• 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!

Trump: I didn't record secret tapes of James Comey

humbolt said:
This isn't baseball we're talking about here. But since you mentioned it, do they change the rules during the game?
Click to expand...

Sometimes on every pitch.

And way to ignore the larger point. :doh:roll:
 
haymarket said:
Sometimes on every pitch.

And way to ignore the larger point. :doh:roll:
Click to expand...

No, the larger point is that unless you have evidence of some kind that obstruction actually occurred, you're blowing smoke. Firing Comey isn't evidence of obstruction.
 
Fenton said:
Its purpose was to keep Comey honest, to keep him from embellishing his testimony or leaking out false information that would hurt Trump politically
Click to expand...

Which is utterly and completely ridiculous since Comey had the memo's he wrote AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSATIONS and knew they would be used to compare with what he testified.

Trump was simply doing what he had done in years past of lying about tapes and trying to bluff his way through life when he gets caught in a tight place.

There is nothing shred or clever or sly about that - its just his usual bully boy dishonesty surfing again as his normal practice.
 
humbolt said:
No, the larger point is that unless you have evidence of some kind that obstruction actually occurred, you're blowing smoke. Firing Comey isn't evidence of obstruction.
Click to expand...

Combined with his efforts to fire people investigating him like Sally Yates and Preet Bahara - yes it is as it demonstrates clear and identifiable pattern.
 
haymarket said:
Combined with his efforts to fire people investigating him like Sally Yates and Preet Bahara - yes it is as it demonstrates clear and identifiable pattern.
Click to expand...

The pattern I'm seeing is that partisan players have been tossed out of the administration - something the political left routinely does when in power. Yates is an unabashed democrat, and old Preet needed to hit the street. Replacing US Attorneys is routine.
 
humbolt said:
The pattern I'm seeing is that partisan players have been tossed out of the administration - something the political left routinely does when in power. Yates is an unabashed democrat, and old Preet needed to hit the street. Replacing US Attorneys is routine.
Click to expand...

That is your judgment that they were tossed out because they were partisan. And it is intellectually DISHONEST to attempt to take each of the three firings as an isolated individual event and justify it instead of looking at all three as a pattern of trying to impede an investigation into the election.
 
haymarket said:
Which is utterly and completely ridiculous since Comey had the memo's he wrote AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSATIONS and knew they would be used to compare with what he testified.

Trump was simply doing what he had done in years past of lying about tapes and trying to bluff his way through life when he gets caught in a tight place.

There is nothing shred or clever or sly about that - its just his usual bully boy dishonesty surfing again as his normal practice.
Click to expand...

When he wrote the memo is debatable, there's no proof that he wrote them immediately after their conversation, hell there's no proof he wrote them at all.
Where's the memo ?
That narrative that Comey had a habit of writing memo's to cover his ass pretty much died off after we learned there were no memo's of Comey's conversations with Lynch.

That " memo " was leaked on May the 16th, 4 days after Trumps tweet . It was done out of spite and was a foolish thing to do

Why ? Because now Comey had to account for it, explain it under oath, and he did that by offering up some weak and obscure account of Trump making him feel unconfortable by asking him to go easy on Flynn.

Not uncomfortable enough to notify his superiors at the DOJ mind you but enough to justify penning a after the fact memo with content that couldnt be corroberated by anyone but Comey.

Thanks to the tweet, Comey also had to testify truthfully. That meant confirming Trump was never under investigation and that Trump asked him to check into his associates.

His testimony about Lynch cast even more doubt on Comey's motives and credibillity. Why didnt he write memo's after Lynch told him to characterize a FBI investigation as a " matter " ?

Why did he agree to do it ?
 
haymarket said:
That is your judgment that they were tossed out because they were partisan. And it is intellectually DISHONEST to attempt to take each of the three firings as an isolated individual event and justify it instead of looking at all three as a pattern of trying to impede an investigation into the election.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly legitimate for the president to fire an unsupportive attorney. Ask Obama or Bill Clinton. That's not a judgement. That's a fact, and facts are inherently honest.
 
haymarket said:
Combined with his efforts to fire people investigating him like Sally Yates and Preet Bahara - yes it is as it demonstrates clear and identifiable pattern.
Click to expand...

Nobody was investigating him. How many officials have to tell you that on record before you can accept it? And he fired Yates for choosing to act against the president rather than resign. It is her job to defend the President in court, she didn't.

Also, It is always in the president's power to order the end of an investigation and he never did. It wouldn't even be obstruction if he told Comey to close the Flynn case for many reasons specific to the powers of the president, and also simply because THERE WAS NO ESTABLISHED CRIME COMMITTED. What is the justice being obstructed when no crime has been established? The nutter scream for blood regardless of evidence is not justice, it is precisely the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Another senseless lie and embarrassing retraction by the chief executive of a great nation. I'm sorry America but those of you who voted for President Trump put a serial liar and narcissistic arse into office. What were you thinking? While Mrs. Clinton was arguably no better, you did have other choices. But you are so wedded to your two party system that you're politically bipolar. Well now it's time to take responsibility for your choices and to begin to work towards correcting them in 2018 and especially 2020. Abandon the established parties and vote independently. I sincerely hope for America's sake and for the sake of the whole world that you have learned a lesson here and won't repeat such self destructive folly. My sympathies and condolences for what you must now endure.

V/R.
Evilroddy.
 
Fenton said:
When he wrote the memo is debatable, there's no proof that he wrote them immediately after their conversation, hell there's no proof he wrote them at all.
Where's the memo ?
Click to expand...

The entire point of a legal contemporaneous memo is that it is dated and provided to someone who can verify - testify if needed - that is was written and presented at the time claimed.

That solves the entire problem you pretend is there with them.
 
jmotivator said:
Nobody was investigating him. How many officials have to tell you that on record before you can accept it? And he fired Yates for choosing to act against the president rather than resign. It is her job to defend the President in court, she didn't.

Also, It is always in the president's power to order the end of an investigation and he never did. It wouldn't even be obstruction if he told Comey to close the Flynn case for many reasons specific to the powers of the president, and also simply because THERE WAS NO ESTABLISHED CRIME COMMITTED. What is the justice being obstructed when no crime has been established? The nutter scream for blood regardless of evidence is not justice, it is precisely the opposite.
Click to expand...

Trump is a person.
Trump is the campaign for higher office.
Trump is the organization behind that campaign.
Trump is the financial empire.

When one says that Trump is under investigation, it can include any and all of those things.

The actual offense is being investigated. Be patient. They do not announce the final score of a baseball game in the second inning.
 
humbolt said:
It's perfectly legitimate for the president to fire an unsupportive attorney. Ask Obama or Bill Clinton. That's not a judgement. That's a fact, and facts are inherently honest.
Click to expand...

It is fundamentally intellectually DISHONEST to only examine the firings of Preet Bahara, Sally Yates and James Comey as individual incidents which are covered by normal reasons and NOT look at them as a pattern to impede an investigation which could well seriously hurt the person who fired all of them.
 
humbolt said:
No, the larger point is that unless you have evidence of some kind that obstruction actually occurred, you're blowing smoke. Firing Comey isn't evidence of obstruction.
Click to expand...

Again, one must look at the actions of Trump in total to see the pattern. He fired Preet Bahara... he fired Sally Yates .... he fired James Comey ..... and in doing so created the narrative of attempting to impede an investigation which could seriously hurt the person doing the firing.
 
haymarket said:
Again, one must look at the actions of Trump in total to see the pattern. He fired Preet Bahara... he fired Sally Yates .... he fired James Comey ..... and in doing so created the narrative of attempting to impede an investigation which could seriously hurt the person doing the firing.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but Celebrity Apprentice Season 5.
 
haymarket said:
It is fundamentally intellectually DISHONEST to only examine the firings of Preet Bahara, Sally Yates and James Comey as individual incidents which are covered by normal reasons and NOT look at them as a pattern to impede an investigation which could well seriously hurt the person who fired all of them.
Click to expand...

So Obama's firing of all the Bush-appointed US Attorneys constituted a pattern? Trump wasn't under investigation, so I see no pattern that departs from that which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did. Perhaps you can show me one.
 
haymarket said:
Again, one must look at the actions of Trump in total to see the pattern. He fired Preet Bahara... he fired Sally Yates .... he fired James Comey ..... and in doing so created the narrative of attempting to impede an investigation which could seriously hurt the person doing the firing.
Click to expand...

No, I believe you are attempting to create a pattern where demonstrably none exists.
 
haymarket said:
The entire point of a legal contemporaneous memo is that it is dated and provided to someone who can verify - testify if needed - that is was written and presented at the time claimed.

That solves the entire problem you pretend is there with them.
Click to expand...

Some seem to think that he wrote his encounters on a post-it.
 
Crosscheck said:
This is nothing but Celebrity Apprentice Season 5.
Click to expand...

I can see that.

And if one is making comparisons to popular entertainment, the Trump presidency is a whole lot like the old song SEND IN THE CLOWNS.
 
humbolt said:
No, I believe you are attempting to create a pattern where demonstrably none exists.
Click to expand...

Only to the Trump loyalist who has their head firmly buried in the sand and thus has made a willful and purposeful decision to NOT see what is plainly there just the same.
 
humbolt said:
So Obama's firing of all the Bush-appointed US Attorneys constituted a pattern? Trump wasn't under investigation, so I see no pattern that departs from that which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did. Perhaps you can show me one.
Click to expand...

Trump is a person.
Trump is the campaign for higher office.
Trump is the organization behind that campaign.
Trump is the financial empire.

When one says that Trump is under investigation, it can include any and all of those things.

I already have demonstrated the pattern. All three persons were engaged in critical positions in investigations which could have damaged Trump and hurt him. All three were then fired by Trump after information became public that he did not like. The pattern is clear for anyone who will take off the partisan blinders.
 
Fenton said:
Trump played the media and the Democrats big time with that tweet, and theyre too outraged to realize it.
Click to expand...
Just because this sentiment is spoken ad nauseum does not make it true. If he is so brilliant why is there very high odds he is now under investigation?

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
haymarket said:
Only to the Trump loyalist who has their head firmly buried in the sand and thus has made a willful and purposeful decision to NOT see what is plainly there just the same.
Click to expand...

The pattern I've seen, and I'm surely not alone in seeing it, is an unrelenting attempt to get Trump for something - anything. The charges have moved from corruption to collusion with no result, so the left has moved on to obstruction. That's the pattern most are witnessing even if they aren't honest enough to admit it.
 
haymarket said:
Trump is a person.
Trump is the campaign for higher office.
Trump is the organization behind that campaign.
Trump is the financial empire.

When one says that Trump is under investigation, it can include any and all of those things.

I already have demonstrated the pattern. All three persons were engaged in critical positions in investigations which could have damaged Trump and hurt him. All three were then fired by Trump after information became public that he did not like. The pattern is clear for anyone who will take off the partisan blinders.
Click to expand...

You have established a pattern. See post #273.
 
humbolt said:
The pattern I've seen, and I'm surely not alone in seeing it, is an unrelenting attempt to get Trump for something - anything. The charges have moved from corruption to collusion with no result, so the left has moved on to obstruction. That's the pattern most are witnessing even if they aren't honest enough to admit it.
Click to expand...

The belief in the existence of one pattern does NOT negate the existence of the other pattern.

Trump has done this to himself. He is his own wort enemy and most of the damage to him was self inflicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom