• 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.

Countdown to Comey's Firing....

From what I understand, the CIA and NSA and friends are doing their due diligence, and then some, tapping basically everybody on the planet, with a focus on foreign leaders. Now they can do this without violating the Constitution. So they listen in to all the high Rooskies. But if they detect they are talking to an American, then the 4th Amendment kicks in, and if I understand court-approved practice right, they can record it but may not listen to it unless they get a warrant.


So what's probably happened is all this stuff is locked away in a basement of one of the billion dollar eavesdropping buildings, awaiting the building of enough of a case for them to get a warrant to tap into what may or may not be a treasure of treason. It's probably been unofficially listened to, but they can't do anything and are stuck with a toothless, so far unfulfilled, gossamer "parallel construction" of a legal path of evidence they can get to a judge to get a warrant.

So my bet is that's where things stand at the moment. They have it all, and may know a lot or a little or much may have happened or just a little, and everything is behind the scenes at the moment.
 
Last edited:
TheSupermeerkat said:
So during the hearing The Donald actually tweeted "The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process."

Does he not care anymore?
Click to expand...
People (not ISF posters in particular, but in general) are conflating at least 3 different claims:

- Through hacking, Russia sought to change the outcome of the election
- Through hacking, Russia sought to undermine the credibility of the electoral process
- Through hacking, Russia actually changed the outcome of the election (electoral process).

And none of this lies within the FBI's jurisdiction, unless U.S. citizens were involved. I don't think DJT is really out on a limb in this tweet. It's generally conceded that Russia did not influence, i.e. hack to change the outcome, of the election itself.

Fourth claim:
- During the campaign, Trump operatives colluded with Russian operatives, interfering in a way possibly detrimental to the United States, and possibly illegal.

Possible fifth claim:
- Donald J. Trump has participated in organized crime - he is a gangster.

I don't even know if I've spelled these out right. "Influence" to me means, "affect the outcome." "Electoral process" is a weasel phrase - narrowly, it could mean just the actual voting; broadly it could include the primaries and the pre-primary season. "Influence" is not a synonym for meddling, manipulating, interfering etc. I haven't watched all of Comey's testimony, but to say very broadly that the FBI is investigating the campaign's ties to Russia is not particularly damning. I know that it smarts, since many blame Comey for Hillary's defeat, but "unseemly," "distasteful," "questionable" are not synonyms for "illegal."

It would be quite a coup - perhaps literally - if one FBI agent managed to damage both candidates irreparably.

ETA: I know this post is garbled in itself and not a paragon of precision. IMO people are going to line up emotionally on this issue - they will either give DJT a pass, or just grow weary of arguments about whether something was in "quote marks" or not. If Trump is brought down I'm convinced it will be over a triviality - a detail that will sour moderates and alienate some of the farther right as well.
 
Last edited:
TheSupermeerkat said:
That sounds rather....paranoid.
Click to expand...

rwguinn said:
Actually, it sounds more Biblical...
Click to expand...

It can be both, you know. A jealous God? Why? He's God, dammit!

If Trump is clinically paranoid I suspect he'll only get worse as the stress mounts. Twitter may be the only thing keeping him for bursting a blood vessel. (Though it turns out, IIRC, that "venting" is not always beneficial.)
 
FenerFan said:
A quote from a CNN story:


I think we are all living a lala land.
The director of the FBI said that the tweets of the current President, which accused the former President of personally ordering a wiretap on him, had no support whatsoever. The tweets were apparently based on an online story the current President read which was about an interview with some writer on TV. The current President also commands a massive military with nuclear bombs and stuff. He also wants to build a big wall to keep all the bad Mexicans out. He's also managed to annoy our two closest allies in Europe by just being himself.
Lala land sucks.
Click to expand...

It is even scarier than that. Under laws passed by Congress and vetted by the Supreme Court after 9/11, the President has the right to declare any American citizen an enemy combatant and have them placed under infinite arrest without any recourse to civilian judicial review, without any access to lawyers of their choosing and without access to their families or friends. I am not making this up! If a more knowledgeable member knows better, please tell me. I would love to be corrected but all the mainstream sites I've examined say what I just noted. Unless I am really wrong, Trump can demand you, or me, be arrested tomorrow as providing aid to a terrorist organization and with no proof hold us for the rest or his term, or longer depending who follows.
 
TheSupermeerkat said:
So during the hearing The Donald actually tweeted "The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process."

Does he not care anymore?
Click to expand...


That and other tweets of his during the hearing almost give the impression that he had been listening to an entirely different hearing than everyone else.

Unless he didn't listen to it at all and is basing his tweets on his usual sources.
 
Minoosh said:
It's generally conceded that Russia did not influence, i.e. hack to change the outcome, of the election itself.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty narrow definition of influence.

In reality, if the leaked DNC emails changed the way that people voted or whether they actually voted at all, and the DNC emails were hacked and leaked to Wikilieaks by Russia, then clearly the Russians influenced the election, even if it might not have been enough to change the results.

What is generally conceded is that it's probably impossible to determine how much of an effect on the voting the leaked emails actually had, and it it changed the result by itself, not whether they actually had an effect at all.
 
Donal said:
I'm surprised he's lasted this long. I'm fairly certain Priebus and the other establishment GOP have been protecting him.
Click to expand...

