In shake-up, Trump to set up 'war room' to repel attacks over Russia probe

[iReason]

14 minutes ago, riclag said:

Oh!   Dershowwitz  Alan, ...

 

Dershowwitz said "We'll probably never end up finding out the truth." 

 

Who is this Dershowwitz you speak of?

 

Google is unable to give me an answer:

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by iReason

[iReason]

10 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Just who gets to decide whether Dershowitz is "tricking the system" in favour of "obviously guilty people"?

 

Dershowitz does.

And makes quite a good living off of it:

 

"The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty.

The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth."

Alan Dershowitz

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alandersho111781.html

[riclag]

1 minute ago, iReason said:

 

Dershowitz does.

And makes quite a good living off of it:

 

"The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty.

The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth."

Alan Dershowitz

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alandersho111781.html

What does this have to do with Civil Liberties violations in the Russian conspiracy? 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, iReason said:

 

Who is this Dershowwitz you speak of?

 

Google is unable to give me an answer:

 

 

Look at posts #59 and #60. Google answered me this afternoon.

 

It might have helped if you had spelled his name correctly or perhaps broadened your search pattern.

[iReason]

10 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Look at posts #59 and #60. Google answered me this afternoon.

It might have helped if you had spelled his name correctly or perhaps broadened your search pattern.

 

It might greatly help you if you knew this:

 

My post and search was in answer to:

 

2 hours ago, riclag said: (Post #60)

Oh!   Dershowwitz  Alan,

Dershowwitz said "We'll probably never end up finding out the truth."

 

Please try to keep up.

 

It appears you have already read his snide Trolling posts weakly attempting to provoke another poster who spelled the name wrong.

[billd766]

5 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

It might greatly help you if you knew this:

 

My post and search was in answer to:

 

2 hours ago, riclag said: (Post #60)

Oh!   Dershowwitz  Alan,

Dershowwitz said "We'll probably never end up finding out the truth."

 

Please try to keep up.

 

It appears you have already read his snide Trolling posts weakly attempting to provoke another poster who spelled the name wrong.

 

Did you read the posts that I mentioned and the time they were posted?

 

I have better things to do with my life that sit on TVF all the time so I just look at the comments that are posted sine I was last inline some 8 hours ago.

 

 

[iReason]

20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Did you read the posts that I mentioned and the time they were posted?

I have better things to do with my life that sit on TVF all the time so I just look at the comments that are posted sine I was last inline some 8 hours ago.

 

Yes I did.

Before you posted.

 

Suit yourself if you prefer to jump into conversations halfway through.

 

Frankly, I believe that is a big problem with many posters on TV.

 

It appears they whip out their phones and impulsively charge in with no idea of the backstory.

Or care for a history of the thread.

Edited May 29, 2017 by iReason

[Traveler19491]

14 hours ago, riclag said:

Oh!   Dershowwitz  Alan, A true American Civil Libertarian .The famed defense lawyer and self-described liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton .The Harvard Law School professor emeritus  said Thursday that reports that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner was under FBI scrutiny on Russia pointed to an inquiry that was "being done backwards" and "raises great concerns about civil liberties." He’s ridiculed by Democrats who accuse him of angling for a seat on a hypothetical Trump defense team. His own relatives tell him he’s embarrassing them.

 

In one article he said ,there is no crime or statue  that's cited  and that a criminal  investigation in so many words is ambiguous .

The one fact that should be taken from  the pre and post election  is,they will never find the truth.Dem's, Gop 's and global elites at their best, hacking away at American Liberties .

 

Dershowwitz said "We'll probably never end up finding out the truth." 

 

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/05/24/dershowitz-defending-donald-trump-not-quite-says/JXhTmSoeUdtxWtuxC1NiNL/story.html

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/alan-dershowitz-jared-kushner-washington-post/2017/05/26/id/792690/

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/alan-dershowitz-civil-liberties-jared-kushner/2017/05/25/id/792471/

So, if I understand you correctly, you are complaining that this investigation (being led by the Republican majority) is being conducted in the Benghazi/email fashion? I would disagree. This investigation at least has some substance.

[mtls2005]

The famed defense lawyer and self-described liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton 

 

He likes to "say" he voted for Hilary. He also said Claus von Bulow and O.J. were "not guilty".

 

"How do you know when a lawyer is lying?"

 

That said, assuming he's registered in MA, Clinton won by 900,000 votes so his vote for Trump wouldn't have held much sway.

 

 

[soalbundy]

Trump has shown the world that with money anyone, just anyone can be president of the USA

[Rob13]

7 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Trump has shown the world that with money anyone, just anyone can be president of the USA

 

For a little while  anyway.

[riclag]

8 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

So, if I understand you correctly, you are complaining that this investigation (being led by the Republican majority) is being conducted in the Benghazi/email fashion? I would disagree. This investigation at least has some substance.

 I'm not complaining .I just think the only substance this conspiracy has is that the Russian's according to three  confirmed intel agencies tried to interfere in the election.They have in all Election's since WW 11 and probably before that.How they interfered was through propaganda . Their is no evidence of obstruction, collusion or vote tampering .

 

The only reason this election stands out more then in past mud slinging contest's ,was the way Trump's campaign team used the controversy surrounding Clinton ,through Wikileaks,Clinton email server, Podesta's email account Phishing ,Project Veritas video's, Clinton Global Fund and the multiple Clinton Scandal's  .

 

The controversial manner about Trump's character and view's and how he expresses them,along with the fact that he isn't a politician and wasn't suppose to win where significant cause for many people,including establishment and many new's media around the world to vehemently oppose him.  The very people that oppose him,Republican's and Democrat's ,called for the investigation .

 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

 

(No evidence)

https://spectator.org/democratic-senators-have-seen-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion/

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/19/maxine-waters-admits-there-is-no-evidence-of-trump-colluding-with-russia/

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/05/sen-feinstein-after-cia-briefing-still-no-evidence-of-trump-campaign-collusion-with-russia/

 

 

(intel agencies)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by riclag

[heybruce]

46 minutes ago, riclag said:

 I'm not complaining .I just think the only substance this conspiracy has is that the Russian's according to three  confirmed intel agencies tried to interfere in the election.They have in all Election's since WW 11 and probably before that.How they interfered was through propaganda . Their is no evidence of obstruction, collusion or vote tampering .

 

The only reason this election stands out more then in past mud slinging contest's ,was the way Trump's campaign team used the controversy surrounding Clinton ,through Wikileaks,Clinton email server, Podesta's email account Phishing ,Project Veritas video's, Clinton Global Fund and the multiple Clinton Scandal's  .

 

The controversial manner about Trump's character and view's and how he expresses them,along with the fact that he isn't a politician and wasn't suppose to win where significant cause for many people,including establishment and many new's media around the world to vehemently oppose him.  The very people that oppose him,Republican's and Democrat's ,called for the investigation .

 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

 

(No evidence)

https://spectator.org/democratic-senators-have-seen-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion/

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/19/maxine-waters-admits-there-is-no-evidence-of-trump-colluding-with-russia/

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/05/sen-feinstein-after-cia-briefing-still-no-evidence-of-trump-campaign-collusion-with-russia/

 

 

(intel agencies)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0

 

"The only reason this election stands out more then in past mud slinging contest's ,was the way Trump's campaign team used the controversy surrounding Clinton ,through Wikileaks,Clinton email server, Podesta's email account Phishing ,Project Veritas video's, Clinton Global Fund and the multiple Clinton Scandal's  ."

 

There's no denying the Trump campaign was exceptionally good at mud-slinging, and suspiciously good at using fake news stories from the internet that were suspected of being of Russian origin.

 

However, this administration stands out for lowering ethical and transparency standards to unprecedented levels (not releasing tax records, not putting financial interests in a blind trust, nepotism, not releasing White House visitor logs, etc.), and stands out for amateurism in office (firing the FBI chief investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russia, the White House staff releasing statements that are then contradicted by the President, administration officials who "forgot" to list contacts with high ranking Russian's and payments from other countries, etc.).  All presidents are targets for critics, incompetent presidents are irresistibly easy targets. 

 

As much as the Trumpies want everyone to accept that Trump won and stop asking questions, people who care about democracy want to know how Russia attempted to interfere in the election, how well it succeeded, and what can be done to prevent them from doing it again.

[Traveler19491]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 I'm not complaining .I just think the only substance this conspiracy has is that the Russian's according to three  confirmed intel agencies tried to interfere in the election.They have in all Election's since WW 11 and probably before that.How they interfered was through propaganda . Their is no evidence of obstruction, collusion or vote tampering .

 

The only reason this election stands out more then in past mud slinging contest's ,was the way Trump's campaign team used the controversy surrounding Clinton ,through Wikileaks,Clinton email server, Podesta's email account Phishing ,Project Veritas video's, Clinton Global Fund and the multiple Clinton Scandal's  .

 

The controversial manner about Trump's character and view's and how he expresses them,along with the fact that he isn't a politician and wasn't suppose to win where significant cause for many people,including establishment and many new's media around the world to vehemently oppose him.  The very people that oppose him,Republican's and Democrat's ,called for the investigation .

 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

 

(No evidence)

https://spectator.org/democratic-senators-have-seen-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion/

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/19/maxine-waters-admits-there-is-no-evidence-of-trump-colluding-with-russia/

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/05/sen-feinstein-after-cia-briefing-still-no-evidence-of-trump-campaign-collusion-with-russia/

 

 

(intel agencies)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hack-report.html?_r=0

 

I would disagree, strongly. The primary reason this election stands out (and there are many, such as unprecedented efforts to disenfranchise minority voters, the levels of racist rhetoric, the encouragement by Trump toward violence against protestors, and a plethora of others) is the interference of a foreign power into American democracy, something that Trump et al have yet to condemn. While you assert that they have interfered in all elections since WWII, never have their efforts been so robust or so intrusive. The fact that you are so passive about a foreign actor (and one that happens to be massively antagonistic toward the U. S.) that worked so hard to influence our election process is, to me, indicative of an unwillingness to see this for the threat that it actually is. To bring it down to a more practical level, I suspect that were I (or anyone else) to contact your significant other and insinuate that I couldn't be certain, but I believe you had been seen going into a hotel with someone not them, your objections might be a bit more strenuous. There was no collusion, no obstruction, and no direct tampering, just a little "fake news".

 

No, at this point there is admittedly no hard evidence that proves wrongdoing. The key words being "at this point". The investigation is young, and as has been observed in another thread, these things can take months, if not years (just ask Hillary). There was no evidence against Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon...initially. However, there are too many unanswered questions that this so-called President refuses to answer that need answering. Ergo, the investigation will continue until those questions are answered, and along the way, it is entirely possible that evidence will be uncovered that will stain numerous others. 

 

Trump's continued refusal to be completely open and transparent is fueling the questions to a large extent, and the question remains...if he has nothing to hide, then why is he so determined to shut the investigation down rather than volunteer any and all information? Rather than open himself up for all to see? As I mentioned on another thread...there are only three possibilities. First, he and his compatriots are innocent, in which case his transparency would vindicate all of them and give him crowing rights over his opponents. Second, he is innocent but his subordinates are guilty. Again, his openness would vindicate him. However, his ignorance of what has transpired all around him would be a condemnation of his qualification to serve as President due to his inability to control those who supposedly answer to him. Third, they are all guilty. This is the only reasonable answer as to why he is so vehemently opposed to the ongoing investigation, and to why his subordinates are so readily backing this opposition.

 

The fact is that until Trump opens up and comes clean concerning all aspects of his Presidency, the questions will continue. His secretiveness flies in the face of the fact that he is not an emperor. He is (supposedly) the servant of the American people and he owes transparency to those he (supposedly) serves. Trump's opposition has little to do with the fact that he "wasn't supposed to win". That may have been true initially, but the ever-mounting opposition to him comes as the result of his consistent display of his ignorance and lack of qualification to serve. The man is an idiot who can't even be bothered to heed the advice of his counselors, even when it would go far toward shielding him from the very attacks he whines about. He is his own worst enemy.

[boomerangutang]

17 hours ago, johnnywishbone said:

"Unidentified or unnamed or confidential sources" translates to liberal lie. Banned again?

                             I've said it before and I'll probably say it many times again;  quoting 'unnamed or anonymous sources' is a common tool for accepted standard of good news reporting.  It's been done for hundreds of years.  

 

                    In the current Russia/WH imbroglio, it's necessary because many of the sources still work within gov't, and risk immediate firing by Trump, if they're found out.  

 

                       Trump won't fire Russian agents (Kushner and others) working alongside him in the Oval Office, but he will fire Comey and others who are doing their jobs according to gov't mandates.

 

                       It's possible the news sources are wrong, but the vast majority of the time, the Mainstream media have been correct.  If/when they're wrong, which is seldom, they quickly issue a retraction.  That's the opposite policy of Trump and his rotten-to-the-core buddies.

 

Trump continues to bleat 'fake news' like a skipping record.  That silly excuse got soggy, months ago. 

[boomerangutang]

                                3 months ago, USA made a detailed list of 20 times where Trump and/or his close associates denied any of them had any dealings with the Russians.  TWENTY TIMES !

 

usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/

 

                       Some of them, like Sessions and Flynn, lied about it under oath.  In a way, Trump is under oath also:  He took an oath to the American people on Jan 20, to uphold the laws of the land.  I don't think lying continuously  -is in accordance with that.  In other words, Trump has broken a solemn oath. 

 

    President

 Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus have for months claimed that no one from the Trump campaign had communications with Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia. It is now clear that these claims were false.

As Russia — according to multiple U.S. intelligence agencies — worked to interfere in the 2016 presidential election to aid Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton, Trump and his team claimed total ignorance. But at least four Trump campaign figures apparently met with the Russian ambassador and/or other Putin representatives.  

SOURCE