Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

[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
?

 

[Red]

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?

The President can release any classified intel he wants, so I guess it's perfectly legal. Perfectly justifiable isn't as clear:

"Intelligence sharing between allies -- in particular those as close as Israel and the US -- is standard practice. But Sofrin points to an unwritten rule between intelligence agencies: sensitive information will not be shared with other countries without explicit permission, and the way in which that information is shared will reflect its sensitivity.

In defending Trump's disclosure of the information, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster appeared to acknowledge Tuesday that those protocols had not been followed. "I should just make the statement here that the President wasn't even aware of where the information came from," he said. "He wasn't briefed on the source or method of the information either."......

".....Russia's alliance with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which has close ties to Iran -- and by proxy, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah -- means Israel must be careful with its intelligence.
This caution specifically applies to intelligence about ISIS, where Arad says there is no security coordination with the Russians.

Arad points out that not sharing classified information, especially with an ally as close as the United States, is not feasible.
"The only other option is not to say anything, but that can lead to even greater harm [to Israeli interests]," Arad said. "Leaders must be able to weigh the benefits and costs when speaking with other leaders."

The concern is that Trump never made that calculation."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/israel-trump-intelligence/

I think Trump potentially put in danger the Israeli agent embedded within ISIS, and who was the ultimate source of the intelligence Trump shared with the Russians.

 

[Red]

It looks one result of an appointment of a Special Council is that we will almost certainly not hear Comey speak in any public hearings. After Congressional leaders were briefed by the Asst. Attorney General yesterday, Sen. Graham and others stated to reporters that the investigation by Mueller should be regarded as a criminal investigation. Making it unlikely he would allow any potential witness to disclose evidence in any public hearing. I think it was Graham himself who stated to reporters that appointment of a Special Council or Special Prosecutor means "the public loses". We should no longer come to expect leaks either, at least not from Meuller's investigation. I think the Congressional investigations continue, however.

 

[Red]

lol, stop with the "they would have done it" excuses. Terrible argument. My reply to that is the same as when Bush was brought up on Obama stuff. Obama isn't in charge anymore and this isn't about him. Never a good argument.

I have almost 0 faith that this is about the media "doing their jobs". All your call for perspective is is an attempt to make your view on it the norm.

And I am not defending the President. I am glad the congressional hearings and a prosecutor was named. It needs an investigation. Absolutely. But no, I don't believe the media is doing their job in any kind of good faith.

I don't disagree that there is a feeding frenzy among liberal leaning media. They compete among themselves, and in the case of broadcast media, especially the cable outlets, too often they are competing for ratings, and for years now our big news stories have often been presented in an entertainment oriented format. Like taking a big national event and giving it a label or title like "Terror in the Heartland" or some such. Just making that last part up, but all the big events that become big news are often packaged as entertainment with movie-like titles.

One thing I would point out. Trump has brought much of what has happened upon himself, both through his words and his actions. And, while we would still have a liberal press and media determined to go after him, we can also point to the fact that, during the campaign, at his rallies the press was kept segregated in chicken wire cages, and in each and every rally, Trump encouraged catcalls and derision be directed against those press/media representatives that were present. As well, the whole "fake news" narrative promoted by Trump, and absorbed and subscribed to by his base, probably was bound to only increase bias against Trump on the part of those media outlets he singled out as lying about him, and promoting fake news. Surely, that cannot help. The media is made up of human beings, and he spent months attacking those people. If he expected to be treated "fairly" once elected, that was not the best tact to take to get a result different from the result we now have from that media.

 

[Red]

I have almost 0 faith that this is about the media "doing their jobs".

Well, whether approaching things and interpreting things from a left leaning perspective, or a right leaning perspective, the press and media are going to reflect a bias. But, and somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but did not the founding generation view the press, the so-called Fourth Estate, as the "watchdogs" of American society? Was it not expected that a free press would keep the public informed and educated if that free press discovered information that that free press felt the public, the citizenry, the electorate, should know? Should be brought to the attention of the electorate? Even acknowledging an underlying bias, are not organs like the Post and Times publishing info in their role as "watchdogs"? It's not as if, at least as I see it, that the info they are revealing, and which has led directly to a Special Prosecutor, is simply so much BS. Although Trump is claiming it is. But is it not in fact still justifiable in seeing the press as in fact "doing their job" as the founding generation envisioned?