posted by CenterBHSFanTrump was the perfect POTUS for this media age of profiting off of rage culture. There's a reason in the last, I don't know, 10-15 years we've seen the radical fringes of both parties dominating the news cycle - cancel culture NEEDS people to cancel.They had the worst example of abusive, co-dependent relationships with him.
The OC cannot exist without ad revenue. Please consider turning off your adblocker for the site so we can keep the lights on.
posted by CenterBHSFanI don't think that, putting age aside, Trump has the balls to run again. He pissed off a lot of people by not pardoning Assange and Snowden.
I think at this point even his most ardent supporters are just glad he's gone. Sort of.
The dems and NYTimes aren't ready to let him go. They had the worst example of abusive, co-dependent relationships with him.
Agree with you. Instead of just letting his tenure fade away, these idiots continue to give him page 1 attention which is all he craves. Let it go. He's not coming back in four years in my opinion either. He's obese and nearing 80 years old. His health won't be up to it.
posted by ptown_trojans_1My question to you then, what mechanisms are there to punish a President in their last moments of office? If a President commits an impeachment offense on 1/19 does it not matter then?
Let's say for example, that on January 19, 2017 it was found Obama did in fact spy on Trump and there was evidence. Would it not be within the rights of Congress to start the impeachment proceedings even if they bleed into the Trump Presidency?
If the Presidency does go from 1/20 to 1/20, then the actions of those times should also be subject to oversight and impeachment of the Congress, within reason.
Wait, are you acting like it’s not factual information that the Obama admin spied on Trump by using a FISA judge and a fake DNC funded dossier?
Just curious if you truly believe Obama admin didn’t spy on Trump campaign?
Hell yea...I hope he is serious. The 2 tier justice system in this country has to stop
posted by jmogWait, are you acting like it’s not factual information that the Obama admin spied on Trump by using a FISA judge and a fake DNC funded dossier?
Just curious if you truly believe Obama admin didn’t spy on Trump campaign?
I said if there was proven factual linkage between Obama doing it directly as in Nixon tapes level.
The "spying" in question, you have your view, and I have mine. I don't want to re-litigate it as it is pointless at this junction because we end up talking past each other as we simply do not believe on the same set of facts or aspects of the whole thing.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I said if there was proven factual linkage between Obama doing it directly as in Nixon tapes level.
The "spying" in question, you have your view, and I have mine. I don't want to re-litigate it as it is pointless at this junction because we end up talking past each other as we simply do not believe on the same set of facts or aspects of the whole thing.
In other words, "I wont admit anything that makes me look bad or the dems."
posted by ptown_trojans_1I said if there was proven factual linkage between Obama doing it directly as in Nixon tapes level.
The "spying" in question, you have your view, and I have mine. I don't want to re-litigate it as it is pointless at this junction because we end up talking past each other as we simply do not believe on the same set of facts or aspects of the whole thing.
I didn’t say directly Obama, I said the Obama administration.
Do you believe that the Obama administration did or did not spy on the Trump campaign based on a BS dossier funded by the DNC with the help of the FISA courts?
Just curious if you believe in actual reality or make believe land.
posted by jmogI didn’t say directly Obama, I said the Obama administration.
Do you believe that the Obama administration did or did not spy on the Trump campaign based on a BS dossier funded by the DNC with the help of the FISA courts?
Just curious if you believe in actual reality or make believe land.
Short answer: No.
Not as short answer because again, we just differ on the facts. Define spying? Actually spy on Trump or members of the campaign, because the issues get mixed up. Do I think Trump himself was spied on, no.
Did the FBI use legal means to investigate Papadopoulos that were located before the dossier, yes. Is that considered spying in your mind?
Was the dossier the smoking gun, unclear and timeline is mixed on when warrants were issued by the FISA court on other items. I've read numerous things over the last four years where the FBI had evidence of Pap without any evidence of the dossier to justify the warrant. Same goes for Manafort, which did not have anything to do with the dossier.
Again, I really do not want to go down this road, because posters on here just do not even agree on the basic facts and timeframe of everything. At this point, it is beating a dead horse for me.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Short answer: No.
Not as short answer because again, we just differ on the facts. Define spying? Actually spy on Trump or members of the campaign, because the issues get mixed up. Do I think Trump himself was spied on, no.
Did the FBI use legal means to investigate Papadopoulos that were located before the dossier, yes. Is that considered spying in your mind?
Was the dossier the smoking gun, unclear and timeline is mixed on when warrants were issued by the FISA court on other items. I've read numerous things over the last four years where the FBI had evidence of Pap without any evidence of the dossier to justify the warrant. Same goes for Manafort, which did not have anything to do with the dossier.
Again, I really do not want to go down this road, because posters on here just do not even agree on the basic facts and timeframe of everything. At this point, it is beating a dead horse
And you are in the running for post of the year already. You are absolutely brain washed, live in a massive vacuum of misinformation ....or just plain stupid.
The evidence that the FBI, DOJ, State Dept. and WH were all working together in a manner that was illegal is overwhelming.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Short answer: No.
Not as short answer because again, we just differ on the facts. Define spying? Actually spy on Trump or members of the campaign, because the issues get mixed up. Do I think Trump himself was spied on, no.
Did the FBI use legal means to investigate Papadopoulos that were located before the dossier, yes. Is that considered spying in your mind?
Was the dossier the smoking gun, unclear and timeline is mixed on when warrants were issued by the FISA court on other items. I've read numerous things over the last four years where the FBI had evidence of Pap without any evidence of the dossier to justify the warrant. Same goes for Manafort, which did not have anything to do with the dossier.