Why? They hate him for Libby. I think it is trump being glad about Comeys help with winning the election by the BS he was spouting about emails right before it.

Now that he has stopped backing Trump he is going to be gone quick. Trump will not tolerate this disloyalty.
 
Minoosh said:
People (not ISF posters in particular, but in general) are conflating at least 3 different claims:

- Through hacking, Russia sought to change the outcome of the election
- Through hacking, Russia sought to undermine the credibility of the electoral process
- Through hacking, Russia actually changed the outcome of the election (electoral process).

And none of this lies within the FBI's jurisdiction, unless U.S. citizens were involved. I don't think DJT is really out on a limb in this tweet. It's generally conceded that Russia did not influence, i.e. hack to change the outcome, of the election itself.
Click to expand...

US citizens were involved, the DNC was comprised of them.
 
Giordano said:
It is even scarier than that. Under laws passed by Congress and vetted by the Supreme Court after 9/11, the President has the right to declare any American citizen an enemy combatant and have them placed under infinite arrest without any recourse to civilian judicial review, without any access to lawyers of their choosing and without access to their families or friends. I am not making this up! If a more knowledgeable member knows better, please tell me. I would love to be corrected but all the mainstream sites I've examined say what I just noted. Unless I am really wrong, Trump can demand you, or me, be arrested tomorrow as providing aid to a terrorist organization and with no proof hold us for the rest or his term, or longer depending who follows.
Click to expand...

Not that bad, but still bad enough. See Hamdi vs Rumsfeld, especially timeline summary of later judgments. As far as I can tell, it's expats who can still fear a bag over their heads anytime a goosestepper sneezes on foundational democratic principles.
 
Giordano said:
It is even scarier than that. Under laws passed by Congress and vetted by the Supreme Court after 9/11, the President has the right to declare any American citizen an enemy combatant and have them placed under infinite arrest without any recourse to civilian judicial review, without any access to lawyers of their choosing and without access to their families or friends. I am not making this up! If a more knowledgeable member knows better, please tell me. I would love to be corrected but all the mainstream sites I've examined say what I just noted. Unless I am really wrong, Trump can demand you, or me, be arrested tomorrow as providing aid to a terrorist organization and with no proof hold us for the rest or his term, or longer depending who follows.
Click to expand...

Sure, if the US military captures us on a battlefield. That legal doctrine doesn't apply anywhere else. If you stay out a half-dozen countries or so, it can't happen to you.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Sure, if the US military captures us on a battlefield. That legal doctrine doesn't apply anywhere else. If you stay out a half-dozen countries or so, it can't happen to you.
Click to expand...

And in those half-dozen countries, probably the nicest thing that could happen to an American is to get arrested!
 
PhantomWolf said:
That is a pretty narrow definition of influence.

In reality, if the leaked DNC emails changed the way that people voted or whether they actually voted at all, and the DNC emails were hacked and leaked to Wikilieaks by Russia, then clearly the Russians influenced the election, even if it might not have been enough to change the results.

What is generally conceded is that it's probably impossible to determine how much of an effect on the voting the leaked emails actually had, and it it changed the result by itself, not whether they actually had an effect at all.
Click to expand...

I agree 100 percent with the fhighlighted part since there are countless factors why some people voted for Trump, probably many that those voters themselves weren't aware of. Also people aren't honest even sometimes when they think they are.

That said, I have ZERO doubt that without the nonstop focus on Hillary's emails right up to and including Comey's letter 2 weeks before the election, there is no way that Trump wins.

Can I prove this? No, not even close. So I don't blame anyone especially on a skeptic's forum to necessarily agree. There are just some things you know.
 
I don't expect Comey to be fired, because of the following insane/inane conspiracy theory.

Trump had something on Comey before the election made it clear that it would come out if he didn't sabotage Hillary just before the election. Unfortunately, he or someone on the team failed to cover their tracks and now Comey has documentary evidence of it. Trump fires Comey, he releases that.

(/conspiracy theory)
 
Trebuchet said:
I don't expect Comey to be fired, because of the following insane/inane conspiracy theory.

Trump had something on Comey before the election made it clear that it would come out if he didn't sabotage Hillary just before the election. Unfortunately, he or someone on the team failed to cover their tracks and now Comey has documentary evidence of it. Trump fires Comey, he releases that.

(/conspiracy theory)
Click to expand...

Not too shabby. Sign me up for a beanie.
 
Trump often has a way of always picking the worst option in about any given choice of options, and yet his bands mindless followers always love him for it.

Therefore, I will not predict that Trump will fire Comey or not, even though I am very sure that Trump would love to fire Comey.

However, I will predict that whatever Trump does do in relation to the Comey issue, that it will be the worst thing that Trump can do in relation to the Comey issue.
 
Crossbow said:
Trump often has a way of always picking the worst option in about any given choice of options, and yet his bands mindless followers always love him for it.

Therefore, I will not predict that Trump will fire Comey or not, even though I am very sure that Trump would love to fire Comey.

However, I will predict that whatever Trump does do in relation to the Comey issue, that it will be the worst thing that Trump can do in relation to the Comey issue.
Click to expand...
How is this practically different from saying that whatever Trump does, you will declare it the worst thing, and anyone who disagrees with you one of Trump's mindless followers?
 
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom