Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Emily's Cat]

Or the new director gets on board and pledges loyalty the way Trump wanted Comey to do.

I suppose that is a valid third alternative.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My statement doesn't suggest that I viewed the statement as taking the heat off of Russia. I'm not sure what you're seeing.

Posting Trump's crazy comments followed by his staff desperately trying to rationalize is not convincing. Just because everyone else understood that the investigation would continue doesn't mean that Trump did.

For the "pressure" to be off, something had to change when Comey left. If the change was just superficial presentation, that's hardly pressure, and also not remotely accurate in it's depiction of reality.

White House seems to have indicated that there is an expectation that the politicization of the investigation and the leaking of information about it to the media would reduce... thus alleviating the pressure on Trump.

Whether that is a reasonable expectation (on many fronts, including whether it was being politicized and whether Comey was responsible for any of the leaks) remains to be seen.

 

[TraneWreck]

Whether that is a reasonable expectation (on many fronts, including whether it was being politicized and whether Comey was responsible for any of the leaks) remains to be seen.

This is one of those situations where we need smart people to use judgment. This isn't a court of law (yet). We'll see what can be legally proven.

In the world of reason, however, that nonsensical explanation of Trump's multiple statements about Comey and Russia is just one step above their ********* on the "wiretapp" tweet.

Spicey's rationalization is not convincing. It doesn't even make sense. And if you buy it, you have to believe our president was dumb enough to think that firing the FBI director during on on-going investigation would calm things down.

 

[NoahFence]

On the planet where he hasn't outright admitted it.

He did admit it.

Reality doesn't give a rats ass if you don't want to acknowledge it or not. Although it's VERY helpful for all involved if we can just *********** agree on simple facts. Lets start small.

Who is the CURRENT President?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is one of those situations where we need smart people to use judgment. This isn't a court of law (yet). We'll see what can be legally proven.

In the world of reason, however, that nonsensical explanation of Trump's multiple statements about Comey and Russia is just one step above their ********* on the "wiretapp" tweet.

Spicey's rationalization is not convincing. It doesn't even make sense. And if you buy it, you have to believe our president was dumb enough to think that firing the FBI director during on on-going investigation would calm things down.

Depends. Do you think you have the full story and know all of the details, so that you can make an informed and objective decision about it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

He did admit it.

What did he say? Please provide a full quote with context. Please be certain that it is not an interpretation of what someone thinks he meant, and is actually an explicit and incontrovertible statement.

 

[TraneWreck]

Depends. Do you think you have the full story and know all of the details, so that you can make an informed and objective decision about it?

I have more than enough, just as with the wiretapp tweet or the birther claims or the crowd size or the illegals voting...

You honestly sound foolish trying to play this contrarian game. The plain meaning of Trump's multiple statements is clear enough, but you also have his personal history. Again, maybe not admissible in a court of law, but political pressure will be important. There are enough stupid people in the country without smart people pretending to be stupid in some intellectual game of sophistry.

"Pressure off," "I'm not under investigation..."

Or the fact that the White House's story was completely undermined by Trump. If they came out Day 1 saying that Trump did it because of grandstanding and they have ensured that the independent investigation would continue, that would be one thing, but they put all of their strategic effort into a position that denied Russia had anything to do with, that Trump even made the decision on his own, only to be severed at the knees.

Come on.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Entirely non-responsive. Are you even reading, or just posting FAKE NEWS! on autopilot?

Boom! Headshot!

 

[Stacko]

Yes, it's far less of a rumour if it's from the right!

Currently Republican news sources are having trouble. Faux News couldn't find a reporter willing to byline this article citing anonymous sources. If you're looking for a reason to cast a stink eye at anonymous sources, an article that no one is willing to attach their reputation to is a good place to start.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Does following advice from the FBI person helping him fill out the form not count?

From the article:

I don't understand your question.

Someone (anonymous source, amirite????) from the FBI could have told Sessions anything.

Sessions is still responsible for lying on his form.

 

[Stacko]

Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen has now become a focus of Congressional Russia investigation.

One of President Donald Trump’s closest confidants, his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, has now become a focus of the expanding congressional investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 campaign.

Cohen confirmed to ABC News that House and Senate investigators have asked him “to provide information and testimony” about any contacts he had with people connected to the Russian government, but he said he has turned down the invitation.

“I declined the invitation to participate, as the request was poorly phrased, overly broad and not capable of being answered,” Cohen told ABC News in an email Tuesday.

After Cohen rejected the congressional requests for cooperation, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee voted unanimously on Thursday to grant its chairman, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, and ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, blanket authority to issue subpoenas as they deem necessary.

 

[NoahFence]

What did he say? Please provide a full quote with context. Please be certain that it is not an interpretation of what someone thinks he meant, and is actually an explicit and incontrovertible statement.

AKA:

"Please repeat for the 1,000th time what I've already heard so that I may better be able to to misinterpret it again"


no.

 

[Stacko]

House Intel Committee wants to hear from former Trump campaign senior adviser Boris Epshteyn.

Former Trump surrogate Boris Epshteyn is on a list of people that the House Intelligence Committee wants to hear from as part of its probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and ties between the Russian government and Trump associates.*

"Like many others, Mr. Epshteyn has received a broad, preliminary request for information from the House Intelligence Committee," Epshteyn's counsel told CBS News. "This is a voluntary request. Mr. Epshteyn has not been subpoenaed nor do we anticipate that he will be.

We have reached out to the Committee wth several follow up questions and we are awaiting their response in order to better understand what information they are seeking and whether Mr. Epshteyn is able to reasonably provide it."

 

[Emily's Cat]

AKA:

"Please repeat for the 1,000th time what I've already heard so that I may better be able to to misinterpret it again"


no.

Fine.

What I have found is that Trump was asked if he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Comey. He answered that it was on his mind.

This has been interpreted as him "admitting" that he fired Comey in order to stop the investigation.

But that isn't what he said. He hasn't "outright" admitted to it, as you claim. But if you prefer your interpretation go right ahead.

 

[uke2se]

Fine.

What I have found is that Trump was asked if he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Comey. He answered that it was on his mind.

This has been interpreted as him "admitting" that he fired Comey in order to stop the investigation.

But that isn't what he said. He hasn't "outright" admitted to it, as you claim. But if you prefer your interpretation go right ahead.

He also bragged to the Russians about how firing Comey had taken the pressure off him. Let's not forget half the story.

 

[varwoche]

Are you aware that the world is not black and white? Other colors do exist.

Not buying in to your witch-hunt based on speculation and allegation doesn't make me "pro-Trump".

In this particular exchange, specifically what issue did I paint as black and white?

Here, I'll save you some trouble: none, zip, nada

All I did was point out that you were taking Sessions at his word. When someone is on the hot seat, and they say something self-serving, we are gullible if we take their word as fact.

 

[Emily's Cat]

He also bragged to the Russians about how firing Comey had taken the pressure off him. Let's not forget half the story.

"Bragged" No interpreting and framing going on there.

And no, I didn't forget that. I actually specifically and explicitly referenced it, included quotes even:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11861220#post11861220

 

[uke2se]

"Bragged" No interpreting and framing going on there.

And no, I didn't forget that. I actually specifically and explicitly referenced it, included quotes even:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11861220#post11861220

Why didn't you include it in what you had found in the previous post then? After all, it's very pertinent to the question of whether Trump admitted firing Comey to stop the Russia investigation or not. In my view, he very clearly admitted doing so, especially when you combine his own statement about thinking about the Russia investigation when deciding to fire Comey with the fact that he bragged (No, that's not interpreting, it's what Trump does) to the Russians about how firing him took the pressure off.

Emily's Cat, there's apologetics and there's stupidity. Your posts are clearly aimed at the former, but you should know that they are venturing towards the latter. Defending Trump like you are is a difficult task for the rational-minded. You should leave it to the irrational pro-Trump posters.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In this particular exchange, specifically what issue did I paint as black and white?

Here, I'll save you some trouble: none, zip, nada

Repeatedly referring to me as "pro-trump". It's so clearly a situation of "if you're not with us, you're against us" that it's striking. Just because I don't buy in to the obviously transparent spin being employed here doesn't mean I like Trump. Refraining from calling him names doesn't mean I support him. I also don't call Clinton names. Nor any other politician.

The only thing I support is honesty and objectivity. Speculation and allegation aren't evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence. Unverifiable information leaked from anonymous sources isn't evidence until such time as a person with authority to back up those allegations presents it as such. Three word quotes taken out of context and surrounded by "may", "might", "could" isn't evidence.

So far, we've got Brennan's testimony that I view as actual evidence. He does not claim collusion, he doesn't claim wrongdoing. Paraphrasing, he claims that there was sufficient contact to raise concerns.

But seriously... some of the spin has been astonishing. I get disliking Trump - I also dislike Trump. But not enough to take part in a witch hunt.

All I did was point out that you were taking Sessions at his word. When someone is on the hot seat, and they say something self-serving, we are gullible if we take their word as fact.

Sessions does not appear to have made that claim. Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores made that claim. If we dismiss out of hand anything that fails to confirm our pre-formed opinion, we are biased.

 

[Tony Stark]

At this point one has to be playing dumb (or actually be dumb) to say with a straight face that the Russia investigation had nothing to with why Trump fired Comey.

I mean come on.