After today's hearing, it's more clear than ever there has to be an independent commission with subpoena power. Republicans will not do this no matter what comes out.
Sean Spicer just said Paul Manafort played a "limited role" in the campaign. He was the goddamn campaign manager through the convention!!!
He also said the difference between Obama's golf outings and Trump's is "how you use the game of gold to advance US interests". This is a Monty Python sketch.
Sean Spicer just said Paul Manafort played a "limited role" in the campaign. He was the goddamn campaign manager through the convention!!!
Err you do realize that Obama and Hillary have had far more dealings with Russia then anyone in Trump's campaign.
Lol democrats still chasing the Russian narrative.
"Do you have any evidence that Russia changed the votes in any State" Rogers:No Comey:No
It seem's like this direct exchange would be focused on about anything of Russian interference in vote counts (which is so laughable if you understand how voting works in America).
Lol no Hillary and Obama never colluded with Russians to fix the election like it looks like Trumps goons did
The only evidence of election fixing is from the DNC.
Not 'allegations' but hard evidence.
Strange how actual evidence of DNC fixing the elections is of no high priority.
How did the DNC "fix" the election for Hillary?? Whatever rules were in place for the primary were there LONG before the 2016 contest ever took place. And no one has said any votes were shifted. No one has made that claim. But Comey DID say today they tried to penetrate registration. And Trump's campaign is under FBI investigation and has been for 8 months.
How did the DNC "fix" the election for Hillary?? Whatever rules were in place for the primary were there LONG before the 2016 contest ever took place. And no one has said any votes were shifted. No one has made that claim.
For starters, having the entire DNC, which is supposed to be impartial, Go after Bernie Sanders and favoring Clinton is unethical on the face of it.
Also, sitting Presidents campaigning for one side is far more suspicious then most things and honestly should be considered unethical too.
How did the DNC "fix" the election for Hillary?? Whatever rules were in place for the primary were there LONG before the 2016 contest ever took place. And no one has said any votes were shifted. No one has made that claim.
For starters, having the entire DNC, which is supposed to be impartial, Go after Bernie Sanders and favoring Clinton is unethical on the face of it.
Hillary has taken foreign donations from many countries, including Russia.
And yes that is both illegal and unethical, she also was actually Secretary of State.
I'm sure you consider that far worse, because it is.
If anyone honestly believes that after 30 years of witch hunts and investigations that if anyone had anything that could stick on Hillary Clinton she wouldn't have been charged with a crime by now, I don't know what to tell you. The entirety of the Republican Party and most of the media has been trying to claim Hillary's scalp for years. If they had anything, it would have happened.They don't, never have.
If anyone honestly believes that after 30 years of witch hunts and investigations that if anyone had anything that could stick on Hillary Clinton she wouldn't have been charged with a crime by now, I don't know what to tell you. The entirety of the Republican Party and most of the media has been trying to claim Hillary's scalp for years. If they had anything, it would have happened.They don't, never have.
The act of taking donations as Secretary of State is literally illegal.
It is not just illegal, it is specifically unconstitutional There is an actual Constitutional Amendment specifically addressing that and it is still relevant today.
One of the reasons why many Americans loathe Hillary is exactly that she has avoided any punishment for 30 years over what is clearly illegal and unconstitutional.
In the same token, do you see Bush or Obama ever facing trial for their wars? or are they innocent for virtue of the failure of our Government to hold them accountable?
The absurdity is treating Trump like a criminal over what amounts to at most, suspicion for now, but make a pass for Hillary who actually did do exactly what your complaining about and is illegal by American Law.
If anyone honestly believes that after 30 years of witch hunts and investigations that if anyone had anything that could stick on Hillary Clinton she wouldn't have been charged with a crime by now, I don't know what to tell you. The entirety of the Republican Party and most of the media has been trying to claim Hillary's scalp for years. If they had anything, it would have happened.They don't, never have.
The act of taking donations as Secretary of State is literally illegal.
It is not just illegal, it is specifically unconstitutional There is an actual Constitutional Amendment specifically addressing that and it is still relevant today.
One of the reasons why many Americans loathe Hillary is exactly that she has avoided any punishment for 30 years over what is clearly illegal and unconstitutional.
In the same token, do you see Bush or Obama ever facing trial for their wars? or are they innocent for virtue of the failure of our Government to hold them accountable?
Do you get paid by Russians and or Trump why do you keep defending his corruption? Nobody cares about Hillary she lost, Trump is actively doing stuff and apparently at minimum there are connections to Russia with a lot of his people AND those same people are deceptive about it even lying under oath.
Are you disputing that Hillary has never taken donations from foreign Governments in her time as Secretary of State?
Are you going to continue to conflate the Clinton Foundation with Hillary herself?? Yes, I'm disputing it 100%.
The clinton foundation was an actual charity too with the highest rating not like Trump University or the Trump Foundation which used charity funds to purchase statues of the Donald and had to close after being exposed in New York and other places - a scam.
1. As I said long ago in this thread, no officials have ever said that votes were changed electronically. Russian interference occurred in the form of hacking individuals and selectively leaking information, not changing the vote count.
Whether Trump's friends during the campaign were working with Russians is another matter. Currently, there is no solid evidence of collusion; only vague ties.
2. The Clinton Foundation didn't shut down when Clinton became Secretary of State; it didn't stop accepting donations. But I do not believe it is legally necessary or morally acceptable for the Clinton Foundation to refuse charitable donations because Clinton herself was in office.
If foreign countries were actually donating to Clinton's election campaign, that would be unacceptable. But these donations didn't go to Clinton's future presidential campaign, or into her pocket. They went to a charity that Clinton supported.
The Act of obtaining donations from Foreign Governments as Secretary of State is unconstitutional and Illegal, regardless of whether Foreign Governments term it a charity.
Remarkable that we now condone the loopholes for corruption that evidently we were supposed to be against?
She was not a member of the board either as Secretary or a candidate. And even if I didn't believe this I'd know it to be true because, if she had been, it would have been used to destroy her candidacy within hours of it coming out.
We'll wait and see on Russia. For MONTHS things I have predicted on this forum that have been scoffed at and mocked have continuely come to fruition. Today is yet another example. As of this afternoon, everyone but God himself has revealed Trump to be a bald-faced liar on the Obama wiretapping. I said within minutes of it coming out it was 100% bullshit. I believe I was told it was a "complex issue" and it could have taken place.
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624
By the way, we had a discussion awhile back about libel laws for public figures and the burden of "malice". He WON'T, but Obama absolutely SHOULD sue Trump for libel over his wiretapping claims.
In general the guideline is that those with more institutional power are less protected by libel laws and allowed greater 'comments' by others because of the 1st Amendment.
Presidents are going to be the least figure in society to be protected by libel laws.
In general the guideline is that those with more institutional power are less protected by libel laws and allowed greater 'comments' by others because of the 1st Amendment.
Presidents are going to be the least figure in society to be protected by libel laws.
True in almost every case, unless you are a FORMER President being accused by a sitting one.
He falsely accused his predecessor of a felony simply to try inoculate himself from the Russian ties circling around his Administration. It's unprecedented. But hey, guess what?? Trump again proves just what an incompetent dolt he really is. The hearing today would likely have never even taken place if not for his tweet.
Ivanka is now officially getting security clearance and a West Wing office. We wer EXPLICITLY told after the election Ivanaka was removing herself from this type of job due to her ongoing ties with the family businesses. She is now also fair game for any criticism.
It was a political move to force the media's hand in the Russian Narrative.
Because the Russian Narrative was based on hearsay of wiretaps, so Trump simply challenged them by implying if they were done, Obama would be guilty.
To put it another way, it forces the evident appearance of double standards, The media can exaggerate collusion of Trump and Russia, so Trump can turn it back and say Obama is guilty of wiretapping him.
You can't have it both ways.
If we can exaggerate and imply guilt by no hard evidence per Russia narrative, then Trump can make his accusation with the same line of reasoning.
If we should restrict ourselves to hard evidence, then Trump shouldn't have said what he said, and everyone who promoted the Russian narrative is equally wrong.
It was a political move to force the media's hand in the Russian Narrative.
Because the Russian Narrative was based on hearsay of wiretaps, so Trump simply challenged them by implying if they were done, Obama would be guilty.
To put it another way, it forces the evident appearance of double standards, The media can exaggerate collusion of Trump and Russia, so Trump can turn it back and say Obama is guilty of wiretapping him.
You can't have it both ways.
It's easy for Trump to make an excuse too, since he can just point to news articles that keep promoting the Russian narrative through wiretapping leaks.
Nope.....wrong, wrong, wrong. For the dozenth time, Obama did not and COULD not order an illegal wiretap on Trump Tower, which is what he claimed. If there HAD been a wiretap, it would have been a court approved FISA warrant. Trump did not just claim Obama wiretapped him. He claimed he did so ILLEGALLY, thus being guilty of a Watergate-like crime. Say it with me.....the President does not personally approve wiretaps. And in any case, this one never took place. And none of the Russia leaks source wiretaps other than Flynn, and those conversations are denied by no one.
Nope.....wrong, wrong, wrong. For the dozenth time, Obama did not and COULD not order an illegal wiretap on Trump Tower, which is what he claimed. If there HAD been a wiretap, it would have been a court approved FISA warrant. Trump did not just claim Obama wiretapped him. He claimed he did so ILLEGALLY, thus being guilty of a Watergate-like crime. Say it with me.....the President does not personally approve wiretaps. And in any case, this one never took place. And none of the Russia leaks source wiretaps other than Flynn, and those conversations are denied by no one.
Not addressing my post and calling it wrong doesn't make sense.
The exaggeration and implication of Guilt of Russia-Trump is not based on any hard evidence but at best, guilt by association based on suspicion.
By that act, Trump can accuse Obama even by virtue of the same logic.
Michael Flynn? Ok lol all of Cia. Manafort? Ok Loretta Lynch.
The moment you apply a strict standard to Obama, then you have to apply that to Trump.
