Secret Service spoke to Trump campaign about 2nd Amendment comment

a reply to: lordcomac

" It is *LEGAL* for the government to make use of the MSM to spread LIES to the people in order to further their agenda. "

Yes , as long as they are not Caught Red Handed , they Always have the Deniability Option .

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: jellyrev

Trump should say "what difference does it make" when the question gets thrown at him. then either repeat or drop mic

Shouldn't we wait until the Secret Service confirms or refutes the story? If they confirm it, it would mean that Trump told a bold faced lie. But then, what difference does it make?

Are you suggesting that Secret Service agents only lie when they're writing "tell-all" books about the Clinton presidency 1992-2000?

originally posted by: lordcomac
Since we forget so easily...

A friendly reminder. The Smith-Mundt Act is still repealed.

TPTB made it legal for the US government to use propaganda (AKA LIES) on the US public for their own purposes.

Why this isn't mentioned as a part of *EVERY* thread and *EVERY* news report is beyond me.

It is *LEGAL* for the government to make use of the MSM to spread LIES to the people in order to further their agenda.

This guy gets it...that should be on a freaking ticker around here constantly running at the bottom of your screen. How can we pretend to deny ignorance if day in and day out 90% of the material we read here has so much spin on it it could orbit earth...you can't that's how...

originally posted by: jellyrev
Trump should say "what difference does it make" when the question gets thrown at him. then either repeat or drop mic

Brilliant. Start throwing it right back at her

But save it for the debates when the media can't filter it.

a reply to: JinMI

The communications director didn't confirm. Okay? Did she deny? Did she say that no such conversations took place?

Nope.

Jim Sciutto has stated in the last couple hours that he remains confident with his source and the information he was provided. Reuters has a source that says Jim Scuitto's source is incorrect. Clearly there's some conflicting information coming from more than one unidentified USSS source (or maybe neither CNN nor Reuters have sources and it's all made up) but neither of us nor anyone who is likely to participate in this thread have any idea what the truth of the matter is.

It's pretty clear your mind is completely made up despite a lack of information. I'll give it a day or two to see what shakes out because unlike Donald Trump, I have a strong adversion to talking matter-of-factly from ignorance.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JinMI

The Voting Power of 95 Million American Gun Owners . In Reality , that is what he was eluding to , not what some others might Read Into that for some Imagined LAME Political Gain .

No way was he talking about voting. Once Hillary becomes president and puts her judges in the Supreme Court, those judges are in there for life. That's why he said, "there's nothing you can do". No amount of voting will change the judges who have already been appointed. Right after he said "there's nothing you can do" is when he made the comment about the second amendment people and implied maybe there was something they could do after all. Since voting wouldn't help after the judges had already been appointed, what else do you think he could have meant when referring to those second amendment people?

His claim that he was referring to voting power is an outright LIE.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: JinMI


Jim Sciutto has stated in the last couple hours that he remains confident with his source and the information he was provided. Reuters has a source that says Jim Scuitto's source is incorrect. Clearly there's some conflicting information coming from more than one unidentified USSS source (or maybe neither CNN nor Reuters have sources and it's all made up) but neither of us nor anyone who is likely to participate in this thread have any idea what the truth of the matter is.

Glad you agree with me on that point. No one knows, no proof but it's a huge story to be taken as fact.

a reply to: kaylaluv

It's up to interpretation to the viewers perception.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kaylaluv

It's up to interpretation to the viewers perception.

Nope. No amount of voting would change out the justices of the Supreme Court once they've been appointed. That's a fact, and he even stated such.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kaylaluv

It's up to interpretation to the viewers perception.

Nope. No amount of voting would change out the justices of the Supreme Court once they've been appointed. That's a fact, and he even stated such.

That's not the part of your comment to me that I was replying to.

Official: No formal Secret Service discussions with Trump camp on remark

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

Following Trump's comment at a rally on Tuesday in which he suggested that gun rights activists could stop Clinton from appointing liberal anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

So, there!

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kaylaluv

It's up to interpretation to the viewers perception.

Nope. No amount of voting would change out the justices of the Supreme Court once they've been appointed. That's a fact, and he even stated such.

That's not the part of your comment to me that I was replying to.

"If Hillary becomes president and appoints her judges, there's nothing you can do. Well, the 2nd amendment people, maybe..." The second sentence has to do with the first sentence, unless you are implying that Trump's Alzheimer's is so bad that he can't string two sentences together correctly. Or, you think Trump is saying that the 2nd amendment people have some special voting powers to get justices out of the supreme court that no other group has?

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kaylaluv

It's up to interpretation to the viewers perception.

Nope. No amount of voting would change out the justices of the Supreme Court once they've been appointed. That's a fact, and he even stated such.

That's not the part of your comment to me that I was replying to.

"If Hillary becomes president and appoints her judges, there's nothing you can do. Well, the 2nd amendment people, maybe..." The second sentence has to do with the first sentence, unless you are implying that Trump's Alzheimer's is so bad that he can't string two sentences together correctly. Or, you think Trump is saying that the 2nd amendment people have some special voting powers to get justices out of the supreme court that no other group has?

That's how I would read that.


It wasn't about voting a judge it's about voting against HIllary.

Heard a good analogy tonight:

Trump could sneeze, and the liberal media would be screaming that he attacked the country. They would be calling out the EPA who would confirm that Trump caused an environmental disaster.

The absurdity of this whole thing is ludicrous.

a reply to: JinMI

So, just completely ignore a section of the sentence? The section that happens to be right before the "nothing you can do" part?

Even if that were true, if Hillary does become president, there's STILL no amount of voting that will move her out during her term or stop her from appointing her judges.

a reply to: kaylaluv

That's one of the most ridiculous red herrings I've heard in a while.

Trump was talking about votes.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I'm not ignoring it. The judge subject cancels out if the first subject is canceled, so I equate the main subject to the predicate of the sentence.

I agree. If Hillary becomes president, there is nothing, legally, that can be done to my knowledge.

a reply to: xuenchen

So you think that votes will stop a standing president from nominating their judges for the Supreme Court?

You guys either need to take a logic class or a government class.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Who is arguing against appointment of Justices and why the personal attack?