There Was Spying On The Trump Campaign

[Sparko]

Like I said, it's not expected that you should ever understand, or accept, that there is a difference.

Please explain for us dummies.

[Sparko]

It wasn't spying, it was Democratic spying.

Social Justice Surveillance.

[Mountain Man]

I provide an example from 'fox' that shows that trump demanding nielson do what the CNN source says she and the DHS lawyers were told to do would in fact be illegal and you dance back to claiming trump 'didn't actually do it.

False. Nowhere in that OPINION piece does it quote Trump, or say that he ordered Nielsen to do anything illegal. What it does say is that "Asking Nielsen to single-handedly reverse this insane policy would be asking her to break the law," but it doesn't say that Trump did, in fact, ask her or instruct her or order her to "single-handedly reverse" policy. Note the use of the phrase "would be" which suggests speculation instead of the word "was" which would suggest something that actually happened. Furthermore, the opinion piece goes on to say that she had trouble working with Democrats to get the necessary votes to change the policy, and THIS is why she resigned, not because she refused to "single-handedly reverse" government policy.

Like I said, don't get huffy at me just because I point out that your own source doesn't say what you think it says, or what you want it to say.

[oxmixmudd]

False. Nowhere in that OPINION piece does it quote Trump, or say that he ordered Nielsen to do anything illegal. What it does say is that "Asking Nielsen to single-handedly reverse this insane policy would be asking her to break the law," but it doesn't say that Trump did, in fact, ask her or instruct her or order her to "single-handedly reverse" policy. Note the use of the phrase "would be" which suggests speculation instead of the word "was" which would suggest something that actually happened. Furthermore, the opinion piece goes on to say that she had trouble working with Democrats to get the necessary votes to change the policy, and THIS is why she resigned, not because she refused to "single-handedly reverse" government policy.

Like I said, don't get huffy at me just because I point out that your own source doesn't say what you think it says, or what you want it to say.

It doesn't have to say any more than I used it for. The CNN and WP articles already document the problem you claim doesn't exist as regards Nielson. the fox article simply clarifies the fact that what CNN and the WP article document Trump doing is in fact asking Nielson et al to break the law.


Noting that the problem can be documented with Nielson and the DHS, it also existed with Sessions. Session correctly recused himself to avoid any appearance of bias in the case. Yet Trump tortured the man over it and eventually forced him out. Trump doesn't want people in his appointed positions with respect for the law, or the constitution, or impartiality where impartiality is critical. He wants people that put him and his wishes first and foremost above the law, the constitution, and the good of the country. And that is why so many have been fired by him. Because, apparently, there are a large number of people out there that are good at what they do whose moral limits, whose willingness to fudge on critical issues, simply does not stretch that far.


Jim

[Sparko]

Oxmix and MM, you two are getting almost as bad as Roy and LPOT.

[oxmixmudd]

Oxmix and MM, you two are getting almost as bad as Roy and LPOT.

It takes two honest people to have an honest discussion. I can only control my part of that equation. Likewise Roy.


Jim

[Sparko]

It takes two honest people to have an honest discussion. I can only control my part of that equation. Likewise Roy.


Jim

It is just that you two (and Roy and LPOT) seem to just start fighting over who is honest and who isn't and who's sources are better or worse and all that and the thread suffers. It breaks down into name calling and ad homs.

[Mountain Man]

The CNN and WP articles already document the problem you claim doesn't exist as regards Nielson. the fox article simply clarifies the fact that what CNN and the WP article document Trump doing is in fact asking Nielson et al to break the law.

Except it doesn't document that at all. It says that it would be illegal for Nielsen to take a certain action, which is probably true. What it doesn't say is that Trump, in fact, ordered her to take that action and then fired her when she refused.

Sorry to say, but your smoking gun is shooting blanks.

[Mountain Man]

It is just that you two (and Roy and LPOT) seem to just start fighting over who is honest and who isn't and who's sources are better or worse and all that and the thread suffers. It breaks down into name calling and ad homs.

It's not so much that ox is citing bad sources; rather, it's the fact that his sources don't say what he thinks they say.

But I'm content to let the matter rest.

[oxmixmudd]

Except it doesn't document that at all. It says that it would be illegal for Nielsen to take a certain action, which is probably true. What it doesn't say is that Trump, in fact, ordered her to take that action and then fired her when she refused.

Sorry to say, but your smoking gun is shooting blanks.

No - this is just the con MM. Trump wanted them to take an action. They pushed back saying they could not give him what he wanted legally. Now he is clearing house. The CNN and wp articles are clear here. All you're doing is playing along with the con. Trump fired them for not giving him the result he wanted. He doesnt care that the result he wants is illegal and there is no way to get that result without breaking the law. Ergo, he fired them because they would not break the law. This is a con, the play of those in power that is as old as time itself. Everyone knows what he wants, what he expects, and what the consequences will be without the words 'break the law or else' ever actually being said*

You are hiding behind the semantics of that con and pretending refusing to break the law wasn't the reason they were fired. But it is the reason they where fired, plain and simple.

Jim

*there are people that operate this way everywhere. Pray MM you never are in a position to have to answer to such a person.

[Mountain Man]

No - this is just the con MM.

I quoted your own sources back to you, and now you tell me that it's a con.

Whatever, man.

[oxmixmudd]

I quoted your own sources back to you, and now you tell me that it's a con.

Whatever, man.

Play your little games mm.

Oops, this just in. Trump told border agents to refuse to let people in requesting asylum. Their supervisors when he left had to tell them to follow the law. That if they did what the president just told them, they could be personally liable to the law.

Oops, and this just in. Trump told the head of customs and border patrol that if he got in trouble doing what the president told him, he could rest assured he'd grant him a pardon.



Jim

[JimL]

Please explain for us dummies.

It's a matter of semantics, but surveiling known Russian activity against the U.S., which happens to bleed into the Trump campaign, is not spying on the Trump campaign. Perhaps you would just like to allow such adversarial activity to go unchecked. Obviously you would!

[Mountain Man]

Oops, this just in. Trump told border agents to refuse to let people in requesting asylum. Their supervisors when he left had to tell them to follow the law. That if they did what the president just told them, they could be personally liable to the law.

Oops, and this just in. Trump told the head of customs and border patrol that if he got in trouble doing what the president told him, he could rest assured he'd grant him a pardon.

More "sources say" BS from the liberal media?

[Mountain Man]

More "sources say" BS from the liberal media?

"...senior administration officials tell CNN."

"Trump reportedly..."

"Two officials briefed on the exchange..."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/12/pol...www.cnn.com%2F