The Manchurian President

[cernjSHU]

lol...

2-Did I not say if the find something than let the chips fall where they may? You have to admit there has been a constant trail of "Breaking News" that has so far gone nowhere.

This is hysterical. Trump is in office for less than 4 months and the "Breaking News" has gone nowhere?

In June 1972, the break-in to the DNC offices happened. Due to the media's digging and "Deepthroat" information, the "liberal media" began to uncover connections to the Watergate break in and the Nixon re-election committee. It took until August 1974, for Nixon to resign. Over two years to investigate and get enough of proof. So, when you say the constant breaking news has gone nowhere, this is only the beginning. Investigations take years.

 

[HALL85]

This is hysterical. Trump is in office for less than 4 months and the "Breaking News" has gone nowhere?

In June 1972, the break-in to the DNC offices happened. Due to the media's digging and "Deepthroat" information, the "liberal media" began to uncover connections to the Watergate break in and the Nixon re-election committee. It took until August 1974, for Nixon to resign. Over two years to investigate and get enough of proof. So, when you say the constant breaking news has gone nowhere, this is only the beginning. Investigations take years.

Nice try....Most of these allegations go back over a year during the campaign... when does the MSM ever go back and correct their "breaking news" when it was wrong?

 

[Piratz]

I think the point was hit earlier in the thread. Trump alienates many and usually gets away with it because he has all the leverage. He doesn't in this case.

Fueling the media's drive is really the leaks coming from inside.

Rachel Maddow's unveiling of Trump's 2005 tax returns - where he paid what, $38M in taxes - was the cherry on top for me.

I really cannot tolerate either Fox News or MSNBC.

 

[cernjSHU]

Nice try....Most of these allegations go back over a year during the campaign... when does the MSM ever go back and correct their "breaking news" when it was wrong?

What allegations do you speak of? I know there are so many. However, Russian ties to the Trump campaign go back to the Republican convention. Wikileaks and Russia - August 2016, Russian ties to Flynn maybe 5 to 8 months. Firing of Yates - three months, Trump trying to get Comey to drop Flynn investigation Feb 2017, Trump firing Comey, Trump revealing classified information to Russia this past week. All of this is less than a year. But the point of the matter is that investigations take a long time. We are at the infancy of the investigation.

 

[knowknow456]

I don't understand the concern with "Breaking news".

It's nothing more than news that has not previously been reported. About an hour ago Freddie Freeman was hit by a pitch, broke his wrist and will miss ten weeks. That's breaking news. If he misses 12 weeks, I don't expect an apology from ESPN.

 

[Piratz]

All of the networks have taken liberties with "Breaking News". It now runs as an icon for an entire evening if news broke at 4PM, for instance.

Basically the "news" becomes whatever take any one of a dozen different guests and pundits have on the topic for the string of evening broadcasts.

 

[Piratz]

However, Russian ties to the Trump campaign go back to the Republican convention. Wikileaks and Russia - August 2016, Russian ties to Flynn maybe 5 to 8 months. Firing of Yates - three months, Trump trying to get Comey to drop Flynn investigation Feb 2017, Trump firing Comey, Trump revealing classified information to Russia this past week. All of this is less than a year. But the point of the matter is that investigations take a long time. We are at the infancy of the investigation.

I agree we're in the infancy of the investigation. Many of the key people in Trump's campaign have such deep, deep ties to Russia that it would be hard to believe not a single one of them is implicated in anything. Paul-freaking-Manafort was his campaign manager. I mean, my God. Now Flynn is leaking.

So that's one part.

The other part is Trump's own doing since he's become President. All tied to the same issue, which is Trump himself. Do anything to win the election, then do anything to fight off any shade thrown on it, which has now led him to run an chaotic White House, with likely a documented attempt to obstruct justice and overstep his Presidential powers by trying to interfere with an investigation implicating that election. It's who Trump is.

And lastly, the WikiLeaks emails surely had a negative effect. But nothing affected Hillary more than Hillary. The recklessness of the email fiasco, the DNC's inability to connect with the voter base the way even Bernie Sanders did, their stunning lack of recognition of what was going on in the Midwest (even Michael Moore saw it months earlier) and so on and so forth. The Russians did not affect the voting machines. They hacked an email server and revealed typical idiocy in politics.

Trump won thanks to a regional campaign and repressed voter turnout, the result of the negative impression of both candidates (and still lost the Popular vote by 3M!). Amazing to think 54% of ballots cast were against Trump.

 

[HALL85]

What allegations do you speak of? I know there are so many. However, Russian ties to the Trump campaign go back to the Republican convention. Wikileaks and Russia - August 2016, Russian ties to Flynn maybe 5 to 8 months. Firing of Yates - three months, Trump trying to get Comey to drop Flynn investigation Feb 2017, Trump firing Comey, Trump revealing classified information to Russia this past week. All of this is less than a year. But the point of the matter is that investigations take a long time. We are at the infancy of the investigation.

You really need to put down the CNN talking points. Both parties wanted Comey out. Yates would have been gone just like any other administration, but she defied his order. You would have fired her too. I'm not going to come to any conclusions on any of this until the facts come out and the investigations are completed. I'm fine with Mueller in charge and will defer to his findings rather than the MSM BS.

 

[cernjSHU]

You really need to put down the CNN talking points. Both parties wanted Comey out. Yates would have been gone just like any other administration, but she defied his order. You would have fired her too. I'm not going to come to any conclusions on any of this until the facts come out and the investigations are completed. I'm fine with Mueller in charge and will defer to his findings rather than the MSM BS.

Hall85, I replied to your post in which you said most of the allegations against Trump are over a year old. So, I listed the allegations that are being investigated and none were over a year old. No talking points, sir. Just a time line to respond to you.

So, CNN and MSNBC, NY Times and Washington Post are all fake news. Nothing is credible that they report. I get your view point.

 

[Piratz]

I think what the MSM is usually guilty of is taking a report and then extrapolating it into a larger story. I don't think what they report is "fake", it's just spun contextually and floats out there as innuendo forever even after it is debunked.

The Maddow pursuit of Trump's income taxes is a prime example. I also thought the abortion topic was too after Chris Matthews got him into a "gotcha" type of hypothetical when asking if a woman would be pushed if abortion was against the law. Trump said yes because in that case she'd be breaking the law, but they selectively did not provide context. How long did they run that he would basically jail women?

Fox News is even worse, imo. Hannity is a joke and totally unwatchable.

I actually find CNN to be the most bearable.

The problem is none of these are news networks. They're opinion channels.

 

[donnie_baseball]

You would not have been that forgiving with Obama if his campaign had 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians during the campaign, after the Russians successfully influenced the election in his favor.


Indeed although I am not sure Pence walks away clean after this as well. Little doubt in my mind that all of them know about Russia helping them... only question is if we can prove collusion or not.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. No one will deny that the Russians interfered, in some way, with the election (Wikileaks being the most obvious). "In his favor" is a matter of debate, since there has been no proof of the Russians swinging WI, PA, MI, FL, etc. I wasn't going to vote for Hillary or Trump, but I was grateful Podesta's emails, detailing how they wanted a "Catholic Spring," were exposed.

It didn't surprise me, but those emails verified the attitude of the left, and particularly the HRC campaign. Their views and their approach is why they lost, not some emails that confirmed those things.

 

[Merge]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. No one will deny that the Russians interfered, in some way, with the election (Wikileaks being the most obvious). "In his favor" is a matter of debate

No it's not. Our intelligence community's assessment is that the Russians tried to influence the election to help Trump win. The details outside of what was released through wikileaks is still unknown but Comey did testify that there was additional classified info which aided in their conclusion. Sure it is hard to quantify the magnitude, and there were many failures on the left as well, but the Russians tried to influence the election to help Trump win.

In context though, my post was responding to Hall85 saying that he thought Trump was clean because the investigation is still going on. Sure, you can say I am seeing everything through my liberal glasses.... but.... had a democrat been elected under a cloud where our intelligence community says the Russians helped them win, after denying their campaign had ANY contact with the Russians multiple times which was proven to be false not once but 18 times (that we know of so far)... Some right leaning folk on this board would be crying foul and rightfully so.

 

[Piratz]

Evidently Flynn is going to invoke the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying. Lol.

 

[HALL85]

In context though, my post was responding to Hall85 saying that he thought Trump was clean because the investigation is still going on. Sure, you can say I am seeing everything through my liberal glasses.... but.... had a democrat been elected under a cloud where our intelligence community says the Russians helped them win, after denying their campaign had ANY contact with the Russians multiple times which was proven to be false not once but 18 times (that we know of so far)... Some right leaning folk on this board would be crying foul and rightfully so.

I didn't say Trump is clean...I said thus far on what they have (or haven't got) it wouldn't surprise me if he was cleaner than everyone is predicting. Wake me up when there is proof of collusion. Just because there were contacts really doesn't mean much at this point. You don't think the Clinton's had any contacts with foreign governments during the campaign?

 

[cernjSHU]

I didn't say Trump is clean...I said thus far on what they have (or haven't got) it wouldn't surprise me if he was cleaner than everyone is predicting. Wake me up when there is proof of collusion. Just because there were contacts really doesn't mean much at this point. You don't think the Clinton's had any contacts with foreign governments during the campaign?

No. I don't think Clinton had any foreign contact that hacked the Republican National Committee and tried to influence the outcome of the election. As a matter of fact, it is only Russia that did it.

Any hacking of whether it's a hack on the Republicans or the Democrats to influence an election is an attack against the US.

Now, the investigation may or may not find evidence iof collusion. However , there had to be collusion with the Russians and the campaign. Otherwise, the love fest of a thug politician like Putin, who murders journalists and political opposition, makes no sense at all.

 

[HALL85]

No. I don't think Clinton had any foreign contact that hacked the Republican National Committee and tried to influence the outcome of the election. As a matter of fact, it is only Russia that did it.

Any hacking of whether it's a hack on the Republicans or the Democrats to influence an election is an attack against the US.

Now, the investigation may or may not find evidence iof collusion. However , there had to be collusion with the Russians and the campaign. Otherwise, the love fest of a thug politician like Putin, who murders journalists and political opposition, makes no sense at all.

Of course hacking is an attack, but you've already made your own conclusions about collusion. I guess evidence doesn't matter...

 

[Merge]

Of course hacking is an attack, but you've already made your own conclusions about collusion. I guess evidence doesn't matter...

So don't opine until the investigation is over then?

Look... Russia tried to help trump win.

Trump team denied contact with Russia many times, which were lies and such contacts took place a minimum of 18 times.

Trump fires the man leading the investigation and tells Russian officials that his firing will take pressure off him.

Trump asked the directors of national intelligence and the NSA to publicly deny that there was any evidence of collusion during an in estimation by the FBI.

Sure we can all wait until they finish the investigation, but LOTS of smoke around.

 

[HALL85]

So don't opine until the investigation is over then?

Look... Russia tried to help trump win.

Trump team denied contact with Russia many times, which were lies and such contacts took place a minimum of 18 times.

Trump fires the man leading the investigation and tells Russian officials that his firing will take pressure off him.

Trump asked the directors of national intelligence and the NSA to publicly deny that there was any evidence of collusion during an in estimation by the FBI.

Sure we can all wait until they finish the investigation, but LOTS of smoke around.

Smoke like you're Trump "ceiling"?? lol

 

[Merge]

Smoke like you're Trump "ceiling"?? lol

My ceiling comment was speculation from a year ago. I was wrong.

But what does that have to do with anything we are talking about here?

 

[HALL85]

My ceiling comment was speculation from a year ago. I was wrong.

But what does that have to do with anything we are talking about here?

Just pointing out you've been wrong before. Partisanship can cause that...

 

[Merge]

Pointing out that I have been wrong before? Seriously? I didn't realize we weren't allowed to post opinions if we have ever been wrong here... speaking of which, I remember someone arguing with me in 2012 when I said a solid jobs report could show improvement and help Obama win.

Keep living that fantasy hoping for that solid jobs report in September and October...everything points to the contrary.

I expect Obama to win...close popular vote, but he will take what he needs in the swing states. As crazy as it seems, the last jobs report may have a material impact on turnout, and thus the result.

 

[HALL85]

Pointing out that I have been wrong before? Seriously? I didn't realize we weren't allowed to post opinions if we have ever been wrong here... speaking of which, I remember someone arguing with me in 2012 when I said a solid jobs report could show improvement and help Obama win.

Tell me you spent all night searching my posting history… LOL

 

[Merge]

Took about 1 minute this morning. Threads are in order by date.

Not that hard buddy.

Now stop posting cause you were wrong once.

 

[donnie_baseball]

No it's not. Our intelligence community's assessment is that the Russians tried to influence the election to help Trump win. The details outside of what was released through wikileaks is still unknown but Comey did testify that there was additional classified info which aided in their conclusion. Sure it is hard to quantify the magnitude, and there were many failures on the left as well, but the Russians tried to influence the election to help Trump win.

In context though, my post was responding to Hall85 saying that he thought Trump was clean because the investigation is still going on. Sure, you can say I am seeing everything through my liberal glasses.... but.... had a democrat been elected under a cloud where our intelligence community says the Russians helped them win, after denying their campaign had ANY contact with the Russians multiple times which was proven to be false not once but 18 times (that we know of so far)... Some right leaning folk on this board would be crying foul and rightfully so.

What I meant was, whether or not it actually resulted in tilting the election in Trump's favor is clearly equivocal.

 

[Merge]

What I meant was, whether or not it actually resulted in tilting the election in Trump's favor is clearly equivocal.

We can certainly debate the impact it had but we don't even know all of the details yet.

But we do know the Russians put resources towards trying to help Trump win. Do you think they consider their investment to have been a worthwhile one?

 

[donnie_baseball]

We can certainly debate the impact it had but we don't even know all of the details yet.

But we do know the Russians put resources towards trying to help Trump win. Do you think they consider their investment to have been a worthwhile one?

Who knows? There have been myriad plausible factors floated as to WHY HRC lost. It's quite likely she would have lost without Russia's interference.

 

[Merge]

Who knows? There have been myriad plausible factors floated as to WHY HRC lost. It's quite likely she would have lost without Russia's interference.

Sure it is debatable...
I don't think they would have bothered if that were the case, but at face value it looks like everything they did, from hacking to a disinformation campaign worked.

 

[HALL85]

At the end of the day, HRC was a fatally flawed candidate with an awful strategy. We can blame the Russians or Comey all we want but she needs to look in the mirror. I find it ironic that she is quick to blame others for supposed interference, when the DNC and HRC interfered with CNN rigging the debates and blocking Bernie from having a fair shot.

 

[Piratz]

What is the collusion? The Trump Campaign had advanced knowledge of the Russian hack? Were they after-the-fact beneficiaries who did not report it? Very interested to know as I do believe there was knowledge of it given how close the individuals in that campaign were to Russia.

I think Trump had a bit of a revealing slip in the presser he gave last week. I believe it was the first time he indicated a line between himself and the campaign. Once all the evidence is gathered from the multiple investigations, that will be the line of demarcation.

He has been adamant he knew nothing and nobody had any involvement. That's the most Nixonian part of this.

 

[Merge]

At the end of the day, none of this is about Hillary.

We know Russia tried to help. Only question is if there was collusion or not.

A couple quotes from Brennan's testimony today.

"I am aware of intelligence that revealed contact between Russian officials and US persons in the Trump campaign...that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals."

"Russians tried to influence the election so the will of the American people was not going to be realized"

None of you should be ok with that.

 

[shu09]

Nobody's ok with it, but it also doesn't mean there should be a witch hunt against the president.

 

[cernjSHU]

What wi

Nobody's ok with it, but it also doesn't mean there should be a witch hunt against the president.

What witch hunt? An investigation must be commenced or else it would be gross dereliction of duty. The President put himself squarely in the middle of it. Stop with this nonsense that it is a witch hunt. Fact: that there was Russians hacked the DNC. Fact: Russians tried to influence the elections. Fact: Flynn had contacts with the Russians and lied and was taking money as a foreign agent. Fact: After informing that Flynn was under investigation, Trump fired Yates. Fact: Trump fired Comey. How in the world can anyone say this is a witch hunt? You have to admit that there is a lot of smoke here. Thus, an investigation MUST be done.

 

[shu09]

What witch hunt?

Have you been hibernating for the last four months? The media is out to get this guy. Anyone without an agenda can see it's clear as day.

I didn't vote for him or Hillary but my god, he deserves a chance to succeed. The media has been trying to bring him down from day one.

 

[Merge]

Have you been hibernating for the last four months? The media is out to get this guy. Anyone without an agenda can see it's clear as day.

I didn't vote for him or Hillary but my god, he deserves a chance to succeed.

Does he though?
If this investigation leads to a place where his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the election, will you still think he deserves a chance?

It is not a witch hunt when the director of the CIA says that the FBI should be investigating contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia because of their contacts.

The Media did not fire Comey in the middle of an investigation. The media is not just making this all up. They are being fed information from within the white house and intelligence community, we can draw our own conclusions as to why.

 

[knowknow456]

Clinton and the Democratic leadership should definitely look in the mirror. That being said, I am opposed to a political party colluding with another nation to win an election. The investigation will shed light into that possibility and I am willing to wait to hear the outcome.

President Trump came to office with an ambitious agenda; he was naive to think there would not be push back from the "swamp". Being criticized is part of being President. Maybe it seems like a witch hunt but that is the price of completing his agenda.

 

[shu09]

Does he though?
If this investigation leads to a place where his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the election, will you still think he deserves a chance?

Depends on who the individuals are if that's the case. If he isn't involved, yes he would deserve a chance in that case.

I have a hard time believing any American would collude with a foreign entity to win an election.

 

[cernjSHU]

Depends on who the individuals are if that's the case. If he isn't involved, yes he would deserve a chance in that case.

I have a hard time believing any American would collude with a foreign entity to win an election.

That is a very naive statement. FBI agent Robert Hansen handed over top secret info to the Russians. Oklahoma bombers and other home grown terrorists.

 

[shu09]

That is a very naive statement. FBI agent Robert Hansen handed over top secret info to the Russians. Oklahoma bombers and other home grown terrorists.

What does that have to do with swaying an election? This is an entirely different level.

 

[HALL85]

At the end of the day, none of this is about Hillary.

We know Russia tried to help. Only question is if there was collusion or not.

A couple quotes from Brennan's testimony today.

"I am aware of intelligence that revealed contact between Russian officials and US persons in the Trump campaign...that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals."

"Russians tried to influence the election so the will of the American people was not going to be realized"

None of you should be ok with that.

No one is okay with a foreign country or anyone influencing our elections. Let the investigation play out and hopefully all sides can accept the outcome. My guess is that partisanship will prevail even if there is ultimately no proof of collusion. Are you okay with the DNC trying to influence the primary? Or the U.S. government trying to influence a foreign election?

I do give Trump credit for continuing to move his agenda forward despite this distraction which will go on for awhile. And yes, it is about Hillary, because if the Dems propped up any decent candidate, this would be a non-issue.

 

[Merge]

No one is okay with a foreign country or anyone influencing our elections. Let the investigation play out and hopefully all sides can accept the outcome. My guess is that partisanship will prevail even if there is ultimately no proof of collusion.

I guess that is my question to you though. Why would that be your guess as of now? Their campaign has made every effort to conceal their contacts with Russians and blatantly lied about them. Sessions, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, and Pence have all lied about these contacts. Why are they lying about the relationships?

Not sure if you watched any of the Brennan testimony yesterday but you should. The director if the CIA was concerned people within the Trump campaign could be compromised enough to ask the FBI to investigate the contacts. Trump asks Comey to stop the investigation and when he continues with it, Trump then asks the director of the NSA to go out and contradict Comey. He then fires Comey and tells the Russian officials that firing him will take the heat off.

Of course the investigation will settle whoever it settles, but you are ignoring gigantic clouds of smoke in your assessment that there was no collusion.

Are you okay with the DNC trying to influence the primary? Or the U.S. government trying to influence a foreign election?

Of course not, but those are not even similar comparisons.