Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[bob_sauve28]

4 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I'm almost positive that for like two weeks after the election you were pushing a petition of that nature. It could have been someone else, maybe. 

Comey said it. 
Risch, Senate Intelligence Committee Hearings, June 8 2017: "I gather from all of this, that you're willing to say now, that while you were director, the President of the United States was not under investigation, was that a fair statement?"
Comey: "That's correct."

Was this widely reported? Of course not, which is part of what I was hinting at with my reaction to SwampD above. 

I'm not going to claim I know a lot about Trump's intentions with firing Comey, or his general temperament when dealing with matters like these...other than hindsight suggests he was pretty incompetent. 

No, not me with a petition. 

 

As as to the statement of Comey, that makes zero difference at all. His campaign was under investigation, and even members of his administration. Trump had pressured Comey about that in a very inappropriate manner. 

[Randall Flagg]

3 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

No, not me with a petition. 

 

As as to the statement of Comey, that makes zero difference at all. His campaign was under investigation, and even members of his administration. Trump had pressured Comey about that in a very inappropriate manner. 

All of a sudden that doesn't sound like a rock hard case for obstruction, IMO. Wasn't that claim just built, by yourself, like two posts prior, on the fact that Trump fired him because he was being investigated by him?

 

Edit:It was pastajoe, not you, my bad! 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[SwampD]

If I knew I did nothing wrong, I would let anyone investigate me. Just sayin'.

There is no doubt in my mind that Trump is dirty. If he is truly a good president,… he will get away with it.

[bob_sauve28]

9 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

All of a sudden that doesn't sound like a rock hard case for obstruction, IMO. Wasn't that claim just built, by yourself, like two posts prior, on the fact that Trump fired him because he was being investigated by him?

It's totally rock solid. If he was obstructing justice to protect Flynn that is still obstructing justice. 

[Randall Flagg]

6 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I think that's the point, though. The media has been made out to be this red herring/scapegoat that gets used as a diversion. Discredit the messenger in order say whatever crazy BS I feel like saying and get away with it.

The media are incredibly 'accurate' and provide detailed thought and analysis about covering the border crisis. Trump brazenly tweets blame-bombs that can easily be argued against as collections of 180 characters or less. The media do it "effectively." Trump is still far more 'correct' on the issue, and I don't think I've seen anything as dishonest as the way that was covered en masse, as evidenced by the incredibly short discussion Liger and I had about it in this very thread a couple of days ago, which never got any response from anybody for some reason. 

The media uses top-notch equipment and raw verbal and written skill, telling harrowing tales about Palestinian citizens mowed down by the IDF at the border. No mention of the fact that Hamas is aware of this coverage, and pays civilians to go help disguise as their terrorists attempt to breach a border with the sole and stated purpose of slaughtering jews in their beds, and despite this, Israeli soldiers commendably minimizing civilian deaths in a manner which almost seems impossible given the situation they were dealing with? That if the civilians get injured, their monetary compensation from terrorist group Hamas increases, and if they die, their families get even more? I'm not going to make broad claims about the actions of a nation state such as Israel, or open that can of worms, but the media we need to protect from criticism didn't ever talk about this to ME. All I saw was the poor baby that is now believed to have actually died from a blood condition, and not Israeli-induced violence (with no retraction or mention of this that I've seen). It's a pretty relevant development. I'll give credit to NPR, as surprised as they sounded as it unfolded, for interviewing a Gazan with a firebomb kite painted with Swastikas, as he outlines how they want to taunt and burn the all of the jews. But when I hear coverage of events like these, and I try to seek it, I get well-intentioned half-stories at best and focused distraction at worst. 

Just now, bob_sauve28 said:

It's totally rock solid. If he was obstructing justice to protect Flynn that is still obstructing justice. 

Why should I believe your claim that he was obstructing justice to protect Flynn when a quick google search knocked down the original claim? 

[bob_sauve28]

4 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

The media are incredibly 'accurate' and provide detailed thought and analysis about covering the border crisis. Trump brazenly tweets blame-bombs that can easily be argued against as collections of 180 characters or less. The media do it "effectively." Trump is still far more 'correct' on the issue, and I don't think I've seen anything as dishonest as the way that was covered en masse, as evidenced by the incredibly short discussion Liger and I had about it in this very thread a couple of days ago, which never got any response from anybody for some reason. 

The media uses top-notch equipment and raw verbal and written skill, telling harrowing tales about Palestinian citizens mowed down by the IDF at the border. No mention of the fact that Hamas is aware of this coverage, and pays civilians to go help disguise as their terrorists attempt to breach a border with the sole and stated purpose of slaughtering jews in their beds, and despite this, Israeli soldiers commendably minimizing civilian deaths in a manner which almost seems impossible given the situation they were dealing with? That if the civilians get injured, their monetary compensation from terrorist group Hamas increases, and if they die, their families get even more? I'm not going to make broad claims about the actions of a nation state such as Israel, or open that can of worms, but the media we need to protect from criticism didn't ever talk about this to ME. All I saw was the poor baby that is now believed to have actually died from a blood condition, and not Israeli-induced violence (with no retraction or mention of this that I've seen). It's a pretty relevant development. I'll give credit to NPR, as surprised as they sounded as it unfolded, for interviewing a Gazan with a firebomb kite painted with Swastikas, as he outlines how they want to taunt and burn the all of the jews. But when I hear coverage of events like these, and I try to seek it, I get well-intentioned half-stories at best and focused distraction at worst. 

Why should I believe your claim that he was obstructing justice to protect Flynn when a quick google search knocked down the original claim? 

He cleared a room and asked Comey to lay off Flynn when they were alone. After having Attorney General and others leave room. You have knocked down no claims at all. 

 

He he totally obstructed justice 

[Randall Flagg]

1 minute ago, bob_sauve28 said:

He cleared a room and asked Comey to lay off Flynn when they were alone. After having Attorney General and others leave room. You have knocked down no claims at all. 

 

He he totally obstructed justice 

That sounds horrid, why isn't he in prison? They LEFT THE ROOM??

I don't know all of these details for sure, but if they're common knowledge and a big deal, Trump will have been/will be in actual trouble soon enough.

Uh, you claimed that he fired Comey because Comey was investigating him, and a quick google search confirmed that Comey himself said that Comey wasn't investigating him. Are we pretending this exchange didn't happen now?

[SwampD]

15 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

The media are incredibly 'accurate' and provide detailed thought and analysis about covering the border crisis. Trump brazenly tweets blame-bombs that can easily be argued against as collections of 180 characters or less. The media do it "effectively." Trump is still far more 'correct' on the issue, and I don't think I've seen anything as dishonest as the way that was covered en masse, as evidenced by the incredibly short discussion Liger and I had about it in this very thread a couple of days ago, which never got any response from anybody for some reason.  

The media uses top-notch equipment and raw verbal and written skill, telling harrowing tales about Palestinian citizens mowed down by the IDF at the border. No mention of the fact that Hamas is aware of this coverage, and pays civilians to go help disguise as their terrorists attempt to breach a border with the sole and stated purpose of slaughtering jews in their beds, and despite this, Israeli soldiers commendably minimizing civilian deaths in a manner which almost seems impossible given the situation they were dealing with? That if the civilians get injured, their monetary compensation from terrorist group Hamas increases, and if they die, their families get even more? I'm not going to make broad claims about the actions of a nation state such as Israel, or open that can of worms, but the media we need to protect from criticism didn't ever talk about this to ME. All I saw was the poor baby that is now believed to have actually died from a blood condition, and not Israeli-induced violence (with no retraction or mention of this that I've seen). It's a pretty relevant development. I'll give credit to NPR, as surprised as they sounded as it unfolded, for interviewing a Gazan with a firebomb kite painted with Swastikas, as he outlines how they want to taunt and burn the all of the jews. But when I hear coverage of events like these, and I try to seek it, I get well-intentioned half-stories at best and focused distraction at worst.  

Why should I believe your claim that he was obstructing justice to protect Flynn when a quick google search knocked down the original claim? 

I don't doubt any of that. Everyone is guilty of using the extreme case to make their point. It's not unlike being told that all welfare recipients have 8 kids to get most money they can. Beware of the outlier as example.

 

And Comey is a p/su/issy If he had any balls Trump would already be undergoing impeachment proceedings.

Edited July 17, 2018 by SwampD

[Randall Flagg]

13 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I don't doubt any of that. Everyone is guilty of using the extreme case to make their point. It's not unlike being told that all welfare recipients have 8 kids to get most money they can. Beware of the outlier as example.

 

So my main thing is that, this happens every time literally anything happens and I decide I'd like to find more out about it.I have this general view, given through reading typical middling articles and headlines,  that gets smacked down by reality. It honestly just happened with the Comey thing above - I had absolutely no idea that Comey wasn't investigating Trump until I found video of the hearing on like page 9 of google. And yes, the fox news welfare-h8ers do the same thing, but I think you're lying if you say they have an ounce of the sway on the american public's take on any issue that literally any other mainstream news organization, the entirety of the entertainment media, and every higher level institution in this country has, all monopolized by the other side. 

I'm going to bounce back left at some point. If I was alive then, I would have been left from Moral Majority -> just recently, so it's not as if I've divorced one side to marry the other, but I see a clear problem pointing a lot more directly one way than the other. 

And part of it is definitely the fact that I'm going on 6 years in these institutions in which the benign conservative take is literally white supremacist, and leftist (not liberal, leftist) views are the norm, and burning down Berkeley is an appropriate response to someone coming to talk about things with a "problematic" take. 

If I hear "phobia" and "ism"s listed off rapidfire one more time my brain is going to explode 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[JujuFish]

49 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

That sounds horrid, why isn't he in prison? They LEFT THE ROOM??

I don't know all of these details for sure, but if they're common knowledge and a big deal, Trump will have been/will be in actual trouble soon enough.

Uh, you claimed that he fired Comey because Comey was investigating him, and a quick google search confirmed that Comey himself said that Comey wasn't investigating him. Are we pretending this exchange didn't happen now?

 

Event A) Trump privately asks Comey to stop the Russia investigation

Event B) Comey ignores Trump

Event C) Trump fires Comey

Event D) Trump says, concerning his firing of Comey, in an interview on NBC News with Lester Holt: And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, "You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."

 

[Randall Flagg]

4 minutes ago, JujuFish said:

 

Event A) Trump privately asks Comey to stop the Russia investigation

Event B) Comey ignores Trump

Event C) Trump fires Comey

Event D) Trump says, concerning his firing of Comey, in an interview on NBC News with Lester Holt: And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, "You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."

 

I mentioned before that Trump's current take on the investigation is nothing short of baffling. I don't believe he is aware that the charges on Russians who did hack don't involve him, which is astonishing.

I don't have the energy to rev up google and learn more about an issue that I care profoundly little about, but I've read more than once that Trump had been told over and over again to fire Comey, it was clear that he was not super competent at his job as the July-October Clinton incidents and their followups showed, and Comey's bizarre memo leak reaffirmed his own words that he wasn't investigating Trump because the memo indicated no reason to do so -and even that Trump was interested in continuing investigations concerning Russia and his campaign and election meddling (another example of Trump rhetoric splitting from Trump action) and a complete absence of "hey I feel that I am obstructed in doing my job." The memos were true fizzlers, it seems to me. 

The "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Quote that I think event A refers to has always mildly puzzled me, but it reads far more of Trump-speak for "hey, can you move along with this investigation and if you're not getting anywhere stop, and while you're at it please tell everyone that thinks you're investigating me that you're not investigating me" than the muahahah I will fire you if you plan to unveil my sinister deeds as gets painted. Again, if that ends up being the case, we probably should have already found out / will find out in short order, and then I can admit that I'm wrong and happily follow impeachment proceedings as I care far more about clinging to ideals than to individuals. I mean, when did that news come out? Hasn't it been over a year? Mueller may find something but it won't be this sequence of events that drives obstruction or impeachment, I don't see how, we already know it happened.

But A, B, C events encapsulated by less than 20 words leaves out so much nuance that I'm not super interested in picking at it, and continue to be incredibly unconvinced. 

Trump-speak and Trump mannerisms are real things, and the "sketchiest" parts of all of this (I really only see one or two) are so easily explained by both that until Mueller is addressing the nation with the findings that damn Trump to impeachment, I'll doubt it's going to or should happen. 

Either Trump colluded and fired Comey to prevent the findings, Trump fired Comey because of well-documented troubling antics, or Trump fired Comey because he was pissed the investigation weren't 'going anywhere' while somehow pitting everyone into this idea that he was involved in the hacking while Comey knew he wasn't and refused to tell everyone. I don't see much outside of these options and I am the least convinced by the first one. The last one is eye-rollingly Trump but not collusion or obstruction of justice. Upon further reflection, I'd bet  my house that this ends up being the case. It just feels right. 

 

[LTS]

9 hours ago, SwampD said:

You buy into it then. The standards of accuracy are WAY higher for news organizations than they are for whatever Trump spews. It's been proven. You may have an issue for what they cover, but that doesn't make it fake.

And this is coming from a guy who watched the American people being played.

 

Well, the standards for news organizations may be higher in what they report, but not necessarily in what they choose to not report.  I'm not sure any news outlet is really interested in reporting the truth as much as they are in supporting a narrative.  Certainly a news organization is held to a higher standard than a single person, but that standard is still pretty low these days.

 

[bob_sauve28]

9 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

That sounds horrid, why isn't he in prison? They LEFT THE ROOM??

I don't know all of these details for sure, but if they're common knowledge and a big deal, Trump will have been/will be in actual trouble soon enough.

Uh, you claimed that he fired Comey because Comey was investigating him, and a quick google search confirmed that Comey himself said that Comey wasn't investigating him. Are we pretending this exchange didn't happen now?

Splitting hairs. Investigating him or his campaign and/or administration. Yes, Trump's argument has been that Comey said that, but that's weak. You agree there was an investigation going on that Trump was very upset about, right?

[LGR4GM]

There's a difference between bias and flat out lying. 

[5th line wingnutt]

11 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Firing FBI director who was investigating him because he was investigating him. He admitted that. There is more, but that's enough right there. 

The president has the authority to fire the fbi director for any reason or no reason at all.  How does exercising lawful authority constitute obstruction?

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

The president has the authority to fire the fbi director for any reason or no reason at all.  How does exercising lawful authority constitute obstruction?

The problem is connecting your premise to your desired conclusion.  If the president is firing someone for the purpose of obstructing justice, he's obstructing justice, regardless of his authority as the head of the executive branch.

I have the right to free speech, as long as I don't incite violence, right?  But if a police officer is questioning someone, and I decide to stand next to her and shout the lyrics to "Pinball Wizard" at the top of my lungs so that she cannot conduct her investigation, I'm going to be arrested, and rightfully so.

[Randall Flagg]

4 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Splitting hairs. Investigating him or his campaign and/or administration. Yes, Trump's argument has been that Comey said that, but that's weak. You agree there was an investigation going on that Trump was very upset about, right?

I don't think it's splitting hairs. With that claim, that is all the evidence I need to be convinced that Trump needs to be impeached. That it's not true means that there is no other piece of information I've heard or read here or anywhere else that can be combined with any other piece of known information to lead me to the conclusion that it's clear Trump needs to be impeached. 

The only avenue for this, and it's completely possible that it produces what you'd need despite my doubts, is what Mueller is currently doing. 

I agree that Trump was probably frustrated that an investigation going slowly had every single television channel and paper in America speculating on Trump colluding, that it was probably incredibly irritating that despite Comey's private acknowledgements that Trump wasn't under investigation, he wouldn't tell the public the same thing, allowing the speculation to continue. I agree that you can never discount that as being a driving force for Trump firing him, with the other justified stuff as pretext (he deserved to be fired no matter what). I cannot equate that to obstruction of justice in any real legal sense, it's nothing more than pure speculation, and the investigation is ongoing a year later. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[bob_sauve28]

58 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I don't think it's splitting hairs. With that claim, that is all the evidence I need to be convinced that Trump needs to be impeached. That it's not true means that there is no other piece of information I've heard or read here or anywhere else that can be combined with any other piece of known information to lead me to the conclusion that it's clear Trump needs to be impeached. 

The only avenue for this, and it's completely possible that it produces what you'd need despite my doubts, is what Mueller is currently doing. 

I agree that Trump was probably frustrated that an investigation going slowly had every single television channel and paper in America speculating on Trump colluding, that it was probably incredibly irritating that despite Comey's private acknowledgements that Trump wasn't under investigation, he wouldn't tell the public the same thing, allowing the speculation to continue. I agree that you can never discount that as being a driving force for Trump firing him, with the other justified stuff as pretext (he deserved to be fired no matter what). I cannot equate that to obstruction of justice in any real legal sense, it's nothing more than pure speculation, and the investigation is ongoing a year later. 

I never said anything about impeachment. I said he did obstruct justice. Technically he could be impeached for that, but it's been my opinion for the whole time that there had to be a reason he obstructed justice. If he was just being an ignorant idiot and shot from the hip and fired Comey just because, then I wouldn't move to impeach if I had the power, like Thomas Jefferson said, you suffer while evils are sufferable. 

 

The question is, as you went on to speculate, as we all must at this point, is why? If they find nothing, then I don't think he will be impeached. Lots of circumstantial evidence, and Trump is very much acting guilty, IMO, but hopefully we shall find out for sure. Or maybe not! I doubt he can ever be convicted by the Senate anyway. But the public deserves to know as much as possible. 

[Randall Flagg]

Trump just backtracked his comments regarding Russia's interference, which is both good and hysterical. Somebody got in his ear. His reversal is mirrored in contradiction by his supporters on twitter. 

[Randall Flagg]

The way Trump phrased it even suggests that it FINALLY clicked that Russian collusion evidence doesn't mean that he would have lost otherwise. The man is something else. 

[WildCard]

43 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Trump just backtracked his comments regarding Russia's interference, which is both good and hysterical. Somebody got in his ear. His reversal is mirrored in contradiction by his supporters on twitter. 

 

Man, what an absolute fcking jackas$

[Randall Flagg]

"lots of people out there" hahahahaha

He's definitely a moron. 

[Eleven]

And just like that, his party-over-country will let him off the hook again. We looked like we were getting somewhere this morning.

[Sabel79]

There is like a 90% probability we'll be having a Reichstag fire (or, more presciently, a Chechen separatist apartment bombing) in the very near future.  It's all we're missing.  

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

There is like a 90% probability we'll be having a Reichstag fire (or, more presciently, a Chechen separatist apartment bombing) in the very near future.  It's all we're missing.  

"I have ordered attacks on sanctuary cities, like San Francisco."

Day later:  I meant to say I HAVEN'T ordered attacks.  I misspoke.