The Village BBS
General Category => The Political Forum => Topic started by: WannaTheater on May 09, 2017, 08:29:24 PM
-
Trump fires the guy leading the investigation against him.
I think Comey is a prick. Glad he is gone. But was hopefull that he would do SOMETHING, any F'NG THING, to have some form of independent investigation on Russia.
-
But was hopefull that he would do SOMETHING, any F'NG THING, to have some form of independent investigation on Russia.
Well... tough shit.
-
To see how easily he turns on someone who helped him get elected, makes me wonder how long it will take for him to turn on his core supporters. Or better yet, to see how long it takes them to figure out he was never for them to begin with.
Now THAT is some tough shit!
-
Yep, this is all Trump's fault... can we blame him for anything else this week? :roll:
Seriously, the same voices having "concerns" over this firing are the same people in politics who would be accusing Trump of keeping Comey around to sheild him from a Russia Investigation. Whatever Trump does is wrong - got it.
WannaTheater - are you saying that Comey's been doing a good job and didn't deserve to be fired? Just want to make sure I understand you.
-
Comey deserved to be fired long ago... by Obama. Problem was if Obama did that, it would have looked like a partisan play, and you can imagine the uproar if he did at that point. The current question is why Trump waited so long to fire Comey if the reason was due to his mishandling of the Clinton email issue, because it was a while ago.
It's this timing gap that I can understand why Wannatheater thinks the firing is not entirely due to email, since that issue was put to rest months ago. What has Comey been doing since the email investigation? Heading up the Russia investigations which involve Trump himself. The Russian influence is proven, and it has already cost many people in Washington their jobs. The last FBI director to be fired was 24 years ago due to ethical issues, an entirely different situation than Comey. For Comey it's a simple question of timing.
As to timing, last week Comey spoke out about his own possible involvement in the outcome of the election due to the email investigation. Trump is extremely sensitive about anyone casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election. It would be a simple matter of ego to fire a detractor like that. It took Trump less than 24 hours to fire Yates after she refused to enforce the travel ban without due process. While that too was an inevitable firing, Yates stance was later justified when the travel ban was overturned. Trump was overly quick to action with Yates, but the more-justified firings of Comey or Flynn were neither quick nor timely. Worse yet Comey found out about his firing from TV news, which means the handling was likely rushed and resulted in an awkward situation with no replacement identified.
Back to the Russian investigation... a more Trump-friendly FBI director would at a minimum delay the investigation while they come up to speed, and at a maximum be able to play a key role in clearing Trump from the investigation. It's not a stretch to consider that thought process wasn't involved in this action even if Trump is 100% innocent. Comey was unpredictable, mishandled press releases, and neither Democrats or Republicans felt they could predict his actions... increased predictability mitigates risk.
-
I thought Comey was terrible and should have been fired. He did not carry out his duties effectively, and overstepped his responsibilities. But I was holding out that Comey would actually perform an effective investigation into Russian involvement in a US election.
Like it or not, the optics are bad. Yates crossed Trump to uphold the Constitution, and was fired. Comey was leading an investigation into Russian involvement and possible ties to Trump and is fired.
-
Comey deserved to be fired long ago... by Obama.
Good, it's Obama's fault for this mess. :)
-
Today's Politico article indicates it was all about the Russia investigation, echoing a lot of what I speculated yesterday. If true, he lied in his reasons for firing Comey. Iif he is completely innocent about Russia and he fired Comey over Russia it shows how scary Trump's behavior can be is in his current position of power. If none of this worries you, then I'm at a lack of words.
President Donald Trump weighed firing his FBI director for more than a week. When he finally pulled the trigger Tuesday afternoon, he didn't call James Comey. He sent his longtime private security guard to deliver the termination letter in a manila folder to FBI headquarters.
He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.
Trump's firing of the high-profile FBI director on the 110th day since the president took office marked another sudden turn for an administration that has fired its acting attorney general, national security adviser and now its FBI director, whom Trump had praised until recent weeks and had even blew a kiss to during a January appearance.
The news stunned Comey, who saw news of his dismissal on TV while speaking inside the FBI office in Los Angeles. It startled all but the uppermost ring of White House advisers, who said grumbling about Comey hadn't dominated their own morning senior staff meetings. Other top officials learned just before it happened and were unaware Trump was considering firing Comey. "Nobody really knew," one senior White House official said. "Our phones all buzzed and people said, 'What?'"
By ousting the FBI director investigating his campaign and associates, Trump may have added more fuel to the fire he is furiously trying to contain — and he was quickly criticized by a chorus of Republicans and Democrats. "The timing of this firing was very troubling," said Sen. Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192)
-
If none of this worries you, then I'm at a lack of words.
Not worried one bit.
So you're done talking about it now?
-
While Russia influence on US election is worrisome, Trump's lack of interest is more worrisome. Even provided with summations from a multitude of intelligence agencies, Trump shows no interest in gettting to the truth.
During the WH press conference today, when asked about Trumps prior multiple praises of Comey, it was explained as follows (paraphrased): "Trump as a candidate for president is a different person than Trump as president." Good enough answer for me :o
And for the record, I do not believe Comey caused Hillary to lose, but his actions contributed some. But not cause-
It will be interesting to see who is named as Comey's successor. Perhaps we should start a new poll: Wall Street Banker with no governing or law enforcement experience, CEO with no governing or law enforcement experience, Family Member with no governing or law enforcement experience, Spouse of Friend with no governing or law enforcement experience, or Someone That Was On A Reality TV Show with no governing or law enforcement experience?
-
It will be interesting to see who is named as Comey's successor. Perhaps we should start a new poll: Wall Street Banker with no governing or law enforcement experience, CEO with no governing or law enforcement experience, Family Member with no governing or law enforcement experience, Spouse of Friend with no governing or law enforcement experience, or Someone That Was On A Reality TV Show with no governing or law enforcement experience?
Not everyone can be a half-term US senator with no governing or executive experience...
-
Not everyone can be a half-term US senator with no governing or executive experience...
Plus 7 years in the Illinois senate. I would consider 7 years in State Senate, plus half term as an elected U.S. Senator (cut short due to being elected President), governing experience.
If Trump's appointees all had that type of governing experience, I would not have made the post.
-
Not worried one bit.
Why don't you care?
-
Actually, that would be Legislative experience... he was a "community organizer" whatever that means, so I guess that means he ran "something." I guess he also led his staff as a legislator. For the record, I don't think governing or leading is a requirement to be President, but it certainly helps. He was far more experienced and effective in his last few years than he was in his first few. It's a steep learning curve for anyone, but it helps if you have more leadership experiences to draw from.
-
Why don't you care?
Sorry, following your lead I will not answer specific questions: :P
http://www.villagebbs.com/forum/index.php?topic=34528.15 (http://www.villagebbs.com/forum/index.php?topic=34528.15)
(My first post on this page that you refused to answer.)
Damn, adopting this Snowflake way of life saves me from thinking and typing ;)
-
I always count on Mamushka to provide thoughtful insights
Good, it's Obama's fault for this mess. :)
Though we don't always see eye to eye
Well... tough shit.
An insult here, or a generalization there
Damn, adopting this Snowflake way of life saves me from thinking and typing ;)
Is exactly what's needed to keep discussions on track, and save keystrokes
So you're done talking about it now?
Because what complete thought needs more than 140 characters? #Twitter4Life
-
I always count on Mamushka to provide thoughtful insights
Just playing the Snowflake game you decided to adopt. No point in tyring to have a reasonable discussion with someone who refuses to discuss their political position they stated on a political discussion board.
Enjoy your bubble.
-
Just playing the Snowflake game you decided to adopt. No point in tyring to have a reasonable discussion with someone who refuses to discuss their political position they stated on a political discussion board.
Enjoy your bubble.
The thread you referenced started with me asking a question, which you responded with a question of your own, which I responded to, and you stalled out the discussion. I don't see a single point of political position from you in that entire 6 page thread. It's largely consistent with your historical participation in this forum: 1. Ignore topic, 2. attack others, 3. never state position.
-
The thread you referenced started with me asking a question, which you responded with a question of your own, which I responded to, and you stalled out the discussion. I don't see a single point of political position from you in that entire 6 page thread. It's largely consistent with your historical participation in this forum: 1. Ignore topic, 2. attack others, 3. never state position.
