ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

1453R wrote:

He didn't (likely) collude with Russia this time.

Does that mean I think he would hesitate for a nanosecond to break every single law he could get away with breaking, and then probably one or two more besides, if breaking those laws meant even a slightly better chance, short-term, of getting what he wants?

No.

Trump has proven that he has no respect at all for American law, our legal system, or those who enforce it, as proven by the fact that he fires anyone and everyone associated with those systems the moment they do something that even mildly inconveniences him. His constant demands for 'LOYALTY', by which he means cult-like, slavish devotion to him and him alone, rather than to the office of the President or the American people, are a pretty big indicator.

So is his active obstruction - you can say 'basically impossible to prove intent' and be legally correct, but come on. Do you really think it's okay for the President to be able to just up and fire every single investigator charged with investigating possible presidential misconduct until he finally gets to one willing to be bought off or intimidated? He's guilty, but he has also successfully raised enough ire on this subject that he will never be tried for obstruction.

So yeah. No. I don't trust for one single heartbeat that Trump will act within the laws of the United States if those laws constrain him in ways he does not feel like being constrained. He's already proven that he doesn't care about the law, the same way he doesn't care about the country or the people in it. The folks he's got under his thumb are going to vote for him and back his policies no matter what because he's successfully divided the country so fiercely into Us and Them that Trumpists would excuse him for actually, factually stabbing someone in the face live on Fox News. They'd figure that whoever got stabbed had it coming and find a way to shift the blame for the stabbing onto some Dem or other, or onto CNN.

Not because they hate the country or anything, but because they're feeling backed into a corner by the constant attacks from people who cannot fuckin' tolerate that screeching goblin and take it out on Trump supporters. Is it fair? No, not really. Sorry about that. But on the flip side, you guys stuck us with an actively treasonous lawbreaker who has done, and is in the process of continuing to do, nigh-irreparable damage to this country.

I very much look forward to Trump being remembered and reviled as not only one of the worst Presidents in the history of this country, but also one of the worst world leaders in the history of the world. Also I really hope I can stop apologizing to my overseas friends for this oaf in 2020, because there's only so much "I am so...so sorry, I tried, I really did, I would fix it if I remotely could..." a girl's pride can take.

So you're going off a feeling? Because the guy didn't do anything illegal so far. He had every right to fire Comey.

"

1453R wrote:

Trump is clearly and unambiguously guilty of obstruction of justice. . . Proving obstruction without a smoking-gun piece of physical evidence. . . is notoriously difficult in criminal cases.

It’s almost as if these two statements are mutually exclusive. It’s almost as if the veracity of the claim begins and ends with “I want it to be true.”

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

Trump is clearly and unambiguously guilty of obstruction of justice. . . Proving obstruction without a smoking-gun piece of physical evidence. . . is notoriously difficult in criminal cases.

It’s almost as if these two statements are mutually exclusive. It’s almost as if the veracity of the claim begins and ends with “I want it to be true.”

Just because something can't be proven (yet) doesn't mean that it's untrue. That something is true or not does not depends on the demonstrability of it being true.

Well, to be honest my thoughts on The Memo™ are somewhere between the Lionel perspective and the Scott Adams perspective. To paraphrase Lionel: isn't this something we've basically known for quite some time now, perhaps more confirmation than revelation? Adams' point seems to build on Lionel's (although it doesn't mention it): Is it actually a crime in America for an investigator to get a warrant using often unreliable information from a paid informant? Is this malfeasance, or possibly just people doing their job poorly?

I don't think I'm alone in speculating prior to The Memo™ that the Fusion GPS PissGate dossier could have triggered the FISA warrant against Page. Both events were already known in isolation, and although no evidence directly suggested a connection, the only other place I'd even seen low-level Trump lackey Page mentioned was Steele's NeverTrump fanfic, which was already known to have made the rounds at the FBI via McCain. I was basically assuming the Memo even before the Memo.

But there was more than that as to why I was assuming it. I had this kind of redpill moment on the FBI way back when The Departed (the Scorcese film) came out and I found out Frank Costello was based off real-life dickbag James "Whitey" Bulger, right down to the "FBI confidential informant" detail. In other words, for about the past decade my take on reality has been that when the FBI finds real-life bloodlusting hyper-racist crime bosses, they're perhaps more likely to pay them for information than arrest them for, say, the multiple murders they've committed. I assumed such information is routinely used in securing warrants; frankly, that's a lot less nightmarish than the prospect that such evidence is used for proper convictions.

Thus, the idea that unhinged people are giving "essential" testimony for warrants and other cases the FBI puts before federal judges, and getting paid for the FBI on top of whatever shady business they're into full-time... well, I'm sad to say it doesn't surprise me at all. That's how we do shit in America. I mean, to be fully honest, I think a lot of people have been surveiled on using the claims of people far greasier than ex-spy Christopher Steele. Among the tiers of FBI informants, I'm pretty sure there's at least one full tier below him that sees routine use.

Because of this, I think a robust Democratic defense against the allegations within The Memo™ is forthcoming and might prove more effective than the MAGA crowd could imagine. I don't think this is a truly exceptional case in terms of how a FISA warrant was secured; I think this was typical.

As such, I think the sad truth is that Comey was being genuine when he tweeted "That’s it? Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen. For what? DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs." To him, this type of warrant request is boringly typical. To him, this is just another case of FBI and DOJ doing their job. Yes, the info is from a CI; yes, we paid him for it. Woop de doo. Now gimme my warrant.

I've got sad news for you lovers of liberty out there: the Fourth Amendment is not recently deceased. It's been dead so long the flesh has rotted away. Maybe you didn't notice during the Patriot Act, or during that whole Snowden controversy. Or any of the other indicators, going back to the 1970s when the FBI started putting people like Whitey Bulger on their payroll. And because we're not talking about a recent change, but a decades-old political reality, I have no doubt the Democrats can find a way to spin a defense of the way our government tramples on our Fourth Amendment rights. I mean, it's not like Democrats have been particularly friendly to the first two amendments recently, and they can sell that bullshit like hotcakes.

Oh, and it's not like Trump is against the FISA warrant process or anything. Just two weeks ago, he joined Congresspeople from both sides of the aisle in signing an extension of the Patriot Act priviso into law.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

Trump is clearly and unambiguously guilty of obstruction of justice. . . Proving obstruction without a smoking-gun piece of physical evidence. . . is notoriously difficult in criminal cases.

It’s almost as if these two statements are mutually exclusive. It’s almost as if the veracity of the claim begins and ends with “I want it to be true.”

Just because something can't be proven (yet) doesn't mean that it's untrue. That something is true or not does not depends on the demonstrability of it being true.

Taylor Swift could be a serial killer in secret.

Just because something can't be proven (yet) doesn't mean that it's untrue. That something is true or not does not depends on the demonstrability of it being true.


The reality is, its VERY hard to prove something doesn't happened. Jesus visited me last nght & told me I will be president soon. Proven I am wrong! You can't, no one can.


This is why,the person who made a claim, is responsible for proving the claim, not the other way. If I claimed Jesus visited me, its me that need to provide proof, not for people to provide proof that the event did not happen.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Oh, and it's not like Trump is against the FISA warrant process or anything. Just two weeks ago, he joined Congresspeople from both sides of the aisle in signing an extension of the Patriot Act priviso into law.

If I am president I will sign too. You can bet all presidents will too.

Spying is an unnecessary evil, because our enemies are not going to unspy if we unspy. Okay, you don't spy me, so I play nice & not spy you. Not happening.

YOu don't want to go to a MP match where the opposite team started with rocket lanchers & heavy armor & you have only a pocket knife, would you?

How do you think terror ploys was fraud every now & then, if not for spying being a critical means.

What is however important, is not abuse of these power, for personal, illegal & (as we see here) political reasons. It must be only done for reason of security.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Oh, and it's not like Trump is against the FISA warrant process or anything. Just two weeks ago, he joined Congresspeople from both sides of the aisle in signing an extension of the Patriot Act priviso into law.

Nunes even sponsored the bill after the memo was created. Hell he didn't even read the FISA applications.

This isn't the first time Carter Page has been under surveillance and i doubt the Steele dossier was the only thing used. This Memo is all a political stunt by the white house.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

Nunes even sponsored the bill after the memo was created. Hell he didn't even read the FISA applications.

This isn't the first time Carter Page has been under surveillance and i doubt the Steele dossier was the only thing used. This Memo is all a political stunt by the white house.

You don't have to like the president, but does it not bother you that a poltical party can make use of a agency to spy on another party?

In the memo itself, it was explained the FISA warranty wasn't possible without the dossier, by Mccabe. (he remained silence which should be evidence it true)
If you don't believed that, a recoding from Mccabe was supposted to be unclassified soon in which he admitted to it. We can withhold judgement until then.

Comey has swore under oath & recorded on video to congress saying the dossier was mostly unverified bs in 2017. The only verified truth is Steele visited Russia in 2016. Thats it! Yet the same Comey had signed the doisier for FISA Warrant. DOes that at least sound fishy?

& lets get something real here. You think Russia is so dumb to invite a suppost spy to moscow? This doesn't pass simple duduction. If theer is an actual spy, its almsot 100% NOT him.

Maybe Trump is worst president ever, but he will be in office for 3, maybe 7 years cap, Your opinion of the president shouldn't affect your reasoning.

but if we just ignored the corruption & partisanship in certain sectors of gov branches (if guilty), then we are moving closer each day to being Banana Republic, where gov agency are used a political tools for the ruling party against ts compeitition.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

This isn't the first time Carter Page has been under surveillance and i doubt the Steele dossier was the only thing used.

"[FBI] Deputy Director McCabe testified before the [House Intelligence] Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant [on Page] would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information." So you've got the FBI that requested surveillance under oath saying no Steele dossier, no surveillance request.

That's a direct quote from the Memo, btw. Maybe you should actually read it.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

Trump is clearly and unambiguously guilty of obstruction of justice. . . Proving obstruction without a smoking-gun piece of physical evidence. . . is notoriously difficult in criminal cases.

It’s almost as if these two statements are mutually exclusive. It’s almost as if the veracity of the claim begins and ends with “I want it to be true.”

Just because something can't be proven (yet) doesn't mean that it's untrue. That something is true or not does not depends on the demonstrability of it being true.

I agree! Politicians are all reptile-people that dine on the blood of children; teach the controversy!

---

Note that if no heads roll for The Memo™, then it's tacit acceptance of Trump using such tactics against anyone that runs against him in 2020.

I felt the same way about (old topic) Hillary's e-mail server -- since nobody got in serious trouble, then it allows justification in a "race to the bottom" of job incompetence.

I would much rather see us be rather hard on ourselves in an effort to improve things instead of acting badly in response to acting badly in response to acting badly in response to...