• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump recorded phone conversations, claim former employees

prometeus said:
Unnamed sources are a crucial part of news gathering and reporting. Without them the world might never know or know too late about all sorts of events. Keep in mind that the source is only unnamed to the public but not the reporter, so the real measure of veracity is the reputation of the reporter who is the sole arbiter of the reliability of the source and whether it can be verified / confirmed by other means. It is not perfect and it does not always work as intended, but it still is important. As long as the consumer of the news is informed that it is such a source it is up to that consumer how to interpret the piece.
Click to expand...

Fine.

I might have unnamed sources that you beat kids and do crack and slap your significant other around.

Do you like that? Do you think that is good reporting?

THE ABOVE IS FALSE...I WAS MAKING IT UP FOR AN EXAMPLE.

But that is an example of what kind of harm that kind of pathetic reporting can do. You can say almost anything about anybody.

It is wrong. It is shoddy reporting. And I don't begin to care about how it was used in the past. And there is nothing you can say that will change my mind that I could possibly imagine.


We are done here.

Good day.
 
Chomsky said:
Thanks for the reply.

There's no doubt Trump faces constant scrutiny. But that does imply there might not be valid improprieties. We saw this with Flynn, for example.

But I also must point-out that while you make the argument (correctly) that the Watergate break-in was a real event, I must implore that the Russian meddling was a real event as well.

And along with that event, Trump's campaign manager (Manaforte) has a long history of associating with and assisting Putin's causes. Now the investigation is being widened to include Manaforte's, Flynn's, and perhaps other Trump confidants' financial dealings.

Reference: Investigators seek former Trump adviser's bank records as Russian probe widens

Even more startling, is that as Director Comey requested additional resources in this matter, he was silenced and removed by Trump himself.

So yes, Watergate was a real break-in, and Russian election meddling was a real event as well. It took 2-1/2 years for the Nixon incident to culminate, and we don't know how long it will take for the Russian incident to culminate in an end result.

That's why I believe the FBI and other agencies need to be left alone to follow the investigation wherever it may lead. I also believe an indie investigator needs to be appointed in the same way as Archibald Cox, to attempt to depoliticize the investigation as much as possible.
Click to expand...

This story has nothing directly to do with the Russian story as it took place before the election. So whether Trump tapes phone calls is irrelevant to the Russian investigation.

I agree 100% that the Russian investigation needs to go forward and I think it should have an independent person handle it.

But I don't like articles based solely on unnamed sources.
Use the sources to further the story? Great. But report them when you have ZERO other evidence? No - I feel that is wrong...both professionally and morally. And - with respect - there is nothing I could imagine you could say to change my mind.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Good day.
 
DA60 said:
Fine.

I might have unnamed sources that you beat kids and do crack and slap your significant other around.

Do you like that? Do you think that is good reporting?

THE ABOVE IS FALSE...I WAS MAKING IT UP FOR AN EXAMPLE.

But that is an example of what kind of harm that kind of pathetic reporting can do. You can say almost anything about anybody.

It is wrong. It is shoddy reporting. And I don't begin to care about how it was used in the past. And there is nothing you can say that will change my mind that I could possibly imagine.


We are done here.

Good day.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with disagreement at times, but I believe you are doing yourself a disservice. Instead of making it a blanket decision you can do it on a case by case basis. Still no one can force you to believe what you do not want.

Cheers.
 
DA60 said:
'three unnamed high-ranking former employees'

Trump is a buffoon.

But I have had it up to here with 'unnamed sources'.


You want to call yourself a professional news service? Don't post stories based entirely on 'unnamed sources'.

Under that criteria, you can basically makeup almost anything you want and claim it came from 'unnamed sources'.


To quote a line from a movie:

'Goddammit, when is somebody going to go on the record in this story?!'
Click to expand...

A lot of people are sure mad about unnamed sources now when they spent 8 years gobbling up every random thing they said.
 
reinoe said:
But there's the rub...the precedent has been set and very publicly so. I'm not saying that Trump did or didn't break the law. But the liberals have set up two precedents for him to walk away scott free...
Click to expand...
Delusion

1)By perpetually calling Trump an ignoramus he can safely claim ignorance of the law with a great degree of credibility.
Click to expand...
And only an ignorant believes that that is a valid defense.

2)Since ignorance of the law has been publicly upheld as the new standard
Click to expand...
Has it. Where and by what decision?
 
Fenton said:
If the tapes get leaked is the Left going to celebrate these courageous American heroes that were just doing their patriotic duty ?

Or want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law ?
Click to expand...

Cardinal said:
How would the "tapes" get leaked? Are you suggesting that Trump will leak them?
Click to expand...

I'm with Cardinal on this one.

Since Pres. Trump allegedly has these recording devices in the Oval Office, there are only three ways the taped recordings get leaked to the press:

1. The POTUS gave them to the press.
2. The POTUS gave them to someone else to give to the press.
3. The tapes were stolen and given to the press.

IMO, the POTUS has backed himself into a corner somewhat. If he does record his meetings and there is a recording of his conversation w/former FBI Director James Comey but there isn't one of this meeting with the Russian Prime Minister and Ambassador - a man who is front-and-center in the investigation of Russian hacking and possible collusion - the missing recordings will certainly beg the question "What does he have to hide?". Think about that for a moment...

The POTUS is quick to record Comey whose investigating himself and/or members of his campaign/Administration but failed to hit the record button when Russian dignitaries are visiting the White House where one of them is deeply involved in an investigation towhich the former FBI Director spearheading and was subsequently fired reportedly for not bringing said investigation to a halt?

Put another way: You're quick to record your domestic enemy but slow to record your foreign friends?

The optics on this alone are a nightmare!
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
He may have deleted them the way Hillary deleted the e-mails. Perfectly legal. He may have listened to them to make sure he didn't miss anything and erased them when done.
Click to expand...

Chomsky said:
No.

You're wrong.

They must be archived, by law.

They are not his tapes.
Click to expand...

:doh I mean...:shock:...clearly, somebody wasn't paying attention in history class.

If such tapes exist they are not the property of the POTUS. Chomsky's telling it correct; they'd be the property of the U.S. Government and must be archived by law. Didn't Nixon-Watergate teach you anything?

Now, I'm still of the opinion that Trump was just throwing out red meat and no such tapes exist, but if they do and it's proven that he recorded his meetings with Comey but didn't record his meetings with the Russian dignitaries only days later, it would be proof positive that he's trying to hide something. But I'll wait and see how this all shakes out.
:popcorn2:
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
'three unnamed high-ranking former employees'

Trump is a buffoon.

But I have had it up to here with 'unnamed sources'.


You want to call yourself a professional news service? Don't post stories based entirely on 'unnamed sources'.

Under that criteria, you can basically makeup almost anything you want and claim it came from 'unnamed sources'.


To quote a line from a movie:

'Goddammit, when is somebody going to go on the record in this story?!'
Click to expand...

I hear you and would agree, but here's the rub...

The media wouldn't report on these leaked, anonymous sources if there wasn't a grain of truth to them. Kinda reminds me of something I read concerning the Nixon Watergate trails before Trump won the election (Yeah, I thought it was a odd stroke of fate, too). Sometimes, people who are closely associated with a matter but not so much that they are intimately involved feel they can no longer sit idly by and watch a wrong being committed. The public has a right to know what's going on. It's up to the media to paint the proper picture and for everyone else to determine what's real or not.

To me, there's enough truth to what's being reported to question the President's competency to lead.

Or put another way, this...

Chomsky said:
While I understand your sentiments here, right now this is the reality of the situation.

These are just how these thing go. It took 2-1/2 years of continuous leaks and anonymous sources to bust Nixon. There was smoke all around, but it finally took a brave FBI agent to come forward who remained anonymous for 31 years after the incident!

With the stakes being what they are, this is just the nature of the game. All one can do is evaluate the media source, and decide whether they're generally credible or not, and compare the story to the general facts floating about. Then make a judgment call.
Click to expand...
 
ModerateGOP said:
Donald Trump is the boy who cried wolf. You can't go accusing your predecessor for wiretapping, and then claim it doesn't happen anymore.
Click to expand...

:lamo You know, I never considered that irony until now.

"Obama secretly recorded me in my home...

Trump's secretly recording everyone who visits the White House..."

Oh, the irony is just too rich to ignore. :lamo
 
Objective Voice said:
:lamo You know, I never considered that irony until now.

"Obama secretly recorded me in my home...

Trump's secretly recording everyone who visits the White House..."

Oh, the irony is just too rich to ignore. :lamo
Click to expand...

And this was all in the span of a month or two. Oy Vey.
 
Objective Voice said:
I'm with Cardinal on this one.

Since Pres. Trump allegedly has these recording devices in the Oval Office, there are only three ways the taped recordings get leaked to the press:

1. The POTUS gave them to the press.
2. The POTUS gave them to someone else to give to the press.
3. The tapes were stolen and given to the press.

IMO, the POTUS has backed himself into a corner somewhat. If he does record his meetings and there is a recording of his conversation w/former FBI Director James Comey but there isn't one of this meeting with the Russian Prime Minister and Ambassador - a man who is front-and-center in the investigation of Russian hacking and possible collusion - the missing recordings will certainly beg the question "What does he have to hide?". Think about that for a moment...

The POTUS is quick to record Comey whose investigating himself and/or members of his campaign/Administration but failed to hit the record button when Russian dignitaries are visiting the White House where one of them is deeply involved in an investigation towhich the former FBI Director spearheading and was subsequently fired reportedly for not bringing said investigation to a halt?

Put another way: You're quick to record your domestic enemy but slow to record your foreign friends?

The optics on this alone are a nightmare!
Click to expand...

Lol ! Of-course your with Cardinal on this one.
Why even waste the time needed to type that out ?
 
reinoe said:
That's ok. If Trump deletes them not knowing it's illegal then he'll be alright.
Click to expand...

That's his take on giving away classified intel to Russia too.
 
Objective Voice said:
:doh I mean...:shock:...clearly, somebody wasn't paying attention in history class.

If such tapes exist they are not the property of the POTUS. Chomsky's telling it correct; they'd be the property of the U.S. Government and must be archived by law. Didn't Nixon-Watergate teach you anything?

Now, I'm still of the opinion that Trump was just throwing out red meat and no such tapes exist, but if they do and it's proven that he recorded his meetings with Comey but didn't record his meetings with the Russian dignitaries only days later, it would be proof positive that he's trying to hide something. But I'll wait and see how this all shakes out.
:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

Maybe he doesn't tape everything. Only things he feels are important. I tape conversation but not every conversation. I always hit record on the phone when talking to these clowns trying to rip people off. Any call other than people I know and want to talk to I do the same thing to. I tell them they are being recorded and I would like their full name and the company they represent as well as a phone number I can call them back at. 99% hand up.
 
Objective Voice said:
I hear you and would agree, but here's the rub...

The media wouldn't report on these leaked, anonymous sources if there wasn't a grain of truth to them. Kinda reminds me of something I read concerning the Nixon Watergate trails before Trump won the election (Yeah, I thought it was a odd stroke of fate, too). Sometimes, people who are closely associated with a matter but not so much that they are intimately involved feel they can no longer sit idly by and watch a wrong being committed. The public has a right to know what's going on. It's up to the media to paint the proper picture and for everyone else to determine what's real or not.

To me, there's enough truth to what's being reported to question the President's competency to lead.

Or put another way, this...
Click to expand...

And as I explained to Chomsky...the two are very different events.

The Russia-Trump Campaign investigation is for things that took place BEFORE Trump was President. Whether Trump tapes his phone calls as POTUS has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Trump Campaign-Russia investigation.

Also, Deep Throat was referring to a gigantic amount of illegal activities...one of which was know about by all (the Watergate break-ins). And others that people knew about but did not know who did them (the 'plumbers'). Deep Throat was helping with an active Justice AND FBI investigation.

The current FBI investigation has NOTHING directly to do with Trump taping phone calls.


Also, The Washington Post back then did have facts to report AS WELL AS unnamed sources (which I am fine with). And BTW, if you are familiar with the Watergate mess, the Washington Post was getting nowhere with the story because early on, pretty much all they had was unnamed sources. It was not until hard facts started to come out (and with Walter Cronkite's help) did the investigation start to interest people (remember the Watergate break in happened months before the election yet Nixon won in a landslide).

The present report has NOTHING but unnamed sources. Plus, they phrased the title of their piece as a matter-of-fact statement without even mentioning in that title that ALL they had was unnamed sources...which was highly misleading.

If the Washington Post want to use unnamed sources to investigate....fine. But my STRONG objection is to start writing articles and making matter-of-fact accusations when ALL the reporter(s) have is unnamed sources.

To me that is VERY unprofessional and potentially dangerous.


Look - with respect - some of you people don't seem to mind stories based SOLELY on unnamed sources.

I do...period.

And I despise the job Trump is doing as POTUS...so it sure ain't partisanship that is forming my opinion.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
And as I explained to Chomsky...the two are very different events.

The Russia-Trump Campaign investigation is for things that took place BEFORE Trump was President. Whether Trump tapes his phone calls as POTUS has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Trump Campaign-Russia investigation.

Also, Deep Throat was referring to a gigantic amount of illegal activities...one of which was know about by all (the Watergate break-ins). And others that people knew about but did not know who did them (the 'plumbers'). Deep Throat was helping with an active Justice AND FBI investigation.

The current FBI investigation has NOTHING directly to do with Trump taping phone calls.


Also, The Washington Post back then did have facts to report AS WELL AS unnamed sources (which I am fine with). And BTW, if you are familiar with the Watergate mess, the Washington Post was getting nowhere with the story because early on, pretty much all they had was unnamed sources. It was not until hard facts started to come out (and with Walter Cronkite's help) did the investigation start to interest people (remember the Watergate break in happened months before the election yet Nixon won in a landslide).

The present report has NOTHING but unnamed sources. Plus, they phrased the title of their piece as a matter-of-fact statement without even mentioning in that title that ALL they had was unnamed sources...which was highly misleading.

If the Washington Post want to use unnamed sources to investigate....fine. But my STRONG objection is to start writing articles and making matter-of-fact accusations when ALL the reporter(s) have is unnamed sources.

To me that is VERY unprofessional and potentially dangerous.


Look - with respect - some of you people don't seem to mind stories based SOLELY on unnamed sources.

I do...period.

And I despise the job Trump is doing as POTUS...so it sure ain't partisanship that is forming my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't get too bent out of shape over unnamed sources, but like you my preference would be that the sources be identified. To me, it's a coward's way out not to link your name to the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom