Author Topic: Comey & Trump - NEVER believe anything a government official says without evidence  (Read 122 times)

Offline kimmy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
We know (for example) of the following links between Russia and various people within Trump's organization:
- Flynn lied about contacts with Russian officials
- Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was a business partner of several Russian businessmen
- Eric Trump admitted that they don't get funding from American banks, but they get the financing they need from Russian banks
- Meetings between Trump's son-in-law and adviser Kushner and Russian banks and Russian officials prior to Trump being sworn in

We also have multiple U.S. intelligence agencies stating that the hackers involved in the U.S. elections were based in Russia.

Now, none of that is concrete proof of collusion. However, it is enough to sustain investigations. Which is the whole point... to build on evidence to see what crimes may have been committed.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/15/mueller_reportedly_investigating_kushner_s_financial_dealings_with_russia.html
http://nypost.com/2017/05/07/eric-trump-said-dads-golf-courses-were-funded-by-russia/

Now, as for Trump himself: As I pointed out, the main issue isn't whether Trump himself colluded with the Russians, but whether Trump attempted to influence the investigations into the other people. (Trump may himself have been involved but that doesn't appear to be the main problem right now.) So what evidence do we have that Trump may be guilty of interfering with the election? We have:

- Comey's testimony and memos. (Yes, its not hard proof, but the fact that he wrote things down ahead of time gives his testimony more weight than just a simple claim after the fact.)
- The fact that Comey himself was actually fired, along with conflicting claims about why he was fired. (If Trump couldn't keep his story straight, it kind of affects his credibility.)
- Reports that people like NSA chief Rogers and Director of Intelligence Dan Coats were asked by the whitehouse to make statements about how "the president was not under investigation". (Now, part of that information comes from 'anonymous sources'; however, they were reported in fairly respectable mainstream publications.)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/22/15678342/trump-russia-probe


It just smells completely fishy. Why do so many people around Trump have connections to Russia?   You didn't even mention Carter Page or Robert Mercer.  Then you have crazy-person Roger Stone bragging about his "back channel" to WikiLeaks.   Then you have Trump's insistence on Michael Flynn being in his cabinet, even after he was told Flynn was compromised. And what's with Flynn and Sessions and Kushner all having secret meetings with Russian officials? What in the fizzityuck is going on?

Given all this stuff, and the ongoing investigation, it creates the unavoidable appearance that Trump meddled in the investigation because Trump was worried about what the investigation would find.

 -k

Offline segnosaur

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Do you understand my point!??!  I'm not saying what Comey is saying is false!  And it certainly looks like Trump has had some shady dealings with Russia, I'm NOT defending Trump, that's not my point.  I'm saying don't under-estimate what government is capable of, & don't take anyone's word on its face no matter how "official" it sounds.  Be skeptical, use critical thinking.
Nobody is saying "just take someone's word for it".

In the previous post I provided, evidence about russian contacts and/or questionable dealing by Trump has been: 1) admitted to (example: the white house admitting to contacts between Kushner/Flynn and the Russians), 2) verified by multiple sources (e.g. Manafort's dealings with Russians), 3) comes from a respectable news source, or 4) has some other validation (Comey's memos).

Being a skeptic and using critical thinking doesn't mean automatically questioning all evidence; you can make some basic assumptions about the accuracy of the evidence based on the quality of the source and/or the motivations of those involved.

Offline segnosaur

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
It just smells completely fishy.
Yes, it does smell fishy. But, the previous poster was asking for 'evidence', and I wanted to post examples of things where the connections were well laid out and goes above being "just fishy".

Quote
Why do so many people around Trump have connections to Russia?   You didn't even mention Carter Page or Robert Mercer. Then you have crazy-person Roger Stone bragging about his "back channel" to WikiLeaks.   Then you have Trump's insistence on Michael Flynn being in his cabinet, even after he was told Flynn was compromised.
No I didn't. (I could have also mentioned Trump's claims of meeting putin, then his claims of not meeting him, etc.) But, I figured the evidence I provided was enough to make my point: The evidence against Trump rises above the level of just vacant claims.


Offline msj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • Location: Vancouver Island
    • View Profile
I think my sneer towards the original post and this thread is as to how cynical it is (and it is so easy to be cynical).

There is lots of evidence about Trump's connections to Russia (among others).

But lets step back and remember: Comey is no politician.

He would take the oath to testify seriously. Much more so than a Bill Clinton or a Colin Powell (although I do not think Powell was under oath at the UN).

Comey also kept contemporaneous notes.

Trump? He keeps saying something about recordings but can't seem to find them.

If one is going to go down the lazy road of cynicism then I know which one I would be applying it to.
 
I've gotta have more cow bell! -Bruce Dickinson

Offline jmt18325

  • Moderator in Chief
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
    • View Profile
today he says there aren't any tapes after all - oops.

Offline Moonlight Graham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
No kidding, Sherlock.

You may think this is what you sound like but it isn't. You sound like a MRA with a freezer full of pudding pops jumping at the chance to defend Bill Cosby as yet another woman comes foward.

Trump has self-incriminated himself with his Twitter TL and what his sons have said publicly about Trump's relations with Russia.

Just this evidence alone goes back nearly a decade so we do not need anything from Comey's memos.

In fact, it is how Comey was fired and Trump tweeted about it being related to Russia, to then have Session's testify that Comey was fired for reasons unrelated to Russia, that are so obvious.

Hence why I laugh at your thread. Evidence is not sealed up in a vaccuum full of Comey's memos.

It's been staring us in the face long before the election. 

Sort of like a cocktail served by Mr. Pudding Pop.

There's obviously some kind of relationship between Trump & his admin and the Putin gov.  There's pieces scattered all over the place to point to something that needs to be investigated.  It doesn't look good for Trump.  But some of the more serious allegations are still allegations.  I think most people are just waiting to see it all come out from the investigations.  Others, however, hate the man so much they believe all of the the allegations already.  You can laugh at my thread, but there's a reason they're still investigating & not laying charges...yet.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Offline Moonlight Graham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
I think my sneer towards the original post and this thread is as to how cynical it is (and it is so easy to be cynical).

There is lots of evidence about Trump's connections to Russia (among others).

But lets step back and remember: Comey is no politician.

He would take the oath to testify seriously. Much more so than a Bill Clinton or a Colin Powell (although I do not think Powell was under oath at the UN).

Comey also kept contemporaneous notes.

Trump? He keeps saying something about recordings but can't seem to find them.

If one is going to go down the lazy road of cynicism then I know which one I would be applying it to.

Trump has connections to Russia, that seems pretty obvious.  But there needs to be a link to connect Trump to the other serious allegations. 

Yes, this thread is extremely cynical.  History has taught us lessons over and over again.  Talk is cheap.  I don't think anyone believes anything Trump say already.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
Well we now know, after 6 weeks or so, that Trump was BSing about the tapes. Now he says he is "amused" by all the reportage that followed his "tapes tweet". Now I see he is doing his best to shackle the WH press briefings. I guess he's aiming for the day when the only way anyone will know what the POTUS is up to is what is found in his twitter account. 

Offline segnosaur

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
But some of the more serious allegations are still allegations.
Well, I think the most serious allegation at this point is 'obstruction of justice'... and there is more than enough evidence to elevate that from an 'allegation' to 'this is a thing that likely happened'.

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
I think most people are just waiting to see it all come out from the investigations.  Others, however, hate the man so much they believe all of the the allegations already. 


There wasn't enough evidence to charge OJ Simpson with murder but the reason I still believe he did it has nothing to do with hating him.


Offline Moonlight Graham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Well, I think the most serious allegation at this point is 'obstruction of justice'... and there is more than enough evidence to elevate that from an 'allegation' to 'this is a thing that likely happened'.

What about the alleged colluding with the Putin gov to undermine Hillary during the election cycle?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Offline Moonlight Graham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile

There wasn't enough evidence to charge OJ Simpson with murder but the reason I still believe he did it has nothing to do with hating him.

OJ was charged for double-murder & went to trial. 

And there seemed like enough evidence to convict him - victims blood all over his bronco, victim-bloody glove on OJ's property - the brilliant defense just "planted" doubt into a largely black jury.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.