Trump Being Treasonous on Television

[_SteelHead]

I never voted for him, but he is a great orator and he is speaking truth.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/obama-sla ... 9374915945

[_cinepro]

I thought maybe this was a joke, but nope. Trump is full damage control mode. He's trying to fix this fiasco by lying about it. Typically he digs in and defends the most indefensible behavior. It must be really bad if he's trying to back peddle. It's clear from the context of his comments, and the fact that he put extra emphasis on the word "would" in that sentence, that he did not misspeak. He would be better off owning this rather than digging an even deeper hole by lying about it. Besides, that sentence wasn't the only troubling sentence from that press conference.

To the degree this indicates Trump's public acceptance of the intelligence reports and Russian hacking of the DNC, isn't that a good thing? Why would we want him to "own it" and stubbornly stick to his statements during the press conference?

While I'm not sure the "I meant to say something else" strategy is the best way to deal with it, it's at least something. I might hope for something better, but I'm not going to wish he hadn't done anything at all.

[_EAllusion]

To the degree this indicates Trump's public acceptance of the intelligence reports and Russian hacking of the DNC, isn't that a good thing? Why would we want him to "own it" and stubbornly stick to his statements during the press conference?

While I'm not sure the "I meant to say something else" strategy is the best way to deal with it, it's at least something. I might hope for something better, but I'm not going to wish he hadn't done anything at all.

He's transparently lying about his comments. The defense they've come up with, with more than one news source reporting was devised in a national security huddle, makes absolutely no sense in the context of his comments. It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to believe that's what happened. So, how much value do you place on president Trump being dragged into a bad lie about what he thinks after getting slagged from almost all sides for a day?

I have a hard time describing that as a good thing. It proves his handlers have the ability to squeeze a token response out of him, which could be described as a positive, but that seems of little value compared to actually changing his mind. And really, it's highly unlikely that his mind needs changing, as the most parsimonious explanation for all of this is that Trump bloody well knows who is behind the hack, but finds it useful to adopt a wall-to-wall "implausible deniability" strategy. I'd rather Trump just keep up revealing who he is in a way that draws real rebuke.

[_Kevin Graham]

To the degree this indicates Trump's public acceptance of the intelligence reports and Russian hacking of the DNC, isn't that a good thing? Why would we want him to "own it" and stubbornly stick to his statements during the press conference?

You're missing the point. Trump has been saying the Russians didn't interfere for two years now. He said it again standing beside Putin, just two days after 12 Russians were indicted for those crimes. Saying he supports the intelligence doesn't mean crap if he hasn't the balls to do anything about it when the opportunity presented itself. That opportunity was in Helsinki.

While I'm not sure the "I meant to say something else" strategy is the best way to deal with it, it's at least something.

It is the only way to deal with it and only the super naïve would believe it. It doesn't even make any sense given his comments in context and his criticism of FBI and praise of Putin. And why did it take his staff 27 hours to figure out that what he said wasn't what he was supposed to say?

I might hope for something better, but I'm not going to wish he hadn't done anything at all.

It would have been better. All this denial does is add insult to injury by playing us all for fools. Of course there will be a number of dumb Trump die-hards who will say he made an honest mistake, but the rest of us with a brain knows he is lying to cover up his other lies.

[_moksha]

I invite you to visit another forum I frequent to make your case. I'm sure you'll get lots of support.

http://socnet.com/showthread.php?p=1058737028

I got a kick out of the names of the participants. I assume the forum is for paramilitary conspiratorialists? Wonder if they could make Kevin Graham march to a different tune?

[Guest]

To the degree this indicates Trump's public acceptance of the intelligence reports and Russian hacking of the DNC, isn't that a good thing? Why would we want him to "own it" and stubbornly stick to his statements during the press conference?

I think people might want him to not have gone to Helsinki and flatter Putin, and tell us that he accepts Putin's 'very strong' assurances in preference to what his own intelligence service tells him. That would have been a good thing.

Frankly the spectacle of what he did in Helsinki followed by the retraction in Washington is all part of the same act of self-degradation of the office of the President of the United States. The whole thing is horrible, disgusting, shameful and of a piece. There are no good bits to be pleased about.

[_SteelHead]

“As with the denial of rights, the denial of facts runs counter to democracy"

Russia didn't meddle with our election, Putin told me so, with strength.
oh

wait

serious backlash at home?

Russia did meddle with our election, I misspoke.

[_Kevin Graham]

[_Kevin Graham]

I invite you to visit another forum I frequent to make your case. I'm sure you'll get lots of support.

http://socnet.com/showthread.php?p=1058737028

I got a kick out of the names of the participants. I assume the forum is for paramilitary conspiratorialists? Wonder if they could make Kevin Graham march to a different tune?

What a bunch of redneck morons. Not a surprise that Waterdog hangs out there. That play makes Mayberry look like a Think Tank.

[_EAllusion]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... nc-servers
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics ... index.html
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01- ... ed-organiz
http://washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/dnc- ... ussia.html

even Canada disagrees with you...
Why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI look at its servers?

Fun that a far-right Canadian website article written by a guy who writes for something called "Bomb Throwers" now constitutes "Canada," but this misrepresents what's occurred, zerohedge articles aside. The DNC couldn't refuse that if they wanted to. The FBI has the ability to compel evidence to be turned over. They counter offered a request for direct access to their servers and assistance with offering already completed 3rd party forensics and assurance that security issues had been fixed to their satisfaction. This offer was accepted as sufficient, as is standard practice.