Cable Forum
Page 14 of 32 « First 410111213 14 1516171824 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   U.S President: Donald Trump (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33704412)

papa smurf 07-05-2017 09:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35897818)
Because Congress is supposed to uphold the law, not impede it for political advantage.
is this a new approach they are trying out :shrug:

1andrew1 07-05-2017 11:23
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35897809)
Yes, because why should they allow a losing bunch of Democrats to sharpen them ?

Works both ways Andrew, as always you only see things one way. :rolleyes:
You are surely joking me Mick! This is a matter of security and democracy that transcends party politics. Fortunately, many Republicans are wise enough to appreciate this.

Mick 07-05-2017 20:14
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35897818)
Because Congress is supposed to uphold the law, not impede it for political advantage.
Yeah right sure, if you say so. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35897834)
You are surely joking me Mick! This is a matter of security and democracy that transcends party politics. Fortunately, many Republicans are wise enough to appreciate this.
Are they? And you know this how? You asked them all or just reading Fake News as always ?

Hugh 07-05-2017 21:42
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35897885)
Yeah right sure, if you say so. :rolleyes:
Actually, it's what the Congressional Oath of Office says, not what I say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35897885)
Are they? And you know this how? You asked them all or just reading Fake News as always ?
'Fake news' - that which does not agree with your viewpoint, even when the actual news is just repeating what someone actually said..

A number of Senior Republicans feel what is happening needs investigating, as part of a bi-partisan investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...te-carter-page
Quote:
On Friday, Senate intelligence committee chairman Richard Burr and his Democratic counterpart, Mark Warner, warned Page that if he did not submit the relevant documents by next Tuesday, the committee would “consider its next steps at that time”, an apparent threat of subpoena.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...430-story.html Last week, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, a loyal Republican, disclosed that President Trump’s former national security advisor probably broke the law when he accepted money from an arm of the Russian government.[/quote]

Mick 07-05-2017 22:08
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Again, if you say so Hugh.

And I did not ask you to answer my question for Andrew.

So to repeat my post above, meant for Andrew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35897834)
You are surely joking me Mick! This is a matter of security and democracy that transcends party politics. Fortunately, many Republicans are wise enough to appreciate this.
Are they? And you know this how? You asked them all or just reading Fake News as always ?

1andrew1 07-05-2017 22:15
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35897885)
Are they? And you know this how? You asked them all or just reading Fake News as always ?
Do you genuinely expect everyone on this forum to interview people in person in place of authoritative sources which quote named individuals, as well as holding down full-time jobs? Seriously Mick I respect your research skills, energy and loyalty to Trump but can you not see the utterly unreasonable nature of what you're suggesting?

Mick 07-05-2017 22:21
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35897911)
Do you genuinely expect everyone on this forum to interview people in person in place of authoritative sources which quote named individuals, as well as holding down full-time jobs? Seriously Mick I respect your research skills, energy and loyalty to Trump but can you not see the utterly unreasonable nature of what you're suggesting?
This has nothing to do with Trump Loyalty, this is about BS in it's highest form yet, from the likes of you and Hugh over a non-story.

1andrew1 07-05-2017 22:25
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35897912)
This has nothing to do with Trump Loyalty, this is about BS in it's highest form yet, from the likes of you and Hugh over a non-story.
Please explain why it's a non-story.

Mr K 07-05-2017 22:30
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
It's non-story as it doesn't agree with Mick's narrow view of the world. Anything outside it is 'fake', and anyone who says otherwise is talking 'bs', 'bollocks' etc etc

Mick 07-05-2017 22:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35897914)
It's non-story as it doesn't agree with Mick's narrow view of the world. Anything outside it is 'fake', and anyone who says otherwise is talking 'bs', 'bollocks' etc etc
Me narrow view? LMFAO

Coming from you, this is hilarious.

Of course, you're wrong as always.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35897913)
Please explain why it's a non-story.
I already have, many times over in this thread.

1andrew1 07-05-2017 23:04
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35897918)
I already have, many times over in this thread.
Let's focus on the quote below. On reflection do you not think that it is newsworthy?
Quote:
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked a number of high-profile Trump campaign associates to hand over emails and other records of dealings with Russians as part of its investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election and is prepared to subpoena those who refuse to cooperate, officials said.
The requests for the materials were made in letters sent by the committee in the past 10 days, said two officials with knowledge of the contents of the letters."


---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:00 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35897914)
It's non-story as it doesn't agree with Mick's narrow view of the world. Anything outside it is 'fake', and anyone who says otherwise is talking 'bs', 'bollocks' etc etc
I'm not sure what the correct response to something being deemed fake or BS is. It suffocates the debate. On a positive note, I'm flattered to be placed in the same category as Hugh as he's far more knowledgeable in current affairs than me by a long mile.

Mr K 08-05-2017 08:11
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35897925)
Let's focus on the quote below. On reflection do you not think that it is newsworthy?


---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:00 ----------


I'm not sure what the correct response to something being deemed fake or BS is. It suffocates the debate. On a positive note, I'm flattered to be placed in the same category as Hugh as he's far more knowledgeable in current affairs than me by a long mile.
There's only one viewpoint allowed on this thread as you should know by now Andrew ! ;)

denphone 08-05-2017 08:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35897941)
There's only one viewpoint allowed on this thread as you should know by now Andrew ! ;)
Everybody has a viewpoint as far as l am concerned...

Mick 08-05-2017 09:24
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35897947)
Everybody has a viewpoint as far as l am concerned...
Correct denphone.

papa smurf 08-05-2017 09:26
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35897947)
Everybody has a viewpoint as far as l am concerned...
even if it's wrong :tu:

1andrew1 08-05-2017 09:27
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35897947)
Everybody has a viewpoint as far as l am concerned...
I disagree! :D

Only joking!

Mr K 08-05-2017 09:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
I agree with Mick whatever, there that should solve things :D

Osem 08-05-2017 20:04
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35897958)
even if it's wrong :tu:
Consistently. :D

1andrew1 08-05-2017 23:08
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Revelations about Flynn making the headlines. Trump has probably regretted not taking his predecessor's advice.
Quote:
Obama warned Trump about hiring Michael Flynn
Barack Obama warned newly elected President Donald Trump against hiring Michael Flynn as national security adviser, the White House has confirmed.
Mr Obama warned his successor less than 48 hours after the November election during a conversation in the Oval Office, former Obama officials said.
Mr Flynn's contacts with a Russian envoy left him vulnerable to blackmail, a Senate panel heard on Monday.
He was fired in February for concealing the nature of these contacts.
Mr Flynn, a retired army lieutenant-general, misled the Trump administration about discussing US sanctions against Russia with the country's envoy, Sergei Kislyak, before the inauguration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Quote:
Michael Flynn was exposed to blackmail by the Russians, Sally Yates tells Senate
Michael Flynn was exposed to potential blackmail by Russia, the former deputy attorney general has testified.
Sally Yates told the Senate judiciary committee that Mr Flynn, the former national security adviser, had left himself "compromised" by having a conversation with the Russian ambassador, and then lying to the vice president, Mike Pence, about it.
She said that the Russians knew the conversation with Sergey Kislyak had taken place, but the White House did not - meaning that Mr Flynn could be "essentially blackmailed by the Russians."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-tells-senate/

passingbat 09-05-2017 07:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35898089)
Revelations about Flynn making the headlines. Trump has probably regretted not taking his predecessor's advice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-tells-senate/

Flynn's top level security clearance was issued under Obama. If he was so concerned, why didn't he revoke it?

Damien 09-05-2017 08:56
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35898105)
Flynn's top level security clearance was issued under Obama. If he was so concerned, why didn't he revoke it?
Obama fired Flynn and both Obama and Trump advisors have confirmed Obama advised Trump's transition team not to hire him again.

passingbat 09-05-2017 09:21
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898111)
Obama fired Flynn and both Obama and Trump advisors have confirmed Obama advised Trump's transition team not to hire him again.

Why weren't his security credentials revoked? Politicians can fire people because their views don't align and give 'advice' for political reasons.


If Obama had security doubts about him, he should have requested that the relevant authorities suspend and revaluate his clearance.

pip08456 09-05-2017 11:32
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35898113)
Why weren't his security credentials revoked? Politicians can fire people because their views don't align and give 'advice' for political reasons.


If Obama had security doubts about him, he should have requested that the relevant authorities suspend and revaluate his clearance.
Spot on pb, I've just watched the congressional hearing with ex DNI Clapper and ex NGA Yates.

Obama did hire him and he went through "Advanced" vetting, if he was sacked his security clearence should have been revoked. It didn't happen.

Trump (alledgedly) thought Obama was joking when he said "Don't employ Flynn".

Had his security clearence been withdrawn this fiasco would never have happened.

Hugh 09-05-2017 16:17
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35898113)
Why weren't his security credentials revoked? Politicians can fire people because their views don't align and give 'advice' for political reasons.


If Obama had security doubts about him, he should have requested that the relevant authorities suspend and revaluate his clearance.
Because that's not how it works....

Jim Wright, ex-US Navy Chief Warrant Officer, who spent his career in Naval Intelligence, explained it on his FB feed

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle...31344410234292

Quote:
A) There are two parts to this: clearance and access.

Clearance means you've been vetted to see certain levels of classified material. Depending on the level, that vetting process can be very detailed and extensive -- Flynn's level of clearance would be that kind.

Access means you have a need to know. Just because you have a clearance, doesn't mean you get to see everything. I spent more than 20 years with the very highest level of clearance, far above the ordinary even for my particular community. But my access was limited to my area of military responsibility. For example, while I might have full access to foreign intelligence materials, I couldn't access materials on say US Naval nuclear reactor systems. I wasn't a nuke, it wasn't my job, even though I was cleared for material at that level.

One of the most obvious ways to spot a mole in your organization is when somebody with clearance starts seeking information that he has no need to know. See John Walker et al.

B) So, when Flynn left active duty and was no longer employed by the US government, he had NO NEED TO KNOW.

He still had a SECURITY CLEARANCE, but no ACCESS.

Flynn's clearance would have been INACTIVE at the date of his retirement in JPAS (the national security system). And it would stay that way until a certain amount of time had passed, before becoming outdated automatically and expiring. Unless it was renewed by a need to know (i.e. federal employment, or civilian employment under government contract as described in para 4 above).

Unless Flynn did something wrong during that period, there would be no reason for his clearance to be revoked. Or even examined. It would simply sit inactive in JPAS until it expired.

C) A common response to this post, here and on Twitter, is: Yeah, but Obama "renewed" Flynn's clearance in 2016!

No. Wrong.

