The adventures of President Donald Gump

[nutbean 8,837]

13 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/

You guys can dismiss it all you want because it is in breibart but it doesn't make it any less real.

Doesn't make it any less real because it's Breitbart ? yes... yes it does....

[nutbean 8,837]

21 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

So now it appears a server in the Trump Towers was being monitored "tapped" at request of Obama and his Department of (in)Justice during the election campaign at a time everyone was screaming at Trump for saying he would set up a special team to investigate Clinton's illegal server. The irony.

 

The irony has actually escaped you. If there is a legal wiretap authorised  (and from my reading the Trump camp are not suggesting otherwise) it must be approved by a judge and there must be primie facie evidence of criminal/illegal  activity. 

 

This quote from Lindsay Graham ( R - SC)

I don’t know if it’s true or not, but if it is true, illegally, it would be the biggest political scandal since Watergate,” Graham said, referring to a scenario in which the Obama administration tapped Trump’s phones without a warrant.

But then Graham,  suggested that it would equally shocking if the eavesdropping had been done legally.

“The other side of the story ― just be quiet for a second ― if the former president of the United States was able to obtain a warrant lawfully to monitor Trump’s campaign for violating a law, that would be the biggest scandal since Watergate,” he said.

Graham made clear that the latter form of wiretapping would be aimed at investigating “Trump campaign activity with foreign governments.

Edited March 5, 2017 by nutbean

[nutbean 8,837]

10 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Well eventually it was worth reading through this Breitbart article because at the end there was a visual link to Susan Sarrandon and her amazing cleavage, always worth another look. Otherwise I will await corroboration from some reputable organisations, other than an organ representing the thoughts, self interests and fantasies of Steve Bannon thank you. 

I am not totally dismissing the allegation it is just we need some objective evidence  from reputable organisations before we make judgements. We can't keep responding to every ludicrous allegation from some nut job, conspiracy theorists on the web, as it is a receipe for political paralysis. And that is where we are. 

I am totally perplexed.

I read the article from top to bottom yet I could not find Susan Sarrandon's cleavage anywhere.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

The irony has actually escaped you. If there is a legal wiretap authorised  (and from my reading the Trump camp are not suggesting otherwise) it must be approved by a judge and there must be primie facie evidence of criminal/illegal  activity. 

 

 

Nut I'm so tied in a knot on this I don't know what to think. There are countless possibilitites

1) There is every possibility that Trump is just crazy and believed right wing conspiracies he read in Breibart

2) He was actually tapped and I've read countless ways that this could have been done both legally and by pushing boundaries. In which case Trump will reciprocate and tap whoever he pleases using the same means.

3 ) If he was tapped and it brought up nothing illegal but dropped key members of his team in it for meeting the Russians during the campaign. Not illegal but that is how they were caught out.

4) We will never know and there will be fake news slanting both ways that can never completely be believed or even ruled out

5) And the least likely of the above is Trump does have some evidence to come out

[nutbean 8,837]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Nut I'm so tied in a knot on this I don't know what to think. There are countless possibilitites

1) There is every possibility that Trump is just crazy and believed right wing conspiracies he read in Breibart

2) He was actually tapped and I've read countless ways that this could have been done both legally and by pushing boundaries. In which case Trump will reciprocate and tap whoever he pleases using the same means.

3 ) If he was tapped and it brought up nothing illegal but dropped key members of his team in it for meeting the Russians during the campaign. Not illegal but that is how they were caught out.

4) We will never know and there will be fake news slanting both ways that can never completely be believed or even ruled out

5) And the least likely of the above is Trump does have some evidence to come out

Dont disagree with any of the above - it does make for interesting times.

All I can say is..don't blame me - I voted for Frank Underwood..

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by nutbean

[nutbean 8,837]

Some of the difficulties we have now is due to the media and the standards of journalism.

My view is with the advent of social media/internet and instant gratification we have gone from reporting that had some substance behind it ( albeit some reporting/news outlets have always had some political bias or colour) to flat out - "lets get this story out there before someone else does as quickly as we can - facts or verification be damned"  

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

It's all just "fake news"

[Wrecker45 3,378]

54 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Some of the difficulties we have now is due to the media and the standards of journalism.

My view is with the advent of social media/internet and instant gratification we have gone from reporting that had some substance behind it ( albeit some reporting/news outlets have always had some political bias or colour) to flat out - "lets get this story out there before someone else does as quickly as we can - facts or verification be damned"  

Even before the advent of social media and before the internet was the main source of everyones news the Murdoch papers went further right and Fairfax papers went completely left. It was probably less a reflection on them than the general public who only read what they agree with. The papers were just satisfying a demand.

Once everyone started getting their news manly from the net, the papers stopped making money and as a result they spent less money on quality journalism. The Australian is an exception in my opinion (I know most of you will find it too far right) the content and journalism is fantastic but it is running at a massive loss. Murdoch seems happy to subsidise it.

And now as you point out the main news outlets are much more concerned about breaking a story first than fact checking or caring about the content. In a way it justifies Trumps prolific tweeting and he is beating a pathetic media at its own game. He'll get his own news out before any of them can.

 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

10 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Even before the advent of social media and before the internet was the main source of everyones news the Murdoch papers went further right and Fairfax papers went completely left. It was probably less a reflection on them than the general public who only read what they agree with. The papers were just satisfying a demand.

Once everyone started getting their news manly from the net, the papers stopped making money and as a result they spent less money on quality journalism. The Australian is an exception in my opinion (I know most of you will find it too far right) the content and journalism is fantastic but it is running at a massive loss. Murdoch seems happy to subsidise it.

And now as you point out the main news outlets are much more concerned about breaking a story first than fact checking or caring about the content. In a way it justifies Trumps prolific tweeting and he is beating a pathetic media at its own game. He'll get his own news out before any of them can.

 

As I said, 'fake news'

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

As I said, 'fake news'

lol yeah.

Wrecker's argument is fine for the most part, but unfortunately falls down at the end because Trump's tweets are often misleading and false in their own right.

Part of the problem is that people then take those tweets as gospel.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

7 minutes ago, Choke said:

lol yeah.

Wrecker's argument is fine for the most part, but unfortunately falls down at the end because Trump's tweets are often misleading and false in their own right.

Part of the problem is that people then take those tweets as gospel.

Notwithstanding that the man is a recidivist bankrupt; American banks won't lend him any money and from the date of his inauguration, his national security adviser falls on his sword, his Deputy Attorney-General Sessions has been recused and his media adviser, Kellyanne Conway speaks of 'alternative facts' - maybe channeling Donny Rumsfeld.  Yep, the good ole boys just love him.  Good luck to them  ........... they're gonna need it.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

39 minutes ago, Choke said:

lol yeah.

Wrecker's argument is fine for the most part, but unfortunately falls down at the end because Trump's tweets are often misleading and false in their own right.

Part of the problem is that people then take those tweets as gospel.

I don't think my argument falls down. I'm saying Trump beats an often misleading and false media at their own game. He gets his own news out first. Who knows if its factual, completely misleading or if he even beliefs it himself. 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

30 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Notwithstanding that the man is a recidivist bankrupt; American banks won't lend him any money and from the date of his inauguration, his national security adviser falls on his sword, his Deputy Attorney-General Sessions has been recused and his media adviser, Kellyanne Conway speaks of 'alternative facts' - maybe channeling Donny Rumsfeld.  Yep, the good ole boys just love him.  Good luck to them  ........... they're gonna need it.

That's ok the Russian ones will... 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

1 minute ago, Wrecker45 said:

That's ok the Russian ones will... 

He denies any links to the Ruskies.

[nutbean 8,837]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

I don't think my argument falls down. I'm saying Trump beats an often misleading and false media at their own game. He gets his own news out first. Who knows if its factual, completely misleading or if he even beliefs it himself. 

What really has me scratching my head is the intellectual rigor that goes into what Trump says and what Trump tweets.

I read with interest what the likes of Biffen, Prodee and yourself write and as you are aware I don't lean the same way. But I have to take what is said  and go and do homework and try and understand where assertions are coming from and how positions have been arrived at. At times it not all that easy and clearly there is no black and white - just lots of shades of gray. Two sides to every argument.

With Trump he just says stuff that you know is just plain wrong, he has made up on the spot  and plainly contradicts what he said in the past. Prime example - "I have no relationship with Putin" - 

I guess that I get that all Politicians  lie  - I just want it to take a little more work to catch them out than it does with Trump.

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by nutbean

[Biffen 12,323]

Surveys recorded 88% of news articles were anti-Trump across the USA.

Of those- many were Vox pops of ordinary citizens.

I'm not sure what the Russian story is all about- is it a communist scare coming from democrats?

I'm sure both sides used dirty tricks,including surveillance - so fair game.

Is it because Putin is not into Pride marches ?

Or are the media digging deep and finding nothing apart from " he eats steak over cooked and smothers it in ketchup".

The media cannot expect anything but contempt for their political coverage-they are meant to report facts,not embellish,editorialise and prophecise.Never seen a greater pack of pathetic sheep get something so wrong in my life.

The Donald treats them with contempt because they've earnt it.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

7 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Surveys recorded 88% of news articles were anti-Trump across the USA.

Of those- many were Vox pops of ordinary citizens.

I'm not sure what the Russian story is all about- is it a communist scare coming from democrats?

I'm sure both sides used dirty tricks,including surveillance - so fair game.

Is it because Putin is not into Pride marches ?

Or are the media digging deep and finding nothing apart from " he eats steak over cooked and smothers it in ketchup".

The media cannot expect anything but contempt for their political coverage-they are meant to report facts,not embellish,editorialise and prophecise.Never seen a greater pack of pathetic sheep get something so wrong in my life.

The Donald treats them with contempt because they've earnt it.

 

The story about the Russians has several issues:

1 - A normal citizen of a country cannot conduct diplomacy with a foreign power. This is a problem for Trump as 4 (I think?) of his campaign members are believed to have had contact with the Russian ambassador. If they made promises to him then this violates the Logan Act and is a criminal offence. It is suspicious because Putin did not retaliate after Obama sanctioned him after the Russian hacks. It has the appearance of someone from the Trump campaign telling the Russians "don't retaliate, we'll make it better once we're in power". A private citizen cannot say these things to a foreign diplomat. It's illegal. All circumstantial, but warrants investigation.

2 - Flynn and Sessions both denied having contact with the Russians, but evidence has shown that they did. Flynn resigned over it. Sessions has recused himself of any future investigations that involve the Russians. Sessions outright lied to his confirmation committee about this. This is unacceptable for a US Attorney General. This evidence was obtained because of US surveillance of the Russians, not of the campaign members.

3 - The contact between Trump's campaign and Russian officials is circumspect because the CIA has stated that the Russians attempted to influence the US election by hacking the DNC. If the wire taps of Russian agents reveal that members of Trump's campaign were aware of the Russian hacking efforts, or worse that Trump himself was aware of it, it would delegitimise Trump's candidacy and subsequent presidency. Even rusted on Trump supporters would be upset if they found out he used a foreign power to hack his opponents to win an election*.

4 - Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, resigned from that position after it became public that the FBI and the Justice Department were investigating his company for links to corruption in the Ukrane (which had a pro-Russian president at the time). Trump's public explanation was that Manafort had become a distraction, however in light of what has happened now, it looks worse than it might have been.

5 - Trump has not released details of his finances and may be benefiting from Russian involvements (loans to his businesses/family etc).

6 - There is bipartisan support for the congressional investigation into the Trump campaign's Russian ties. No one wants a president who's subject to foreign influence.

 

*To be clear, I don't know if Trump knew about this or not. I'm only saying that because the ramifications of this are so massive, they have to be looked at.

[Biffen 12,323]

Presumably these conversations were business related.Trump having admitted he hosted a beauty pageant there.

If he spoke with Putin it would be through an interpretor surely.

Is there some suggestion he passed on state secrets to the Kremlin?

If he did so those secrets were leaked by the Obama administration as Trump was then a citizen and not a politician.

If some journalist has proof of any wrongdoing they would print it.Otherwise it's only more smear .

The sackings by Trump were more for perceived weakness in dealing with a malicious media as I view it.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

22 minutes ago, Choke said:

 

The story about the Russians has several issues:

1 - A normal citizen of a country cannot conduct diplomacy with a foreign power. This is a problem for Trump as 4 (I think?) of his campaign members are believed to have had contact with the Russian ambassador. If they made promises to him then this violates the Logan Act and is a criminal offence. It is suspicious because Putin did not retaliate after Obama sanctioned him after the Russian hacks. It has the appearance of someone from the Trump campaign telling the Russians "don't retaliate, we'll make it better once we're in power". A private citizen cannot say these things to a foreign diplomat. It's illegal. All circumstantial, but warrants investigation.

2 - Flynn and Sessions both denied having contact with the Russians, but evidence has shown that they did. Flynn resigned over it. Sessions has recused himself of any future investigations that involve the Russians. Sessions outright lied to his confirmation committee about this. This is unacceptable for a US Attorney General. This evidence was obtained because of US surveillance of the Russians, not of the campaign members.

3 - The contact between Trump's campaign and Russian officials is circumspect because the CIA has stated that the Russians attempted to influence the US election by hacking the DNC. If the wire taps of Russian agents reveal that members of Trump's campaign were aware of the Russian hacking efforts, or worse that Trump himself was aware of it, it would delegitimise Trump's candidacy and subsequent presidency. Even rusted on Trump supporters would be upset if they found out he used a foreign power to hack his opponents to win an election*.

4 - Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, resigned from that position after it became public that the FBI and the Justice Department were investigating his company for links to corruption in the Ukrane (which had a pro-Russian president at the time). Trump's public explanation was that Manafort had become a distraction, however in light of what has happened now, it looks worse than it might have been.

5 - Trump has not released details of his finances and may be benefiting from Russian involvements (loans to his businesses/family etc).

6 - There is bipartisan support for the congressional investigation into the Trump campaign's Russian ties. No one wants a president who's subject to foreign influence.

 

*To be clear, I don't know if Trump knew about this or not. I'm only saying that because the ramifications of this are so massive, they have to be looked at.

I'm not arguing either way Choke just interested how you know?

[nutbean 8,837]

16 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Presumably these conversations were business related.Trump having admitted he hosted a beauty pageant there.

If he spoke with Putin it would be through an interpretor surely.

Is there some suggestion he passed on state secrets to the Kremlin?

If he did so those secrets were leaked by the Obama administration as Trump was then a citizen and not a politician.

If some journalist has proof of any wrongdoing they would print it.Otherwise it's only more smear .

The sackings by Trump were more for perceived weakness in dealing with a malicious media as I view it.

good thing you are not in the media or you could be accused of  "embellishing, editorialising and prophecising".

Presumably Trumps conversations were business related ? First - who would know what he talked about with Putin.  But Trump has come out and said he never talked with Putin. Oh wait..yes he said talked with Putin. Oh wait... no he said he didn't talk with Putin....

Is there some suggestion he passed on state secrets? I haven't seen that written anywhere so your next comment is irrelevant about the Obama administration leaking. 

The inferences are surrounding the hacking and also not to retaliate against the expulsion of diplomats - not leaking state secrets.

Journalists correctly pointed out that members of Trumps campaign had contact with Russian officials when there was denial that they had. 

As to your view that the sackings ( of which there has been one major sacking - Gen Flynn) were because of weakness  - well that is one view - but another view is this  -  "I was disappointed to learn that ... the facts that had been conveyed to me by Gen. Flynn were inaccurate. But we honor Gen. Flynn's long service to the United States of America, and I fully support the President's decision to ask for his resignation,"  - VC Pence  - he lied about his contact with Russian officials and it wasn't a about perceived weakness in dealing with the media  - he lied and was a political liability - they had to cut him loose.

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by nutbean

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

26 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Presumably these conversations were business related.Trump having admitted he hosted a beauty pageant there.

If he spoke with Putin it would be through an interpretor surely.

Is there some suggestion he passed on state secrets to the Kremlin?

If he did so those secrets were leaked by the Obama administration as Trump was then a citizen and not a politician.

If some journalist has proof of any wrongdoing they would print it.Otherwise it's only more smear .

The sackings by Trump were more for perceived weakness in dealing with a malicious media as I view it.

I said nothing about state secrets. Lol why bring it up?

The issue (or part of it) is violating the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from conducting diplomatic affairs with other nations.

There is no proof, or any that has been released. All investigations start somewhere, and this one has started with the US surveillance tapes.

If they find something, there will be huge issues for the Trump white house. If they find nothing, we move on. It's just an investigation at this point, and the circumstances surrounding these calls warrant it. Both sides of congress agree that it is worth investigating.

 

 

Which brings me to:

 

13 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm not arguing either way Choke just interested how you know?

 

Here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html

Second paragraph:

The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.

 

 

The article says the calls between Flynn and the Russians contained nothing illegal.

We are still waiting for information from the calls on the other 3 (again, I think it's 3 others) Trump campaign officials.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Common decency is all one asks for from Frump; fake news or not.  A U.S. Army veteran injured while serving 2 tours of duty in Afghanistan is fighting not to be deported to Mexico.  http://abc7chicago.com/news/veteran-fighting-deportation-after-2-tours-in-afghanistan/1739129/

Sorry Biff, I forgot this is only a contrived story perpetrated by the leftie fourth estate.

 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

6 minutes ago, Choke said:

 

 

 

Here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html

Second paragraph:

The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.

 

 

Who did the US officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity speak to? The media? 

Forgive me if I am not 100% convinced. Would you believe counterintelligence operatives who spoke anonymously if they said Trump was monitored during the election campaign?

 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

19 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Who did the US officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity speak to? The media? 

Forgive me if I am not 100% convinced. Would you believe counterintelligence operatives who spoke anonymously if they said Trump was monitored during the election campaign?

 

FBI director James B. Comey asked the Justice Department to publicly reject President Donald Trump's assertion that the president Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Trump's phones, senior US officials said. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/fbi-director-james-comey-asks-justice-department-to-reject-donald-trumps-wiretapping-claim-20170305-gurb08.html

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

11 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Who did the US officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity speak to? The media? 

Forgive me if I am not 100% convinced. Would you believe counterintelligence operatives who spoke anonymously if they said Trump was monitored during the election campaign?

 

Not necessarily. However, if a counterintelligence operate who spoke anonymously said such a thing, and then Trump resigned because of it - it'd be a pretty good indication that those conversations took place wouldn't you agree?

That's what happened here - with Flynn. The tapes clearly exist and he spoke to the Russians - he resigned because he lied about it to the Vice President. If the tapes did not exist, then he did not lie, and he'd still have a job.

All we're looking for is an investigation, which is what's happening.

My posts were in response to Biffen asking what the deal was with the Russians. I believe I have explained it sufficiently and provided enough information for an agreement at least that the investigation is warranted, no?

If it comes back that the other 3 had conversations that were an innocuous as Flynn's, then fine - no issue. But if it is established that they violated the Logan Act, then they need to be prosecuted.

This isn't some invention by the left wing media. Congress is investigating this - they need to know if their president or his staff are compromised.

FWIW I hope they aren't. Despite the immense satisfaction I'd get from finding out that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians (and subsequent impeachment), it'd be a terrible thing for Democracy and the USA. I think if Trump is to be impeached, I believe it will be because of financial conflicts of interest. I really hope it's not because he's in bed with the Russians.