Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Options
1…181182184186187…330

Comments

  • Options
    #5492
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,915 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    everlast75 wrote: »
    So you can't investigate a potential crime!?

    Oh, and to your specific point above - how does one find out when a crime is committed?????

    I will give you a clue. It rhymes with "pinvestingation".

    Potential crime? Like what exactly. Never heard of anyone being investigated for a potential crime.

    There is also a clear distinction between an investigation and a 'fishing expedition'

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5493
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    JRant wrote: »
    Potential crime? Like what exactly. Never heard of anyone being investigated for a potential crime.

    There is also a clear distinction between an investigation and a 'fishing expedition'

    So if a body is found with marks of possible violence then a person suspected of committing the potential crime shouldn't be investigated?


  • Options
    #5494
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,258 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    JRant wrote: »
    Potential crime? Like what exactly. Never heard of anyone being investigated for a potential crime.

    There is also a clear distinction between an investigation and a 'fishing expedition'

    Conspiracy to commit a crime?

    Intention to defraud?

    Organising a crime to happen, like planning a bank raid?

    If anyone is acting suspicious, can a police officer not investigate until there is a smoking gun?


  • Options
    #5495
    26000 Elephants
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭26000 Elephants


    JRant wrote: »
    It really is not that hard to understand. The Trump campaign was under investigation, not the man himself. Also, please point out where I said it was of no relevance to Trump.

    They are inextricably linked. Your effort to sanitize Trump by removing him from his own campaign is laughable.
    I'll also discuss things as I see fit, thanks anyway.

    Please do! Just dont get so upset when you're not taken seriously.


  • Options
    #5496
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,915 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    So if a body is found with marks of possible violence then a person suspected of committing the potential crime shouldn't be investigated?

    No, they are investigated for an actual crime, if one is found to have occurred.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5497
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,915 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Conspiracy to commit a crime?

    Intention to defraud?

    Organising a crime to happen, like planning a bank raid?

    If anyone is acting suspicious, can a police officer not investigate until there is a smoking gun?

    The examples you gave are actual crimes, nothing potential about them.

    Acting suspicious is in of itself not a crime. Probable cause is one of the corner stones of the American justice system.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5498
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,915 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    26000 Elephants wrote: »
    They are inextricably linked. Your effort to sanitize Trump by removing him from his own campaign is laughable.



    Please do! Just dont get so upset when you're not taken seriously.

    I am doing no such thing. Again, you are reading things that I just didn't say.

    Oh, I don't care if someone on the internet takes me seriously or not. If all you have are King Ralph quips then it says more for your argument than mine.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5499
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,258 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Aaaaannyyyway....


    Apparently Sam Numberg just gave out the name of the confidential informant live on TV.

    Its time to jail that a hole!


  • Options
    #5500
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Aaaaannyyyway....


    Apparently Sam Numberg just gave out the name of the confidential informant live on TV.

    Its time to jail that a hole!


    Where did you hear that?


  • Options
    #5501
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,258 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Where did you hear that?

    https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/998242027228811267?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5502
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    JRant wrote: »
    No, they are investigated for an actual crime, if one is found to have occurred.

    So a body is found in suspicious circumstances but nobody can be investigated until there is certainty that a crime has been committed? That's wrong.


  • Options
    #5503
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    everlast75 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/998242027228811267?s=19

    How would Nunberg know? Is this just a red herring and is he the patsy? The poor man is very unhinged at the best of times.


  • Options
    #5504
    Trigger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,538 ✭✭✭✭Trigger


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    How would Nunberg know? Is this just a red herring and is he the patsy? The poor man is very unhinged at the best of times.

    There are some tweets by journalists saying that the name was out there in Political circles in the States but that the media are refraining from reporting on it or naming as it could/should lead to charges being brought against them


  • Options
    #5505
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,915 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Aaaaannyyyway....


    Apparently Sam Numberg just gave out the name of the confidential informant live on TV.

    Its time to jail that a hole!

    It's been widely known since Friday who the CI was.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5506
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users Posts: 7,523 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    Was their not media coverage mentioning him on Friday and Saturday? For example:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna875516


  • Options
    #5507
    ECO_Mental
    Registered Users Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭ECO_Mental


    astradave wrote: »
    There are some tweets by journalists saying that the name was out there in Political circles in the States but that the media are refraining from reporting on it or naming as it could/should lead to charges being brought against them


    I was listening to fox news over the week and they mentioned someone by their initials as it was out their I think.

    6.1kWp south facing, South of Cork City



  • Options
    #5508
    26000 Elephants
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭26000 Elephants


    JRant wrote: »
    I am doing no such thing. Again, you are reading things that I just didn't say.

    To recap:
    There were question marks hanging over the Trump campaign but not Trump himself.

    But Mueller want to interview Trump this July. Whatever for? It seems a strange tactic for a special counsel when, as you say, there are no "question marks" hanging over Trump.

    source

    I'm sure its nothing: run of the mill stuff in a 14 month DoJ Special Investigation with 23 indictments (so far) which Trump himself has already tried to obstruct at least twice.


  • Options
    #5509
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,915 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    26000 Elephants wrote: »
    To recap:



    But Mueller want to interview Trump this July. Whatever for? It seems a strange tactic for a special counsel when, as you say, there are no "question marks" hanging over Trump.

    source

    I'm sure its nothing: run of the mill stuff in a 14 month DoJ Special Investigation with 23 indictments (so far) which Trump himself has already tried to obstruct at least twice.

    You're almost there, now try reading all of what I wrote. I said AT THE TIME only one of the candidates was being directly investigated. This is not difficult stuff.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5510
    26000 Elephants
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭26000 Elephants


    JRant wrote: »
    AT THE TIME

    I doubt even the rules of calculus would allow you to construct a time frame so small for that to hold true.


  • Options
    #5511
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,556 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Be interesting to see what Trump actually asks for in terms of uncovering why the FBI went into his campaign and whether the DOJ will accept it.

    He could be opening a pandoras box with this. Unless he is completely certain that there was no basis (which given everything that we know and the massive impact such a finding would have on the standing of the FBI) it is quite a gamble to take.

    Given that we know Papadopolous was talking to the Russias, we know that Flynn lied to the FBI, we know that Manafort was caught up in some shading dealings. Is Trump really going to risk having a report come out with details of the things they were looking into?

    We know, for example, that his personal lawyer was using Trump connection to get money from corporate clients, is he so sure that others in his campaign were not doing the same? Sure he might try to argue that it wasn't him directly but it would be really damaging.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5512
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,258 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    I know it was the right thing for Rosentstein to do, ie. give him what he wants in terms of an investigation into the investigation if you will, but part of me wanted him to tell him to **** off with his "hereby demand" comment, perhaps saying that the President does not get to demand, but he can most certainly request that his AG commission an investigation, in which case it will of course be done.

    I cannot wait for someone (Avenatti/Mueller/the electorate) to put manners on Trump.


  • Options
    #5513
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,915 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    26000 Elephants wrote: »
    I doubt even the rules of calculus would allow you to construct a time frame so small for that to hold true.

    Well then, take it up with Comey. He testified the Trump was not under investigation at that time.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5514
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,915 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Be interesting to see what Trump actually asks for in terms of uncovering why the FBI went into his campaign and whether the DOJ will accept it.

    He could be opening a pandoras box with this. Unless he is completely certain that there was no basis (which given everything that we know and the massive impact such a finding would have on the standing of the FBI) it is quite a gamble to take.

    Given that we know Papadopolous was talking to the Russias, we know that Flynn lied to the FBI, we know that Manafort was caught up in some shading dealings. Is Trump really going to risk having a report come out with details of the things they were looking into?

    We know, for example, that his personal lawyer was using Trump connection to get money from corporate clients, is he so sure that others in his campaign were not doing the same? Sure he might try to argue that it wasn't him directly but it would be really damaging.

    Very true but most if not all of that is going to be or is currently being investigated by Mueller so for Trump is it really that big a gamble?

    I think Mueller is eventually going to get him on something or another. The main question with this latest reveal is how comfortable are people with the idea of intelligence agencies spying on presidential candidates. Regardless of anyone's feelings towards Trumo, it really is a dangerous road to be going down.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #5515
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    JRant wrote: »
    Very true but most if not all of that is going to be or is currently being investigated by Mueller so for Trump is it really that big a gamble?

    I think Mueller is eventually going to get him on something or another. The main question with this latest reveal is how comfortable are people with the idea of intelligence agencies spying on presidential candidates. Regardless of anyone's feelings towards Trumo, it really is a dangerous road to be going down.

    To be honest - If they received credible intelligence that a crime "might" have been committed or was about to be committed , then they were fully correct to try to confirm/deny that information , regardless of who it is. The use of an informant in this kind of scenario is fairly standard practice I'd have thought (or have all those TV Crime shows been lying to us all these years!).

    Trumps ONLY goal here is to continue to discredit the investigation in anyway possible , he neither knows nor cares if it was legal or not. All he wants is to build a narrative that he can use as a shield when Mueller finally delivers his findings.

    If the GOP still control the House & Senate when the report finally comes out , all this "Deep State" conspiracy stuff will be used by Trump and the GOP as a reason to ignore the results and keep on trucking..

    He's also using it to energise his base to make sure they vote in November to "fight the Deep State" to try to hold on to the control of the House and Senate , because he knows that if the Dems take control in November , he's done.


  • Options
    #5516
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,556 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    JRant wrote: »
    Very true but most if not all of that is going to be or is currently being investigated by Mueller so for Trump is it really that big a gamble?

    I think Mueller is eventually going to get him on something or another. The main question with this latest reveal is how comfortable are people with the idea of intelligence agencies spying on presidential candidates. Regardless of anyone's feelings towards Trumo, it really is a dangerous road to be going down.

    What if they come out with something like "Manafort had shown direct links to X foreign government" or that "We had intercepted calls, as part of our normal intelligence gathering against Russia, that Trump Jr was actively working with the Russians".

    Trump has a history of setting new fires in an attempt to put out old ones (the clearest example being firing Comey). This has the very real threat of doing the same.

    Even if Trump is 100% clean, what about the others on the campaign? What about Page, Papadopolous, Manafort and all the others. That is why it could be a very risky move.

    And on the other hand, lets say he is right. Lets us follow through on the possible outcomes if the FBI were directed to start an investigation based on nothing but wanting to get the dirt on Trump. That would shatter the belief in the FBI. IS that a price worth paying? I doubt Trump has thought this through. He continues to trade off his love for the 1st responders but seems intent on tearing down the FBI. And maybe it needs to be torn down. Maybe it's time (it certainly has done shady things in the past). What happens during this phase? Are the US left without an FBI type force? Will they lose a lot of the field staff that work to try to keep US secure and safe?

    To me, it looks like Trump is willing to create a massive issue simply for his own ends.


  • Options
    #5517
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    JRant wrote: »
    The main question with this latest reveal is how comfortable are people with the idea of intelligence agencies spying on presidential candidates.

    First you need to establish if they spied or investigated


  • Options
    #5518
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,258 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    weisses wrote: »
    First you need to establish if they spied or investigated

    now now, you can't investigate UNTIL there is a crime! (apparently)


  • Options
    #5519
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    I remember when new campaign manager Manafort was being profiled and wondering at the time how the hell they werent being investigated.


  • Options
    #5520
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    JRant wrote: »
    Very true but most if not all of that is going to be or is currently being investigated by Mueller so for Trump is it really that big a gamble?

    I think Mueller is eventually going to get him on something or another. The main question with this latest reveal is how comfortable are people with the idea of intelligence agencies spying on presidential candidates. Regardless of anyone's feelings towards Trumo, it really is a dangerous road to be going down.


    Intelligence agencies often have informants in criminal organisations. It's hardly unusual or dangerous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5521
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Intelligence agencies often have informants in criminal organisations. It's hardly unusual or dangerous.

    Is/was it established the Trump campaign/organisation is a criminal organisation ? .... Dont think so, so what you are saying doesn't make any sense imo


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement