Trump gives highly classified information to the Russians

[rogue06]

...or ever truthful!



This is an unjustifiably negative view of the state of the Law in the US. For as long as there is a strong free press with active investigative journalism, and there is despite the Trump fuelled accusations of “fake news”, then the Democratic Republic is safe.

Where was the "strong free press with active investigative journalism" the past eight years? Too busy asking the last president how can he be so cool?

[Charles]

Alan Dershowitz shares his view on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op_-BKegvIc

He says it is the most serious accusation ever made against a sitting president and tells us not to politicize it.

Very interesting.

[Meh Gerbil]

Alan Dershowitz shares his view on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op_-BKegvIc
He says it is the most serious accusation ever made against a sitting president and tells us not to politicize it.

I thought Alan Dershowitz had a better grasp on history.
I'd put multiple counts of rape and sexual abuse to be much more severe.

[Charles]

I thought Alan Dershowitz had a better grasp on history.
I'd put multiple counts of rape and sexual abuse to be much more severe.

I get your point. However part of his reasoning is that this could lead to at least the death of the source of the information. He does not mention other possible consequences directly but I suppose we can all figure out that it would evolve to more killing, those with bad motives having a higher degree of knowlegde and therefore being better prepared the next time they plan to attack.

[Mountain Man]

Alan Dershowitz shares his view on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op_-BKegvIc

He says it is the most serious accusation ever made against a sitting president and tells us not to politicize it.

Very interesting.

Give me a break. The accusation itself is driven entirely by politics. The whole conspiracy theory was concocted by the Hillary campaign shortly after her humiliating defeat.

Source: Breitbart

The book [Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign] highlights how Clinton’s Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior campaign staffers John Podesta and Robby Mook ... “within twenty-four hours” after she conceded:

That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy,” the authors wrote.

[...]

The book also details Clinton’s confusion and frustration with President Obama, whom she apparently thought didn’t do enough “to apprise the public that the Russians had gone way beyond what had been reported”:

She wondered why the president hadn’t leaned harder into making the case that Vladimir Putin was specifically targeting her and trying to throw the election to Trump.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...hillarys-loss/

© Copyright Original Source

Furthermore, and this bears repeating, there is no evidence implicating President Trump.

Don't make it political, you say? Buddy, this is nothing but political.

[Charles]

Give me a break. The accusation itself is driven entirely by politics. The whole conspiracy theory was concocted by the Hillary campaign shortly after her humiliating defeat.

Furthermore, and this bears repeating, there is no evidence implicating President Trump.

Don't make it political, you say? Buddy, this is nothing but political.

You seem too obsessed with your own understanding of these matters to even understand what others are trying to communicate.

First of all I did not say those words. I quoted them and then you reply as if they were mine. Alan Dershowitz has been all over the media with the “where is the crime” statement the last couple of days. Suggesting that he is driven by a political anti Trump bias or is part of some conspiracy rather serves to make it clear that you are thinking way too much in boxes and not allowing for this to be just a little complex and made up of grey zones at times.

A previous investigation found no evidence above the thresholds of “high confidence” which is not to say that there was no evidence. We don’t know much about the ongoing investigation, unless we want to conclude beforehand which is never wise. However that is the path you have chosen.

For anyone not being way too biased I think Trump’s recent activities must allow for some consideration.

[Tassman]

You seem too obsessed with your own understanding of these matters to even understand what others are trying to communicate.

First of all I did not say those words. I quoted them and then you reply as if they were mine. Alan Dershowitz has been all over the media with the “where is the crime” statement the last couple of days. Suggesting that he is driven by a political anti Trump bias or is part of some conspiracy rather serves to make it clear that you are thinking way too much in boxes and not allowing for this to be just a little complex and made up of grey zones at times.

A previous investigation found no evidence above the thresholds of “high confidence” which is not to say that there was no evidence. We don’t know much about the ongoing investigation, unless we want to conclude beforehand which is never wise. However that is the path you have chosen.

For anyone not being way too biased I think Trump’s recent activities must allow for some consideration.

You will learn, Charles, that MM is merely the mouthpiece for Breitbart's extremist nonsense.

[Mountain Man]

You seem too obsessed with your own understanding of these matters to even understand what others are trying to communicate.

First of all I did not say those words. I quoted them and then you reply as if they were mine. Alan Dershowitz has been all over the media with the “where is the crime” statement the last couple of days. Suggesting that he is driven by a political anti Trump bias or is part of some conspiracy rather serves to make it clear that you are thinking way too much in boxes and not allowing for this to be just a little complex and made up of grey zones at times.

A previous investigation found no evidence above the thresholds of “high confidence” which is not to say that there was no evidence. We don’t know much about the ongoing investigation, unless we want to conclude beforehand which is never wise. However that is the path you have chosen.

For anyone not being way too biased I think Trump’s recent activities must allow for some consideration.

I see you're still banging the "Lack of evidence doesn't mean Trump is innocent, it just means we haven't looked hard enough to prove him guilty" drum.

[Charles]

I see you're still banging the "Lack of evidence doesn't mean Trump is innocent, it just means we haven't looked hard enough to prove him guilty" drum.

Nope. I just pointed to the fact that you were so eager at refusing the statement that you messed up whether it was something he said or something I said. And then I pointed to the fact that I think one should be allowed to think that Trump could be guilty. But I did not say he must be. That is something you made up in order to seemingly make it easier to put me in a box.

Sorry to disappoint you but I will not conclude on this before the investsigation has come to a conclusion.

[Mountain Man]

...you messed up whether it was something he said or something I said.

I really didn't. You seemed to approve of his words, and since he's not reading this forum as far as I know, I responded to you.

I'm not sure why you found this confusing.

[Charles]

I really didn't. You seemed to approve of his words, and since he's not reading this forum as far as I know, I responded to you.

I'm not sure why you found this confusing.

Because those words were not mine and I do not necessarily approve those words. I think it is fair to say that a viewpoint can be interesting without having to agree with it.

[One Bad Pig]

Because those words were not mine and I do not necessarily approve those words. I think it is fair to say that a viewpoint can be interesting without having to agree with it.

Oh, don't be coy. Throwing out something as "interesting" is essentially code for "I agree with this, but want some plausible deniability in case it blows up in my face, because I know the source has issues."

[Charles]

Oh, don't be coy. Throwing out something as "interesting" is essentially code for "I agree with this, but want some plausible deniability in case it blows up in my face, because I know the source has issues."

Sorry but you are completely wrong. I find quite much to be of interest though I may disagree. It has not blown up in my face and never will because those words were not mine. Quite easy. I have learned a lot by taking interest in the words of those with whom I disagree.

[Tassman]

I see you're still banging the "Lack of evidence doesn't mean Trump is innocent, it just means we haven't looked hard enough to prove him guilty" drum.

It means that the investigation is ongoing and that we don't have access to all the evidence as yet...although this doesn't seem to be stopping you from prematurely declaring Trump innocent. It can be reasonably said, even at this stage, that trump is behaving as though he has something to hide.

[Mountain Man]

Except that Comey told Trump that he wasn't being investigated, and two Senators are on record confirming it, one of them being the virulently anti-Trump Diane Feinstein.

Source: Breitbart

(May 11, 2017) Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Thursday vouched for President Trump’s assertion in a letter to former FBI Director James Comey that he was not under investigation by the FBI.

Grassley told committee members at an executive meeting that he and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had met with Comey last week, and that he had briefed them on who the targets of the various investigations are.

“Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement,” he said.

Feinstein then said after Grassley’s statement, “I very much appreciate what you’ve said and it’s very accurate..."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...investigation/

© Copyright Original Source

So no evidence, and Trump is not even under investigation.