Also, you realize that if evidence for the Russian hacking was ever published, the political fallout and ramifications would be huge, right? And maybe an international conflict of that scale would be better off not happening. Its the same reason why we don't say boo to China when the Chinese government hacks into our corporations and government entities and friggin steals the plans for the Joint Strike Fighter.

@TrPrado..the analogy works..father says I hope you will.mow the lawns & wash the car, I'd like to give you some pocket money afterwards...to his son. It's quite clear what's going on & any kid who thinks that there'll be pocket money if those lawns are not mowed & that car washed is deluding themselves. The vast majority of kids are not that stupid.
President says to Comey..It would be good if x was to happen....and I hope to see you continue in your job. ( and x is something Comey can influence/make happen ) It's obvious what's going on, particularly when Comey doesn't "oblige the President" and is then sacked.

I think a better analogy is if your boss comes to you and says "I hope you can have that project done by Friday." Don't get me wrong, but I take that as "You better have that project done by Friday, but I'm trying to be a nice boss so that you'll take me more seriously when I get angry"

Is this the same hyper-critical analysis that lead to the conclusion that every single email on Hillary's server was just about her daughter's wedding and we should just ignore it DELETE DELETE DELETE


The funny thing is, loretta lynch seems to be more culpable for obstruction of justice than Trump is. And let's also forget the more overt obstruction of justice by Barack Obama during the Fast and the Furious scandal, that the Media gave him a pass on.

But let's make sure we follow the time line of events for Trump (according to Comey) correctly:

1. Comey tells Trump multiple times that he is not under investigation (in private)
2. Trump tells Comey he's fine with the investigation into his subordinates, but can he come out and say there's no investigation with him.
3. Comey's firing did not hinder or stop the investigation into Flynn in any way, nor was it designed to: from Comey's own lips.

The only problems at play here are Trump's handling of the situation, which he has done like a... well, non-politician. He clearly lacks finesse, but as for legal grounds of criminal activity, right now you're not winning at court with the information we have. Yes more information could come out, but as of right now, we're chasing ghosts. Slight overweight, spray-tanned ghosts who say "huge" and "wall" a lot.

And to clarify what Impeachment ACTUALLY entails, there needs to be a simple majority in the House to call the Senate to a trial, in which a vote of 2/3 is needed to impeach the President. Notice that there does not actually have to be any crime to be committed for impeachment to occur: AND ALSO if there are charges against the President impeachment may not occur all the same.

For right now anyone placing bets on impeachment is going with a long shot for Trump being impeached. But let's take a quick look at how the Media has adjusted their goalposts as things have progressed:


Accusation #1: Trump is a Russian agent.
Remember those good old days when they thought Trump was in Putin's pocket, and how the Russians were going to invade next Tuesday... and then Tuesday rolled around
and the Media retranslated their holy scriptures and say their errors: it meant that FRIDAY. ah. we see our mistake, the apocalypse is on Friday. But don't worry guys, maybe Buzzfeed and can find some tabloid-level garbage saying Trump had hookers pee on him in Russia.

Accusation #2: Trump got Russians to hack the DNC for him.
Russians in all likelihood did hack the DNC with the new information in Florida, but that is not connected to Trump at all. The Guccifer hacks have actually been called under extreme scrutiny recently by much of the online community questioning Russian involvement altogether. But even if this IS the Russians 100%, there is still the matter of no verified connection to Trump.

Accusation #3: Trump tried to get comet to stop the FBI investigation into the campaign.
Comey said it didn't happen, Trump said it didn't happen, but the Media, using the ancient seeing stones of Bolthor were able to read their minds and see what they knew all along: Comey and Putin had been in a messy love triangle with Trump the entire time. Enraged by this attack against Democracy, they took it upon themselves to cite anonymous sources and leaks that proved nothing and had no substantial evidence of wrongdoing. Our heroes. In fact, the only thing Trump said in extreme contention with Comey is that he wanted Comey to say that he wasn't under investigation, which Comey had already told Trump! It's not like Comey has a problem with preemptively saying things to the Public before na investigation is don- oh wait.


