Secret Service spoke to Trump campaign about 2nd Amendment comment

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

The tweet from the secret service was a lie?
Nice to know.

Easy to make Fake tweets. Remember the one I posted saying i found on twitter that was reposted on IMGUR? I was Running a experiment to see how many would believe it. It was totally fake. ALl i did was use peices of her real twitter to make the links work on twitter.

Also the SS spokeman didnt CONFIRM OR DENY they contacted Trump. So you dont know yourself.

a reply to: RickyD

It's right there listen.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No it isn't...i challenge you to show me the quote. I am 100% sure you can't, so please if you aren't just trolling the thread back up your claims or stfu already...no one has time for trolls.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: marg6043

They did, and have. I heard what he said. It sounded like he wanted the pro 2nd amendment voters to use their vote against her.

First of all, it shows his ignorance of the Constitution. A President cannot simply invalidate an amendment, as much as he is looking forward to doing so.

No, but four Supreme Court Justices can, for all intents and purposes.
Anyway, the Secret Service finally came out today and refuted CNN's story.
So, yeah, CNN simply made the whole thing up.

Harte

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JinMI

The Voting Power of 95 Million American Gun Owners . In Reality , that is what he was eluding to , not what some others might Read Into that for some Imagined LAME Political Gain .

No way was he talking about voting. Once Hillary becomes president and puts her judges in the Supreme Court, those judges are in there for life. That's why he said, "there's nothing you can do". No amount of voting will change the judges who have already been appointed. Right after he said "there's nothing you can do" is when he made the comment about the second amendment people and implied maybe there was something they could do after all. Since voting wouldn't help after the judges had already been appointed, what else do you think he could have meant when referring to those second amendment people?

His claim that he was referring to voting power is an outright LIE.

If that is what you Really Believe , then All Power to You . If you are Sorely Mistaken though , then what do you put your Belief in ?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

Does intent count?
You tell me?.

The obvious answer is no. It's a free for all! Do what you will and as long as your don't have any intent on breaking laws or even being an unethical slime, all is forgiven!

What a wonderful world to live in.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JinMI

The Voting Power of 95 Million American Gun Owners . In Reality , that is what he was eluding to , not what some others might Read Into that for some Imagined LAME Political Gain .

No way was he talking about voting. Once Hillary becomes president and puts her judges in the Supreme Court, those judges are in there for life. That's why he said, "there's nothing you can do". No amount of voting will change the judges who have already been appointed. Right after he said "there's nothing you can do" is when he made the comment about the second amendment people and implied maybe there was something they could do after all. Since voting wouldn't help after the judges had already been appointed, what else do you think he could have meant when referring to those second amendment people?

His claim that he was referring to voting power is an outright LIE.

If that is what you Really Believe , then All Power to You . If you are Sorely Mistaken though , then what do you put your Belief in ?

Well, one thing is for sure, Trump wasn't joking...hang on, he also said it was a joke...was that as well?

I sure hope people are seeing the media for the liars they are. People who don't get their news on the web or multiple sources seem to be buying the tv media lies. I agree with the OP, there NEEDS to be some TRUTH accountability.

originally posted by: JinMI
This is the kind of crap that just irks me to the core.

(CNN) — A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.

"No such meeting or conversation ever happened," Trump tweeted in response to CNN's report.

There should be some sort of responsibility in media. I get it, Clinton News Network. Truth is this will be forgotten about in a day or two and on to the next bonehead story.

"Words matter my friends, and if you are running to be president or you are president of the United States, words can have tremendous consequences," Clinton said. "Yesterday we witnessed the latest in a long line of casual comments from Donald Trump that cross the line."

Words matter. Does intent?

Link to CNN story

So you automatically assume Trump is the one telling the Truth? Given his track record of lying .

a reply to: SudoNim

Read the OP again, you missed the point.

a reply to: Harte

No, but four Supreme Court Justices can, for all intents and purposes.
Anyway, the Secret Service finally came out today and refuted CNN's story.
So, yeah, CNN simply made the whole thing up.

I missed that. Could you link to the story? Incidentally, if they haven't started looking into Trump, it is a dereliction of duty.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SudoNim

Read the OP again, you missed the point.

The part where you call CNN the Clinton News Network? Or the part where you said the Truth will be forgotten by them?

Yeah, it was a very unbiased view.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Harte

No, but four Supreme Court Justices can, for all intents and purposes.
Anyway, the Secret Service finally came out today and refuted CNN's story.
So, yeah, CNN simply made the whole thing up.

I missed that. Could you link to the story? Incidentally, if they haven't started looking into Trump, it is a dereliction of duty.

Link

Harte

a reply to: SudoNim

Wow, try again. Your really having trouble comprehending.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SudoNim

Wow, try again. Your really having trouble comprehending.

When are the moderators going to start doing something about all of the CTR shills destroying every conversation on this forum?

*THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED TO PREVENT THREAD DRIFT*

originally posted by: avp251

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SudoNim

Wow, try again. Your really having trouble comprehending.

When are the moderators going to start doing something about all of the CTR shills destroying every conversation on this forum?

*THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED TO PREVENT THREAD DRIFT*

Yes. Your post should be deleted for trolling.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Harte

No, but four Supreme Court Justices can, for all intents and purposes.
Anyway, the Secret Service finally came out today and refuted CNN's story.
So, yeah, CNN simply made the whole thing up.

I missed that. Could you link to the story? Incidentally, if they haven't started looking into Trump, it is a dereliction of duty.

Link

Harte

I am surprised that someone of your intelligence would stoop to to such a cheap trick. Your link does not work, not that it matters. Here is what the Secret Service has said, from a source that you now, sadly, consider reliable:

The Secret Service has not formally spoken to Donald Trump regarding a suggestion that “Second Amendment people” could stop Hillary Clinton from curbing gun rights, according to a federal official. CNN previously reported that the agency had done so.

[Edit for brevity --DJW001]

A federal official familiar with the matter also told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign regarding the Tuesday statements.

An impeccable source.[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

I assume you understand when a government body specifies that they have had no formal words with someone, it means that they have had unofficial words, otherwise they would have said that they have had no words at all.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Harte

No, but four Supreme Court Justices can, for all intents and purposes.
Anyway, the Secret Service finally came out today and refuted CNN's story.
So, yeah, CNN simply made the whole thing up.

I missed that. Could you link to the story? Incidentally, if they haven't started looking into Trump, it is a dereliction of duty.

Link

Harte

I am surprised that someone of your intelligence would stoop to to such a cheap trick. Your link does not work, not that it matters. Here is what the Secret Service has said, from a source that you now, sadly, consider reliable:

The Secret Service has not formally spoken to Donald Trump regarding a suggestion that “Second Amendment people” could stop Hillary Clinton from curbing gun rights, according to a federal official. CNN previously reported that the agency had done so.

[Edit for brevity --DJW001]

A federal official familiar with the matter also told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign regarding the Tuesday statements.

An impeccable source.[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

I assume you understand when a government body specifies that they have had no formal words with someone, it means that they have had unofficial words, otherwise they would have said that they have had no words at all.

I'm surprised that someone of your intelligence could not get a google search link to work.
Regarding the rest of your post, of course the SS has had conversations with both candidates.
If you would only stop and think about it, you might be able to see the sense in that.
Additionally, read the OP and tell me where it says anything about "informal" conversations.

The story was a fabrication. The SS never spoke to Trump about this. You seem to be too butt hurt to grasp the facts of the situation.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I'm surprised that someone of your intelligence could not get a google search link to work.

You should try the link before resorting to sarcasm. When it did work, all the stories were about Trump denying that the Secret Service spoke with him. That wasn't the issue.

Regarding the rest of your post, of course the SS has had conversations with both candidates.

So where is the disagreement?

If you would only stop and think about it, you might be able to see the sense in that.

You're the one implying that they didn't.

Additionally, read the OP and tell me where it says anything about "informal" conversations.

Perhaps I have more sources to draw on:

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

www.reuters.com... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

The story was a fabrication.

There is no reason to believe it was, other than Donald's word. He says a lot of things that are not quite true.

The SS never spoke to Trump about this.

CNN never said they did. An official told CNN on background that they spoke to his campaign:

(CNN) — A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.

www.cnn.com... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

You seem to be too butt hurt to grasp the facts of the situation.

I'm not the one who can't grasp the facts: Trump is. Just because his campaign staff did not tell him about the meetings does not mean they did not happen. That sort of thing probably happens a lot with him; he doesn't like being informed of things because he's positive he already knows everything.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Harte

I'm surprised that someone of your intelligence could not get a google search link to work.

You should try the link before resorting to sarcasm. When it did work, all the stories were about Trump denying that the Secret Service spoke with him. That wasn't the issue.

First link, from Reuters:

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

Sorry, you can get away with lying about Trump (who isn't here,) but not lying about me, what I post, or what I link to.

originally posted by: DJW001

Regarding the rest of your post, of course the SS has had conversations with both candidates.

So where is the disagreement?

If you would only stop and think about it, you might be able to see the sense in that.

You're the one implying that they didn't.

Additionally, read the OP and tell me where it says anything about "informal" conversations.

Perhaps I have more sources to draw on:

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

www.reuters.com... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

The story was a fabrication.

There is no reason to believe it was, other than Donald's word. He says a lot of things that are not quite true.

And Reuter's word (and a federal official's word) but don't let that get in the way of your fantasy.

originally posted by: DJW001

The SS never spoke to Trump about this.

CNN never said they did. An official told CNN on background that they spoke to his campaign:

(CNN) — A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.

www.cnn.com... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

You seem to be too butt hurt to grasp the facts of the situation.

I'm not the one who can't grasp the facts: Trump is. Just because his campaign staff did not tell him about the meetings does not mean they did not happen. That sort of thing probably happens a lot with him; he doesn't like being informed of things because he's positive he already knows everything.

You addressed me, not Trump.
Your post is a blatant attempt to glom back on to the credibility you threw away by claiming LMGTFY doesn't "work" and by refusing to drop the mainstream media line spoon fed to you by CNN. This is astonishingly hypocritical of you, given your penchant for railing against mainstream sources for anything.

Harte