Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Maybe but I'm more than a bit leery of some self appointed arbiter of moral values run around spreading stories to the media with no  accountability if they are wrong or just want to cause grief for a fellow employee.  I think it's even more naive to think that these people only are looking after the national good and have no personal or political agenda.  

And I sure don't trust a newspaper that has openly expressed a desire to bring down a president it does not like....trust them to be an objective judge of motives and accuracy or whoever helps them sell clicks or newspapers.   This is not much different than all those "whistle blowers" who flood the NCAA with evidence of cheating by their main rivals. JMO

I look forward to the facts and have no romantic fantasies about what is going on. 

No one is "trusting" anyone here.  As I said, the claims of an anonymous tipster aren't enough to bring charges or impeach anyone.  You can't take that to a legal proceeding.  But it is still a valuable part of keeping those in power in check.  So to be dismissive of whistleblowers and be more concerned with their "illegal" activities is missing the point by a country mile.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 5/19/2017 at 3:42 PM, TitanTiger said:

No one is "trusting" anyone here.  As I said, the claims of an anonymous tipster aren't enough to bring charges or impeach anyone.  You can't take that to a legal proceeding.  But it is still a valuable part of keeping those in power in check.  So to be dismissive of whistleblowers and be more concerned with their "illegal" activities is missing the point by a country mile.

I just have to ask, do you support any repercussions for leakers/whistleblowers who give false information? My own personal view is that only those who give leaks to foreign governments should be charged with a crime and face some jail time. I'm not talking about 20-30 years, more like 3-5 years at worst. 

For those who leak information to our own press for political purposes that turns out to be false, then they should lose their job. When you give information that's false then you  lose credibility. I don't think it's irrational to expect those who work around you and those who are entrusted with knowing things to have good judgment. How can you trust someone who's agenda is to not just do their job but to take people out that they don't like?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

39 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I just have to ask, do you support any repercussions for leakers/whistleblowers who give false information?

Of course.  If it's false.  

 

39 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

My own personal view is that only those who give leaks to foreign governments should be charged with a crime and face some jail time. I'm not talking about 20-30 years, more like 3-5 years at worst. 

Your president just did.

 

39 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

For those who leak information to our own press for political purposes that turns out to be false, then they should lose their job. When you give information that's false then you  lose credibility. I don't think it's irrational to expect those who work around you and those who are entrusted with knowing things to have good judgment. How can you trust someone who's agenda is to not just do their job but to take people out that they don't like?

I don't think anyone would disagree with this.  But again, this is assuming the info is actually false.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Your president just did.

The president has the authority to do it. Obama did it as well.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

The president has the authority to do it. Obama did it as well.

The problem lies not in the authority to do so, but the wisdom.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The problem lies not in the authority to do so, but the wisdom.

 

But the wisdom to leak something through a public medium is also a problem. The public news leaks reveal more sensitive information than the president.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

56 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

But the wisdom to leak something through a public medium is also a problem. The public news leaks reveal more sensitive information than the president.

Not in this case.

And the leak to the press is the only reason this was known and not swept under the rug.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

43 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Not in this case.

And the leak to the press is the only reason this was known and not swept under the rug.

Can you prove that? If anything you have a conflicting narrative going on about what Trump does and doesn't know. You can't have it both ways. There's been reports that the the intelligence community has been withholding methods and sources and that Trump doesn't "immerse" himself in intelligence information and doesn't rely as much as on daily intelligence briefings. 

 

Quote

Mr. Trump doesn’t immerse himself in intelligence information, and it isn’t clear that he has expressed a desire to know sources and methods. The intelligence agencies have been told to dramatically pare down the president’s daily intelligence briefing, both the number of topics and how much information is described under each topic, an official said. Compared with his immediate predecessors, Mr. Trump so far has chosen to rely less on the daily briefing than they did.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/spies-keep-trump-in-dark-on-intelligence-in-sign-of-mistrust/ar-AAmZt1k

 

H.R. McMaster said Trump didn't reveal methods or sources to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.

Quote

McMaster added that Trump made a spur-of-the-moment decision to share the information in the context of the conversation he was having with the Russian officials. He said that "the president wasn’t even aware of where this information came from" and had not been briefed on the source.

"I wanted to make clear to everybody that the president in no way compromised any sources or methods in the course of this conversation," the national security adviser said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/16/trump-acknowledges-facts-shared-with-russian-envoys-during-white-house-meeting/?utm_term=.fa1fd3e92220

 

It was the news media, through 2 anonymous sources, who revealed Israel was the source of the intel that was shared.

[homersapien 11,366]

On 5/19/2017 at 2:52 PM, AU64 said:

 Not a chance they will go to Mueller. They would have to go public and be on the record which none of these cowards would be willing to do .

The only reason that leaks might dry up is that there is a much greater risk that the leakers will be identified and called to account for their  likely criminal activities. 

They won't need to go to Mueller. He will be coming to them.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just look at the threads from a few months ago on here:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/155594-the-intelligence-community-is-withholding-information-from-trump/

and

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/155547-trump-paused-a-call-with-putin-to-make-an-aide-explain-a-nuclear-arms-treaty/

 

It's amazing that anti-Trump folks are willing to accept any source that is negative about Trump as true without question and everything Trump says or anyone who defends Trump, like H.R. McMaster, are full of BS.

Why is H.R. McMaster not to be believed?.............  I know why  .......  It's a cardinal sin to defend Trump even in the slightest now  ..........  McMaster didn't deny that Trump shared classified information, he denied that Trump revealed methods and sources.

McMaster's explanation was very similar to the narrative the media and some on here were running with just couple of months ago that Trump was in the dark about methods and sources and that's he just plain ignorant about some things, well they're now turning around and saying McMaster's lying and can't be believed.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Can you prove that? If anything you have a conflicting narrative going on about what Trump does and doesn't know. You can't have it both ways. There's been reports that the the intelligence community has been withholding methods and sources and that Trump doesn't "immerse" himself in intelligence information and doesn't rely as much as on daily intelligence briefings. 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/spies-keep-trump-in-dark-on-intelligence-in-sign-of-mistrust/ar-AAmZt1k

It's not a "conflicting narrative."  Just because they withhold or are reluctant to share certain pieces of info with him doesn't mean they don't share anything with him.  They can't do that.  And just because Trump isn't as attentive to it was previous presidents doesn't mean he doesn't read it at all and knows nothing. 

 

8 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

H.R. McMaster said Trump didn't reveal methods or sources to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/16/trump-acknowledges-facts-shared-with-russian-envoys-during-white-house-meeting/?utm_term=.fa1fd3e92220

McMaster was appointed by and works for Trump.  He is part of the adminstration's public face.  He could be lying to protect the president or he could be telling the truth.  He's hardly the first official in a presidential administration to try and offer a contrary version of events in a controversial situation for his boss.

 

8 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

It was the news media, through 2 anonymous sources, who revealed Israel was the source of the intel that was shared.

Yes, that's what the news media does.  It tries to find out what's going on and reports it to the American people.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Just look at the threads from a few months ago on here:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/155594-the-intelligence-community-is-withholding-information-from-trump/

and

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/155547-trump-paused-a-call-with-putin-to-make-an-aide-explain-a-nuclear-arms-treaty/

 

It's amazing that anti-Trump folks are willing to accept any source that is negative about Trump as true without question and everything Trump says or anyone who defends Trump, like H.R. McMaster, are full of BS.

Why is H.R. McMaster not to be believed?.............  I know why  .......  It's a cardinal sin to defend Trump even in the slightest now  ..........  McMaster didn't deny that Trump shared classified information, he denied that Trump revealed methods and sources.

McMaster's explanation was very similar to the narrative the media and some on here were running with just couple of months ago that Trump was in the dark about methods and sources and that's he just plain ignorant about some things, well they're now turning around and saying McMaster's lying and can't be believed.

It's not that McMaster isn't to be believed, it's that there's good reason to regard him with skepticism.  He may be telling the truth or he may be trying to cover his boss's ass because he knows that if the rest of the world knows Trump has loose lips with Russia, they will start holding back even more info from us.  Do you always accept the word of administration officials from all the presidents prior to Trump when reports leaked from anonymous sources that said something different?

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not that McMaster isn't to be believed, it's that there's good reason to regard him with skepticism.  He may be telling the truth or he may be trying to cover his boss's ass because he knows that if the rest of the world knows Trump has loose lips with Russia, they will start holding back even more info from us.  Do you always accept the word of administration officials from all the presidents prior to Trump when reports leaked from anonymous sources that said something different?

Plus you could take McMaster's first statement and still believe everything asserted. It was a forceful nondenial denial.

[homersapien 11,366]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not that McMaster isn't to be believed, it's that there's good reason to regard him with skepticism.  He may be telling the truth or he may be trying to cover his boss's ass because he knows that if the rest of the world knows Trump has loose lips with Russia, they will start holding back even more info from us.  Do you always accept the word of administration officials from all the presidents prior to Trump when reports leaked from anonymous sources that said something different?

Everyone knows that if Obama had done this and it was being revealed in the same manner, they would  be marching on Washington and demanding his head.

The hypocrisy on this forum is breathtaking.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

One narrative that is being missed it the difference between a whistle blower and a leaker.  I have great respect foe a whistle blower they take a stand and know there is an inherent risk in doing it. I even respect the ones who do it anonymously through channels to protect their job when they see something they feel is wrong. I am not totally against leaking when people have attempted to go through channels and do it, but one day after a meeting without having tried to go through any channels it appears more like a political act then a true I am doing this for the best of my country.  I am not only talking about the leaks with Trump but also the leaks with Hilary and her e-mail investigation. 

Just like some are saying McMaster may be defending Trump because he works for Trump it is also possible that the ones who are leaking parts of the story are not being altruistic. The ones who don't like Trump feel that anybody who defends Trump has an agenda but are not willing to at least think that the leakers might also have an agenda.

Unlike some I don't know who is telling the truth or who is telling half truth's.  I want to see what Mueller finds If Trump did something wrong and it is found there should be a consequence that meets the level of the wrong. Not every wrong a President does is impeachable. If Mueller finds that Trump is basically innocent then I think there should be some consequences for the leakers if they are caught.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Everyone knows that if Obama had done this and it was being revealed in the same manner, they would  be marching on Washington and demanding his head.

The hypocrisy on this forum is breathtaking.

That's what no one here seems to be willing to admit.  People who have run with almost any rumor, conspiracy theory, unnamed source, etc when it raised alarm bells about Obama are suddenly the worlds biggest skeptics of unnamed sources when it is about Trump.  I'm certainly not saying to believe unnamed sources blindly without question.  I'm just saying, don't suddenly shift your standards of skepticism simply because it makes your guy look bad.  Be consistent.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's what no one here seems to be willing to admit.  People who have run with almost any rumor, conspiracy theory, unnamed source, etc when it raised alarm bells about Obama are suddenly the worlds biggest skeptics of unnamed sources when it is about Trump.  I'm certainly not saying to believe unnamed sources blindly without question.  I'm just saying, don't suddenly shift your standards of skepticism simply because it makes your guy look bad.  Be consistent.

It is actually a two way street the people who defended Hillary and Obama against all these rumors, conspiracy theory and unnamed sources are the ones pushing the same thing against Trump and to be honest the ones who pushed these against Hillary and Obama are the ones who are defending Trump. There is hypocrisy on both sides.

The problem is we have become so polarized we believe any bad thing against people on the other side and we can't admit when somebody is wrong on our side. Many of us myself included are guilty of this at times some more than others.

This is a generalization there were and still are some people who read and then say lets wait until we have conclusive proof.  I try to be one of those but I sometimes lose my objectivity as do most people.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, AuburnNTexas said:

It is actually a two way street the people who defended Hillary and Obama against all these rumors, conspiracy theory and unnamed sources are the ones pushing the same thing against Trump and to be honest the ones who pushed these against Hillary and Obama are the ones who are defending Trump. There is hypocrisy on both sides.

I almost addressed this.  While true, it is irrelevant.  Your reaction, or the reaction of anyone here should not be contingent upon how the other guys handled it before.  You can only do you.  So if you were more than willing to believe poorly or anonymously sourced info on Hillary or Obama, but have developed a sudden case of skepticism now that Trump is getting hit with it, you should admit it and stop doing that.  Even if the other side is hypocritical, you don't be.

 

 

[homersapien 11,366]

Just now, AuburnNTexas said:

It is actually a two way street the people who defended Hillary and Obama against all these rumors, conspiracy theory and unnamed sources are the ones pushing the same thing against Trump and to be honest the ones who pushed these against Hillary and Obama are the ones who are defending Trump. There is hypocrisy on both sides.

The problem is we have become so polarized we believe any bad thing against people on the other side and we can't admit when somebody is wrong on our side. Many of us myself included are guilty of this at times some more than others.

This is a generalization there were and still are some people who read and then say lets wait until we have conclusive proof.  I try to be one of those but I sometimes lose my objectivity as do most people.

Speak for yourself please.

I have no problem with investigating wrong doing by any president.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump defenders who accused Obama of hating America - hell of not even being American - and accusing Hillary of murdering diplomats in Benghazi (for examples).

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

Just now, homersapien said:

Speak for yourself please.

I have no problem with investigating wrong doing by any president.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump defenders who accused Obama of hating America - hell of not even being American - and accusing Hillary of murdering diplomats in Benghazi (for examples).

I did speak for myself and admitted at times that I did the same thing. I also said it was a generalization and that there were people who said that they waited for proof. It sounds to me how quickly you responded that you are never guilty speaks volumes.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

10 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

It is actually a two way street the people who defended Hillary and Obama against all these rumors, conspiracy theory and unnamed sources are the ones pushing the same thing against Trump and to be honest the ones who pushed these against Hillary and Obama are the ones who are defending Trump. There is hypocrisy on both sides.

The problem is we have become so polarized we believe any bad thing against people on the other side and we can't admit when somebody is wrong on our side. Many of us myself included are guilty of this at times some more than others.

This is a generalization there were and still are some people who read and then say lets wait until we have conclusive proof.  I try to be one of those but I sometimes lose my objectivity as do most people.

Republicans controlled congress and hardly shied from investigating any flimsy claim. They found nothing. The crazy base dismissed their findings.

[homersapien 11,366]

11 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I did speak for myself and admitted at times that I did the same thing. I also said it was a generalization and that there were people who said that they waited for proof. It sounds to me how quickly you responded that you are never guilty speaks volumes.

Implying I lack integrity because I protested a generalization you made is a passive-aggressive personal attack.   Frankly I thought you were above that.

If you are challenging my integrity you need to bring some evidence with you.  Like evidence of my making irrational defenses of Obama or Clinton.  Or evidence of irrational attacks on Trump.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I almost addressed this.  While true, it is irrelevant.  Your reaction, or the reaction of anyone here should not be contingent upon how the other guys handled it before.  You can only do you.  So if you were more than willing to believe poorly or anonymously sourced info on Hillary or Obama, but have developed a sudden case of skepticism now that Trump is getting hit with it, you should admit it and stop doing that.  Even if the other side is hypocritical, you don't be.

 

 

Over the years you have been one of the most thoughtful posters I have often agreed with you but there have been times I disagreed with you but because you think clearly and express your views with facts I respect your view even when we disagree. In this one case it is a fair comparison to point out that both sides have done the same thing.  

At this point there have been rumors and anonymous sources making Trump look like the Devil incarnate.  There has been no real proof of any of his supposed transgressions. He may be guilty he may not be guilty but to assume guilt on no physical evidence is the height of hypocrisy especially when your arguments when the shoe was on the other foot was the exact opposite.

This will be my last post on this subject as there is no reason for me to repeat saying the same things over and over some will agree with me and some won't.  By the way I didn't vote for either Hillary or Donald both were to sketchy for me.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Over the years you have been one of the most thoughtful posters I have often agreed with you but there have been times I disagreed with you but because you think clearly and express your views with facts I respect your view even when we disagree. In this one case it is a fair comparison to point out that both sides have done the same thing.  

At this point there have been rumors and anonymous sources making Trump look like the Devil incarnate.  There has been no real proof of any of his supposed transgressions. He may be guilty he may not be guilty but to assume guilt on no physical evidence is the height of hypocrisy especially when your arguments when the shoe was on the other foot was the exact opposite.

This will be my last post on this subject as there is no reason for me to repeat saying the same things over and over some will agree with me and some won't.  By the way I didn't vote for either Hillary or Donald both were to sketchy for me.

What I'm saying is, the other side's hypocrisy doesn't really have any bearing on this situation with Trump.  Every place in your quoted post above that you have the name "Trump," I could sub in "Obama" and be describing the last 8 years here.  But that doesn't answer the central question.

All I'm saying is that for right now, for you and others who voted for or like Trump - if you were willing to indulge in anonymous sources, underground blogs and offbeat news sites telling you all sorts of scary things about Obama, don't develop a sudden case of skepticism now.

[autigeremt 6,599]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Everyone knows that if Obama had done this and it was being revealed in the same manner, they would  be marching on Washington and demanding his head.

The hypocrisy on this forum is breathtaking.

Not when he had a super majority. My opinion.