Trump Fires Back

[Grumps 3,706]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

Why explore "all" of congress's discussions with the Russian ambassador?  It's been stipulated that such routine visits are normal. 

The issue here is whether or not Trump's campaign coordinated - or were otherwise involved with - Russian meddling in the recent election.

Is there ANY evidence that this occurred?

[homersapien 11,812]

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Is there ANY evidence that this occurred?

Certainly enough to sustain suspicion.

[homersapien 11,812]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I would say that even the POTUS needs to produce some evidence to warrant spending taxpayer money on an investigation. . 

Why?   

This is a specific and definitive claim made by the POTUS.  

It's either true or not.  Either way it's big news.  

Why would we want to "save" money by not looking for the truth to such a significant claim made by the POTUS?

[TexasTiger 13,559]

56 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Why?   

This is a specific and definitive claim made by the POTUS.  

It's either true or not.  Either way it's big news.  

Why would we want to "save" money by not looking for the truth to such a significant claim made by the POTUS?

Because you don't justify every spurious, reckless tweet with a federal investigation.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

24 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Because you don't justify every spurious, reckless tweet with a federal investigation.

According to the WH statement from Spicer ( via Twitter)  they are calling for an investigation into this matter and that neither the WH or POTUS will comment further.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

OK, I admit it.  You're right raptor.  

There is no free press.  They are all working directly for the democrats.

I am "clueless".

The media and journalists donate overwhelmingly more to Democrats.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

Quote

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates

 

They also love to wine and dine with Democrats at off the record parties to get the right messaging out for them:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/

Quote

The Clinton campaign likes to use glitzy, intimate, completely off-the-recordparties between top campaign aides and leading media personalities. One of the most elaborately planned get-togethers was described in an April, 2015, memo — produced, according to the document metadata, by deputy press secretary Jesse Ferguson — to take place shortly before Clinton’s official announcement of her candidacy. The event was an April 10 cocktail party for leading news figures and top-level Clinton staff at the Upper East Side home of Clinton strategist Joel Benenson, a fully off-the-record gathering designed to impart the campaign’s messaging:

 

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

44 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

The media and journalists donate overwhelmingly more to Democrats.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

 

They also love to wine and dine with Democrats at off the record parties to get the right messaging out for them:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/

 

^^^^^^good info. Every independent media research study I have seen (on TV) says the press is way more positive to Dems.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

To get back on the topic of surveillance and wiretapping, the Obama administration very much practiced it. They eavesdropped on Netanyahu and Israel officials and picked up their communications with members of Congress. 

Quote

The report that the United States continued wiretapping its chief ally in the Middle East, even after President Obama said in 2014 last year that he would curb eavesdropping on allied leaders, was the latest example of tension between the two governments. Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have had an often-testy relationship that was particularly strained during negotiations to curtail Iran’s nuclear program.

The Journal reported in its Wednesday editions that the United States had approved continued intercepts of top Israeli officials at a time when Netanyahu was aggressively lobbying against the deal with Iran. The administration believed that Israel had leaked information gleaned from spying on the negotiations to sympathetic lawmakers and Jewish American groups seeking to undermine the talks

read more at: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-wiretapping-of-israelis-scoops-up-talks-with-members-of-congress/2015/12/30/a341beae-af26-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html?utm_term=.0a6b217cbb9c

[TitanTiger 20,708]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

Why?   

This is a specific and definitive claim made by the POTUS.  

It's either true or not.  Either way it's big news.  

Why would we want to "save" money by not looking for the truth to such a significant claim made by the POTUS?

I didn't say it wasn't news.  But it's only news because the POTUS said it.  That doesn't make it worth of an investigation and a special prosecutor.  Proof is needed, otherwise it can be reported on as news and regarded with the same amount of credibility we'd give any other spurious claim.  And the damage it does to his reputation will be on his own head.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

10 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

To get back on the topic of surveillance and wiretapping, the Obama administration very much practiced it. They eavesdropped on Netanyahu and Israel officials and picked up their communications with members of Congress. 

read more at: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-wiretapping-of-israelis-scoops-up-talks-with-members-of-congress/2015/12/30/a341beae-af26-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html?utm_term=.0a6b217cbb9c

That still says zilch about whether Trump's evidence-free claim is legitimate.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That still says zilch about whether Trump's evidence-free claim is legitimate.

It says more about our relationship with Israel:

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-984246.html

[homersapien 11,812]

18 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Because you don't justify every spurious, reckless tweet with a federal investigation.

You do if it it's the POTUS making it.

 

[homersapien 11,812]

14 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

The media and journalists donate overwhelmingly more to Democrats.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

 

They also love to wine and dine with Democrats at off the record parties to get the right messaging out for them:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/

 

And the popular vote in the election went overwhelmingly to the Democrats.

Let's face it, reality has a liberal bias.

[homersapien 11,812]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I didn't say it wasn't news.  But it's only news because the POTUS said it.  That doesn't make it worth of an investigation and a special prosecutor.  Proof is needed, otherwise it can be reported on as news and regarded with the same amount of credibility we'd give any other spurious claim.  And the damage it does to his reputation will be on his own head.

If the POTUS seriously claims he was wiretapped by the existing president during the campaign, an investigation is required period.

You are essentially saying that what the POTUS says has no more import or significance that what some random person on the street says.  That is simply not true.

[homersapien 11,812]

14 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

^^^^^^good info. Every independent media research study I have seen (on TV) says the press is way more positive to Dems.

So how did you find an "independent" media study? 

[homersapien 11,812]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I didn't say it wasn't news.  But it's only news because the POTUS said it.  That doesn't make it worth of an investigation and a special prosecutor.  Proof is needed, otherwise it can be reported on as news and regarded with the same amount of credibility we'd give any other spurious claim.  And the damage it does to his reputation will be on his own head.

So what should our reaction be to this?   Just ignore it?  

Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, insisted on Fox News that Trump has “information and intelligence” to back up his claims.

“He’s the president of the United States,” she said. “He has information and intelligence that the rest of us do not, and that’s the way it should be.”

[TitanTiger 20,708]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If the POTUS seriously claims he was wiretapped by the existing president during the campaign, an investigation is required period.

You are essentially saying that what the POTUS says has no more import or significance that what some random person on the street says.  That is simply not true.

Not if he doesn't produce something to back it up.  And especially not given that we know the current president is given to repeating crackpot nuttery.  I realize his statements carry more weight than the random person on the street, but even the POTUS's statements still require more than just "he said it."

[Strychnine 1,804]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Not if he doesn't produce something to back it up.  And especially not given that we know the current president is given to repeating crackpot nuttery.  I realize his statements carry more weight than the random person on the street, but even the POTUS's statements still require more than just "he said it."

 

I think Homer's point is related to precedent.  Under normal circumstances, previous Presidents would not have made such a statement without substantive evidence, and that their statement alone would be sufficient to merit an investigation.  In that regard, I agree with him.  However, the current President has left us in a position of knowing he is given to repeating crackpot nuttery, to such an extent that he is almost impossible to take seriously.  In that regard, I agree with you.  That said, there should be real consequences to making such a statement (along with others like it), and only an investigation could lead to that.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If the POTUS seriously claims he was wiretapped by the existing president during the campaign, an investigation is required period.

You are essentially saying that what the POTUS says has no more import or significance that what some random person on the street says.  That is simply not true.

That gives a President the power to place all opponents under investigation without evidence. Being under investigation raises a cloud and weakens those under it. This is petty tyrant behavior, not how a nation under the rule of law conducts itself.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

That gives a President the power to place all opponents under investigation without evidence. Being under investigation raises a cloud and weakens those under it. This is petty tyrant behavior, not how a nation under the rule of law conducts itself.

And I think that's why he's doing it too.  It's a way to create noise to distract from the stuff that we *know* - stuff with actual evidence to it that should be investigated.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

And I think that's why he's doing it too.  It's a way to create noise to distract from the stuff that we *know* - stuff with actual evidence to it that should be investigated.

Exactly 

[homersapien 11,812]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Not if he doesn't produce something to back it up.  And especially not given that we know the current president is given to repeating crackpot nuttery.  I realize his statements carry more weight than the random person on the street, but even the POTUS's statements still require more than just "he said it."

Don't you think it's rather important for the American people to know when the POTUS is repeating "crackpot nuttery" and when he isn't?

Why should we just assume this claim is crackpot nuttery?  After all we can assume the POTUS has information we aren't privy to.  

 

"It's quite possible there was a ruling to tap phones in the Trump tower as part of an investigation into the "Russian connection". 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) discussed the two-sided nature of this situation during an event held on Saturday morning, not long after Trump’s tweetstorm. If Trump’s claims are true and the taps were illegal, Graham said, “it would be the biggest political scandal since Watergate.”

But, he continued, if Obama “was able to obtain a warrant lawfully to monitor Trump’s campaign for violating the law, that would be the biggest scandal since Watergate.” (The implication being that the government would probably have some pretty damning stuff on the Trump campaign to convince a judge to give them a legal warrant.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) — who, like Graham, is a frequent GOP Trump critic — continued in this vein. “If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump's organization or campaign, then it was either with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization,” Sasse said in a statement. “If without, the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible he was illegally tapped.”

Then Sasse made the pivot: “On the other hand, if it was with a legal FISA court order, then an application for surveillance exists that the Court found credible. The President should ask that this full application regarding surveillance of foreign operatives or operations be made available, ideally to the full public, and at a bare minimum to the US Senate.” He added: “We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust.”

http://www.vox.com/2017/3/4/14814104/trump-obama-wiretap-phones

 

I just don't understand how you could casually dismiss  a serious statment made by the POTUS.  If you are saying he's a kook that's obviously unfit for the job then I agree with you 100%.  But that doesn't mean he gets a pass as the president.  He's still the POTUS and we are obligated to treat him as such until he is removed.  

Call it "respect for the office".  Or even respect for our country.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Just now, homersapien said:

Don't you think it's rather important for the American people to know when the POTUS is repeating "crackpot nuttery" and when he isn't?

Why should we just assume this claim is crackpot nuttery?  After all we can assume the POTUS has information we aren't privy to.  

 

"It's quite possible there was a ruling to tap phones in the Trump tower as part of an investigation into the "Russian connection". 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) discussed the two-sided nature of this situation during an event held on Saturday morning, not long after Trump’s tweetstorm. If Trump’s claims are true and the taps were illegal, Graham said, “it would be the biggest political scandal since Watergate.”

But, he continued, if Obama “was able to obtain a warrant lawfully to monitor Trump’s campaign for violating the law, that would be the biggest scandal since Watergate.” (The implication being that the government would probably have some pretty damning stuff on the Trump campaign to convince a judge to give them a legal warrant.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) — who, like Graham, is a frequent GOP Trump critic — continued in this vein. “If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump's organization or campaign, then it was either with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization,” Sasse said in a statement. “If without, the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible he was illegally tapped.”

Then Sasse made the pivot: “On the other hand, if it was with a legal FISA court order, then an application for surveillance exists that the Court found credible. The President should ask that this full application regarding surveillance of foreign operatives or operations be made available, ideally to the full public, and at a bare minimum to the US Senate.” He added: “We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust.”

http://www.vox.com/2017/3/4/14814104/trump-obama-wiretap-phones

 

I just don't understand how you could casually dismiss  a serious statment made by the POTUS.  If you are saying he's a kook that's obviously unfit for the job then I agree with you 100%.  But that doesn't mean he gets a pass as the president.  He's still the POTUS and we are obligated to treat him as such until he is removed.  

Call it "respect for the office".  Or even respect for our country.

I'm not casually dismissing it.  Call him out on it.  Tell him to produce some evidence of his claims and point out that the only places saying this are a pair of right wing blog/talkshows right now.  Tell him to put up or shut up.  But unless he does, it shouldn't launch a full blown investigation.  "The POTUS said it" isn't evidence.

[homersapien 11,812]

9 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

I think Homer's point is related to precedent.  Under normal circumstances, previous Presidents would not have made such a statement without substantive evidence, and that their statement alone would be sufficient to merit an investigation.  In that regard, I agree with him.  However, the current President has left us in a position of knowing he is given to repeating crackpot nuttery, to such an extent that he is almost impossible to take seriously.  In that regard, I agree with you.  That said, there should be real consequences to making such a statement (along with others like it), and only an investigation could lead to that.

Oh, I agree with Titan that this is (probably) just BS nuttery coming from a narcissistic psychopath.

But he is the POTUS.   So we have a choice of deliberately degrading the office in order to account for such an unfit person or we respect the office and hold the unfit person to the standard we should expect from the POTUS.

If he obviously fails that standard - and I think he does - then maybe the American people - as represented by our legislators - can remove him from office.

But he shouldn't get a pass because he's unfit.  He should be removed.  Or at the very least exposed to all as being unfit for office.  We owe that to our country.

[homersapien 11,812]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not casually dismissing it.  Call him out on it.  Tell him to produce some evidence of his claims and point out that the only places saying this are a pair of right wing blog/talkshows right now.  Tell him to put up or shut up.  But unless he does, it shouldn't launch a full blown investigation.  "The POTUS said it" isn't evidence.

"Calling him out" means nothing in today's media climate.  Some have been "calling him out" every since the Republican primaries.  He thrives in the noise and controversy he creates.

Besides, we have people on this forum that claim a free press doesn't exist.  So who does the calling?

The only way to expose this sort of thing is with a formal, bipartisan investigation of the truth.