sleeper;1852281 wrote:Again, this thread is about Trump. Bringing up Hillary when the President is under criminal investigation by the FBI and other agencies is deflection.

When are you going to hold the POTUS accountable and start choosing country over party?

sleeper;1852279 wrote:The current theory is that Trump was in deep trouble from the 2008 housing crises because his business are real estate driven and highly leveraged. He looked to Russia for funding to keep himself a float through back channels and offshore accounts and potentially has dealings that are illegal out there. In the campaign, it's certainly possible he exchanged favors through the same back channels for the releasing of emails that damaged his political opponent since the connections had been established already with the Russians.

You never ask yourself why the Russians only released DNC information and not the RNC data they hacked?

sleeper;1852285 wrote:That didn't answer my question. Why did it take Trump 4 months to fire the guy when the firing offense was committed 10 months ago? What new information does Trump have which caused the firing?

You really need to stop watching Fox News. It's propaganda.

O-Trap;1852284 wrote: Moreover, in theory at least, it might be something that was initiated and/or facilitated more on the Russian side of things. It still would affect his presidency, even if he wasn't directly involved or aware of illicit dealings.

gut;1852262 wrote:I don't think that's exactly the spirit of the Logan Act. One month later, there's absolutely no wrongdoing and he almost certainly was going to be approved. I have zero doubt he wasn't the first, and probably won't be the last, future appointee to begin having informal discussions before being officially confirmed. It's almost inconceivable to me that this doesn't happen as a normal course of business as part of the transition process.

It's a giant nothing-burger without the leaks, leaks that were clearly politically motivated and set in motion with an 11th hour EO from Obama.

gut;1852289 wrote:And I think that might be where the subpoenas are going. But that's exactly what I'm saying with guilt by association. Leaks are smearing a politician before any evidence of wrongdoing has been established, which if we're talking about Russian influence would give them the power to influence elections merely by creating the appearance of having influence.

BoatShoes;1852293 wrote:Sorry you have to love how Gut relies on an Obama intelligence agent as PROOF that there is no Trump-Russia collusion while at the same he ignores Obama intelligence officials when they claim no proof for Gut's claim that Obama UNLEASHED the intelligence agencies for partisan gain.

Sad!

QuakerOats;1852282 wrote:He waited for a decades-long tenured public official with no bias who was actually appointed by obama and is now the deputy AG to finish an investigation and compile a report with a recommendation. The recommendation was to dismiss Comey so that the FBI can be restored to order and assume its rightful position underneath the Justice Department.

Perhaps you should read the report from Mr. Rosenstein.

O-Trap;1852295 wrote: While I understand the problem with such leaks and the effect they can have on a politician's character, I honestly think that's something that simply has to be put up with.

gut;1852302 wrote:No it doesn't. That's why they have laws against the leaking. That's why the FBI rarely comments on ongoing investigations (usually only when forced to do so because of leaks).

What you just said is how a police state operates, convicting and smearing people on mere accusations. Vlad is laughing his ass off, and I've seen more than one writer posit that this was the real outcome he was hoping for much more so than whether Hillary or Trump won. And we take the bait because most of our politicians are just as dumb as Trump.

O-Trap;1852308 wrote:I'm not saying there aren't laws against leaking. I'm saying that there are still leaks even with that being so. Moreover, I'm saying that it would be an equally dangerous precedent to prosecute "leakers" when they might serve as justifiable whistle blowers.

QuakerOats;1852286 wrote:Unfortunately, for you, the president is not under investigation. Perhaps you are confusing him with the person you thought was going to be president who indeed was under criminal investigation, as was her money-laundering foundation.

Facts matter ..................... get in the game.

QuakerOats;1852288 wrote:Indeed it did answer the question. Perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

gut;1852287 wrote:Like I said, this is all birthergate-level crap. Even if we accept that premise as true, the most likely suitors by far would have been China and Saudi Arabia. Or we go with the theory that Russia bails him out in 2009....so he can run for POTUS in 2016. That's just fucking comical!

You never asked yourself why, if Russia hacked the RNC, they never released anything to help ensure Trump got the nomination?

QuakerOats;1852294 wrote:Put Susan Rice under oath ...................see her perjure herself again.

gut;1852312 wrote:I think you answered your own question here. There are laws protecting whistle blowers. But every leaker is not a whistle blower, and should be prosecuted accordingly (perhaps ESPECIALLY if it is politically motivated).

sleeper;1852317 wrote:I agree. Let's put both Trump and Susan Rice under oath. Who perjures themselves first? Who ends up with more lies under oath?

Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three officials with knowledge of his request.
Mr. Comey asked for the resources during a meeting last week with Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of the F.B.I. director this week.

CenterBHSFan;1852327 wrote:Comey should have just hired 5 people from 4chan, and the investigation would have been concluded by now. The 4chan peeps wouldn't have required a significant amount of money or resources.

sleeper;1852315 wrote:So it took Trump's AG 5 months to write a 2 page letter detailing an event which happened 4 months prior?

This is really what you are defending. Incompetence.

sleeper;1852329 wrote:Yes it's all fun and games until totalitarianism takes over.

QuakerOats;1852333 wrote:The incompetence rests with Comey; which is why he is out of work today.