CNN Trumps Accuses Obama
CNN FBI asked Justice Dept to Refute
FOX News Trump Wire Tap
BI No Wire Tap or Collusion
I am concerned that I may need to use this headline more than once... Trump finally shows some signs of becoming Presidential and then he takes a big step backwards...
CNN FBI asked Justice Dept to Refute
FOX News Trump Wire Tap
BI No Wire Tap or Collusion
I am concerned that I may need to use this headline more than once... Trump finally shows some signs of becoming Presidential and then he takes a big step backwards...
49 comments:
what will it take for the GOP to get rid of him? having him as president is dangerous for the country. I realized this over a year ago. Why do you keep supporting him?
Calling Trump insane is really an insult to insane people. We need to consider something that we usually don't talk about in American politics, that we have elected a president who not only is totally incompetent, but who is also just a bad guy.
I watched the Oscars last week as i always do. I was totally amazed by the producer if La La Land, i.e. the boss of the picture, who, when he the moment he saw a mistake playing out on stage, intervened sharply and decisively and and no, this is not going to happen. While others were standing around not knowing what to do, he stepped up announced Moonlight as the winner, and called them up to the stage where he gave them the Oscar. Isn't that the kind of leadership we want from our leders? The kind of leadership Trump has conspicuously failed to provide? The instant ability to understand what was wrong and to do what was right? Think of how much better Trump would have been had he disassociated himself from Russia the moment the issue appeared? In the election we wanted the La La Land, but it turns out we elected an untalented Jimmy Kimmel.
--Hiram
Laurie,
I think most people who read what I write would hardly call it supporting him...
And I don't think... "I voted for Trump because Hillary's platform was TERRIBLE." quite counts as supporting Trump.
Now let's focus on today. Trump is our President whether we voted for him or against him. This is reality.
Now do the Liberals want to see him fail as the Conservatives wished on Obama?
How again does that help our country and it's citizens?
Personally I will keep complaining about his stupidity while hoping he matures and succeeds...
There you go again, proceeding straight to the outrageous conclusion without bothering to stop at any of the facts along the way, proven or otherwise. For me, Obama's "non-denial denial" (which is about all we have) is proof enough that what Trump said is at least arguably true. Does speaking truth qualify as insane? Maybe it does, in today's Topsy-turvy, hyper-partisan PC world.
How about this: Rather than carry on about the way he says things or about what he MIGHT do, or about whose tender little feelings might be bothered by any of that, do you really want to take issue with what he is trying to do?
To say something is "arguably true" is no excuse for lying.
Obama's non-denial denial is nothing more than what a person careful with the truth might say. He doesn't know whether Trump was under investigation, and for him to say otherwise would be inappropriate. Trump made a very specific charge, and President Obama specifically denied it.
We have a problem. We elected a bad guy as president of the United States. It's quite obvious that Mr. Trump is not fit to serve and we must find a way to remove him from office. It is time for his Republican enablers in Congress to step up and do what needs to be done.
--Hiram
Who is this "we" that elected a "bad guy"? What is obvious is that there are some people who will not accept the reality that "their girl" lost an election, and are trying to sooth themselves by confirming their biases and looking for everything bad about the winner.
Jerry,
Trump created the view during his speech that he was maturing, growing into the role of President, going to get to work and stop these silly feuds.
It lasted only a few days before he goes after Arnold and Obama...
Either he is an idiot with no self control or he is working to distract the citizens from something else.
If his campaign is innocent regarding Russian collusion... Just give us the tax returns, announce a special panel and start focusing on your job... He should not fear transparency if he has nothing to hide... Instead he seems as bad or worse than Hillary was.
And we know what fighting the public / gov't regarding emails / Benghazi did to Hillary... It seems Trump learned nothing from her experience.
CNN Birth of a Conspiracy Theory
This reminds me of when Trump started the Birther conspiracy Theory.
FOX Support but NO Proof
Who is this "we" that elected a "bad guy"?
The American people. I know I was there. Elected officials don't just represent the people who voted for them; they work for and represent all the people, and all of us bear responsibility for Trump.
"What is obvious is that there are some people who will not accept the reality that "their girl" lost an election, and are trying to sooth themselves by confirming their biases and looking for everything bad about the winner."
I certainly understand that I bear a share of responsibility that "my girl" didn't win the election. That's why I can't wash my hands of the responsibility for Trump. To quote NCIS, "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."
--Hiram
He's not insane, he's trying to save his butt.
There's just too much smoke here for there not to be some fire. Too many people from his campaign had too many contacts with the Russians, too many of those people have not told the truth about their contacts with the Russians, and there's all sorts of ancillary behavior here that fits (the softening of the GOP platform on Ukraine while the Russian ambassador is at the GOP convention, Trump campaign surrogates hinting in advance about the Podesta e-mail release). Trump is trying to gin up a story about "how it was found out" instead of the story being about the "it" itself.
Today, they've basically cloistered themselves away from the press. No public daily briefing by Spicer. The State Department cancelled a scheduled public briefing (which would have been the first since Tillerson was confirmed). And no questions taken at the press conference to announce the "new and improved" travel ban. Why? Because they don't have answers they can publicly give.
If everything was perfectly innocent, they could get it all out there now and put it bed. The fact that they aren't tells you something.
It's hard to attribute any rationale for what Trump is doing. As I read somewhere else, Trump may not know what the involvement of his campaign might have been with the Russians. What does seem to be the case is that he didn't act in such a way to discourage or prevent interference by the Russians. At minimum his actions or lack thereof was both incompetent and reckless, along with being extraordinarily naive.
==Hiram
I agree... I think he is trying to distract folks...
CNN What We Know and Don't Know
The strange thing is that he seems to think it will work, or is he just that desperate / guilty. I mean the GOP would not let go of Benghazi or the email server... Why would the Dems let go of this gift as long as the Trump group keep hiding information?
Why would the Dems let go of this gift as long as the Trump group keep hiding information?
Obviously, we will push until Trump resigns or is forced out of office.
--Hiram
Of course... The Dems will treat Trump the same as the GOP treated Obama...
Wonderful... :-(
Let's try a little of that "everybody does it defense," not that Trump is included in "everybody," especially in this case. When is anybody going to ask why Obama let Hillary get away with years of using an illegal email server for government business? He HAD to know, unless she never sent or received an email from him.
Besides, how many contacts with the Russians did the Hillary campaign, or Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, have? or with Iran? or China? If we're going to go all screaming bonkers over "contacts" why do we even need a State Department or a foreign policy?
Don't "insane" charges deserve an "insane" response?
"Don't "insane" charges deserve an "insane" response?"
Well, you've certainly hit the mark there.
When is anybody going to ask why Obama let Hillary get away with years of using an illegal email server for government business?
It must have been pretty obvious from the email address. But I think it's unlikely that Hillary communicated with Obama through email.
The fact is, nobody at the time thought it was a big deal. And it probably wasn't.
--Hiram
Jerry,
That is an interesting deflection technique.
The only questions that matter now are:
- Did any Trump personnel work with the Russians who did hack the DNC and release files that harmed Clinton's campaign and helped Trump's?
- If there was, did Trump know about it?
If roles were reversed, Clinton had won and her staff had been in contact with Russian personnel. What would you be demanding from Clinton, Congress and her Staff?
I don't think you would be wanting everyone to ignore the smoke... Would you?
Republicans are so, so serious about proper e-mail management.
Just last week, Jeff Sessions' spokesperson was replying to reporters about his little mess from her gmail account.
We also recently found out that the EPA Director lied to Congress about his use of personal e-mail while in Arkansas.
And, the Vice President had his personal e-mail -- which he frequently used for state business -- hacked while Governor of Indiana.
Trump Administration White House staff were found to have setup a system similar to the Bush White House where they used the RNC to host email -- which they were forced to hastily end after it was discovered by Newsweek.
Similarly, it was found that key Twitter accounts, including @POTUS and @PressSec, were connected to gmail account again until they were caught.
Sean,
Oh no... Don't let him take you down the rabbit hole... :-)
Jerry,
The only questions that matter now are:
- Did any Trump personnel work with the Russians who did hack the DNC and release files that harmed Clinton's campaign and helped Trump's?
- If there was, did Trump know about it?
If roles were reversed, Clinton had won and her staff had been in contact with Russian personnel. What would you be demanding from Clinton, Congress and her Staff?
I don't think you would be wanting everyone to ignore the smoke... Would you?
Do you get to decide what "the only questions that matter are"?
And do you really expect the Trump team to prove a negative? Let someone come forward with some truly credible evidence of the serious charges you present (which would be incredible on its face) and then let us proceed accordingly. In the absence of that positive proof we must consider this a totally partisan attack based on lies and innuendo-- typical Democrat "stuff." IFKWIM.
So if it was Clinton... You would say the same thing? Really?
"The fact is, nobody at the time thought it was a big deal. And it probably wasn't."-- Hiram
And if anybody thought that breaking federal law was not a big deal, they were probably members of the Obama administration. That does not mean the law was not broken.
"So if it was Clinton... You would say the same thing? Really?" I would, and did. There was clear and incontrovertible evidence that she violated federal law. Where, other than smear and innuendo, is there any evidence that Trump succeeded in getting Russia to alter the results of the election?
So if it was Hillary and her staff:
- who had several communications with Russians
- who neglected to mention them until they were discovered
- whose election had benefitted from a Russian hack
- who says we should be nicer to Russia
- who is unwilling to share her financial info
- who had won the election
- etc...
You would say that there should not be an independent review to determine if she had colluded with an enemy for her gain.
Really?
And if anybody thought that breaking federal law was not a big deal, they were probably members of the Obama administration.
Which statute did she violate?
--Hiram
Hiram, That was going to be my next question... :-) If we are going down the rabbit hole, we might as well do it well.
People have lost a sense of how serious a thing it is to commit a crime. It's a serious thing to accuse someone of a crime and it should not be done lightly.
In the case of Hillary, there is simply no basis at all to think she has committed a crime. Our president is a liar, and that is one of things he lies about most frequently.
--Hiram
I don't think Hillary is pure by any stretch of the imagination, but as Comey noted...
"FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that despite evidence Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified emails on a private server, the bureau will not recommend to the Department of Justice that criminal charges be brought against the former secretary of state. "
I'm late! I'm late! The very existence of Hillary's private email server violates the Federal Records Act. She transmitted classified information across it, which violates the Espionage Act. She lied to Congress that there was no such classified information, that's perjury. Just a few minor offenses, nothing to get excited about. Now the fact that we would like to believe the Russians had some thing to do with Donald Trump's electoral victory? THAT requires him to resign immediately! The complete lack of any credible evidence has nothing to do with it! Hanging now, trial later.
Jerry,
So you know better than the head of the FBI? And the Justice department now... Really?
Please note that Trump knows there is NO Criminal case and he knows many people do it... Or he would have had her arrested.
______________________________________________________
By the way, you are still avoiding the real issues.
So if it was Hillary and her staff:
- who had several communications with Russians
- who neglected to mention them until they were discovered
- whose election had benefitted from a Russian hack
- who says we should be nicer to Russia
- who is unwilling to share her financial info
- who had won the election
- etc...
You would say that there should not be an independent review to determine if she had colluded with an enemy for her gain.
Really?
"FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that despite evidence Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified emails on a private server, the bureau will not recommend to the Department of Justice that criminal charges be brought against the former secretary of state. "
Can you direct me to the provision of the US Code that says extreme carelessness is a crime? What's careless? I certainly think it's extremely careless to discuss classified information in an email. Does it really make a difference that the server is private, or a government server such as one found in a library?
I don't think there is anyone who is capable of testifying before Congress for hours without saying something someone else thinks is untrue. And the Republicans who were so prone to hissy fits over minor issues seem to have no problem at all in supporting a president who lies considerably more than he tells the truth.
--Hiram
Email is an inherently insecure form of communication. I am always mildly concerned about the security of information I put in an email, not because I am concerned about hacks, but because I know that once I put info in an email, I lose control over it. The person I send it to, can always misuse it, and of course, is always vulnerable to hacks of his own. The fact is, in the larger scheme of things, in terms of security no government server is or can ever be significantly safer than a private server, as has been proven by daily news of hacking of even the most secretive government agencies. If the CIA is an open book in terms of computer security as it seems to be, how secure do think the State Department is?
--Hiram
"So if it was Hillary and her staff:..."
I cannot respond to a hypothetical like that, because there is even less evidence that Donald Trump did those things than that Hillary did (or would have done) such things. It's all rank (very rank) suspicion and innuendo. "Fake news" Bad!
Of course you can respond to it. All you have to do is envision Hillary and her supporters facing the exact same "fake news" from Fox and Friends.
What would you be saying today if that was the case?
Please remember that all I want is transparency, an independent committee and probably Trump's tax returns. I mean he did promise he would release them after the audit.
Since this is a hypothetical, I get to set the parameters. So if Fox News reports those things about Hillary that later Wikileaks or other sources confirms, I would want an independent review, and have ZERO expectation of getting one. Similarly, when several official sources say there is absolutely nothing to learn in such an investigation of Trump, even though not reported on CNN or NBC, do you still think such an "independent" probe can even be conducted, let alone worthwhile?
Well the GOP conducted many reviews on Benghazi and other topics with much less smoke in the air. I am sure they could conduct one if they wanted to. However since this is "their guy"... They will fight it tooth and nail.
Thank you for acknowledging that yes you would want one if it was Hillary instead of Trump.
Actually, several Republicans have said there should be a probe and I believe one is under way. Democrats have suddenly, at least unofficially, decided it is NOT a good thing to pursue as it may expose the fact that Obama was wiretapping a political opponent and promoting leaks of government secrets, to damage Trump and interfere with the election. And they don't have much of a moral high ground on this, either. If Russia tried to "influence" the US election, it should be expected, noticed and exposed. It's still better than Obama's blatant attempt to steal the Israeli election.
And what "much less smoke"? We have the principal actor in the Benghazi case stating publicly it was about a video nobody saw, while telling relatives and friends it was a terrorist attack. Who's blowing smoke? Sean Hannity likes to ask if, while attending a peaceful demonstration, the attackers "happened to have RPGs in their pockets." We have the written evidence that security requests were denied, and on and on. Now, on what concrete evidence do we investigate President Trump, and on what charge, exactly?
My point is simple...
The far Right wants to investigate questionable events that involve the politicians on the Left and they are adamant the people are BAD...
The far Left wants to investigate questionable events that involve the politicians on the Right and they are adamant the people are BAD...
This will not change anytime soon. So let's get that independent committee looking into:
- Russian involvement
- Trump party collaboration
- Obama wire taps
As for what would Trump be guilty of? If a candidate's personnel did communicate with a foreign government and encouraged hacking/ smearing of a rival candidate by hinting at a lessening of sanctions in the future...
If someone did this (GOP or Dem), what would you want them charged with?
Sorry, but I'm simply not accepting that your broad brush "equivalence" holds any probative value. No two historical events are ever exactly the same in circumstance, and the only value they may hold are as cautionary tales or, perhaps, proof of hypocrisy, which is itself an essentially worthless charge these days.
So let us take your charges: If a candidate or persons of the campaign spoke to a foreign government and hinted at a lessening of sanctions, perhaps by saying he could be "more flexible" after the election, or if this foreign government were encouraged to be "helpful" by, say, giving them 20% of US uranium, should that be investigated and, if true, charged?
Now if, on the other hand, the New York times says there is no Russian involvement AND it is a known impossibility for the election to be hacked and if those who leaked DNC emails claim it was not the Russians but that everything leaked was true, then what are we investigating? As I say, the Democrats may rue the day they tried to throw Trump into that briar patch.
So let's get to the truth of the matter then.
So let's get that independent committee looking into:
- Russian involvement
- Trump party collaboration
- Obama wire taps
Regarding the Uranium comparison...
- Was the individual a politician at the time and authorized to make deals for USA?
- Did the request encourage the foreign gov't to violate US law?
Wrong question: Was there a "quid pro quo" in Hillary's uranium deal? And why should we probe anything for which there is only smoke blown by political enemies?
Apparently she had little authority regarding the decision... See the link.
Snopes Uranium Deal
So, all we have are vague charges which don't seem to have any reasonable basis in fact? We must have a thorough investigation immediately! But first she must resign!
Is that what you recommend for Trump? I just want...
An independent committee looking into:
- Russian involvement
- Trump party collaboration
- Obama wire taps
And preferably he releases his tax returns as he promised multiple times during the campaign.
No resignation required... Yet...
Sorry, if any "independent committee," if such a thing could exist, is going to investigate something, let us have it be something productive, like the best way to do tax reform or something. Having politicians do political stuff rather than the nation's business is a waste of time. I mean I understand why political witch hunts are in vogue in the political season (which is far, far too long), but when the election is over these folks ought to sandwich in a "work break"!
If I was Trump, his tax returns would be one promise I would break, simply because regardless of what they contain, the opposition will find SOMETHING to rant and rave about. As was said recently, if Trump found a cure for cancer, they would accuse him of taking work away from the Grim Reaper.
It seems Trump is busy breaking LOTS of promises... However that is bound to happen when he continually opens his mouth and twitter account without thinking.
Post a Comment