If Obama is not guilty of wiretapping, Trump is equally not guilty of any nefarious plot with Russia.
Trump's move was political, to force everyone to apply a double standard and render their own moral arguments flawed.
Comments
Sean Spicer just said Paul Manafort played a "limited role" in the campaign. He was the goddamn campaign manager through the convention!!!
He also said the difference between Obama's golf outings and Trump's is "how you use the game of gold to advance US interests". This is a Monty Python sketch.
@semiticgod may be interested in this:
This entire election was a sham. It's likely we don't even know how deep this goes yet. This likely turned House and Senate races as well.
Lol democrats still chasing the Russian narrative.
"Do you have any evidence that Russia changed the votes in any State"
Rogers:No
Comey:No
It seem's like this direct exchange would be focused on about anything of Russian interference in vote counts (which is so laughable if you understand how voting works in America).
Not 'allegations' but hard evidence.
Strange how actual evidence of DNC fixing the elections is of no high priority.
Also, sitting Presidents campaigning for one side is far more suspicious then most things and honestly should be considered unethical too.
And yes that is both illegal and unethical, she also was actually Secretary of State.
I'm sure you consider that far worse, because it is.
It is not just illegal, it is specifically unconstitutional There is an actual Constitutional Amendment specifically addressing that and it is still relevant today.
One of the reasons why many Americans loathe Hillary is exactly that she has avoided any punishment for 30 years over what is clearly illegal and unconstitutional.
In the same token, do you see Bush or Obama ever facing trial for their wars? or are they innocent for virtue of the failure of our Government to hold them accountable?
The absurdity is treating Trump like a criminal over what amounts to at most, suspicion for now, but make a pass for Hillary who actually did do exactly what your complaining about and is illegal by American Law.
Whether Trump's friends during the campaign were working with Russians is another matter. Currently, there is no solid evidence of collusion; only vague ties.
2. The Clinton Foundation didn't shut down when Clinton became Secretary of State; it didn't stop accepting donations. But I do not believe it is legally necessary or morally acceptable for the Clinton Foundation to refuse charitable donations because Clinton herself was in office.
If foreign countries were actually donating to Clinton's election campaign, that would be unacceptable. But these donations didn't go to Clinton's future presidential campaign, or into her pocket. They went to a charity that Clinton supported.
3. We also had a lengthy discussion about the DNC primaries briefly on page 61 and more in-depth on page 80. The first involved me, @mashedtaters, and @jjstraka34. The second, more substantive and longer discussion involved me, @killerrabbit, @smeagolheart, @booinyoureyes, @Ayiekie, @mashedtaters, and @jjstraka34, in case any of them want to weigh in.
Normally I'd discourage re-posting on old topics, but it has been 100 pages since we last discussed it.
The Act of obtaining donations from Foreign Governments as Secretary of State is unconstitutional and Illegal, regardless of whether Foreign Governments term it a charity.
Remarkable that we now condone the loopholes for corruption that evidently we were supposed to be against? Considering she was involved in running it when she obtained donations.
Yes.
The arbitrariness is apparent, The Clinton Foundation isn't Hillary? Paul Manafort Isn't Trump.
Every defense of Hillary can be perfectly applied to Trump.
We'll wait and see on Russia. For MONTHS things I have predicted on this forum that have been scoffed at and mocked have continuely come to fruition. Today is yet another example. As of this afternoon, everyone but God himself has revealed Trump to be a bald-faced liar on the Obama wiretapping. I said within minutes of it coming out it was 100% bullshit. I believe I was told it was a "complex issue" and it could have taken place.
-http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/most-of-those-who-met-with-clinton-as-secretary-of-state-donated-to-foundation.html
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624
Charity i'm sure.
Presidents are going to be the least figure in society to be protected by libel laws.
Ivanka is now officially getting security clearance and a West Wing office. We wer EXPLICITLY told after the election Ivanaka was removing herself from this type of job due to her ongoing ties with the family businesses. She is now also fair game for any criticism.
Because the Russian Narrative was based on hearsay of wiretaps, so Trump simply challenged them by implying if they were done, Obama would be guilty.
To put it another way, it forces the evident appearance of double standards, The media can exaggerate collusion of Trump and Russia, so Trump can turn it back and say Obama is guilty of wiretapping him.
You can't have it both ways.
If we can exaggerate and imply guilt by no hard evidence per Russia narrative, then Trump can make his accusation with the same line of reasoning.
If we should restrict ourselves to hard evidence, then Trump shouldn't have said what he said, and everyone who promoted the Russian narrative is equally wrong.
The exaggeration and implication of Guilt of Russia-Trump is not based on any hard evidence but at best, guilt by association based on suspicion.
By that act, Trump can accuse Obama even by virtue of the same logic.
Michael Flynn? Ok lol all of Cia.
Manafort? Ok Loretta Lynch.
The moment you apply a strict standard to Obama, then you have to apply that to Trump.
If Obama is not guilty of wiretapping, Trump is equally not guilty of any nefarious plot with Russia.
Trump's move was political, to force everyone to apply a double standard and render their own moral arguments flawed.
Plain and easy to see.