CNN: More Fake News

[JimL]

you seem to forget that Comey said three times that there IS NO INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP.

Yeah, what about it? The investigation is into Trumps campaign! Though not specifically, I think that includes Trump.

[Meh Gerbil]

I think the better question would be what would it take to convince ya'll that it isn't false. My opinion from the evidence so far is that Trump is guilty of Obstruction of justice, and is most likely guilty of collusion with the Russians as well. Its not proven in the absolute, but it looks pretty obvious to me.

Regarding Obstruction of Justice
The obstruction of justice charge seems to originate in the conversations that Trump had with Comey.
I think a good starting point would be having at least one of the two people in those conversations claim that obstruction of justice occurred.
If Comey (the victim - he was fired, after all) isn't willing to make that claim then I have to think there is no reason to believe it - in fact, believing it past that point starts to seem a bit crazy.

Regarding Collusion With Russia
As a starting point I'd like to see some emails, video or audio tape, or even a witness testimony that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to hack DNC emails and release them to aid Trump.
The only named witnesses we have currently which are in a position to know deny this relationship.
Given there is no named witnesses (people, tape, emails) establishing this relationship the rational response favors dismissing it.

I guess to consider Trump guilty I'd have to see some solid evidence.
Given that in both cases this evidence doesn't exist I favor, but cannot be 100% certain, that Trump is innocent.

[JimL]

Jim you keep saying this but where did Trump say that he fired Comey to stop the investigation? Please link that.

Post #70 seer.

But exercising his legal authority is not an abuse of power.

Not necessarily, but it can be, and that is left to Congress to decide. In other words, the president has the power to fire the head of the FBI, but if Congress determines it to be an abuse of power he can be impeached by them.

[One Bad Pig]

Regarding Obstruction of Justice
The obstruction of justice charge seems to originate in the conversations that Trump had with Comey.
I think a good starting point would be having at least one of the two people in those conversations claim that obstruction of justice occurred.
If Comey (the victim - he was fired, after all) isn't willing to make that claim then I have to think there is no reason to believe it - in fact, believing it past that point starts to seem a bit crazy.

Regarding Collusion With Russia
As a starting point I'd like to see some emails, video or audio tape, or even a witness testimony that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to hack DNC emails and release them to aid Trump.
The only named witnesses we have currently which are in a position to know deny this relationship.
Given there is no named witnesses (people, tape, emails) establishing this relationship the rational response favors dismissing it.

I guess to consider Trump guilty I'd have to see some solid evidence.
Given that in both cases this evidence doesn't exist I favor, but cannot be 100% certain, that Trump is innocent.

Gee, I wonder....

If a socialist leader in Russia wanted someone other than Hillary to win, would he aim to help the more capitalist opponent or the more socialist opponent?

[Meh Gerbil]

Gee, I wonder....

If a socialist leader in Russia wanted someone other than Hillary to win, would he aim to help the more capitalist opponent or the more socialist opponent?

I think Putin would have other reasons.
I don't think he personally liked Hillary at all (she's as likeable as a bag of AIDS).
He may of felt Trump, being less politically savvy, would be easier to manipulate/embarrass.

To me that is all moot, since putting anything in email that may be embarrassing, especially as a politician, disqualifies you from a leadership position because you'd have to be too stupid of a human being to do that.

[Sparko]

Projection much?

You mean "tell it like it is much?"

[rogue06]

I think Putin would have other reasons.
I don't think he personally liked Hillary at all (she's as likeable as a bag of AIDS).
He may of felt Trump, being less politically savvy, would be easier to manipulate/embarrass.

To me that is all moot, since putting anything in email that may be embarrassing, especially as a politician, disqualifies you from a leadership position because you'd have to be too stupid of a human being to do that.

Or that after the uranium deal Hillary brokered for Russia, Putin felt he already owned her and figured it would be smart to hedge his bets.

[Sparko]

What made you change your mind? It's not like they've changed at all.

When someone seems to be genuinely ignorant but open minded, I will treat them seriously. When someone is just a close-minded moron who won't listen and just spouts the propaganda points of the day, then I won't waste time trying to convince them. What I post is for others to read, not them. They are not worth the effort.

I think of Tassman and JimL as entertainment at this point. I like to get them to expose their lack of thinking for all to see. Tassman is particularly easy to get to contradict himself and put his foot in his mouth between one post and another.

[One Bad Pig]

When someone seems to be genuinely ignorant but open minded, I will treat them seriously. When someone is just a close-minded moron who won't listen and just spouts the propaganda points of the day, then I won't waste time trying to convince them. What I post is for others to read, not them. They are not worth the effort.

I think of Tassman and JimL as entertainment at this point. I like to get them to expose their lack of thinking for all to see. Tassman is particularly easy to get to contradict himself and put his foot in his mouth between one post and another.

Again, what changed your mind about them? They've always been like this.

[Sparko]

Yeah, actually that does support my contention, and so does the transcript from the white House meeting with the Russians the day after he fired Comey where he said "I just fired Comey, he was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. Thats taken off!" then he added, "I'm not under investigation."
Then you have Sean Spicer, the presidents mouth piece, who said in an interview on npr regarding Comey's firing, "By grandstanding and politicising the investigation into Russia's actions-Jim Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia."
To top it off you have the word of Jim Comey over that of a pathological liar in Trump.

which was read to The New York Times by an American official.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/u...sia-comey.html

When will you learn, Jim?

[Sparko]

Yeah, what about it? The investigation is into Trumps campaign! Though not specifically, I think that includes Trump.

If he was included in the investigation then Comey lied when he said he was not.

If Comey is a liar, then you can't trust anything he says.

[seer]

Post #70 seer.

But Jim, that was a NYT story, as Sparko linked, based on an anonymous source - again!

Not necessarily, but it can be, and that is left to Congress to decide. In other words, the president has the power to fire the head of the FBI, but if Congress determines it to be an abuse of power he can be impeached by them.

Is this just wishful thinking on your part?

[Sparko]

Gee, I wonder....

If a socialist leader in Russia wanted someone other than Hillary to win, would he aim to help the more capitalist opponent or the more socialist opponent?

What if the Russians were trying to get rid of Hillary so Bernie could win, and it backfired on them because the DNC colluded with Hillary to get Bernie out of the running? Then all the bad stuff on Hillary the Russians instigated accidentally helped Trump to win?

[JimL]

If he was included in the investigation then Comey lied when he said he was not.

If Comey is a liar, then you can't trust anything he says.

Oh my goodness, you guys are just too funny, i.e. a joke! "If Comey's a liar then you can't trust anything he says?" You have no problem supporting and defending the biggest, most blatant, pathological liar in the world!

[Sparko]

Again, what changed your mind about them? They've always been like this.

Mostly watching them continue to cling to the belief that Trump colluded with the Russians and is under Investigation even after it all blew up in their faces. And JimL trying to switch to the liberal talking point of "obstruction of justice" that the MSM threw against the wall yesterday, then had to back off of almost instantly, yet JimL still clings to that desperate hope. Both of them are clinging to their unfounded belief despite zero evidence and now even evidence to the contrary. They would make great fundy Christians wouldn't they?