This is actually important. He showed during the debates and in his "policy speech" the other day that he puts his own EGO in front of the interests of the country. A person like that should not be elected president.
Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
Most people up at 3 am attacking people on Twitter are teenagers with emotional problems. I doubt we'd consider any of them fit to be President.
LOL is overused on the internet. This made me legitimately LOL. Trump is like a teenager with emotional problems.
Security and Intelligence Officials Slam Trump’s Classified Briefing Reveal
For example, Michael Morell, the former CIA director reiterated a point of proof that Donald Trump lacks even a rudimentary understanding of how classified intelligence works. He said:
“This is the first time that I can remember a candidate for president doing a readout from an intelligence briefing, and it’s the first time a candidate has politicized their intelligence briefing. Both of those are highly inappropriate and crossed a long-standing red line respected by both parties. To me this is just the most recent example that underscores that this guy is unfit to be commander-in-chief.”
One of the former CIA officers who had the pleasure of delivering daily intelligence briefings to high-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration, David Priess, said “This is unprecedented. We’ve had other presidential candidates mention that they got a briefing and talk in platitudes about it. We’ve never had somebody talk about what happened in a session.”
Mr. Priess’ statement was backed up by another former high-ranking Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst, Paul Pillar, who said that it was impossible for Trump to have read anything in the spies’ body language “because doing so would have represented an inconceivable violation of training and tradition;” a fact that was backed up by several former U.S. intelligence officials. As Mr. Pillar said,
“Those selected for this task would have been the most professional of an elite corps of intelligence officers. The last thing they would do is express either verbally or through body-language preferences about candidates or policy.”
The intelligence officials did say that although during the briefings there were no secret body language signals sent to Trump by what are effectively highly-trained spies, those “accused briefers are likely muttering quietly to themselves and shaking their heads at one of the presidential candidates now,” and it is certainly not Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post reported that members of the intelligence community are outraged at Trump and said “he had absolutely no right to disclose anything he learned in a briefing.”
“The assertion was delivered as a throwaway line during a lengthy discussion of foreign policy. But among U.S. intelligence officials, Trump’s claim amounts to an accusation of a serious breach of professional ethics.” (author bold)
Does the timing of the latest thing from Comey stink at all?
Is the FBI in someone's pocket?
Is the FBI in someone's pocket?
Are you being a tiny bit cynical there?
Oh.........
BTW here's the video of Trump. This is where his latest gaffe happens
The one where he speaks about classified stuff from a briefing..... Something about a US base.
The leak happens when he starts talking about reading people and body language.
Last edited:
Yes, but not in any 'There's a vast right wing conspiracy at work' way. Just in a 'Director Comey broke with longstanding Justice Dept. policy (which he was warned not to do) not to make any announcements about ongoing investigations which might influence the outcome of an election within 60 days of its conclusion' kind of way.
No. This was the director acting on his own against the instructions of his superiors, the policy of his office, the laws of the country, the advice of his subordinates, decades of tradition, and common sense about how his vague letter would influence the election, but it doesn't mean the FBI as an organization was involved or trying to subvert the election process.
3. Comey Defied Justice Department Rules — And Possibly Broke the Law
On Sunday, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid sent his own letter — to Comey. In the letter, Reid told the FBI director, “my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”
The Hatch Act is a 1939 federal statute that prohibits federal employees from directly supporting political candidates, or using their “official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”
While the penalties for violating the act are largely administrative, if Comey was determined to be in violation of the 77-year-old law, that could serve as grounds for his firing or demotion. But as of Monday, October 31, there had been no official inquiry as to whether Comey’s letter broke the law.
What appears more clear is that in sending the letter, Comey went rogue, breaking from well-established Justice Department policies.
Even Republicans, such as Fox News legal commentator Jean Pirro and conservative columnist George Will have condemned Comey’s decision to send the letter — especially after it became clear by Sunday that neither Comey nor any FBI investigators had seen the emails he referenced in his letter, had any knowledge of what they contained — or even if any of the emails were sent by or to Hillary Clinton.
According to a former Justice Department official, Matthew Miller writing Saturday in The Washington Post, while Comey may or may not have violated a law, he broke with longstanding practice, tradition and Justice Department guidelines when he wrote Friday’s letter, making a public comment on an ongoing investigation.
“There’s a longstanding policy of not doing anything that could influence an election,” George J. Terwilliger III, who was deputy attorney general in the George Bush administration told The New York Times on Saturday. “Those guidelines exist for a reason. Sometimes, that makes for hard decisions. But bypassing them has consequences.”
“There’s a difference between being independent and flying solo,” the former Bush administration official added.
Comey also directly defied the wishes of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her deputy, Sally Yates, who wanted the FBI director to stick to long-established tradition and keep his comments about matters that could have a bearing on the presidential election to himself, CNN reported.
“Justice officials didn’t sign off on Comey’s decision and he didn’t seek their approval,” the CNN report noted.
“Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership. It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill,” one current Justice Department official told The Washington Post, also in a Saturday story. “He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”
“Justice traditionally bends over backward to avoid taking any action that might be seen by the public as influencing an election, often declining to even take private steps that might become public in the 60 days leading up to an election,” Miller wrote. “This entire episode has exposed a troubling character flaw that calls into question Comey’s very fitness to lead the FBI…. He seems to have become intoxicated by the plaudits that have come his way. That praise has emboldened him to ignore the rules that apply to others, both because he believes in his own reputation and because he wants to thwart critics such as Republicans in Congress who might question it.”
Miller added that in previous cases involving public officials up for election, the Justice Department has held off on issuing subpoenas until the election was complete, as well as refraining from public comment.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/james...nton-email-private-server-influence-election/
(The rest of the article is a good read as well)
No. While she may be guilty of some degree of corruption that comes with being a lawyer and being in politics, she isn't outright corrupt as some politicians can be. She has done work helping those with less means and didn't really talk about it.
Because sane people in America are afraid that Comey putting his thumb on the scale will help elect a tax-evading, lying, race-baiting sexual predator who not only lacks any experience at governing but has demonstrated his profound ignorance about foreign policy, the gravity of responsibility for America's nuclear arsenal and the basic workings of the American economy to the most powerful office in the nation - thus upending our relations with other countries, further "criminalizing" great numbers of our population, tanking our markets and selling out our interests to our adversaries either through incompetence or malfeasance.
Now, that's a run-on sentence. I can break it out in bullet points for you, but if you've been awake for the last year or so none of it should be a surprise or in any way arguable.
For every amnesiatic Republican sheep there is an amnesiatic Democrat sheep equally prepared to bhaaaaaa down the opposition without regard for tangible facts, behavior, documentation or history. The rest of us make the intelligent choice.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/
One metric comes from independent fact-checking websites. As of Friday, PolitiFact had found 27 percent of Clinton’s statements that it had looked into were mostly false or worse, compared with 70 percent of Trump’s. It said 2 percent of Clinton’s statements it had reviewed were egregious “pants on fire” lies, compared with 19 percent of Trump’s. So Trump has nine times the share of flat-out lies as Clinton.
Likewise, The Washington Post Fact-Checker has awarded its worst ranking, Four Pinocchios, to 16 percent of Clinton’s statements that it checked and to 64 percent of Trump’s.
“Essentially, Clinton is in the norm for a typical politician,” says Glenn Kessler, who runs Fact-Checker, while Trump “is just off the charts. There’s never been anyone like him, at least in the six years I have been doing this.”
You don’t need to go back eight years to find a Trump embellishment; eight minutes is more than sufficient. In March, Politico chronicled a week of Trump remarks and found on average one misstatement every five minutes. The Huffington Post once chronicled 71 inaccuracies in an hourlong town hall session — more than one a minute.
“The man lies all the time,” says Thomas M. Wells, his former lawyer. Wells recalls being curious that newspaper accounts varied as to the number of rooms in Trump’s apartment in Trump Tower — eight, 16, 20 or 30. So Wells asked him how many rooms were actually in the apartment. “However many they will print,” Trump responded.
Tony Schwartz, the co-writer of his book “The Art of the Deal,” told Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, “Lying is second nature to him.”
In short, Clinton is about average for a politician in dissembling, while Trump is a world champion who is pathological in his dishonesty. Honestly, there is no comparison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/o...s-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html?smid=tw-share
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10...ecker-reveals-trump-lies-20-37-times-day.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/the-king-of-whoppers-donald-trump/
- Status
