Trump Strips Former CIA Chief John Brennan of Security Clearance

[LangfordBarrow]

If you slice it down with Occam's razor, the simplest explanation for why the Democrats are pursuing President Trump with this Russian collusion conspiracy theory is simple:

Sore losers always make excuses.

At least you don't bullshit, Mr.Brown, but you sure do spread the horse manure around.

 

[Philo-Publius]

If you slice it down with Occam's razor, the simplest explanation for why the Democrats are pursuing President Trump with this Russian collusion conspiracy theory is simple:

Sore losers always make excuses.

I think they are also trying to deflect. They got caught doing shady stuff that they are playing off as "business as usual," while pointing the finger at Trump for things he didn't do. What I don't understand is why the Justice department is not doing any pursuing of their own. I am baffled.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I think they are also trying to deflect. They got caught doing shady stuff that they are playing off as "business as usual," while pointing the finger at Trump for things he didn't do. What I don't understand is why the Justice department is not doing any pursuing of their own. I am baffled.

You're baffled because your under the impression Trump is completely innocent, despite not being privy to any of the evidence, but if you were subjective and determined these events need to be investigated it would make perfect sense. I wonder how many Trump University alumni are still happy and wondering what all the fuss was about.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

At least you don't bullshit, Mr.Brown, but you sure do spread the horse manure around.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I think they are also trying to deflect. They got caught doing shady stuff that they are playing off as "business as usual," while pointing the finger at Trump for things he didn't do. What I don't understand is why the Justice department is not doing any pursuing of their own. I am baffled.

In my time on this Earth, I've found this to be true to the point of being axiomatic:

Leftists always project.

If you're being accused of something by a far leftist, you can almost bet your bottom dollar that they're doing the exact same thing, and to a worse degree.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You're baffled because your under the impression Trump is completely innocent, despite not being privy to any of the evidence,

You're innocent until proven guilty. It's completely reasonable to assume anyone is innocent until objective and measurable evidence proves otherwise.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. If you believe someone to be guilty of something, you have to actually have evidence for it. Until that evidence is presented, anyone is assumed innocent.

This is one of the foundational standards of an objective system of justice.

but if you were subjective and determined these events need to be investigated it would make perfect sense.

Any number of irrational and nonsensical perspectives can "make perfect sense" with a subjective perspective.

I'm sorry, that's just a weak argument. It's no problem, we've all had some arguments that don't work out. That's why we're here to exchange ideas in the public square.

 

[Philo-Publius]

You're baffled because your under the impression Trump is completely innocent, despite not being privy to any of the evidence, but if you were subjective and determined these events need to be investigated it would make perfect sense. I wonder how many Trump University alumni are still happy and wondering what all the fuss was about.

What needs to be investigated? What does Trump bribing a porn star have to do with Russia "collusion" (as though there is even a statue for "collusion" being a crime)? All of those fucking politicians are paying hush money. Why are their personal attorneys office's not being subpoenaed and every last bit of data stolen being scrutinized? Do we only afford certain people constitutional rights and not others? Why isn't every Democrat who had contact with Christopher Steele being investigated and wire-tapped for "collusion?"

This is just a circular discussion that goes in circles and always ends with the reality that corruption festered under eight years of the Obama administration, and the crooks that are still working within the government will do everything under the sun to usurp a President that does not play by their rules.

If there was any evidence against Trump, it would have been leaked long ago. Once Trump fires Sessions and gets a real Attorney General in office, the shit is going to hit the fan.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You're innocent until proven guilty. It's completely reasonable to assume anyone is innocent until objective and measurable evidence proves otherwise.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. If you believe someone to be guilty of something, you have to actually have evidence for it. Until that evidence is presented, anyone is assumed innocent.

This is one of the foundational standards of an objective system of justice.


Any number of irrational and nonsensical perspectives can "make perfect sense" with a subjective perspective.

I'm sorry, that's just a weak argument. It's no problem, we've all had some arguments that don't work out. That's why we're here to exchange ideas in the public square.

You don't know what evidence they've collected so far. Apparently it's enough that even his own appointees have authorized a Special Counsel and the investigation is still running despite Trump's protestations. If you're honest just the Goldstone e-mails and the fact the meeting took place is enough to warrant an investigation. Add Trump's overtures to Russia, Cambridge Analytica's connection to Russia, Manafort's connection to Russia, Flynn's lies, the attempts at cover ups, etc..., and is anyone seriously baffled there's an investigation? Yes, we're all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but there is such a thing as criminals.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

What needs to be investigated? What does Trump bribing a porn star have to do with Russia "collusion" (as though there is even a statue for "collusion" being a crime)? All of those fucking politicians are paying hush money. Why are their personal attorneys office's not being subpoenaed and every last bit of data stolen being scrutinized? Do we only afford certain people constitutional rights and not others? Why isn't every Democrat who had contact with Christopher Steele being investigated and wire-tapped for "collusion?"

This is just a circular discussion that goes in circles and always ends with the reality that corruption festered under eight years of the Obama administration, and the crooks that are still working within the government will do everything under the sun to usurp a President that does not play by their rules.

If there was any evidence against Trump, it would have been leaked long ago. Once Trump fires Sessions and gets a real Attorney General in office, the shit is going to hit the fan.

No offense but you're a radical. I'd have as much success trying to talk a suicide bomber out of being a martyr. Let's wait a year and see how this all plays out and we can laugh about it over a beer. On you of course.

 

[Philo-Publius]

No offense but you're a radical. I'd have as much success trying to talk a suicide bomber out of being a martyr. Let's wait a year and see how this all plays out and we can laugh about it over a beer. On you of course.

Yeah, I am the radical. You have been duped and you are the radical if you think that issuing a warrant to search someone's attorney's office (without restriction/oversight from the judge) in hopes of finding evidence of crime, but finding none, is entirely okay. Is this the new normal? If the feds cannot find evidence of a crime on someone should they simply subpoena that someone's attorney's office? Or, should we only do this to Republicans because their constitutional rights are expendable? This is just like the "radical" behavior of weaponizing the IRS. Mueller has been weaponized by Democrats who have much to hide. Sessions needs to go.

What evidence of "treason" has Mueller secretly collected that has miraculously not been leaked or already levied against the President? It is a sham (without question).

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Yeah, I am the radical. You have been duped and you are the radical if you think that issuing a warrant to search someone's attorney's office (without restriction/oversight from the judge) in hopes of finding evidence of crime, but finding none, is entirely okay. Is this the new normal? If the feds cannot find evidence of a crime on someone should they simply subpoena that someone's attorney's office? Or, should we only do this to Republicans because their constitutional rights are expendable? This is just like the "radical" behavior of weaponizing the IRS. Mueller has been weaponized by Democrats who have much to hide. Sessions needs to go.

What evidence of "treason" has Mueller secretly collected that has miraculously not been leaked or already levied against the President? It is a sham (without question).

The President hasn't been charged with a crime. They are investigating and following any leads they find. They searched a corrupt attorney's office and he has since pleaded guilty to crimes. If Trump is guilty of crimes, ranging from having ties to the Russians during the election to money laundering 20 years ago, he should be held accountable.

 

[Philo-Publius]

The President hasn't been charged with a crime. They are investigating and following any leads they find. They searched a corrupt attorney's office and he has since pleaded guilty to crimes. If Trump is guilty of crimes, ranging from having ties to the Russians during the election to 20 years ago, he should be held accountable.

A "corrupt" attorney? Please identify what "corruption" they charged this attorney with, extremist?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

A "corrupt" attorney? Please identify what "corruption" they charged this attorney with, extremist?

They have him for tax fraud and campaign finance violations. He also secretly recorded his client. But you're right, he isn't corrupt, so I'm sure you'll stand behind any testimony he provides to Mueller.

 

[Philo-Publius]

They have him for tax fraud and campaign finance violations. He also secretly recorded his client. But you're right, he isn't corrupt, so I'm sure you'll stand behind any testimony he provides to Mueller.

So, if Cohen was suspected of these crimes, and this was a targeted investigation, why didn't a judge sort through the data that was seized to determine what was relevant to the case instead of allowing the entirety of an attorney's personal files to be evaluated by the special counsel? I wonder how many other billionaires' or multimillionaires' attorneys might be nabbed for financial crimes if all of their data was seized.

Let's just hope that law enforcement never subpoena's your attorney in hopes finding a crime when they have no other recourse.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

So, if Cohen was suspected of these crimes, and this was a targeted investigation, why didn't a judge sort through the data that was seized to determine what was relevant to the case instead of allowing the entirety of an attorney's personal files to be evaluated by the special counsel? I wonder how many other billionaires' or multimillionaires' attorneys might be nabbed for financial crimes if all of their data was seized.

Let's just hope that law enforcement never subpoena's your attorney in hopes finding a crime when they have no other recourse.

Stop making excuses, any evidence that had attorney client privilege was not viewed by the SC, but let's imagine that. How many would be nabbed for crimes? Whatever that number is they should all go to jail. You're making excuses so crimes stay hidden, is that really your position?

 

[Philo-Publius]

Stop making excuses, any evidence that had attorney client privilege was not viewed by the SC, but let's imagine that. How many would be nabbed for crimes? Whatever that number is they should all go to jail. You're making excuses so crimes stay hidden, is that really your position?

Yes. Anyone guilty of tax evasion should be taken to jail, but we both know there is plenty of data in the files of attorneys all across the country that could be incriminating to someone, and all of Cohen's files should not have been fair game if the purpose of the warrant was to investigate Cohen for tax evasion. Attorney-client privilege is relevant and should not be taken for granted. There is no way that raiding Cohen's office and investigators having access to everything was appropriate. It should concern everyone. It doesn't concern the left because using government resources to target conservatives is "business as usual."

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Yes. Anyone guilty of tax evasion should be taken to jail, but we both know there is plenty of data in the files of attorneys all across the country that could be incriminating to someone, and all of Cohen's files should not have been fair game if the purpose of the warrant was to investigate Cohen for tax evasion. Attorney-client privilege is relevant and should not be taken for granted. There is no way that raiding Cohen's office and investigators having access to everything was appropriate. It should concern everyone. It doesn't concern the left because using government resources to target conservatives is "business as usual."

They didn't have access to everything. Anything seemed to be protected by attorney client privilege was not handed over to investigators. As it turns out very little fell under that designation. If you recall he only had three clients. Trump, the guy that payed a bunny to have an abortion, and Sean Hannity.

 

[Philo-Publius]

They didn't have access to everything. Anything seemed to be protected by attorney client privilege was not handed over to investigators. As it turns out very little fell under that designation. If you recall he only had three clients. Trump, the guy that payed a bunny to have an abortion, and Sean Hannity.

Who was the third party that reviewed the files and determined what could be accessed by the special counsel? Usually it would be a judge or another appointed body.

I wouldn't be in a position to know who's files they reviewed (other than those three that were mentioned by the media). He probably had files on other clients that preceded those three. I would bet that if Manafort had happened to be a client of Cohen's, they would have reviewed his files despite attorney-client privilege.

Bribing a porn star to keep quiet about an affair (something that is not illegal) was not relevant to the investigation, so it should not have been available to the special counsel and should not have been divulged to the media. It's a problem that this happened and should concern non-extremists.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Who was the third party that reviewed the files and determined what could be accessed by the special counsel? Usually it would be a judge or another appointed body.

I wouldn't be in a position to know who's files they reviewed (other than those three that were mentioned by the media). He probably had files on other clients that preceded those three. I would bet that if Manafort had happened to be a client of Cohen's, they would have reviewed his files despite attorney-client privilege.

Bribing a porn star to keep quiet about an affair (something that is not illegal) was not relevant to the investigation, so it should not have been available to the special counsel and should not have been divulged to the media. It's a problem that this happened and should concern non-extremists.

You can "probably" and "bet" all you like. You've been hoodwinked and don't even realize it.

 

[Philo-Publius]

You can "probably" and "bet" all you like. You've been hoodwinked and don't even realize it.

Nope. You've been "hoodwinked" (or you are just choosing to ignore obvious abuses).