• 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.

Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacko said:
It's worth remembering that Trump originally claimed he fired Comey because he felt Comey was unfair to Hillary in how he investigated the email scandal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, anytime Trump says anything, it's worth remembering that Trump just says stuff, and that he appears to be quite capable of lying to himself, too.
 
Stacko said:
It's worth remembering that Trump originally claimed he fired Comey because he felt Comey was unfair to Hillary in how he investigated the email scandal.
Click to expand...

The way Trump remembers that now is he fired Comey for not prosecuting Clinton. :rolleyes:
 
Oh, jeez... After saying that the FBI is in "taters" and the "worst in history" and that he was gonna need to "rebuild" it to save the country from the outrageous scandal of having agents that don't like Trump, Trump goes to the FBI agent graduates and tells them he's "got your back 100%." Provided, of course, that you like Trump and don't donate to Democrats. Otherwise, you can't be trusted, and according to the "legal expert" Trump listens to on Fox, you should not only be fired; you should be marched out in handcuffs.

Please make it stop...
 
Stacko said:

In other words, this was an illegal leak.
Click to expand...
Rosenstein had a very hard time answering this question in the House Judiciary Committee hearing two days ago. He hemmed and hawed and never answered who was responsible for the press release of the emails.

It's very interesting that all the 'leaks' from the FBI have been either damaging to Clinton or positive for the Trump agenda, while the very tight ship with no leaks has occurred with anything negative about Trump.

One might just question whether there was anything different about the Clinton haters within the FBI who leaked politically damaging things like sieves compared to the Trump haters within the FBI who merely complain privately about Trump and don't actually leak confidential information.
 
Last edited:
Are we yet at the point where the FBI paid for The Steele Dossier (a Robert Ludlum novel, soon to be a major film or mini-series)?

I'm waiting eagerly for The Flynn Squeal, which has franchise written all over it.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Essentially I couldn't care less. Again, this isn't about the Mueller investigation's "bias" (that's what the Washington Pest pre$$titutes want you to believe - real journalism LOL), it is about how it came into being in the first place.

And I must ask that you folks stop bothering me with this strawman nonsense. I know you aren't that dumb. Talk to the mirror, that's where the denial is addressed at in the first place. Good luck overcoming your pride.
Click to expand...

If you can ever figure out just what it is that you are bitching about, then please let the rest of know.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I'll quote the last paragraph from the article on Pat Lang's blog (read the "about" page, these are very serious people) I've linked to yesterday:




Let's assume the premises are correct. I don't think anybody of the regular Russia CT posters here agrees with that paragraph. You all think the ends justify the means, in this case, and wish they had been successful. Hence the refusal to even acknowledge the topic. N'est-ce pas?
Click to expand...

I think the refusal to acknowledge it is because the premises are false.

I personally just think they are unproven like everything else here.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
Oh, jeez... After saying that the FBI is in "taters" and the "worst in history" and that he was gonna need to "rebuild" it to save the country from the outrageous scandal of having agents that don't like Trump, Trump goes to the FBI agent graduates and tells them he's "got your back 100%." Provided, of course, that you like Trump and don't donate to Democrats. Otherwise, you can't be trusted, and according to the "legal expert" Trump listens to on Fox, you should not only be fired; you should be marched out in handcuffs.
Click to expand...

I doubt FBI agent graduates missed Trump trash-talking the FBI to ingratiate himself with some Russians - in the Oval Office. If they did miss it then something is going wrong.

Trump's trash-talking of the US and its venerable institutions has been a peculiar feature of his Presidency. All aimed at Obama, of course, but doing considerable collateral damage.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I think the refusal to acknowledge it is because the premises are false.
Click to expand...
Quite. I don't think Childlike Empress appreciates how much of that sad piece is premise rather than reasoned conclusion. What purports to be reasoning is, in fact, prefectly circular.

I personally just think they are unproven like everything else here.
Click to expand...
Nothing's proven, but some things are plausible and others aren't.

This :

"... during the final year of Barack Obama's Presidency, key leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracies conspired and collaborated to destroy Donald Trump. "
Click to expand...
is not remotely plausible.
 
CapelDodger said:
Quite. I don't think Childlike Empress appreciates how much of that sad piece is premise rather than reasoned conclusion. What purports to be reasoning is, in fact, prefectly circular.

Nothing's proven, but some things are plausible and others aren't.

This :

is not remotely plausible.
Click to expand...

It is remotely possible.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is remotely possible.
Click to expand...
So is solipsism and the non-existence of an objective reality, but you won't get an interesting conversation outside the bounds of plausibility.

To my mind there's an actual paradox between the contention that FBI bias can sustain the Mueller enquiry while a grand coalition of state agencies and the sitting President was unable to prevent Trump's election. Which is what "Sic Semper Tyrannis"', and by cite and extension Childlike Empress, contend.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I'll quote the last paragraph from the article on Pat Lang's blog (read the "about" page, these are very serious people) I've linked to yesterday:




Let's assume the premises are correct. I don't think anybody of the regular Russia CT posters here agrees with that paragraph. You all think the ends justify the means, in this case, and wish they had been successful. Hence the refusal to even acknowledge the topic. N'est-ce pas?
Click to expand...

I'm a little unsure of what you're trying to say.

But, yes, let's assume that the premises (and even conclusions) of that article are correct, and that there are no huge leaps of logic or conclusions which don't follow from their premises or arguments - let's say for the sake of argument that there was absolutely no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. All that means is that the investigation into that subject will exculpate everybody involved, right? So we should leave the investigation be to come to its conclusions.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Those are the most interesting conversations.
Click to expand...

But *please* not in this thread.

Religion and Philosophy maybe.

Maybe a new thread entitled "Implausible but interesting hypotheses about Trump and Russia"?

You do bring good stuff to threads every so often, but also you derail stuff
 
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/...-proxies-helped-funnel-millions-gop-campaigns

Buried in the campaign finance reports available to the public are some troubling connections between a group of wealthy donors with ties to Russia and their political contributions to President Donald Trump and a number of top Republican leaders. And thanks to changes in campaign finance laws, the political contributions are legal. We have allowed our campaign finance laws to become a strategic threat to our country.
Click to expand...
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm a little unsure of what you're trying to say.

But, yes, let's assume that the premises (and even conclusions) of that article are correct, and that there are no huge leaps of logic or conclusions which don't follow from their premises or arguments - let's say for the sake of argument that there was absolutely no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. All that means is that the investigation into that subject will exculpate everybody involved, right? So we should leave the investigation be to come to its conclusions.
Click to expand...


W2E09YD.jpg
 
Trump should fire Mueller as quickly as possible. There is no crime to investigate, so there is no need for an investigator. Oh, and he should fire Rosenstein for initiating the witch hunt based only on a fake news barrage from the WaPo propaganda rag.
 
logger said:
Lol
Libs can never be trusted to do this. Their ideology is a higher calling. The actions of leftist are all over the news.
Click to expand...
Saying something is all over the news is not reliable evidence, if one's premise is that all news except Fox is fake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom