Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 766 of 4573 (806892)
04-28-2017 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 765 by marc9000
04-28-2017 10:13 PM


On the media and the Trump issues.
My biggest beef with the media and this whole Trump thing is how they Trumpet this big "whitelash" story about Trump voters without adequate controls to parse and disambiguate the multi layered details.
The best example is the issue of immigration policy views among the Red States.
Look at exit polls from the states of Georgia and Texas for example.
You will see that something like 80% of voters opposed deportation and infact supported a pathway to citizenship.
(It should be admitted that Trump supporters themselves will promote the false narrative of the immigration policy views of the nation . Faith told me that the exit polls are wrong. I challenge Faith and others to show me where the Texas exit polls are wrong when they can be tested against the actual voting results. The exit polls showed Trump winning the male vote 57% to 37% and loosing female Texans 49% to 47%. The exit polls seemed to match the actual 52% to 43% Trump winning margin so how could the immigration policy views be too far off? )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 765 by marc9000, posted 04-28-2017 10:13 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 775 of 4573 (807396)
05-02-2017 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 773 by Phat
05-02-2017 9:50 PM


Media right or left? It might miss the point.
It overlooks the blatant dishonesty that is far more significant than attempting to pin a label.
The situation in Syria is a good example.
We keep hearing that Assad is to blame for the 500,000 deaths in Syria and he is often portrayed as killing 500,000 civilians.
We never hear about how our allies ( like Turkey ) have spent their efforts fighting the Kurds instead of fighting ISIS (a group that has slaughtered almost 100,000 Kurds once our CIA funded "moderate rebels " caused Assad to have to abandon Kurdish parts of Syria in the east so his internationally recognized government could barely defend itself against ISIS and the "moderates " in the west Syrian country ).
Assad is to blame for the situation in east Syria?
And half of the 500,000 deaths are Syrian government troops fighting the brutal civilian murdering ISIS.
As for the 2 chemical weapon incidents (2013 and again in 2017) that killed a few dozen civilians, France just said its greatest proof is something Assad defenders never challenged to start with - the fact that the Assad government produced the chemical weapons initially. The issue is not who produced them, but who used them in a country that has seen a long civil war with the government usually out of control in most of the country (and specifically in the 2 areas where the chemical weapons were used ).
Amazing that the total number of people killed by chemical weapons in Syria is such a small number yet we are supposed to swallow the media propaganda that Assad has waged a chemical weapons war.
2 whole uses in this long bloody civil war?
The Syrian government used them?
Really?
Did I mention that the only stated United States rationale for attacking the Syrian government has been ( for a half decade ) based on whether or not Assad uses chemical weapons!
Can someone say "false flag " !
Now, is our media warmongering "right wing" or moderate or liberal?
It is almost beside the point.
The situation is first and foremost SCARY.
Acknowledging that first things first should take precedent over ideological labeling, then we can attempt to classify the media ideological situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by Phat, posted 05-02-2017 9:50 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 780 of 4573 (807553)
05-03-2017 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 776 by marc9000
05-03-2017 8:46 PM


Re: Dr. Adequate dances for the news media
quote:
the U. S. has for 75 years or more concentrated on making money. The big recent shift has been so much more of the population demanding more and more routine living expenses be paid by society at large. Today's demand for free health care would have been laughable only 50 years ago.
You assume that there are no pro-growth arguments for issues like free daycare, single payer healthcare, and free college.
There was just an academic study that shows that free daycare brings back 7.3 dollars in saved spending in other areas of the government budget and/or brought in revenue for every dollar spent. I will try to find the story.
Single payer healthcare tends to lower the healthcare costs businesses pay and it is a big argument that its proponents make. Vermonters were sick of loosing jobs to Canada due to lower business expenses.
The benefits of free college speaks for itself and New York had it for over 100 years until the 1970s.
Conservative Californian had it till Reagan became Governor ( I have been told this anyway )
Keep K to 12 free and like 90% will agree today as they would have 50 years ago.
TRUMP ISSUE
Trump being attacked is no proof of liberal bias. He is often attacked for being too anti war. Hillary Clinton just attacked him for his heretical willingness to engage in unilateral talks with North Korea. He was attacked for his opposition to overthrowing Assad too.
The media attempted to sink him in the GOP primary and they did so in a way that made the other GOP radicals seem moderate or at least that's the way the media presentation went. The media thought Trump would collapse so they thought they were helping the eventual GOP nominee.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by marc9000, posted 05-03-2017 8:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 783 by marc9000, posted 05-04-2017 8:05 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 781 of 4573 (807558)
05-04-2017 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by marc9000
05-03-2017 8:46 PM


Total healthcare spending in other countries less than government alone pays here.
Before Obama Care came along, the total United States per person healthcare spending BY THE GOVERNMENT ALONE was more than the combined government/private yearly per person bills in all but 3 countries.
FAQ's - PNHP
60.5% was payed by the government.
So we can easily see that single payer healthcare tends to have GDP costs quite a ways lower than the present system (5% of GDP typically ).
See link for the ways taxpayers shell out for health care in #41 which is on same page I linked.
Even conservatives admit that the majority of Americans supported socialism for a LONG time.
Listen to the GOP Senators oppose Trump's recent call to abolish the filibuster.
quote:
He clearly hasn't served in the legislative body
Had we not had the filibuster this country would have been gone a long time [ago ], would have gone straight to socialism
-Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah)-
Bob Corker of Tennessee said:
quote:
I do wish somebody would take his iPhone away from him
We need to understand that the government programs that are attacked as socialist have been popular for a long time and the biggest ones would actually be able to get a "pro economic growth " seal in an honest and accurate description. ( I say that as someone who is going to dislike alot of typical features of a single payer plan. At least the typical ones that are offered. But my problems will never be against the pro economic growth results which are a completely separate issue. )
In defense of your post Marc9000, I must admit that the right wing echo chamber always seems to be in the thick of the woods TOTALLY LOST on the economic growth that a typical single payer healthcare system would bring. The confusion you have displayed clearly is due to your listening to the echo chamber uncritically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by marc9000, posted 05-03-2017 8:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 784 by marc9000, posted 05-04-2017 8:12 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 786 of 4573 (807693)
05-04-2017 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 783 by marc9000
05-04-2017 8:05 PM


New York Daily News dishonest 2000 word Opinion,A World of Hurt, by Brian Klaas
A two page monster by a London School of Economics comparative politics fellow which devoted the entire article to foreign policy, with about a third on Syria.
An amazing piece of crap that shows the utter dishonesty (and outright danderousness on Trump's so-called "bluffing " on North Korea ) of the United States news media.
Subtitled, Trump's Foreign Policy is a Mess. April 30,217
quote:
. P 35
To his credit, Trump rightly bombed Syria...
....
We know just how muddled Trump's thinking is because he repeatedly condemned any airstrikes on Syria under Obama, even when Assad had killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and used chemical weapons...
Not a single mention of ISIS or Obama administration CIA training and arming the rebels (not a single mentioning of rebel fighters period, just lies about civilians and so-called "Inaction " by Obama plus attacking Trump for Assad remaining in power)
Not a single mention of ISIS.
And I have read British newspapers from a year ago that said that Assad's Alawite army has lost 250,000 troops and the men of fighting age are almost down to unsustainabley low numbers.
Failure to mention ISIS while making an effort to pretend like there is sympathy for dead Syrian civilians is noteworthy dishonesty.
Needless to say, there was no attempt to parse the 500,000 deaths which would result in a breakdown into deaths of government troops, al Qaeda troops, ISIS troops, "moderate " rebel troops, etc. THEN we could look at the actual number of deaths among non-fighters or civilians.
The various regions of Syria should see the breakdown of the numbers of people killed.
The western coast is Alawite (dead there wouldn't be from Assad )
The south is Druze and Shi'a mostly. Assad wouldn't be to blame there.
The east has long been abandoned by Assad's troops but the slaughter there is most noteworthy when it comes to just how much slaughter there would be if Assad was totally out of the picture in the entire country.
The ISIS slaughter has been throughout the entire country and entire minority populations have been severely reduced.
The media is rotten to the core, but we suck just as badly if we don't care about the dishonesty itself but would rather make a lame ideological labeling argument instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 783 by marc9000, posted 05-04-2017 8:05 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 788 of 4573 (807703)
05-05-2017 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 784 by marc9000
05-04-2017 8:12 PM


The Constitution was already interpreted to allow spending from taxation.
The constitution was amended in 1913 to allow an income tax and it seems like it was done to facilitate an activist, interventionist foreign policy.
It was a liberal President and a supportive congress that brought it about. The legislation anyway.
There was a conservative move to outlaw war in the 20s. It was a movement called "outlawry" or something and it was debated seriously in the Senate.
Remember that taxes were brought up to about 77% of income for World War I and stayed over 60% even after cuts in the 20s. I think that they were cut from 77% down to 63% under Harding and then down to 25% under Coolidge ( just before the Depression ).
We had no permanent standing military until the 1860s and it seems like the government grew out of the military state that eventually became the norm.
War is a Racket was a good book from around 1930 and it was written by a General who served in endless interventions in Latin American countries during the time after the income tax became law.
Taxes went up from 25% in the beginning of the 30s to 91% and remained so all the way till the 60s.
91% was the rate for the top tier all the way through the good old days of the 50s.
The military adventures required higher tax rates when our national income was lower per person.
We have not been able to afford endlessly excessive military budgets but that doesn't mean we don't borrow and spend our national treasury into ever piling debt loads year after year.
The hawks just convinced Trump to commit to spending $23 billion a year in Afghanistan and the war machine has been busy to get us ever more involved in Syria.
Here is a post-election pattern I have noticed
quote:
New York Post
May 2,2017
Syria gov't in 4 'chem attacks'
New evidence indicates the Syrian government has used suspected nerve agents in four chemical-weapons attacks since December, including the devastating April 4 strike on Khan Sheikhoun , a human-rights group said Monday.
Human Rights Watch said the attacks "are part of a broader pattern of Syrian government forces' use of chemical weapons " that may constitute crimes against humanity.
AP
The media constantly includes Yemen in list of Arab Spring nations that haven't worked out without mentioning that we are supporting the viscous Saudi Arabia attacks that have killed 10,000 plus civilians. The same Saudi Arabia that has been funding the rebellion in Syria that has ruined the country and caused the civilian blood bath.
The Saudi Arabia that has a $65 billion yearly military budget.
The same Saudi Arabia that has been the major league source for the human body of all rebel groups.
The same rebels that have controlled most of Syria for over a decade.
An honest effort to try and get to the bottom of who is responsible for these chemical weapon incidents should be based on an analysis that considers which of the various player's will benefit from the limited use (thus difficult to identify the users of ) , limited death (little chance of changing war outcome by actual use of) on-the-ground situation as pertaining to the status quo ante (before the international reaction )conflict dynamic when combined with recognition of who will benefit from the likely dynamic from international players reaction to events.
We know that the military industrial complex benefits the most.
Taxes were 91% during the Eisenhower administration and he warned us.
The unconstitutional military state brought us the high debt and taxes. This has drained our nation and hurt the general welfare. The unproductive nature of the permanent burden has required government programs for social spending to make up for the hurting the excessive military spending has caused.
I suggest you follow the trail of money and see the forces that caused the constitutional interpretations to be considered in the first place.
These constitutional issues have been decided already anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by marc9000, posted 05-04-2017 8:12 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 810 of 4573 (808885)
05-14-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 800 by Taq
05-12-2017 1:22 PM


Watergate/Nixon and Trump. Parallels.
I was just reading todays New York Times , Book Review section, which had Joe Klein reviewing a Pat Buchanan book on "Nixon's White House Wars".
Trump was described as a reincarnation of Buchanan.
quote:
P. 32
Indeed, he's a reactionary who was also an avatar: the first Trumpist.
....
...issues that Buchanan has been thumping for the past 50 years, and that Donald Trump exploited in 2016. ...We are, for the moment, living in Pat Buchanan''s world.
Irony really comes in when tape recordings are mentioned.
quote:
Buchanan was boggled by Watergate, which he considered stupid. Why bug the Democrats when Nixon''s new majority is about to win bigly? Somehow he managed to skate through the scandal, compartmentalized, kept out of the loop, but asked for cleanup advice - and famously told Nixon to "burn the tapes ."
Trump seems to have tapes too?
Are there other parallels?
We know that Nixon thought that the plumbers were conducting a CIA operation ( to get "Bay of Pigs " files ) for CIA director Helms. Nixon thought his coverup was on behalf of a CIA operation.
Helms shouted to Nixon "This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bay of Pigs! "
Helms denial had to do with Nixon talking to him as if Watergate was a CIA operation over JFK files (thought to be deposited in Hank Greenspun's safe in Las Vegas and in the DNC headquarters ), and Helms (aware of the Plumbers and the coverup, but not aware of the Nixon tapes? ) was telling Nixon that this wasn't a CIA operation.
H. R. Haldeman wrote long ago that Nixon always used "Bay of Pigs" as code for the Kennedy assassination.
Nixon was obsessed with getting files on JFK assassination from Helms. After Helms refusing his requests, Helms gave him a thin little file, claiming it was all the CIA possessed on the "Bay of Pigs ".
Nixon knew it was HELMS offering a double book type of decoy file, and that the much thicker actual classified material was kept from him.
Nixon said (if I remember correctly ):
"Now we know that they [CIA] keep secrets from even the President of the United States "
Parallels?
Do you think Trump was asking Comey a bunch of questions about odd classified stuff?
Would Trump leaking recordings of the conversations be embarrassing to the FBI and CIA?
Is Trump about to go to war with the intelligence apparatus?
General Alexander Haige said, during the Watergate investigation (when the tapes became known ), " better the President alone goes down, instead of taking the entire intelligence apparatus along with him ". (my paraphrase but it is close to his words )
Trump won't roll over and he would surely rather bring down the alphabet intel agencies AND do it while preferably remaining on his own two feet .
I wonder if there are parallels.
Trump would not roll over so easily.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 1:22 PM Taq has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 811 of 4573 (808888)
05-14-2017 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by Taq
05-12-2017 1:22 PM


My reference to Haldeman was indeed timely.
I was wondering what his book was called, and mother of all coincidences, his book was recommended on the final page of the May 14, 2017 book review magazine of the Nyt .
Page 39 is Bookends, "What book would you recommend for America's current political moment? "
The first of 2 recommended older books , with the half page review, was Dark Money (by Jane Mayer ) recommended by Francine Prose.
The second and final recommended book was a recommendation by Thomas Mallon. The title was "There are flashes of recognition in H. R. Haldeman's chronicle of Richard Nixon's presidency. "
quote:
P 39
TRUMP-NIXON COMPARISONS are in vogue, and any consideration of them requires "The Haldeman Diaries," the indispensable narrative that Richard Nixon''s chief of staff, Harry Robbins (H. R. ) Haldeman, began keeping on Jan. 18, 1969, two days before the start of a presidency distinguished by bold foreign overtures : beset by Vietnam and domestic dissent : and destroyed, finally, by Watergate. Haldeman switched from handwriting the diaries to taping them late in 1970, only months before the White House, interested in better record-keeping, began tapping itself.
A review of A Man and His Presidents by Felzenberg ( on William F Buckley ) was a combo front page review story (with the Klein review of Buchanan book) under the title All The Right Moves.
The front page reviews were the start before each book got the review continued on an entire page (32 for Buchanan''s book and all of 33 for Felzenberg's book on Buckley )
The Buckley book review failed to make mention of the CIA operations of Buckley in 1952. ( no mention of the CIA in any reviews ).
Amazing since Buckley let it slip in 1973(?) that he was in the CIA, during a party. He said he was, barred by E Howard Hunt while in the agency, in a monumental slip during a casual conversation.
Had E Howard Hunt not been in the news as the lead Plumber arrested during Watergate, then Buckley might have gotten away with the slip, and his party chatting chaps might not have paid attention. But the fact that Hunt recruited him to do operations in Mexico became known. He said he left the CIA in 1952.
Hunt remained but said he left the CIA just before Watergate.
His son John Hunt taped his deathbed confession to the CIA involvement in the JFK assassination which he was a major operator in.
He said Watergate was a CIA operation.
To get JFK files.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 1:22 PM Taq has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 825 of 4573 (809197)
05-16-2017 9:55 PM


This can't be good timing for Trump.
I got the feeling that Trump was considering an argument line that he, on behalf of the American people, would try hard to get his eyes on all the classified secrets of the CIA & FBI, even if they want to hide it from the people ( or those looking out for them, such as Trump himself ).
It looked like he was teasing the fired FBI director with the dreaded Trump Tapes.
Trump wire-taps the FBI and threatened to give it nightmares in its sleep with the bad dream of Trump arguing over classified material being kept from the people's representatives.
Perhaps next year.
This isn't the time it seems.
(BTW I just read in the New York Times that Roger Stone is a day-long guest host for Alex Jones every single week! The intelligence agencies clearly are crapping out their pie holes in constant fear of Trump. )

Replies to this message:
 Message 827 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2017 9:59 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 835 of 4573 (809289)
05-17-2017 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 829 by marc9000
05-17-2017 5:28 PM


Re: What Republicans say: then and now
Russia isn't allied to any Sunni Muslim nations or entity so far as I know.
It is doubtful that Trump put any agents in danger unless you want to make a tangled web argument.
The only possible danger is that Russia might feel we are supporting Sunni Muslim extremists as opposed to simply collecting info about them from moles. Perhaps they might see these agents as pro terrorist enemies.
Russia is consistently anti extremist and it does rightly see us as highly inconsistent (to put it mildly ).
Anyway, the CIA and FBI are going to be looking for all kinds of 'impeachable ' offenses to be offended at during the Trump administration.
Trump normally would relish a fight with his hated enemies, but he surely knows the treacherous ground is risky here, due to the additional complications which include the numerical necessity of holding the Washington Republicans in his support camp. Nixon was toast once he lost the conservative Democrats in congress, and the vote numbers we thus pro impeachment
Trump might have the advantage of having a Democratic opposition as stinky as poop, but the intelligence agency politics involve forces far more powerful than a poopy opposition party.
Challenging dynamics for Trump.
And the risk he takes far more than political. The intelligence agencies clearly have the ability to make his political disagreements into crimes that can land you in prison.
He must know this.
For that reason, he might be really recording all of his conversations with the agencies that he legally is allowed to record.
He has to be careful there too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2017 5:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:09 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 837 of 4573 (809294)
05-17-2017 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 829 by marc9000
05-17-2017 5:28 PM


Oh, I don't think Trump has anything to fear on the alleged election collusion.
He relishes that investigation.
He does need to fear all the post January 20 accusations that the CIA will level against him.
Especially if he works hard to get allied with Russia.
This is a taste of what he will be dealing with.
Kennedy had to negotiate with Russia in secret as we all know what was said about him at the time. He was called weak and a collusionist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2017 5:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 839 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:15 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 906 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2017 12:42 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 840 of 4573 (809298)
05-17-2017 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 836 by Taq
05-17-2017 6:09 PM


Re: What Republicans say: then and now
Russia and Israel are essentially on the same side when it comes to Sunni Muslims.
Israel was one of the few nations that is pro Russian in its UN votes over the Ukrainian situation.
These nations aren't enemies.
The Syrian situation is an atypical situation and has few parallels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:09 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:21 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 842 of 4573 (809341)
05-17-2017 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 841 by Taq
05-17-2017 6:21 PM


Re: What Republicans say: then and now
Mike Pence in office would result in Assad falling very fast. Due to bombing his government forces.
The pro war side has never taken responsibility for the chaos that has resulted as a direct result of the bombing of the government of Libya a half decade ago.
The French were the drivers of the NATO invasion.
Just like France has been a driver of the anti Assad propaganda today.
If another internationally recognized government is bombed into destruction, then will the pro war side take responsibility for the mess?
The pro war side complains about so called inaction on the part of Obama and Trump, and they will blame the mostly extremist rebels on so called inaction.
A Mike Pence blowout of the Syrian government will probably cause chaos.
But the pro war side always shifts blame, for starters, and past "inaction " will get the blame.
The even bigger problem will be the fact that the resulting chaos will actually audaciously be used to justify more intervention still.
More billions on military spending will be justified by the developments.
Same cycle of lies, bombs, propaganda.
Or lies, propaganda, then bombs.
And $$$.
Dollars, bombs, lies, propaganda
(if no 100% correct order is in the typical cycle we are going through. We are being taken through the ringer, the twist is on )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Taq, posted 05-17-2017 6:21 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-17-2017 9:48 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 845 of 4573 (809354)
05-17-2017 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 844 by Tanypteryx
05-17-2017 10:21 PM


Re: Special council appointed in Trump/Russia probe
This is just too much of the same old FBI that existed from 1908 to 1972 and ever since.
The bureau came to be in 1908, and J. Edgar Hoover took over before it was even a full decade old, way back in the teens of the previous century.
The anti civil rights Director survived as king of the agency all the way till 1972, because every United States President was afraid to fire him.
Why?
Because he had so much dirt on EVERYONE that a termination of the FBI chief would have led to a Jim Comey May Surprise anytime during the 8 administrations Hoover ruled under ( and frankly over ).
Impeachment then probably prison for the unfortunate President that sacked Hoover.
Nixon was done in by the CIA and FBI ( remember that the Deep Throat daemon was FBI Felt ) anyway, despite Hoover exiting. His ghost remains.
The consummate spook Comey (who was so corrupt from the outset that everyone from Democrat to Republican felt he should not have been in his position in 2017 to start with ) fashioned a black memo literally weeks after President Trump is in office.
This is just laughably stereotypical really. (though it must be admitted that the pro spook propaganda has largely erased what was once common knowledge of the way the intelligence agency essentially blackmails/operates thus it isn't quite a well known stereotype I suppose )
Comey gets fired so now he twisted Trump's words of praise of General Flynn into obstruction of justice. He had a memo already written in February.
Now we will take his spin (poison ) pen as gospel?
God help us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-17-2017 10:21 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-17-2017 11:21 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 847 of 4573 (809357)
05-17-2017 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 846 by Tanypteryx
05-17-2017 11:21 PM


Re: Special council appointed in Trump/Russia probe
Comey met Trump in February and wrote a memo claiming that Trump obstructed justice during the conversation.
Trump told him that General Flynn was a good guy and that he hopes Comey will go easy on him.
Comey says that his February memo ( which Trump never saw ) - when combined with Trump's request of loyalty in the post election 2016 conversation - constitutes "obstruction of justice " or that is his implicit accusation based on his conniving secret February memo.
He wants Trump impeached over kind words about Flynn and God only knows how much Comey tortured the context of the attributions he made to Trump nevermind if the specific words were accurate to start with.
Unreal.
Or totally real.
Totally typical really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 846 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-17-2017 11:21 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by DrJones*, posted 05-18-2017 12:02 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024