1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Trump thread.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Slippery Jim, Mar 12, 2017.

  1. Monty Pigeon

    Monty Pigeon Winger

    The recent tape of Ryan joking about Trump's Russian links might prelude him too. Senator Hatch is next in line. Compared to the three above him, a relatively normal human being.
  2. sbtyr

    sbtyr Full Back

    He's stated he misses his old life and thought the job would be easier. You can plainly see how frustrated he is. If he isn't forced out before 2020, I'd be surprised if he decided to run again.

    He's already making moves to gain support according to some media sources in the US; people seem to be disregarding the likelihood of Pence being implicated in any scandal that forces Trump out. Ryan too. Not sure who's next in succession after that.

    Pence oversaw the transition that missed Flynn and obviously would have had to be left in the cold to be unaware of any Russian links. Ryan quotes from recent days aren't great for him either - seemingly trying to prevent leaks of Republican leaders saying the think Putin pays Trump up to a year ago. What a mess.
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  3. Hulkenburger

    Hulkenburger Full Back

    From Wikipedia:

    Hatch told students from the University of Utah, "I wouldn't want to see homosexuals teaching school anymore than I'd want to see members of the American Nazi Party teaching school."

    He also views Obamacare as unconstitutional and voted against protecting people's privacy. Seems like a wonderful choice.
    HellsBells likes this.
  4. Purrfect South

    Purrfect South Striker

    I read somewhere that it's likely to be Hatch.
  5. lordy

    lordy Striker

    The common element in nearly all the major New York Times and Washington Post stories about President Donald Trump this week is that they are based on source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share.

    Friday’s supposed “bombshell” stories follow the same pattern.

    The Times reports that Trump told the visiting Russians that former FBI director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that firing him had eased “pressure” in his ability to conduct foreign policy — though the Times takes Trump to mean the legal pressure of the investigation. (That spin makes no sense: firing Comey created more pressure, which was so obvious the Russians joked about it.)

    The Times describes its source as “a document summarizing the meeting” that was “circulated” (it does not say by whom). The Times does not have the document. An “American official” simply “read quotations” to the Times.

    The Post‘s story, which reports that the probe into potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign has reached “someone close to the president,” cites “people familiar with the matter.” That does not prove the story is untrue, but the sources are so flimsy that there is no way to have confidence in what the Post calls its “revelation.”

    Earlier this week, the Post reported that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told a meeting of fellow House Republican leaders: “I think Putin pays [Trump].” According to those present, the remark was a joke. The Post‘s source was an audio recording of the conversation which it did not have in its actual possession, and which it refuses to share with the public so that people can judge for themselves. The Post did publish a transcript, which it does not appear to have produced itself. The transcript actually supports the claim that McCarthy was joking. The Post‘s reporter has insisted that McCarthy meant his remark to be taken seriously, but refuses to provide the audio.

    And the day before that, the Times published the now-infamous story that Trump had “asked” Comey to end the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The source was purportedly a memorandum that Comey wrote about his recollection of a conversation with Trump. But the Times did not share the memo, and never even saw the document. It merely relied on a Comey “associate” who “read parts of it to a Times reporter.”

    These four stories, taken together, are said by the mainstream media to build a powerful case that Trump committed obstruction of justice and may soon face impeachment. But every piece of evidence could be made up or distorted, and there would be no way to know. In the “nut job” case, the White House has not disputed that Trump made the comment, but it may not be able to explain the context, because doing so would mean releasing more details of a classified conversation that touched on “highly classified” national security matters (as the Post reported on Monday.)

    In their effort to impugn Trump, the Times and the Post violate the most basic journalistic standards. Publishing parts of a document that you do not possess and cannot verify, and timing the release to cause maximum political damage (right after the president leaves the country), is not investigative journalism. It is political propaganda.

    It is the mirror image of what the Los Angeles Times did in April 2008, when it published a story referring to a speech then-State Senator Barack Obama gave at a farewell celebration for radical Palestinian-American academic Rashid Khalidi in 2003. The Times was given a video of the speech, but refused to publish the video. Instead, it offered a mere summary, raising suspicions that the Times had sanitized the event to protect Obama’s presidential campaign.

    The pattern is the same, from the Khalidi tape to the “nut job” story. For the elite mainstream media, when it comes to protecting Democrats or attacking Republicans, there are no journalistic standards, no ethics, and no shame.

  6. This.

    Batten down the hatches, Trump will want to go out with a bang, and his supporters would defend him without question. Cult leader springs to mind
  7. Tex

    Tex Striker

    In the same way towards the end of the campaign when he was slipping in the polls and he started claiming the election was 'rigged' to make amends for what he thought would be his election loss (prior to the Comey announcement that he was reopening the Hilary file), now he's crying foul and claiming it's all a witch hunt to cover for the possibility of his entire administration going completely tits up. The bloke is so easy to read it's laughable.

    Just go - in the name of god, go!
    spoon, Cee Jay, Muppet and 1 other person like this.
  8. Smartprice Bacon

    Smartprice Bacon Full Back

    Eventually they'll twist their arses that much Clinton will end up president basically
  9. Sheldon_Cooper

    Sheldon_Cooper Goalkeeper

    You're 3/4 correct.
  10. MrOompapa

    MrOompapa Striker

    MP could end up with a lot of egg on his face if this doesn't materialise....
  11. If it is eventually proven that the Russians did help the Republicans win the election, how can the whole election be deemed valid?

    I mean we're talking about it being Ryan or Hatch, but it's not Trump in isolation that got elected.
  12. cluffy

    cluffy Striker

    Some Jim Jones action would be good!
    Slippery Jim likes this.
  13. Trump thread this thread.

    I'll believe it when the door hits him on the arse as he makes his exit.

    All it needs is a good war to make him "look" presidential and all bets are off.
  14. Monty Pigeon

    Monty Pigeon Winger

    So not even Breitbart are saying that the stories are untrue, they're just waffling on about unnamed sources (a bit rich when Trump's two favourite sources are 'a lot of people are saying...' and 'I'm hearing...') and speculating without evidence that the White House's affirmation on the 'nut job' story is limited by the conversation being 'classified'.

    Is Comey an unnamed source? https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...hould-worry-comey-memo-describes-a-high-crime
    haway likes this.
  15. MrOompapa

    MrOompapa Striker

    A week is a long time in politics and unfortunately a lot of this is vested in false hope, I would sincerely hope he falls yet I can't help but think the OP will potentially embarrass himself with his choice of title.
  16. haway

    haway Striker

    Yet the WH hasn't denied the reports? Hmmmm
  17. Monty Pigeon

    Monty Pigeon Winger

    Trump's fate rests with the GOP. When they flip, it'll all be over very quickly.

    In part they're holding on because polls show Trump still has support among Republican voters (though it's falling, and the percentage who 'strongly support' him has plummeted in the past fortnight), but mainly they're sticking with him in order to get their tax cuts through. The past week has ground all other business to a halt. If there's no prospect of the administration putting a stop to the endless succession of scandals, they'll hoy him out.

    The significant change last night is that there appears to be talk within the White House itself about the end game.
  18. lordy

    lordy Striker

    I think if an obstruction of justice had occured then Comey has not only lied under oath but has confessed to it too, you simply can't have it both ways, so do you think Comey will be facing trial on this memo?

    Under 18 U.S. Code Section 4, Comey is required by law to report any attempt - including by the President of the United States - to obstruct a federal investigation.

    .@replouiegohmert on Comey: "I'm amazed that an FBI Director a fmr prosecutor would be confessing to a crime the way it appears that he is" pic.twitter.com/HkqkkBekRe

    — FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) May 17, 2017


    does it. what about all the 'collusion' with Russia, why on earth won't that seal his fate?
  19. Cee Jay

    Cee Jay Striker

    breaking news from Saudi.......

    Melania is with him :eek::eek:
  20. lordy

    lordy Striker

    wheres the evidence?
    Dems, Media, Intel Folks Fall Into ‘No Evidence’ Column on Trump Campaign Collusion with Russia
    With headlines swirling and lawmakers meeting behind closed doors, it’s not difficult to conclude there is trouble in the Trump White House.
    But a deeper dive reveals that lots of people who would not consider themselves Trump supporters admit there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Trump campaign regarding alleged collusion with Russians.

    Here’s a list of some of those who fall into the “no evidence” column:

      • Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
    “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me — and I’m quoting you now — you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?” asked CNN’s Wolf Blitzer

    “Well, not—no, it hasn’t,” Feinstein said.

    “But I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the—you’ve had access from the intelligence committee, from the Judiciary committee, all of the access you’ve had to very sensitive information, so far you’ve not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?” Blitzer pressed.

    “Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence,” Feinstein admitted.

      • Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
    “But just to be clear, there has been no actual evidence yet,” Sam Stein of the Huffington Post asked.

    “No, it has not been,” Waters said.

      • Former CIA Director John Brennan
    “What I have found appalling is the number of leaks that have taken place over the last several months,” Brennan said at the SALT conference in Las Vegas, the annual gathering of hedge-fund managers and other financiers. “This needs to be stopped.”

    “The damage that was done is what was leaked in the aftermath, what was put in the media. The real damage to national security is the leaks,” Brennan said.

    Brennan said. “These individuals who still stay within the government and are leaking this stuff to the press need to be brought to task.”

      • Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
    “Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told MSNBC’S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign,” CNN reported.

    But, “There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in,” Clapper said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the U.S. intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump.

    “That’s not to say there wasn’t evidence, but not that met that threshold,” Clapper said.

      • Reuters
    Reuters ran a story on Thursday with the headline “Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians sources”

    But buried in the story is the real headline:

    “In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time. The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.”


Share This Page