TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#8,076
#8,076
Weezer said:
So a big deal is made because a foreign power might have influenced the U.S. election. And some of the key evidence comes from a Yemen born former British spy and possibly the Ukrainian government? Are we just being selective on what foreign powers are allowed to meddle with our government? This really is just one huge cluster****. No real evidence seems to exist. And all of this flipping that is supposed to take place "soon", seems like if it happens it comes from violating laws to begin with to obtain information. What really scares me is that some do not care what extent is gone to to try and take down a sitting President. Basically saying it's okay to throw the Constitution and everything else aside as long as you get your desired result. And how will you feel when the same tactics are eventually used against someone you support? Are you going to argue it's wrong then while arguing it's okay now? Lots of people playing fast and loose with legal boundaries. Ask yourself if you're really okay with this kind of precedent being set, because it will eventually come back to bite you in the ass.
Click to expand...

Poor old Donny, forever the victim. Personally? I think he needs to "hereby demand" another inquiry.
 
#8,077
#8,077
BowlBrother85 said:
Poor old Donny, forever the victim. Personally? I think he needs to "hereby demand" another inquiry.
Click to expand...

But, are you ok with the precedent being set in regards to the tactics being used in this investigation? Would you be ok with the former Obama administration being investigated for their supposed role in the "spying" on a presidential candidate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,078
#8,078
southgatevol said:
But, are you ok with the precedent being set in regards to the tactics being used in this investigation? Would you be ok with the former Obama administration being investigated for their supposed role in the "spying" on a presidential candidate?
Click to expand...

Of course he wouldn't, that would be different.
 
#8,079
#8,079
Weezer said:
So a big deal is made because a foreign power might have influenced the U.S. election. And some of the key evidence comes from a Yemen born former British spy and possibly the Ukrainian government? Are we just being selective on what foreign powers are allowed to meddle with our government? This really is just one huge cluster****. No real evidence seems to exist. And all of this flipping that is supposed to take place "soon", seems like if it happens it comes from violating laws to begin with to obtain information. What really scares me is that some do not care what extent is gone to to try and take down a sitting President. Basically saying it's okay to throw the Constitution and everything else aside as long as you get your desired result. And how will you feel when the same tactics are eventually used against someone you support? Are you going to argue it's wrong then while arguing it's okay now? Lots of people playing fast and loose with legal boundaries. Ask yourself if you're really okay with this kind of precedent being set, because it will eventually come back to bite you in the ass.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the Constitution...

Mark Levin presents 'overwhelming' constitutional case against appointment of Mueller in a free episode of LevinTV * Conservative Review

Mark Levin embraced an argument made by law professor Steven Calabresi, a friend and former colleague of Levin’s from the Reagan Department of Justice, that the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller was unconstitutional.

Levin believes Calabresi made “an overwhelming case” that the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Opinion on the Constitutionality of Robert Mueller's Appointment: Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 18-14

Opinion on the Constitutionality of Robert Mueller's Appointment by Steven G. Calabresi :: SSRN
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,080
#8,080
southgatevol said:
But, are you ok with the precedent being set in regards to the tactics being used in this investigation? Would you be ok with the former Obama administration being investigated for their supposed role in the "spying" on a presidential candidate?
Click to expand...

I would like to hear an honest yes or no from BowlBrother85 and not a side step to somthing else.:hi:
 
Last edited:
#8,081
#8,081
southgatevol said:
But, are you ok with the precedent being set in regards to the tactics being used in this investigation? Would you be ok with the former Obama administration being investigated for their supposed role in the "spying" on a presidential candidate?
Click to expand...

This is a use of formal semantics which are sympathetic to Trump and not fully informed as to exactly what happened. The gist of it all is that in mid July 2016, at a conference in London, this FBI informant struck up a conversation with the infamous Carter Page, then a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. By the end of that month, the agency had formally opened it's investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 Presidential election. This FBI man would go on to talk to others in the Trump campaign including Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos. It was Fox Business anchor David Asman who said, "apparently the Justice Department put a spy in the Trump campaign." Those words quickly emerged in a May 18 tweet by Trump who added "really bad stuff!" This doesn't meet the definition of infiltration or spying but is rather the actions of an informant. "The use of informants is standard practice in any FBI investigation, and indeed in law enforcement investigations in general," said Paul Pillar at the Georgetown Center for Security Studies.

Now, according to press reports, the FBI had been interested in Page for several years once it found suspected Russian agents talking about recruiting him. Papadopoulos became a target after the first dump of Wikileaks e-mails that undercut the Clinton campaign. An Australian diplomat told the FBI that Papadopoulos had known about the e-mails months before they came out. Papadopoulos has pled guilty as part of the special counsel's Russia investigation.

The informant, according to reports, would create opportunities to talk to Trump team members and would then report what he learned to the FBI. If he did more than that, it has not been reported. Again, that is NOT SPYING!

The use of the word "spy" is a deliberately false description of the work of this informant. I'm still amazed at the number of people who will acknowledge that Trump is a dishonest person but then take his tweets as gospel whenever he attacks the investigation against him and his campaign.
 
#8,082
#8,082
BowlBrother85 said:
This is a use of formal semantics which are sympathetic to Trump and not fully informed as to exactly what happened. The gist of it all is that in mid July 2016, at a conference in London, this FBI informant struck up a conversation with the infamous Carter Page, then a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. By the end of that month, the agency had formally opened it's investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 Presidential election. This FBI man would go on to talk to others in the Trump campaign including Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos. It was Fox Business anchor David Asman who said, "apparently the Justice Department put a spy in the Trump campaign." Those words quickly emerged in a May 18 tweet by Trump who added "really bad stuff!" This doesn't meet the definition of infiltration or spying but is rather the actions of an informant. "The use of informants is standard practice in any FBI investigation, and indeed in law enforcement investigations in general," said Paul Pillar at the Georgetown Center for Security Studies.

Now, according to press reports, the FBI had been interested in Page for several years once it found suspected Russian agents talking about recruiting him. Papadopoulos became a target after the first dump of Wikileaks e-mails that undercut the Clinton campaign. An Australian diplomat told the FBI that Papadopoulos had known about the e-mails months before they came out. Papadopoulos has pled guilty as part of the special counsel's Russia investigation.

The informant, according to reports, would create opportunities to talk to Trump team members and would then report what he learned to the FBI. If he did more than that, it has not been reported. Again, that is NOT SPYING!

The use of the word "spy" is a deliberately false description of the work of this informant. I'm still amazed at the number of people who will acknowledge that Trump is a dishonest person but then take his tweets as gospel whenever he attacks the investigation against him and his campaign.
Click to expand...

This what i don't get with you, We know that Trump is a liar, but we also know that Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Mcabe are liars as well. Why do you take their word above his word?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,084
#8,084
Sandman 423 said:
This what i don't get with you, We know that Trump is a liar, but we also know that Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Mcabe are liars as well. Why do you take their word above his word?
Click to expand...

In this instance, it's Fox News that is being deliberately deceptive. With their constant use of the word "spy" or "spying" Fox is attempting to make a completely legitimate practice by law enforcement investigators sound illegal. Trump is in turn, running like hell with it.

Just take note of how no Republican members of the Senate have tried to run interference for Trump the way Nunes, Meadows and Jordan have in the House. They know this "spygate" is just another smokescreen which won't have legs. There is nothing there that wasn't standard procedure for an FBI investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,085
#8,085
Sandman 423 said:
This what i don't get with you, We know that Trump is a liar, but we also know that Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Mcabe are liars as well. Why do you take their word above his word?
Click to expand...

...and if Comey and McCabe were so anti-Trump and in the tank for Clinton, why was the investigation into Clinton e-mails reopened just 10 days prior to the election when more e-mails were discovered? Trump even applauded Comey at the time. That doesn't make any sense. That clearly benefited the Trump campaign.
 
#8,086
#8,086
BowlBrother85 said:
In this instance, it's Fox News that is being deliberately deceptive. With their constant use of the word "spy" or "spying" Fox is attempting to make a completely legitimate practice by law enforcement investigators sound illegal. Trump is in turn, running like hell with it.

Just take note of how no Republican members of the Senate have tried to run interference for Trump the way Nunes, Meadows and Jordan have in the House. They know this "spygate" is just another smokescreen which won't have legs. There is nothing there that wasn't standard procedure for an FBI investigation.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if they did. There are a few Rs in leadership positions that are involved as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8,087
#8,087
BowlBrother85 said:
...and if Comey and McCabe were so anti-Trump and in the tank for Clinton, why was the investigation into Clinton e-mails reopened just 10 days prior to the election when more e-mails were discovered? Trump even applauded Comey at the time. That doesn't make any sense. That clearly benefited the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...

A) Because Comey went into full blown damage control mode trying to save his ass and the Bureau’s image once they realized how close it was

Or

B) he knew it would be damaging but didn’t think it would cost Hills the election as nobody gave Trump a chance and he didn’t want it coming out later and throwing shade on Hills presidency (God it sounds awful even typing that...) and again preserving face for the Bureau and covering his ass.

Basic answer... covering his ass for down the road disclosure since there was a long and detailed paper trail.

It’s fairly obvious to our side why. And it is to yours also. You just refuse to admit it publically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8,088
#8,088
NorthDallas40 said:
A) Because Comey went into full blown damage control mode trying to save his ass and the Bureau’s image once they realized how close it was

Or

B) he knew it would be damaging but didn’t think it would cost Hills the election as nobody gave Trump a chance and he didn’t want it coming out later and throwing shade on Hills presidency (God it sounds awful even typing that...) and again preserving face for the Bureau and covering his ass.

Basic answer... covering his ass for down the road disclosure since there was a long and detailed paper trail.

It’s fairly obvious to our side why. And it is to yours also. You just refuse to admit it publically.
Click to expand...

This is a possibility but even then... it's hard to argue that he was personally in the tank for Hillary. Had she been elected, one of her first actions would have been to fire his butt. He had to be aware of that after reopening the investigation so close to the election.
 
#8,089
#8,089
BowlBrother85 said:
This is a possibility but even then... it's hard to argue that he was personally in the tank for Hillary. Had she been elected, one of her first actions would have been to fire his butt. He had to be aware of that after reopening the investigation so close to the election.
Click to expand...

It isn’t a possibility it’s highly probable.

And Comey’s arrogant ass is for Comey. To that end he will take whatever action he has to. And both of those scenarios cover it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,090
#8,090
BowlBrother85 said:
This is a possibility but even then... it's hard to argue that he was personally in the tank for Hillary. Had she been elected, one of her first actions would have been to fire his butt. He had to be aware of that after reopening the investigation so close to the election.
Click to expand...

Comey may have taken a page out of Hoover's playbook.
 
#8,091
#8,091
3 hours ago, Trump sent a tweet teasing good information would be upcoming for the auto industry in the U.S.... Just a few minutes later he tweets "WITCH HUNT!"

There is no impulse control to this clown. He was probably watching Fox News and someone said "witch hunt" and he just had to text it. His behavior is at times child-like to a comedic extent.
 
#8,092
#8,092
BowlBrother85 said:
3 hours ago, Trump sent a tweet teasing good information would be upcoming for the auto industry in the U.S.... Just a few minutes later he tweets "WITCH HUNT!"

There is no impulse control to this clown. He was probably watching Fox News and someone said "witch hunt" and he just had to text it. His behavior is at times child-like to a comedic extent.
Click to expand...

Ikr? You should probs stop reading his tweets, then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,093
#8,093
BowlBrother85 said:
3 hours ago, Trump sent a tweet teasing good information would be upcoming for the auto industry in the U.S.... Just a few minutes later he tweets "WITCH HUNT!"

There is no impulse control to this clown. He was probably watching Fox News and someone said "witch hunt" and he just had to text it. His behavior is at times child-like to a comedic extent.
Click to expand...

He got you triggered over it didn’t he? Seems like working as intended.
 
#8,094
#8,094
BowlBrother85 said:
3 hours ago, Trump sent a tweet teasing good information would be upcoming for the auto industry in the U.S.... Just a few minutes later he tweets "WITCH HUNT!"

There is no impulse control to this clown. He was probably watching Fox News and someone said "witch hunt" and he just had to text it. His behavior is at times child-like to a comedic extent.
Click to expand...


Dd4ycOIUwAAUZ9C.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#8,096
#8,096
BowlBrother85 said:
This is a use of formal semantics which are sympathetic to Trump and not fully informed as to exactly what happened. The gist of it all is that in mid July 2016, at a conference in London, this FBI informant struck up a conversation with the infamous Carter Page, then a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. By the end of that month, the agency had formally opened it's investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 Presidential election. This FBI man would go on to talk to others in the Trump campaign including Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos. It was Fox Business anchor David Asman who said, "apparently the Justice Department put a spy in the Trump campaign." Those words quickly emerged in a May 18 tweet by Trump who added "really bad stuff!" This doesn't meet the definition of infiltration or spying but is rather the actions of an informant. "The use of informants is standard practice in any FBI investigation, and indeed in law enforcement investigations in general," said Paul Pillar at the Georgetown Center for Security Studies.

Now, according to press reports, the FBI had been interested in Page for several years once it found suspected Russian agents talking about recruiting him. Papadopoulos became a target after the first dump of Wikileaks e-mails that undercut the Clinton campaign. An Australian diplomat told the FBI that Papadopoulos had known about the e-mails months before they came out. Papadopoulos has pled guilty as part of the special counsel's Russia investigation.

The informant, according to reports, would create opportunities to talk to Trump team members and would then report what he learned to the FBI. If he did more than that, it has not been reported. Again, that is NOT SPYING!

The use of the word "spy" is a deliberately false description of the work of this informant. I'm still amazed at the number of people who will acknowledge that Trump is a dishonest person but then take his tweets as gospel whenever he attacks the investigation against him and his campaign.
Click to expand...

So, you do find the tactics used as being acceptable and are ok with this precedent being set?
 
#8,098
#8,098
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top