Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

And can you still support him?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    Quote exactly what he said, in context, that supports your two claims I questioned. That is the actual evidence, not what some third party thinks his words imply.




    I don't believe he did exactly that, at all, and I've listened carefully to that section of the interview (see the YouTube link to the ABC segment) repeatedly. Can you quote just what he said that leads you to think that?

    I'll give my rough transcript of the interview from the YouTube link, and include my thoughts. I'm doing your job for you, BTW. Feel free to supply a better transcript, with your thoughts.



    Specifically he said that he would listen if someone like Norway (that was the example he gave) said they had information on a political opponent. Not 'secret' and not 'dirt' (although it would probably be negative information, I grant that. However I don't recall him using the word 'dirt', or 'secret' at all. You're using prejudicial language here.

    Trump said calling the FBI was not needed, and Wray was wrong specifically in the context of a congressman being approached 'by someone' who said they had information of an opponent. The references to foreign entities came after that in the interview.
    Trump then said, in response to the interviewer asking 'Your campaign this time round, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?'

    (Note that the interviewer is a little hard to hear compared to Trump, and this question shifts from 'Your campaign' (the campaign staff (and Trump)??) to 'you' (Trump or the campaign as a whole??) to 'they' (not Trump, presumably the campaign). It's a poorly worded question, making it less clear exactly what Trump understands it to be asking, and what he is replying to.

    Trump's reply to this question was "I think maybe you do both.[i.e. listen AND contact the FBI] I think maybe you might wanna listen. There's nothing wrong with listening. If someone called from a country - Norway - "I have information on your opponent" I think you'd wanna hear it." [Trump doesn't say if a foreign entity offered information he would not contact the FBI. The question is ambiguous (Your campaign-you-they) and so it's unclear precisely who he means by 'you' in his reply. He may mean himself, or his campaign (staff) or both. Either way, certainly doesn't promise not to contact the FBI. (That was one of your claims about what he said).

    The interviewer then asks 'You want that kind of interference from the Russians?'

    Trump replies: 'It's not an interference. They have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go - maybe to the FBI [there seems to be slight pause after 'go', which may indicate he's deciding who he would go to], if I thought there was something wrong.'


    Trump rejects that it would be interference (he may be wrong about that) so he is not saying that he wants Russia to interfere (as he understands interfere); and he indicates that he would go to someone - maybe the FBI - about it if he felt there was something wrong. It's not clear what 'something wrong' is intended to mean (favourable to Trump interpretations could include: an attempt at subverting the election process? The information shows that a third party has compromised someone in the election? Trump feeling that it's an attempt to compromise him? Something else?)


    Is everything Trump said OK and do I agree with it all? No, but there is a lot of ambiguity in the interview segment, which is only part of a conversation - it finishes with Trump apparently poised to say more - what we don't know. That said, he clearly did not 'ask for foreign help' (you claimed he did), nor 'promise not to contact the FBI if foreigners did contact him' (again you claimed he did). Both of those are your claims, they are what I want you to support by looking at what Trump said, in context. I have shown that they are - to the best of my knowledge - not supported at all by what he said in that interview segment. They are misrepresentations of Trump, and are very serious accusations. If someone accused you of saying anything as serious as that, you would want them to back their accusation up with actual quotes, in context. Please do so.





    You're assuming what you've been asked to show: that Trump actually said those things.






    I haven't attacked you personally. I simply have said what I think to be the case - that you're prejudiced against Trump, and prone to attacking the character and integrity of anyone who disagrees with you on anything about Trump. Which you did when you called me 'naive'. I have supported my view with references to things you've posted in this very thread. If you want me to think differently, show me wrong. You have made specific claims about what trump said in that interview, I am asking you to back them up with reference to what Trump actually said, in context.


    Here's an opportunity to engage in a close consideration of what Trump actually said, in context.
    I dont attack peoples character. To say you are being naive is a simple fact in this case.

    Look, every issue that gets raised raised concerning trump on this website is ignored or dismissed. So i restrict myself at this point to truly egregious issues. Issues that raise the bar yet more. Here we are talking about a sitting president publically declaring he will accept help winnig an election from a covert foreign contact, and that he doesnt see a need to report it in spite of the fact that is the law. And prior to that, he said he would not allow the cia to use or recruit kim jong un's brother as an asset.

    And you are just playing games trying to imply it didn't actually happen. On the one case you are pretending the words dont have the specified meaning, the other you just ignore, as if it wasnt a big deal.

    All im doing is making you own your choice to avoid the issue rather than acknowledge its severity.

    You are smart enough maxvel to understand what trump said and what it means in a context where the Russians (at least) are actively trying to steer our election process. And in a context where nk has nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-15-2019, 10:11 AM.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      I dont attack peoples character. To say you are being naive is a simple fact in this case.

      Look, every issue that gets raised raised concerning trump on this website is ignored or dismissed. So i restrict myself at this point to truly egregious issues. Issues that raise the bar yet more. Here we are talking about a sitting president publically declaring he will accept help winnig an election from a covert foreign contact, and that he doesnt see a need to report it in spite of the fact that is the law. And prior to that, he said he would not allow the cia to use or recruit kim jong un's brother as an asset.

      And you are just playing games trying to imply it didn't actually happen. On the one case you are pretending the words dont have the specified meaning, the other you just ignore, as if it wasnt a big deal.

      All im doing is making you own your choice to avoid the issue rather than acknowledge its severity.

      You are smart enough maxvel to understand what trump said and what it means in a context where the Russians (at least) are actively trying to steer our election process. And in a context where nk has nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them

      Jim
      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
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I dont attack peoples character.
        The sad thing is, I bet you really believe that.
        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

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          You're assuming what you've been asked to show: that Trump actually said those things.
          Let's assume for a moment that ox is 100% correct, and that Trump actually did say that he would be willing to listen to information about a political opponent brought to him by a foreign national, and that he wouldn't report it to the FBI.

          The best response is "So what?" That's just Trump's answer to a hypothetical question, but liberals are acting like what Trump said is somehow worse than what Hillary, the Democrats, and our own intelligence agencies actually did! The disconnect here is mind boggling.
          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

          Comment


          • #65
            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
            Errrrr, with the possible exception of mm whose posts I've not seen.

            Jim
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-15-2019, 02:18 PM.
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              I dont attack peoples character. To say you are being naive is a simple fact in this case.

              Please don't be so obtuse. When I say that you're not objective when it comes to Trump that's an "ad hominem" attack. When you say that I'm naive that's just a "simple fact". Double standard much?



              Originally posted by oxmixmudd
              Look, every issue that gets raised raised concerning trump on this website is ignored or dismissed.
              That's simply not true. I specifically looked in detail at two claims you made about Trump. I asked you repeatedly to show me where Trump said something that supported those two claims. You won't. I spent a fair bit of time watching the interview and making a rough transcript - something that you should have been willing to do if you were sincere about finding the truth, and supporting your claims. It turns out that both your claims are false, misrepresentations. You hand-waved that away by saying 'implication'. You are the one ignoring and dismissing things that get raised.


              Originally posted by oxmixmudd
              So i restrict myself at this point to truly egregious issues. Issues that raise the bar yet more. Here we are talking about a sitting president publically declaring he will accept help winnig an election from a covert foreign contact, and that he doesnt see a need to report it in spite of the fact that is the law. And prior to that, he said he would not allow the cia to use or recruit kim jong un's brother as an asset.

              And you are just playing games trying to imply it didn't actually happen. On the one case you are pretending the words dont have the specified meaning, the other you just ignore, as if it wasnt a big deal.
              I don't care to address the CIA thing, I have no opinion either way on that as I haven't looked at it at all. You may well be right about it for all I know. I am only addressing what YOU said Trump said in that interview. And I have shown that he did not say either of those things. He did not 'ask for foreign help', and he did not 'promise not to contact the FBI if such help was offered'.


              You have repeatedly failed to engage with the facts - what Trump actually said, in context. I have done that. You have no basis to disagree with me, since you have not even attempted to show where he said what you said he did, and what he did say is not what you said he did.

              Trump may be wrong, he may be corrupt, he may be a bad President - but you don't do an honest job of showing that. You misrepresent what he said, and when called on it, you double down and accuse me of being 'naive', and 'playing games'. I said at the outset that I felt you were incapable of being objective about Trump, and that you resort to personal attacks instead of dealing with data when people disagree with you. You have (sadly) repeatedly demonstrated that to be true.


              Originally posted by oxmixmudd
              All im doing is making you own your choice to avoid the issue rather than acknowledge its severity.

              You are smart enough maxvel to understand what trump said and what it means in a context where the Russians (at least) are actively trying to steer our election process. And in a context where nk has nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them

              Jim

              Who's 'avoiding the issue'? Not me. I actually looked in detail at what Trump said, in it's context. I have not said that what he said was good, or even OK. All I have argued for is that he did not say what you claimed. I have shown that, and you refuse to acknowledge that you got it wrong. You refuse to show where he said what you claimed - because you can't - and instead resort to shifting the goalposts and personal attacks on me.

              You are actually making Trump more credible, not less. When you raise an issue like this, and people look into the substance of it, and find that you misrepresent Trump, and won't address the relevant data (his actual words, in context), and resort to personal attacks on people who disagree with you, you make yourself less credible, the sources you cite less credible (the MSM) and Trump more sympathetic and more believable.


              I don't care if Trump does something good or something bad, I care about the truth. I refuse to believe something just on your say so, when you won't support your claims.

              I reject your attacks on my intellectual and moral integrity, simply because I honestly disagree with you. They are untrue, and deeply unchristian. You should be ashamed of yourself. We're done.
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • #67
                Liberal democracy is under attack everywhere. People feel that their prosperity has been undermined by foreign workers; their availability has kept wages low for about 10 years since the financial collapse of 2008. Trump and his like are the response to austerity.
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                  Liberal democracy is under attack everywhere. People feel that their prosperity has been undermined by foreign workers; their availability has kept wages low for about 10 years since the financial collapse of 2008. Trump and his like are the response to austerity.
                  I think there's a fair bit of truth in that. I see Trump as more of a symptom, rather than as a cause.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Please don't be so obtuse. When I say that you're not objective when it comes to Trump that's an "ad hominem" attack. When you say that I'm naive that's just a "simple fact". Double standard much?





                    That's simply not true. I specifically looked in detail at two claims you made about Trump. I asked you repeatedly to show me where Trump said something that supported those two claims. You won't. I spent a fair bit of time watching the interview and making a rough transcript - something that you should have been willing to do if you were sincere about finding the truth, and supporting your claims. It turns out that both your claims are false, misrepresentations. You hand-waved that away by saying 'implication'. You are the one ignoring and dismissing things that get raised.




                    I don't care to address the CIA thing, I have no opinion either way on that as I haven't looked at it at all. You may well be right about it for all I know. I am only addressing what YOU said Trump said in that interview. And I have shown that he did not say either of those things. He did not 'ask for foreign help', and he did not 'promise not to contact the FBI if such help was offered'.


                    You have repeatedly failed to engage with the facts - what Trump actually said, in context. I have done that. You have no basis to disagree with me, since you have not even attempted to show where he said what you said he did, and what he did say is not what you said he did.

                    Trump may be wrong, he may be corrupt, he may be a bad President - but you don't do an honest job of showing that. You misrepresent what he said, and when called on it, you double down and accuse me of being 'naive', and 'playing games'. I said at the outset that I felt you were incapable of being objective about Trump, and that you resort to personal attacks instead of dealing with data when people disagree with you. You have (sadly) repeatedly demonstrated that to be true.





                    Who's 'avoiding the issue'? Not me. I actually looked in detail at what Trump said, in it's context. I have not said that what he said was good, or even OK. All I have argued for is that he did not say what you claimed. I have shown that, and you refuse to acknowledge that you got it wrong. You refuse to show where he said what you claimed - because you can't - and instead resort to shifting the goalposts and personal attacks on me.

                    You are actually making Trump more credible, not less. When you raise an issue like this, and people look into the substance of it, and find that you misrepresent Trump, and won't address the relevant data (his actual words, in context), and resort to personal attacks on people who disagree with you, you make yourself less credible, the sources you cite less credible (the MSM) and Trump more sympathetic and more believable.


                    I don't care if Trump does something good or something bad, I care about the truth. I refuse to believe something just on your say so, when you won't support your claims.

                    I reject your attacks on my intellectual and moral integrity, simply because I honestly disagree with you. They are untrue, and deeply unchristian. You should be ashamed of yourself. We're done.
                    Well, i can tell you feel snubbed, and I am sorry about that.

                    But for the life of me what trump said is in my earlier posts and quoted in the articles Iinked to, and articles others linked to, so I could not fathom why you would be demanding a lengthy transcript from me when it was all there before you or a google away.

                    As for my prickly tone, this is a very hostile environment if one is not a Teump supporter,, and sometimes I make the mistake of assuming hostility. I'll be sure the next time you post to me, if you choose to do so, that I am less prickly.

                    Jim
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-16-2019, 07:33 PM.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      So - as I expected - give it a little time and someone with access to the full interview will produce a full transcript - something I could not do. Here is a link to the transcipt at ABC, and the following is the relevant portion of the interview:

                      https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tran...ry?id=63749144
                      Source: above

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

                      TRUMP: Okay, let’s put yourself in a position: you’re a congressman, somebody comes up and says, “Hey I have information on your opponent.” Do you call the FBI?

                      STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) if it’s coming from Russia you do.

                      TRUMP: I’ll tell you what: I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don’t call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you--

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

                      TRUMP: Well, that’s different. A stolen briefing book. This isn’t a (inaudible). This is somebody who said “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, let me call the FBI. Give me a break, life doesn’t work that way.

                      STEPHANOPOULOS: The FBI Director says that’s what should happen.

                      TRUMP: The FBI Director is wrong. Because, frankly, it doesn’t happen like that in life. Now, maybe it will start happening. 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 don’t call the FBI. I would guarantee you that 90 percent, could be 100 percent of the congressmen or the senators over there, have had meetings, if they didn’t they probably wouldn’t be elected, on negative information about their opponent--

                      STEPHANOPOULOS: From foreign countries?

                      TRUMP: They don’t pro--possibly. Possibly. But they don’t call the FBI. You don’t call the FBI every time some--you hear something that maybe--. Now, you see the people. The meeting, it also sounds to me, I don’t 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. She’s 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. That’s called obstruction. And her lawyer should also be looked at because her lawyer, she’s 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, that’s been investigated.

                      TRUMP: Now that’s called the--no, no. No, no. It’s being investigated I assume now.

                      STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s been investigated.

                      TRUMP: I don’t know, I stay uninvolved. I stay totally uninvolved--

                      STEPHANOPOULOS: You haven’t asked (inaudible) to take a look into--

                      TRUMP: --and I don’t talk to, I don’t talk to. We have a great attorney general now. I don’t talk to my attorney general about that, but I’ll tell you what: when you send 33…They requested 33,000 emails. She got the request. They deleted every one of them. Okay? If you did that, you would’ve been put in jail--

                      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?

                      TRUMP: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, I don’t, there’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, I think I’d want to hear it.

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

                      TRUMP: It’s not an interference, they have information. I think I’d take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI. If I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, that they come up with oppo research. Oh, let’s call the FBI. The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it, but you go and talk honestly to congressmen, they all do it, they always have. And that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.

                      STEPHANOPOULOS: Surprising. Thank you.

                      TRUMP: Thank you. Okay. Fine.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      The first thing one can note is that there is nothing in what has already been cited from the interview that is a misquote. They are direct quotes. As for context and whether or not the context somehow softens the blow of his words - primarily what I see in this interview is that he projects his own corrupt sense of what he should or would do on every one else. So, while he is quite clear he would take information from a foreign power, and while he makes it clear he thinks calling the FBI is not something he would or should do, he characterizes these two facts as being things 'everyone' would do or does.

                      I don't have a lot of time to take it apart in detail this morning, I'm sure there will be comments, but I'll return to it tonight to give my take on it. What I have time to point out now is what I've already pointed out - Even the white house understands Trump to have made the claim I have pointed out in this thread and which he has been called on publicly in most media outlets - and they are trying to control its impact, spin it in some less destructive way.


                      Jim
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-17-2019, 05:52 AM.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tran...ry?id=63749144



                          Source: above

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

                          TRUMP: Okay, let’s put yourself in a position: you’re a congressman, somebody comes up and says, “Hey I have information on your opponent.” 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 it’s coming from Russia you do.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          But Stephanopoulos does ...

                          Source: above


                          TRUMP: I’ll tell you what: I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don’t 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, that’s different. A stolen briefing book. This isn’t a (inaudible). This is somebody who said “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, let me call the FBI. Give me a break, life doesn’t 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 that’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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 didn’t they probably wouldn’t 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 don’t pro--possibly. Possibly. But they don’t call the FBI. You don’t 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 don’t 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. She’s 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. That’s called obstruction. And her lawyer should also be looked at because her lawyer, she’s 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, that’s been investigated.

                          TRUMP: Now that’s called the--no, no. No, no. It’s being investigated I assume now.

                          STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s been investigated.

                          TRUMP: I don’t know, I stay uninvolved. I stay totally uninvolved--

                          STEPHANOPOULOS: You haven’t asked (inaudible) to take a look into--

                          TRUMP: --and I don’t talk to, I don’t talk to. We have a great attorney general now. I don’t talk to my attorney general about that, but I’ll tell you what: when you send 33…They requested 33,000 emails. She got the request. They deleted every one of them. Okay? If you did that, you would’ve 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 don’t, there’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, I think I’d 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: It’s not an interference, they have information. I think I’d 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, I’d 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, let’s call the FBI. The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it, but you go and talk honestly to congressmen, they all do it, they always have. And that’s the way it is. It’s 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, 05:44 PM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              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 isn’t a (inaudible). This is somebody who said “We have information on your opponent.” 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.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                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 isn’t a (inaudible). This is somebody who said “We have information on your opponent.” 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, 06:57 PM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 08:14 PM
                                0 responses
                                7 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 09:58 AM
                                11 responses
                                142 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                34 responses
                                293 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                79 responses
                                486 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sam
                                by Sam
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                115 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X