Trump's Press Conference

[Clarakore]

5 hours ago, simplybill said:

In defense of Mr. Trump, the Kenya birth rumors are said to have been started by Democrat opponents of Mr. Obama. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a Republican candidate to comment on allegations against another Democrat that originated in the Democrat Party itself.

From the article:

"Mr Trump outed himself as a “birther” in an interview on his private jet on March 17. “The reason I have a little doubt — just a little — is because he grew up and nobody knew him,” he told ABC News."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton-supporters.html

 

The dossier was compiled by an ex-MI6 agent who was first hired by Jeb Bush's campaign. Using your logic it is also not unreasonable to comment on these allegations against the peeoutus.

[simplybill]

10 minutes ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

The dossier was compiled by an ex-MI6 agent who was first hired by Jeb Bush's campaign. Using your logic it is also not unreasonable to comment on these allegations against the peotus.

Avatar -

CNN reported a story that was leaked to BuzzFeed after a top-secret Intelligence briefing. The story contained unverified allegations. Neither CNN nor BuzzFeed bothered to verify anything in the leaked document.

At this point, CNN has as much journalistic integrity as the Weekly World News and their stories on Bat Boy.

[Clarakore]

Even for the type of business Trump is involved with there is an excessive amount of lawsuits compared to others in the same field.

So no, this is not simply due to it being part of the biz, instead it is part and parcel to who Don the Con is.

He does not pay his bills so is sued lots. He also attempts to not pay taxes in many jurisdictions by using litigation as an instrument.

Quote

However, even by those measures, the number of cases in which Trump is involved is extraordinary. For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.

To maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers' names were included. The analysis found Trump has been involved in more legal skirmishes than all five of the others — combined.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

Edited January 14, 2017 by Avatar Samantha Ai

[Clarakore]

For a president his record regarding lawsuits is pathetic.

Hopefully his nature will not lead to involving our government into many lawsuits as well on the taxpayer dime. But we know he just cannot help himself.

Quote

...the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. 

...

The sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

Edited January 14, 2017 by Avatar Samantha Ai

[simplybill]

Avatar -

Keep in mind that Mr. Trump is named as an executive in over 500 businesses. Correct me if I'm wrong:

3500 legal actions, divided by 500 businesses, equals 7 legal actions per business. Over a period of say, 7 years, that equals one legal action per business, per year. It's not a perfect record by any means, but I don't think it disqualifies Mr. Trump for political office.

No one can predict what will happen after January 20. As your link pointed out, there is cause for concern about Mr. Trump's character. My hope is that the Alpha men and women he's appointing will call him out on any bad behavior he exhibits after his inauguration. I have no doubt that Gen. Mattis will do his best to keep him honest.

 

 

 

[Kismit]

As much as it pains me to show support for Mr Trump I have to say the statistics on the law suits where not as bad as I would have thought with the majority being for personal injury. I think lots of people would be tempted to try and sue Mr Trump for personal injury. 

Although 20 lawsuits from Miss America, is a bit off putting.

 

[Clarakore]

3500 lawsuits divided by 30 years equals roughly 116 a year.

We'll anyways I searched through the transcript of the press conference  and there was no mention of it. It also seems the media gave him a free pass over this issue during the election.

Thanks to all who discussed this angle so far, especially Bill, but I will let it go on this thread as it is unrelated. 

 

[simplybill]

Something that's been bothering me:

Why hasn't the Justice Department asked BuzzFeed to reveal the source of the leak? Isn't leaking information from a top-secret Intelligence briefing considered an act of treason? It wasn't an Edward Snowden level of security breach, but still...

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, Kismit said:

It was? What fake news was that?

That S, Hussein had nuclear or chemical or biological weapons (the details didn't seem to matter too much) that he could launch within 45 minutes. Even if he may have had some stocks of gas left over, which he hastily disposed of, I'd say that story wasn't strictly 100% true, 

[Clarakore]

32 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Something that's been bothering me:

Why hasn't the Justice Department asked BuzzFeed to reveal the source of the leak? Isn't leaking information from a top-secret Intelligence briefing considered an act of treason? It wasn't an Edward Snowden level of security breach, but still...

 

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

Avatar -

CNN reported a story that was leaked to BuzzFeed after a top-secret Intelligence briefing. The story contained unverified allegations. Neither CNN nor BuzzFeed bothered to verify anything in the leaked document.

At this point, CNN has as much journalistic integrity as the Weekly World News and their stories on Bat Boy.

 

The dossier was compiled by a private agency and who knows who else they shared it with besides American and British intelligence agencies. 

For all we know that private agency shared it directly with the media which is their prerogative. It could have also been leaked by an employee there.

[preacherman76]

6 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Preacherman should not talk about people only listening to those they who say what they want to hear.  He is just about the most guilty of that than anyone I can think of.  It doesn't occur to him, for example, why no newspaper in the country endorsed him -- even those who had been regularly endorsing Republicans for over a century.  Unlike people like him, journalists get to know politicians up close.  They also notice lies when they hear them, as they are use to them, and can read their meter to see when the level has become extremely high.

I already know exactly why no news paper endorsed him. Cause either directly, or indirectly the establishment owns them. They figured out real quick this wasn't gonna just be a WWE match where who ever won was just going to do the will of the establishment anyway. That's why they went guns blazing, and that's why they continue to act like foolish children after they lost. For once we have something, someone real. This is all painfully obvious. Whats also painfully obvious is folks like yourself have been brain washed by that same establishment who owns those papers, and are completely blinded by arrogance and hate.

[preacherman76]

6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Maybe, yet I've heard some wonderful stories about Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and other billionaires, most of them republican who have done a whole lot more. I applaud Mr. Trumps generosity, I hope to see more of it.  I would like to see something truly wonderful about Mr. Trump believe me.

Hey I was just showing you that believing he has never done anything for anyone but himself is a uninformed opinion.

[preacherman76]

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Apparently, the popular definition of  "fake news" is anything reported without evidence to confirm it's veracity, or later turns out not to be true.

Yea like there was nothing about this story that CNN couldn't have spent 5 minutes verifying. The lawyer has never been to Russia. That alone makes this entire story a out right lie. This was another pathetic attempt to smear the leader of the free world, nothing more. They ran that guys name in the mud all night long, without even contacting him first. This was a hired thug paid to dig up dirt, or out right make it up, to give it to the criminals who hired him.

There is video of Hillary's hired thugs breaking all kinds of election laws, even hiring more thugs to create violence at Trump rallies and CNN was silent. Didn't care at all about verified criminal activity. Yet somehow found THIS news worthy. CNN is the definition of fake.

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Preacherman should not talk about people only listening to those they who say what they want to hear.  He is just about the most guilty of that than anyone I can think of.  It doesn't occur to him, for example, why no newspaper in the country endorsed him -- even those who had been regularly endorsing Republicans for over a century.  Unlike people like him, journalists get to know politicians up close.  They also notice lies when they hear them, as they are use to them, and can read their meter to see when the level has become extremely high.

So how does that correspond to the media's entirely supporting the "Democratic" party? Did they put their lie detectors back in the cupboard, or do you believe that the "Democratic" Party, being nice and really caring about minorities and wanting to overthrow Bad Guys wherever they may be, does not and never has lied?

[Frank Merton]

23 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So how does that correspond to the media's entirely supporting the "Democratic" party? Did they put their lie detectors back in the cupboard, or do you believe that the "Democratic" Party, being nice and really caring about minorities and wanting to overthrow Bad Guys wherever they may be, does not and never has lied?

Obviously you don't like it, but it was a fact.  The Arizona Republic, which has always endorsed Republicans, endorsed Hillary.  It wasn't so much they liked her but they could see what a fraud Trump is.

[Clarakore]

"The whole media is against Trump" mantra is mere conspiracy theory.

No, the media can simply ignore those who they are against and do. Zero coverage of a candidate kills any chance of being elected.

Anytime "they posted negatively of him" during the elections was actually them just repeating what Shrump himself had tweeted. 

Then he would claim bias and the alt-right would cry not realizing he was emotionally manipulating his own supporters.

The simple truth is that the media did not endorse him due to his Putin-ish stance of wanting to stifle a free press. 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Avatar Samantha Ai

[SHaYap]

'Tis the era of the consummate red herring ....

 

~

[Lilly]

Here's how I see this; CNN ran with a story that was very, very poorly supported. Basically, this story was nothing but supposition and assumption. Most top notch news sources (that desire to keep their credibility intact) do not scoop up and spread rumor and supposition. CNN obviously leans to the left but by choosing to do this kind of thing they have 'chosen sides' and can no longer be viewed as being balanced and impartial. Certain far right media sources have done the exact same thing at times.

In the final analysis doing this sort of thing just hurts the news source's credibility.

[simplybill]

28 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Here's how I see this; CNN ran with a story that was very, very poorly supported. Basically, this story was nothing but supposition and assumption. Most top notch news sources (that desire to keep their credibility intact) do not scoop up and spread rumor and supposition. CNN obviously leans to the left but by choosing to do this kind of thing they have 'chosen sides' and can no longer be viewed as being balanced and impartial. Certain far right media sources have done the exact same thing at times.

In the final analysis doing this sort of thing just hurts the news source's credibility.

And to make matters worse, after the dossier had been out there for a while someone in the US Intelligence Services leaked to CNN that Mr. Trump had been briefed about the story during an Intelligence briefing, but it turns out that he wasn't briefed about the story during the actual top-secret meeting but it did come up later in a conversation in the hallway.

A tangled web. I understand Mr. Trump's frustration.

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by simplybill

[Clarakore]

CNN's story was only to report that the information was presented to the President and also to Trump. That is true so unsure how their story was poorly supported...

BuzzFeed merely released the dossier compiled by a private British citizen and also claimed it was unverified. The same dossier that had been making the rounds. There is no foul in releasing that document especially with the caveat it was unverified.

 

[Clarakore]

9 minutes ago, simplybill said:

And to make matters worse, after the dossier had been out there for a while someone in the US Intelligence Services leaked to CNN that Mr. Trump had been briefed about the story during an Intelligence briefing, but it turns out that he wasn't briefed about the story during the actual top-secret meeting but it did come up later in a conversation in the hallway.

Your source please that "someone" leaked it.

[simplybill]

3 minutes ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

CNN's story was only to report that the information was presented to the President and also to Trump. That is true so unsure how their story was poorly supported...

BuzzFeed merely released the dossier compiled by a private British citizen and also claimed it was unverified. The same dossier that had been making the rounds. There is no foul in releasing that document especially with the caveat it was unverified.

 

It was a poor decision on the part of CNN and BuzzFeed to run the story. It's on the same level as the unverified stories circulated during the campaign that Hillary and Huma Abedin were lesbian lovers. It was a shocking, salacious story meant to impugn a politician's character. 

 

[simplybill]

4 minutes ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

Your source please that "someone" leaked it.

I was afraid you'd ask that. I've read so many different articles in the last couple of days, it might take me a while to find the one that reported it. I'm pretty sure it was from NBC. I'll look for it after I've had my coffee.

[Clarakore]

Bill, how many stories have you read and by doing so has it become boggling? I only ask because it does not seem clear on your posts on what exactly was leaked.

 

22 minutes ago, simplybill said:

And to make matters worse, after the dossier had been out there for a while someone in the US Intelligence Services leaked to CNN that Mr. Trump had been briefed about the story during an Intelligence briefing, but it turns out that he wasn't briefed about the story during the actual top-secret meeting but it did come up later in a conversation in the hallway.

 

Was the leak: someone in the US Intelligence Services leaked to CNN that Donald McTrump had been briefed about the story during an intelligence briefing?

 

5 hours ago, simplybill said:

Why hasn't the Justice Department asked BuzzFeed to reveal the source of the leak? Isn't leaking information from a top-secret Intelligence briefing considered an act of treason? It wasn't an Edward Snowden level of security breach, but still...

 

Was the leak: BuzzFeed and information from a top-secret Intelligence briefing? And really an act of treason?

Mike Flynn might be guilty of violating the Logan Act btw...

 

8 hours ago, simplybill said:

CNN reported a story that was leaked to BuzzFeed after a top-secret Intelligence briefing. The story contained unverified allegations. Neither CNN nor BuzzFeed bothered to verify anything in the leaked document.

 

Was the leak: CNN reported a story that was leaked to BuzzFeed after a top-secret intelligence briefing? Or is it a leaked document which you claim neither CNN or BuzzFeed bothered to verify (even if CNN did not publish the document and BuzzFeed stated it was unverified. They did not publish it pretending it was verified.)

[simplybill]

I can't find the original NBC article, but here's a WaPo article about NBC's coverage of the story. 

From the WaPo article:

"As it turns out, then, he was told about the matter. So did NBC News get it wrong? Not by its own account. “FBI’s Comey Told Trump About Russia Dossier After Intel Briefing,” reads the headline on an NBC News story from last night. Bolding added to display the most important word in the headline. To draw this critical distinction, the NBC News online report notes, “As NBC News has previously reported, Trump was not told about the contents of the dossier during the formal briefing.”

(The bolding was added by WaPo)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/13/nbc-news-engages-in-absurd-hair-splitting-to-prop-up-reporting-on-trump-intel/?utm_term=.781dc79f3a17

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by simplybill