Again, I really do not want to go down this road, because posters on here just do not even agree on the basic facts and timeframe of everything. At this point, it is beating a dead horse for me.
So you agree that the DNC funded dossier started the "monitoring" of people in the Trump campaign.
I understand you want to sugar coat some of the words you are using to defend the left here, but I never said directly Obama and I never said directly Trump.
You basically wrote a few paragraphs to say "well you are right, but I am going to change some of the verbage to make it not sound as bad". You are arguing semantics. The Obama administration used a DNC funded fake dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy/monitor people in the Trump campaign.
It's really much simpler than you are making it out to be.
posted by jmogSo you agree that the DNC funded dossier started the "monitoring" of people in the Trump campaign.
I understand you want to sugar coat some of the words you are using to defend the left here, but I never said directly Obama and I never said directly Trump.
You basically wrote a few paragraphs to say "well you are right, but I am going to change some of the verbage to make it not sound as bad". You are arguing semantics. The Obama administration used a DNC funded fake dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy/monitor people in the Trump campaign.
It's really much simpler than you are making it out to be.
If you go with his narrative then he is simply saying that the Obama administration was the dumbest people on the planet to think that all that material was actually real. He doesnt get it both ways. Either they were all in on spying (obama knew everything) or they were the dumbest people on the planet. Let him pick.
posted by jmogSo you agree that the DNC funded dossier started the "monitoring" of people in the Trump campaign.
I understand you want to sugar coat some of the words you are using to defend the left here, but I never said directly Obama and I never said directly Trump.
You basically wrote a few paragraphs to say "well you are right, but I am going to change some of the verbage to make it not sound as bad". You are arguing semantics. The Obama administration used a DNC funded fake dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy/monitor people in the Trump campaign.
It's really much simpler than you are making it out to be.
No. It is more complicated than that as I dispute the fact the dossier started things and played a role. But, I'll let it be as we will never agree on the basic facts.
You live in your point of view world and I live in mine and we will never see eye to eye on the details.
posted by ptown_trojans_1No. It is more complicated than that as I dispute the fact the dossier started things and played a role. But, I'll let it be as we will never agree on the basic facts.
You live in your point of view world and I live in mine and we will never see eye to eye on the details.
Here is where your argument falls short:
The Dossier has been talked about for years as the reason why the FISA warrants were signed. There literally has never been anyone (Obama, Clinton, Brennan, Comey) ever dispute that with other evidence they had. THeir silence is deafening.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Short answer: No.
Not as short answer because again, we just differ on the facts. Define spying? Actually spy on Trump or members of the campaign, because the issues get mixed up. Do I think Trump himself was spied on, no.
Did the FBI use legal means to investigate Papadopoulos that were located before the dossier, yes. Is that considered spying in your mind?
Was the dossier the smoking gun, unclear and timeline is mixed on when warrants were issued by the FISA court on other items. I've read numerous things over the last four years where the FBI had evidence of Pap without any evidence of the dossier to justify the warrant. Same goes for Manafort, which did not have anything to do with the dossier.
Again, I really do not want to go down this road, because posters on here just do not even agree on the basic facts and timeframe of everything. At this point, it is beating a dead horse for me.
Unbelievable.
I guess it's fair to assume then, that the democrat House managers are good-to-go with committing fraud at the impeachment trial last week in using purposefully doctored evidence that they themselves doctored.
posted by QuakerOats
Unbelievable.
I guess it's fair to assume then, that the democrat House managers are good-to-go with committing fraud at the impeachment trial last week in using purposefully doctored evidence that they themselves doctored.
I guess he's also just going to accept that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon when the evidence clearly shows he didn't.
posted by ptown_trojans_1No. It is more complicated than that as I dispute the fact the dossier started things and played a role. But, I'll let it be as we will never agree on the basic facts.
You live in your point of view world and I live in mine and we will never see eye to eye on the details.
But it isn’t opinion that the dossier started it, that is factual information that isn’t in dispute.
posted by jmogBut it isn’t opinion that the dossier started it, that is factual information that isn’t in dispute.
No, that is in dispute. That is where we disagree and will never see eye to eye.
posted by ptown_trojans_1No, that is in dispute. That is where we disagree and will never see eye to eye.
Like I said.....the other side has never disputed this claim by providing any other evidence. They have never defended their actions with anything.
So no, at this point its not in dispute. There is nothing to dispute it with. Just like them, you cannot (or wil not) defend your statement with anything factual.
posted by ptown_trojans_1No, that is in dispute. That is where we disagree and will never see eye to eye.
Even the left doesn't dispute that the Steele Dossier is what led to the "investigation".
posted by jmogEven the left doesn't dispute that the Steele Dossier is what led to the "investigation".
You know, fuck it.
According to the OIG Report, the actual Crossfire Hurricane was opened up in July 2016 and it started from the conversation that a friendly government official, from Australia, heard Papadopoulos talking about some shady items. That prompted the FBI to formally open the investigation. Steele was a traditional handler of intel that the FBI used going back to 2010. A field office was handling some of his information, raw information that was unverified. In May 2016 that was forwarded to another field office in NY. However, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation did not get access or information from Steele until September 2016 and then it was only a piece of information as they knew it was not verified.
Read the report for more information. Chapters 3 and 4 actually explain the timeline of the start of the investigations.
Now, yes the report goes on to rightly criticize the FBI. However, the report clearly outlines that the Steele Dossier DID NOT lead to the start of the investigation of Crossfire Hurricane.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
I'll also add that the investigation into Manafort that led to his arrest had nothing to do with Steele as well.