Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

[Stoked]

I do have a question in regards to this whole thing that I would like someone to explain it to me if they wish.

The WH meeting with the Russians (Lavrov) where the President release classified info. Yes it looks bad and was probably poor judgment which is reason to have concerns. But isn't that up to his and his teams discretion? Are they not perfectly justified, legally, in releasing that info? Yes or no, and why?

 

[Zombie]

And why would those not be bigger? They resulted in peoples deaths and huge expenditures of money.

This thing with the current admin is currently only the allegation of misuse of power and collusion with a foreign government.

IMO to much of the scandal and impeachment talk is because he is a egomaniacal jerk that is more concerned with his hand size and his profits than the American people IMO. As bad as that is and looks it's not scandal.

Now, could this whole Russian//Comey/Flynn thing have legs? Absolutely. But at this point it is to much BS and opinion and not enough facts. Let's see what is found in the congressional hearings and by Mueller before we start assigning labels like the "biggest scandal in US history". It's way to early for that IMO.

So by that metric those are both bigger scandals than Watergate was. I think we can all agree that's not the case.

I get that it's your shtick to be all fair and balanced, but bro, the Trump administration is unlike anything we've seen in US politics, and it's not because of the mean old media. This **** storm is entirely of his own making.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Stoked]

So by that metric those are both bigger scandals than Watergate was. I think we can all agree that's not the case.

I get that it's your shtick to be all fair and balanced, but bro, the Trump administration is unlike anything we've seen in US politics, and it's not because of the mean old media. This **** storm is entirely of his own making.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

No, my "shtick" is to actually find out what has and has not happened before I rush to judgment on things. Something increasingly rare it appears.

You are also framing this in an either/or scenario and that's not the case. I agree 100% that this presidency is a whole new animal. Unlike anything we have seen and not because of the media. But that does not mean that the media isn't drumming up crap and stoking fires in biased attempts to remove him from power. Those things can absolutely co-exist.

Watergate was a proven thing that resulted in the end of a Presidency so I agree that it is bigger than the two I mentioned. But you placed this even above Watergate and to me that is simply not the case. Not yet anyways.

The best part is that I am not even defending the President. In fact I have panned him, hard, in this very thread. But that is somehow a problem because I am also distrustful of the media and want to see more facts before passing judgment on the scale everyone else is rushing to?

If, my message of "slow down, lets get all the facts first" is a problem for people then that's fine with me. I see no conflict with that and my dislike for Trump.

 

[Zombie]

Well I actually said it's shaping up to be the biggest scandal is US history, which implies its not at that level yet.

Thanks to Trumps public statements along with great reporting, I really don't think it's too early to pass some pretty harsh judgment on his first four months though. It's been a disaster and he should be held accountable for it.

I do agree that we don't yet know the full scope of Trumps scandals, and I am quite happy that we have an independent counsel of Mueller's stature investigating it.

Politicians calling for Impeachment shouldn't surprise you, although I agree they should be patient and build a case for it. A wiser man than me once said, "come at the king, you best not miss."

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Zombie]

Well I actually said it's shaping up to be the biggest scandal is US history, which implies its not at that level yet.

Thanks to Trumps public statements along with great reporting, I really don't think it's too early to pass some pretty harsh judgment on his first four months though. It's been a disaster and he should be held accountable for it.

I do agree that we don't yet know the full scope of Trumps scandals, and I am quite happy that we have an independent counsel of Mueller's stature investigating it.

Politicians calling for Impeachment shouldn't surprise you, although I agree they should be patient and build a case for it. A wiser man than me once said, "come at the king, you best not miss."

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

I wanted to add, I guess I just take issue with people attacking "the media" over this. I don't believe we'd be where we are with this investigation if not for public pressure to assign a special counsel. That public pressure doesn't exist without journalists doing their jobs and bringing this stuff to light. I'm sure there are examples of specific media outlets doing a poor job, but on the whole, we owe journalists a debt of gratitude for their hard work, not derision.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[colton]

I mean we've got the Flynn thing, obstruction of justice over the Russia election meddling, the fact he's been in violation of the emoluments clause from day one (which in my opinion actually hasn't gotten enough media coverage), giving Israeli intelligence to the Russians in a fit of bragadoccio, asking the FBI to jail reporters who publish leaked info, that's just in four months and I'm sure I'm forgetting some things.

Agree completely about the emoluments clause thing. I've posted repeatedly about that here and on Facebook but few people seem to care.

 

[franklin]

You're talking about the media. This is an FBI investigation.

Who gives a **** about how biased the media is?

Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app

I care. It's a public witch hunt. I don't care for public witch hunts.

Do you or I have inside access to FBI intel? Let them do their damn job before going witch hunting. I have a hard time believing a bunch of FBI top officials would stand by watching when Donald Trump fires their leader because he is covering something up.

Let them do their job. Who's gonna win? FBI if they have a case. No more witch hunting.

 

[Zombie]

I do have a question in regards to this whole thing that I would like someone to explain it to me if they wish.

The WH meeting with the Russians (Lavrov) where the President release classified info. Yes it looks bad and was probably poor judgment which is reason to have concerns. But isn't that up to his and his teams discretion? Are they not perfectly justified, legally, in releasing that info? Yes or no, and why?

It is true that the president has the legal authority to do whatever he wants with classified information. It's in a similar vein to Nixons remark of "when the president does it that means its not illegal"

I made the point earlier in this thread that he could tweet out the nuclear launch codes with out breaking any laws per se.

The problem comes in that it could be a violation of his oath of office as commander in chief, the man ultimately responsible for keeping the country safe.
https://lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Gameface]

I care. It's a public witch hunt. I don't care for public witch hunts.

Do you or I have inside access to FBI intel? Let them do their damn job before going witch hunting. I have a hard time believing a bunch of FBI top officials would stand by watching when Donald Trump fires their leader because he is covering something up.

Let them do their job. Who's gonna win? FBI if they have a case. No more witch hunting.

This might be the 10th time I've said this...

I hate Donald Trump with a white hot passion. I am biased. I don't need the media to get me riled up, I'm way ahead of them.

If there's a witch hunt I'll be at the head of the pack with the biggest pitch fork. I'm all for witch hunting the **** out of him in the desperate hope that he ****ed up bad enough to be removed from office. Every little morsel of possible impropriety is delicious to me.

I don't know if Trump broke the law. I don't know if he could possibly be removed from office for cause. I hope so, but even if he wasn't I would want him removed from office, legally, by physical force or because he is dead, because he is the worst kind of person. Not just for political office, but in general. His personality causes me physical discomfort. If I had to sit in a room alone with him for more than 5 min I would take out my displeasure with his existence by bludgeoning him until I was stopped.

 

[Stoked]

I wanted to add, I guess I just take issue with people attacking "the media" over this. I don't believe we'd be where we are with this investigation if not for public pressure to assign a special counsel. That public pressure doesn't exist without journalists doing their jobs and bringing this stuff to light. I'm sure there are examples of specific media outlets doing a poor job, but on the whole, we owe journalists a debt of gratitude for their hard work, not derision.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

On this general point we will strongly disagree. But that's ok.

Care to explain the emoluments clause to me?

 

[Stoked]

It is true that the president has the legal authority to do whatever he wants with classified information. It's in a similar vein to Nixons remark of "when the president does it that means its not illegal"

I made the point earlier in this thread that he could tweet out the nuclear launch codes with out breaking any laws per se.

The problem comes in that it could be a violation of his oath of office as commander in chief, the man ultimately responsible for keeping the country safe.
https://lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

Interesting, thanks.

I agree that it appears, at least the way it is portrayed by the media (so I inherently have a level of skepticism) to be very poor decision making on the Presidents part.

I would think that short of Russia using that info to directly, or indirectly, attack America or its interest this would be almost impossible to prove.

 

[franklin]

Agree completely about the emoluments clause thing. I've posted repeatedly about that here and on Facebook but few people seem to care.

I care about it and I cared about it with the Clinton's. What is it in this day and age would you have us do? Or not change? Sticking to the old strictures and acting non-adaptive seems asinine, but allowing the presidency to gain as much power as it has in addition to gain from office seems even more so.

Aside from current thinking, this country has always been run by people with money including the Founding Fathers (Washington was worth over $500 million). We still had a Rockafeller in office for 20 years, ending in 2015. They're going to have business dealings so how do we take a commonsense approach to it? How did they do it back in the 1800's when this was obviously an issue since the founding?

 

[franklin]

This might be the 10th time I've said this...

I hate Donald Trump with a white hot passion. I am biased. I don't need the media to get me riled up, I'm way ahead of them.

If there's a witch hunt I'll be at the head of the pack with the biggest pitch fork. I'm all for witch hunting the **** out of him in the desperate hope that he ****ed up bad enough to be removed from office. Every little morsel of possible impropriety is delicious to me.

I don't know if Trump broke the law. I don't know if he could possibly be removed from office for cause. I hope so, but even if he wasn't I would want him removed from office, legally, by physical force or because he is dead, because he is the worst kind of person. Not just for political office, but in general. His personality causes me physical discomfort. If I had to sit in a room alone with him for more than 5 min I would take out my displeasure with his existence by bludgeoning him until I was stopped.

I get that, and I've also said at least 10 times that I never wanted to see a Trump presidency. I was openly supportive of Hillary Clinton as well, despite all the career politician hatred that haunted her out of winning. I can still forgive his bravado obnoxiousness and won't mind when the media quits their witch hunt that feeds it.

I'll step out, but forgive me for understanding the preference of his dumb *** for having the get-the-job-done mentality over someone who shoots for the stars knowing there is no possibility of mending two seams when they start with two carpet ends that don't match up in any shape or form.

And, if he's trying to make peace with the Russians then Halle-****ing-lujah. The politicians all know we need closer relations. Barrack ran on the same damn platform and the conservatives obnoxiously pulled the same Communist Card that the democrats are now invoking.

 

[colton]

On this general point we will strongly disagree. But that's ok.

Care to explain the emoluments clause to me?

Here's a good description: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumps-ethics-train-wreck/513446/

TL/DR version - it's a clause in the Constitution that basically says that people holding office in the U.S. cannot profit from foreign interests. Trump owning properties which are used by people in foreign governments are very likely a violation, since e.g. the Russian government could rent out rooms in a Trump hotel at ANY PRICE THEY BOTH AGREE TO. Thus there exists a clear path to corruption.

 

[Jonah]

I wanted to add, I guess I just take issue with people attacking "the media" over this. I don't believe we'd be where we are with this investigation if not for public pressure to assign a special counsel. That public pressure doesn't exist without journalists doing their jobs and bringing this stuff to light. I'm sure there are examples of specific media outlets doing a poor job, but on the whole, we owe journalists a debt of gratitude for their hard work, not derision.

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

Good point. Posturing about the media is reductive and adds nothing to understanding the complex way information is monetized and shared in today’s world.

Anyone with a smartphone or a computer has all the information they need at their fingertips to make informed decisions. One thing we can all do is be more responsible for our own news consumption and thereby help shape the way information is presented to us.

Filtering out the noise of bad reporting can be time consuming and there is no longer a short list of media sources to make news consumption neat and easy. Still, the best way to help contribute to a better, more responsible news enviroment is to give more clicks to places like Vox and none to Infowars. A good way to know you’re part of the problem is if you find yourself complaining about The New York Times while posting links to Brietbart News.

 

[colton]

I care about it and I cared about it with the Clinton's. What is it in this day and age would you have us do? Or not change?

Easy--Trump should have put his assets into a blind trust, as is discussed in the article I just cited:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumps-ethics-train-wreck/513446/

As we have argued, the only adequate solution to this and other conflicts of interest, taken by presidents of both parties for the past four decades, is divestiture into a truly blind trust or the equivalent.

 

[Zombie]

The hits just keep on coming.

Flynn rejected a strike on Isis, that was opposed by the Turkish govt...

Whose payroll he was on. (this is what he is under FBI investigation for as I understand it)

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/...rejected-anti-isis-plan-opposed-by-turkey.cnn

Also Trump want Flynn cleared of all charges and brought back into the Administration.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/artic...ump-talked-michael-flynn-into-white-house-job

Does anyone still seriously think Trump is fit for office?

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[DutchJazzer]

I'm sure you do. You're not an FBI agent. Nor could you be construed as "ethical" when trying to post something on the internet.

FBI notes and memos have held up in court historically.

well but nobody trusted comey a few weeks ago. not the left not the right

but suddnely when trump fires him the left loves him!


nobody had confidence in comey now they do?

hahahahaa

 

[DutchJazzer]

Here's a good description: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trumps-ethics-train-wreck/513446/

TL/DR version - it's a clause in the Constitution that basically says that people holding office in the U.S. cannot profit from foreign interests. Trump owning properties which are used by people in foreign governments are very likely a violation, since e.g. the Russian government could rent out rooms in a Trump hotel at ANY PRICE THEY BOTH AGREE TO. Thus there exists a clear path to corruption.

then explain to me how the clinton profited so much, but nobody was doing a withc hunt. ooh wait i am sexist! we are not supposed to with hunt the ladies!

 

[DutchJazzer]

The hits just keep on coming.

Flynn rejected a strike on Isis, that was opposed by the Turkish govt...

Whose payroll he was on. (this is what he is under FBI investigation for as I understand it)

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/...rejected-anti-isis-plan-opposed-by-turkey.cnn

Also Trump want Flynn cleared of all charges and brought back into the Administration.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/artic...ump-talked-michael-flynn-into-white-house-job

Does anyone still seriously think Trump is fit for office?

Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app

but yeha flyn got cleared by the obama adminsitration.

so who do we truly blame for it
?