After Trump won the election, Flynn became the incoming National Security Advisor. His clearance was already in JPAS. But he needed to do another background check (a NACI) because too much time had passed since his last periodic update (typically every 5 years, but for certain levels of access it can be more often). And because as National Security Advisor next to the President, he would need a much more thorough background check than he required as DNI (which was VERY thorough).

Because he was the incoming National Security Advisor and because AT THAT TIME there was no reason not to grant him access, Flynn was given an INTERIM clearance so that he could do his job.

Interim clearance is a temporary clearance typically granted to supposed trustworthy people (which Flynn was at that time), in critical positions, so that they can do their job while the final clearance is processed. Typically limited access is also granted under the interim clearance, just the bare minimum necessary to do a specific job.

In a number of cases, the background check turns up a problem and final clearance is not granted. Interim clearance is normally revoked immediately at that point along with any access. (An example: Wayne Shelby Simmons, Fox's supposed former CIA agent and national security expert. The guy faked his background, and he did it so well that he managed to get a job with a defense contractor as a Terrain Analyst. He was granted an Interim Clearance and sent to Afghanistan -- because we were at war and we needed people. When the background check turned up evidence that Simmons was a fraud, his interim clearance was immediately revoked and he was fired and sent home. He ended up on Fox, but eventually the FBI caught up to him and he was tried and convicted of fraud and sentenced to prison where he is right now).

Granting of Interim clearance is perfectly normal and a necessary part of the process for these kinds of situations. Without it, the government would grind to a stop. More: without an interim clearance, Flynn couldn't have been briefed by the outgoing National Security Advisor -- because when Susan Rice left office, her access was suspended because she no longer had a need to know, she was no longer a federal employee. There has to be some overlap. So, Flynn was given an interim clearance so he could be brought up to speed by Rice.

Flynn was granted interim clearance and access while he updated his security background check, which begins with him filling out an SF-86. Yes, this WAS done under the Obama Administration, but again at that point there was no reason not to.

So, Flynn has an interim clearance and he is now required to update his permanent clearance. And during that process, he failed to disclose foreign contacts.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT'S THE CRIME, RIGHT THERE. That happened AFTER he was granted the interim clearance.

And when that discrepancy came to light (by now, under the new administration), HIS ACCESS WAS REVOKED and his clearance suspended pending investigation.

At which point he was fired/resigned/what have you and now he NO LONGER HAS A NEED TO KNOW.

passingbat 09-05-2017 17:38
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35898174)
Because that's not how it works....

Jim Wright, ex-US Navy Chief Warrant Officer, who spent his career in Naval Intelligence, explained it on his FB feed

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle...31344410234292



Quote:
Flynn was granted interim clearance and access while he updated his security background check, which begins with him filling out an SF-86. Yes, this WAS done under the Obama Administration, but again at that point there was no reason not to.

So Obama saw no reason not to grant interim clearance, but warned Trump against him. That suggests Obama had doubts. So why did he allow interim clearance?

Damien 09-05-2017 17:57
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35898187)
So Obama saw no reason not to grant interim clearance, but warned Trump against him. That suggests Obama had doubts. So why did he allow interim clearance?
Presumably because Trump insisted and he was the best Presisent. Look I don't want Trump as President but he is and he is responsible for who he hires. You can't spend the next 4 years we excusing Trump of all his mistakes but asking why Obama didn't stop him.

Osem 09-05-2017 18:25
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898189)
Presumably because Trump insisted and he was the best Presisent. Look I don't want Trump as President but he is and he is responsible for who he hires. You can't spend the next 4 years we excusing Trump of all his mistakes but asking why Obama didn't stop him.
On the other hand you can't keep blaming Trump for stuff others are also guilty of or responsible for without acknowledging that. ;)

passingbat 09-05-2017 18:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898189)
Presumably because Trump insisted and he was the best Presisent. Look I don't want Trump as President but he is and he is responsible for who he hires. You can't spend the next 4 years we excusing Trump of all his mistakes but asking why Obama didn't stop him.

Obama obviously had doubts, therefore he should have investigated before granting interim clearance.

Mr K 09-05-2017 18:42
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35898195)
Obama obviously had doubts, therefore he should have investigated before granting interim clearance.
Always Obama's fault; that could be Trump's epitaph.

Damien 09-05-2017 18:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35898192)
On the other hand you can't keep blaming Trump for stuff others are also guilty of or responsible for without acknowledging that. ;)
How is Obama reasonable for the hiring of Flynn? He himself fired him, he warned Trump, other people both within the Obama and the Trump administrations advised again. He was hired anyway.

The person who is reasonable for the staffing of the Trump White House is Trump. The person reasonable for who Trump directly appointed as his NSA is Trump. Was he provided with the information on Flynn? Yes.

A few weeks ago Trump was blaming Obama, erroneously, for tapping his phones. Now it's Obama's fault that he didn't investigate enough (even though he did warn Trump).

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35898195)
Obama obviously had doubts, therefore he should have investigated before granting interim clearance.
He was being investigated, but it seems the worries hadn't surfaced at the time the interim clearance was given, the investigation did turn up worrying information which Trump was provided with.

Osem 09-05-2017 18:47
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898197)
How is Obama reasonable for the hiring of Flynn? He himself fired him, he warned Trump, other people both within the Obama and the Trump administrations advised again. He was hired anyway.

The person who is reasonable for the staffing of the Trump White House is the Trump. The person reasonable for who Trump directly appointed as his NSA is Trump. Was he provided with the information on Flynn? Yes.

A few weeks ago Trump was blaming Obama, erroneously, for tapping his phones. Now it's Obama's fault that he didn't investigate enough (even though he did warn Trump).
I'm not talking about Flynn and didn't mention his name.

You posted this:

Quote:
You can't spend the next 4 years we excusing Trump of all his mistakes but asking why Obama didn't stop him.
and I agree, but was making a general counter point that rather too many people have been criticising Trump for all sorts of stuff he has or hasn't done that would apply equally to his opponents but without mentioning that fact.

Damien 09-05-2017 19:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35898204)
I'm not talking about Flynn and didn't mention his name.

You posted this:



and I agree, but was making a general counter point that rather too many people have been criticising Trump for all sorts of stuff he has or hasn't done that would apply equally to his opponents but without mentioning that fact.
::tu::

Hugh 09-05-2017 22:13
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35898195)
Obama obviously had doubts, therefore he should have investigated before granting interim clearance.
Obama doesn't grant anything - the Government system does, and has been previously been explained, interim access is given to incoming appointees to enable a handover.

Quote:
Because he was the incoming National Security Advisor and because AT THAT TIME there was no reason not to grant him access, Flynn was given an INTERIM clearance so that he could do his job.

Interim clearance is a temporary clearance typically granted to supposed trustworthy people (which Flynn was at that time), in critical positions, so that they can do their job while the final clearance is processed. Typically limited access is also granted under the interim clearance, just the bare minimum necessary to do a specific job.
I find it amusing that you're blaming Obama for Trump's pick not filling in his Security clearance forms properly.

Arthurgray50@blu 09-05-2017 23:02
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Just been announced that DT has saved the FFBI director. Is this so that Trump can 'rule' everyone.

Probably the FBI has found something on Trump re the Russians.

---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

That should have read SACKED the FBI Director

adzii_nufc 09-05-2017 23:20
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
James Comey deserved to be sacked months ago, he's a clown.

They've found nothing Arthur, stop clutching at straws, the man is an absolute clown, an absolute master at botching everything he touches then playing the idiot in front of the oversight. The only surprise is how long it's taken, I genuinely thought he'd be removed as soon as Trump hit office.

I've forever in this thread and past ones maintained that Comey is an idiot. No one really knows which side he's been batting for and to be honest I don't think he actually knows himself.

pip08456 09-05-2017 23:23
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35898226)
Just been announced that DT has saved the FFBI director. Is this so that Trump can 'rule' everyone.

Probably the FBI has found something on Trump re the Russians.

---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

That should have read SACKED the FBI Director
As recommended by the DoJ.

passingbat 09-05-2017 23:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35898221)
Obama doesn't grant anything - the Government system does, and has been previously been explained, interim access is given to incoming appointees to enable a handover.



I find it amusing that you're blaming Obama for Trump's pick not filling in his Security clearance forms properly.

As soon as the Trump administration were informed of the issue, by Sally Yates, they started to investigate. Sally Yates was less than clear and had to be contacted again. Investigation makes sense rather than relying on the word of a less than enthusiastic Trump supporter. It seems to me that the process was correctly followed.


It still seems strange to me, that given Obama's reservations, that interim status was allowed. I know Obama doesn't get involved, but as a President with doubts he could have had an input if he was so concerned.

1andrew1 09-05-2017 23:56
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
James Comey fired latest: Donald Trump dismisses FBI Director

Quote:
FBI Director James Comey - who was leading an investigation into alleged links between Donald Trump's team and Russia - has been fired by the US President.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement that Mr Comey has been "terminated and removed from office." Mr Trump acted on "clear recommendations" from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
However, Democratic Senators were quick to point out the constitutional crisis that has been created by Mr Trump removing a man in charge of investigating him. Senator Dick Durbin said on the Senate floor that the firing of Mr Comey raises questions "as to whether the Russian interference in the last presidential election... will also be investigated by the FBI.

pip08456 10-05-2017 04:07
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
The plot thickens, Comey fired just before this is made public.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/09/po...ry-fbi-russia/

Also worthy of note is that nine sealed indictments allegedly came down in one case with sixteen more expected in others.

Again allegedly, Comey was at the EDVA when he recived the news of his being fired. EVDA is reknowned for "Rocket Dockets"

Damien 10-05-2017 05:37
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
The investigation continues anyway but I wonder what the next Director will do?

Hugh 10-05-2017 08:53
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
1 Attachment(s)
White House statement on the firing of James Comey.

TheDaddy 10-05-2017 09:00
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898241)
The investigation continues anyway but I wonder what the next Director will do?
Apparently this guy has got the gig

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trey_Gowdy

papa smurf 10-05-2017 09:05
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
what will it say on his CV

sacked from FBI for ...............


obo might give him a job do they still have shoe shine boys

passingbat 10-05-2017 13:42
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Rod Rosenstein's letter recommending Comey is fired.


Apparently he has previously served under both Democrats and republicans at state level.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39866767

adzii_nufc 10-05-2017 18:18
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35898248)
what will it say on his CV

sacked from FBI for ...............


obo might give him a job do they still have shoe shine boys
''Insert as many reasons as required here''

Like I've said previously, it was astonishing he still had a job after the election. The amount of terrible botches he's made in his role over the past year is incredible, getting called out by both parties and rightly so. His answers to the oversight committee were absolutely embarrassing throughout as was his overall reaction, he really didn't have a clue.

Damien 10-05-2017 18:39
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
He probably deserved to be fired. The reasons given were valid although it's odd that the Trump administration is so concerned how unfair it was to Clinton and also waited until now to do it.

We'll have to wait and see who is appointed next. The FBI director does have the power to shut down the Russian investigation or, more likely, starve it of resources. If none of this happens and they appoint a proper FBI director rather than someone who is connected to his campaign/support then it was about Comey. If it does get shut down then we hit a serious crisis.

Damien 11-05-2017 06:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Heard a good idea yesterday. The Democrats should make the approval of a new FBI director contingent on the hiring a special prosecutor to handle the Russia investigation. Someone who doesn't have to answer to Trump or Congress, Republican or Democrat, just take all the politics out of it.

Mr Banana 11-05-2017 19:21
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35898230)
As recommended by the DoJ.
Apparently he decided on his own?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/u...wboat-fbi.html

Mick 11-05-2017 21:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898366)
Heard a good idea yesterday. The Democrats should make the approval of a new FBI director contingent on the hiring a special prosecutor to handle the Russia investigation. Someone who doesn't have to answer to Trump or Congress, Republican or Democrat, just take all the politics out of it.
But you're not taking the politics out of it at all, with that as your saying the Democrats should be the ones to do the approval, don't think so, those sour face idiots are not to be trusted, they say one thing, like some of them have been saying prior to the firing, Comey should be fired, now he is fired, they are still whinging.

TheDaddy 12-05-2017 06:09
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
It's not going away...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...511-story.html

Damien 12-05-2017 06:41
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35898439)
But you're not taking the politics out of it at all, with that as your saying the Democrats should be the ones to do the approval, don't think so, those sour face idiots are not to be trusted, they say one thing, like some of them have been saying prior to the firing, Comey should be fired, now he is fired, they are still whinging.
The Senate approves the FBI director. The Democrats + 3 Republicans would be able to reject one. Trump shouldn't be in charge of who investigates him, hence special prosector.

---------- Post added at 06:41 ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35898471)
Depends who the new Director is. If it's an ally of Trump it will killed pretty quickly.

TheDaddy 12-05-2017 07:30
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898472)
Depends who the new Director is. If it's an ally of Trump it will killed pretty quickly.
The only thing that'll kill it is a proper, thorough investigation or else it'll keep raising it's head and attempts to squash it will only make people think there is something very grotty to hide

Damien 12-05-2017 08:37
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35898474)
The only thing that'll kill it is a proper, thorough investigation or else it'll keep raising it's head and attempts to squash it will only make people think there is something very grotty to hide
Maybe but I think a lot of people have made up their minds already. He wants to double down on his base who'll support him almost no matter what. Fired FBI directors, chaotic and partisan congressional investigations and news reports are more easily dismissed than an impartial investigation. It's much easier to call news reports fake news and blame the Democrats for any accusations than deal with the findings of an independent investigations (see Flynn).

So long as the story is murky and confusing then people can draw what they want from it.

Mick 12-05-2017 09:44
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Let's revisit the FBI findings on the Democrats precious, Hillary.

Under Oath Hillary Clinton, lied that there were no Classified emails on her unsecured, private server. James Comey said otherwise. She should have been criminally liable for both possessing or transferring Classified emails from a secured to unsecured system and then Perjury (Lying under Oath).

Had she been convicted as she should have been, she would have had her Presidential candidacy revoked. But of course, this did not happen because suspiciously, her husband, Bill Clinton, had a 45 minute chat on the back of a plane with then U.S Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, days before FBI were to conclude the FBI Investigation report on Hillary Clinton's email investigation.

So if Trump is to have a impartial investigation, then she, crooked Hillary and her husband, Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch and James Comey, need investigating into what was discussed at the back of that plane and why suddenly, no criminal charges were to be brought about.

So it is not okay to dismiss the above and then say Democrats should decide on stuff for Trump, don't think so, they did not act holier than thou when it came to their precious, crooked Hillary. :rolleyes:

pip08456 12-05-2017 09:53
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
I have to say allegedly as I can find not authorative source, there are those in the FBI who were not happy with the Clinton investigation being closed.

Be that as it may, Trump HAS to let the investigation into the Russian collusion run it's course or it will never disappear.

It may well turn out he was not aware of it and that it was his campaign team all along. Until the investigation has run it's natural course and been concluded all his denials are meaningless.

It would look better for him if he was seen to be co-operating fully with the FBI on this.

Mick 12-05-2017 10:10
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35898483)
I have to say allegedly as I can find not authorative source, there are those in the FBI who were not happy with the Clinton investigation being closed.

Be that as it may, Trump HAS to let the investigation into the Russian collusion run it's course or it will never disappear.

It may well turn out he was not aware of it and that it was his campaign team all along. Until the investigation has run it's natural course and been concluded all his denials are meaningless.

It would look better for him if he was seen to be co-operating fully with the FBI on this.
An FBI investigation has been very long running on Trump team going back to July last year, nothing of any significance has yet been found.

There is the issue with Flynn, being less than honest having a conversation with a Russian official about Sanctions on Russia.

But it is like a former advisor to Trump has said in recent TV interview, they are desperate to find something, they want to find something, anything to delegitimise the Trump Presidency.

Damien 12-05-2017 10:19
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35898481)
So it is not okay to dismiss the above and then say Democrats should decide on stuff for Trump, don't think so, they did not act holier than thou when it came to their precious, crooked Hillary. :rolleyes:
A Special Prosecutor would be independent. It wouldn't be subject to congress or the White House at all.

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35898486)
An FBI investigation has been very long running on Trump team going back to July last year, nothing of any significance has yet been found.

There is the issue with Flynn, being less than honest having a conversation with a Russian official about Sanctions on Russia.

But it is like a former advisor to Trump has said in recent TV interview, they are desperate to find something, they want to find something, anything to delegitimise the Trump Presidency.
Then let there be an independent investigation, then he can be cleared.

papa smurf 12-05-2017 11:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898488)
A Special Prosecutor would be independent. It wouldn't be subject to congress or the White House at all.

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------



Then let there be an independent investigation, then he can be cleared.
innocent until proven guilty

(the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

Hugh 12-05-2017 13:58
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Latest tweet.

Quote:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonald Trump

James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

1:26PM - 12 May 2017
I wonder what he means by "tapes"?

Damien 12-05-2017 15:18
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35898507)
innocent until proven guilty

(the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.
Yes, you're right. I should have said then let there be an independent investigation, then he will have no case to answer.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

https://twitter.com/AP/status/863032385029451777

Quote:
BREAKING: Trump lawyer: Tax returns from past 10 years show no "income of any type from Russian sources," with few exceptions

Paul 12-05-2017 15:50
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
No income, with few exceptions :confused:

Isnt that "some" income then ....

Damien 12-05-2017 15:54
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Arsenal didn't lose a game this season, with few exceptions.

OLD BOY 12-05-2017 18:39
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898544)
Arsenal didn't lose a game this season, with few exceptions.
Bill Clinton has been 100% faithful to Hillary, with few exceptions.

RizzyKing 12-05-2017 23:13
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
There needs to be full and proper investigations into the russia issue and a real proper investigation into hillary clinton because there is a lot of feeling she got away with something big and yes it's true a large group in the FBI were not happy. The fact is both the NSA and CIA will be conducting their own investigations in regards to possible russian involvement in the election and I'd bet money the NSA has a large file on the clinton emails as well. Whats clear is that politics in america needs cleaning out and both political parties have stuff they don't want known by the public and until the system is cleaned up not much hope of it working as intended.

They also need to get rid of some of the intelligence and security agencies as right now there are too many that don't work well together and rather then make things more secure they are weakening the system by each not wanting to risk crossing into another agencies territory and just lousy communication. America is in a mess and we can only hope it gets sorted sooner rather then later with putin about.

Mr K 13-05-2017 09:39
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Mmm, Trump lawyer, sounds independent ! It's all stinks of a horrendously bad cover up. Nixon would be appalled at the incompetence of it all.

pip08456 13-05-2017 11:36
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
This is a very interesting 2 part documenary by a Dutch journalist. If you have the time I suggest you watch it.

A New Documentary Just Exposed Trump’s Deep Ties To Russian Mob

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35898247)
Apparently this guy has got the gig

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trey_Gowdy
I don't know where you get your information from but as usual you are wrong.

There will be interim head interviews held Wednesday.

The candidates being interviewed Wednesday are:

William Evanina from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
Adam Lee, special agent in charge in the FBI's Richmond, Va., division;
Michael Anderson, special agent in charge in Chicago; and
Paul Abbate, executive assistant director for the Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch.

Linkhttp://www.npr.org/2017/05/10/527780..._medium=social

Hugh 13-05-2017 12:00
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Different names here (but it does say up to 11 are being considered).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39906069

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Republican Senator John Cornyn, New York Appeals Court Judge Michael Garcia, and lawyer Alice Fisher

pip08456 13-05-2017 13:09
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
This source only gives 5 including the acting head.

Link

This repeats my original post.

Link

However this one gives the list of 11.

Link

All will be revealed eventually.

Osem 13-05-2017 16:18
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35898555)
Bill Clinton has been 100% faithful to Hillary, with few exceptions.
:D

Can you imagine the furore if that'd been Trump? Teflon clearly isn't only Blair's friend. ;)

Hugh 13-05-2017 17:10
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35898709)
:D

Can you imagine the furore if that'd been Trump? Teflon clearly isn't only Blair's friend. ;)
And of course, there was very little furore or political fall-out from Bill's "shenanigans".

If they give Trump the same treatment they gave Bill Clinton, they'll have to hire a Independent Counsel to run the investigation, and hold Impeachment hearings in Congress... ;-)

Osem 13-05-2017 18:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35898722)
And of course, there was very little furore or political fall-out from Bill's "shenanigans".

If they give Trump the same treatment they gave Bill Clinton, they'll have to hire a Independent Counsel to run the investigation, and hold Impeachment hearings in Congress... ;-)
Remind me what his actual punishment was? He was acquitted IIRC and served his full second term. I reckon Trump could live with punishment like that but somehow I think he might not get an equivalent result. ;)

papa smurf 13-05-2017 18:36
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35898728)
Remind me what his actual punishment was? He was acquitted IIRC and served his full second term. I reckon Trump could live with punishment like that. ;)
and lets not forget he "did not have sexual relations with that woman "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc


The Lewinsky scandal was an American political sex scandal that involved 49-year-old President Bill Clinton and a 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. The sexual relationship took place between 1995 and 1996 and came to light in 1998. Clinton ended a televised speech with the statement that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky. Further investigation led to charges of perjury and led to the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 by the U.S. House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal on all impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in a 21-day Senate trial.[1] Clinton was held in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones case regarding Lewinsky[2] and was also fined $90,000 by Wright.[3] His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years; shortly thereafter, he was disbarred from presenting cases in front of the United States Supreme Court.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

Arthurgray50@blu 13-05-2017 19:47
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
I think that something stinks of this. We all know that DT thinks that what he wants he gets.

Everything is paved in gold for him.

And I think that tweeting his anger is totally wrong.

papa smurf 13-05-2017 20:01
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35898738)
I think that something stinks of this. We all know that DT thinks that what he wants he gets.

Everything is paved in gold for him.

And I think that tweeting his anger is totally wrong.
he's only expressing an opinion just as you are

Hugh 13-05-2017 20:57
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35898739)
he's only expressing an opinion just as you are
Difference being Trump's "opinions" affect international relations, stock markets, and peoples lives.

Arthur's - not so much...

TheDaddy 13-05-2017 21:00
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35898652)
I don't know where you get your information from but as usual you are wrong.

There will be interim head interviews held Wednesday.

The candidates being interviewed Wednesday are:

William Evanina from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
Adam Lee, special agent in charge in the FBI's Richmond, Va., division;
Michael Anderson, special agent in charge in Chicago; and
Paul Abbate, executive assistant director for the Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch.

Linkhttp://www.npr.org/2017/05/10/527780..._medium=social
As usual? I don't recall ever being corrected by yourself, I remember you making a fool out of yourself a couple of times though

Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35898690)
This source only gives 5 including the acting head.

Link

This repeats my original post.

Link

However this one gives the list of 11.

Link

All will be revealed eventually.
And again :rofl: you really are the gift that keeps on giving

Pierre 13-05-2017 21:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35898740)
Difference being Trump's "opinions" affect international relations, stock markets, and peoples lives.

Arthur's - not so much...
I think your underselling the power Arthur has on international markets.

papa smurf 13-05-2017 21:53
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35898740)
Difference being Trump's "opinions" affect international relations, stock markets, and peoples lives.

Arthur's - not so much...
Arthur speaks the sock market goes wild ;)

Mick 13-05-2017 22:32
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35898740)
Difference being Trump's "opinions" affect international relations, stock markets, and peoples lives.
What a pile of steaming BS.

You know I don't see people about to make a trade exchange, or carry on with their daily lives, stop in their tracks, to say, 'Hold on a tick, just need to read DJT latest tweet before I carry on.' :rolleyes:

1andrew1 13-05-2017 23:58
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35898750)
What a pile of steaming BS.

You know I don't see people about to make a trade exchange, or carry on with their daily lives, stop in their tracks, to say, 'Hold on a tick, just need to read DJT latest tweet before I carry on.' :rolleyes:
His tweets have moved share prices in the short term.

Toyota loses $1.2bn in value five minutes after Donald Trump’s tweet

Here’s What a Trump Tweet Does to a Company’s Share Price

pip08456 14-05-2017 03:28
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
This could prove interesting if true.

Damien 14-05-2017 07:59
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35898709)
:D

Can you imagine the furore if that'd been Trump? Teflon clearly isn't only Blair's friend. ;)
Trump has had numerous affairs already hasn't he? It's just the standard of what to expect from a President seems to have dropped with Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35898760)
This could prove interesting if true.
Almost certainly isn't true.

Osem 14-05-2017 12:18
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35898762)
Trump has had numerous affairs already hasn't he? It's just the standard of what to expect from a President seems to have dropped with Trump.
Really? Whilst in office? I think it dropped with Clinton and before him several others including Nixon and Kennedy who was a serial womaniser whilst in office. Clinton got away with his lies and deeds whilst in office whilst Nixon didn't and was forced to resign. I doubt very much whether Trump would get away with the sort of stuff they engaged in but maybe time will tell.

1andrew1 14-05-2017 13:07
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35898760)
This could prove interesting if true.
lol! Not this nonsensical source again. We advised you previously that this site is half-baked when you posted the link to the story about Carter Page going to Moscow with tapes of Donald Trump on him. :D

ianch99 15-05-2017 07:50
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Watch this (forward to 2:00 if you want to skip the preamble):

Constituent loses his temper at Rep. Tom MacArthur over health care

This man delivers a passionate but cogent take down of Trump's ACA repeal bill.

ianch99 16-05-2017 08:01
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Donald, the gift that keeps giving:

Trump Revealed Highly Classified Intelligence to Russia, in Break With Ally, Officials Say

All the President's strawmen defend Trump's Oval Office blunder with Russians

Won't be long before we hear "Donald, you're fired" ..

Mick 16-05-2017 10:04
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
A President has authority to declassify information. No crime has been committed much to the disappointment to the Democrats and leftie snowflakes. But his U.S Secretary of State says he did not reveal stuff and his Security Advisor also said same. Nothing to see here, another FAKE NEWS event from an Anti-Trump source.

Damien 16-05-2017 10:09
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35898999)
A President has authority to declassify information. No crime has been committed much to the disappointment to the Democrats and leftie snowflakes. But his U.S Secretary of State says he did not reveal stuff and his Security Advisor also said same. Nothing to see here, another FAKE NEWS event from an Anti-Trump source.
No one is saying it's illegal, just irresponsible. Also it's not a surprise his government are saying it's fine is it?

If this were Clinton would you also think nothing bad was done?

Mick 16-05-2017 11:02
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
That's if it happened, you have two of his high ranking cabinet members saying what some story being reported in Washington post, is false. They were right there and they totally refute the wild claims in the WP. Not first time they published fake news.

