|
Post by busy on May 11, 2017 4:17:12 GMT
PLurker 1. Open the tweet 2. Copy the URL. IMPORTANT: If I'm on myiPad, I have to first delete the word "mobile." (including the period) from the beginning of the URL. 3. On the top of your post, click the icon with opposite-facing arrows. Then click the tweetie bird. 4. Paste in the URL and hit "embed." You might just see the code or a textless box, but it should display correctly in your post. (It took a whole long torturous thread for people here to teach me that...so I'm paying it forward.) Exhibit A: Actually, you can just stop after #2 and it will automatically embed. You do have to be sure you don't use a mobile.twitter.com URL, though. ETA: Um, you need to paste the URL into your post, obviously. So don't totally stop after #2 lol. But I've never done steps 3 and 4 and I embed tweets all the time.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on May 11, 2017 4:24:47 GMT
Waddya' know. She's right. Yeah, skip #3. Just paste the URL into the post. (I was just following previous directions.) ETA: Attention, femalebusiness: please note the streamlined directions...but either method should work.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on May 11, 2017 4:24:56 GMT
PLurker 1. Open the tweet 2. Copy the URL. IMPORTANT: If I'm on myiPad, I have to first delete the word "mobile." (including the period) from the beginning of the URL. 3. On the top of your post, click the icon with opposite-facing arrows. Then click the tweetie bird. 4. Paste in the URL and hit "embed." You might just see the code or a textless box, but it should display correctly in your post. (It took a whole long torturous thread for people here to teach me that...so I'm paying it forward.) Exhibit A: I'd like to learn to do this too. I copied your directions into my notes and will see if I can do it tomorrow when I am more awake. I can do all that stuff on my laptop but I'm usually on my iPad. Thanks.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on May 11, 2017 4:35:18 GMT
The Washington Post just put up a veeeeery interesting article. The whole thing is worth a read. A source claims Rosenstein threatened to resign over the WH narrative that he initiated the Comey firing..many Justice and FBI employees are angry...the WH staff were completely unprepared, largely because the president didn't prepare them...but he's mad at everybody but himself. Fascinating stuff. Inside Trump's Anger and Impatiencebtw: I posted earlier today that my husband works a lot with the FBI. Tonight he's saying that there's a lot of unhappiness about the manner in which Comey was fired. Culturally, federal law enforcement puts a high value on respect, and the way this played out profoundly violated that expectation. He is his own worst enemy. I think he just threw fuel on the fire and just continued to anger the intelligence community. I think it's funny that he was surprised at the blowback - he really thought Democrats would rejoice. Of course Comey isn't popular among Democrats, but it's clear that the reason he was fired had nothing to do with Clinton. And if really had something to do with Clinton, he would've fired him sooner and would not have needed his underlings to come up with an excuse for a firing. If he and his associates were completely innocent, I think they would want to facilitate an investigation that proved their innocence so they could move on (the wealthy are getting restless for their tax cuts!).
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on May 11, 2017 4:48:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 11, 2017 10:50:47 GMT
I cannot speak for much of the "timing" of the firing but some of you question the reason? Our elected leaders (on both sides) lost all confidence in Comey. (including Chuck Shumer) I think much of America lost confidence in James Comey and questioned his ability to do the job. The fixation from the left on Russia has yet to produce anything of substance. There was a hell of a lot more evidence regarding Clinton and Obama's disaster and cover-up in Benghazi than there is regarding Russia. Pretty soon the fixation from the left on Russia will surpass the alleged nuttiness the left now mocks the right for regarding Benghazi. It is precisely the timing that makes some of us question the reason. Again, no fan of Comey here, but the timing is very suspicious. Along with the news reports of Trump becoming extremely frustrated with the continuation of the Russian connection investigation. The reason stated in the letter to Comey is frankly laughable. It reeks of a coverup.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 11, 2017 11:15:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gar on May 11, 2017 11:26:18 GMT
I'm sure. It's quite complicated, what with all of those shades of gray and issues of context and nuance. Yes, that damn context again!
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on May 11, 2017 12:00:01 GMT
Just because they haven't released anything, doesn't mean there isn't evidence.
Smart investigators will not show their cards before it's time.
But you go ahead and keep defending the man you claim you didn't vote for.
Trump has more skeletons in his gold gilded closets than the cemetery. Time will tell...
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 11, 2017 12:00:27 GMT
I cannot speak for much of the "timing" of the firing but some of you question the reason? Our elected leaders (on both sides) lost all confidence in Comey. (including Chuck Shumer) I think much of America lost confidence in James Comey and questioned his ability to do the job. The fixation from the left on Russia has yet to produce anything of substance. There was a hell of a lot more evidence regarding Clinton and Obama's disaster and cover-up in Benghazi than there is regarding Russia. Pretty soon the fixation from the left on Russia will surpass the alleged nuttiness the left now mocks the right for regarding Benghazi. It is precisely the timing that makes some of us question the reason. Again, no fan of Comey here, but the timing is very suspicious. Along with the news reports of Trump becoming extremely frustrated with the continuation of the Russian connection. The reason stated in the letter to Comey is frankly laughable. It reeks of a coverup. What's funny and the issue of REAL hypocrisy is when both Presidents Obama and W. Bush professed that they were going to have good relationships with their Russian counterparts, they were vilified for it, and here you have the current POTUS who has pledged his love for Putin and Russia, and now the left is being called nutty and crazy?? Hypocrisy at the finest! It's not the left who are obsessed with Russia--its Trump! He owes Russia, after all, they made it possible (actually ensured) that a douchebag like Trump could win an election by their interference and meddling. Russia vs Benghazi evidence? On the first, it's too soon to tell fully what evidence there is but grand juries don't get involved for nothing. It's a false equivalency to even compare the two. Only in pea land is providing the facts (i.e. on Benghazi and it's outcome) considered mocking. Apparently, if you disagree with those facts you get labeled as mocking the other side. Facts from the what-8?--investigations on Benghazi show that there was not a cover-up, despite claims of the "right" to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on May 11, 2017 12:22:27 GMT
Just because they haven't released anything, doesn't mean there isn't evidence. Smart investigators will not show their cards before it's time. But you go ahead and keep defending the man you claim you didn't vote for. Trump has more skeletons in his gold gilded closets than the cemetery. Time will tell... Well, and if finding enough information tying him to Russia causes the firing of the National Security Advisor is considered "nothing of substance" then someone needs to rethink their definitions of basic words and concepts.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 8:23:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 12:26:24 GMT
What's funny and the issue of REAL hypocrisy is when both Presidents Obama and W. Bush professed that they were going to have good relationships with their Russian counterparts, they were vilified for it, and here you have the current POTUS who has pledged his love for Putin and Russia, and now the left is being called nutty and crazy?? Hypocrisy at the finest!It's not the left who are obsessed with Russia--its Trump! He owes Russia, after all, they made it possible (actually ensured) that a douchebag like Trump could win an election by their interference and meddling. Russia vs Benghazi evidence? On the first, it's too soon to tell fully what evidence there is but grand juries don't get involved for nothing. It's a false equivalency to even compare the two. Only in pea land is providing the facts (i.e. on Benghazi and it's outcome) considered mocking. Apparently, if you disagree with those facts you get labeled as mocking the other side. Facts from the what-8?--investigations on Benghazi show that there was not a cover-up, despite claims of the "right" to the contrary. (Bold is mine) This conversation can go round and round in circles forever. Bush/Obama want to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Trump wants to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Every time there's a change in the party in charge, it starts all over again.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 11, 2017 12:43:07 GMT
What's funny and the issue of REAL hypocrisy is when both Presidents Obama and W. Bush professed that they were going to have good relationships with their Russian counterparts, they were vilified for it, and here you have the current POTUS who has pledged his love for Putin and Russia, and now the left is being called nutty and crazy?? Hypocrisy at the finest!It's not the left who are obsessed with Russia--its Trump! He owes Russia, after all, they made it possible (actually ensured) that a douchebag like Trump could win an election by their interference and meddling. Russia vs Benghazi evidence? On the first, it's too soon to tell fully what evidence there is but grand juries don't get involved for nothing. It's a false equivalency to even compare the two. Only in pea land is providing the facts (i.e. on Benghazi and it's outcome) considered mocking. Apparently, if you disagree with those facts you get labeled as mocking the other side. Facts from the what-8?--investigations on Benghazi show that there was not a cover-up, despite claims of the "right" to the contrary. (Bold is mine) This conversation can go round and round in circles forever. Bush/Obama want to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Trump wants to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Every time there's a change in the party in charge, it starts all over again. I don't see BOLD from my mobile (sorry). I'm pointing out that it's ironic/hypocritical to call others hypocrites when it happens in all parties! And there is one huge difference--it's clear that Russia influenced the election to get him elected. I think that is why it is more problematic than just ordinary criticism.
|
|
|
Post by missbennet on May 11, 2017 12:56:39 GMT
No offense, but it's just bizarre to me that anyone would think that what is happening in our government right now is business as usual or the routine drama of leadership change. Trump met with a Russian FM, a publicly, globally suspected spy - in his office yesterday and kept the US press out. The meeting was at Putin's request. “He chose to receive him because Putin asked him to,” the spokesman said. “Putin did specifically ask on the call when they last talked.” ( source) This happened while he is in a firestorm of accusations around the appearance of collusion with Russia to steal the presidency of the United States. Even taking Nixon into account, this is not business as usual. People can shout about last year and emails and Hillary and whatever they want, but I don't think reasonable people should take the bait.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 8:23:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 13:23:33 GMT
No offense, but it's just bizarre to me that anyone would think that what is happening in our government right now is business as usual or the routine drama of leadership change.Trump met with a Russian FM, a publicly, globally suspected spy - in his office yesterday and kept the US press out. The meeting was at Putin's request. “He chose to receive him because Putin asked him to,” the spokesman said. “Putin did specifically ask on the call when they last talked.” ( source) This happened while he is in a firestorm of accusations around the appearance of collusion with Russia to steal the presidency of the United States. Even taking Nixon into account, this is not business as usual. People can shout about last year and emails and Hillary and whatever they want, but I don't think reasonable people should take the bait. (bold is mine) I certainly don't think it's just business as usual. I absolutely do not condone Trump's secret meeting with Russia. However, there is no doubt in my mind that even if the current circumstances with Russia/Trump's campaign/and possibly Trump himself weren't going on, democrats would still be criticizing Trump for trying to improve things. Why do I think that? It's just like the republicans criticizing Obama. Just like the democrats criticizing Bush.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on May 11, 2017 13:35:53 GMT
(Bold is mine) This conversation can go round and round in circles forever. Bush/Obama want to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Trump wants to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Every time there's a change in the party in charge, it starts all over again. I don't see BOLD from my mobile (sorry). I'm pointing out that it's ironic/hypocritical to call others hypocrites when it happens in all parties! And there is one huge difference--it's clear that Russia influenced the election to get him elected. I think that is why it is more problematic than just ordinary criticism. Yes, this. The Russians didn't help get Bush or Obama elected. There's a BIG YUGE difference.
|
|
|
Post by missbennet on May 11, 2017 13:35:59 GMT
Oh, I agree with that, definitely. Hope it didn't sound I was jumping down your throat; just used that part as an example.
It's just that you can see the narrative get dominated by people who don't understand what's really happening and what the relevant issue is. As soon as someone starts ranting about republicans or democrats or hypocrisy or whatever, it's clear they are either a) purposely obstructing attention on actual pending issues of possible treason, collusion, and corruption or b) don't recognize the difference between party bickering and criminal wrongdoing.
I have literally been trying to talk to someone about possible treason happening right now and they are all aflutter about emails and what the other side said last July. I mean, really.
We need to stay focused! This is about having a possible traitor "leading" our country. And that's just the current concern, the lying, incompetence, skirting checks and balances, and poor character notwithstanding.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on May 11, 2017 13:43:00 GMT
What's funny and the issue of REAL hypocrisy is when both Presidents Obama and W. Bush professed that they were going to have good relationships with their Russian counterparts, they were vilified for it, and here you have the current POTUS who has pledged his love for Putin and Russia, and now the left is being called nutty and crazy?? Hypocrisy at the finest!It's not the left who are obsessed with Russia--its Trump! He owes Russia, after all, they made it possible (actually ensured) that a douchebag like Trump could win an election by their interference and meddling. Russia vs Benghazi evidence? On the first, it's too soon to tell fully what evidence there is but grand juries don't get involved for nothing. It's a false equivalency to even compare the two. Only in pea land is providing the facts (i.e. on Benghazi and it's outcome) considered mocking. Apparently, if you disagree with those facts you get labeled as mocking the other side. Facts from the what-8?--investigations on Benghazi show that there was not a cover-up, despite claims of the "right" to the contrary. (Bold is mine) This conversation can go round and round in circles forever. Bush/Obama want to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Trump wants to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Every time there's a change in the party in charge, it starts all over again. I would be interested to hear from those who were critical of Obama being soft on Russia and are now Putin lovers. Honestly, I didn't know much about Obama and Russia and did not have an opinion either way because I did not know enough (interestingly, in reading Red Notice this year, it delved a little into some of the foreign policy aspects and it was interesting to read). My problem though is that it's not simply that Trump is trying for a better relationship with Russia that he can talk intelligently to and explain the hows and whys of his foreign policy stance. It seems there is so much more going on and a lack of transparency that unsettles me. His comments and action seemed to support Russian hacking as long as it benefited him. And in general I feel that Trump 1) doesn't make well thought out decisions where he seeks to better his understanding of an issue 2) makes decisions that benefit himself/family. So I'm skeptical all around on this Russian "policy". I do have to say though, I listened to an interesting interview on Pod Save the World with Eli Lake and his response on Russia was more measured. He pointed out that so far, Trump hasn't done anything that has really benefited Russia (although others would point out the fact that Trump is there and not Clinton benefits the Russians) and if anything Trump has gone soft on China (especially compared to his campaign promises and statements). I don't think Trump is smart enough to have some kind of long game - I think he saw an immediate short term gain to what Russia was doing and he also surrounded himself with those with ties to Russia - but I have no idea where he goes from here. ETA: Eli Lake in general takes a much more moderate approach to Trump and Russia, but questions why Trump then fired Comey in the middle of the investigation - it certainly doesn't look good. From one of his latest articles: Perhaps there is a lot more. But there is also a good chance there isn't. We know, for example, that Russia began its influence operation long before Trump was even a candidate. And that's why all of this is so strange. The known facts to date do not implicate Trump in anything more than sleazy opportunism during a hard-fought election. Presidents don't get impeached for that. And yet Trump keeps acting like he has something to hide.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 8:23:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 13:57:25 GMT
Oh, I agree with that, definitely. Hope it didn't sound I was jumping down your throat; just used that part as an example.
It's just that you can see the narrative get dominated by people who don't understand what's really happening and what the relevant issue is. As soon as someone starts ranting about republicans or democrats or hypocrisy or whatever, it's clear they are either a) purposely obstructing attention on actual pending issues of possible treason, collusion, and corruption or b) don't recognize the difference between party bickering and criminal wrongdoing. I have literally been trying to talk to someone about possible treason happening right now and they are all aflutter about emails and what the other side said last July. I mean, really.We need to stay focused! This is about having a possible traitor "leading" our country. And that's just the current concern, the lying, incompetence, skirting checks and balances, and poor character notwithstanding. (Bold is mine) I didn't think you were jumping down my throat, I just want to make my point clear.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on May 11, 2017 14:14:30 GMT
(Bold is mine) This conversation can go round and round in circles forever. Bush/Obama want to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Trump wants to try for better relationship w/Russia=criticism. Every time there's a change in the party in charge, it starts all over again. I would be interested to hear from those who were critical of Obama being soft on Russia and are now Putin lovers. Honestly, I didn't know much about Obama and Russia and did not have an opinion either way because I did not know enough (interestingly, in reading Red Notice this year, it delved a little into some of the foreign policy aspects and it was interesting to read). My problem though is that it's not simply that Trump is trying for a better relationship with Russia that he can talk intelligently to and explain the hows and whys of his foreign policy stance. It seems there is so much more going on and a lack of transparency that unsettles me. His comments and action seemed to support Russian hacking as long as it benefited him. And in general I feel that Trump 1) doesn't make well thought out decisions where he seeks to better his understanding of an issue 2) makes decisions that benefit himself/family. So I'm skeptical all around on this Russian "policy". I do have to say though, I listened to an interesting interview on Pod Save the World with Eli Lake and his response on Russia was more measured. He pointed out that so far, Trump hasn't done anything that has really benefited Russia (although others would point out the fact that Trump is there and not Clinton benefits the Russians) and if anything Trump has gone soft on China (especially compared to his campaign promises and statements). I don't think Trump is smart enough to have some kind of long game - I think he saw an immediate short term gain to what Russia was doing and he also surrounded himself with those with ties to Russia - but I have no idea where he goes from here. ETA: Eli Lake in general takes a much more moderate approach to Trump and Russia, but questions why Trump then fired Comey in the middle of the investigation - it certainly doesn't look good. From one of his latest articles: Perhaps there is a lot more. But there is also a good chance there isn't. We know, for example, that Russia began its influence operation long before Trump was even a candidate. And that's why all of this is so strange. The known facts to date do not implicate Trump in anything more than sleazy opportunism during a hard-fought election. Presidents don't get impeached for that. And yet Trump keeps acting like he has something to hide. I'm still not sure that Trump conciously colluded with Russia. I think Russia found it extremely easy to manipulate him and that some of his campaign staff possibly colluded with Russia. I truly think that Russia's main goal was to sow seeds of chaos and division which has worked perfectly for them. Now along the course of their "helping ", the Russians may have gathered some compromising information on Trump or other members of his staff/cabinet or may have already had some sort of blackmail that they will use when the time is right. Russians play a LOOOONG game compared to us.
|
|
|
Post by missbennet on May 11, 2017 14:15:44 GMT
This is an interesting point, and I agree - it's entirely possible, maybe even probable, that what's going to come out isn't nearly as incendiary as some would like. That's when it becomes about the behavior around it - why is he trying so hard to shut down normal processes of government and investigation? It's possible he doesn't recognize himself that what would come out isn't that scandalous. For example, the tax returns: I don't actually expect that clear Russia ties will be found there, just a super rich dude's taxes with all the deductions and legal tax dodges he has a right to. To fight so hard against pretty routine requests for information is suspect, especially with all the other moves to limit information flow and access.
So much dodging and weaving and constant rage over not much; it's fairly smokey in here for nothing to be on fire.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on May 11, 2017 14:27:18 GMT
I would be interested to hear from those who were critical of Obama being soft on Russia and are now Putin lovers. Honestly, I didn't know much about Obama and Russia and did not have an opinion either way because I did not know enough (interestingly, in reading Red Notice this year, it delved a little into some of the foreign policy aspects and it was interesting to read). My problem though is that it's not simply that Trump is trying for a better relationship with Russia that he can talk intelligently to and explain the hows and whys of his foreign policy stance. It seems there is so much more going on and a lack of transparency that unsettles me. His comments and action seemed to support Russian hacking as long as it benefited him. And in general I feel that Trump 1) doesn't make well thought out decisions where he seeks to better his understanding of an issue 2) makes decisions that benefit himself/family. So I'm skeptical all around on this Russian "policy". I do have to say though, I listened to an interesting interview on Pod Save the World with Eli Lake and his response on Russia was more measured. He pointed out that so far, Trump hasn't done anything that has really benefited Russia (although others would point out the fact that Trump is there and not Clinton benefits the Russians) and if anything Trump has gone soft on China (especially compared to his campaign promises and statements). I don't think Trump is smart enough to have some kind of long game - I think he saw an immediate short term gain to what Russia was doing and he also surrounded himself with those with ties to Russia - but I have no idea where he goes from here. ETA: Eli Lake in general takes a much more moderate approach to Trump and Russia, but questions why Trump then fired Comey in the middle of the investigation - it certainly doesn't look good. From one of his latest articles: Perhaps there is a lot more. But there is also a good chance there isn't. We know, for example, that Russia began its influence operation long before Trump was even a candidate. And that's why all of this is so strange. The known facts to date do not implicate Trump in anything more than sleazy opportunism during a hard-fought election. Presidents don't get impeached for that. And yet Trump keeps acting like he has something to hide. I'm still not sure that Trump conciously colluded with Russia. I think Russia found it extremely easy to manipulate him and that some of his campaign staff possibly colluded with Russia. I truly think that Russia's main goal was to sow seeds of chaos and division which has worked perfectly for them. Now along the course of their "helping ", the Russians may have gathered some compromising information on Trump or other members of his staff/cabinet or may have already had some sort of blackmail that they will use when the time is right. Russians play a LOOOONG game compared to us. I agree. And as is true of most scandals, it's often the obstruction, coverup, and/or lying that get you. What I keep coming back to is that if Trump is truly innocent, then why is he acting the way he is? He would be the one person who would know for sure what the investigation will find - and if he did nothing wrong, then why does he act so worried?
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on May 11, 2017 14:28:49 GMT
This is an interesting point, and I agree - it's entirely possible, maybe even probable, that what's going to come out isn't nearly as incendiary as some would like. That's when it becomes about the behavior around it - why is he trying so hard to shut down normal processes of government and investigation? It's possible he doesn't recognize himself that what would come out isn't that scandalous. For example, the tax returns: I don't actually expect that clear Russia ties will be found there, just a super rich dude's taxes with all the deductions and legal tax dodges he has a right to. To fight so hard against pretty routine requests for information is suspect, especially with all the other moves to limit information flow and access. So much dodging and weaving and constant rage over not much; it's fairly smokey in here for nothing to be on fire. Absolutely! I don't think we'll ever find some smoking gun that makes this case black and white. But their behavior is so sketchy. If anything happens, it might be getting him on obstruction or lying - not any actual crime having to do with Russia.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on May 11, 2017 14:31:03 GMT
I'm still not sure that Trump conciously colluded with Russia. I think Russia found it extremely easy to manipulate him and that some of his campaign staff possibly colluded with Russia. I truly think that Russia's main goal was to sow seeds of chaos and division which has worked perfectly for them. Now along the course of their "helping ", the Russians may have gathered some compromising information on Trump or other members of his staff/cabinet or may have already had some sort of blackmail that they will use when the time is right. Russians play a LOOOONG game compared to us. I agree. And as is true of most scandals, it's often the obstruction, coverup, and/or lying that get you. What I keep coming back to is that if Trump is truly innocent, then why is he acting the way he is? He would be the one person who would know for sure what the investigation will find - and if he did nothing wrong, then why does he act so worried? Very true! We should be grateful his administration is so incompetent. If they were better at their jobs, they could have easily quashed a lot of this and the general public wouldn't have batted an eye.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on May 11, 2017 14:39:45 GMT
I agree. And as is true of most scandals, it's often the obstruction, coverup, and/or lying that get you. What I keep coming back to is that if Trump is truly innocent, then why is he acting the way he is? He would be the one person who would know for sure what the investigation will find - and if he did nothing wrong, then why does he act so worried? Very true! We should be grateful his administration is so incompetent. If they were better at their jobs, they could have easily quashed a lot of this and the general public wouldn't have batted an eye. I think this is where they are their own worst enemies. The more they try to lie, pressure, harass, etc. the more likely it is for people to leak or vow to keep investigating and find the truth. ETA: Flynn is a good example of this. They never would've fired him if it hadn't been leaked. Despite all the warnings and evidence, they would've kept him on.
|
|
|
Post by missbennet on May 11, 2017 14:43:20 GMT
I think this is where they are their own worst enemies. The more they try to lie, pressure, harass, etc. the more likely it is for people to leak or vow to keep investigating and find the truth. ETA: Flynn is a good example of this. They never would've fired him if it hadn't been leaked. Despite all the warnings and evidence, they would've kept him on. Speaking of being one's own worst enemy: WH furious after photos released. When he posed for those photos, what did he think was going to happen? Could be another smokescreen, but if so, I don't understand the angle. ETA this comment: I had never thought about it like that before.
|
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
Aug 28, 2015 22:31:17 GMT
|
Post by AmandaA on May 11, 2017 17:26:53 GMT
Let me preface this comment with stating that I was a child of the Cold War era and long after the times when Cuba was a political topic in the US....so I am really having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the party that ripped President Obama to shreds over trying to normalize relations with Cuba can all of a sudden be on board with trying to have a better relationship with Russia. Quite frankly I find the babbling and decision making skills of my 22 month old to be far more sensible than this crap.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on May 11, 2017 17:35:43 GMT
So now Trump has confirmed in his interview w/Lester Holt that he was planning on firing Comey even before the letters from Sessions and Rosenstein.
The truth depends upon which day it is. Yesterday's truth - which is spun and repeated on Fox by all of the usual suspects - is not the same as today's truth - which will now be spun and repeated on Fox as if yesterday's truth never existed.
Today's chocolate ration has been increased to 20g!
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on May 11, 2017 17:40:15 GMT
Could be another smokescreen, but if so, I don't understand the angle. i think the WH saying the Russians lied about posting pics of the meeting on social media is a smokescreen! they are trying to ingrain in people's minds that Russia is nothing but lies. so if the investigation proves Russia's involvement with Trumps campaign, trump can say Russia involvement was a lie too.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,983
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on May 11, 2017 17:56:32 GMT
I honestly think Trump is too stupid to collude with anyone. He agrees with the person standing in front of him at the moment. He'll say whatever he says and then do whatever he wants and then claim he never said it in the first place. He has the memory and attention span of a gnat. His family on the other hand? Those boys when it comes to advancing Trump financial interests? Isn't there a story out there about the surprising number of Trump space in NYC leased to Russian businessmen? What about the report that just came out claiming Eric told a golf writer that the Russians paid for the Trump golf course construction projects when no one in commercial lending would touch golf. I believe there are associates and family members involved in this up to their necks - and not the Roger Stone type of associate either (the clingers-on, wanna be's) - it's going to be Trump attorneys and Trump accountants and maybe even really dumb Trump sons. A Tower Full of Russian Oligarchs
|
|