What's new
By:

Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
http://www.businessinsider.com/release-the-memo-campaign-russia-linked-twitter-accounts-2018-1

Republican lawmakers are pushing for the House Intelligence Committee to release a memo written by the panel's chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, that outlines purported surveillance during the transition period against President-elect Donald Trump by former President Barack Obama's administration.

And Russia-linked Twitter bots have jumped on the bandwagon.

#ReleaseTheMemo is the top-trending hashtag among Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations, according to Hamilton 68, a website launched last year that says it tracks Russian propaganda in near-real time.

The frequency with which the accounts have been promoting the hashtag has spiked by 233,000% over the past 48 hours, according to the site. The accounts' references to the "memo," meanwhile, have increased by 68,000%......

......Democrats, meanwhile, have called the Nunes memo grossly exaggerated and misleading.

"The Majority voted today on a party-line basis to grant House Members access to a profoundly misleading set of talking points drafted by Republican staff attacking the FBI and its handling of the investigation," Rep. Adam Schiff, the panel's top Democrat, said in a statement on Thursday.

"Rife with factual inaccuracies and referencing highly classified materials that most of Republican Intelligence Committee members were forced to acknowledge they had never read, this is meant only to give Republican House members a distorted view of the FBI," Schiff continued.

A source with knowledge of the memo told Business Insider that it was "a level of irresponsible stupidity that I cannot fathom," adding that it "purposefully misconstrues facts and leaves out important details."
 
Stoked said:
I have seen nothing to indicated that the parties can rise above that. Nothing. The bicker and fight and wax overly dramatic over every little detail. "Get Sick And Die", "Fake News", "Not My President"and Birthers are only a few examples that come to mind.

Now, the American people have certainly. Just not the Rs and Ds. IMO the hard left and hard right are ruining America.
Click to expand...

I also don't think the problems are entirely the result of uber-partisan politics. The American people seem deeply divided over the direction of the nation. The mere existance of the culture wars alone demonstrates that fact. And when either candidate in a Republican vs Democrat election talk policy, those differences will often surface, exacerbating partisan positions. But I do believe the majority of Americans want compromise.

Politics has been defined as "the art of compromise". That has not been the case in Washington for a number of years now. Nobody in Congress, or the executive branch, is practicing that art form at the moment. But the roots are deeper then mere partisanship, those roots are within the culture wars themselves, as Americans themselves are deeply divided, not simply their elected representatives. Which is why I believe, and of course it's far easier said then done, far easier to conjure in the imagination then the real world, that we need candidates that will remind us at every turn that we are all Americans.

Policy positions that remind Americans of their cultural differences, that remind Americans that we are engaged in "a battle for the soul of America" absolutely have to be balanced by reinforcing anything and everything we have in common as Americans. There is a middle ground of Americans, that may outnumber the extremes, I say MAY, that want to get past this civil war we are engaged in. And that candidate or candidates that at least recognizes that, and is willing to not just bend to the will of the extremes, is likely what we need if we are to transcend extreme partisanship.

Even where Trump is concerned, if he had simply made an effort, post 2016 election, to reach out and talk to Americans who did not vote for him, things would actually have gone easier for him. Any half way intelligent politician understands that basic principle. It was his choice to only ever speak to his base, and never really address those segments of his nation that did not support him. And all taking such a stance does is increase the desire among a large percentage of the American public for leaders that do stress what we have in common, that do stress the desire for unity over divisiveness. Whoever the candidates are in 2020 had better understand that.

P.S. I have no idea why some of my text is darker then other parts, lol....
 
Red said:
I also don't think the problems are entirely the result of uber-partisan politics. The American people seem deeply divided over the direction of the nation. The mere existance of the culture wars alone demonstrates that fact. And when either candidate in a Republican vs Democrat election talk policy, those differences will often surface, exacerbating partisan positions. But I do believe the majority of Americans want compromise.

Politics has been defined as "the art of compromise". That has not been the case in Washington for a number of years now. Nobody in Congress, or the executive branch, is practicing that art form at the moment. But the roots are deeper then mere partisanship, those roots are within the culture wars themselves, as Americans themselves are deeply divided, not simply their elected representatives. Which is why I believe, and of course it's far easier said then done, far easier to conjure in the imagination then the real world, that we need candidates that will remind us at every turn that we are all Americans.

Policy positions that remind Americans of their cultural differences, that remind Americans that we are engaged in "a battle for the soul of America" absolutely have to be balanced by reinforcing anything and everything we have in common as Americans. There is a middle ground of Americans, that may outnumber the extremes, I say MAY, that want to get past this civil war we are engaged in. And that candidate or candidates that at least recognizes that, and is willing to not just bend to the will of the extremes, is likely what we need if we are to transcend extreme partisanship.

Even where Trump is concerned, if he had simply made an effort, post 2016 election, to reach out and talk to Americans who did not vote for him, things would actually have gone easier for him. Any half way intelligent politician understands that basic principle. It was his choice to only ever speak to his base, and never really address those segments of his nation that did not support him. And all taking such a stance does is increase the desire among a large percentage of the American public for leaders that do stress what we have in common, that do stress the desire for unity over divisiveness. Whoever the candidates are in 2020 had better understand that.

P.S. I have no idea why some of my text is darker then other parts, lol....
Click to expand...
you want him to talk to people.

words are useless
meaningless.

remember obummer and all his beautiful words. obama is one of the greatest speakers ever. when he goes on a pedestal and tells me the sun is green. i sure as hell would believe him. but all his words turned out lies.

trump on the other hand stupid liberals cling on every one of his words.
but lowest african American job rate in history, lowest unemployment in history, minimum wage is being increased without minium wage laws. the economy is BOOMING. the economy growth is 3% and might reach 4%

yet obummer takes creidt for this, the man who said their is no magic wand that can bring jobs back, their is no more 3% gdp growth ever.

ACTIONS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WORDS


not to mention kim yung fatty is scared out of his mind(yes i am fat shaming the only fat guy in a communist/socialist country)
and the iranian government is ******* bricks. lol
 
Last edited:
Seems like as good of place as any for this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I agree with the democrat strategist, its stupid to pursue or push the idea of impeaching Trump. Trump got voted in, work on getting your own people voted in if you are that opposed to him. I would be disappointed to even see Trump get impeached, because it would prop him up as a martyr for many.

Personally I see the most likely outcome of the Trump presidency is for him to get a little more mired in mud while in office but ultimately nothing too damning comes out and he decides not to run again. For him he does it to save face and he can continue to claim how he was the greatest president ever and push his brand and make more money from that. He can be a voice but doesnt have to face his biggest fear of getting embarrassed if he losses.

Obviously if something really bad comes out of this investigation or something else he should be impeached but there is no reason to talk about that until hard evidence gets presented to us.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Great. Let's go crazy over something that didn't happen. That sounds similar to what the whole Russia collusion thing appears to have been.
Click to expand...
Trump did give the order to fire Mueller. That happened. Being successful in the endeavour of obstruction is not necessary to be guilty of obstruction of justice. It's a crime of intent. So GTFO with this 'nothing happened' nonsense.

Also, answer me this, if this is all no big deal, why was the White House chief counsel willing to resign in protest over it?
 
The President has consistently declined to act in his own self interest. There does not even have to be a crime that was committed that someone would want to obstruct an investigation of, in order for someone to commit obstruction of justice.

Whether due to guilt, or because he did not like a distraction from the "greatness" of his presidency, the guy just could not sit still about it. From firing Comey, the very act that created the Special Council, to now this, the Special Council knowing Trump ordered him fired. And Mueller learned that from Trump's inner circle because they did not want to commit perjury while talking to Mueller or his team.

Trump has consistently been his own worse enemy where the Special Council's investigation is concerned. And now, in Europe this morning, there's Trump blurting out "Fake news. Fake news. New York Times fake news folks" when reporters yelled out questions as he was walking to meetings. Unbelievable.

The Special Council now must be certain Trump committed obstruction of justice. Foolish beyond measure.

But, the GOP is in charge, and they are going to release the Nunes Memo and use it to prevent impeachment at all costs. Whether they include the intelligence documentation behind the memo is another question altogether. If not, the American people will not be able to really judge the memo's talking points one way or the other. I still believe impeachment is unlikely, but Trump has been shooting himself in the foot from the start. Foolish beyond measure.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...er-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532
 
As good a thread as any I guess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...22769454f82_story.html?utm_term=.1bff7c34f9f3

The President is going to go after yet another defense spending increase in 2019. From 700 billion to 716 billion.

And the response is that many lawmakers and the Pentagon are upset it isn't more.

I better see full on Iron Man suits for every soldier, hover tanks with two rail gun cannons, flying aircraft carriers like in Avengers, reverse wing jets that shoot plasma rounds, transforming robots and space lasers.
 
Zombie said:
Trump did give the order to fire Mueller. That happened. Being successful in the endeavour of obstruction is not necessary to be guilty of obstruction of justice. It's a crime of intent. So GTFO with this 'nothing happened' nonsense.

Also, answer me this, if this is all no big deal, why was the White House chief counsel willing to resign in protest over it?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing he threatened to resign over it because he strongly disagreed with the idea, and it appears that he got his way since both Mueller and the chief counsel kept their jobs. I do not see the point in getting excited over decisions that were floated but not executed. I am confident that there are all sorts of ideas in this category in every administration.

Let me ask you a question. If, upon Obama's election in '08, the Director of the FBI had launched an investigation into his collusion with Russia largely based on documentation compiled by Mitt Romney's campaign, how would you have reacted if Obama got pissed at the idiocy and fired the Director? Now, I assume you're going to say that Obama would have and should have allowed the FBI to investigate anything they want, but I really don't believe that's how it would have played out had it happened.

Everyone is so partisan that they have no problem with the issues on their side of the ledger, while they simultaneously blow any issue on the other side of the ledger completely out of proportion. If you don't recognize that both sides are doing this, and have been doing this for years, then you are somehow witnessing a completely different version of events than I am. I could easily give you numerous examples of this sort of thing on both sides. IMO, liberals don't really care what did or didn't happen with regard to Russia, or obstruction, or sexual relationships, or taxes or anything else. All they really want is for Trump to be gone, somehow, some way. There are many out there who think that overturning his presidency is so important that they would do anything in their power to help make it happen. The same thing was true of certain people when Obama was president, and Bush, and Clinton...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top