Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 158
  1. #121
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    @ cowboy, yes and as it stands it doesn't fit. So the "new" argumentation needs to come from the other side. It has been covered but it didn't break your way.
    To serve man.

  2. #122
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ cowboy, yes and as it stands it doesn't fit. So the "new" argumentation needs to come from the other side. It has been covered but it didn't break your way.
    hmm...I don't think so. Is this the support we're talking about?

    "EXAMPLE (1): Officer Diligent seeks a warrant based on his testimony that Sneak told Diligent that he (Sneak) overheard Warren asking his girlfriend to go buy $500 worth of drugs in cash and to bring them back to his house. Officer Diligent’s testimony to this effect would not be admissible as evidence against Warren in his trial – it is inadmissible hearsay. However, for the purpose of establishing probable cause such that a search warrant may be issued, Officer Diligent’s testimony may be admissible."


    Just to be clear we're talking about the Carter Page FISA warrants and their renewals, right?
    Last edited by CowboyX; August 20th, 2018 at 12:19 PM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #123
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why wouldn't that be the truth? and why wouldn't they be looking for the truth (as you stated).
    It very well could be they uncover/ed the truth and I haven't said otherwise.

  4. #124
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    This has already been covered in the thread with MT. Unless you have some new support as to why the dossier wasn't appropriate to use.
    Then you agree it does not matter how this compares to other intelligence documents.

    Since:
    it is mostly unverifiable
    the author says nearly a third of it could be inaccurate
    this information was obtained by a political adversary

    it's use in court proceedings should be limited and obviously it should not be the main "evidence" for a warrant (and I am not saying it was the main reason for the warrant, only that it should not be). I am not saying it should not have been brought up at all in court or even part of the evidence.

    ---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Correct. Just like when a politician runs for office, he or she only communicates relationships and activities that will do no political damage to themselves. And those politicians have a flurry of people that guard against negative information coming out. So I don't really understand the objection or concern that the dossier is intended to cause political damage.
    You are taking this comment out of context, Cowboy and I were NOT discussing if I thought it was bad if the Dossier was meant to do political harm. Cowboy and I at that point were discussing would it contain the whole truth of a given situation or just the negative parts.

    So, I quite frankly do not care if it was intended to cause political harm and I am, not sure why you think I do????

    ---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Damaging information is not necessarily dirt.
    Semantics. I already stipulated we could use your preferred terminology.

    ---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Russian meddling could likely be a thread of it own. But my short answer is NO.
    Interesting, I have been able to find little else of substance, but another thread is probably better.
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 20th, 2018 at 07:09 PM.

  5. #125
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Then you agree it does not matter how this compares to other intelligence documents.
    For my argument, no. It would help yours.

    ---------- Post added at 11:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    it is mostly unverifiable
    Who said that?

    ---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    the author says nearly a third of it could be inaccurate
    He also said 90% could be accurate.

    ---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    this information was obtained by a political adversary
    Steele was not a political adversary.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #126
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    "President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, has dropped a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed over the publication of an unsubstantiated intelligence dossier that alleged he played a role in working with Russia to help Mr. Trump become president.

    Mr. Cohen is also dropping a similar defamation suit against Fusion GPS, the private investigation firm responsible for the dossier."

    Maddow discusses how a similar lawsuit by Alfa Bank against Steele for defamation has been dismissed with prejudice:

    https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...-1303085635995

    (I'm trying to find a readable story but haven't yet, I will when I find one. MSNBC doesn't seem to have a transcript option so I apologize)

    Ok, here you go:

    "The former MI6 officer Christopher Steele has won a legal battle in the United States against three Russian oligarchs who sued him over allegations made in his famous dossier about the Trump campaign and its links with Moscow.

    The oligarchs – Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan – claimed that Steele and his intelligence firm Orbis defamed them in the dossier, which was leaked and published in early 2017. The Russians own stakes in Moscow-based Alfa Bank. All are billionaires.

    On Monday, a judge in the district of Columbia, Anthony C Epstein, upheld a motion by Steele to have the oligarchs’ case thrown out. Epstein did not determine whether the dossier – which a furious President Trump has repeatedly dismissed as “fake” – was “accurate or not accurate”.

    But the judge concluded that it was covered by the US first amendment, which protects free speech. He ruled that the oligarchs had failed to prove a key part of their case: that Steele knew that some information in the dossier was inaccurate, and had acted “with reckless disregard as to its falsity”"

    (The Maddow piece is still good to watch)


    On that page is another statement (Twitter) indicative of the attacks from the supporters of President Trump. This one by Trump himself:

    "...the phony & discredited Dossier,..."

    "Phony" implying there was something amiss about the dossier's creation - which has, as of yet, been unsupported in this thread - and "discredited" in that the phoniness has been proven...somewhere, which it hasn't and especially not here in this thread so far.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #127
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Steele was not a political adversary.
    Steele gave info to the DNC, which pretty much ended his involvement in the matter.

  8. #128
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    hmm...I don't think so. Is this the support we're talking about?

    "EXAMPLE (1): Officer Diligent seeks a warrant based on his testimony that Sneak told Diligent that he (Sneak) overheard Warren asking his girlfriend to go buy $500 worth of drugs in cash and to bring them back to his house. Officer Diligent’s testimony to this effect would not be admissible as evidence against Warren in his trial – it is inadmissible hearsay. However, for the purpose of establishing probable cause such that a search warrant may be issued, Officer Diligent’s testimony may be admissible."


    Just to be clear we're talking about the Carter Page FISA warrants and their renewals, right?
    Yea, I think so.

    Also I think you are correct about the support as well, that is what I was referring to.

    As noted before, this instance is not like the example given.
    Steel is not an officer of the law, he is giving an account of what he heard someone else say they heard, and maybe another link down the chain as well.

    Also, you cut off the text.. where it says this
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    If we add Diligent’s testimony that he then witnessed the girlfriend going to an ATM, withdrawing $500 in cash and then returning to the house one hour later, the totality of the circumstances may be sufficient to issue the warrant.
    This is what is also missing from the current example. Notice "may be sufficient". Which indicates it isn't a given. Which places us on the weaker side of evidence.
    The steel dossier is at least another step or two below that.

    Also
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    EXAMPLE (2): Officer Techie e-mails Judge Conservative and requests a search warrant for a storage locker that he believes contains stolen salmon. He also sends an attachment with the e-mail that contains digital pictures of masked men unloading the salmon into the locker. The picture is time-stamped by the camera, which records the time as 2:37 a.m. Although the evidence might be sufficient for a reasonably prudent person to conclude that the fruits of a crime are located within the locker, because there has been no sworn testimony to that effect and no affidavit has been written (the e-mail is not a sworn writing made before a proper authority), Judge Conservative should deny the Officer Techie's request.
    Notice a sworn affidavit, and a person actually making the claim to the court. Again, not what we have here.

    Steel did not witness any crime, nor did he witness any evidence of a crime.

    The problem is that steel is one step removed from being in a position where his testimony is valid for a warrant. While hear say may be, this is once removed hear say. Placing us firmly in the land of gossip.
    To serve man.

  9. #129
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    I'll concede that the Steele dossier by itself wasn't enough to gain a warrant.

    Fortunately, that's not what happened:

    "The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing "probable cause" that Page was an agent of Russia.

    The released documents contain dozens of pages that are entirely blacked out. People who have read them, including Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, say they contain secret evidence establishing ties between Page and Russians — evidence that goes beyond what was included in the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele. Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI counterintelligence chief who is now an NBC News contributor, says that likely includes reporting from human sources and intercepted communications."


    Applications here.
    Last edited by CowboyX; August 21st, 2018 at 11:40 PM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  11. #130
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Explain "high level of accuracy". What has been varifies as accurate and in what way?
    Good point!

    The thing that gets me is that this guy, Steele, was being paid by Fusion GPS to get dirt on Donald Trump so Hillary could win an election.

    Laura Ingraham makes the point (on her show tonight) that the Deep-State launched its own internal campaign against Trump (IMO, because they lost power and were being exposed for their incompetence, corruption and stale ideas), in collusion with Hillary I would add, IMO. That would explain why they would exonerate Hillary for her crimes and misdemeanors, her destroying 33,000 documents, smashing mobile phones, setting up an illegal server for government business, syphoning money into the Clinton Foundation, and the crooked selling of uranium to Russia (a National Security concern). That would explain why they would use an unverified (third party hearsay) dossier to obtain a FISA warrant. It would explain how they could attempt to upstage Trump to regain power (all they are interested in - pushing their big government agenda). That would explain how Obama gets tied to all this and how they have a lot to protect and a lot to lose if any of this plot gets exposed to the American people (just a thought). It would explain how the focus was taken off Hillary Clinton because they found a scape-goat.

    I hope the President declassifies the FISA documents. That will clear up a lot about whether the Steele Dossier was the main point used to obtain the FISA warrant. It would expose more of the Deep-State for what it did, all this conspiracy at the top levels of the FBI and DOJ.

    Just my thoughts.

    Peter

  12. #131
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Or, it could be the cash making conspiracy industry is just selling you a lot of ******** to keep themselves in petty cash and satisfy their paranoid delusions.

    Hillary is the scape-goat. She is not part of the government. She has no direct political power, yet you think she's somehow important. The president could declassify the FISA documents with a snap of his fingers, but does he? Nope.

    Its just a bunch of crap these people are selling to people who don't actually take the time to read.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. Thanks CowboyX thanked for this post
  14. #132
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    That will clear up a lot about whether the Steele Dossier was the main point used to obtain the FISA warrant.
    It wasn't see my previous post.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #133
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It would expose more of the Deep-State for what it did, all this conspiracy at the top levels of the FBI and DOJ.
    More likely, people voted for someone they shouldn't have and find it easier to believe outlandish conspiracy theories than face reality.


    I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
    I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

    Sept. 5, 2018


    The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

    President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

    It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

    The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

    I would know. I am one of them.

    To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

    But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

    That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.


    The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

    Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

    In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

    Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

    But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

    From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

    Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

    “There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

    The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

    It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

    The result is a two-track presidency.

    Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

    Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

    On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

    This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

    Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

    The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

    Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

    We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

    There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

    The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #134
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Yay.. more from the gossip columns passing as news.
    To serve man.

  17. #135
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yay.. more from the gossip columns passing as news.
    It'd be real news if you could prove it wasn't a senior administration official.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #136
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Or, it could be the cash making conspiracy industry is just selling you a lot of ******** to keep themselves in petty cash and satisfy their paranoid delusions.

    Hillary is the scape-goat. She is not part of the government. She has no direct political power, yet you think she's somehow important. The president could declassify the FISA documents with a snap of his fingers, but does he? Nope.

    Its just a bunch of crap these people are selling to people who don't actually take the time to read.
    How can she be the scapegoat? The entire focus is on Trump, while her crimes are dismissed.

    She is guilty of destroying subpoena evidence that others would go to jail for erasing and smashing. The system was so fixed by the top of the FBI and DOJ that she got off Scott-free. Then her campaign buys opposition research to change the course of an election, including bulldozing Bernie Sanders. When it doesn't work with Trump the Democratic machine puts in place the insurance policy.

    ---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    More likely, people voted for someone they shouldn't have and find it easier to believe outlandish conspiracy theories than face reality.


    I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
    I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

    Sept. 5, 2018


    The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
    The NY Times is a paper that is Democratic in its value structure. Consider this when reading its articles. They print mostly negative articles on Trump.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

    It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
    And Democrats, especially those who lean far left, are responsible for taking the country in a left swinging agenda. Look around the world at other countries that go down this path. Do you want America to follow? I can't blame conservatives for supporting Trump when you consider how the left is eroding their rights and subverting their Second Ammendment Rights.

    There is a split because this leftist agenda does not make sense. Things the Democrats supported in the past are now stonewalled just because Trump is pushing the change, like better immigration controls and stronger boarder policies. It is ludicrous to think that Sanctuary Cities can harbor illegal people. It makes no sense. You might as well invite drug-dealers to bring their trucks full of drugs across the board, traffic their drugs across the States, traffic people, bring their ruthless gangs, commit crimes without penalty just because of who they are. It is so retarded what is going on in your country (are Democrats really this stupid? Have they been so brainwashed and propagandized by their leftist education system and leftist mass media which is controlled in large by the Democratic Party that they can't think for themselves? They just work on talking points without unerstanding the underlying issues, IMO) and this White House insider is not the solution to the problem but part of the problem. I hope he/she is exposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

    I would know. I am one of them.
    Is this another holdover from the Obama administration OR just someone who leans left even though he/she says otherwise?

    There is a lot more at stake than Donald Trump. The whole value system of your country is in danger of crumbling if Trump is impeached, IMO.

    Do you want to live in cities controlled by Democratic mayors who protect illegal aliens and whose crime rate and value system is outrageous? (I.e., Chicargo, NY, LA)

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
    No, he or she does not. They would not undermine the administration if they wanted it to succeed. They want to impose their own standards and ideas on Trump and boot him out of office. That is their aim.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
    Garbage is what I say. I don't think your Republic will survive if the Democrats impeach this president. That is what is at stake, IMO. I think Obama did tremendous harm to your country in shifting its value system from one based on the Judeo-Christian standard to one of those in power who get to choose what is and is not law, forget your Constitution, IMO. (Abortion rights is a prime example. 1.5 million abortions of human life worldwide, and over 50 million in your country since Roe V Wade)

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
    Such as....? He/she does not support all these assertions and allegations.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

    Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets, and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
    Rubbish! Look at the big fight on Trump's pick for Supreme Court Judge. Look at all the judges that have been appointed. Look at his views on abortion and the right to life. Look at his views on religious freedom. Look at the economy. Look at the military and law enforcement support. Look at his fight against crime. Look at how he is attempting to change the corruption of the inner cities. Look at how he is fighting against the inner city gangs, such as MS 13.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
    That is not what he meant when he said the press. He emphasized the fake media, not all, just most (who peddle their leftist ideology - it is sickening - again, just my opinion in the brackets) - the Kabul.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

    But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
    From what I have seen he takes in a lot of different opinions before making his decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

    Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
    Looking at his record shows otherwise. Look at all he has been able to accomplish in two years. I see this as being a very large list of accomplishments, so he must be doing something right to get all these things done.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    “There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
    As people do when they hear more of an issue and understand it better.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
    Trump picked a good competant bunch of people, for the most part. Why wouldn't he listen to them as subject matter experts (SME)??? I wouldn't want a president who only saw things through his own eyes and was beyond taking in any other opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
    Adults? Backstabbers! Duplicite public servants whose agenda it is to undermine an elected president and those who voted for him. Why are they even working for him?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The result is a two-track presidency.
    The second track is the track of those who want to take his agenda in another direction, but it was not them who got elected for change. It was him.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
    This guy is using Democratic talking points. That should warn you of what is going on here. The elections are nearing and he/she is pushing for Democratic control once again, so they can take your country down the road to big government where your individual liberties are squashed.

    California Democrat Adam Schiff described Donald Trump as a "president more comfortable with autocrats and dictators" than "Democrats and democracy" during a speech on the House floor.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8445061.html

    Shifty Shiff.

    What I can't believe is that Democrats think they can solve these problems with these dictatorships, that have been around since the year Dot (and getting worse), without talking to the dictators involved. It makes no sense. I think more has been done to address the problems than with the previous administrations, like the Obama Administration that sat around and watched Putin march into Crimea and Ukraine, who appeases the Iranians which a planeload of money and botched up the US milirtary by ill-funding and his chicken little policies. The guy had no backbone (and this segment is just my own personal opinion).

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
    So far what we have is a disgruntled employee who is saying things that have not been backed up by others in the West Wing, in fact, others have denied the Woodward book on these same issues, and this all coming up before the mid-term elections.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

    This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

    Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

    The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
    What "we" as a nation? Half of your nation support his policies and ideas. Articles like this try to alter that opinion via all this innuendo and assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

    We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
    Again, just my personal opinion, McCain never got over the nasty primaries in which Trump questioned his war record as heroic. He was the thorn in Trump's side because he never got over this. It was his vengeance to kill the vote that would have toppled OBama Care.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

    The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration."
    My guess, BS, through and through. Let's see who this LEAKER is and what kind of agenda he/she holds.

    Peter

  19. #137
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    @ cowboy, why there is no need to discredit the story.. it is just gossip not gospel. It would be real news if the source was someone relevant.. like the VP. No one should care what the disgruntled janitor has to say. So it isn't news until it is shown to be someone relevant. Enjoy your latest issue of gossip magazine.
    To serve man.

  20. #138
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ cowboy, why there is no need to discredit the story.. it is just gossip not gospel. It would be real news if the source was someone relevant.. like the VP. No one should care what the disgruntled janitor has to say. So it isn't news until it is shown to be someone relevant. Enjoy your latest issue of gossip magazine.
    How do you know it's a janitor?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. #139
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    How do you know it's a janitor?
    How do you know it is someone relevant?

    p.s. The editor had to do background check to find out who the person was. There can be as many as 700 "senior administration officials" depending on how you count them.
    only about 20 of them are really relevant people. That a background check had to be done.. signals that they aren't someone anyone would know about.. and thus not relevant.
    To serve man.

  22. #140
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How can she be the scapegoat? The entire focus is on Trump, while her crimes are dismissed.

    She is guilty of destroying subpoena evidence that others would go to jail for erasing and smashing. The system was so fixed by the top of the FBI and DOJ that she got off Scott-free. Then her campaign buys opposition research to change the course of an election, including bulldozing Bernie Sanders. When it doesn't work with Trump the Democratic machine puts in place the insurance policy.
    Legally, the focus isn't on Trump, its on Trump's campaign and his staff in that campaign. Trump has not been indicted and the FBI has pretty well said they aren't planning to indict him.

    Hillary has been investigated and they could not find enough evidence to prove she violated a law they could prosecute her for. She didn't destroy any evidence. She didn't smash anything, she didn't erase anything. The company that managed her email server erased archives, aka deleted emails. There is no evidecne she instructed them to do that at the time they did it. They were recovered anyway from bakups and there was nothing especially different on them than any of the other emails.

    She broke state department rules, and she was irresponsible, but they didn't have what they needed to show she broke the law, and that is what you need to take people to trial. Your opinion of it and the opinion of conservative pundits is not exactly sound legal reasoning or argument.

    You have been sold a bunch of ********.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •