media? They are just noise. For heavens sake, Obama put up for years of being called a Muslim from Kenya. Led in large part by the current occupant of the WH. Seems he knows a few things about spreading untruths and making scandalous statements.

Last edited by UDDoug; 05-24-2017 at 11:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:14 PM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: GameofThronesPlex
Posts: 11,121
Thanks: 11,054
Thanked 9,202 Times in 4,250 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
"unprecendented"?

July 19, 2008: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in Afghanistan on a multistop overseas trip for meetings with international leaders but with an eye on the U.S. presidential race back home.
Sen. Barack Obama is expected to visit several world leaders over the next few weeks. Obama's trip, which includes visits to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, is intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials before U.S. voters."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...ml?iref=nextin
__________________
ôLiberals are acting like Trump is going to kill all the gays, make slavery legal again and take away women's rights...like he's muslim or something." M Philips
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:29 PM
UACFlyer UACFlyer is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,300
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 3,411 Times in 2,047 Posts
UACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond reputeUACFlyer has a reputation beyond repute
Unpresedented, indeed!

Originally Posted by rollo View Post
July 19, 2008: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in Afghanistan on a multistop overseas trip for meetings with international leaders but with an eye on the U.S. presidential race back home.
Sen. Barack Obama is expected to visit several world leaders over the next few weeks. Obama's trip, which includes visits to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, is intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials before U.S. voters."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...ml?iref=nextin
Rollo, were any of the foreign contacts you cited concealed? Was Russia among the countries?

Had Trump and his campaign staff been in contact with all the countries you listed, incl Russia, I doubt if this investigation would be going on. It is the effort to conceal the Russian contacts that is the issue. And the numerous "inadvertent" omissions by the likes of Kushner when applying for the highest level of security clearance. I've had to go through that process personally and I can attest to the fact that any "inadvertent" omissions are grounds for denial of clearance.

A person would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize the systematic efforts to conceal the Russian connection. The question is, "Why?"
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:44 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Rollo, were any of the foreign contacts you cited concealed? Was Russia among the countries?

Had Trump and his campaign staff been in contact with all the countries you listed, incl Russia, I doubt if this investigation would be going on. It is the effort to conceal the Russian contacts that is the issue. And the numerous "inadvertent" omissions by the likes of Kushner when applying for the highest level of security clearance. I've had to go through that process personally and I can attest to the fact that any "inadvertent" omissions are grounds for denial of clearance.

A person would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize the systematic efforts to conceal the Russian connection. The question is, "Why?"
When there were accusations of Jeff Sessions trying to cover-up past contacts with Russians, a vocal Congressional accuser of Sessions had forgotten her own meeting with Russians a few years earlier, and she was embarrassingly exposed with photos of her meeting. People in Washington have so many contacts with foreign officials that they cannot recall everything. Washington DC is full of Russians and those employed by the Russians to influence our government.

Add fuel to this fire by looking at the fact that it was made into a political attack by the Clinton during the campaign. They don't necessarily deny contact. They deny nefarious activity in collusion with the Russians.

Last edited by Fudd; 05-24-2017 at 11:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Fudd For This Totally Excellent Post:
Mich Flyer (05-24-2017)
  #470  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:47 PM
xubrew xubrew is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,187
Thanks: 376
Thanked 2,302 Times in 1,005 Posts
xubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond reputexubrew has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
See post #461 for my reasons in keeping the link to the Clinton Campaign alive when discussing "Russian Collusion" allegations.

I am surprised that you claim that CNN and the Clinton Campaign are unrelated, especially in a thread about political collusion. I consider them two arms of the same political movement. I think there is a lot of evidence to back that up.
That's not the claim I was making. Even if they are two arms of the same political movement, they are currently not in any sort of position to do much of anything.

I claimed that the intelligence agencies that are conducting these investigations and the individuals who are at the heads of them did not work for the Clinton Campaign and do not work for CNN. Richard Burr does not work for CNN and did not work for the Clinton Campaign. That's my claim.

Last edited by xubrew; 05-24-2017 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #471  
Old 05-24-2017, 03:45 PM
UDDoug UDDoug is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,097
Thanks: 59
Thanked 3,299 Times in 1,955 Posts
UDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond reputeUDDoug has a reputation beyond repute
If the nature and frequency of Trump campaign official contacts was so normal why not the same buzz on Romney. After the first debate Romney was seen as ahead. Would have been a good time to drop such a fabricated story.

The fact is the Trump campaign contacts were not normal nor common in frequency or in terms of who they met with. They largely did not have contacts with government leaders. And they haven't forgotten one contact years ago, or potentially mischaracterized a contact like Sessions. They failed to disclose multiple contacts within a six month period. Supposedly Kushner disclosed one of half dozen. Sure is suspicious enough to investigate.

Comparing this to Obama, Bush, Romney or Trump meeting foreign leaders could not be more different. Those are publicized, in the public re and with press. You are better than that rollo.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to UDDoug For This Totally Excellent Post:
UACFlyer (05-24-2017)
  #472  
Old 05-24-2017, 11:06 PM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Are we really talking about "number of contacts" now? Is that where this is going? How about selling off 20% of our uranium to the Russians in return for "contributions" and doubling your husbands speaking fees?

You know, uranium is the stuff that they use to make nukes? Doesn't that seem odd if we are suddenly obsessed with the Russian threat?

Does that sound suspicious to anyone?

Let us put this in the proper perspective. Did the CIA put the Clintons under surveillance for their suspicious dealings with the Russians? Maybe they did not make the CIA radar because they worked this deal in only a few contacts.

If Trump sold our uranium to Putin for political donations, would you be calling for his head? I know that CNN "reporters" would be crapping themselves.

Buehler?.......Buehler?

Last edited by Fudd; 05-24-2017 at 11:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
Mad Props to Fudd For This Totally Excellent Post:
JimBo (05-25-2017)
  #473  
Old 05-25-2017, 09:01 AM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Fudd View Post
Are we really talking about "number of contacts" now? Is that where this is going?
The number of undisclosed contacts is troubling. Nobody can deny that.
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 05-25-2017, 09:08 AM
rollo's Avatar
rollo rollo is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: GameofThronesPlex
Posts: 11,121
Thanks: 11,054
Thanked 9,202 Times in 4,250 Posts
rollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond reputerollo has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by UACFlyer View Post
Rollo, were any of the foreign contacts you cited concealed? Was Russia among the countries?
Originally Posted by UDDoug View Post
You are better than that rollo.
Posted via Mobile Device
Did either of you notice the tone of the 2008 Obama article? Compare that to anything Trump related and you'll see why I posted it. The MSM fawned over Obama then and still do today. Wouldn't you like to know what Obama talked about with those world leaders? Nothing Trump does will be reported similarly. I was hoping someone would notice w/o being prompted.
__________________
ôLiberals are acting like Trump is going to kill all the gays, make slavery legal again and take away women's rights...like he's muslim or something." M Philips
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 05-25-2017, 09:28 AM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by rollo View Post
Nothing Trump does will be reported similarly.
A friend, who seems to be somewhat apolitical, said the other day: "my gosh, Trump can't even go to the bathroom without the media watching closely every little thing that he does. Geesh, the media needs to get over it and move on and accept the fact that Trump won the election."

Lol.

Last edited by ud2; 05-25-2017 at 09:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 05-25-2017, 10:00 AM
Fudd Fudd is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,682
Thanks: 2,053
Thanked 4,876 Times in 2,301 Posts
Fudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond reputeFudd has a reputation beyond repute
Whenever I post about one of the Trump "controversies", and bring up a similar ethical situation that Hillary Clinton was caught up in and slipped out of, some posters don't like to hear it. They say, "Hillary lost the election. It's over. Move on."

But those situations are soooo relevant today, at least in my mind. The same media that magnifies each one of these missteps by Trump, pardoned Hillary Clinton publicly for more egregious violations of laws or ethics. There are just so many examples.

Why did the "impartial" media do that? Because they have a political agenda, wanted her ideology to be in power, and they are not impartial at all. That is why the Clinton crimes and ethical failures are still so important today. Understanding those situations helps us to understand the motivations of the press. It exposes them. We need to understand the agenda of the press because they have a 24-hour bullhorn and can be very influential to those who have not paid close attention.

Last edited by Fudd; 05-25-2017 at 10:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 06-03-2017, 11:37 AM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Trump threatening to block Comey testimony...such a move IMO seems to stink to high heaven.

If there is nothing to fear, then there should be no reason to hide anything.



http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...meys-testimony
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 06-03-2017, 01:30 PM
jack72's Avatar
jack72 jack72 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 9,748
Thanks: 7,863
Thanked 4,399 Times in 2,460 Posts
jack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond reputejack72 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by ud2 View Post
Trump threatening to block Comey testimony...such a move IMO seems to stink to high heaven.

If there is nothing to fear, then there should be no reason to hide anything.



http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...meys-testimony
The article says, "The White House refused to rule it out (at this time)". So no, he is not threatening to block.
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 06-03-2017, 02:16 PM
ud2's Avatar
ud2 ud2 is offline
Committed to this Web Site and Your Enjoyment!
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,765
Thanks: 3,549
Thanked 2,771 Times in 1,804 Posts
ud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond reputeud2 has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by jack72 View Post
The article says, "The White House refused to rule it out (at this time)". So no, he is not threatening to block.
No, he is threatening to block, that is what your quote indicates.
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 06-03-2017, 03:32 PM
Mich Flyer's Avatar
Mich Flyer Mich Flyer is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,548
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 1,163 Times in 773 Posts
Mich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond reputeMich Flyer has a reputation beyond repute
Report: Trump is unlikely to invoke executive privilege to stop Comey's testimony

[QUOTE=ud2;508765]Trump threatening to block Comey testimony...such a move IMO seems to stink to high heaven.

Despite speculation that President Trump may seek executive privilege to prevent his former FBI director-- James Comey-- from testifying next week before the Senate, two senior administration officials reportedly said there is no plan to hinder the testimony.
The New York Times reported that one official said Trump actually wants Comey to testify because the president has nothing to hide.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...testimony.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.