Most Republicans believe FBI, Justice Dept. trying to 'delegitimise' Trump

[jcsmith]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Bit like the anti Trump media banging out the message 24 hours a day that Trump colluded with the Russians despite not a single indictment related to that so far.

And who or where is it saying that? There's certainly a lot of evidence that causes suspicion there, but few people would stake their reputations in saying that he colluded. To suggest people are saying that 24 hours a day is a bit like the suggestion there is some grand conspiracy in the FBI to oust Trump despite some of the people being accused of this having been part of what cost Hillary the election. It's utterly ridiculous. 

 

Also to say there hasn't been a single indictment related to collusion so far.... that's also a bit stretchy. Papadapoulis was bragging about collusion with Russia which led to his cooperating with the special counsel. Flynn is also cooperating and unless you think his phone calls to Kislyak were without Trump's consent, what exactly would you call that? And why did he feel he owed Russia a favor against the Obama administrations desires (who was in control of the white house at the time). Why did the Don Jr. and Russia emails talk about their efforts to support Trump, and clearly talk about dirt on Hillary Clinton? Why did he respond that he loved that? And why when this was about to go to press did he (apparently with the assistance of his father) lie about it in his statement? Why did Mike Pence lie about not knowing about Flynn and Turkey when we know for a fact he was and then take weeks to fire him, only after things went public. Why did the Trump administration almost immediately attempt to ease sanctions on Russia according to many reports? Why did they refuse to apply stronger sanctions even after it voted on in a bipartisan error? Why did he wait until the final day of the deadline to announce he was going to do that? Why were there so many people in the Trump transition team that had obvious ties to Russia? Why did they lie about their contacts with Russia forcing them to continue to pencil in entries?

 

The Trump-Russia scandal gets coverage because it deserves it. If Trump truly did make a deal with Russia then he traded US interests for the rights for him to get elected. That is very important because if he did cooperate with them, then they still have influence over him. For now and forever. 

[hstew]

"Also to say there hasn't been a single indictment related to collusion so far.... that's also a bit stretchy". Oh, there have been criminal charges & convictions resulting from the Muller witch-hunt as follows:

1. Papadopoulos convicted of lying to the FBI
2. Michael Flynn convicted of lying to the FBI
3. Paul Manafort charged with money laundering, conspiracy, tax fraud and failure to disclose his lobbying in the U.S. on behalf of foreign governments.
4. Rick Gates: charged with conspiracy, money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent as well as making false statements to investigators in the special counsel investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. The indictment says Gates used money from the illicit accounts to pay for his mortgage, his children's tuition and interior decorating of his Virginia residence.

Looks like a real big russian collusion conspiracy right! The bigger conspiracy is Clinton paying for the bogus trump dossier and the FBI lying to the FISC to get the surveillance warrant on Page.

[jcsmith]

@hstew: Convicted of lesser charges only due to plea deals to provide additional information. They are cooperating for a reason. If all they had done was lie to the FBI and they have pleaded guilty of that, why would they need to cooperate otherwise? 

With regards to PapaD and Flynn I covered their bits in my post. Flynn called Kislyak told him not to worry about the sanctions that they would be different and Russia stood down. Multiple phone calls, lied about it, covered up by Flynn and the white house knew about this for weeks. Why? Papadopoulos was bragging about Russia and Hillary emails in May, he had that info in April... The rest of the world didn't even know about the DNC hack at this point. His involvement there is certainly why he is cooperating. 

[UncleTouchyFingers]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Provide sources.  I don't recall any reputable news sources stating that Trump colluding with Russia has been proven, I only recall these sources reporting on the investigation.

 

"I dont Recall" he says.... "I only Recall" he says...  While cleverly wording his post... 

 

Joe Scarborugh, Joy Ann Reid, Rachael Maddow, too many to list from both CNN commentators and MSNBC commentators. 

Hell just the other day Top Democrat Nancy Pelosi stated that the Nunes memo was a "Bouquet to Putin" Lmao. 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/372041-pelosi-nunes-memo-is-a-bouquet-for-putin

 

How anyone can state with a straight face that "these sources only report on the investigation" is beyond laughable, bordering on insane. 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, hstew said:

"Also to say there hasn't been a single indictment related to collusion so far.... that's also a bit stretchy". Oh, there have been criminal charges & convictions resulting from the Muller witch-hunt as follows:

1. Papadopoulos convicted of lying to the FBI
2. Michael Flynn convicted of lying to the FBI
3. Paul Manafort charged with money laundering, conspiracy, tax fraud and failure to disclose his lobbying in the U.S. on behalf of foreign governments.
4. Rick Gates: charged with conspiracy, money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent as well as making false statements to investigators in the special counsel investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. The indictment says Gates used money from the illicit accounts to pay for his mortgage, his children's tuition and interior decorating of his Virginia residence.

Looks like a real big russian collusion conspiracy right! The bigger conspiracy is Clinton paying for the bogus trump dossier and the FBI lying to the FISC to get the surveillance warrant on Page.

The dossier is not bogus, parts have been verified by other intelligence sources, other parts have not be proven or disproven.  The DNC paid for opposition research, just like Republicans do.  Nobody lied to the FISC to get surveillance warrant, the Republicans are maintain that the political origins of the dossier were not explained in sufficient detail, but have you to explain why that would have made a difference in the authorization for surveillance or the legitimacy of the Russia investigation.

 

But you want to believe there is an anit-Trump conspiracy, and conspiracy theory fans are impervious to facts and logic.

 

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

"I dont Recall" he says.... "I only Recall" he says...  While cleverly wording his post... 

 

Joe Scarborugh, Joy Ann Reid, Rachael Maddow, too many to list from both CNN commentators and MSNBC commentators. 

Hell just the other day Top Democrat Nancy Pelosi stated that the Nunes memo was a "Bouquet to Putin" Lmao. 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/372041-pelosi-nunes-memo-is-a-bouquet-for-putin

 

How anyone can state with a straight face that "these sources only report on the investigation" is beyond laughable, bordering on insane. 

You are aware that Pelosi is a Senator, not a reporter, right?

 

Please give links to sources in which Scarborough, Reid, Maddow or any of the others accused Trump of collusion.

[boomerangutang]

From the OP:   

Some 73 percent of Republicans agreed that "members of the FBI and Department of Justice are working to delegitimise Trump through politically motivated investigations."

 

Republicans are so easily duped.  Trump and his minions are effective with their strategy:  'repeat a lie often enough, and some people will believe it.'

 

The same sheeple Republicans will be suckered into believing what Putin and his Russian bots tell them to believe - leading up to the November election - ....sure as shootin' rubber duckies at five paces with a shotgun.

[boomerangutang]

Never in the history of the US, has a president focused on bad-mouthing the FBI or CIA or federal attorneys.  Trump is unique in many of his harmful policies, but denigrating law-enforcement ranks as among his worst activities.   

[sirineou]

 We are now in Alice in Wonderland territory, 

The agency that gave him the presidency by  releasing the Hillary Clinton  investigation letter a week before the  election , is now accused of trying to take the presidency  away from him.

 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

9 hours ago, jcsmith said:

 The people who supported Trump for whatever reason, many of them will buy into anything that gets put on the table rather than to admit they were wrong.

 

You've got to the nub of the problem, but you're only halfway there. You're right it's about flawed people. You're wrong to think it is only Trump supporters. They are but a subset within that domain.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You've got to the nub of the problem, but you're only halfway there. You're right it's about flawed people. You're wrong to think it is only Trump supporters. They are but a subset within that domain.

Neither candidate was perfect, so it was acceptable to choose the most obviously, dangerously unqualified candidate?

[lannarebirth]

42 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Neither candidate was perfect, so it was acceptable to choose the most obviously, dangerously unqualified candidate?

The problem with that way of thinking is that down the road 25 years or so you get a president like Trump. It is better not to overlook deep deep flaws when they appear. Here's an example:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-37-old-clinton-financial-103000172.html

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436066/hillary-clintons-cattle-futures-windfall

 

If it helps you to see the problem more clearly, feel free to substitute Trump's name for Clinton's wherever it appears in the articles.

 

I think a candidate should possess some sense of morality. Not religiousness, but morality. Speaking of which, Ralph Nader had something to say on this subject:

 

“The democracy gap in our politics and elections spells a deep sense of powerlessness by people who drop out, do not vote, or listlessly vote for the least worst every four years and then wonder why after every cycle the least worst gets worse.”
 

Edited February 8, 2018 by lannarebirth

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You've got to the nub of the problem, but you're only halfway there. You're right it's about flawed people. You're wrong to think it is only Trump supporters. They are but a subset within that domain.

 

In terms of being stubborn in their ways and easily influenced, I'm not disagreeing. It's human nature. It's very dangerous in a situation like this though because the things that Trump puts out there are things which can split a country in two. He's extremely divisive. But when his divisions call into question the press, the FBI, the intelligence communities, and when whatever he says is parroted wholeheartedly on FOX News, that's going to influence the people watching it. And it's not the typical political types of ideals. In this case it could turn into something much worse. 

 

What happens when either Trump fires Rosenstein and Mueller, or Mueller indicts Trump? That's the direction things are heading. If Trump fires Rosenstein and he's replaced with someone who will fire Mueller, and the republicans in Congress do not impeach him, it's going to get ugly in terms of mass protests, it could very well turn violent. And if on the flip side to that Mueller subpoenas Trump and he refuses to show, or if he charges him and Trump stands off what happens then? When his supporters have been conditioned to question the FBI and the very institutions, and told that this is all a hoax? 

[lannarebirth]

24 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

 

What happens when either Trump fires Rosenstein and Mueller, or Mueller indicts Trump? That's the direction things are heading. If Trump fires Rosenstein and he's replaced with someone who will fire Mueller, and the republicans in Congress do not impeach him, it's going to get ugly in terms of mass protests, it could very well turn violent. And if on the flip side to that Mueller subpoenas Trump and he refuses to show, or if he charges him and Trump stands off what happens then? When his supporters have been conditioned to question the FBI and the very institutions, and told that this is all a hoax? 

 

I think either of those questions could trigger a Constitutional crisis; certainly the latter one. I imagine that would lead to sweeping gains for Democrats in the midterms and impeachment proceedings with many Republicans joining in.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

The problem with that way of thinking is that down the road 25 years or so you get a president like Trump. It is better not to overlook deep deep flaws when they appear. Here's an example:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-37-old-clinton-financial-103000172.html

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436066/hillary-clintons-cattle-futures-windfall

 

If it helps you to see the problem more clearly, feel free to substitute Trump's name for Clinton's wherever it appears in the articles.

 

I think a candidate should possess some sense of morality. Not religiousness, but morality. Speaking of which, Ralph Nader had something to say on this subject:

 

“The democracy gap in our politics and elections spells a deep sense of powerlessness by people who drop out, do not vote, or listlessly vote for the least worst every four years and then wonder why after every cycle the least worst gets worse.”
 

25 years ago HRC was suspiciously lucky in commodities trading, and it may have been a disguised bribe.  That's bad, but I don't think it compares to the danger of having a grossly unqualified President such as Trump.

 

As I've posted before, elections frequently offer a choice of evils.  Voters should always choose the lesser evil. 

[lannarebirth]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

25 years ago HRC was suspiciously lucky in commodities trading, and it may have been a disguised bribe.  That's bad, but I don't think it compares to the danger of having a grossly unqualified President such as Trump.

 

As I've posted before, elections frequently offer a choice of evils.  Voters should always choose the lesser evil. 

 

My point is that it is cause and effect. Her political career should have ended then and there, and probably her husband's too. Probably the Democrats wouldn't have become a mixture of neolibs and neocons if that had happened. Trump is merely the manifestation of what a series of intentional dismissals of corrupt behavior by a stupid citizenry and a complicit press produced.

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

My point is that it is cause and effect. Her political career should have ended then and there, and probably her husband's too. Probably the Democrats wouldn't have become a mixture of neolibs and neocons if that had happened. Trump is merely the manifestation of what a series of intentional dismissals of corrupt behavior by a stupid citizenry and a complicit press produced.

I am not aware of anytime in the country's history in which politics and politicians did not have ethical issues.  Yet the flawed country and its flawed political system survived. 

 

Applying the same ethical standards, Trump's political career would have never begun.  Applying any semblance of accepted ethical and transparency standards would have ended Trump's political career before it began.  Unfortunately too many voters didn't think about such things, they voted on feelings about candidates.  Even that puzzles me; what is there to like about Trump? 

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I am not aware of anytime in the country's history in which politics and politicians did not have ethical issues.  Yet the flawed country and its flawed political system survived. 

 

Applying the same ethical standards, Trump's political career would have never begun.  Applying any semblance of accepted ethical and transparency standards would have ended Trump's political career before it began.  Unfortunately too many voters didn't think about such things, they voted on feelings about candidates.  Even that puzzles me; what is there to like about Trump? 

 

Of course it wouldn't have begun. What allowed for it was the new lower standard. There is nothing to like about Trump, except perhaps that he is a disruptor, which can be dangerous. He is as odious as his opponent was corrupt. He is a consequence of disenfranchisement IMO. People knew innately that one candidate was corrupt and that the media was telling them they were the luckiest people in the world to have such a candidate. So rather than digest that they threw up instead; ergo Trump.

[selftaopath]

On 2/6/2018 at 11:03 AM, boomerangutang said:

Trump will trash everyone and everything in his vicinity - to keep his fat butt out of jail.  ....except maybe Ivanka, Melania

Those two women should be interviewed by Mueller's team.  Surely his daughter and wife know a thing or two.  Ivanka, in particular, probably knows as much as Flynn or anyone else.  Are they exempt from scrutiny because they're pretty women?

45's daughter/wife is a U.S. Government employee. I believe this requires her to meet w/ Mueller if asked.

[UncleTouchyFingers]

LOL some of you guys wanna go after his wife and daughter because you can’t get at Trump. 

 

Stay classy, liberals. 

[selftaopath]

On 2/7/2018 at 1:24 PM, heybruce said:

James Comey, the FBI Director appointed by Obama, handed the election to Trump by publicly investigating the Hillary Clinton email issue and publicly re-opening the investigation days before the election, while keeping the investigation of possible Trump campaign links to Russia secret.

 

According to Republicans, Christopher Wray, the Republican FBI Director appointed by Trump and approved by a Republican Senate, is attempting to undermine the Trump Presidency.

 

I'm not sure how to describe this, but it definitely doesn't make Trump or the Republicans look good.

 

 

LOL is there anything that "makes Trump or Republicans look good"? LOL  They are more akin to Russia/Putin anti America and rule of law. 

[selftaopath]

On 2/7/2018 at 4:39 PM, Proboscis said:

I don't have a political affiliation - I just don't see why the seating arrangement at an early French parliament should decide where I stand on issues.

 

I have also met quite a few Republicans in my time. None of them adhere to "the justice department/FBI are out to get" anyone, let alone Trump.

 

It beggars belief that people will think that the very folks that Trump appointed will turn on him - and I don't believe that informed Republicans believe that for a moment.

 

Instead, there are a lot of journalists, Fox News pundits and others who will mouth this and the uninformed of all kinds will repeat it.

 

Remember that the people from the so-called working class who voted for Trump were also many of the people who voted for Obama. "Send a rocket to Washington and see how they like it" was their view. Unfortunately for them, sending a black guy to Washington as President did not make the sort of changes they wanted. Now they have sent a "billionaire" completely politically incorrect bully, or at least they did not send a woman who always preached to them.

 

These working class people are a lot of things but they are not necessarily die-hard republicans.

Many don't realize Obama was repeatedly stopped by Mitch and his Republican gang of "no." That was their only mission for eight years. They only care a/b power/control/wealth.

[Becker]

2 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

LOL some of you guys wanna go after his wife and daughter because you can’t get at Trump. 

 

Stay classy, liberals. 

Yes, because Michelle Obama was certainly off limits to the Republicans during the Obama presidency...

 

BTW, based on the fact that Ivanka Trump performs official functions why should she be off limits?

Edited February 9, 2018 by Becker

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[UncleTouchyFingers]

22 minutes ago, Becker said:

Yes, because Michelle Obama was certainly off limits to the Republicans during the Obama presidency...

 

BTW, based on the fact that Ivanka Trump performs official functions why should she be off limits?

 

The fact that you dont see anything wrong with what youre asking says alot more about you than it does me. 

 

And justifying your actions because some republicans did the same to Michelle Obama makes you no better and no more "tolerant" than the people you hate and purport to be better than ( you aren't ) 

 

But of course you don't see anything hypocritical or laughable about that. 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, heybruce said:

It's certain that two FBI agents didn't like Trump and stated that in text messages.  There is no evidence anyone in the FBI attempted to undermine Trump.  There are suspicions the FBI attempted, and succeeded, in undermining Clinton.  Texts that were "missing" were the result of a phone technical glitch and were turned over as soon as they were recovered. 

 

Wanting there to be a conspiracy doesn't make it so.  Trump and Trumpies need to accept that.  These are law enforcement officers doing their job and putting duty before personal interests.  Something Trump can't understand.

 

How do your suspicions that the FBI, under Trump appointed Wray, is undermining Trump square with Trump's claim that he hires the best people?

 

 

The potential crimes occurred while Comey was in charge. Since then all but one of the responsible persons have been sacked, or moved to other positions.

I didn't, far as I remember, claim that it was still going on under Wray.

 

New stuff coming out every day about the potentially criminal activities of a few people at the highest level of the FBI under Comey.

Edited February 9, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[Becker]

4 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

The fact that you dont see anything wrong with what youre asking says alot more about you than it does me. 

 

And justifying your actions because some republicans did the same to Michelle Obama makes you no better and no more "tolerant" than the people you hate and purport to be better than ( you aren't ) 

 

But of course you don't see anything hypocritical or laughable about that. 

 I will repeat the question:

Based on the fact that Ivanka Trump performs official functions why should she be off limits?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, jcsmith said:

 

In terms of being stubborn in their ways and easily influenced, I'm not disagreeing. It's human nature. It's very dangerous in a situation like this though because the things that Trump puts out there are things which can split a country in two. He's extremely divisive. But when his divisions call into question the press, the FBI, the intelligence communities, and when whatever he says is parroted wholeheartedly on FOX News, that's going to influence the people watching it. And it's not the typical political types of ideals. In this case it could turn into something much worse. 

 

What happens when either Trump fires Rosenstein and Mueller, or Mueller indicts Trump? That's the direction things are heading. If Trump fires Rosenstein and he's replaced with someone who will fire Mueller, and the republicans in Congress do not impeach him, it's going to get ugly in terms of mass protests, it could very well turn violent. And if on the flip side to that Mueller subpoenas Trump and he refuses to show, or if he charges him and Trump stands off what happens then? When his supporters have been conditioned to question the FBI and the very institutions, and told that this is all a hoax? 

Trump can only be indicted if there is something to indict him on, and that is doubtful, given ZERO proof of any collusion so far, or if he's stupid enough to try and outfox Mueller by actually answering anything put to him under oath. Better to take the 5th than fall into that trap.

Mueller should not be replaced for obvious reasons, but he should be required to prove that he has something to show for the millions of $ spent so far for peanuts in indictments. If he can't, then he should be closed down.

Whatever, Sessions has to go. He's completely useless. So far, hasn't even done anything on the miniscule part of his job left that he can do. Waste of space.

Why would the GOP impeach him? Only in an anti Trumpers wet dream would they do that. Fastest way to be out at their next election.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The potential crimes occurred while Comey was in charge. Since then all but one of the responsible persons have been sacked, or moved to other positions.

I didn't, far as I remember, claim that it was still going on under Wray.

 

New stuff coming out every day about the potentially criminal activities of a few people at the highest level of the FBI under Comey.

I'm not aware of any credible evidence suggesting potentially criminal activities at the highest levels under Comey, but if there is such evidence, investigate it.  I think Comey's very public investigation of the email issue, which violated FBI policy, and his timing of press releases was appallingly unethical and unprofessional, but too my knowledge it wasn't illegal.  I am amazed at the ingratitude of Trump towards Comey.

 

I am also not aware of any credible evidence of potentially criminal activities that would discredit the Russia investigation. 

 

The latest outrage with the FBI is over the level of detail regarding the background of some of the evidence presented to the FISA judge; some people insist the judge should have been explicitly told that some of the research had been funded by Democrats and Republicans (actually they just wanted the judge to be told Democrats funded the research) instead of the fact that the evidence had political origins.  To my knowledge, nobody has challenged the validity of the evidence presented to the judge. 

 

These FBI opponents are grasping at straws.  One wonder why they are so desperate to prevent an investigation that has exposed thing about Trump's people and might expose things about Trump.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm not aware of any credible evidence suggesting potentially criminal activities at the highest levels under Comey, but if there is such evidence, investigate it.  I think Comey's very public investigation of the email issue, which violated FBI policy, and his timing of press releases was appallingly unethical and unprofessional, but too my knowledge it wasn't illegal.  I am amazed at the ingratitude of Trump towards Comey.

 

I am also not aware of any credible evidence of potentially criminal activities that would discredit the Russia investigation. 

 

The latest outrage with the FBI is over the level of detail regarding the background of some of the evidence presented to the FISA judge; some people insist the judge should have been explicitly told that some of the research had been funded by Democrats and Republicans (actually they just wanted the judge to be told Democrats funded the research) instead of the fact that the evidence had political origins.  To my knowledge, nobody has challenged the validity of the evidence presented to the judge. 

 

These FBI opponents are grasping at straws.  One wonder why they are so desperate to prevent an investigation that has exposed thing about Trump's people and might expose things about Trump.

Plenty of evidence coming out every day, but I doubt the anti Trump media is publishing it.