Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 3 votes

James Comey is “incredulous” about the ravings of the guy he handed the presidency to


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#41 SmarterThanYou

SmarterThanYou

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,459 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 07:34 PM

Maybe Comey should have picked one side and stuck with it , seems like he kept switching sides, he certainly seems like a very confused person, I have to wonder how he ever got the job in the first place


Are you suggesting that the head of the FBI should, to quote you, "pick sides".

You're nuts.

What Country do you live in? Please don't say it's the one I live in?

#42 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,389 posts
  • LocationHarford County Maryland

Posted 08 March 2017 - 08:44 PM

There's no evidence that the phones at Trump Tower were Tapped

Trump associates had been in contact with Russian diplomats and spies. The Russian diplomats and Spies were under surveillance, not Trump's associates

Aside from Flynn, you don't know that. You assume it. First, one has to determine who was a "Trump associate", and when such an associate might have had contact with anyone from Russia, and in what context. Prior to him running for president it is very clear that there would have been "Trump associates" who would have contacts with lots of people from other countries, including Russia, given the breadth of the Trump real estate business. The question that is being ASKED but is not yet proven is whether anyone associated with the Trump presidential campaign had any contacts with people from Russia concerning the campaign. Just because the left and the media have already convinced themselves that such contacts occurred, and did so in an effort to impact the election, doesn't make it so. Let the investigations into the matter take place. See if there is evidence to that effect. That the Russians tried to affect the election is pretty clear. That the Trump presidential campaign had anything to do with such actions is conjecture at this point.

 

Quite frankly it would not surprise me if evidence does turn up that proves improper contact. Then the question will be what to do about it and who to prosecute, or perhaps impeach. Let those chips fall where they may. 



#43 SmarterThanYou

SmarterThanYou

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,459 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 08:46 PM

Aside from Flynn, you don't know that. You assume it. First, one has to determine who was a "Trump associate", and when such an associate might have had contact with anyone from Russia, and in what context. Prior to him running for president it is very clear that there would have been "Trump associates" who would have contacts with lots of people from other countries, including Russia, given the breadth of the Trump real estate business. The question that is being ASKED but is not yet proven is whether anyone associated with the Trump presidential campaign had any contacts with people from Russia concerning the campaign. Just because the left and the media have already convinced themselves that such contacts occurred, and did so in an effort to impact the election, doesn't make it so. Let the investigations into the matter take place. See if there is evidence to that effect. That the Russians tried to affect the election is pretty clear. That the Trump presidential campaign had anything to do with such actions is conjecture at this point.
 
Quite frankly it would not surprise me if evidence does turn up that proves improper contact. Then the question will be what to do about it and who to prosecute, or perhaps impeach. Let those chips fall where they may.


Yes, we do.

Do you actually read any news?

#44 Heisenberg

Heisenberg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 731 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 08:47 PM

Aside from Flynn, you don't know that. You assume it. First, one has to determine who was a "Trump associate", and when such an associate might have had contact with anyone from Russia, and in what context. Prior to him running for president it is very clear that there would have been "Trump associates" who would have contacts with lots of people from other countries, including Russia, given the breadth of the Trump real estate business. The question that is being ASKED but is not yet proven is whether anyone associated with the Trump presidential campaign had any contacts with people from Russia concerning the campaign. Just because the left and the media have already convinced themselves that such contacts occurred, and did so in an effort to impact the election, doesn't make it so. Let the investigations into the matter take place. See if there is evidence to that effect. That the Russians tried to affect the election is pretty clear. That the Trump presidential campaign had anything to do with such actions is conjecture at this point.

Quite frankly it would not surprise me if evidence does turn up that proves improper contact. Then the question will be what to do about it and who to prosecute, or perhaps impeach. Let those chips fall where they may.

Yeah, actually we do. We know Sessions has been.

#45 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67,949 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 09:20 PM

Aside from Flynn, you don't know that. You assume it. First, one has to determine who was a "Trump associate", and when such an associate might have had contact with anyone from Russia, and in what context. Prior to him running for president it is very clear that there would have been "Trump associates" who would have contacts with lots of people from other countries, including Russia, given the breadth of the Trump real estate business. The question that is being ASKED but is not yet proven is whether anyone associated with the Trump presidential campaign had any contacts with people from Russia concerning the campaign. Just because the left and the media have already convinced themselves that such contacts occurred, and did so in an effort to impact the election, doesn't make it so. Let the investigations into the matter take place. See if there is evidence to that effect. That the Russians tried to affect the election is pretty clear. That the Trump presidential campaign had anything to do with such actions is conjecture at this point.

 

Quite frankly it would not surprise me if evidence does turn up that proves improper contact. Then the question will be what to do about it and who to prosecute, or perhaps impeach. Let those chips fall where they may. 

 

 

"Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn’s comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump’s team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions."

https://www.nytimes....ook-office.html

 

Other Trump aides may have unwittingly spoken to Russian spies but Flynn when he spoke to the Russian ambassador should've known better


"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#46 SmarterThanYou

SmarterThanYou

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,459 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 09:27 PM

At least he was obedient.  


Or honest.


Pretty sure that was the only criterion in a corrupt administration.  


Link to back up your allegation?

That said, Be prepared for Trump to set new records

#47 cprenegade

cprenegade

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,658 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 09:34 PM

 

When you look at the graph and see Hillary's numbers plunge with the Comey announcement, such speculation seems rather pointless.

 

So how do you explain the greater plunge in her numbers that took place approximately three weeks prior to Comey's letter?
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

#48 hst2

hst2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91,786 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 08:54 AM

   

So how do you explain the greater plunge in her numbers that took place approximately three weeks prior to Comey's letter?

 

It wasn't one that put her behind Trump. That plunge happened in the wake of the Comey letter.
 


"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. - HL Mencken

#49 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,389 posts
  • LocationHarford County Maryland

Posted 09 March 2017 - 05:29 PM

Yes, we do.

Do you actually read any news?

You don't KNOW chit. You assume a conclusion based on conjecture that is in the news media. So much for your inaccurate screen name. 



#50 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,389 posts
  • LocationHarford County Maryland

Posted 09 March 2017 - 05:31 PM

Yeah, actually we do. We know Sessions has been.

Senator Sessions. Along with several other senators who also met with the Russian ambasador. Big whup. 



#51 Heisenberg

Heisenberg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 731 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 05:54 PM

Senator Sessions. Along with several other senators who also met with the Russian ambasador. Big whup. 

He was an associate of Trump during the campaign. 

 

Meeting with Russians isn't bad, but lying about it under oath is, which is what Sessions did. 



#52 cprenegade

cprenegade

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,658 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 06:26 PM

It wasn't one that put her behind Trump. That plunge happened in the wake of the Comey letter.


That's like only giving credit to the guy who drives in the final run in a 5 run 9th inning comeback. Without the other 4 runs, his RBI is pointless. Without the earlier dips and plunges in her poll numbers, she would have withstood the one that happened two weeks out. Her loss was a cumulative effect of a lot of things, including bad strategy and decisions on her part. The only reason she was still a good bet to win the election was because of who she ran against. Any of the other republican finalists would have crushed her, and the other democrat finalist would have beaten Trump.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

#53 Papi

Papi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,389 posts
  • LocationHarford County Maryland

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:21 AM

He was an associate of Trump during the campaign. 

 

Meeting with Russians isn't bad, but lying about it under oath is, which is what Sessions did. 

Did you watch any of the Sessions confirmation hearings? I did. It was one of the more interesting ones.

 

The entire thrust of the questioning was about his role and relationship to Trump, and his prior work as US Attorney with complaints about his civil rights record. His role and position as a Senator was not questioned - it was only mentioned by some of the Republicans on the panel as part of their lead-in remarks, praising his tenure in the Senate. It therefore seems quite plausible to me that any question about meeting with Russians that he was asked was being asked in the context of his role and relationship to the Trump campaign, not in his role as a Senator and a member of a key committee that deals with foreign governments.

 

That he, as a Senator, along with multiple other Senators (from both parties) met with the Russian ambassador (and other foreign government representatives) during the yearlong campaign cycle is unrelated to his role of being a Trump supporter. If he had resigned from the Senate and taken a paid position in the Trump campaign that would be a totally different matter. But that was not the case, and he had every right (and responsibility) to perform his senatorial duties, and based on his committee role that meant meeting with representatives of foreign governments.

 

I think it is good that he recused himself from the justice department's investigations into the Russian meddling issue, but he did that to remove any hint of impropriety that his detractors would raise, vailid or not.  



#54 FourTwenty

FourTwenty

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:23 PM

If Sanders had promoted himself as anything other than a "democratic socialist;" he may have had a chance, the Clinton behemoth election machine notwithstanding.

 

 No American(s) were going to elect a Socialist in any way shape or form in the 2016 election.

Wishy washy centrists generally don't win. 

 

Clinton being an exception, of course, but he had charisma. Bernie had charisma. Hillary did not have charisma. Bernie would have won.



#55 FourTwenty

FourTwenty

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:24 PM

The ridiculous myth that Comey caused Hillary to lose is really out of vogue now. Hillary caused Hillary to lose. End of story. 

 

 

Hitting the nail on the head, so to speak. 

 

 

Bang!  I hope you aren't parked outside the stadium because that one ain't coming back.  Somebody is going to need a windshield.  And maybe a windshield wiper, invented by a woman.   ;)

Sigh.

There's a literally a link in the OP that shows you're dead wrong.



#56 Calamari

Calamari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47,950 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:33 PM

Sigh.

There's a literally a link in the OP that shows you're dead wrong.

 

 

"readins iz haaard!" - every right winger on this board.


"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
~George Washington


Has Obama Taken Away Your Guns Yet?

#57 EL-FLIPPO

EL-FLIPPO

    School & Street Educated

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,210 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Doodad Nebula

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:09 PM

You don't KNOW chit. You assume a conclusion based on conjecture that is in the news media...

 

Damn!

 

That sounds awfully familiar... :cool:


[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet
.â€
~
Matthew 7:6 ~
 


#58 zenwalk

zenwalk

    Pundit

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48,444 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:23 PM

Senator Sessions. Along with several other senators who also met with the Russian ambasador. Big whup. 

Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort , Roger Stone, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, JD Gordon, Sessions and Carter Page are the ones we know about.


"A screaming comes across the sky. . ." -- Thomas Pynchon

#59 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38,143 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:27 PM

Oh for the love of God.

Comey should never have spoken out about HRC email investigation. That's standard practice. The FBI doesn't publicly comment on ongoing investigations, especially when those comments could affect an election.

That said, don't think it affected the outcome.

He's a strange bird. Get the feeling he loves the limelight.

Edited by ms maggie, 19 March 2017 - 08:27 PM.


#60 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38,143 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:29 PM

Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort , Roger Stone, Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, JD Gordon, Sessions and Carter Page are the ones we know about.


Yeah but other than those...

The stuff about Flynn just keeps coming. Oy.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users