Trump allows attorney general to declassify information about origins of Russia probe

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

Why do you have to waffle?

I did not ask you what you knew, I asked you what you believed.

Now I’m guessing you’ll claim you don’t know what to believe.

I think Hillary Clinton made a reckless, bone-headed, criminal mistake with the server. But I don’t think for a minute she is a traitor.

I like virtually nothing the left stands for, and generally think them fools, but I believe that by and large, they have what they think is in the country’s best interest at heart.
 

 

Well, on the question of whether or not Clinton is a traitor, you clearly disagree with Trump.

[mogandave]

Well, on the question of whether or not Clinton is a traitor, you clearly disagree with Trump.

I don’t think so.

[bristolboy]

34 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I don’t think so.

 

You're correct. I couldn't find any examples of Trump explicitly calling Clinton a traitor.

[cbtstorm]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

The “lol” is not something of a tip-off?

The idea of Trump or Hillary either one seriously asking a foreign country for political assistance on TV is ridiculous.

Hillary’s was a hypothetical, Trump’s was a joke.

 

not if your looking for entrapment with this crew. like prosecutors lol

[mogandave]

You're correct. I couldn't find any examples of Trump explicitly calling Clinton a traitor.

You must not have looked very hard, l did. I just don’t think he means it, anymore then I think Hillary believes Trump was communicating with Russia.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, cbtstorm said:

id encourage people learning of the news thst wikileaks revealed in regards to hidden unsecured servers. thats campaign gold.

That's not what you posted. 

 

On the subject of "campaign gold", how about Trump stating "I love Wikileaks"?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUtT0b0EnSw

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Thank you.

If WikiLeaks illegally obtained a copy of Trump’s tax returns and posted them, would you condemn anyone that suggested you go and look at them?

If someone recommended you buy equities in defense when the 9/11 attack took place, does that mean they condoned the attack?

Now you’ll likely say oh, but that’s different, but it seems pretty much the same to me.
 

I think useful knowledge should be used whenever available.  I would want experts examining Trump's tax returns and I would agree with the wisdom of buying defense stocks after 911.  That doesn't mean I would condone the hack or the attack.

 

Trump stated "I love Wikileaks".  That sounds like an endorsement of the organization and its methods.

 

Of course Trump is known for lies and lack of loyalty, so one can reasonably argue that nothing he says should be taken seriously.  That's how I approach his claim that his campaign was spied upon.

[cbtstorm]

50 minutes ago, heybruce said:

That's not what you posted. 

 

On the subject of "campaign gold", how about Trump stating "I love Wikileaks"?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUtT0b0EnSw

probably 2016 campaign gold as well. wikileaks has a lot of fans.

 

 

which is also why many who have voted for Trump are not liking these indictments against assange and wont be same gold for 2020.

 

 

 

[mogandave]

I think useful knowledge should be used whenever available.  I would want experts examining Trump's tax returns and I would agree with the wisdom of buying defense stocks after 911.  That doesn't mean I would condone the hack or the attack.
 
Trump stated "I love Wikileaks".  That sounds like an endorsement of the organization and its methods.
 
Of course Trump is known for lies and lack of loyalty, so one can reasonably argue that nothing he says should be taken seriously.  That's how I approach his claim that his campaign was spied upon.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it’s okay to profit from a tragedy, then turn around and say Trump condoned the hacking because he benefited from it.

I don’t believe Trump loves WikiLeaks, if he did, why would the US be trying to extradite Julian Assange? Do you think he plans to pardon him?

Long list of things all your political heros have said they apparently didn’t mean, but they all seem to get a pass.

[mogandave]

probably 2016 campaign gold as well. wikileaks has a lot of fans.
 
 
which is also why many who have voted for Trump are not liking these indictments against assange and wont be same gold for 2020.
 
 
 

Assange is a hero to the left, not the right. I think he should be executed.

[stevenl]

18 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Assange is a hero to the left, not the right. I think he should be executed.

 

In the past, yes. Since a few years, no.

[mogandave]

In the past, yes. Since a few years, no.

 

Yes, when they were only releasing documents to undermine US security the left was okay with them, but when they helped Trump get elected the left drew the line, yes?

 

 

[cbtstorm]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Assange is a hero to the left, not the right. I think he should be executed.

 

I dont know about left/right but people who want to know the real workings love

info wherever it comes from.

wikileaks is just another outlet . its a dropbox.

Assange could have info of where his data originated. dowloaded to a thumbdrive, hard disk, or trsnsported over the network. whether it was an unathorised hack,

or access via password, unsecured server.

how much data & how long it took etc  could answer questions .

Muellers investigation should have included all this.

I think Barrs will.

 

 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

You must not have looked very hard, l did. I just don’t think he means it, anymore then I think Hillary believes Trump was communicating with Russia.

There is no doubt Trump was communicating with Russia during the campaign, through Michael Cohen.  The question was/is:  Did any of these communications involve implicit or explicit agreements between Putin and Trump regarding personally beneficial US policy actions taken by Trump for Putin in exchange for a good deal?  In Putin's world, the world of corrupt autocrats, that is normal.  Trump does business with corrupt autocrats, perhaps he thinks it's acceptable also.

 

Proving such implicit agreements would be difficult, but Trump's past history indicates he can not be trusted.  He doubled the admission fee to Mar-a-Lago after the election, to $200,000, then made it his "Winter Whitehouse"; at great expense and security risk to the US but at great profit to himself.

 

Why anyone thinks Trump can be trusted to put the country's interests ahead of his own is beyond me.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

 

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it’s okay to profit from a tragedy, then turn around and say Trump condoned the hacking because he benefited from it.

I don’t believe Trump loves WikiLeaks, if he did, why would the US be trying to extradite Julian Assange? Do you think he plans to pardon him?

Long list of things all your political heros have said they apparently didn’t mean, but they all seem to get a pass.

Yes, you can profit from a tragedy while condemning it.  That is not a difficult concept.  Defense stocks probably did go up after 911 (I haven't checked), and I don't mind anyone who anticipated this making money from it.  It's not the same as endorsing the 911 attack.

 

Trump didn't just "profit" from the Wikileaks hack, he applauded it.  That should be condemned.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Assange is a hero to the left, not the right. I think he should be executed.

 

 

41 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, when they were only releasing documents to undermine US security the left was okay with them, but when they helped Trump get elected the left drew the line, yes?

Assange is a hero to anarchists and the uninformed.  I never approved of his massive everything-including-the-kitchen-sink data dumps, and I don't know anyone who does.  The small amount of debatably good information that was released was overwhelmed by the damage Wikileaks does by undermining the private communications and intelligence gathering that are a necessary part of diplomacy and security.

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

I dont know about left/right but people who want to know the real workings love

info wherever it comes from.

wikileaks is just another outlet . its a dropbox.

Assange could have info of where his data originated. dowloaded to a thumbdrive, hard disk, or trsnsported over the network. whether it was an unathorised hack,

or access via password, unsecured server.

how much data & how long it took etc  could answer questions .

Muellers investigation should have included all this.

I think Barrs will.

You aren't interested in real information, you are interested in information that confirms your biases.  That is why you reject parts of the Mueller report you find contrary to the conclusions you have already drawn.

 

Have you noticed that Assange/Wikileaks targets relatively open societies and leaves closed societies (Russia and China) alone?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Why do you have to waffle?

I did not ask you what you knew, I asked you what you believed.

Now I’m guessing you’ll claim you don’t know what to believe.

I think Hillary Clinton made a reckless, bone-headed, criminal mistake with the server. But I don’t think for a minute she is a traitor.

I like virtually nothing the left stands for, and generally think them fools, but I believe that by and large, they have what they think is in the country’s best interest at heart.
 

 

"I think Hillary Clinton made a reckless, bone-headed, criminal mistake with the server."

 

I'm curious, what do you think of Trump's continued use of a private, hackable phone and the security risks of his meetings with world leaders at Mar-a-Lago?  Do you think he has the country's best interests at heart with this behavior?

[mogandave]

You aren't interested in real information, you are interested in information that confirms your biases.  That is why you reject parts of the Mueller report you find contrary to the conclusions you have already drawn.
 
Have you noticed that Assange/Wikileaks targets relatively open societies and leaves closed societies (Russia and China) alone?

Yes, it is because they know there will be no significant retaliation from the US, and many will applaud them as heros.

Russia or China would eliminate them.

[mogandave]

Assange is a hero to anarchists and the uninformed.  I never approved of his massive everything-including-the-kitchen-sink data dumps, and I don't know anyone who does.  The small amount of debatably good information that was released was overwhelmed by the damage Wikileaks does by undermining the private communications and intelligence gathering that are a necessary part of diplomacy and security.

By saying you never approved of the massive data dumps, does that mean you did or would approve of select releases of data acquired unethically?

I know quite a few people including a close friend that think Assange is a hero. None of them are Trump supporters.

[mogandave]

Yes, you can profit from a tragedy while condemning it.  That is not a difficult concept.  Defense stocks probably did go up after 911 (I haven't checked), and I don't mind anyone who anticipated this making money from it.  It's not the same as endorsing the 911 attack.
 
Trump didn't just "profit" from the Wikileaks hack, he applauded it.  That should be condemned.

I am not aware of him applauding the hacking.

So do you think the US is attempting to extradite Assange so that Trump can pardon him?

[mogandave]

There is no doubt Trump was communicating with Russia during the campaign, through Michael Cohen.  The question was/is:  Did any of these communications involve implicit or explicit agreements between Putin and Trump regarding personally beneficial US policy actions taken by Trump for Putin in exchange for a good deal?  In Putin's world, the world of corrupt autocrats, that is normal.  Trump does business with corrupt autocrats, perhaps he thinks it's acceptable also.
 
Proving such implicit agreements would be difficult, but Trump's past history indicates he can not be trusted.  He doubled the admission fee to Mar-a-Lago after the election, to $200,000, then made it his "Winter Whitehouse"; at great expense and security risk to the US but at great profit to himself.
 
Why anyone thinks Trump can be trusted to put the country's interests ahead of his own is beyond me.

Yes, he had business communications with Russia that were investigated for two years they found no collusion with Russia.

He doubled the membership fee, not the “admission” fee.

How is it a security risk to the US?

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

 

By saying you never approved of the massive data dumps, does that mean you did or would approve of select releases of data acquired unethically?

I know quite a few people including a close friend that think Assange is a hero. None of them are Trump supporters.

I don't think the end always justifies any means, but select information that serves a public good should be made public, even if acquiring it means violating some laws.  However I don't advocate murdering one's way to a treasure trove of data.  You'll have to give me examples of the kind of unethical data collection methods you have in mind for me to be more specific. 

 

I'll offer one of my own; I approve of the release of the Panama Papers.  The data was obtained by means unknown, combed over in detail by a team of real journalists, then the parts that indicated high level wrong-doing were published.  The names, addresses, and account numbers of people who used the firm Mossack Fonseca for legitimate purposes were not published.

 

The difference between journalism and criminal data dumps lies in the consideration of the material published and the purposes for publishing it.

 

BTW, Assange didn't approve of the release of the Panama Papers.  He saw it as a ploy to undermine Putin:

 

" But a television show Assange produced appeared for a time on RT, a government-owned cable channel in Russia. Huffington Post reported that although WikiLeaks promised a major Russia dump in 2010, that never materialized. And despite his spat with Snowden, in which Assange espoused total transparency, WikiLeaks criticized the release of the Panama Papers as a U.S. government ploy to undermine Putin. "   https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/assange-man-in-the-news/512243/

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I am not aware of him applauding the hacking.

So do you think the US is attempting to extradite Assange so that Trump can pardon him?

"I love Wikileaks" and "Go to Wikileaks" following the release of the emails doesn't sound like an endorsement of the hacking to you?

 

Trump turns on allies in a heartbeat.  I don't think he'd pardon Assange unless he thought there was benefit to himself.

[simple1]

Comey's rejection of Trump allegations...

 

"Just lies - and dumb lies at that"

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html?utm_term=.5b2c74f09e9b

 

 

[mogandave]

With all due respect if you or I did with russa What  Donald did we would be in a deep dungeon with a hood over our heads awaiting interrogation make no mistake the only reason Donald dident get called on it is because he is potus and now he is doing his best to destroy the very institutions that keep an eye on this kind of stuf he is dirty imo

So if you or I tried to build a hotel in Russia and (perhaps) tried to get dirt on our competitors we would be in a dungeon with a hood over our heads awaiting interrogation...

Would that dungeon be at Gitmo, and would it include torture?

How does investigating an institution constitute an attempt to destroy it? When the L. A. Times investigates the LAPD are they trying to destroy it? (That might be a bad analogy as many would argue they are)

While there are a lot of institutions in the US I would like to see destroyed, as far as I know, the only one actually being threatened is ICE, and that threat is coming from the open-boarder left.

[Tug]

14 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So if you or I tried to build a hotel in Russia and (perhaps) tried to get dirt on our competitors we would be in a dungeon with a hood over our heads awaiting interrogation...

Would that dungeon be at Gitmo, and would it include torture?

How does investigating an institution constitute an attempt to destroy it? When the L. A. Times investigates the LAPD are they trying to destroy it? (That might be a bad analogy as many would argue they are)

While there are a lot of institutions in the US I would like to see destroyed, as far as I know, the only one actually being threatened is ICE, and that threat is coming from the open-boarder left.

 

You are definitely minimizing Donald’s involvement I’m not a mark I’ve been aware of him since my teenage years he is a con man grifter predator of the highest level he is a mortal danger to our democracy just look at what he has done in 2 years and continues to do I will name a few tax scam wrecking health care wrecking woman’s rights to control their body’s wrecking the doj(Barr=tody)wrecking or trying to the fbi cia nsa epa the diplomatic corps doing his level best to devide this nation as he sucks up to the worst despots on planet earth yes if you or I acted this way we would probably be at a (dark) prison not getmo 

[mogandave]

"I love Wikileaks" and "Go to Wikileaks" following the release of the emails doesn't sound like an endorsement of the hacking to you?
 
Trump turns on allies in a heartbeat.  I don't think he'd pardon Assange unless he thought there was benefit to himself.

Again no, I don’t think telling people to go look at the site is an endorsement of the hacking, I think he was capitalizing on an unfortunate event.

Neither do I think he “loves WikiLeaks”, I think he is a grandstanding blow-hard, again taking advantage of a situation.

What allies has Trump turn on? Most of the people I’ve seen he’s given the axe to seemed to have it coming.

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Again no, I don’t think telling people to go look at the site is an endorsement of the hacking, I think he was capitalizing on an unfortunate event.

Neither do I think he “loves WikiLeaks”, I think he is a grandstanding blow-hard, again taking advantage of a situation.

What allies has Trump turn on? Most of the people I’ve seen he’s given the axe to seemed to have it coming.

How can you tell the difference between Trump's grandstanding and when he is serious?  He is equally loud and nonsensical at all times.

 

What allies has Trump turned on?  How about everyone in his inner circle who is no longer there.  Everyone who does not indulge his every whim, such as Jeff Sessions, is turned on by Trump.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I think it safe to say that none of us believe the end justifies any means, unless perhaps the end is Trump out of office.

Okay, would you support WikiLeaks releasing Trump’s tax returns and other damaging financial information they received from an anonymous government employee?

In all fairness, by allowing “journalists” to pick and choose what documents are released it allows them to decide what government officials are destroyed and which are protected, why should that be their call?

 

 

I think it's safe to say that for many hardcore Trump supporters (yourself included), pretty much anything goes as long as it serves to deflect or obfuscate negative issues associated with the President. I think this applies to Trump himself as well. Granted, this can be applied to other politicians, but Trump seems to be less scrupulous than most. You can now try and whitewash this by labeling him a mere "blowhard".