Today's Leak: Coates and Rogers Testified Trump asked Both to Refute Collusion

a reply to: Agit8dChop

So far everyone has said that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia. Intelligence chiefs, democrats, republicans. Why? You think they are all lying?

1. What does that have to do with the topic?

2. I've never claimed that Trump colluded with Russia. In fact, I've stated many times — going back to last year — that it was my opinion that he didn't.

3. I've also never claimed that there was evidence of collusion by anyone else. What I have said is that there should be an investigation and that certain individuals such as Paul Manafort, who spent more than a decade in the employ of Putin's Ukranian lapdog, who has been implicated in corruption scandals in Ukraine, who continued to work for the Party of Regions through to his involvement in the Trump campaign and who has a history of among other things, influence peddling (which he admitted to in testimony to Congress), should be the focus.

It makes absolutely no sense for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to clear people of wrongdoing before they've even been investigated. How can conclusions be stated before the investigation is concluded?

As for the rest of the nonsense you posted — try harder — I'm not at all swayed by your useless personal attacks. In fact, I'm less swayed by them than I am by your superficial and often absurd on their face arguments.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah having our country under attack is always such a distraction.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: theantediluvian

So he suggested that they tell the truth?

What the hell is wrong with him!? Lock him up!

Yet another person who doesn't seem to grasp that you can't clear people of wrongdoing before the investigation has been conducted. That doesn't make sense. Though I'm not surprised given that often many of the same people are constantly demanding that people be locked up without a trial much less an investigation.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: CriticalStinker


It's turning out that most of the "leaks" are actually outright made-up fabricated lies. Comey proved that in multiple testimonies. His much-touted MEMO(s) may be one of the biggest. Has anyone on the committees seen them?

No. Comey said that a single article in the NYT was inaccurate "in the main." That's not "outright made-up fabrication" nor is a statement about "most" of the leaks.

If you notice, I included not only quotes from Trey Gowdy but also the video of his interview with Erin Burnett. In this case, he was there and he seemed rather upset about a leak. Not a fabrication — a leak.

By the standard you're applying to Comey's statement, Trey Gowdy's response could therefore be seen as confirmation of all leaks.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The sentiment of being in a state of war with leadership will open us up to serious threats.

Leaking info from a closed door meeting after being told by intelligence leadership not to, is the most insane thing that can be done in my eyes.

What if Russia or a sworn enemy started to feed the anti Trump movement? Can you imagine how much damage they could do? How many of our people would help them? Probably more than those who succumb to Islamic extremism.

How many of these potential supporters of anti Trump radicalism hold public office, security positions, are in the leadership of industry?

A foreign player could dangle some gossip about Trump, sell false intel, anything to secure their position and then turn on everyone.

I am all for Trump being punished for wrong doing like any other. I dont see it justified as an "at all costs" type of situation.

That sentiment could too easily be usurped by our enemies.

Also, where is the sense of faith in the federal government we are supposed to have? This whole leaking mess is making our governments coordination look like a grade school graduation ceremony. They dont listen to eachother apparently.

originally posted by: Iscool
a reply to: theantediluvianIt appears you forgot to mention that Trump wasn't asking these guys to provide cover for him...THEY knew there was no collusion and Trump was still trying to get it publically confirmed...That's not even close to obstruction of anything...

I never said that it was obstruction. In fact, I said that it wasn't.

I lost count but I'm going to guess you're poster #5 or #6 who doesn't seem to understand that it doesn't make any sense for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to announce that somebody is innocent of a possible crime that hasn't been investigated.

Perhaps you can be the one who takes up the fool's errand of arguing how that's not illogical?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah having our country under attack is always such a distraction.

Don't act so surprised when you push a country and they push back.

We promised Russia after the fall of the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand towards their borders, and that they would get a fair shake in the international community.

We've continued to push all the way to their border, building up troops and arms.

And after Crimea, we crippled their economy.

So they released some information (allegedly), that's hardly an aggressors attack after the last thirty years of being treated like a child by the US.

Here's a quick shakedown on Russian foreign policy.

If you treat them like an equal, they'll treat you respectfully and talk at the table.

Treat them like a non power, and they will plot against you.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So to summarize, in a topic where one can rightfully lay some blame to anyone leaking information wherein the testimonies of the relevant people were assured there would be no leaks and in an OP where it is pointedly assured by the author in an attempt to preempt any argument with respect to collusion....


...you think the most appropriate response is to apologize for Russia after all? That's odd.

a reply to: alphabetaone

you think the most appropriate response is to apologize for Russia after all? That's odd.

I don't think apologize is the appropriate next step.

But we do need to be introspective and empathetic so we don't have a closed minded foreign policy. We need to think of why things happened.

That being said, if we want a world of peace and cooperation, we need to rethink our foreign policy.

With the amount of projection we have I'm surprised some lame emails are the only "attack" we've had to bitch about for over a decade.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
But we do need to be introspective and empathetic so we don't have a closed minded foreign policy. We need to think of why things happened.

I agree, but would you agree that it seems very "circular bufferish" that the whole debacle, at least with respect to this topic began with President Trump vying vociferously that he was not, in fact, under investigation because of Russia, yet to try and exculpate the Russians? It just feels very engineered.

That being said, if we want a world of peace and cooperation, we need to rethink our foreign policy.

You'll never find a time where I will disagree with that statement with the only addition being that our foreign policy should be an ever evolving position...we should always be rethinking our foreign policy.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Honestly this is a very unique situation.

Keep in mind the Russian involvement in those hacks are still alleged.

I'm a realist and personally think there is a good chance they did, but we need to find out and get proof.

That being said, it we are a country that projects freedom (coffee spit and laugh), than we need to apply the same freedoms our citizens get (out of coffee, screen is wet), and use due process to handle situations foreign and abroad.

What we can start doing now before we know for sure is put more efforts into cyber security.

We got lucky, this incident was an information breach, but not much further.

If you look through old threads though, emergency alert systems have been being hacked, DDOS attacks are on the rise, and our infrastructure has had minor attacks.

Unfortunately our government has a tendency of complacency and procrastination so that attacks can happen to justify our war machine.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


With respect to the hacking itself, I don't think that's being questioned; its easily provable that it was Russians (whether that be the Government itself or rogue affiliations)...I think the only thing in question is the influence of those successful hacks. Its an important distinction, to me anyway.


But that's not even what I was referencing when I mentioned where it all began, it began by President Trump asking to be publicly exonerated for an investigation that was never taking place.


Generally speaking, I find that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to feel sympathetic toward the Russian Government, in a climate where they even make an attempt to influence our election process (successful or not).

a reply to: alphabetaone

Generally speaking, I find that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to feel sympathetic toward the Russian Government

That's fine, I can't fault someone for loving their country.

Which goes to my next point, so will others of another country. The same conviction you have is possessed by many around the world.

Thing post Cold War, we told Russia NATO would not expand. We're now on their border, heavily armed.

Recent tensions only exist because of Crimea, we could argue that but let's set it aside. Because of Crimea the sanctions against Russia we spearheaded cut their currency in half.

Russians want Russia to sustain. They're going to do what they perceive as their best interest.

I'm not justifying their actions or agreeing with them. I'm merely trying to understand them.

Crazy things happen when you know and love your enemy (paraphrased from Art of War).

Every action gets an opposite and equal reaction, we're experiencing reactions.

a reply to: theantediluvian

So that's three that say trump interfered with the investigation.
Hey ya know what's really funny?
Last week trump said Comey lied in his testimony. The part about trump not being under investigation trump said was true but the conversation about pushing back on the collusion story and the let Flynn off the hook conversation according to Trump never happened.
Today he says his tweet about taped conversation intimidated Comey into being honest.
WHAT???
He said his tweet cause Comey to change his story.
Changed it from what?
What the hell is trump trying to convince us of now?

a reply to: theantediluvian

The investigation is expanding into a RICO investigation now too.
Following the money...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Thank you comrade.
What about Russia hacking the election?
I don't give a rat's ass what we might do to another country.
I'm concerned with what the friggin reds did to us this time.
Get it?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Get you head out of the clouds.
There's never going to be peace.
The best you can ever hope for is a cease fire.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Today's leak comes courtesy of "multiple sources," including "Democratic and Republican congressional sources," and is brought to us by CNN.

"Leakers", or whistleblowers? And so many! It's a conspiracy I tell ya!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: theantediluvian

So that's three that say trump interfered with the investigation.
Hey ya know what's really funny?
Last week trump said Comey lied in his testimony. The part about trump not being under investigation trump said was true but the conversation about pushing back on the collusion story and the let Flynn off the hook conversation according to Trump never happened.
Today he says his tweet about taped conversation intimidated Comey into being honest.
WHAT???
He said his tweet cause Comey to change his story.
Changed it from what?
What the hell is trump trying to convince us of now?

Good point. I'm not sure he really knows, as he seems to fly by the seat of his pants. What's true today, is not true tomorrow. He goes with the flow, and it ain't pretty.

Ya know, he's really not a very bright man. It seems to be so, or so some would have us believe, based on his ability to amass wealth. In reality, he inherited a bunch of money, has declared bankruptcy twice, is in all manner of litigations for not paying his workers, and other types of fraud. So, that looks like more fraud and big balls than brains to me.

He has a personality disorder that permits him to keep pushing on despite of his wrongdoings, born from his sense of entitlement.

Yes, he's had success in real estate, but where does much of "those billions" come from? We really don't know. Is he laundering money for affluent, crooked Russians? May be, and I expect we'll be hearing more about that in months to come.

I think he's a fraud. A crooked little fraud, who now lives in a crooked little house.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Thank you comrade.

We're all comrades, the only thing that separates us are governments. While I'm not a fan of globalism, aren't you supposed to be?

What about Russia hacking the election?

You mean what about allegations (I'll agree are very likely) Russia as a state released sensitive information they obtained.
We should increase our countries cyber security as I've said in almost every post.

I don't give a rat's ass what we might do to another country.

That's why people hate Americans. I though liberals cared about everyone.

I'm concerned with what the friggin reds did to us this time.
Get it?

No, your concerned about the left being in power. You weren't concerned about the "reds" when Hillary and Obama tried to improve relations with them.

I've seen through your posts you're not actually a true liberal, you're one of those democrats just doing it to be on a team. You don't really understand the true principles of what that party and true liberalism USED to be before lobbyists and companies bought all the politicians out.

You make it abundantly apparently you can only view things in the context of your party, that makes you as closed minded as a concervative no matter how many times you say "I'm an open minded liberal".