Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Thriller, May 9, 2017.

  1. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    9,852
    738
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Bullet has been consistent on agreeing that we need real facts to act on, and even on applying the same standard of evidence to the matters involving Hillary, for quite a while.

    If ballot boxes were stuffed, or the count of votes were compiled fraudulently by some Russian computer hack who got into our election computer network.... I dunno.... do we still let that offshore Spanish corporation count our votes????.....we do need to fix our system so nobody can steal our votes. But if it were just some foreign campaign funds running ads in social media, I'd still say the votes counted.

    My point is that we have had foreign inputs into election/campaigns for over a century. We have to do something to minimize that. I dunno.... actually enforce campaign laws that prohibit such donations......I know of one eccentric Aussie lady who donated to Mitt when he was running, and she was in social media pushing Mitt as well. Actually illegal, but I didn't make so much a fuss. Ordinary people, not some deep pockets corporate or government.

    I think we should prosecute Obama for what he spent trying to help Netanyahu's opponents. Get our money back, tripled, as a punishment.
     
  2. Joe Bagadonuts

    Joe Bagadonuts Well-Known Member

    9,493
    1,169
    228
    Aug 23, 2010
    With regard to Trump I can recall numerous BP posts that got way out in front of the facts.
     
  3. Bulletproof

    Bulletproof All-Jazzfanz First Team! Contributor 2018 Award Winner

    3,803
    2,086
    243
    Feb 17, 2017
    Don't misinterpret my personal feelings or my assumptions when presented as such as facts.

    I have been exceedingly clear that I hate Trump based on his disgusting personality and hope than any bad thing than can happen does happen to him. That certainly leads me to be hopeful that rumors and suggestions that he's about to be found out to be the douchebag K that I suspect him to be is true.

    I generally speak in very clear terms as to what I consider to be facts and what I suspect to be true. I use qualifiers probably more often than is needed, but I do so for a reason.

    Some people have an aversion to nuance, but it seems that bleeds over to things that are not nuance at all, like when I say "I think" or "I believe" or "It may be" or "Possibly" or whatever else that is not nuanced at all and is a bright red flag I'm waiving that indicates to the intelligent people reading what I write the actual value of the information that follows. My feelings, my beliefs, my hopes are just that and I advise people to take them for what they are worth (possibly very little). When I state facts I make that clear. When I don't I usually qualify my statements to indicate such. Words matter. Context matters. Nuance is not just an annoying way to confuse simpletons.
     
    fishonjazz likes this.
  4. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    2,137
    321
    118
    Mar 17, 2015
    If you missed the Comey interview, it's an hour of your life you didn't waste. Overly dramatic TV event. If Trump transformed the institution of the Presidency into a daily reality tv series, then some in the broadcast media are weaving their own narrative that is just as much a show. We deserve better all around.

    It was partly a biography of Comey at times, and you could easily interpret it as being, in part, a promo for his future candidacy for higher office. His characterization of Trump was likely spot on in describing him as unfit for the presidency, but it could have been titled "Comey: the Interview", and that would convey the showtime tone of the whole thing. It ain't a show. It's not reality TV. It ain't a race for TV ratings. It's our political life. Its serious business, not a reality TV series. People have said Comey's book promotion tour could backfire on him, and if last night is how his insights are going to be presented, it just might backfire. The guy is not a knight in shining armor. I guess it's like any other important news story. Dramatize the news and present it as an entertainment event. Too bad, we deserve to be treated as more then an audience buying popcorn during the intermissions.
     
    JazzGal likes this.
  5. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
    /r/latestagecapitalism

    It's mostly a circle jerk of psuedo-socialists underscoring the worst of societies exploitation's. But the road we're headed down isn't that far off.

    This is just a prime example. Substance doesn't sell as well as big, grandiose events that oversimplify a pointed controversy/argument in our society.
     
  6. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
    So... Cohen is Hannity's lawyer too?
     
  7. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    9,852
    738
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    I heard on the radio that Hannity issued a statement that Cohen has not represented him in any legal matter. Conversational exchanges perhaps, maybe some paid "advice", but no representation.

    No surprise. Trump, Mark Levin, and Hannity make up a sort of political "love triangle". They have pointed differences in views and speak to different segments of the political market with different manners. Trump has trashed the idea of any legal prosecution for his former mistress Hillary, but he appreciates loyalty like Hannity's. And Levin probably gives Hannity legal advice/consolation about everything in the news. Makes Hannity ten times smarter than he'd be by himself.

    But just in case anyone is questioning my knowitall credentials, let me remind you. In politics truth means nothing, it's all in the story line. A knowitall is the person who can create a story line and pound in a few commonly-believed "facts" to make it reinforce peoples' prejudices.
     
  8. Bulletproof

    Bulletproof All-Jazzfanz First Team! Contributor 2018 Award Winner

    3,803
    2,086
    243
    Feb 17, 2017
    Cohen, who for his other two clients paid off porn industry workers who had sex with his clients also works for Hannity? Good times. Really good times.

    I'm guessing Hannity's issue doesn't involve Cohen in ongoing criminal activity, so it will remain sealed under lawyer client privilege, so Hannity can say it was about whatever he wants, but Cohen is not a real estate lawyer, get serious babe. Cohen is a "fixer" who shuts up female sex workers with payoffs. That's what Cohen does. It's his thing.
     
  9. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
    As BP says, Cohen's a fixer, not a litigator. It's not unusual for fixers not to represent their clients in court. Or even represent them officially out of court.
     
  10. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    9,852
    738
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    combined reply to whatever BP and Big H are saying:

    I don't know anything about Hannity or Trump's private life, and I don't care to. I'm sure there are women who lie, and want to extort money from any public figure. I wouldn't giveadamn if they both had five wives or ten, or love life exploits like some former NBA stars people have talked about......, or if they are a loving couple. A "fixer" will never be unemployed as long as there are people who care about their reputations who have any contact with people (male or female) who can twist their undies.

    I do care about watching out for my own money, and my own liberty..... when politicians like Trump or Hillary or Obama or Bush are out and about smoozzing Chinese or Russian, or Monacoan politicians making deals that affect our national security or economy. Or snickering in some cloakroom with any industrialist or lobbyist.

    If anyone is trying to just muckrake Hannity off the air, as it seems sincere political hack interests are truly trying to do in order to dumpTrump or protect Hillary has anything made-up or real to say about Hannity, my question is still just why don't you apply the same standards to yourselves.

    If your cause is so wonderful, don't mess it up with trying to shut down free speech or opposition voices. Just make your own wonderful music and let people see it for what it is.
     
  11. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
    Although I'd like you shut down, that's not the actual goal.

    The goal is to make sure the record is straight. If that takes form of nullifying your argument, or even making it look stupider than it already is, perhaps you should look at your argument, snowflake.


    Back on target; McConnell stonewalling a bill to protect Mueller.

    But a republican, Chuck Grassley, is moving forward. He'll be joined by Tom Thillis, Lindsey Graham, and the democrats in pushing it anyway.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ith-mueller-bill-despite-mcconnell-opposition
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
  12. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
  13. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/18/trump-michael-cohen-flip-536926

     
  14. Bulletproof

    Bulletproof All-Jazzfanz First Team! Contributor 2018 Award Winner

    3,803
    2,086
    243
    Feb 17, 2017
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/politics/trump-forbes-400-list-cnntv/index.html

    You've got to watch the video to hear Trump pretend to be one of his executives.

    Trump is a liar and a con man.
     
    Harambe likes this.
  15. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
    He's a history of inflated self worth.

    http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-trump-organization-net-worth-715546

    He's also been sensitive since well before presidential duties, say, his comedy central roast in 2011:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-roast-on-comedy-central-what-he-banned-2016-8

    How anyone believes he's anything more than a blowhard is beyond me.
     
  16. colton

    colton All Around Nice Guy Staff Member

    11,253
    1,395
    233
    May 25, 2010
    This isn't the first time something like this has surfaced. For those who have forgotten, or perhaps have their heads in the sand:
    https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-recording-john-miller-barron-fake-press/ (Apologies if I mangled anything with the copy & paste; the formatting made it so a lot of editing was required)

    Donald Trump on recording: Not me
    By Tal Kopan and Jeremy Diamond, CNN

    Updated 4:06 PM ET, Sat May 14, 2016

    Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Friday that a newly resurfaced recording of a man who sounds like Trump posing as his spokesman isn't him — even though he has admitted in the past to posing as his own publicist under a pseudonym.

    "It was not me on the phone," Trump told NBC's "Today" show when the recording was played for him during a live interview. "And it doesn't sound like me on the phone, I'll tell you that, and it was not me on the phone."

    NBC was asking Trump about a Washington Post report published earlier Friday that claims Trump routinely made calls to reporters in the 1970s, '80s and '90s posing as a publicist named John Miller or John Barron, advocating for himself and answering questions about his personal life and business dealings.
    The man in the 14-minute recording sounds much like Trump, and the Post pointed to Trump's long appreciation of the name Barron, including the name of his youngest son.
    The Post also cited 1990 court case testimony in which Trump testified, "I believe on occasion I used that name" when asked about Barron. CNN has obtained a copy of Trump's testimony during that case.
    upload_2018-4-20_10-58-54.gif
    On "Today" Friday morning, Trump at first said he didn't "think" it was him on the recording.
    "This sounds like one of the scams, one of the many scams, doesn't sound like me," Trump said. "I don't think it was me, it doesn't sound like me."
    When pressed by the anchors, Trump explicitly said it wasn't him.
    And then he testily told the journalists to move on.

    "You're going so low to talk about something that took place 25 years ago whether or not I made a phone call?" Trump said. "Let's get on to more current subjects."

    Thomas Owen, a New Jersey-based forensic audio specialist, told CNN Friday that based on several criteria -- including pitch, tone and cadence -- Miller's voice in the audio obtained by the Post is consistent with Trump's in the early 1990s.
    "I can conclude with a fair degree of scientific certainty that it is Donald Trump's voice," Owen said, though he noted that due to the recording's quality, he wasn't able to use biometric analysis that would make him absolutely certain.
    Friday afternoon, Washington Post reporter James Hohmann tweeted that Trump's telephone line "went silent, then dead, this afternoon when WaPo asked: 'Did you ever employ someone named John Miller as a spokesperson?'"
    "WaPo reporters were 44 mins into a phone interview w Trump abt his finances when asked about John Miller. The phone went silent, then dead," Hohmann added.

    Sue Carswell, a former People magazine reporter whose 1991 interview with Miller was highlighted in the Post article, told CNN's Michael Smerconish on Saturday that she was convinced it was Trump on the tape. She said Trump apologized for posing as a publicist shortly after the article ran, calling it a "joke."
    She speculated that Trump himself leaked the tape to the Post. The paper said it obtained the recording from a source with whom Carswell had shared the microcassette of the call shortly after the interview.
    A message left with the Trump campaign seeking a response to Carswell's claim was not immediately returned.
    "Two people had the tape: I had a tape and Trump had a tape," said Carswell, who is now a reporter for Vanity Fair. "And I don't have the tape. Well, it didn't get to The Washington Post through me."
    "It says a lot about Trump," Carswell added. "I think we should be concerned about his judgment and the fact that he could pull things like this in the future."

    Trump's history of impersonating his own spokesman has long been an open secret at the Trump Organization and among New York media circles.
    At least one former Trump Organization executive has confirmed to CNN that Trump at times responded to media requests personally under the guise of a spokesman.
    Trump's apparent alter ego was quoted repeatedly and prominently in newspapers, magazines and especially in the gossip pages of New York tabloids.
    In 1984 and 1985, several New York Times articles attributed quotes about Trump's business dealings to "John Barron, a vice president of the Trump Organization."

    And Trump's unofficial biographers also pulled the thin veil off Trump's cover identity.
    Michael D'Antonio wrote in "Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success" that "John Barron was a way for Trump to talk himself up."
    "He'd be able to express things that he wanted expressed about himself by someone that wasn't him," D'Antonio wrote.
    And the audio recording reveals more than just a remarkable likeness to Trump's own voice, but also in the spokesman's cadence, word choice and the billionaire's trademark bravado.
    Discussing Trump's divorce and his prospects with women, "John Miller" said Trump is "somebody that has a lot of options, and, frankly, he gets called by everybody. He gets called by everybody in the book, in terms of women," according to the audio recording obtained by The Washington Post.

    Miller also describes a past encounter between Trump and Madonna in great detail.
    "Madonna was in the room, and so somebody from Madonna's entourage -- because she comes in with an entourage of dancers and everything else -- and somebody from Madonna's entourage came over and said, 'Would you go over and say hello to Madonna?' And so he went over and said hello to Madonna and he gave his autograph to the dancers. She said, 'These are fans' and all this. 'Will you give them the autograph?' So he said, 'Best wishes' or something," Miller said, according to the recording. "And then all of a sudden -- and that was the end. And then he said goodbye to her and that was literally the end. He's got zero interest in Madonna. It was literally the end."
    The spokesman then goes on to purport that Madonna "wanted to go out" with Trump.
    Amid regaling the reporter with tales of Trump's encounters with models, actresses and the pop queen, the spokesman added in an aside: "By the way, I'm sort of new here."
    CNN's Sara Murray, Drew Griffin, Sophie Tatum and Noah Gray contributed to this report.
     

    Attached Files:

    Harambe likes this.
  17. Joe Bagadonuts

    Joe Bagadonuts Well-Known Member

    9,493
    1,169
    228
    Aug 23, 2010
    Does anyone think that Comey is doing the investigation, the FBI or himself any favors with this book tour? From my perspective his interviews (in concert with his recently released memos) seem to confirm that he has always been strongly anti-Trump, was certain that Trump wouldn't win and felt like he had some sort of a moral duty to de-legitimize the election once the unthinkable happened. I'd be interested in reading the memos that Comey wrote after his meetings with Obama for comparison.
     
  18. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
  19. Harambe

    Harambe Well-Known Member Contributor

    5,649
    516
    198
    May 26, 2010
    Dude bro. Solid. Long... but damn solid.
     
    colton likes this.
  20. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    2,137
    321
    118
    Mar 17, 2015
    How a conversation Comey had with Reince Priebus underpins the likelihood of obstruction of justice by Trump.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...on-in-the-comey-memos/?utm_term=.5ad0bc282aa6

    Once again, House Republicans have carefully laid a rake on the ground, dramatically brought their foot down on it and smashed themselves in the face. I speak, of course, about the release of the memos that then-FBI director James B. Comey wrote in early 2017 describing his meetings with President Trump and other administration officials.

    Those memos have raised a whole new set of very uncomfortable questions for the president. I want to focus on one of those questions, a new twist involving former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

    First, let’s look at Comey’s account of a meeting he had on Feb. 8, 2017 with Priebus:

    "He then asked me if this was a “private conversation.” I replied that it was. He then said he wanted to ask me a question and I could decide whether it was appropriate to answer. He then asked, “Do you have a FISA order on Mike Flynn?” I paused for a few seconds and then said that I would answer here, but that this illustrated the kind of question that had to be asked and answered through established channels. I said the answer [redacted]”

    To this point, we have never heard that there might have been a FISA warrant issued to surveil Flynn. We don’t know whether the answer is yes or no, due to the redaction, but we now know it’s possible. What ultimately led to Flynn’s firing was that he was picked up on surveillance of Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition period,
    reportedly urging Russia not to respond to sanctions the Obama administration was imposing, in violation of the principle that the country is only supposed to have one administration and one foreign policy at a time.

    To see why Priebus asking Comey about Flynn is important, you have to understand the chronology. The underlying question is whether Trump’s firing of Comey constituted obstruction of justice, which has a great deal to do with Flynn. Let’s lay this out:

    Jan. 15, 2017: Vice president-elect Mike Pence goes on “Face the Nation” and denies that Flynn discussed sanctions with the Russians; two days before, spokesperson Sean Spicer issued a similar denial.

    Jan. 24: Flynn is interviewed by the FBI, and falsely tells them that he and Kislyak only exchanged pleasantries and did not discuss substantive matters. The FBI knows this is false, because they are monitoring Kislyak’s communications and heard the two men’s conversation.

    Jan. 26: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informs White House Counsel Don McGahn that Flynn has told a lie to administration officials, a lie the vice president repeated in public. She is concerned because, since the Russians know Flynn has lied, they could use that information to blackmail him. She informs McGahn that Flynn has been interviewed by the FBI, but says that she didn’t share the contents of the interview, leaving open the question of whether Flynn lied to the investigators. A CNN report will later say that McGahn concluded Flynn lied to the FBI and informed the president, but the White House denies this.

    Jan. 30: Trump fires Yates.

    Feb. 8: According to Comey’s memos, Priebus asks him whether Flynn is under a FISA warrant, i.e. is under surveillance.

    Feb. 13: Flynn resigns under pressure.

    Feb. 14: According to Comey’s memos, at the end of an Oval Office meeting, Trump orders everyone except Comey out of the room. Trump asks Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go,” the president says to him.


    Feb. 14: The New York Times publishes a storyreporting that multiple Trump campaign officials had contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

    Feb. 15: Priebus reaches out to Comey and his then-deputy Andrew McCabe and asks them to say publicly that the Times story is false. Comey refuses.

    March 22: Trump asks Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Natioanl Security Agency director Mike Rogers to intervene with Comey and urge him to lay off Flynn. As far as we know, they take no action.

    May 9: Trump fires Comey.

    If we accept Comey’s account of the Feb. 14 meeting, then Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn after members of his staff knew he had lied to the vice president about it, and might even have had reason to believe he had lied to the FBI as well. Trump claims that all he knew when he fired Flynn was that Flynn had lied to Pence. But on Dec. 2, Trump tweeted, “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”

    After everyone realized that the tweet meant Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation knowing that Flynn had committed a crime — which could be obstruction of justice — Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, came forward and claimed that he had authored Trump’s tweet. This was utterly ludicrous.

    What’s new here is Priebus’s involvement. The fact that he asked Comey on Feb. 8 about whether Flynn was under surveillance suggests he may have had reason to believe that Flynn’s transgressions were more serious than just lying to Pence.

    If that’s true, then the chances that Trump didn’t know that Flynn had done something extremely serious are shrinking. The White House counsel reportedly knew that Flynn lied to the FBI. The White House chief of staff saw fit to ask the FBI director whether Flynn was under surveillance, from which he very well might have concluded something similar. And after all that, Trump asked Comey to let Flynn go.

    Robert S. Mueller III’s team interviewed Priebus in October, and you can bet they were extremely interested to find out what Priebus knew and what he told the president. And Flynn has flipped and is cooperating with Mueller. One way or another, the truth is going to come out.
     
    Harambe likes this.

Share This Page