Re: #Towergate #FakeNews
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 9:44 am
All their reports from the FBI came back clean.jarnon wrote:Trump should have vetted his campaign staff better.
All their reports from the FBI came back clean.jarnon wrote:Trump should have vetted his campaign staff better.
Donald J. Trump wrote:Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal!
Either the informant witnessed criminal activity by those in the Trump campaign or he/she didn't. If he/she did, then it shouldn't matter whether the FBI or the Pope vouched for them.BackInTex wrote:All their reports from the FBI came back clean.jarnon wrote:Trump should have vetted his campaign staff better.
Reports are that they discredited themselves and their agencies. Especially Brennan. Let's wait to see what the IG's report says.silverscreenselect wrote:Either the informant witnessed criminal activity by those in the Trump campaign or he/she didn't. If he/she did, then it shouldn't matter whether the FBI or the Pope vouched for them.BackInTex wrote:All their reports from the FBI came back clean.jarnon wrote:Trump should have vetted his campaign staff better.
And there's a cardinal rule of law enforcement. You don't out confidential informants, not if you expect to keep any confidential informants.
The Trump attempts to discredit Mueller and the FBI grow more desperate by the day as the noose tightens. Now, the word is that Paul Manafort's ex-son-in-law is copping a plea and it's not just to testify about Daddy-in-law but about multiple criminal investigations.
This is not the Obama administration planting moles in the Trump campaign. This is the FBI following up on considerable evidence of criminal activity involving a foreign government. If anything, the FBI probably deserves some criticism for soft pedaling the investigation a bit in the summer of 2016 for fear that any action they took might be construed as influencing the election in Hillary's favor.BackInTex wrote:The fact that SSS (and maybe the Bobs) is not concerned with an administration planting moles into the opposition party's campaign is disturbing to say the least.
Every government official who has commented on this situation has said that there is no evidence that they know of tying trump to any wrongdoing vis-a-vis russia. And these are on the record quotes, not gossip from unnamed sources who have been wrong about everything else.silverscreenselect wrote:This is not the Obama administration planting moles in the Trump campaign. This is the FBI following up on considerable evidence of criminal activity involving a foreign government. If anything, the FBI probably deserves some criticism for soft pedaling the investigation a bit in the summer of 2016 for fear that any action they took might be construed as influencing the election in Hillary's favor.BackInTex wrote:The fact that SSS (and maybe the Bobs) is not concerned with an administration planting moles into the opposition party's campaign is disturbing to say the least.
I'm sure every drug lord, mob boss, and terrorist organization that has been stung by a confidential informant feels the same way Trump and his people do now.
You can either choose to believe some or all of the multitude of information that has come forward (albeit unofficially) until now which shows numerous ties between Trump and Russia going back long before the campaign, or wait until Mueller acts. But every single thing Mueller has done so far seems to come as a big surprise to a lot of people because he believes in investigating, not playing leaking games with the press.
You are right about one thing. This is worse than Watergate, because Watergate was pure domestic politics, not collaborating with a hostile foreign government.
You mean except for the ones who've been indicted and are copping a plea. What do you expect the others to say?flockofseagulls104 wrote:Every government official who has commented on this situation has said that there is no evidence that they know of tying trump to any wrongdoing vis-a-vis russia. And these are on the record quotes, not gossip from unnamed sources who have been wrong about everything else.silverscreenselect wrote:This is not the Obama administration planting moles in the Trump campaign. This is the FBI following up on considerable evidence of criminal activity involving a foreign government. If anything, the FBI probably deserves some criticism for soft pedaling the investigation a bit in the summer of 2016 for fear that any action they took might be construed as influencing the election in Hillary's favor.BackInTex wrote:The fact that SSS (and maybe the Bobs) is not concerned with an administration planting moles into the opposition party's campaign is disturbing to say the least.
I'm sure every drug lord, mob boss, and terrorist organization that has been stung by a confidential informant feels the same way Trump and his people do now.
You can either choose to believe some or all of the multitude of information that has come forward (albeit unofficially) until now which shows numerous ties between Trump and Russia going back long before the campaign, or wait until Mueller acts. But every single thing Mueller has done so far seems to come as a big surprise to a lot of people because he believes in investigating, not playing leaking games with the press.
You are right about one thing. This is worse than Watergate, because Watergate was pure domestic politics, not collaborating with a hostile foreign government.
You may be right about Mueller's investigation, but glory-be, you may also be wrong. You know nothing, Jon Snow. Neither do I. Let's wait until we know what he's been doing with all the time and money he's cost us before we make a decision on how it measures up to watergate. In the meantime, there's an IG report coming up that's been speculated on and might have some interesting information.
None of the indictments of associates of Trump or his campaign were for crimes committed during or within the campaign (the alleged reason for the investigation).Bob Juch wrote: You mean except for the ones who've been indicted and are copping a plea. What do you expect the others to say?
I see lots of credible evidence of collusion. What's publicly known makes it pretty clear that the campaign was coordinating with a hostile foreign government (Russia) to interfere with our presidential election for partisan gain. I find it implausible that this happened without Donny's personal knowledge and approval, but I wouldn't want to try to prove that in court with the evidence that's publicly known. (Things might be different if the House Intelligence Committee hadn't declined to issue a subpoena to find out whom Junior was talking to on a blocked number when the meeting was being planned.) I'm gonna guess that Robert Mueller is somewhat better informed about these matters than is the general public (at least at this point).BackInTex wrote:The fact that SSS (and maybe the Bobs) is not concerned with an administration planting moles into the opposition party's campaign is disturbing to say the least. There was no collusion and they knew it. They also knew there WAS collusion from within their party's own campaign.
This is worse than Watergate, much worse. This is not the opposition campaign spying, this is the actual government. This is something you'd see in in Soviet Russia.
And yet, SSS, Bob#s, and BobJ continue to act as it it is Trump who is the criminal. He's an ass, but so far, all the criminal acts have been elsewhere.
If you still put that out there as something real then you are as much a talking head as Flock says you are. You will say anything, real or not, truthful or not, to push your agenda. You do not care. I've known that, but I still like seeing you prove it over and over and over.Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails
Are you claiming he didn't say it, are you claiming they didn't do it, or are you claiming that you somehow know he didn't actually mean what he said? And if it's the latter, I want you to meet the same standard of proof that flock continually tries to hold me to. --BobBackInTex wrote:If you still put that out there as something real then you are as much a talking head as Flock says you are. You will say anything, real or not, truthful or not, to push your agenda. You do not care. I've known that, but I still like seeing you prove it over and over and over.Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails
I've called bob-tel a lot of things, but never a talking head.BackInTex wrote:If you still put that out there as something real then you are as much a talking head as Flock says you are. You will say anything, real or not, truthful or not, to push your agenda. You do not care. I've known that, but I still like seeing you prove it over and over and over.Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails
Here's my concern expressed graphically:Where is the outrage, by the way, about Donny's obvious violations of the Emoluments Clause?
Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails and we have actual evidence that after Donny made that request publicly, the Russians actually did exactly that. That sure looks like collusion to me. Where is your evidence that Donny was only joking? I don't want inferences or what you think. I want actual evidence. --Bob
So you don't care whether Donny abides by the Constitution. A portion of the Constitution, by the way, specifically designed to ensure that federal officials couldn't be bribed by foreign governments. Got it. --Bobflockofseagulls104 wrote:Here's my concern expressed graphically:Where is the outrage, by the way, about Donny's obvious violations of the Emoluments Clause?
When have you ever lived up to any standard of proof? Opinions are not fact, bob-tel. I am surprised they didn't teach you that in ethical law school.Bob78164 wrote:Are you claiming he didn't say it, are you claiming they didn't do it, or are you claiming that you somehow know he didn't actually mean what he said? And if it's the latter, I want you to meet the same standard of proof that flock continually tries to hold me to. --BobBackInTex wrote:If you still put that out there as something real then you are as much a talking head as Flock says you are. You will say anything, real or not, truthful or not, to push your agenda. You do not care. I've known that, but I still like seeing you prove it over and over and over.Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails
Not interested in meeting the same standard of proof you'd like me to abide by. Got it. --Bobflockofseagulls104 wrote:Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails and we have actual evidence that after Donny made that request publicly, the Russians actually did exactly that. That sure looks like collusion to me. Where is your evidence that Donny was only joking? I don't want inferences or what you think. I want actual evidence. --Bob
It's not my opinion that Donny said that. It's a fact. It's not my opinion that the Russians actually did that. It's a fact. It's your opinion that Donny didn't mean what he said and that he was only joking. Prove it. --Bobflockofseagulls104 wrote:When have you ever lived up to any standard of proof? Opinions are not fact, bob-tel. I am surprised they didn't teach you that in ethical law school.Bob78164 wrote:Are you claiming he didn't say it, are you claiming they didn't do it, or are you claiming that you somehow know he didn't actually mean what he said? And if it's the latter, I want you to meet the same standard of proof that flock continually tries to hold me to. --BobBackInTex wrote:
If you still put that out there as something real then you are as much a talking head as Flock says you are. You will say anything, real or not, truthful or not, to push your agenda. You do not care. I've known that, but I still like seeing you prove it over and over and over.
How can anyone take you seriously? I heard that joke about hillary's emails months before trump used it. You are convinced that trump is a criminal, you just haven't found the actual crime.Bob78164 wrote:It's not my opinion that Donny said that. It's a fact. It's not my opinion that the Russians actually did that. It's a fact. It's your opinion that Donny didn't mean what he said and that he was only joking. Prove it. --Bobflockofseagulls104 wrote:When have you ever lived up to any standard of proof? Opinions are not fact, bob-tel. I am surprised they didn't teach you that in ethical law school.Bob78164 wrote:Are you claiming he didn't say it, are you claiming they didn't do it, or are you claiming that you somehow know he didn't actually mean what he said? And if it's the latter, I want you to meet the same standard of proof that flock continually tries to hold me to. --Bob
bob-tel, why would trump need to take bribes? He's already a billionaire, or close to it. And he donates his salary. You were talking about emoluments before he was even sworn in. You hate trump and will do anything to get him out of office and disgraced, no matter how stupid and juvenile. Got it.Bob78164 wrote:So you don't care whether Donny abides by the Constitution. A portion of the Constitution, by the way, specifically designed to ensure that federal officials couldn't be bribed by foreign governments. Got it. --Bobflockofseagulls104 wrote:Here's my concern expressed graphically:Where is the outrage, by the way, about Donny's obvious violations of the Emoluments Clause?
None of this is an answer to my question. Donny is obviously violating the Constitution. Do you care or not? --Bobflockofseagulls104 wrote:bob-tel, why would trump need to take bribes? He's already a billionaire, or close to it. And he donates his salary. You were talking about emoluments before he was even sworn in. You hate trump and will do anything to get him out of office and disgraced, no matter how stupid and juvenile. Got it.Bob78164 wrote:So you don't care whether Donny abides by the Constitution. A portion of the Constitution, by the way, specifically designed to ensure that federal officials couldn't be bribed by foreign governments. Got it. --Bobflockofseagulls104 wrote:
Here's my concern expressed graphically:
Oh, and if you are so concerned about Presidents benefitting financially from holding office, I have never heard anyone explain to me how a community activist, turned state legislator, turned backbench senator turned president could accumulate a net worth of $12 million. Politics is apparently profitable.
You mean like a Secretary of State who's family runs a foundation, that while she was SoS the foundation received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from foreign governnents and then those donations dried up once her position of influence ceased? Yeah, no evidence. Arms length. Got it.Bob78164 wrote: A portion of the Constitution, by the way, specifically designed to ensure that federal officials couldn't be bribed by foreign governments. Got it. --Bob
I'm confused, bob-tel. I looked around for video of trump doing what you said he did. And sure enough, I found a video of him saying “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”Bob78164 wrote:And by the way, we have actual evidence that Donny publicly told the Russians to release the Democrats' e-mails and we have actual evidence that after Donny made that request publicly, the Russians actually did exactly that. That sure looks like collusion to me. Where is your evidence that Donny was only joking? I don't want inferences or what you think. I want actual evidence. --Bob