I asked you repeatably to answer this simple question in a topic about immigration:
"Do you want open boarders or an enforced immigration policy?"
You refused to answer the question. You set the tone here.
-
My issue was with the question itself. I don't know what "open borders" means. Is it a lack of immigration policy (no barrier citizenship?) Is it lack of walls? Is it lack of border patrol? I probably should have asked for clarification but it also lacked relevance to my primary concern which is the cost/benefit ratio of the wall. However, I did answer that I was ok with the current level of enforcement, just not additional wall expenses. I thought it was a reasonable response, and definitely not an act of ignoring you or the topic.
-
Trump and the White House has confirmed that firing Comey was due to the Russia investigation. This is troubling on many levels.
-
Trump and the White House has confirmed that firing Comey was due to the Russia investigation. This is troubling on many levels.
I think it would help everybody if you would cite your sources.
-
Thursday, White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said:
"We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity," she said, referring to the FBI's probe into Moscow's interference in last year's election. "And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/comey-fbi-investigation-russia-sarah-huckabee-sanders/
Thursday Trump said in an NBC interview:
"I was going to fire regardless of recommendation (Rosenstein) made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey."
https://www.vox.com/2017/5/11/15628276/trump-comey-fired-russia
To put this in the context of timing, in the past week Comey requested significant additional resources for the Russia investigation from the DOJ. Also many reports have been coming out that Trump requested personal loyalty from Comey, which Comey declined as the FBI is sanctioned to act as an independent entity.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/12/reports-say-trump-sought-a-loyalty-pledge-from-comey-the-fbi-says-this-too-easily-leads-to-tyranny
He also directly asked Comey if he was under investigation, which is largely viewed as improper, which likely spawned today's tweet:
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
-
To put this in the context of timing, in the past week Comey requested significant additional resources for the Russia investigation from the DOJ.
Fake news:
The Department of Justice rejected reports that former FBI Director James Comey last week asked officials for more money for the FBI's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, just days before he was fired by Trump.
"Totally false," DOJ Spokesman Ian Prior told the Washington Examiner just minutes after the New York Times reported that Comey made that request.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/justice-department-report-that-comey-asked-for-more-money-for-russia-probe-is-totally-false/article/2622678 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/justice-department-report-that-comey-asked-for-more-money-for-russia-probe-is-totally-false/article/2622678)
-
I am unclear on the reason. Apparently so is the White House.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders had one story, which insisted that deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on his own began in investigation into Comey, and co-wrote memo to Trump stating he had to go.
- I do not believe Rosenstein has confirmed that he started the investigation on his own
- AG Sessions, who recused himself from any Russian-related investigations, apparently recommended Comeys firing as well. Odd to be able to recommend firing of someone who is overseeing a Russian probe, considering he voluntarily recused himself.
Sarah also vehemently proclaimed during WH briefing, in addition to during TV interviews, that the FBI lost confidence in Comey.
- When confronted with supporting sources within the FBI saying otherwise (during WH briefing), Sarah again said that the FBI wanted him out
- Since the firing, Acting Director of FBI (McCabe) testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the vast majority of the FBI had strong ties, and did not want him out (paraphrased), which is in contradiction to the WH.
Kelyanne Conway's reasoning (partial anyways) was that Trump “expects people who are serving in his administration to be loyal to the country and to be loyal to the administration.”
- This supports leaks that Trump was denied universal loyalty by Comey during a dinner.
Trump, on the other hand, made contradicting statements to all of these during his Lester Holt interview.
Without picking apart my statement line by line, and whatever the reason for Comey's firing, one thing is clear: Trump and his staff need to maybe schedule a 15 minute conference call every morning to get their stories straight.
-
Thursday, White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said:
He also directly asked Comey if he was under investigation, which is largely viewed as improper, which likely spawned today's tweet:
He said "If it's possible will you let me know if I'm under investigation". So he basically gave Comey an easy out.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/comey-fbi-investigation-russia-sarah-huckabee-sanders/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/comey-fbi-investigation-russia-sarah-huckabee-sanders/)
Need to watch the video of the interview on that page.
-
Trump and his staff need to maybe schedule a 15 minute conference call every morning to get their stories straight.
Agreed. My guess it will be happening soon. Most politicians learn the skill of having every line they and people speaking for them sanitized before they open their mouths. Trump was never a politician so he lacks the typical politician filter.
-
The sad thing about this is I don't think the public will ever really know what happend here or why Comey was really fired. No one is impartial here, everyone has a bias and a story they're trying to frame this into, and the "Press" is the worst of the bunch.
-
the "Press" is the worst of the bunch.
I hope you are including the WH Press Secretary in this statement, because the amount of incorrect/untrue garbage that comes from Spicer/Sanders is pretty large.
-
Lol, sure... he's certainly selling a narrative.
I actually think the whole role of WH Press Secretary is ridiculous. How can anyone answer for another in light of the type of "gotcha questions" that all Presidents, but especially this one are asked? I've often watched the WH press conferences over the years and wondered how I would answer in that role even assuming I was aware of the inner workings of the WH. It's a ridiculous role considering that every word you say is parsed, dissected, and that the questions are purposely designed by the reporters to drive a wedge in the WH narrative to create a "story" to run with.
I no longer have any faith or trust in the mainstream media. While they are almost certainly not all ideologs, enough of them are to ruin it for the honest ones. That's sad and a danger to our country as as an informed public is crucial to it's wellbeing.
-
"Totally false," DOJ Spokesman Ian Prior told the Washington Examiner just minutes after the New York Times reported that Comey made that request.
Thanks for pointing that out... I never ran across the correction for those original articles. It is inappropriate to write an article with unverified sources of information.
The sad thing about this is I don't think the public will ever really know what happend here or why Comey was really fired. No one is impartial here, everyone has a bias and a story they're trying to frame this into, and the "Press" is the worst of the bunch.
I agree. What we do know is that the interviews and press responses about the reasons for Comey's firing gave a story that was not reflected in the White House letter, so you can understand why the "Press" is reluctant to take it at face value.
-
He said "If it's possible will you let me know if I'm under investigation". So he basically gave Comey an easy out.
That's what Trump said, but who's to know? There's so many issues with what was said in the NBC interview, conflicting his own staff on the reasons for the firing, claiming the FBI was in turmoil under Comey (the FBI said that was not the case), and that question itself contradicts Trump's description of the purpose of the dinner.
-
I no longer have any faith or trust in the mainstream media. While they are almost certainly not all ideologs, enough of them are to ruin it for the honest ones.
*This is not an invitation to pull out the flame-throwers, as I know many on here hate the media*
So who is one to trust? If we can't trust the mainstream media, or the WH, then what does that leave?
For me, it am still an engineer. If one makes a statement and it sounds like BS, then it better be backed up with tangible and verifiable facts or I will not believe it- Independent of the source.
I will also say that I have seen media outlets make mistakes, then also publish retractions and corrections. How many retractions and corrections have we seen from POTUS and the WH press? The one exception is when Trump declared Obama as a US citizen after years of telling lies to the contrary- And honestly, that "press conference" seemed an awful lot like an infomercial for his Trump hotel in DC.
-
*This is not an invitation to pull out the flame-throwers, as I know many on here hate the media*
So who is one to trust? If we can't trust the mainstream media, or the WH, then what does that leave?
For me, it am still an engineer. If one makes a statement and it sounds like BS, then it better be backed up with tangible and verifiable facts or I will not believe it- Independent of the source.
I will also say that I have seen media outlets make mistakes, then also publish retractions and corrections. How many retractions and corrections have we seen from POTUS and the WH press? The one exception is when Trump declared Obama as a US citizen after years of telling lies to the contrary- And honestly, that "press conference" seemed an awful lot like an infomercial for his Trump hotel in DC.
Here is what I see as the biggest (by far) issue with the mainstream press. There is a almost total lack of political diversity. When 98% of the people working for the press vote/donate to one party there is a significant chance bias will get introduced into their work and it will remain unchecked. A strong press is a great thing for this country, a biased press = a weak and feckless press. I honestly do not trust them one bit and that is on them, literally having reporters crying on air when Hillary lost? Are you fucking kidding me?
The funny thing is that Liberals are the champions of diversity (and the press is solidly in the Liberal camp) but yet they are either too blind or stupid to see their total lack of diversity in their midst.
-
Thanks for pointing that out... I never ran across the correction for those original articles. It is inappropriate to write an article with unverified sources of information.
As of today the NYT still has the headlines as "Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry" A clear statement that it happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html?_r=0)
Going deep into the story we find this:
Still, the White House insists that Mr. Comey’s dismissal had nothing to do with the Russia investigations, and Sarah Isgur Flores, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said that “the idea that he asked for more funding” for the Russia inquiry was “totally false.”She did not elaborate.
So they are acknowledging that the spokesperson from the Justice Department is saying this report is 100% false.
We then get this:
“I’m told that as soon as Rosenstein arrived, there was a request for additional resources for the investigation, and that a few days afterward, he was sacked,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. “I think the Comey operation was breathing down the neck of the Trump campaign and their operatives, and this was an effort to slow down the investigation.”
So some Democrat Senator "was told" by a unnamed source vs. a direct quote from the spokesperson in the department in question and the NYT decides to keep the headline stating the report as a fact. Fuck the press.
-
The whole media argument can be made in both directions. For every example there is of a reporter in one camp spinning crap for one party, you will find another example on the other side.
You've got Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) on one side, offset by Sean Hannity (FOX). You have a Hillary pundit on one side crying on the air, yet you have Hannity in Trump's campaign commercials.
Neither side is right or wrong- they need to sensationalize. We just have to wade through the BS, look at the facts, and make our decisions.
-
The whole media argument can be made in both directions. For every example there is of a reporter in one camp spinning crap for one party, you will find another example on the other side.
You've got Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) on one side, offset by Sean Hannity (FOX). You have a Hillary pundit on one side crying on the air, yet you have Hannity in Trump's campaign commercials.
Neither side is right or wrong- they need to sensationalize. We just have to wade through the BS, look at the facts, and make our decisions.
I'm not talking about commentators/annalist, I'm specifically talking about journalist/reports who should be neutral in their reporting.
-
The whole media argument can be made in both directions. For every example there is of a reporter in one camp spinning crap for one party, you will find another example on the other side.
You've got Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) on one side, offset by Sean Hannity (FOX). You have a Hillary pundit on one side crying on the air, yet you have Hannity in Trump's campaign commercials.
Neither side is right or wrong- they need to sensationalize. We just have to wade through the BS, look at the facts, and make our decisions.
The problem is that even if MSNBC and Fox cancel each other out at the fringes, you have the bulk of the remainder of the mainstream media that leans left. I think the DNC emails that got leaked proved the collusion between the Democrats and the mainstream media. Having people like George Stephanopoulos admit they contributed to the Clinton Foundation to gain access to Hillary only reinforces the conclusion that an independent, unbiased media doesn't exist.
-
Here is what I see as the biggest (by far) issue with the mainstream press. There is a almost total lack of political diversity.
Wait for it... I agree! Each major media outlet should offer a voice for both sides. If media outlets are hiring reporters with predisposed viewpoints and/or approving only those articles that meet the viewpoint of the media outlet's owners/editors, it's a problem, but it also tends to reflects the country as a whole.
I don't agree with a significant portion of the agendas of any political party, convinced that special interests are driving the agendas. The problem is that special interests, by definition, advantage only a minority of the population. If people actually do their homework to understand how a candidate (and thus party agenda) would benefit themselves, their children, and their country I think voting would be a lot different... may even start moving votes away from the current 2 party system.
-
I think the DNC emails that got leaked proved the collusion between the Democrats and the mainstream media
Perhaps. To me the bigger question is how and why only Democrat emails were leaked...
-
Perhaps. To me the bigger question is how and why only Democrat emails were leaked...
Because those were the emails the hackers got...? ??? If you go back and look at the reporting at the time, attempts were made to access the RNC servers, but all the hackers got into were old email accounts, nothing current.
-
Wait for it... I agree! Each major media outlet should offer a voice for both sides. If media outlets are hiring reporters with predisposed viewpoints and/or approving only those articles that meet the viewpoint of the media outlet's owners/editors, it's a problem, but it also tends to reflects the country as a whole.
I don't agree with a significant portion of the agendas of any political party, convinced that special interests are driving the agendas. The problem is that special interests, by definition, advantage only a minority of the population. If people actually do their homework to understand how a candidate (and thus party agenda) would benefit themselves, their children, and their country I think voting would be a lot different... may even start moving votes away from the current 2 party system.
Ah yes the Fairness Doctrine come to mind,dilluted and eventually black holed under St. Ronnies tenure as POTUS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
-
it's a problem, but it also tends to reflects the country as a whole.
You are saying the county demographics are in line with the demographics of the press? ???
-
Wait for it... I agree! Each major media outlet should offer a voice for both sides.
Wait for it... I don't agree!
Reporters and journalist should not pick either side. They should report on the facts without leaning one way or another. Unfortunately as the reporters are so like minded (almost exclusively Liberal) there is no one to rein them back when they skew left. I doubt most don't even realize they are left and think they are center.
Look at the NYT example I posted. I doubt anyone there said: "Yo, Matt you are taking the side of an unknown/unverified source over a verified spokesperson, you should probably cut that shit out."
-
Wait for it... I don't agree!
Reporters and journalist should not pick either side.
You're ignoring editorial opinions which are common in all major media. Each side should be represented where possible.
-
Lets look at the last 24 hours.
A report surfaced that Trump met with Russian officials in the WH and disclosed some classified information.
National Security adviser McMaster goes on TV stating it did not happen- And he was in the room.
Trump then tweets this morning that he did share information with Russia (sorry McMaster for making you look foolish), and as president he can (did not specify if classified or not).
The "almost exclusively Liberal" media reported on this. They also put up video montages of past tweets, past campaign speech clips, and past statements where Trump cried to the mountains that anyone who could not be trusted with classified information should be disqualified from office. Even a tweet from Paul Ryan's of "Individuals who are "extremely careless" with classified information should be denied further access to such info."
The "remainder of the media, i.e. the not exclusively Liberal," on the other hand, reports that the true scandal is how this information actually got leaked to the press.
You can see the spin in either direction. Perhaps it would be more centered if there wasn't a deluge of daily episodes of new material.
-
Sorry, since I posted there has been a new development:
McMaster is now stating that Trump’s sharing of sensitive intelligence with Russia was ‘wholly appropriate’
This is a bit different than "I was in the room, and it didn't happen."
It is hard to blame the media when you hear the words while you are seeing them come out of McMaster's mouth.
-
Sorry, since I posted there has been a new development:
McMaster is now stating that Trump’s sharing of sensitive intelligence with Russia was ‘wholly appropriate’
This is a bit different than "I was in the room, and it didn't happen."
It is hard to blame the media when you hear the words while you are seeing them come out of McMaster's mouth.
Here is the entire quote, now why don't you point out the inaccuracy to us:
“There is nothing that the President takes more seriously than the security of the American people.
The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.
At no time, at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.
Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remembered the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources.
I was in the room. It didn’t happen.”
https://www.infowars.com/mcmaster-responds-to-wapo-i-was-in-the-room-it-didnt-happen-the-story-is-false/ (https://www.infowars.com/mcmaster-responds-to-wapo-i-was-in-the-room-it-didnt-happen-the-story-is-false/)
-
now why don't you point out the inaccuracy to us
Sentence #2:
"The story that came out tonight as reported is false"
McMaster, even when directly asked at today's press conference, would not confirm or deny that classified information was given up by Trump. So we cannot say the story is false.
Trump tweeted this morning that he was within his right to say what ever he wanted (paraphrasing- no need to find the exact tweet), and some conservative media outlets stated he can "declassify" information at will, and as such did nothing illegal.
I personally am not comfortable with the notion of Trump giving up Classified information to anyone, especially Russia. If I recall accurately, it was also a HUGE sticking point for every Trump supporter, at every debate, at every Trump rally, and at every chance anyone could get to bring it up. I guess now its not really that big of deal. Wikileaks was the BEST 6 months ago (Trump: "I love WikiLeaks”). Funny now how the leaks are the worst thing ever, and so detrimental to our national security...
I would also challenge Sentence #1:
“There is nothing that the President takes more seriously than the security of the American people."
Domestically, he spoke a lot about it on the campaign trail, and how he was going to make great changes in our god-forsaken terrible awful disease and crime infested cities. I haven't seen him in any inner city churches lately awkwardly clapping along to gospel. How many times has he been back to Flint to check on safety of US citizens after the campaign trail?
But maybe he didn't give up anything classified. Compliments of a left-leaning news broadcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmTxWuvj__8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmTxWuvj__8)
-
The original story:
"President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State."
The quote:
"The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.
At no time, at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of State, remembered the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources.
I was in the room. It didn’t happen.”
:roll:
-
And this right here is why I've stopped reading/watching mainstream media... people will believe what they want to believe and the press will report it how they want to report it. I'm inclined to trust but verify the administration, and all I see is a biased and dishonest press corp that prevents me from verifying and is instead actively working to undermine my trust. This cripples us all as it weakens conservatives abilities to hold him accountable.
The same press corp that cried when Trump won and Hillary lost would jump for joy if Trump were impeached... and then the next day start working to sabotage and get ride of Pence.
-
So far we hear that Trump supposedly Comey him "I hope you can let this go" regarding the Flynn investigations, supposedly asked Comey for loyalty, and supposedly kept asking Comey if he was under investigation. Maybe they are all made up? Maybe one is true? Every single one of those constitutes obstruction of justice. What's tough is the lack of record of any conversation taking place, it's all hearsay, it's all he-said/she-said, which is nearly impossible to confirm, even if one party gets on a witness stand and testifies to it... unless corroborating evidence is found, which would be done by the FBI, headed by a director who is given a 10 year term to keep him independent of normal 2-8 year political upheavals.
It's a lot of smoke, and it's not because the "liberal media" hates a "conservative president" it's because there has been a consistent pattern of behavior, of abuse of power, and of misleading justifications that forces journalists to investigate whether everything is actually true. However, statements are contradicted every day, and drama is so regular even the GOP Senators and Representatives are getting exhausted by it. All they want is a GOP President to sit quietly and sign their bills while they have the majority to pass everything, but Trump is not that guy. He plays to his base, only his base, and he wants credit for all of it.
I'll tell you this now, if it gets to the point where Trump is forced to resign, he will do so before anything can be proven, he will play the martyr for his base, and this two-party political circus will continue ad infinitum with the next guy.
-
It's a lot of smoke, and it's not because the "liberal media" hates a "conservative president"
Yes it is. Both Obama and Hillary leaked classified material and the press didn't say shit. They are making huge national stories off of unsubstantiated/anonymous info, that did not happen the last 8 years. We know for a fact that CNN gave Hillary questions before the debate, that is a huge scandal that shows an incredible bias and breach of trust with the public. We also had this gem:
"This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility," Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.
"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, Putin's protégé and long considered number two in Moscow's power structure.
This was from a indisputable video, not an anonymous source. The mainstream press dismissed it as having no significance.
I can go on and on but to what end? Regardless of the actual evidence/facts presented some people are just going to believe what they want to believe.
-
I'm inclined to trust but verify the administration
Is this based on the administrations recent history of honesty, integrity and unfaltering truth telling?
Some reminders: Trump lost the popular vote because of 3-5M illegal votes? In light of photographic evidence, Trump's inaugaration was the biggest ever? Trump electoral college win was the biggest ever?
If the alleged Comey memo which supposedly documents specifics of Trump asking the FBI to drop the investigation appears, will you still believe the administration saying it didnt happen?
How about Trump just bring out all the recordings he tweeted/threatened about...
-
I just read a good opinion piece about Comey. It basically states that if he knew trump was guilty of obstruction, wouldn't it be his legal obligation to report it?
"Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law."
My two word response:
Sally Yates.
-
Yes it is. Both Obama and Hillary leaked classified material and the press didn't say shit.
You are correct, Trump is under a bigger microscope than we've seen in recent memory. He is also the least seasoned politician we've seen in office (understatement of the century) which is what put him under a microscope in the first place. Couple that with continued incidents that show his naivety to proper procedures and boundaries of his office, that microscope gets even bigger. The past week's events has caused a snowball effect that now may never stop, not by the media, but by Trump's own actions. It would be irresponsible to not call out Trump when he crosses the line wouldn't it?
-
New allegations that Trump was informed by Flynn that he was under FBI investigation in January. A key republican made statements (recorded) early on that Trump was on Putins payroll. Trump gave a commencement speech about himself at the Coast Guard academy. A special counsel is now taking over the Russia investigations.
Looks like we are going to need some more news stations to report on all this fake stuff.
-
So play this out... Trump is impeached. How long before the calls for Pence to be impeached? He's impeached, how long before his replacement has calls for impeachment? Assuming it went the Ford route, and Speaker Ryan becomes President, how long before there are even calls for his impeachment?
This is an agenda in search of a scandal. Major elements in the mainstream press have been exposed as colluding with the Democrat Party prior to the Election and all one has to do is take an objective look at historical media coverage to recognize the overhelming lopsidedness of media bias in favor of a Liberal/Democrat agenda.
I don't put much stock in Trump's trustworthiness, but I put even less into the Mainstream Media and Democratic Party Leadership.
-
So play this out... Trump is impeached
Time will tell.
-
I see you didn't answer my questions... :-\
-
I dont like Pence. I think Ryan is spineless. I would rather have either of them as POTUS by a factor of 100.
The media has played both ways for as long as I can remember. Kenneth Starr seemed to spend an eternity and a whole lot of money to prove a BJ happened. Hillary has been under scandal microscope for YEARS.
As an aside, I was at Florida State commencement 2 weeks ago. The speaker was light, envigorating, funny and elicited hope for a great future (gf even teared up). I watched clips of Trumps commencement to Coast Gaurd, and was disgusted as to how he made a commencement speech about him. He's done it at prayer dinners, in front of a CIA memorial... every chance he can get. At some point, perhaps people will realize it is not about THE PEOPLE, it is about TRUMP.
-
This is an agenda in search of a scandal.
Are you denying events of questionable ethics have been happening? It's really simple: Trump holds public office in a democratic republic, the most highly visible and most influential position in the world. As such wouldn't it be fallacy to assert that each move he makes won't be, or shouldn't be, scrutinized?
-
Since this thread has touched on media bias, i thought i would post this study:
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/
The general summary is that an overwhelmingly large amount of Trump stories are being reported with a negative spin. Much more than his predecessors. It got me thinking of an example.
Lets say GF and I come home to find the dog took a big dump on the carpet. My comments are "that damn dog, destroying the house, gawd that stinks." My girlfriends comments are "look at how big and well-formed that dump is! Solid through-and-through. He is a really healthy dog!"
One story presents a positive spin, the other a negative spin.
-
Here's one of those CNN negative pieces...
http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/one-screenshot-captures-everything-wrong-media-coverage-trump/ (http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/one-screenshot-captures-everything-wrong-media-coverage-trump/)
-
At least we now know where that extra belly-girth is coming from. The article would have been a bit more rounded if it discussed Milania throwing up the meal afterwards to keep her weight down.
-
...my comments are "that damn dog, destroying the house, gawd that stinks."
my girlfriends comments are "look at how big and well-formed that dump is! Solid through-and-through. He is a really healthy dog!"
dump your girlfriend. she's weird. :)
been eating popcorn since trump was elected. it's been fun to watch.
-
Since this thread has touched on media bias, i thought i would post this study:
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/
Interesting study. It is true most articles I see come across the wire as negative, perhaps too much. When I see a big negative headline on one site, I first off cross-check with Fox News and if they have a negative article that generally confirms the issue. If they don't, Fox News tends to post different points of view which is useful. As supportive as Fox News is to Trump, remember they didn't start out that way, and even now can barely muster >50% positivity for him. Why is this?
Simple: Trump came into office with a fact check rating that was as dismal as his current approval rating, which was coincidentally similar to his positive article rating from the combined news outlets. It's that correlation that's the key to understanding the negativity in the press. He hasn't helped to get positive press or polling numbers when most agenda items pushed so far favor big business over personal rights.