• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VII

acbytesla said:
1. Because he's not keeping them informed. No, he is throwing a turd into a Presidential election.
Click to expand...
It was going to come out before the election either way. I don't think he's covering his ass in terms of his job but in terms of his credibility regarding his earlier decision not to prosecute Hillary. And this is not about what action Congress would take; it's about putting the best possible spin on something that was going to come out before the election anyway.

If he didn't think it was going to come out he wouldn't have sent that letter.
 
I'm reminded of a congressman who outed himself because some rag was about to do it anyway.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Obama did not have a self inflicted wound like this. Nor did bush.

Mader mentioned that it is bound to happen after a career spanning 30 years. This is why a lot of presidents come from governors or very short careers.
Click to expand...
Bush had many self inflicted wounds, it's just that the Democrats don't spend all their energy trashing their opponents.
 
cantonear1968 said:
I'm not going to attack Comey because by all accounts he's an honorable person who seems to have handled things above board. While I think this won't have no effect, it will be negligible. By Monday, if nothing further from the FBI on this, it will have been killed by the ever turning news cycle. Sooner if Trump says something stupid.
Click to expand...

Since when is promoting innuendo above board? Or did he just not know that is what the effect of his letter to the committee would be?
 
Trump giving a speech claiming the Attorney General is corrupt and arranged with Bill Clinton not to prosecute Hillary. Not in a subtle 'wink wink' way but out and out saying she conspired to pervert the course of justice.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Read his mind did you?
Click to expand...
No. But it's the explanation that makes the most sense to me, based on my experience with politicians, cops and attempted damage control.

By Friday, how many people in the FBI knew Huma's private computer had potentially relevant emails on it? They all are potential leakers, especially if they disagreed with Comey about his earlier decision not to seek charges. Those people are at least likely leakers and Comey could well have known that. ("A private computer seized by the FBI contains emails from Hillary Clinton that may be relevant to its earlier investigation, CNN has learned.") At that point they call Comey for reaction, and what can he say? That he thought it was no big deal? He'd get slaughtered. He would get death threats. He would be in the sights of some nasty, nasty people.

IMO he was seeking to control the impact and might even have given Hillary a heads up.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
It was going to come out before the election either way. I don't think he's covering his ass in terms of his job but in terms of his credibility regarding his earlier decision not to prosecute Hillary. And this is not about what action Congress would take; it's about putting the best possible spin on something that was going to come out before the election anyway.

If he didn't think it was going to come out he wouldn't have sent that letter.
Click to expand...

No it wasnt. And there is no ass to cover.

People are going to speculate any way. Let them. By sending the letter Comey is suggesting there may be a reason to speculate. The proper answer would have been that the FBI doesn't comment on any investigations that they may or may not be conducting. Next question.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He didn't have many because his career was too short.
Click to expand...

Which Bush are we talking about? Two of them have been president. If it's George W. Bush, there were people clamoring for him to be charged with war crimes. To hold hearings on the intel that led up to the invasion of Iraq with a view to seeing if they could prove Bush deliberately misled and lied to Congress and the American people with the aim being to craft criminal charges. There were allegations that the Bush family (and Cheney) profited from civilian contracting firms providing services to the U.S. military in Iraq. All these matters were basically put to rest by the Obama administration. Let the past remain the past. That Bush was basically a decent and honorable man and putting the former chief executive on trial has never been the way this country operates.

Compare that to the five-year investigation to determine if Hillary Clinton, the First Lady, lied under oath when she denied "being the one" who made the decision to replace some of the White House travel staff. Republicans in Congress drove that investigation.
 
newyorkguy said:
Which Bush are we talking about? Two of them have been president. If it's George W. Bush, there were people clamoring for him to be charged with war crimes. To hold hearings on the intel that led up to the invasion of Iraq with a view to seeing if they could prove Bush deliberately misled and lied to Congress and the American people with the aim being to craft criminal charges. There were allegations that the Bush family (and Cheney) profited from civilian contracting firms providing services to the U.S. military in Iraq. All these matters were basically put to rest by the Obama administration. Let the past remain the past. That Bush was basically a decent and honorable man and putting the former chief executive on trial has never been the way this country operates.

Compare that to the five-year investigation to determine if Hillary Clinton, the First Lady, lied under oath when she denied "being the one" who made the decision to replace some of the White House travel staff. Republicans in Congress drove that investigation.
Click to expand...

I meant before office. You run inexperienced governors and inexperienced people because they don't have this kind of dirt.
 
Bbbgbthgyyygyy you î OK


Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
 
Donald J. Trump, great philanthropist:

A months-long investigation by The Washington Post has not been able to verify many of Trump’s boasts about his philanthropy.

Instead, throughout his life in the spotlight, whether as a businessman, television star or presidential candidate, The Post found that Trump had sought credit for charity he had not given — or had claimed other people’s giving as his own.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom