Here we go...Trump's press conference

What was so awful in the DNC's leaked emails? Other than the word Email?

It's a corrected transcript that is now on NPR and unfortunately I posted the transcript before they corrected the inaccurate information. If you read earlier in the thread, I corrected it as soon as I had double checked the content of it. I did note in my post in bold red that I had edited. I'm unable to edit anyone's posts that copied my original post.

I didn't watch the press conference because I can't stand listening or even looking at trump any longer.  But I read the comments here and on twitter so I have a pretty good idea of what went on.

I'm not surprised trump is taking the actions he said he would with his business interests.  That has always been his plan and he, to some, has changed the definition of a blind trust to suit his needs.  

As respects to Russia.  I really don't care how much checking CNN and Buzzfeed did or didn't do to the information released.  It's now out there and it's about a man who is about to become president of the United States.  Therefore its needs to be investigated and investigated throughly by a third party.  Doesn't matter if trump has said it's all lies because the man tells so many lies you just can't believe anything he says anymore.  Or look at it another way, one can do as Kellyanne Conway suggest, don't listen to his words but look at what's in his heart. Yea right.

Personally I think this is going to be one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of this country.  And I don't even have to listen to his words or look into his heart because his actions clearly show what kind of person he is.

The big quote below is from "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington" or CREW about trump's press conference.  They are a non-profit legal watchdog group that holds public officials accountable for their actions. 

The reason I decided to share their statement is this one phrase Nixon telling Frost in an interview " When the president does it, that means it's not illegal".

Kind of reminds me of trump maintaining that because he is the president there is no conflict of interest.  I


"Washington, DC—In response to President-elect Trump’s press conference in which he failed to adequately address his massive conflict of interest issues, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Executive Director Noah Bookbinder released the following statement:

“The only way for Donald Trump to avoid massive conflicts of interest is to sell his business outside the family and place the assets in a true blind trust, where he will not have any way of knowing or influencing how the assets are allocated. By refusing to divest, Trump is breaking decades of precedent, just as he did with his refusal to release his tax returns. He has failed to live up to the ethical standard of past presidents including Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and all others of the past 40 years.

He will continue to own his business, which will continue to have foreign interests. It is absurd to believe he will have no knowledge of his business, when he will continue to own it, and it will be run by his children. He claims that he will only know what he reads in newspapers, but newspapers report which foreign dignitaries are staying at his hotel. His businesses all have his name on them in giant gold letters. He will know what they are and what legislation, regulations, or actions will benefit or hurt them.

He’s not worried about conflicts of interest because the statutes don’t apply to the president. If that sounds familiar, it was the position Nixon took when he told David Frost ‘when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.’ Just because it’s not illegal, does not mean it is right or moral. Every decision he will make as president will be followed by the specter of doubt, and will be questioned as to whether his decision is in the best interest of the American people or the best interest of his bottom line. He will also face questions about whether he is violating the constitution by taking payments from foreign governments on a daily basis. Today was his first test as president. He failed.”

Disregarding ALL of the salacious items in these reports, the ONE thing I want an answer to is WHY this information was sat on prior to the election? It is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than the Wikileaks emails on Hillary that were so conveniently paraded out. This just continues to shadow this administration in corruption.

exactly.  there is a fine line between legality, morality, and ethics.  he will undoubtedly be questioned on the ethics if not the legality of everything he will do as POTUS because he's been so shady in the past.  look at how he's handled his businesses (bankruptcies, failure to pay contractors, use of his foundation money, etc) and you will see he has no problem blurring the lines between ethics, legality and morality.

But come on Darcy, don't you think Comey stepped into the crap pond by bringing up the "potential incriminating" evidence off Wiener's computer but then was like...never mind.

My mind is still reeling over that.  Can you not at least agree it looks highly suspicious?

OMG, I've been at work and have just read this thread & it sounds like a circus...I haven't seen any footage of him actually speaking yet - dare I go and see for myself?

Not without a TON of popcorn!!!!!!

i think Congress will care very much during re-election time.  if their constituents are not happy with their work, they will elect someone who will advocate for them. you may not think they care now, but let's see how that changes when officials start hitting the campaign and donor trail.

The whole Weiner thing was a travesty.  Utterly and completely mishandled.  His poor decision of feeling like he'd gone on record on the Clinton emails as being closed and therefore having to make a statement that it was "reopened" (yes I know that's not what he actually said, but is how it was reported and spun in the media) was a huge colossal mistake on many levels.  But that doesn't mean I think he should have released an unverified, unsubstantiated memo on a different candidate.

He just came across as an incoherent buffoon.

Just to be clear. It is Buzzfeed who used shoddy journalistic practices to release the contents of the intel on Trump and election. CNN, NY Times and other outlets were journalistically responsible in not releasing it. I'll help you out here:

CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using Buzzfeed's decision to deflect from CNN's reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.



We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week.


We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.


It is valid and newsworthy AND a requirement of an open and free system to report on info that could be potentially damaging to our country. It is not to publish uncorroborated information. 

You have to put it in context.  Comey made the first stupid decision of going to Congress and stating the FBI investigation into Hillary's emails was CLOSED after as well know a long ass process of determining which of the emails on the server were classified etc.  So when his agents came to him with previously unknown emails from the server he was between a rock and a hard place.  He couldn't not look at the emails.  Now PERSONALLY, I feel that based on the amount of time needed to review the emails (which wasn't very long) he should have simply reviewed the emails and stated that they'd found emails on Weiner's computer and they were no different than the previously reviewed emails.  Or he could have never said that the case was closed.  He then wouldn't have had to revise the statement.  But as he had never made any statements about Trump, it isn't an apples to apples comparison.

And it will be brilliant gaslighting! The best ever!!!