I understand that and i am still not cinvinced that reasonable suspicion exists. If it does then every politician can be investigated for this.
Trump/Comey
- Thread starter Been Jammin
- Start date
You're not convinced that reasonable suspicion exists?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ies-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868
I know it's Politico. I am not using it to argue or imply that a crime definitely has been committed. Furthermore, the connection listed are all pretty well established.
Looking at all that, is your first reaction really there is "nothing suspiscious at all" about those connections? The breadth of them with people at high levels of administration? IMO, Flynn's issues alone raise reasonable suspicion sufficient to do an investigation.
I will go through it more thoroughly today, but my initial take is the article is playing seven degrees of Donald Trump which is easy as he has an international business that does business with the who's who of the Forbes 500 on daily basis. You can do same with Hill and I remember an article during the election that did. No special investigator there.
I will go through it and let you know if my initial take changes.
I will go through it and let you know if my initial take changes.
This is very important. And his full comments about the dems coming out of this, not only looking bad, but strengthening Trump are spot on...
The backlash is coming.
Ok I went through the charts and there is nothing there. I did especially like the mystery person to link to Assange. Runner up for biggest stretch was a friend of Ivanka rumored to have dated Putin. The reference ties through the Russian ambassador a lot. Well I guess Hill and Obama can have a special investigator appointed. They talked to him as well.
I know you are better than that JD. You've taken some of my arguments completely apart with expertise. I have the deepest respect for your thoughts. Unlike others you bring actual evidence and experience to the conversation. With that being said this is not your best work. I'm actually surprised you think that reasonable suspicion exists. It just seems counter to what you have argued in the past on this board.
Nicely played. I am not trying to pick a fight with JD. He would most likely dismantle me linguistacly and make it look like art.
NOTHING there?
Nothing.....even slightly suspicious...
Flynn, getting paid by Russian propagandists and subsequently getting fired for lying about what he talked to the Russians about?
Nope...perfectly reasonable explanation.
Nothing here...just six degrees of seperation (actually, it's one degree...on multiple situations...but okay).
No....reasonable suspicion....at all.
US Intelligence agencies state Russian hacked DNC emails...Trump throws a Twitter fit attacking them.
Comey gets fired by Trump....Trump cites Russia in his decision.
Yep....you're right...no reason that is a bit questionable or suspicious.
I really don't get either:
1. People saying nope....no reasonable suspicion...at all. Absolutely nothing to see here.
Or....
2. Lock them all up. Trump colluded. Impeach Trump. Case closed.
Once again, I find myself right in the middle of cheerleaders from both sides.
There is obvious reasonable suspiscion. That has been my position from the beginning. Not even Trump's own appointed Deputy AG is arguing there is no reasonable suspicion. (We don't know what Sessions thinks...because he recused himself...hmm...weird). In a perfect world, we would all shut the hell up about Russia and let the Special Counsel do his job, complete the investigation and announce results.
Instead...Trump and Trumpies scream "fake news" and appear to be doing everything they can to keep it from going forward while the Left continues to talk impeachment.
And I'm over here just suggesting that maybe we let Special Counsel do their job before claiming what evidence there is or isn't.
What was I thinking?
Last edited:
@Tulsaaggieson i didn't read did you win??
Did you ever see me argue on ANY occasion that there was not reasonable suspicion for ANY investigation done on Hillary?
The reason there is now a Special Counsel in this case frankly is because Trump has driven it there with his behavior.
Ongoing FBI investigation.
Hype yourself into a Russia is fake news frenzy.
Sessions has to recuse.
Decide to fire Comey.
Direct your newly Appointed Deputy AG to come up with a supposed justification.
Fire him and cite the Deputy AG...and toss in a weird seemingly irrelevant Russia reference.
Go on tv the next day and burn the credibility of your Deputy AG by saying you were always going to fire him because Russia.
Did he want to turn an FBI run investigation into a Special Counselor one?
Because that's exactly how it is done. It's like he following a blueprint.
I hate to admit it but I read almost every single word of every thread. I need help.
I actually understand a lot of it too.
I understand trying to use Flynn but he served under Obama as well. Is that on the table?
Russia hacking DNC emails is not influencing the election. If anything it should have helped Hill.
The best that is there is Trump firing Comey. News flash Trump is Comey's boss. He has that prerogative. I know FBI is supposed to be immune from this, but Comey has been hiding behind that false shield to long and was interjecting in politics all along. Remember the FBI is an intelligence agency as well as a law enforcwmwnt agency and you dont want to give any agency that kind of power to hide behind let alone an Intel agency.
You may be in the middle, but you are coming across as taking a strong stand with the left. I myself am in the middle as well. I know my arguments here though make it look as if I'm far right. Not a DT fan. I'm just applying the precedent of the last administration to this one. I would have been ok with a Congressional investigation, as I believe you stated earlier that you where not hung up on having to have a special investigator.
At this point you have a SI. What happens when he finds Nothing? We don't even know what the scope of his investigation is going to look like or at. It looks more like a witch hunt than an investigation at this point.
I guess my question for you would be: What are the limits of his investigation and when can this investigation be turned off and how? What is he going to investigate that is a crime and hasn't already been done by Hill or Obama?
Does this open the possibility of a special prosecutor beeing assigned for the IRS, Benghazi, Clinton foundation, or yes even Obama's Birth Certificate? Based on this case there would be reasonable suspicion for these cases, or based on these cases precedent not to appoint one. Which is it? I would like to know where the line is.
Russia hacking DNC emails is not influencing the election. If anything it should have helped Hill.
The best that is there is Trump firing Comey. News flash Trump is Comey's boss. He has that prerogative. I know FBI is supposed to be immune from this, but Comey has been hiding behind that false shield to long and was interjecting in politics all along. Remember the FBI is an intelligence agency as well as a law enforcwmwnt agency and you dont want to give any agency that kind of power to hide behind let alone an Intel agency.
You may be in the middle, but you are coming across as taking a strong stand with the left. I myself am in the middle as well. I know my arguments here though make it look as if I'm far right. Not a DT fan. I'm just applying the precedent of the last administration to this one. I would have been ok with a Congressional investigation, as I believe you stated earlier that you where not hung up on having to have a special investigator.
At this point you have a SI. What happens when he finds Nothing? We don't even know what the scope of his investigation is going to look like or at. It looks more like a witch hunt than an investigation at this point.
I guess my question for you would be: What are the limits of his investigation and when can this investigation be turned off and how? What is he going to investigate that is a crime and hasn't already been done by Hill or Obama?
Does this open the possibility of a special prosecutor beeing assigned for the IRS, Benghazi, Clinton foundation, or yes even Obama's Birth Certificate? Based on this case there would be reasonable suspicion for these cases, or based on these cases precedent not to appoint one. Which is it? I would like to know where the line is.
Now Comey's surrogates are saying Trump tried to influence the FBI's investigation, yet, on May 3, a short 2 1/2 weeks ago, Comey testified under oath before the Senate that there was NO attempt to influence his investigation.
Comey is turning out to be more of a chameleon than a highly respected attorney or FBI leader. He's approaching Obama territory on believability.
Comey is turning out to be more of a chameleon than a highly respected attorney or FBI leader. He's approaching Obama territory on believability.
Obama is not the president. This would fall under the heading of an entirely separate investigation. "But, Obama...." is not a defense for the current president.
What? How do you figure that it should have helped her? I'm mystified. There aren't many who would argue that they didn't do it or that their goal was anything other than to influence the election.
So, you just admitted that there might be something suspicious about this situation.
"But, Obama...."
There is no precedent. Whether or not you think that Obama should have been investigated (for whatever issue you want to point to), the two situations are not the exact same and the same result should not be expected.
Which do you think is more likely to get to the bottom of the situation? You have stated that members of Congress are politicians and can't be trusted in the past. Why would you prefer to put them in charge of investigation?
To be determined....by an investigation.
You are either fooling yourself or trying to fool the rest of us.
and trump fired flynn.
and this whole thing is a waste when compared to #maga
like alpha said when you take a shot you best not miss
by all means carry on
investigate INVESTIGATE squeeze and vet til the juices run dry
then what you got?
And then what you got is (most likely):
A democratic party that actually gets around to reforming itself instead of blaming an election loss on anything other than pushing bad policy and pushing race-based and sex-based divisions within society.
That is not what he testified to....but keep trying to quote him out of context, cheerleader.
Either an exonerated Trump administration or criminal charges.
I'm good with either.
Of course, I don't have a "side" that I'm cheering for.
This is the problem I have with the entire thing. You will not get one of these.
@CowboyJD
Do you rail with equal gusto against both leftist and rightist quackery when it comes to political shenanigans? Hear me out...
That may be why some sense an imbalance in where you choose to insert your takes....which may be further because threads about Trump are naturally aplenty, while threads about the need for a reformation with the democratic party are sparse.
My succinct take is for the investigation to run its course. Transparency is a fine disinfectant. Concurrent to that is my criticism of (mostly) the democratic party being lurched further left, doubling down on a mindset that is 1. increasingly hostile to those that aren't in lockstep with their worldview, 2. increasingly willing to resort to violence or leave the threat of it as a backdrop, 3. and relying on ever more granular forms of tribalism (race, sex, new dimensions of sex, religion, etc, etc) as a means to create wedges between people centered around ZERO-SUM competition.
That level of granular detail and segmentation is great for predictive marketing analytics, but it is abhorrent and undermining as a mechanism for steering self-identity in a populace.
It is my intent to begin bringing these points up with greater frequency. In the war of ideas and philosophies, in loss and in victory, both sides can emerge edified. But both sides must possess an ability to challenge themselves, to allow for doubt in a particular point for example, in order for anything of value to be gained.
I guess I'm ultimately saying that I hope you are as robust in your takes in those debates as you are with the (pretty black and white IMHO) subject of the investigation.
Because, for the democrats, this has been a political tool from the outset.
They get the most value out of this being as long and sour a process as possible. It mitigates current administration legislation and steers public opinion for the next cycle.
I believe I have been....both recently and during the Obama administration.
I believe the facts bear that out as well...as does the quote from me you just took and commented on.
I'll keep my eyes open.
To be clear, I'm largely speaking about overarching political philosophy and mechanisms within politics as opposed to specific legislation or allegations of criminal wrong-doing.
Sure you will.
What you won't get is an admission from lefties that that is what you got.
But if Trump let's Mueller do his job without a hint of trying to influence, and no charges are filed in the end, he absolutely ended up with an exoneration that he can quite effectively bludgeon the Democrats, etc with like a medieval mace.
Lol. True.
At that point he is effectively sterilized, and the upper hand shifts to him.
At that point, if it is reached, democrats will have to win on the battlefield of ideas again.
To be clear, I largely don't speak about overarching political philosophy and mechanisms within politics (from either side).....certainly not much beyond I think they are all hypocritical personal power seekers....I'm mostly a pox on both their houses kind of guy in the broad sense.
My area of knowledge, experience, and frankly interest runs to specific actions, legislation, policy, and allegations of wrong doing. I guess I am just more of a "small picture" kind of guy for the most part. I'm a better Command Seargeant Major than I am a General.
I did enjoy where you were leading GL in the political philosophy arena in that other thread.
You are correct. Obama is not the president but he did set the precedent. (There is a song there.)
Hill did what she needed to do by screaming about being hacked by the Russians but the American people heard it and didn't care.
You can say I am admitting suspicion all you want. I am not, and even if I were there is that nasty reasonable word that hangs that up.
I honestly just want equal justice under the law. There are two ways to do that. Appoint a special investigator for every one of Obama's and Hill's scandals or drop it for Trump. I am good with either.
You should never go into an investigation without knowing what kind of criminal action you are investigating. If you allow the investigation to reveal the criminal action then everyone in the US is guilty of crimes and should have a SI appointed to root them out. You just described Gestapo and Stalinistic Tactics.
Who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows them?
Ultimately I did figure that it was your preference (reflecting your interest or comfort) to weigh in more heavily in matters like the investigation or specific legislation. In the areas where you do choose to weigh-in, I think you do a pretty bang-up job (good).
And that all makes perfect sense to me.
Drudge reported yesterday that the Dems seem to be slowing down on the impeachment talk. I'm guessing they saw polls telling them they are going against the grain on this one. That's a shame, because I hope they keep it up.
Do you think Mueller is in bed with the Democrats?
IMO, he deserves the benefit of the doubt that he is going to run an impartial investigation. What he finds, or does not find, should (and will, IMO) be independent of partisanship in either direction.
Similar threads
