Peterw42 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said: Well, he did share information that had been entrusted to the USA by an ally on the condition that it be kept confidential. And then he confirmed that the ally was Israel. He also was very successful in selectively leaking his "only" good tax return. I suppose thats an acceptable leak in the eyes of Trumpsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterw42 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said: you personally may not like that he shared what he shared but he has executive privilege to act as he sees fit. When you become president you can show the world how its done. As in one good tax return ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Thea01 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 15 minutes ago, Peterw42 said: He also was very successful in selectively leaking his "only" good tax return. I suppose thats an acceptable leak in the eyes of Trumpsters. He may have, he may not have. If congress has no idea who leaked it and if they're investigating and not you then please enlighten us as to how you ae so adamant that it was Trump. And no, no leaks are acceptable regardless of who is responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterw42 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said: He may have, he may not have. If congress has no idea who leaked it and if they're investigating and not you then please enlighten us as to how you ae so adamant that it was Trump. And no, no leaks are acceptable regardless of who is responsible. You honestly think that the leaking of a single Tax return, that makes Trump look good, is a coincidence ? If they are all that good, why not release them all. Maybe I am getting cynical in my old age, but that is so obviously a Trump leak, I cant see how anyone could defend it as otherwise. And dont forget, It had "Client Copy" stamped on it, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said: He may have, he may not have. If congress has no idea who leaked it and if they're investigating and not you then please enlighten us as to how you ae so adamant that it was Trump. And no, no leaks are acceptable regardless of who is responsible. So much for whistleblowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterw42 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Not sure if anyone has noticed the Fox spin on any trump negative leak is "Forget about the content, Find the leaker, we have a leak problem" The spin on a trump positive leak is "report the content, well done leaker" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogandave Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Yes. In your mind guilty or not. Typical liberal rabble. Loses an election and ready to overturn the legal government. Shame on you. Only when he's found guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLC Survivor Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 48 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said: He may have, he may not have. If congress has no idea who leaked it and if they're investigating and not you then please enlighten us as to how you ae so adamant that it was Trump. And no, no leaks are acceptable regardless of who is responsible. Perhaps you might like to tell us which House or Senate Sub Committee or which Federal Agency is investigating the release of the two pages of Trump's tax return for that particular year? You seem to have tripped over this nothing-burger narrative that is being peddled by the fanboys and landed face down in the dirt. Better luck next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F4UCorsair Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Peterw42 said: There is a broad investigation into Russia trying to influence the election, lots of indisputable evidence. As "part" of that broad investigation, there is also an investigation into possible collusion etc. The investigation is into Russian melding, and to a lesser extent trump, or any, collusion. A big part of Comeys testimony was, Yes the Russians tried to influence, yes there is evidence, Trump is doing nothing about the Major issue of Russian meddling and everything about defending the smaller part of the investigation, collusion. Indisputable evidence has been produced for 90% of the investigation, and the 10% is still being looked into, who were they talking to. The 10% is what was discussed in the closed sessions, thats why it is a closed session, they have stuff to talk about. Give me a call when he's impeached AND convicted. Until then..........boring!! Edited June 12, 2017 by F4UCorsair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 On 6/10/2017 at 11:39 AM, Usernames said: It is not illegal for Americans to talk with Russians. No, it's not, but if you are a politician or an appointed official that is one of the things you have to report--it is a fact Flynn and Sessions did not report all their contacts with the Russians. Kushner's back channel is also not unusual, except for the fact he was trying to do it with Russian intelligence communications not transparent to the US--Hello, is anyone in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Thea01 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 2 hours ago, CLC Survivor said: Perhaps you might like to tell us which House or Senate Sub Committee or which Federal Agency is investigating the release of the two pages of Trump's tax return for that particular year? You seem to have tripped over this nothing-burger narrative that is being peddled by the fanboys and landed face down in the dirt. Better luck next time. I was lucky to not trip over you, seeing you were there first. Who said anything about them investigating the two leaked pages. I certainly didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F4UCorsair Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 8 hours ago, mogandave said: Until the buffoon is impeached or incarcerated! Is that long enough? Better order 8 years' supply of popcorn and beer then. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Thea01 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said: So much for whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is totally different as any intelligent person knows. Leaking is premeditated and designed to deliberately hurt one person or another, which everything coming out now unfortunately being designed to derail the POTUS. Comey did a fine job of that with his alleged contemporaneous notes. I wouldn't trust anything that he has to say and he has no one to corroborate what he is alleging so his word against Trump. And please don't come back with the spiel of Trump being a prolific liar whilst Comey is the heavenly angel and wouldn't dare to lie under oath. If you think that, well what can one say, I know, naïve springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Si Thea01 said: Whistleblowing is totally different as any intelligent person knows. Leaking is premeditated and designed to deliberately hurt one person or another, which everything coming out now unfortunately being designed to derail the POTUS. Comey did a fine job of that with his alleged contemporaneous notes. I wouldn't trust anything that he has to say and he has no one to corroborate what he is alleging so his word against Trump. And please don't come back with the spiel of Trump being a prolific liar whilst Comey is the heavenly angel and wouldn't dare to lie under oath. If you think that, well what can one say, I know, naïve springs to mind. Incoherent much? So when information is leaked that hurts a person, no matter what that person has done, even if said person has committed improper acts, then it's not whistleblowing? Or is it only not whistleblowing when it concerns Donald Trump. They way you constructed your sentence - jumping from a generalization to what whistleblowing is to the particular case of Donald Trump, it's impossible to decode. And who cares who you wouldn't trust? And who are to rule out the fact that Trump is a prolific liar? Maybe next you'll be saying not tell you that 2+2=4. How anybody could think that Donald Trump's massive history of lying - lying about things he's been recorded saying on videotape - and not just once but times almost past counting - is irrelevant is beyond me. Who's being naive? Someone who takes the word of a constant and unremitting liar over a person who has not been shown to lie I think qualifies that person to be called a massively and sadly naive. There are plenty of honorable people out there willing to vouch for the honesty of James Comey. Who in their right mind could say the same of Donald Trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler19491 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 5 hours ago, JHolmesJr said: you personally may not like that he shared what he shared but he has executive privilege to act as he sees fit. When you become president you can show the world how its done. What part of "entrusted with" do you not get? A key ally of ours in the fight against terrorism had their trust betrayed by a simpleton who feels it necessary to share our most highly guarded secrets with a hostile foreign power for no other reason than to brag. It has already been stipulated numerous times that he has the authority to share classified information with whomever he chooses. However, the wisdom or advisability of doing to is another thing entirely. Using your highly flawed logic, he has the authority to launch nuclear missiles whenever he chooses. After all, he is the President and Commander-in-Chief. However, that might not be the most prudent thing he could do. Similar to sharing classified data with an enemy. Let me put it in language you might have an easier time understanding...it was stupid. But then, America and the world have come to expect little more from the orange one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said: What part of "entrusted with" do you not get? A key ally of ours in the fight against terrorism had their trust betrayed by a simpleton who feels it necessary to share our most highly guarded secrets with a hostile foreign power for no other reason than to brag. It has already been stipulated numerous times that he has the authority to share classified information with whomever he chooses. However, the wisdom or advisability of doing to is another thing entirely. Using your highly flawed logic, he has the authority to launch nuclear missiles whenever he chooses. After all, he is the President and Commander-in-Chief. However, that might not be the most prudent thing he could do. Similar to sharing classified data with an enemy. Let me put it in language you might have an easier time understanding...it was stupid. But then, America and the world have come to expect little more from the orange one. the leaps you make are staggering….what part of "you are not the president" do you not get? he hasn't broken any laws just gone against your way of doing things….which is inconsequential. Edited June 12, 2017 by JHolmesJr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler19491 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Just now, JHolmesJr said: he shared some stuff that you don't approve of….but which he has authority to do so. So now you think he's gonna fire off some nukes…without checking with you. And precisely where did I infer that he needed to check with me? Talk about leaps. You are deflecting and refusing to answer my argument. I already acknowledged that he had to authority, then used a simple example to illustrate why doing so was probably not the wisest thing he could have done. As you usually do, you spout some ridiculous drivel but refuse to directly answer any direct arguments. On numerous occasions, you have been provided with facts by a variety of individuals on TV, all of which you consistently ignore, spout some childish nonsense, then try to change the subject. Typical trumpette. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said: the leaps you make are staggering….what part of "you are not the president" do you not get? he hasn't broken any laws just gone against your way of doing things….which is inconsequential. "Hasn't broken any laws?" Well there's the ongoing investigations regarding collusion, obstruction, and now, corruption.... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/major-lawsuit-against-trump-promised-d-c-maryland-officials-n770846 But don't let that get in the way of your non-stop hero worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickb Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 I agree with Usernames about Comey's notes. They were produced while on the job, not after he was fired. Therefore, they are federal property and Comey could(?) be guilty of leaking federal property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F4UCorsair Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) Can we have an end to the patronizing/ condescending, "What part of ............. don't you get/understand"? It's so passe, and just plain silly. I think this thread has run its course, same old lines being regurgitated. Edited June 12, 2017 by F4UCorsair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, rickb said: I agree with Usernames about Comey's notes. They were produced while on the job, not after he was fired. Therefore, they are federal property and Comey could(?) be guilty of leaking federal property. Can you cite a law against "leaking federal property"? Here - this might help: Trump's real estate lawyer says Comey violated executive privilege by "leaking" his personal notes. Ten legal experts say he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Flaming post and a reply have been removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Thea01 Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 45 minutes ago, attrayant said: Can you cite a law against "leaking federal property"? Here - this might help: Trump's real estate lawyer says Comey violated executive privilege by "leaking" his personal notes. Ten legal experts say he didn't. Here's another that might help you. 18 U.S.C. § 641 provides that it is a federal crime to, without authority, convey a record of the United States, in this case an FBI record he admits under oath he leaked after being fired.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Traveler19491 said: Typical trumpette. Pathetic. wow…..you make a compelling argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Berkshire said: "Hasn't broken any laws?" Well there's the ongoing investigations regarding collusion, obstruction, and now, corruption.... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/major-lawsuit-against-trump-promised-d-c-maryland-officials-n770846 But don't let that get in the way of your non-stop hero worship. ongoing……but as yet inconsequential. Keep praying for the next 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thakkar Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 6 hours ago, Peterw42 said: Not sure if anyone has noticed the Fox spin on any trump negative leak is "Forget about the content, Find the leaker, we have a leak problem" The spin on a trump positive leak is "report the content, well done leaker" Their take on any leak that even slightly tarnish Clinton: LOCK HER UP!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLC Survivor Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Si Thea01 said: I was lucky to not trip over you, seeing you were there first. Who said anything about them investigating the two leaked pages. I certainly didn't? Post 241 And POst 243 These pretty much demonstrate that you have no relationship with the truth. Like your hero, just deny and fib and distract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thakkar Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said: <snip> There are plenty of honorable people out there willing to vouch for the honesty of James Comey. Who in their right mind could say the same of Donald Trump? To be fair, Si Thea01 appears to be vouching for Trump. Si Thea01 is no doubt honorable, his only known crime being a frequenter of TVf—an act while shameful, is one that you and I are in no position to condemn. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Their take on any leak that even slightly tarnish Clinton: LOCK HER UP!!Yeah. No need to lock up the clown President. Just kick him to the curb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jingthing said: Yeah. No need to lock up the clown President. Just kick him to the curb. lets all pummel mr trump with our handbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now