tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post8680082126626305621..comments2024-03-28T10:08:06.291-05:00Comments on Give2Attain: Yes, Trump may be InsaneJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-59482814053816068842017-03-10T21:24:26.182-06:002017-03-10T21:24:26.182-06:00It seems Trump is busy breaking LOTS of promises.....It seems Trump is <a href="http://give2attain.blogspot.com/2017/02/hey-there-big-spender.html" rel="nofollow">busy breaking LOTS of promises</a>... However that is bound to happen when he continually opens his mouth and twitter account without thinking.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-55473468557732599162017-03-10T16:03:05.008-06:002017-03-10T16:03:05.008-06:00If I was Trump, his tax returns would be one promi...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. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-75268961505233327282017-03-10T16:01:03.212-06:002017-03-10T16:01:03.212-06:00Sorry, if any "independent committee," i...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"!jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-14329142586136451792017-03-10T08:49:56.514-06:002017-03-10T08:49:56.514-06:00Is that what you recommend for Trump? I just want...Is that what you recommend for Trump? I just want...<br /><br />An independent committee looking into:<br />- Russian involvement<br />- Trump party collaboration<br />- Obama wire taps<br /><br />And preferably he releases his tax returns as he promised multiple times during the campaign.<br /><br />No resignation required... Yet...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-86626532735854309132017-03-10T07:46:03.415-06:002017-03-10T07:46:03.415-06:00So, all we have are vague charges which don't ...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!jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-89391220789479797342017-03-09T22:17:06.893-06:002017-03-09T22:17:06.893-06:00Apparently she had little authority regarding the ...Apparently she had little authority regarding the decision... See the link.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/" rel="nofollow">Snopes Uranium Deal</a>Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-70412949450989182892017-03-09T17:35:41.374-06:002017-03-09T17:35:41.374-06:00Wrong question: Was there a "quid pro quo&qu...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? jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-46982002220287690152017-03-09T11:14:55.583-06:002017-03-09T11:14:55.583-06:00So let's get to the truth of the matter then.
...So let's get to the truth of the matter then.<br /><br />So let's get that independent committee looking into:<br />- Russian involvement<br />- Trump party collaboration<br />- Obama wire taps<br /><br />Regarding the Uranium comparison... <br />- Was the individual a politician at the time and authorized to make deals for USA?<br />- Did the request encourage the foreign gov't to violate US law?<br /><br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-7034658967385426882017-03-09T09:28:06.463-06:002017-03-09T09:28:06.463-06:00Sorry, but I'm simply not accepting that your ...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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-71670129536094244092017-03-09T08:31:52.425-06:002017-03-09T08:31:52.425-06:00My point is simple...
The far Right wants to inve...My point is simple...<br /><br />The far Right wants to investigate questionable events that involve the politicians on the Left and they are adamant the people are BAD...<br /><br />The far Left wants to investigate questionable events that involve the politicians on the Right and they are adamant the people are BAD...<br /><br />This will not change anytime soon. So let's get that independent committee looking into:<br />- Russian involvement<br />- Trump party collaboration<br />- Obama wire taps<br /><br />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...<br /><br />If someone did this (GOP or Dem), what would you want them charged with?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-37501997436634680442017-03-09T07:21:51.118-06:002017-03-09T07:21:51.118-06:00Actually, several Republicans have said there shou...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. <br /><br />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?jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-19052886788978847902017-03-08T09:25:24.460-06:002017-03-08T09:25:24.460-06:00Well the GOP conducted many reviews on Benghazi an...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.<br /><br />Thank you for acknowledging that yes you would want one if it was Hillary instead of Trump.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-14477927568233442962017-03-08T09:11:14.192-06:002017-03-08T09:11:14.192-06:00Since this is a hypothetical, I get to set the par...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? jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-47706120035403647042017-03-08T08:01:29.486-06:002017-03-08T08:01:29.486-06:00Of course you can respond to it. All you have to ...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.<br /><br />What would you be saying today if that was the case?<br /><br />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.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-23000965721141625442017-03-08T07:19:51.986-06:002017-03-08T07:19:51.986-06:00"So if it was Hillary and her staff:..."..."So if it was Hillary and her staff:..."<br /><br />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!jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-63168897272583987752017-03-08T06:01:50.660-06:002017-03-08T06:01:50.660-06:00Email is an inherently insecure form of communicat...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?<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-65919529648357889462017-03-08T05:43:55.523-06:002017-03-08T05:43:55.523-06:00"FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday t...<br />"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. "<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-48761053298368902652017-03-07T21:52:37.555-06:002017-03-07T21:52:37.555-06:00Jerry,
So you know better than the head of the FB...Jerry, <br />So you know better than the head of the FBI? And the Justice department now... Really?<br /><br />Please note that Trump knows there is NO Criminal case and he knows many people do it... Or he would have had her arrested.<br /><br />______________________________________________________<br />By the way, you are still avoiding the real issues.<br /><br />So if it was Hillary and her staff:<br />- who had several communications with Russians<br />- who neglected to mention them until they were discovered<br />- whose election had benefitted from a Russian hack<br />- who says we should be nicer to Russia<br />- who is unwilling to share her financial info<br />- who had won the election<br />- etc...<br /><br />You would say that there should not be an independent review to determine if she had colluded with an enemy for her gain.<br /><br />Really?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-72703193638807849392017-03-07T19:23:58.050-06:002017-03-07T19:23:58.050-06:00I'm late! I'm late! The very existence o...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.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-40091938259552213232017-03-07T14:17:41.657-06:002017-03-07T14:17:41.657-06:00I don't think Hillary is pure by any stretch o...I don't think Hillary is pure by any stretch of the imagination, but as Comey noted... <br /><br />"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. "Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-50074430966912371342017-03-07T13:27:54.933-06:002017-03-07T13:27:54.933-06:00People have lost a sense of how serious a thing it...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-595067763715095462017-03-07T13:02:11.224-06:002017-03-07T13:02:11.224-06:00Hiram, That was going to be my next question... :-...Hiram, That was going to be my next question... :-) If we are going down the rabbit hole, we might as well do it well.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-43774559341261540632017-03-07T13:00:49.631-06:002017-03-07T13:00:49.631-06:00And if anybody thought that breaking federal law w...And if anybody thought that breaking federal law was not a big deal, they were probably members of the Obama administration.<br /><br />Which statute did she violate? <br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-57166690451556019442017-03-07T12:59:15.397-06:002017-03-07T12:59:15.397-06:00So if it was Hillary and her staff:
- who had seve...So if it was Hillary and her staff:<br />- who had several communications with Russians<br />- who neglected to mention them until they were discovered<br />- whose election had benefitted from a Russian hack<br />- who says we should be nicer to Russia<br />- who is unwilling to share her financial info<br />- who had won the election<br />- etc...<br /><br />You would say that there should not be an independent review to determine if she had colluded with an enemy for her gain.<br /><br />Really?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-22777048103760008702017-03-07T12:53:41.670-06:002017-03-07T12:53:41.670-06:00"So if it was Clinton... You would say the sa..."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?jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.com