Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[djohn2oo8]

lol

[RandomGuy]

Former FBI Director James Comey testified last week that President Donald Trump seemed exclusively concerned with Russia's election meddling as it related to him personally, rather than its impact on national security.

Again, we have direct evidence that Trump doesn't seem to care about national security.

If that is the case it seems the Trump administration won't do anything, for some reason.

[TSA]

So statements of fact from the head of the FBI and DHS cons ute sufficient evidence for you.

The DNC says they didn't deny requests.

As noted before, it is entirely conceivable that both sides are telling the truth as they see it. This is what I think actually happened (i.e. a communication muddle with both sides thinking one thing, but factually wrong in some way), based on the evidence for (statements by officials) and against (statements by officials).

Feel free to present any evidence you have that either party is actively lying. Sufficient evidence would be actual emails, or copies of letters.

Unless, of course you are applying different standards of evidence when it comes to believing Democrats.

Are you applying different standards of evidence?

The head of the DHS is now the second person to say the DNC denied their requests. In this particular case yes I am applying different standards when it comes to believing the DNC as multiple high ranking members were caught ing over Sanders. It amazes me that you admit to that happening and then turn right around and say the DNC is trustworthy.

[TSA]

So since statements of fact from the head of the FBI and DHS cons ute sufficient evidence, we can now safely conclude that Russia did, in fact attempt to hack into voting systems.

The question now remains, what will the Trump administration do about it?

What should they do about it?

Pick a lane if. Do statements of fact from the head of the FBI and DHS cons ute sufficient evidence?

[TSA]

Are you ok with your president openly lying about this? Or to the American people?

where is the lie?

[Pelicans78]

where is the lie?

He probably destroyed the tapes.

[vy65]

where is the lie?

Ok, if he doesn't have any tapes (and there's no lie), what's the point of this tweet?

[TSA]

Ok, if he doesn't have any tapes (and there's no lie), what's the point of this tweet?

I already said why I thought he said it.

[vy65]

I already said why I thought he said it.

Maybe you could refresh me on your take?

[TSA]

Maybe you could refresh me on your take?

you quoted it on this very page

[Pavlov]

TSA say Trump want to intimidate Comey and influence Comey testimony.

Agree.

[vy65]

You can't have it both ways. Either he's, to use your words, claiming to have the tapes -- which would turn out to be a lie because he subsequently claimed not to have the tapes ....

Or

He's not claiming to have the tapes, and making some kind of veiled threat. Or at the very least, insinuating something that is not true. If that's the case, my question still stands: is that something you want the president to do in public? Is that good presidential practice?

[TSA]

You can't have it both ways. Either he's, to use your words, claiming to have the tapes -- which would turn out to be a lie because he subsequently claimed not to have the tapes ....

Or

He's not claiming to have the tapes, and making some kind of veiled threat. Or at the very least, insinuating something that is not true. If that's the case, my question still stands: is that something you want the president to do in public? Is that good presidential practice?

He is a master at wording things to keep himself out of legal trouble

[Pavlov]

We know who TSA's master is.

[vy65]

He is a master at wording things to keep himself out of legal trouble

Great. That's fantastic. It's also totally irrelevant to the point I'm making.

[vy65]

It's a pretty ing ty situation when the best thing we can say about the president is: "well, at least he didn't commit a crime."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The argument is not that he lied about the tapes. The argument is that he tried to influence a federal witness to not testify in a manner he does not want. That he did it with innuendo and not anything real is besides the point.

It's like threatening to kill someone over twitter and saying it is okay because you were out of town and could not have killed them. The threatening tone was obvious.

[spurraider21]

[spurraider21]

Claiming he had tapes got Comey to testify that he told Trump he was never under investigation.

so you're saying trump tried to (and successfully did) influence comey's testimony with a threat of repercussions?

[RandomGuy]

Are you ok with your president openly lying about this? Or to the American people?

Based on his total silence on the issue, it would appear he is entirely comfortable with that.

I assume of course, that he would say something if it concerned him. There may be some reason he wouldn't say anything.

[RandomGuy]

The head of the DHS is now the second person to say the DNC denied their requests. In this particular case yes I am applying different standards when it comes to believing the DNC

DHS wasn't denied access to servers. They offered to help, but were declined.

So, you have mischaracterized what evidence is available, are applying different standards of evidence when it comes to Democrats, and have no direct evidence to back up your DNC refusal theory that supports your DNC secret hacking conspiracy theory.

Got it.

[TSA]

so you're saying trump tried to (and successfully did) influence comey's testimony with a threat of repercussions?

He said what he said. I don't think anything will happen to him for "hoping" anything.

[Pavlov]

He said what he said. I don't think anything will happen to him for "hoping" anything.

Not what he ask about your master.

[spurraider21]

He said what he said. I don't think anything will happen to him for "hoping" anything.

that didn't answer my question.

are you saying that trump tried to (and successfully did) influence comey's testimony with a threat of repercussions?

i'm just going by your theory, of course

[TSA]

DHS wasn't denied access to servers. They offered to help, but were declined.

So, you have mischaracterized what evidence is available, are applying different standards of evidence when it comes to Democrats, and have no direct evidence to back up your DNC refusal theory that supports your DNC secret hacking conspiracy theory.

Got it.

Bet you can't find a quote of me saying the DHS was denied access to servers.

So you don't want to take the head of the FBI's word when he says the DNC denied the FBI access to the server because you haven't seen any concrete evidence, but you do want to take the head of the FBI's word when he talks about Trump.

Got it.