1andrew1 16-05-2017 11:31
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35899000)
No one is saying it's illegal, just irresponsible. Also it's not a surprise his government are saying it's fine is it?

If this were Clinton would you also think nothing bad was done?
Do you think the Washington Post has made this up? It's a serious allegation to make up, even if as you say it's technically not illegal for the US President to have done such a thing.

Mick 16-05-2017 12:02
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35899010)
Do you think the Washington Post has made this up? It's a serious allegation to make up, even if as you say it's technically not illegal for the US President to have done such a thing.
The question is, HTF does the Washington Post know what was said? For them to apparently know, someone else must have been in room, cannot see those already there, blabbing as they would be in breach of some Confidentiality clause.

The NYT and WP need to get a bloody grip or just fold, their precious crooked Hillary lost and they need to stop reporting any false narrative they choose.

Trump was saying he may abandon Daily Press briefings and just issue one Statement on current events, I don't blame him if he did that some of those journalists act like rats.

In other news, if it's true, I read somewhere the Clinton email Investigation maybe reopened in the aftermath of Comey being fired by Trump.

Mr K 16-05-2017 12:21
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
The sun rose today apparently, don't believe it, it's definitely fake news.....

1andrew1 16-05-2017 12:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35899013)
The question is, HTF does the Washington Post know what was said? For them to apparently know, someone else must have been in room, cannot see those already there, blabbing as they would be in breach of some Confidentiality clause.
There's surely only a few options on this intriguing story:

1) The Washinton Post have invented the story.
Likelihood: Low, it would cause severe reputational damage to the paper.

2) Someone has misled the paper.
Likelihood: Possible, but the paper would have due diligence processes in place to reduce the possibility of this happening and the story is still online.

3) Someone present has informed the paper in confidence.
Likelihood: High if more than a couple of people were there. The story is still on the paper's website a day after it was first published.

Mick 16-05-2017 13:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35899014)
The sun rose today apparently, don't believe it, it's definitely fake news.....
I do not believe it. It's definitely fake news, it's absolutely raining cats and dogs here, did so yesterday also, all day. No sun seen. :dozey:

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35899018)
There's surely only a few options on this intriguing story:

1) The Washinton Post have invented the story.
Likelihood: Low, it would cause severe reputational damage to the paper.

2) Someone has misled the paper.
Likelihood: Possible, but the paper would have due diligence processes in place to reduce the possibility of this happening and the story is still online.

3) Someone present has informed the paper in confidence.
Likelihood: High if more than a couple of people were there. The story is still on the paper's website a day after it was first published.
The likelihood of someone present blabbing is not high at all. Very few people would have been there, if someone blabbed they would easily be worked out who and fired from their job.

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Trump Latest:

Quote:
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump 1 hour ago
As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump 52 minutes ago
...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
So he is admitting he shared some information, not necessarily classified information, but information that he says Russia should know, in their joint effort to trash ISIS and he has the Authority to do so as President. I do not see it as irresponsible, I just see jumped up leftie news agencies, looking for another avenue to have a go. Russia and the US being friends is good for the World. With Hillary as President, it would have been nuclear war for sure and we would not have come out of it well, being right in the middle of it.

passingbat 16-05-2017 13:34
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35899010)
Do you think the Washington Post has made this up? It's a serious allegation to make up, even if as you say it's technically not illegal for the US President to have done such a thing.

I don't know whether the story in the Washington Post is right or wrong. But how can you trust a Newspaper that David Rockefeller specifically listed among the News outlets colluding with the Bilderberg group to hide their globalist, anti nation state agenda?

Hugh 16-05-2017 14:07
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39937258
Quote:
US President Donald Trump has defended his "absolute right" to share information with Russia, following a row over classified material.

Mr Trump tweeted that he had shared "facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety" and wanted Russia to do more against so-called Islamic State.

papa smurf 16-05-2017 14:10
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
people seem more interested in taking a cheap shot at trump rather than stamping out isis .

Mr K 16-05-2017 14:11
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35899039)
Trump is obviously spreading fake news about himself spilling the beans. He should denounce himself immediately for being part of the liberal agenda .

Mick 16-05-2017 14:32
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35899041)
people seem more interested in taking a cheap shot at trump rather than stamping out isis .
Exactly, they are sad and pathetic for doing so as well. They need to get over her losing. Saddos.

Hugh 16-05-2017 14:43
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35899041)
people seem more interested in taking a cheap shot at trump rather than stamping out isis .
Discussing sharing Top Secret Codeword information is not "taking a cheap shot"; it is raising concerns about inappropriate dissemination of classified information.

In a previous life, I was cleared for Top Secret codeword information, but you are only cleared for that specific codeword information - there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of compartmentalised TSc segments; access to to one, or many, does not give access to all - it's on the "need to know" principle. One could be cleared for Top Secret Umbrella information (made up example*), but not need, or be allowed, access to Top Secret Minotaur information.

Also, why would Allies pass on information, which, if discussed, could compromise their sources - as the article states
Quote:
One senior Nato diplomat quoted by Reuters said: "If true, this is not going to instil confidence in allies already wary of sharing the most sensitive information."
*the actual codewords themselves are classified

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35899044)
Exactly, they are sad and pathetic for doing so as well. They need to get over her losing. Saddos.
Does that mean the Republicans were sad and pathetic saddos for complaining for 8 years when Obama was in office?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:26.
Page 14 of 32 « First 410111213 14 1516171824 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum