Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 250

Thread: And can you still support him?

  1. #71
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,881
    Amen (Given)
    5514
    Amen (Received)
    5461
    Staphylococcus: ...if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

    TRUMP: I think maybe you do both.

    End of story.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  2. Amen mossrose, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  3. #72
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,714
    Amen (Given)
    256
    Amen (Received)
    1441
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tran...ry?id=63749144



    Source: above

    STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) going to the FBI when he got that email.

    TRUMP: Okay, letís put yourself in a position: youíre a congressman, somebody comes up and says, ďHey I have information on your opponent.Ē Do you call the FBI?

    © Copyright Original Source



    So Trump introduces the scenario, And asks IF a person in that situation should call the FBI.
    But Trump doesn't specify from a foreign operative.

    Source: above


    STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) if itís coming from Russia you do.

    © Copyright Original Source



    But Stephanopoulos does ...

    Source: above


    TRUMP: Iíll tell you what: Iíve seen a lot of things over my life. I donít think in my whole life Iíve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You donít call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you--

    © Copyright Original Source



    But Trump has a point to make. So he continues on and makes clear he does not and would not call the FBI. It's Trump's point. He doesn't clarify based on Stephanopoulos' qualification. He wants the world to know that it is silly to require him to call the FBI if someone, anyone, and per the qualification by S, EVEN A PERSON FROM RUSSIA bring him dirt on an opponent.

    Source: above


    STEPHANOPOULOS: Al Gore got a stolen briefing book. He called the FBI.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So Trump has created the scenario. He has a point to make. His point is that this calling the FBI thing is bogus. No one would do that he is saying, even IF it was a person from Russia (and by implication a foreign operative)

    But S offers a quick counter - Al Gore (a loathed Dem) DID call the FBI. ? ooops ...

    Source: above


    TRUMP: Well, thatís different. A stolen briefing book. This isnít a (inaudible). This is somebody who said ďWe have information on your opponent.Ē Oh, let me call the FBI. Give me a break, life doesnít work that way.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So Trump responds 'well that's different (I guess because it's a written document?) and THEN DOUBLES DOWN. ITS STUPID TO CALL THE FBI. And again, this is about FOREIGN operatives.

    Source: above


    STEPHANOPOULOS: The FBI Director says thatís what should happen.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Now it is S's turn to double down. The FBI Director says that is what you have to Do S says. And Indeed, Wray made it clear that is what you have to do. So now we have that Trump brought the situation up. Trump does not back up or qualify when S adds the idea of a Russian doing it, he doubles down. Trump wants to make the point it's silly to call the FBI If anyone, even a foreign operative, brings you information that you can use against your opponent.

    Source: above


    TRUMP: The FBI Director is wrong.

    © Copyright Original Source



    TRUMP DOUBLES DOWN AGAIN!. Wray is wrong. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO CALL THE FBI.


    Source: above


    Because, frankly, it doesnít happen like that in life. Now, maybe it will start happening.

    © Copyright Original Source



    BECAUSE IT's SILLY!

    This is trumps point, and he's made it - boom, boom, boom ...

    But having made it there seems to be a little oops voice that has started going off in his head ...

    Source: above


    Maybe today you think differently, but two or three years ago, if somebody comes into your office with oppo research--they call it oppo research--with information that might be good or bad or something, but good for you, bad for your opponent, you donít call the FBI.

    © Copyright Original Source



    oops ... a little backpedal here. OK, MAYBE IT'S NOT COMPLETELY SILLY NOW. But he's gonna double down AGAIN. Because, hey, during the time he actually did this, NO ONE WOULD HAVE CALLED THE FBI!

    Source: above


    I would guarantee you that 90 percent, could be 100 percent of the congressmen or the senators over there, have had meetings, if they didnít they probably wouldnít be elected, on negative information about their opponent--

    © Copyright Original Source



    Yep - NO ONE would have called the FBI. Anyone offered info on an opponent would have taken it, no matter where it came from ....

    Source: above


    STEPHANOPOULOS: From foreign countries?

    © Copyright Original Source



    Just to clarify ... just to give him that chance to take that almost back pedal above just a little further maybe. Are you sure Mr. President that you REALLY want to double down on it being silly to call the FBI about information regarding opponents from foreign countries???


    Source: above


    TRUMP: They donít pro--possibly. Possibly. But they donít call the FBI. You donít call the FBI every time some--you hear something that maybe--. Now, you see the people.

    © Copyright Original Source




    Yes indeed - Mr Trump does indeed want to double down on that. You don't call the FBI, even IF ITS FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

    FOUR TIMES Stephanopolous Gives Trump a chance to back away from his claim. FOUR TIMES Trump doubles down. Although the third time he almost clued into the problem he was headed into.

    Now the discussion turns for a short time into one of his very favorite topics - the Clinton emails.

    Source: above


    The meeting, it also sounds to me, I donít know anything about that meeting, but it sounds to me like it was a big nothing. That meeting was a big nothing. But I heard about my son, who is a great young man, going to jail over a meeting where somebody said I have information on Hillary Clinton. Sheís the one who should be in jail. She deleted 33--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: She should be in jail?

    TRUMP: She deleted 33,000 emails from, sent by the United States Congress. They gave a subpoena to Hillary Clinton for 33,000 emails. After the subpoena was gotten, she deleted them. Thatís called obstruction. And her lawyer should also be looked at because her lawyer, sheís got to have the greatest lawyer on earth because she does that, he did the deleting supposedly, not only did they delete, but they acid washed them.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: That, thatís been investigated.

    TRUMP: Now thatís called the--no, no. No, no. Itís being investigated I assume now.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Itís been investigated.

    TRUMP: I donít know, I stay uninvolved. I stay totally uninvolved--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: You havenít asked (inaudible) to take a look into--

    TRUMP: --and I donít talk to, I donít talk to. We have a great attorney general now. I donít talk to my attorney general about that, but Iíll tell you what: when you send 33ÖThey requested 33,000 emails. She got the request. They deleted every one of them. Okay? If you did that, you wouldíve been put in jail--

    © Copyright Original Source



    But after that little diversion, maybe Trump clued into the fact He'd just made a mistake about the dirt on opponents thing ...

    Source: above


    STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

    © Copyright Original Source



    So S takes it back a FIFTH time - i don't know, maybe he really, really want to help Trump out of the ditch he just dug for himself. So what does Trump do ....

    Source: above


    TRUMP: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, I donít, thereís nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, ďWe have information on your opponent.Ē Oh, I think Iíd want to hear it.

    © Copyright Original Source



    'maybe'? He backs up ever so slightly - 'maybe' (but remember, S has reminded him the law REQUIRES him to and has brought it up a fifth time, so trump is starting to get that maybe S isn't going to accept 'No one would call the FBI). But now instead of accepting S's offer and helping himself out of the ditch, he sends a very clear message that even if he MAYBE calls the FBI, HE'S GOING TO LISTEN TO THE DIRT! So - "hey all you foreign guys, bring me that oppo info. I might (maybe - wink wink) call the FBI since Stepanopoulos is really being a jerk about it , BUT YOU CAN BET I'LL USE WHAT YOU GIVE ME!"

    And Trump has both feet in now. His little 'maybe' doesn't even come close to undoing 4 double downs on NOT calling the FBI, AND now he's making sure EVERYONE knows that he's gonna listen to whatever they bring!

    Source: above


    STEPHANOPOULOS: You want that kind of interference in our elections?

    © Copyright Original Source



    And again S gives Trump a chance out of the quicksand. Do you REALLY want to say you are going to accept, even encourage foreign countries to be influencing our elections???

    Source: above


    TRUMP: Itís not an interference, they have information. I think Iíd take it.

    © Copyright Original Source



    NOOO! He doubles down on that second foot in the mud. And just in case you were fooled by that momentary walk back on the calling the FBI thing above - HE DOUBLES DOWN ON THAT AGAIN TOO!!!!

    Source: above


    If I thought there was something wrong, Iíd go maybe to the FBI. If I thought there was something wrong.

    © Copyright Original Source



    And do you get it? The 'maybe' going to the FBI is reserved for finding out your opponent shot someone and hid them in the wall - stuff like that. It has nothing to do with it begin WRONG to take info from Foreign operatives, heck ANYONE would do THAT!


    Source: above

    But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, that they come up with oppo research. Oh, letís call the FBI. The FBI doesnít have enough agents to take care of it, but you go and talk honestly to congressmen, they all do it, they always have. And thatís the way it is. Itís called oppo research

    © Copyright Original Source




    So after almost waking it back, he whips back around and FINISHES the discussion absolutely clear - this calling the FBI thing is STUPID! And no-one (including me) is going to do it!


    Source: above


    STEPHANOPOULOS: Surprising. Thank you.

    © Copyright Original Source



    IOW (i.e. the bold 'Surprising')- I tried, I realllly tried to give you a chance not to get into that mud pit. Over and over I tried, but you Mr. Trump were quite determined to make it absolutely clear that you would take dirt on your opponents from foreign operatives, and even more so, you wanted to make it absolutely clear that you are not going to call the FBI unless, maybe, just maybe there is something really, really bad in the dirt you just learned about.



    Source: above



    TRUMP: Thank you. Okay. Fine.

    © Copyright Original Source



    And Trump is clueless what he's just done ... or is he?

    So that's the deal. It's plain as day. And only if you are absolutely committed to Donald Trump no matter what he says, not matter what he does, can you not see that:

    Trump has said if he gets dirt on an opponent from a foreign country

    A) He is not calling the FBI unless that dirt is something really really bad (e.g. the opponent shot someone)

    B) He's going to listen to it, and probably will use it if he can.

    C) He's perfectly OK with foreign countries influencing our elections this way.


    And THAT is why he's being raked over the coals for it. And why his staff are mortified by what he has said and why they have had to do damage control.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-17-2019 at 03:44 PM.
    OK - maybe there are 'some' friends

  4. #73
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,881
    Amen (Given)
    5514
    Amen (Received)
    5461
    That's a tinfoil hat "analysis" worthy of Rachael Maddow.

    But the real question is, did Hillary and the Democrats report to the FBI when they solicited and accepted help from foreign governments and their agents in 2016?
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  5. #74
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,958
    Amen (Given)
    202
    Amen (Received)
    851
    I see.
    Trump introduced a scenario - Someone TELLS you he has information.
    Stephanopolous rings in a change - Someone BRINGS you information.
    Trump says, "A stolen briefing book. This isnít a (inaudible). This is somebody who said ďWe have information on your opponent.Ē which is to say - you're not talking about the same scenario. (which he isn't)

    Thereafter, Trump is trying to deal with an unexpected hypothetical on the fly. [that doesn't seem to be his forte].

    So - to the conclusions:

    A) He is not calling the FBI unless that dirt is something really really bad (e.g. the opponent shot someone)
    By contrast with, perhaps, someone getting caught outside his hotel room with his pants down (or missing.) Certainly - why call the FBI about things that aren't in the FBI's bailiwick?

    B) He's going to listen to it, and probably use it if he can.
    Provided, presumably, that it isn't something the FBI should be informed about. He wouldn't know until he had seen the stuff - and yes, he admits to prurience. If it is something that the FBI should be informed about, that would also have an impact on an election ... so, it would be in his best interests to pass it on. Or maybe even, it shouldn't be passed on to the FBI ... the appropriate agency might be the CIA. You wouldn't know until you had seen it. Or maybe it is just dirt, damaging without being a criminal matter. You still wouldn't know if it remained unseen.

    C) He's perfectly OK with foreign countries influencing our elections this way.
    Using information that influences an election, provided that it is legitimate, seems reasonable. The source isn't an issue - the accuracy is.
    Or --- perhaps information about corrupt practices by a given candidate should be rejected because it comes from the KGB or Mossad?: say, intentions of that candidate to infiltrate ISIS agents into the defence department (as an outlandish scenario), or perhaps even an entire political party's intentions to do the same?

    I would be more concerned if that information wasn't used, and it wouldn't need to be anywhere near that damaging to become worthy of circulation. Nor do I believe that it would be unlikely for any candidate of whatever political stamp to have the same attitude as Trump.
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  6. #75
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,714
    Amen (Given)
    256
    Amen (Received)
    1441
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    I see.
    Trump introduced a scenario - Someone TELLS you he has information.
    Stephanopolous rings in a change - Someone BRINGS you information.
    Trump says, "A stolen briefing book. This isnít a (inaudible). This is somebody who said ďWe have information on your opponent.Ē which is to say - you're not talking about the same scenario. (which he isn't)

    Thereafter, Trump is trying to deal with an unexpected hypothetical on the fly. [that doesn't seem to be his forte].
    So Trump's excused for saying 4 or 5 times in a row he's not going to call the FBI, and that he's going to take dirt from foreign operatives ...

    And remember, Stephanopoulos asks Trump over and over and in different ways, and even though Trump once almost walks it back, in the end he is quite firm on both conclusions related to this interview that I outlined with the thread opener, and which have gotten him in hot water.

    So - to the conclusions:

    A) He is not calling the FBI unless that dirt is something really really bad (e.g. the opponent shot someone)
    By contrast with, perhaps, someone getting caught outside his hotel room with his pants down (or missing.) Certainly - why call the FBI about things that aren't in the FBI's bailiwick?
    The topic is information from foreign operatives. That has been the topic for 3 years. And no, he's not comparing a non-crime to a crime, he said over and over again he's not calling the FBI if he gets dirt from a foreigh operative. What he is allowing for is that if the dirt implicates the opponent in a crime, THEN he might see some point in calling the FBI. But the point is, foreign operatives giving him dirt on an opponent is a great thing, and of course he's not calling the FBI if 'that is all it is'.

    Not only that, he tells us that he doesn't even think sort of thing is interfering in our elections.

    What you are doing Tabibito is ignoring the context of the comments, taking them in isolation and proposing an alternate meaning for them.

    B) He's going to listen to it, and probably use it if he can.
    Provided, presumably, that it isn't something the FBI should be informed about. He wouldn't know until he had seen the stuff - and yes, he admits to prurience.
    Nope. As I pointed out earlier - if you have a security clearance AND a foreign person contacts you directly to GIVE you information or REQUEST information, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPORT IT.

    It's not a matter of Trump 'deciding' if there is something bad IN the information. The mere fact a foreign operative is giving or requesting information IS ITSELF BAD and requires the individual to REPORT IT TO THE FBI!


    If it is something that the FBI should be informed about, that would also have an impact on an election ... so, it would be in his best interests to pass it on. Or maybe even, it shouldn't be passed on to the FBI ... the appropriate agency might be the CIA. You wouldn't know until you had seen it. Or maybe it is just dirt, damaging without being a criminal matter. You still wouldn't know if it remained unseen.
    That just isn't how this sort of thing works. Legally, it is the FBI is who decides where it goes from there.

    C) He's perfectly OK with foreign countries influencing our elections this way.
    Using information that influences an election, provided that it is legitimate, seems reasonable. The source isn't an issue - the accuracy is.
    Or --- perhaps information about corrupt practices by a given candidate should be rejected because it comes from the KGB or Mossad?: say, intentions of that candidate to infiltrate ISIS agents into the defence department (as an outlandish scenario), or perhaps even an entire political party's intentions to do the same?
    NO!!!! GOOD GRIEF. No - it is not ok for foreign countries to give information to candidates about opponents they don't want and thus influence our elections. Perhaps there are scenarios where some good could come of it, but the law doesn't exist because people always are seeking to do the right thing, or because people always know what they should do.

    You tell the authorities, the institutions and organizations tasked with enforcing the law and protecting the country.



    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-17-2019 at 04:57 PM.
    OK - maybe there are 'some' friends

  7. #76
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,958
    Amen (Given)
    202
    Amen (Received)
    851
    Ah - well now, it it is something that the law requires, then heeding the law would usually be a good thing (there is the occasional exception).

    But that a contact from a foreign operative? government? merely offering information. It seems odd that such a thing must be reported.
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  8. #77
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,576
    Amen (Given)
    1409
    Amen (Received)
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    As a follow on, not as a reply to any particular post.

    The white house is aggressively pursuing damage control as it relates to Trump's comments on taking dirt and not calling the FBI. The FEC commisioner has weighed in, making it absolutely clear such action is illegal. Blame has been cast on Sarah Sanders for allowing too much access to the president as part of pointing fingers over who to blame for the incident.

    And yet here on Tweb people are unwilling to even admit he said it, and are, once again, still willing to support Donald Trump, no matter what.

    Jim
    Did the commissioner cite the statute? Turley said that "There is nothing illegal in receiving such information for either politicians or journalists."
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  9. #78
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,469
    Amen (Given)
    1052
    Amen (Received)
    17810
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Did the commissioner cite the statute? Turley said that "There is nothing illegal in receiving such information for either politicians or journalists."
    Back when the charges of collusion first started surfacing there were a number of legal experts from both sides of the aisle that were saying merely receiving information wouldn't break any laws. That would explain why that after the interview with Stephanopoulos Democrats have introduced measures requiring anyone getting such information to turn it over to the FBI. Such measures wouldn't be necessary if it were already illegal.

    Meanwhile, I wonder if any of those who screamed accepting assistance like this from foreigners is treason have now started to realize that it was the Clinton campaign who actually paid for a foreigner ó Britainís Christopher Steele ó to use other foreigners (the Russians) to fabricate a completely phony "dossier" that was a massive, deliberate interference by foreigners in the 2016 election.

    Perhaps they should tend to their own crystal palaces before they start hurling stones about.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  10. #79
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,881
    Amen (Given)
    5514
    Amen (Received)
    5461
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Did the commissioner cite the statute? Turley said that "There is nothing illegal in receiving such information for either politicians or journalists."
    I think the Democrat strategy here is pretty transparent. The Mueller report said the Trump campaign rejected offers from foreign nationals despite repeated attempts, but now they're trying to make the case that they broke the law anyway because they didn't report each attempt to the FBI even though there was no reason to.

    Meanwhile, is there any evidence that Mark Warner and Adam Schiff reported to the FBI after they solicited and accepted information from foreign agents?

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...eign-contacts/
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  11. #80
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,714
    Amen (Given)
    256
    Amen (Received)
    1441
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    Ah - well now, it it is something that the law requires, then heeding the law would usually be a good thing (there is the occasional exception).

    But that a contact from a foreign operative? government? merely offering information. It seems odd that such a thing must be reported.
    II dont think it is for a general person. But it is if you have a clearance, which most senators or congressman, and many staffers have, and apparently it also comes up in laws associated with running a campaign. Foreign governments having influence in our elections has been a serious concern since the founding fathers.

    Jim
    OK - maybe there are 'some' friends

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •