Assholes's Speech

+1 - They don't get this. It's just amazing to me. There is a witch hunt going on and there will be backlash from this.

In the memo Comey says Trump told him "I hope you can let this go." The key word is hope. Hoping something happens is not illegal. Does anyone actually think Trump wanted Flynn prosecuted? Besides, check the timelines, this meeting took place after Comey had testified that Flynn had been cleared of any wrongdoing.

And for those saying Trump should be impeached for sharing classified info, you should learn the law. The president has the right to declassify information. No one else can, only the president. Now someone leaked info to the Wash Post that Trump didn't talk about in the meeting. Now that person is in deep shit.

We're slowly watching the media and the left try to bring down the president. What these dumbasses are actually doing is undermining the whole government. They keep escalating this fight and there will be backlash. This probably will not end well for anyone. Originally Posted by centexguy

A simple question for you, Milly.

How did the public find out about this alleged "memo"? Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Haha you are trying to be Trump so much with the "". If you are calling it alleged, you don't need to use that. Just so you know. Now if you wanted to say this "memo", then that's ok but to use both is pointless.

As for your question, the contents of the memo were told by friends of Comey whom he talk with about the conversations he and Trump had. You're acting like things that have been done for decades in media are now so wrong because it's against Trump. Again, do some research. See how many times your savior used information that was on background, or unknown sources, etc. He does it all the time and his WH does it all the time. And his WH is the source of all the leaks you're saying will cause them to be in deep shit.

Again, I say to you. Comey is testifying about the memo. And it will be a sworn statement for you to believe. Is that not enough? Because then the alleged "memo" will be confirmed by the source.

Also I think you keep using un-known source when you mean unnamed. We know the source it's Comey. We know who told the media, a friend of come. It's not unknown. We just don't know the name of the source. Ergo unnamed.

+1 - They don't get this. It's just amazing to me. There is a witch hunt going on and there will be backlash from this. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

The best thing is when someone says they don't get this. Guess what you don't get things that people are saying either. Because he just gave his opinion and it's an opinion you agree with. It's not facts. So everyone won't get it because everyone doesn't agree with you. It's just amazing to me that y'all think that this is a witch hunt. It's not. Flynn was working as foreign agent, he's admitted it. Manafort had dealings. They were part of the Trump administration. The IC has given enough evidence that there are multiple investigations into it. Those are facts. That's why I don't get that y'all don't get this. To think that a Republican lead Congress would waste time and resources on something that's a "witch hunt" is ludicrous. To think that the DOJ would waste time and resources is ridiculous.

Who cares about backlash? It's our right to know what happened. If getting to the truth of what happens brings backlash, so be it. And it's the responsibility of our government to find out what happened and prevent it from happening again.

+1 - They don't get this. It's just amazing to me. There is a witch hunt going on and there will be backlash from this. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

They don't get this =

The vast majority of Americans, including the the FBI and the Republican lead congress.

It's just amazing to me. There is a witch hunt going on and there will be backlash from this =

a small segment of Americans, the ones who's vote Trump wouldn't lose if he shot someone of 5th Ave. Oh, and of course Donald Trump himself.

In the memo Comey says Trump told him "I hope you can let this go." The key word is hope. Hoping something happens is not illegal. Does anyone actually think Trump wanted Flynn prosecuted? Besides, check the timelines, this meeting took place after Comey had testified that Flynn had been cleared of any wrongdoing.

And for those saying Trump should be impeached for sharing classified info, you should learn the law. The president has the right to declassify information. No one else can, only the president. Now someone leaked info to the Wash Post that Trump didn't talk about in the meeting. Now that person is in deep shit.

We're slowly watching the media and the left try to bring down the president. What these dumbasses are actually doing is undermining the whole government. They keep escalating this fight and there will be backlash. This probably will not end well for anyone. Originally Posted by centexguy

It all depends on how one interprets the use of the word "hope" in the context that Trump used it. The definition of "hope" is a desire for something to happen. So it was Trump's desire to make it go away. Certainly not illegal but was it putting pressure on Comey to drop it, which is certainly suspect? Again, not illegal.

Yes Trump has the right to declassify information but that does not make it right to do so. An impeachable offense? Certainly not, but again a suspect action. I personally think it was incorrect of him to share information given to him by an ally without the consent of that ally.

Trump's latest tweets about "witch hunt" make him appear to be guilty of something. For someone so concerned with appearance, the guy is not acting very smart.

If he was, in his words, told "3 times" he was not under investigation, why is he so vocal about this? When the FBI and Congress agree that these investigations are vital, why is he acting in a way to undermine the integrity of our justice system? Maybe he knows something he doesn't want others to know?

If it was merely a witch hunt, Trump wouldn't need to hope FBI could let Flynn off the hook, because "he's a good guy."

If it was merely a witch hunt, Trump wouldn't be talking over and over about it being a made up thing. He would just let the process carry out and if truly innocent, he would be exonerated.

If it was merely a witch hunt, the White House would not have misrepresented the amount of contact with Russians; first it was none, then it was 4, now confronted with at least 18...

If it was merely a witch hunt, the Republican congress, many of whom have access to classified information, would not go along with all of this.

We don't know the answers yet, but, with every action and every tweet, Trump is making it seem like a cover-up.

Haha you are trying to be Trump so much with the "". If you are calling it alleged, you don't need to use that. Just so you know. Now if you wanted to say this "memo", then that's ok but to use both is pointless.

As for your question, the contents of the memo were told by friends of Comey whom he talk with about the conversations he and Trump had. You're acting like things that have been done for decades in media are now so wrong because it's against Trump. Again, do some research. See how many times your savior used information that was on background, or unknown sources, etc. He does it all the time and his WH does it all the time. And his WH is the source of all the leaks you're saying will cause them to be in deep shit.

Again, I say to you. Comey is testifying about the memo. And it will be a sworn statement for you to believe. Is that not enough? Because then the alleged "memo" will be confirmed by the source.

Also I think you keep using un-known source when you mean unnamed. We know the source it's Comey. We know who told the media, a friend of come. It's not unknown. We just don't know the name of the source. Ergo unnamed. Originally Posted by Milly23

So much gibberish, and yet no answer. How did the PUBLIC learn of the alleged "memo"?

BTW, I haven't used "unknown". Only you have.

Here's a little hint for you...

So, let me get this straight... They're calling for impeachment based on an alleged "memo" that nobody has actually seen, called in to a New York Times reporter by an "anonymous source".

Yah, right. Like I said... "Un-named sources" = "We made this shit up."
Originally Posted by gfejunkie

So much gibberish, and yet no answer. How did the PUBLIC learn of the alleged "memo"?

BTW, I haven't used "unknown". Only you have.

Here's a little hint for you... Originally Posted by gfejunkie

No answer? I'm sure I told you that a friend of Comey told the media. That's been said publicly. So maybe you're too blinded by facts to know that. You know because a friend told the media and they reported what was said. Maybe you choose not to accept it.

And here's a hint, again you don't need alleged if you're putting memo in quotations.

And here's another hint about the witch hunt. Hot of the presses today. Trump told Flynn to stay strong (talking to a guy under investigation). Then Flynn declined to adhere to the subpoena by Congress. The later says that he hasn't declined yet. If the guy is innocent he's surely not acting like a man with nothing to hide. And if Trump wants this fair investigation, why doesn't he tell Flynn to testify to clear all of this up? Yeah it's such a "witch hunt". You're such a cockholder for Trump you can't see clear signs that something's not right.

So maybe you're too blinded by facts Originally Posted by Milly23

I would rather be blinded by facts than by ignorance.

I would rather be blinded by facts than by ignorance. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Hahaha you're so dumb. You're blinded by facts. Not saying you are stating facts. The facts are against you. You are so blinded by your opinion that facts aren't getting through. And yet you continue to ignore them. That's more than ignorance. You should stop with this topic. You're too dumb to see that you're arguing against things that are facts.

Here's a fact for you...