So what's next for Media accusations? The obvious progression is that Trump is a meany and a liar, and is unfit for office, and so what if he fairly won the election: we don't like him, and we've gotten our way for the 8 years prior to this SO GIVE US WHAT WE WANT REEEEEEEEEEEE



But who knows? anything can happen! there might be leaks tomorrow that show anonymous sources have unverifiable claims about Trump THAT COULD BLOW THIS THING WIDE OPEN!!!



but seriously guys, tell me when some verified shit gets brought to the table. right now this is pathetic. Trump is not some genius playing 3D chess in the political realm, he's new to politics and acting like a overweight spray tanned bull in a china shop. did i already use those adjectives as an insult? i think so. but for everyone calling for impeachment, calm the hell down. honestly

If Comey's account (as memorialized by his memo) was incorrect, then Comey was taking a HUGE gamble. That is, if Trump had tapes that contradicted ANYTHING in Comey's memo, Comey's credibility would be entirely shot. I don't think Comey is that much of a gambler.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-08/republicans-weren-t-smiling-about-comey-or-trump

Comey said Trump told him to drop the Flynn investigation. Trump's lawyer just said the opposite. The tapes, if any, would completely destroy Comey (if Comey lied). Since there are no tapes to do this, the best Trump's lawyer could do was to offer alternate "facts".

I mean how can we go from Hillary Clinton having Classified material on he private servers (some of which was properly marked) and then after the FBI asked to see all of her emails, she THEN deleted many of them: and that's not obstruction of Justice

But Trump firing Comey, which in NO WAY stalled or impeded upon the Flynn investigation by the FBI as a whole (in fact it seems to have accelerated it), because Comey was perfectly willing to speak up for Clinton during an investigation when not all the evidence was out in the open on her, but he won't speak up publicly for Trump even though he told Trump there was no evidence (or investigation on him).

I mean firing a guy over hypocrisy is one thing, but Trump is still a buffoon for attacking the FBI saying it was in disorder, but once again how is any of this illegal? I'm 100% sure he wanted Comey's loyalty, but at no point has he asked Comey to do anything illegal. Trump said he wanted the investigation closed ONCE because he tough Flynn was innocent and a good guy, and Comey replied "i'm sure he is" if anything vindicates Trump. If Trump asking Comey were such a breach of protocol, then how come Comey doesn't reprimand Trump right then and there? call Comey spineless, but the simply fact is Comey didn't take it as a serious request to ignore evidence and let Flynn off of the hook: because for WEEKS he didn't even bring it up and he continued on as status quo

@Hauta

"Since there are no tapes to do this, the best Trump's lawyer could do was to offer alternate "facts"."

answer me this: how do you OBJECTIVELY 100% KNOW that the Lawyer has "alternate 'facts'" a euphemism you've personally described as outright lies before in this forum, whereas Comey is 100% truthful?

answer: you're talking out of your ass. you don't know, i don't know, none of us know for sure. you have a narrative you like, so you pretend it's truth.

he *thought* Flynn

James, you're ignoring history here. Nixon firing the special prosecutor for the Watergate scandal in no way halted that investigation. However, it was enough to force Nixon to resign.

It's not even that Trump did anything illegal. He likely didn't. It's that he's trying to cover up the potential illegal activities of members of his campaign that is the main issue here. It's exactly the same thing that led to Nixon's impeachment. And Nixon only got threatened with impeachment once the public turned on him. We'll see how much longer Trump can keep those approval ratings above 25%

@goldfinger

i'm not ignoring history, Watergate was decided by the tapes that directly showed Nixon conspired to make a clear attempt to halt the FBI investigation.

Trump made one passing comment about Flynn being a good guy and needing to be exonerated to Comey, by which Comey didn't perceive as asking him to cover up evidence. we know this, because Comey just testified to it.

Furthermore, the actual comment to Comey never came with a threat. it was weeks earlier when Trump and invited Comey over and try to get Comey to be loyal to him, to which Comey replied he'd be honest. this is before Flynn's investigation even began!

The idea that the threat of Comey being fired and the request of Flynn's investigation being covered up were inexorably linked simply doesn't make sense from
A. the timeline
B. the fact that there was no overt threat of being fired
C. comey testified to the contrary

The difference between watergate and this is substantial.

I mean I fully agree that this isn't NEARLY as bad as Democrats and left-wing media and individuals had made the investigation out to be, but, again, this still requires a very low bar to be considered victory in any sense by Trump.

Oh yeah Trump is a bumbling buffoon who has no political finesse, and that's landed him in trouble. is this ground for impeachment? it depends on whether or not you work for places like Salon or Vox, where headlines like "TRUMP NOT BEING IMPEACHED THREATENS OUR DEMOCRACY" gets you enough clicks every month to keep your job

I mean if the original media narrative were that Trump is simply unfit for office and is running haywire over traditional separations of law enforcement and the executive, there'd be more of a case.

but the constant anxiety over Trump being a Russian agent and Hillary being the true victor of the election rose their bar for impeachment pretty high up. now they're lowering, and it's not hard to tell they'll throw anything at Trump if it gets him impeached.

@goldfinger i've known you enough i can understand you can have legitimate ethical dilemmas with Trump that merit impeachment, but until the mainstream media and the left as a whole begin taking a more principled stance and stop with such scattershot attacks at Trump, nothing short of criminal activity is going to warrant Trump's impeachment.

Face it the fake news and Democrats gambled big and lost. Although it is funny to see them repeatedly get burned by the whole muh Trump-Russia hoax. It's going to be really funny when the liberal base realizes that they have been played by their leadership lol. I can't wait for that *smiles*

"Just 32% of voters said they do not believe the President did anything wrong, while 31% said they believe he did something illegal. Another 29% said they think he did something unethical but not illegal."

Yeah, gambled big and lost....sure.

Yeah, most likely, any kind of commissioned poll or story coming out of NYT or CNN is fake news. Count how many times Comey and the panel said those stories were fabricated and untrue during the testimony today. Sorry Vashta, but your "quoted" sources are most likely fake.

ND - at least try bring honest like JY is. While he's still on your side, it's refreshing

I am trying to be. How can I be more specific for you? Are you denying that Comey and the Senate panel today called out numerous stories published in the Washington Post, CNN, NYT as fake today? I remember them mentioning at least three that were false.

ND you do realize that CNN doesn't administer the polls, this is one from Quinnipiac

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2462

False, but he didn't say in which way. We simply don't know classified information

And Quinnipiac is know to have a slight republican Bias (.7% approximately), hell they had trump leading in a number of polls before the election

He said the story was false in the main.. that means a fake story Gold. I can get you the exact quote if you wish.

Sigh.. polling firms can have their data manipulated by political hacks like anyone else. Some people have such short memories. All those polls showing Clinton was going to win by landslides.. all wrong. Manipulation? You bet! But, nah that stuff will never be acknowledged on this forum.

ND...quinnipac had trump leading....

Also...margins of error are a thing. They post those

like maybe once or twice but the vast majority showed Clinton up. Don't make me look all their published polls up in the archives.

Also polls aren't always right, but it's better to look at trends than by one example:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Quinnipac is pretty reliable.

I know the quote, ND. But we still dont know what false in the main means. The story said there were contacts with Russian intelligence officers. Maybe it wasn't Russian intelligence officers, but rather influential Russian officials. That would still make the reported story false in the main. The administration is waist deep in ties to Russia, and you seem uniquely okay with that.

I was going to rail on a bit more, but I just had a stark realization. You remind me of Putin33. He would argue with me on the forum for hours, but he would not bend his position even the slightest, even when parts of his position were glaringly wrong. All because the forum was so hostile to him that he knew if he budged an inch, people would pounce all over him. So he stayed rigid, we took him less seriously, and derided him. Don't go down that path of blind devotion to a side of an issue. Too many people do that these days, just on this forum many get away with it because they're on the side of the majority.