Brantt wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Think it's funny that the WH is deploying a billionaire investor ally to "investigate" the Intel leaks...Trumps biggest mistake was dissing the intelligence apparatus that controls everything. Let's be honest...presidents are more or less powerless to control this...intelligence community can bring down anyone Ina heartbeat if they want to

Totally agree with this. It's dead on.

Trump was stupid to attack the intelligence community. What did he think would happen?

Brantt wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Brantt wrote:
I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, that if they had proof he was 1% bought and paid for it would have been leaked months ago.

Again though, just going out on a limb there.

what's the term I'm searching for?

Oh, yeah:

LOL

Yes, I'm sure the national media is sitting on a proof of Trump-Russia collusion. I guess they are just waiting for the right time to release it.

LOL indeed.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Brantt wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Think it's funny that the WH is deploying a billionaire investor ally to "investigate" the Intel leaks...Trumps biggest mistake was dissing the intelligence apparatus that controls everything. Let's be honest...presidents are more or less powerless to control this...intelligence community can bring down anyone Ina heartbeat if they want to

Totally agree with this. It's dead on.

Trump was stupid to attack the intelligence community. What did he think would happen?

You assume that there is logic or reasoning behind his knee-jerk impulse to insult anyone who challenges him.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Brantt wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Brantt wrote:
I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, that if they had proof he was 1% bought and paid for it would have been leaked months ago.

Again though, just going out on a limb there.

what's the term I'm searching for?

Oh, yeah:

LOL

Yes, I'm sure the national media is sitting on a proof of Trump-Russia collusion. I guess they are just waiting for the right time to release it.

LOL indeed.

Huh? The media sits on stories all the time, sometimes for maximum exposure but most often because they haven't been able to confirm them sufficiently.

Brantt wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Brantt wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Brantt wrote:
I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, that if they had proof he was 1% bought and paid for it would have been leaked months ago.

Again though, just going out on a limb there.

what's the term I'm searching for?

Oh, yeah:

LOL

Yes, I'm sure the national media is sitting on a proof of Trump-Russia collusion. I guess they are just waiting for the right time to release it.

LOL indeed.

Huh? The media sits on stories all the time, sometimes for maximum exposure but most often because they haven't been able to confirm them sufficiently.

Come on. In this climate?

For God sake there was a media organization that released the absurd dossier.

Brantt wrote:
Come on. In this climate?

For God sake there was a media organization that released the absurd dossier.

Brantt wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Well Brantt in all seriousness how do you explain all these ties between Trump and his people and Russia? And what would you say of it if it were Hillary?

What are the ties between Trump and Russia? Are you speaking of how he talks about Putin publicly? His hosting pageants?

In terms of Manafort, Carter Page and Flynn, it was well known they all had significant business dealings in Russia long before Trump ran for president. Hell, Carter Page probably made 9 figures for himself working with Russian energy companies, 8 at a minimum. So did people in the Clinton campaign starting with John Podesta who had huge money deals in the recent past with Russia.

I don't find anything nefarious about these guys (including Podesta) talking to people in Russia. The NYT story even laid out the caveat that contact with Russian intelligence for people who do business there is not uncommon, and more importantly there was absolutely no evidence found of collaboration of any kind.

I mean if you read the actual NYT article, and then watch CNN or MSNBC, you'd have no clue the talking heads were actually referring to the article. To date, there's absolutely nothing there. Nobody from the Trump administration has broken the law (again, based on what's been reported). Wild speculation and innuendo do nothing for me unless we are talking about college football recruiting.

That being said, people in the intelligence community recording the phone calls of a private citizen and releasing them to the media is a felony. People are so hell bent on trying to take down Trump they are resorting to tactics we see used in Banana Republics.

Brantt wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Well Brantt in all seriousness how do you explain all these ties between Trump and his people and Russia? And what would you say of it if it were Hillary?

What are the ties between Trump and Russia? Are you speaking of how he talks about Putin publicly? His hosting pageants?

In terms of Manafort, Carter Page and Flynn, it was well known they all had significant business dealings in Russia long before Trump ran for president. Hell, Carter Page probably made 9 figures for himself working with Russian energy companies, 8 at a minimum. So did people in the Clinton campaign starting with John Podesta who had huge money deals in the recent past with Russia.

I don't find anything nefarious about these guys (including Podesta) talking to people in Russia. The NYT story even laid out the caveat that contact with Russian intelligence for people who do business there is not uncommon, and more importantly there was absolutely no evidence found of collaboration of any kind.

I mean if you read the actual NYT article, and then watch CNN or MSNBC, you'd have no clue the talking heads were actually referring to the article. To date, there's absolutely nothing there. Nobody from the Trump administration has broken the law (again, based on what's been reported). Wild speculation and innuendo do nothing for me unless we are talking about college football recruiting.

That being said, people in the intelligence community recording the phone calls of a private citizen and releasing them to the media is a felony. People are so hell bent on trying to take down Trump they are resorting to tactics we see used in Banana Republics.

Brantt wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:Think it's funny that the WH is deploying a billionaire investor ally to "investigate" the Intel leaks...Trumps biggest mistake was dissing the intelligence apparatus that controls everything. Let's be honest...presidents are more or less powerless to control this...intelligence community can bring down anyone Ina heartbeat if they want to

Totally agree with this. It's dead on.

Trump was stupid to attack the intelligence community. What did he think would happen?

slugsrbad wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:I know Phred has been posting updates, but I just saw a CNN article on how 48 Jewish Community Centers in 27 states and one Canadian province received bomb threats in January. FFS America.

Is this the "love" our so-called President promised us yesterday?

I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that he started his question about antisemitism by touting his electoral victory, and never mentioned antisemitism. I assume that it's the "every other thing" in the quote "(w)e are going to do everything in our power to stop racism and every other thing that's going on."

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Brantt wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Brantt wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Brantt wrote:
I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, that if they had proof he was 1% bought and paid for it would have been leaked months ago.

Again though, just going out on a limb there.

what's the term I'm searching for?

Oh, yeah:

LOL

Yes, I'm sure the national media is sitting on a proof of Trump-Russia collusion. I guess they are just waiting for the right time to release it.

LOL indeed.

Huh? The media sits on stories all the time, sometimes for maximum exposure but most often because they haven't been able to confirm them sufficiently.

Come on. In this climate?

For God sake there was a media organization that released the absurd dossier.

And all of those media organizations had that dossier for months. It was only released by BuzzFeed after the story was published about the POTUS/PEOTUS briefings about the existence of the dossier.

So you're proving my point.

slugsrbad wrote:

Brantt wrote:
Come on. In this climate?

For God sake there was a media organization that released the absurd dossier.

The media maybe learning. Trump had to actually take action on Flynn because the story was fully vetted and verified by nine separate sources. It's not something he can shout down as fake news with any actual belief that it's false. The best way to derail Trump in the media is through specifics and thorough verification.

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946

Brantt wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Brantt wrote:
Come on. In this climate?

For God sake there was a media organization that released the absurd dossier.

The media maybe learning. Trump had to actually take action on Flynn because the story was fully vetted and verified by nine separate sources. It's not something he can shout down as fake news with any actual belief that it's false. The best way to derail Trump in the media is through specifics and thorough verification.

Trump fired Flynn because Flynn made Pence look horrible. He didn't fire him for anything he did other than lying to Pence.

JFLNYC wrote:Just to be clear, the recording of the calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador was legal. The leaking of the information may well have been a crime.

But so what? Find the leaker and punish him or her but it doesn't mean the conversations didn't happen. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.

These are two separate issues. In a saner world everyone would simply agree that both need thorough investigations, as does the contacts between Trump advisers and a nation which tried to disrupt and influence our election and, for that matter, the leaks coming out of the WH itself.

It's really not that hard to understand if we all take off our partisan hats for a moment and think like patriotic Americans. There's a lot of behavior going on which could undermine our security. Investigate it all. If we can spend the time and money on multiple investigations into whether our former SOS' emails confirming her hairdressing appointments fell into enemy hands, we can certainly afford the same time and effort on these issues of national security.

slugsrbad wrote:

Brantt wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Brantt wrote:
Come on. In this climate?

For God sake there was a media organization that released the absurd dossier.

The media maybe learning. Trump had to actually take action on Flynn because the story was fully vetted and verified by nine separate sources. It's not something he can shout down as fake news with any actual belief that it's false. The best way to derail Trump in the media is through specifics and thorough verification.

Trump fired Flynn because Flynn made Pence look horrible. He didn't fire him for anything he did other than lying to Pence.

If that's true, then why didn't he fire him in January when it was first brought to his attention that he lied to Pence? It's not that he made Pence look horrible, it's that it became public.

slugsrbad wrote:Trump had to actually take action on Flynn because the story was fully vetted and verified by nine separate sources.

drsmooth wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Trump had to actually take action on Flynn because the story was fully vetted and verified by nine separate sources.

it's those 'sources' - probably others who haven't chimed in yet - that hold the pertinent info. Brantt(LOL) somehow imagines anyone cares what "the media" has.