No evidence + un-named sources = FAKE NEWS

Here's a fact for you...

No evidence + un-named sources = FAKE NEWS Originally Posted by gfejunkie

How can you call something a fact when it's false? No evidence? Are you on a Congressional committee? Have you seen all the information presented to them by the IC? Because I've seen many people in sworn testimony say that they can't speak on things because it's classified and relevant to ongoing investigations. So there's obviously some evidence they have that we can't see. Otherwise a Republican Congress would end the investigation.

But hey want to hear some things that have evidence yet Trump doesn't believe..
That Russia interfered in our election.
That his inauguration wasn't as packed as Obama's.
That his electoral college win wasn't the greatest.
That he lost the popular vote fair and square.
That he has historically low approval ratings.
That it rained at his inauguration. Sorry the lord didn't stop the rain like he claimed

Now your unnamed sources...
You want to say that unnamed sources are so bad. Yet you voted for a guy who would call in to shows as John Miller to talk about himself? And when he got caught he said it was a joke. Only after denying it was him at first. He made up his own publicists and leaked information about himself. That's ok with you but unnamed sources are terrible?

Ok, how about when Trump said a "credible source" told him about Obama's birth certificate being fake. Never gave that persons name. Tweeted many times about his sources. And we know that it was false. Nothing wrong with that huh?

Or how about in a speech where he used an "anonymous friend" as a story for terrorism in Paris.

Or when he said he had hundreds of people were calling him to back his claim about the people cheering when the towers went to down. He didn't have any names just "people".

Or how about when he cited an article based on an anonymous source about Ted Cruz father and the Kennedy assassination

Or how about every time Trump says people are saying. Never giving a name.

And as I said earlier, his own people leak anonymous all the time. So he should maybe do a better job of hiring people since it's so bad. Sounds like with the Flynn hire and all these leakers working for him, Trump the businessman can't hire a solid team.

Haha you are trying to be Trump so much with the "". If you are calling it alleged, you don't need to use that. Just so you know. Now if you wanted to say this "memo", then that's ok but to use both is pointless. Originally Posted by Milly23

You might call it redundant but it's not pointless. It actually amplifies his point. And it's grammatically fine, which is more than I can say about any of your posts, millsy.

He made up his own publicists and leaked information about himself. That's ok with you but unnamed sources are terrible?

Ok, how about when Trump said a "credible source" told him about Obama's birth certificate being fake. Never gave that persons name. Tweeted many times about his sources. And we know that it was false. Nothing wrong with that huh?

Or how about in a speech where he used an "anonymous friend" as a story for terrorism in Paris.

Or when he said he had hundreds of people were calling him to back his claim about the people cheering when the towers went to down. He didn't have any names just "people".

Or how about when he cited an article based on an anonymous source about Ted Cruz father and the Kennedy assassination

Or how about every time Trump says people are saying. Never giving a name.
. Originally Posted by Milly23

Excellent points, Milly. But typically, Trump supporters do not do honest analysis of their man.

There is ZERO proof that Obama and the Dems used intelligence capabilities to "spy" on Trump. Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

CappedCrunchyAss - Calm down, take a deep breath and stop being so hysterical. 90% of every post you make consists of insults and insecure bragging about how you are kicking someone's ass. I will limit my reply to the 10% of your post that appears to resemble some kind of actual argument.

Logically, you just tripped up again. First, you chortle that the investigation into this scandal is going nowhere. Then you say there's no proof of what can only be proven after a thorough investigation. Thank you for making my case that a full investigation is needed.

At this point, there is plenty of evidence to warrant further investigation. (Note to crunchydick – evidence is not the same as proof.) One of the most respected newspapers in the country has called Susan Rice's unmasking activities “highly unusual – and troubling” and added that “unmasking... is typically done by intelligence or law-enforcement officials engaged in anti-terror or espionage investigations. Ms. Rice would have had no obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than political curiosity.”

If crunchydick would take the time to read my posts and links carefully, and try to reply thoughtfully instead of fulminating hysterically, I wouldn't have to keep explaining the obvious to him.