Endy0816 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Hilary's not so pristine having her own server. I think there would have been a 'something-gate' with her as well if she'd won. Obama's like our queen compared to those two, on reflection. I miss him. :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 But... her email! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Better to stay in the frying pan than jump in the fire. Hilary's not so pristine having her own server. I think there would have been a 'something-gate' with her as well if she'd won. Obama's like our queen compared to those two, on reflection. He had literally the most scandal-free administration in at least a generation. Not that you'd know it from the way some people go on about him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HB of CJ Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Is the weather getting chilly here? Do I see snowflakes in the air? President Trump is the President. It is unlikely he will be impeached. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 President Trump is the President. Thank you. That was very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 President Trump is the President. Did you say "President Obama is the President" when the GOP screwed the country over in their efforts to deny his presidency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted May 27, 2017 Author Share Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) Breaking news, Jarod Kushner wanted a secret communication channel with Kremlin, according to Russian ambassador. "Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.83e5c496eb2c If this is true, add it to the list of reasons for impeachment, another self-inflicted wound. Edited May 27, 2017 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HB of CJ Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I think Jarad just wanted to open possible communication lines with Russia. No crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I think Jarad just wanted to open possible communication lines with Russia. No crime. An ex-head of the CIA disagrees with you 'If an American intelligence officer had done’ what Kushner did ‘we’d consider it espionage' https://twitter.com/ZaibatsuNews/status/868322441377980416 espionage https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 An ex-head of the CIA disagrees with you 'If an American intelligence officer had done’ what Kushner did ‘we’d consider it espionage' https://twitter.com/ZaibatsuNews/status/868322441377980416 espionage https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794 What take my breath away about all of this isn't the corruption and bad behavior of Trump but rather the total complacency of his supporters. Trump himself ran as a questionable figure. He lied repeatedly, had no grasp on the issues, was openly racist, islamophobic, anti immigrant, chauvinist, and surround himself will nefarious group of misfits. I was never under any delusion about the type of President Trump would be. Despite his denials I always expected there would be nepotism, questionable budget math, no payments from Mexico for a wall, no real plan for healthcare, daily obfuscation on all policy matters, investigations, and obstruction of those investigations. Saw those things coming. It is the casual way those who support Trump are at easy with the very real risk that our President is compromised to Russia that leaves me shocked. That they simply want their guy in office so bad they don't even care what he may be doing in office. It is very surprising to me how little respect so many seem to have for our govt and our allies that they'd tolerate such clear disrespect and treat defending that disrespect like sport. Trump defenders really don't seem to believe that what govt does matters. That we can just empower Trump to weaken partnerships with our allies and demagogue our own legal and intelligence communities. I am not even referencing partisan policies here. This isn't left vs right policy. Republicans & Democrats alike have always agreed on basic things like who our allies around the world are and that a free press and public accountability are important. It has only been 4 months and already Trump and his team have repeatedly lied to the press while several cabinet members have been exposed for lying to Congress well as the Intelligence Community. The same crowd that were shaken to their cores by the disgraceful unethical behavior of Hillary Clinton having the temerity to use a server to route emails to a blackberry (that the State Dept new about) to read classified emails now defend Trump having his son inlaw attempt to open back channel communications that would bypass the intelligence community, Justice Dept, Congress, and the press? Words like contadiction and hypocritical do the situation no justice as they fail to address the malevolence involved. Trump supporters are implicit in impugning our democratic system and obfuscating constitutional checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HB of CJ Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I believe the ex CIA guy to be wrong. Perhaps he made a political statement. Why is this even being discussed? There is nothing there. Respectfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I think Trump is doing plenty to be concerned about. But both sides in our current (pathetically polarized) political culture tend to attack every move made by politicians they oppose and blow off criticisms from the other side of politicians they support. This "blind support" happens on both sides. Supporters of law enforcement do the same thing when they refuse to come down, and come down hard, on clear examples of police brutality and so forth. "My side is always right and the other side is always wrong" is just the order of the day. I was reading earlier about Thomas Jefferson's refusal to authorize offensive action in the first Barbary War. He authorized the defense of American shipping, but refused to go further than that without explicit authorization from Congress, citing the Constitution's placing of war declaration power in Congress's hands. Having a similarly self-restraining President is just the stuff of dreams these days, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I believe the ex CIA guy to be wrong. Perhaps he made a political statement. Why is this even being discussed? There is nothing there. Respectfully. AYFKM? What are your relevant credentials such that I should spend any time considering your unsupported assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 (edited) I believe the ex CIA guy to be wrong. Perhaps he made a political statement. Why is this even being discussed? There is nothing there. Respectfully. He is wrong and perhaps just making a political statement. What insights do you have that lead you to that? John Brennan has worked with the CIA under 3 Presidents and most notably was tapped to stand up the National Counterterrorism Center in 04' by President Bush and was made Director of the CIA by President Obama in 13'. He isn't a partisancareer politician. What information do you have that his under oath testimonybefore the Intelligence Committe is valueless? I think Trump is doing plenty to be concerned about. But both sides in our current (pathetically polarized) political culture tend to attack every move made by politicians they oppose and blow off criticisms from the other side of politicians they support. This "blind support" happens on both sides. Supporters of law enforcement do the same thing when they refuse to come down, and come down hard, on clear examples of police brutality and so forth. "My side is always right and the other side is always wrong" is just the order of the day. I was reading earlier about Thomas Jefferson's refusal to authorize offensive action in the first Barbary War. He authorized the defense of American shipping, but refused to go further than that without explicit authorization from Congress, citing the Constitution's placing of war declaration power in Congress's hands. Having a similarly self-restraining President is just the stuff of dreams these days, though. Did I miss it when Obama gave fake information to a house intelligence Committee investigating his campaign, fired the directory of the FBI who was investigating him, got caught blabbing classified info, and etc? I know it feels fair to say "bothsides do it" but they really don't. Not to the same degree. We have never seen what we are currently seeing and implying it goes both ways and on some level is politics normal diminishes the seriousness of the matters. Edited May 27, 2017 by Ten oz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I'm not endorsing it as ok, at all. Insisting that it's one-sided is really just more of the same. "Both sides do it." "No, only the side I oppose does it - my side is always right." Honestly, I wouldn't at all mind seeing Trump impeached - any misbehaving President should be. My previous post wasn't really a comment on Obama vs. Trump - I agree with you that Obama behaved fairly well in terms of legality. I was responding mostly to how much it surprises you to see Trump's supporters looking the other way. "Looking the other way" is commonplace these days. Hillary's supporters did it in spades. My opinion is that any misbehavior and any lie by anyone, on "my side" or not, should be called out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I think Jarad just wanted to open possible communication lines with Russia. No crime. I can't figure out a way anyone could say something like this without being ethically barren, since it seems to excuse all manner of illicit activity. The possible communication line sought would have been outside our own government's security. This is espionage, plain and simple, done for profit against the People of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I'm not endorsing it as ok, at all. Insisting that it's one-sided is really just more of the same. "Both sides do it." "No, only the side I oppose does it - my side is always right." Honestly, I wouldn't at all mind seeing Trump impeached - any misbehaving President should be. My previous post wasn't really a comment on Obama vs. Trump - I agree with you that Obama behaved fairly well in terms of legality. I was responding mostly to how much it surprises you to see Trump's supporters looking the other way. "Looking the other way" is commonplace these days. Hillary's supporters did it in spades. My opinion is that any misbehavior and any lie by anyone, on "my side" or not, should be called out. In this case, what is being investigated by both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees well as the an appointed Special Counsel, there is only one side. The "bothsides do it" platitude doesn't apply here. Bothsides aren't currently doing it and when it was the otherside, Hillary Clinton being investigated throughout the campaign, no Democrats obstructed so no supporters were in the position to defend such behavior. I understand that implying some measure of parity in political discussion is the default nonpartisan move that is generally tolerated as most fair but in this case it only muddies the waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 Yes, it's "platitude" when it doesn't suit. And water muddying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 I believe the ex CIA guy to be wrong. Perhaps he made a political statement. Why is this even being discussed? There is nothing there. Respectfully. Are you trolling? If not, how is it that you know more than the FBI? There's got to be something there or they wouldn't be looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrock Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Are you trolling? If not, how is it that you know more than the FBI? There's got to be something there or they wouldn't be looking. I think there's probably something there. However... You seem to be saying that absence of evidence is proof of guilt. Alternatively, if the FBI only looks when it has proof, why does it bother looking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 I think there's probably something there. However... You seem to be saying that absence of evidence is proof of guilt. Alternatively, if the FBI only looks when it has proof, why does it bother looking? Reasonable suspicion, rather than proof. But unless one were an insider in such an investigation, "There is nothing there" is a bald claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted May 28, 2017 Author Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) Absence of evidence means any evidence has been appropriated by the investigations and is not available to us. Will ALL the evidence EVER be available to the public? Probably not, but maybe some of it will be revealed, AFTER the investigations reach conclusions. Will the Trump administration continue to leak on the scale we have seen? Edited May 28, 2017 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrmDoc Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) I think there's probably something there. However... You seem to be saying that absence of evidence is proof of guilt. Alternatively, if the FBI only looks when it has proof, why does it bother looking? The FBI doesn't investigate without some observation or accusation that raises reasonable suspicion as Swansont suggests. I'm suggesting that the "something there" is the preponderance of observations and the accusations the FBI has likely received. Edited May 28, 2017 by DrmDoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 The FBI doesn't investigate without some observation or accusation that raises reasonable suspicion as Swansont suggests. I'm suggesting that the "something there" is the preponderance of observations and the accusations the FBI has likely received. We know there were meetings with Russians, which were not disclosed. We know people lied on their security investigation questionnaires, and some officials lied under oath. We know that the administration knew about Flynn, and only fired him when he was found out by the media. To assert that there's nothing there, especially from a random person, is laughable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoYouEvenScienceBro Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) Trump being impeached is little more than left-wing fantasy. Let's remember: They've been screeching about a Trump impeachment since his election victory. This isn't a case of evidence for impeachment-worthy violations being found, followed by cries for impeachment. This is a case of cries for impeachment, followed by an evidence-free witch hunt to justify those cries. Let's also not forget that democrats repeatedly made it clear that the U.S. election could not, in any way, shape, or form be "hacked," up until Trump's victory, at which point, election hacking went from an impossibility to a certainty in the blink of an eye. These are not serious, rationally-minded people. These are hyperpartisan political hacks spouting out nonsense because they're spoiled little brats who can't handle not getting their way. Edited May 31, 2017 by DoYouEvenScienceBro -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts