1. How does this implicate Trump?
2. It has also been released that our intelligence community can hack and leave crumbs that implicate other parties. So the viability of the Russian argument goes out the window.
The bottom line truth is that most people are glad that the hypocrisies of the DNC and Hillary are out in the open, Russia or not.
Everything you wrote is irrelevant. The point was that Russia interfered in the 2016 American presidential election is stated as a fact by American intelligence groups. If you consider that to be unreliable, you should probably start explaining why you believe they have reason to deceive the American government and public about this.
No, I'm pretty sure that Trump can't pardon himself, and he's just about the only person that he can't pardon. He would have to step down from the Presidency to be pardoned, and then he's have to trust Pence (presumably his successor) to pardon him after he steps down. I think Trump is highly unlikely to step down, unless it really, really looks like he's going to do hard time.
Hillary didn't lose because of the investigation. Just look at the polls, pretty much every revelation boosted her poll numbers, with Trump a near certain loss at the end. Die hards aren't going to change their votes and the "undecided" are not a relevant portion of voters in any election.
The problem is that the DNC put up Hillary while their voters voted for Sanders. Hillary won solely on the superdelegates, the epitome of the rich, elite shadow government the US has been beholden to.
You're actually wrong on two counts:
Hillary's polls were sliding going in the final weeks before the election. If the election were held two weeks earlier she probably would have won but not by as large a margin as predicted by the polls.
Now, Hillary likely did lose because of the voter suppression effect of the cumulative controversies, which Russian hacking and Comey's interference both contributed to. A candidate that people were more excited about, like Sanders, might have overcome that effect, but I am doubtful that Sanders would have won against Trump, he seems like it would have been even easier for Trump to rally Republicans and undecided voters against him.
The last time this came up, two commenters, who both claimed to have worked for the American government handling classified documents, indicated they thought Comey has harder on Clinton than the bureau would normally be on rank and file intelligence people. They both attested that on a first offence of that type, the person who committed the offence would usually get a reprimand, and maybe if the offence was particularly bad, a mandatory security refresher course.
I'm not advocating for Trump, he's demonstrated himself to be a mismanaging buffoon, but I do think the obstruction claims are pretty weak and are predicated on a claim of guilt which hasn't been proven. Firing Comey doesn't end any specific investigation -- whatever investigation was going on was being run by the FBI as an organization, not by Comey individually.
The memo asking him to terminate the investigation into Russian interference in the election, in combination with firing Comey when it wasn't ended, and Trump publicly admitting that he fired Comey because he didn't end the investigation seem like pretty strong evidence for an obstruction of justice charge. Of course, the point of firing Comey isn't to end the investigation directly, Trump would have to appoint someone willingly to quietly make the investigation go away and he would need Congress to approve the appointment. On the other hand, Trump doesn't even need to appoint anyone to interfere with the investigation, just leaving the FBI without a director for 6 months to a year should slow the investigation down, and if Trump can delay the completion of the investigation until after the 2020 presidential election, then he may have achieved his primary goal. In the meantime trying to appoint severely unqualified people for the position can generate quite a bit of news media flak to distract people from the other terrible things that his administration is doing.
Trump was the first potentially real choice in decades. Now we just wait and see whether the establishment steps in now that the voters have chosen incorrectly.
Honestly, it was obvious to everyone who didn't drink the kool-aid that he was nothing of the sort. Trump is the "corporations and the rich people" who you think the government panders to. Why? Why would ever think that he, of all people, would want to focus the government on anyone else? Trump says those things so you will cheer for him, because he likes to hear you cheer. He's a narcissistic to the point of delusion, and he has no intention, and never has had any intention to do anything that would benefit you unless he thinks it benefits him first.
Do you honestly not understand that electing Donald J. Trump is exactly the opposite of what you claim that you want to do?
In the United States most of the areas that have access to high-speed internet have one choice, sometimes two, for internet service. So if you have no alternatives, the company that provides your internet service could choose to reduce access to sites that don't cater to the regulatory environment that they prefer, or they can use poor access to their customers as a method of extorting money from content providers, or use it to privilege competing services that they own. The last two aren't hypothetical, American ISPs have already done both.
The models over-estimate warming over an 11,000 year span because they weren't designed to be run over an 11,000 year span. As the paper you linked to says:
The biases in current models, if they exist, are more likely to be related to their sensitivity to the orbital forcing and additional feedbacks in climate models.
Basically, that paper says that the studied models are not accurately reflecting the actual effects of the Milankovitch Cycle, which is a valuable insight, and something that should be improved upon. Of course, you are also overstating the size of the problem, since the model-proxy reconstruction divergence rate discovered in the paper is about 0.01 degrees per century.
Your point is irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether or not I'm biased. In fact, you can like Donald Trump all you want, but you should stop trying to ignore or dismiss the actual facts, to suit your positive view of him. Either accept Trump, flaws and all, or recognize that you refuse to deal with reality.
The difference is I see both his strengths and his weaknesses, while you excuse obvious faults with inane platitudes like "he's just not politicaly correct". No, that's not it at all, and you're wilfully blind if you actually believe that.
Fair enough.... However, it's a pretty bad position when you depend on your opponent to make a mistake before you can possibly have any advantage...
That's not at all what I said.
BTW, He's been showing remarkable restraint with a number of issues from my perspective. All I'm really seeing from him are hiccups which are a result of his not caring about political correctness.
Your bias is clearly preventing you from coming to an accurate assessment of the situation. Your evaluation of Trump may be affected by the a Halo effect, because impulsiveness seems to be one of Trump's defining character traits. Note, despite what I wrote, don't actually think Trump is stupid*, but I won't be surprised if he gets caught committing a larger crime while trying to cover up (or punish) some other lesser transgression.
* I do think he's a corrupt, vindictive, and petty narcissist who cares very little for his country. Sure, he loves the adoring crowds, but he seems to have little interest in the actual business of running the country from everything I've seen and heard from both his friends and his enemies. But he's clever enough to manipulate both his partners and his opponents to get what he wants, most of the time, and to generally leave someone else holding the bag when things fall apart.
Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
How does Nixon convincing the North Vietnamese to continue the Vietnam war until after the election, in order to secretly influence the results of that election, not meet the definition of collusion?
I suggest you put away the partisan glasses and at least consider the possibility that Trump isn't stupid, nor has he done what you clearly think he has...
I don't know what you think that I think he's done, but I think Trump has poor impulse control and that's why he may get caught up in a process crime.
Even that article says there is no actual evidence of any pay-for-play, and then they complain that there may be the appearance that there could have been.
Ever consider that the obvious liberal media might have been attempting to tilt the Republican field to have the least desirable candidate come out on top? Not such a difficult thing to do with such a large field. Have the best candidates lose support early, when the monetary support was still spread thin.
Yes, and it doesn't hold water. The media just has a love-hate relationship with Trump because he's outrageous. It was Republican primary voters, who mostly don't watch the liberal media anyway, who executed all of Trump's opponents one after another.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
I suppose it depends on whether you think colluding with the North Vietnamese to prolong the war meets the definition of "giving them aid and comfort".
So, how will the dismissal of Comey have any effect on grand jury subpoenas that have already been issued?
On the one hand, it might be an attempt to prevent any further subpoenas, on the other hand it might be pay-back for not stopping them, and a warning to others about what happens to you when you don't do what Trump wants you to do.
I have yet to see any of the "nothing to see here, move along" partisans come up for an explanation for why Kristian Saucier [dailymail.co.uk] is serving hard time for having classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone - despite zero intent to distribute them - while Hillary remains free.
Because he had intent to distribute them, and he was explicitly warned before taking the pictures that what he was doing was illegal?
While we are at it, can anyone "name one legal thing" that Trump "has been found guilty of in a court of law?"
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia's summary of Trump's legal affairs the only thing he seem to have actually been convicted of appears to be "circumventing casino financing laws". Trump appears to have settled almost every other case against him with gag orders to prevent the plaintiffs from discussing the settlement and without publicly admitting fault.
Did you just admit that, although Comey indicated that the Trump Campaign WAS under investigation for more than a year, that he is NOT NOW under investigation?
Your reading comprehension is astonishingly lacking. He admitted that Trump has claimed that Comey told Trump that Trump is not under investigation. A claim that many people dispute is based on any factual basis.
Are we ready to admit that this whole Russian Collusion charge was (to coin a phrase) "trumped up"? That the investigation is over and has turned up nothing over at the FBI?
Absolutely not. Only a god damned fool would say "I guess they didn't find anything" immediately after the man being investigated fires the man investigating him.
Do a search for "Hillary pay to play" and you'll see plenty of evidence. There was even an NYT bestseller on the topic in the last months before the election.
I did the search and I see accusations, let's see they're posted on a site, donaldjtrump.com, seems to me like a totally unbiased source for information on Hillary Clinton... Of course, there's also a denial from the FBI that there is any evidence of pay-to-play, but we don't trust the FBI unless they agree with our pre-determined views, right?
I think Trump wanted to get rid of him and was happy (well his handlers were happy to agree with his random thought to maybe fire him) to have a reason that the media would support. Yes.
Of course, the real reason Trump wanted to get rid of him is because he hasn't stopped the investigations into Trump's ties with Russia...
Exposing the truth isn't part of a fair fight? Look, the way to take down Trump is to throw Clinton under the bus. The Dems picked the only person in the country that could have lost a general election to Trump. The man is less popular than lice, and if he wasn't running against the Republican party's Emmanuel Goldstein, he would have had a historic loss.
I think you're deluded. Trump has a knack for taking down his opponents. Did you not pay attention during the primaries, when Trump defeated every one of his opponents? Sometimes with a single phrase? When it came to television coverage, the entire election was about Trump. No matter who ran against Trump, a scandal would have been invented to attack them, and Trump would have pigeon holed them with a pithy epithet. I seriously doubt Bernie or anyone else that the Democrats could have chosen would have fared much better against Trump. Of course, the election was so close that they might have actually won with a slightly different strategy... My point is that I seriously doubt replacing Hillary Clinton with a different candidate wouldn't have been the sure thing that you seem to think it would have been.
Slashdot Mirror
1. How does this implicate Trump? 2. It has also been released that our intelligence community can hack and leave crumbs that implicate other parties. So the viability of the Russian argument goes out the window.
The bottom line truth is that most people are glad that the hypocrisies of the DNC and Hillary are out in the open, Russia or not.
Everything you wrote is irrelevant. The point was that Russia interfered in the 2016 American presidential election is stated as a fact by American intelligence groups. If you consider that to be unreliable, you should probably start explaining why you believe they have reason to deceive the American government and public about this.
No, I'm pretty sure that Trump can't pardon himself, and he's just about the only person that he can't pardon. He would have to step down from the Presidency to be pardoned, and then he's have to trust Pence (presumably his successor) to pardon him after he steps down. I think Trump is highly unlikely to step down, unless it really, really looks like he's going to do hard time.
Hillary didn't lose because of the investigation. Just look at the polls, pretty much every revelation boosted her poll numbers, with Trump a near certain loss at the end. Die hards aren't going to change their votes and the "undecided" are not a relevant portion of voters in any election.
The problem is that the DNC put up Hillary while their voters voted for Sanders. Hillary won solely on the superdelegates, the epitome of the rich, elite shadow government the US has been beholden to.
You're actually wrong on two counts:
Now, Hillary likely did lose because of the voter suppression effect of the cumulative controversies, which Russian hacking and Comey's interference both contributed to. A candidate that people were more excited about, like Sanders, might have overcome that effect, but I am doubtful that Sanders would have won against Trump, he seems like it would have been even easier for Trump to rally Republicans and undecided voters against him.
The last time this came up, two commenters, who both claimed to have worked for the American government handling classified documents, indicated they thought Comey has harder on Clinton than the bureau would normally be on rank and file intelligence people. They both attested that on a first offence of that type, the person who committed the offence would usually get a reprimand, and maybe if the offence was particularly bad, a mandatory security refresher course.
I'm not advocating for Trump, he's demonstrated himself to be a mismanaging buffoon, but I do think the obstruction claims are pretty weak and are predicated on a claim of guilt which hasn't been proven. Firing Comey doesn't end any specific investigation -- whatever investigation was going on was being run by the FBI as an organization, not by Comey individually.
