Trump allows attorney general to declassify information about origins of Russia probe

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

You say you believe this or that about Trump. It's just not very clear what your beliefs are based on. The President's history, and current conduct, don't lend themselves as a sound foundation for such beliefs.

While that is not directed at me, I believe that Trump should never have been president ( he is a game show host for goodness sake ), but he became one because Washington is so corrupt that middle America had had enough of the usual <deleted> in suits that inhabit Washington, and they were not going to take it anymore. Whatever one thinks of him, or his manner, millions of American voters chose him over a business as usual <deleted>, because they wanted change. What they are seeing, is business as usual <deleted> Washingtonians trying to obstruct their choice from making any change in Washington, and I hope they do not forget who the real enemy is when they vote next time.

[riclag]

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

So which is it; declassify all files, or only declassify the files that won't hurt current intel assets.  I agree with you if the declassification is limited to files that won't interfere with ongoing intelligence operations.

I don't know why you continue to forget the purpose  of declassification process ,  the goal to declassify files is to bring it to the investigators so they can investigate and  recommend to prosecute or not! The declass is being coordinated between the 3 teams ,Durham,huber and horowitz 

Edited May 31, 2019 by riclag

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While that is not directed at me, I believe that Trump should never have been president ( he is a game show host for goodness sake ), but he became one because Washington is so corrupt that middle America had had enough of the usual <deleted> in suits that inhabit Washington, and they were not going to take it anymore. Whatever one thinks of him, or his manner, millions of American voters chose him over a business as usual <deleted>, because they wanted change. What they are seeing, is business as usual <deleted> Washingtonians trying to obstruct their choice from making any change in Washington, and I hope they do not forget who the real enemy is when they vote next time.

You mean his supporters voted for massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? They voted for gutting environmental enforcement? They voted for corporate enabling judges on the Federal Bench? They voted for deregulating Wall Street and the Big Banks? 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

I don't know why you continue to misrepresent the facts,  the goal to declassify files is to bring it to the investigators so they can investigate and  recommend to prosecute or not! The declassify is being coordinated between the 3 teams ,Durham,huber and horowitz 

Really? You have to declassify files to bring them to investigators? There aren't investigators who have or can get security clearances? 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Seems like the crux of your arguments, and specifically as per taxes and conduct, is that the President got a right to be a crook. That might be so, but why would anyone want a crook in the White House?

LOL. The choice was between two crooks, so whichever of them won a crook would have been in the White House.

At least with Trump, no one that voted for him should have believed he was of upstanding character, yet they still voted for him.

Perhaps the resistance should be pondering why their candidate lost, and doing something about winning the next election, rather than wasting all this time wittering on about impeachment when there is virtually zero chance that impeachment would succeed.

Remembering the last impeachment, it would probably make him even more likely to win re election. Clinton certainly did all right after his, while Gingrich got the boot, something that Nancy is no doubt considering.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean his supporters voted for massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? They voted for gutting environmental enforcement? They voted for corporate enabling judges on the Federal Bench? They voted for deregulating Wall Street and the Big Banks? 

I guess you missed the point of my post.

Have a nice day.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I guess you missed the point of my post.

Have a nice day.

Actually it's clear that you missed your point.

"Whatever one thinks of him, or his manner, millions of American voters chose him over a business as usual <deleted>, because they wanted change. What they are seeing, is business as usual <deleted> Washingtonians trying to obstruct their choice from making any change in Washington, and I hope they do not forget who the real enemy is when they vote next time."

[riclag]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really? You have to declassify files to bring them to investigators? There aren't investigators who have or can get security clearances? 

You seem to think that Barr is gonna let others see it before him ! He was tasked with supervising the coordination  and the dissemination of the files to the investigators 

Edited May 31, 2019 by riclag

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

You seem to think that Barr is gonna let others see it before him ! He was tasked with supervising the coordination  and the dissemination of the files to the investigators 

And what has that got to do with anything?

[riclag]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

And what has that got to do with anything?

Like any good supervisor he will present the facts for each team to investigate ! Kinda like a General instructing his subordinates to carry out a mission

[bristolboy]

Just now, riclag said:

Like any good supervisor he will present the facts for each team to investigate ! Kinda like a General instructing his subordinates to carry out a mission

Because he's so unbiased?

[johnnybangkok]

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The choice was between two crooks, so whichever of them won a crook would have been in the White House.

At least with Trump, no one that voted for him should have believed he was of upstanding character, yet they still voted for him.

Perhaps the resistance should be pondering why their candidate lost, and doing something about winning the next election, rather than wasting all this time wittering on about impeachment when there is virtually zero chance that impeachment would succeed.

Remembering the last impeachment, it would probably make him even more likely to win re election. Clinton certainly did all right after his, while Gingrich got the boot, something that Nancy is no doubt considering.

Ahhhhh the Trumpers default chant of a 'choice between two crooks' except one of the 'crooks' Hillary Clinton, has been investigated for Benghazi (10 investigations each one exonerating her), the email server debacle (cleared after FBI investigation), Whitewater scandal (no charges after a federal investigation), the Clinton Foundation (despite numerous FBI investigations, still no evidence of impropriety) and of course every Trumpers favourite; Uranium One (4 years of investigations - no evidence of wrongdoings). 

Yet despite all of these lengthy investigations exonerating her, the excuse she is a crook (despite not a single piece of evidence to back that up) comes up time and time again by Trumpers trying to justify why they did vote for a man who is most definitely a crook. Stop it. It's boring and completely unjustified.

'At least with Trump, no one that voted for him should have believed he was of upstanding character, yet they still voted for him' is a bad enough basis for backing this insult to the office of POTUS but please stop trying to placate your own guilty conscious with the 'choice between two evils' excuse.

There was two very clear choices on offer yet you still managed to go with evil.  

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was extremely bothered by the activities ( or lack of activities ) of Clinton when she was Sec State, but none of the side currently opposing Trump were bothered. Apparently it depends on which side one supports as to how much one is bothered- is that surprising?

 

Trump does some things I vehemently oppose, but given the choice between him and his opponent at the election, I'll have to accept that no one gets everything they want. 

 

HRC wasn't POTUS. And it's incorrect to say that "non of the side currently opposing Trump were bothered". Not even with regard to this forum. Obviously, people will more into it when it's someone from the "other" side. Nothing new there, but I don't think HRC as Sec State got the same levels of adulation Trump fans air day in day out. Also, I think it would be hard to claim she had similar issues or that these were on par with what's considered the norm during Trump's term.

 

And "vehemently oppose"? Sure, one or two pet issues. On the whole, you commentary is supportive. Said before, accepting we don't always get what we want, and that candidates are often deliver a mixed bag is one thing. There's a point where holding one's nose, or covering one's eyes doesn't make sense anymore. I think that with Trump, we're way past that.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The choice was between two crooks, so whichever of them won a crook would have been in the White House.

At least with Trump, no one that voted for him should have believed he was of upstanding character, yet they still voted for him.

Perhaps the resistance should be pondering why their candidate lost, and doing something about winning the next election, rather than wasting all this time wittering on about impeachment when there is virtually zero chance that impeachment would succeed.

Remembering the last impeachment, it would probably make him even more likely to win re election. Clinton certainly did all right after his, while Gingrich got the boot, something that Nancy is no doubt considering.

 

Are you going for the they-are-all-the-same thing? Because no, even if one wished to label HRC as a crook, she wouldn't be anywhere near Trump's level. You could argue it doesn't matter, but I think you won't accept such a claim in real life.

 

As for the bit about Trump supporters all being aware of what they voted for - numerous posts on this forum, numerous interviews and clips seem to put some doubt over that claim.

 

I have no problems with saying that the opposition ought to do a better job regarding both producing better candidates etc. As for the "wasting time" bit, no. For one thing, Trump shouldn't get a free pass, and even if cannot be impeached at this time (Senate being how and what it is), no reason to lower the flames or to accommodate him.

 

Drawing direct parallels and predictions from past instances is cool. Want to go for the Nixon bit?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Are you going for the they-are-all-the-same thing? Because no, even if one wished to label HRC as a crook, she wouldn't be anywhere near Trump's level. You could argue it doesn't matter, but I think you won't accept such a claim in real life.

 

As for the bit about Trump supporters all being aware of what they voted for - numerous posts on this forum, numerous interviews and clips seem to put some doubt over that claim.

 

I have no problems with saying that the opposition ought to do a better job regarding both producing better candidates etc. As for the "wasting time" bit, no. For one thing, Trump shouldn't get a free pass, and even if cannot be impeached at this time (Senate being how and what it is), no reason to lower the flames or to accommodate him.

 

Drawing direct parallels and predictions from past instances is cool. Want to go for the Nixon bit?

I'd love to do the Nixon, Clinton and Bush the younger route, but too far off topic, I'm sorry to say.

 

I do laugh when the resistance claim that HRC was found not guilty by numerous investigations, then claim that even though Trump was cleared ( yes I know Mueller left the door open, surprise, not ) after a 2 year investigation he must still be guilty of something heinous.

Pots, kettles and black come to mind.

 

As for "she wouldn't be anywhere near Trump's level." that depends on which side of the argument we stand. 

 

Wasting time? Indeed, they should be running the country and not wittering on every 5 minutes about how horrible he is, when he was democratically elected. Get a life, move on and find a better candidate and policies that will win next year, or still be complaining how awful he is in 4 years time.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd love to do the Nixon, Clinton and Bush the younger route, but too far off topic, I'm sorry to say.

 

I do laugh when the resistance claim that HRC was found not guilty by numerous investigations, then claim that even though Trump was cleared ( yes I know Mueller left the door open, surprise, not ) after a 2 year investigation he must still be guilty of something heinous.

Pots, kettles and black come to mind.

 

As for "she wouldn't be anywhere near Trump's level." that depends on which side of the argument we stand. 

 

Wasting time? Indeed, they should be running the country and not wittering on every 5 minutes about how horrible he is, when he was democratically elected. Get a life, move on and find a better candidate and policies that will win next year, or still be complaining how awful he is in 4 years time.

You say Trump was cleared. Mueller says he was not exonerated. One of you is confused.

[Jingthing]

You say Trump was cleared. Mueller says he was not exonerated. One of you is confused.

He was NOT cleared!!!!!

That is a FACT.

If the majority of people cannot agree on basic irrefutable FACTS then American democracy is doomed.

Just as Putin hopes.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You say Trump was cleared. Mueller says he was not exonerated. One of you is confused.

Time will tell.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

He was NOT cleared!!!!!

That is a FACT.

If the majority of people cannot agree on basic irrefutable FACTS then American democracy is doomed.

Just as Putin hopes.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

I've seen a shed load of opinion, but few facts in this entire fiasco. 

Not being cleared is not the same as being guilty. 

If someone can't come up with some actual indictable high crimes or misdemeanours, Trump is the president till 2024, IMO.

[mogandave]

They used to be called prosecutors, now apparently they’re exonerators.,,

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd love to do the Nixon, Clinton and Bush the younger route, but too far off topic, I'm sorry to say.

 

I do laugh when the resistance claim that HRC was found not guilty by numerous investigations, then claim that even though Trump was cleared ( yes I know Mueller left the door open, surprise, not ) after a 2 year investigation he must still be guilty of something heinous.

Pots, kettles and black come to mind.

 

As for "she wouldn't be anywhere near Trump's level." that depends on which side of the argument we stand. 

 

Wasting time? Indeed, they should be running the country and not wittering on every 5 minutes about how horrible he is, when he was democratically elected. Get a life, move on and find a better candidate and policies that will win next year, or still be complaining how awful he is in 4 years time.

 

You brought up Clinton. Guess "too far off-topic" applies only when it suits.

 

Only HRC was cleared, and despite your claims, Trump wasn't. So no, the deflection doesn't hold.

 

Trump got a history of dodgy business practices, and things haven't improved since he won the election. What does HRC got that's on par with that? When you say "depends on which side of the argument" - how do you mean? Or is it, bottom line, just your opinion?

 

The Dems should be running the country? Other then that you've made this argument and been presented with lists of legislation, did you actually post this with a straight face? Do you need reminders of times Trump obstructed legislation, threw tantrums and pressed the pause button on government?

 

Getting democratically elected doesn't imply that the opposition is bound to roll over and accept anything the President says or does. Quite an odd take on democracy there.

[Morch]

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've seen a shed load of opinion, but few facts in this entire fiasco. 

Not being cleared is not the same as being guilty. 

If someone can't come up with some actual indictable high crimes or misdemeanours, Trump is the president till 2024, IMO.

 

Spin it all you like, he wasn't cleared as you claimed. If you can't acknowledge even that, then telling the difference between fact and opinion isn't your thing.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

You brought up Clinton. Guess "too far off-topic" applies only when it suits.

 

Only HRC was cleared, and despite your claims, Trump wasn't. So no, the deflection doesn't hold.

 

Trump got a history of dodgy business practices, and things haven't improved since he won the election. What does HRC got that's on par with that? When you say "depends on which side of the argument" - how do you mean? Or is it, bottom line, just your opinion?

 

The Dems should be running the country? Other then that you've made this argument and been presented with lists of legislation, did you actually post this with a straight face? Do you need reminders of times Trump obstructed legislation, threw tantrums and pressed the pause button on government?

 

Getting democratically elected doesn't imply that the opposition is bound to roll over and accept anything the President says or does. Quite an odd take on democracy there.

LOL. Different Clinton, and yes, too far off topic.

 

WAS HRC actually cleared? The jury is out on that.

 

HRC has loads of dirty washing in her past, so yes, equivalent to Trump.

 

The Dems ARE running the country. In case you hadn't noticed, they are the majority in the house. The GOP are the opposition now.

I hope you are not going to claim that the president actually "runs the country". I don't think that he has the constitutional authority to do so. The founding fathers didn't like kings.

 

If the Dems could actually get Trump out of their heads, just imagine how much they could do for the country. Perhaps they could even draft some legislation the senate would pass.

 

When you say "depends on which side of the argument" - how do you mean? Or is it, bottom line, just your opinion?

Of course it's my opinion, just as everything you say is your opinion. We're all just anonymous posters debating stuff on a forum.

[mogandave]

WAS HRC actually cleared?

Didn’t Comey say she lacked intent?

Of course intent was not required for the charge...wonder why the press didn’t jump on that. Not.

It was hilarious how Comey was hated...

Until Trump fired him, now he’s a water-walker...

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, riclag said:

I don't know why you continue to forget the purpose  of declassification process ,  the goal to declassify files is to bring it to the investigators so they can investigate and  recommend to prosecute or not! The declass is being coordinated between the 3 teams ,Durham,huber and horowitz 

I don't know why you dodged the obvious question: " declassify all files, or only declassify the files that won't hurt current intel assets"?

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You mean his supporters voted for massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? They voted for gutting environmental enforcement? They voted for corporate enabling judges on the Federal Bench? They voted for deregulating Wall Street and the Big Banks? 

Don't forget, they also voted to "drain the swamp", then got a President that filled his administration with industry insiders and lobbyists, and  has had a ridiculous number of ethics violations: 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-hatch-act-violations-1239301

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/administration/376519-ethics-issues-pile-up-for-trump-cabinet-officials

 

https://www.marketplace.org/2018/02/16/ethics-be-damned-more-half-trumps-20-person-cabinet-has-engaged-questionable-or/

 

If you don't like any of these sources, just do a quick search on "President Trump ethics violations" and you will find many more.

 

Nice job of swamp expanding.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd love to do the Nixon, Clinton and Bush the younger route, but too far off topic, I'm sorry to say.

 

I do laugh when the resistance claim that HRC was found not guilty by numerous investigations, then claim that even though Trump was cleared ( yes I know Mueller left the door open, surprise, not ) after a 2 year investigation he must still be guilty of something heinous.

Pots, kettles and black come to mind.

 

As for "she wouldn't be anywhere near Trump's level." that depends on which side of the argument we stand. 

 

Wasting time? Indeed, they should be running the country and not wittering on every 5 minutes about how horrible he is, when he was democratically elected. Get a life, move on and find a better candidate and policies that will win next year, or still be complaining how awful he is in 4 years time.

One completed investigation of Trump which clearly stated he was not exonerated.  Multiple ongoing investigations, with Trump using every trick in the book to stall.

 

How many of the Hillary Clinton investigations were stone-walled?

[brycspain]

The best disinfectant is sunlight.  Bravo Mr. President!

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, brycspain said:

The best disinfectant is sunlight.  Bravo Mr. President!

I agree.  Stop stonewalling the investigations Mr. President!

[brycspain]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I agree.  Stop stonewalling the investigations Mr. President!

You mean the double secret investigations.  Let me ask you, wasn't 2 years enough for you?  Before the Mueller report came out, how many times did Trump claim executive privilege?  Oh wait for it.....ZERO.  El Presidente Obama claimed it a lot.