The memo asking him to terminate the investigation into Russian interference in the election, in combination with firing Comey when it wasn't ended, and Trump publicly admitting that he fired Comey because he didn't end the investigation seem like pretty strong evidence for an obstruction of justice charge. Of course, the point of firing Comey isn't to end the investigation directly, Trump would have to appoint someone willingly to quietly make the investigation go away and he would need Congress to approve the appointment. On the other hand, Trump doesn't even need to appoint anyone to interfere with the investigation, just leaving the FBI without a director for 6 months to a year should slow the investigation down, and if Trump can delay the completion of the investigation until after the 2020 presidential election, then he may have achieved his primary goal. In the meantime trying to appoint severely unqualified people for the position can generate quite a bit of news media flak to distract people from the other terrible things that his administration is doing.
Trump was the first potentially real choice in decades. Now we just wait and see whether the establishment steps in now that the voters have chosen incorrectly.
Honestly, it was obvious to everyone who didn't drink the kool-aid that he was nothing of the sort. Trump is the "corporations and the rich people" who you think the government panders to. Why? Why would ever think that he, of all people, would want to focus the government on anyone else? Trump says those things so you will cheer for him, because he likes to hear you cheer. He's a narcissistic to the point of delusion, and he has no intention, and never has had any intention to do anything that would benefit you unless he thinks it benefits him first.
Do you honestly not understand that electing Donald J. Trump is exactly the opposite of what you claim that you want to do?
In the United States most of the areas that have access to high-speed internet have one choice, sometimes two, for internet service. So if you have no alternatives, the company that provides your internet service could choose to reduce access to sites that don't cater to the regulatory environment that they prefer, or they can use poor access to their customers as a method of extorting money from content providers, or use it to privilege competing services that they own. The last two aren't hypothetical, American ISPs have already done both.
THE MODELS DON'T FUCKING WORK.
The models over-estimate warming over an 11,000 year span because they weren't designed to be run over an 11,000 year span. As the paper you linked to says:
Basically, that paper says that the studied models are not accurately reflecting the actual effects of the Milankovitch Cycle, which is a valuable insight, and something that should be improved upon. Of course, you are also overstating the size of the problem, since the model-proxy reconstruction divergence rate discovered in the paper is about 0.01 degrees per century.
Your point is irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether or not I'm biased. In fact, you can like Donald Trump all you want, but you should stop trying to ignore or dismiss the actual facts, to suit your positive view of him. Either accept Trump, flaws and all, or recognize that you refuse to deal with reality.
The difference is I see both his strengths and his weaknesses, while you excuse obvious faults with inane platitudes like "he's just not politicaly correct". No, that's not it at all, and you're wilfully blind if you actually believe that.
Fair enough.... However, it's a pretty bad position when you depend on your opponent to make a mistake before you can possibly have any advantage...
That's not at all what I said.
BTW, He's been showing remarkable restraint with a number of issues from my perspective. All I'm really seeing from him are hiccups which are a result of his not caring about political correctness.
Your bias is clearly preventing you from coming to an accurate assessment of the situation. Your evaluation of Trump may be affected by the a Halo effect, because impulsiveness seems to be one of Trump's defining character traits. Note, despite what I wrote, don't actually think Trump is stupid*, but I won't be surprised if he gets caught committing a larger crime while trying to cover up (or punish) some other lesser transgression.
* I do think he's a corrupt, vindictive, and petty narcissist who cares very little for his country. Sure, he loves the adoring crowds, but he seems to have little interest in the actual business of running the country from everything I've seen and heard from both his friends and his enemies. But he's clever enough to manipulate both his partners and his opponents to get what he wants, most of the time, and to generally leave someone else holding the bag when things fall apart.
Aligned interests is not collusion.
How does Nixon convincing the North Vietnamese to continue the Vietnam war until after the election, in order to secretly influence the results of that election, not meet the definition of collusion?
I suggest you put away the partisan glasses and at least consider the possibility that Trump isn't stupid, nor has he done what you clearly think he has...
I don't know what you think that I think he's done, but I think Trump has poor impulse control and that's why he may get caught up in a process crime.
Even that article says there is no actual evidence of any pay-for-play, and then they complain that there may be the appearance that there could have been.
Ever consider that the obvious liberal media might have been attempting to tilt the Republican field to have the least desirable candidate come out on top? Not such a difficult thing to do with such a large field. Have the best candidates lose support early, when the monetary support was still spread thin.
Yes, and it doesn't hold water. The media just has a love-hate relationship with Trump because he's outrageous. It was Republican primary voters, who mostly don't watch the liberal media anyway, who executed all of Trump's opponents one after another.
According to the law:
I suppose it depends on whether you think colluding with the North Vietnamese to prolong the war meets the definition of "giving them aid and comfort".
So, how will the dismissal of Comey have any effect on grand jury subpoenas that have already been issued?
On the one hand, it might be an attempt to prevent any further subpoenas, on the other hand it might be pay-back for not stopping them, and a warning to others about what happens to you when you don't do what Trump wants you to do.
I have yet to see any of the "nothing to see here, move along" partisans come up for an explanation for why Kristian Saucier [dailymail.co.uk] is serving hard time for having classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone - despite zero intent to distribute them - while Hillary remains free.
Because he had intent to distribute them, and he was explicitly warned before taking the pictures that what he was doing was illegal?
While we are at it, can anyone "name one legal thing" that Trump "has been found guilty of in a court of law?"
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia's summary of Trump's legal affairs the only thing he seem to have actually been convicted of appears to be "circumventing casino financing laws". Trump appears to have settled almost every other case against him with gag orders to prevent the plaintiffs from discussing the settlement and without publicly admitting fault.
This isn't going anywhere... Trump isn't stupid enough to get caught up in a process crime and the FBI isn't finding anything after all their looking.
On, the contrary, I think Trump is exactly that stupid, but time will tell...
Did you just admit that, although Comey indicated that the Trump Campaign WAS under investigation for more than a year, that he is NOT NOW under investigation?
Your reading comprehension is astonishingly lacking. He admitted that Trump has claimed that Comey told Trump that Trump is not under investigation. A claim that many people dispute is based on any factual basis.
Are we ready to admit that this whole Russian Collusion charge was (to coin a phrase) "trumped up"? That the investigation is over and has turned up nothing over at the FBI?
Absolutely not. Only a god damned fool would say "I guess they didn't find anything" immediately after the man being investigated fires the man investigating him.
Do a search for "Hillary pay to play" and you'll see plenty of evidence. There was even an NYT bestseller on the topic in the last months before the election.
I did the search and I see accusations, let's see they're posted on a site, donaldjtrump.com, seems to me like a totally unbiased source for information on Hillary Clinton... Of course, there's also a denial from the FBI that there is any evidence of pay-to-play, but we don't trust the FBI unless they agree with our pre-determined views, right?
I think Trump wanted to get rid of him and was happy (well his handlers were happy to agree with his random thought to maybe fire him) to have a reason that the media would support. Yes.
Of course, the real reason Trump wanted to get rid of him is because he hasn't stopped the investigations into Trump's ties with Russia...
Exposing the truth isn't part of a fair fight? Look, the way to take down Trump is to throw Clinton under the bus. The Dems picked the only person in the country that could have lost a general election to Trump. The man is less popular than lice, and if he wasn't running against the Republican party's Emmanuel Goldstein, he would have had a historic loss.
I think you're deluded. Trump has a knack for taking down his opponents. Did you not pay attention during the primaries, when Trump defeated every one of his opponents? Sometimes with a single phrase? When it came to television coverage, the entire election was about Trump. No matter who ran against Trump, a scandal would have been invented to attack them, and Trump would have pigeon holed them with a pithy epithet. I seriously doubt Bernie or anyone else that the Democrats could have chosen would have fared much better against Trump. Of course, the election was so close that they might have actually won with a slightly different strategy... My point is that I seriously doubt replacing Hillary Clinton with a different candidate wouldn't have been the sure thing that you seem to think it would have been.
As far as I understand it, Nixon sabotaged the 1968 Vietnam peace talks because a peaceful resolution would have benefited his opponent.