CNN: Fake News Icons Battle Over Their Fake Trump Russia Dossie Report

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: UKTruth

As far as I understand the American tax system, without releasing them in full, there's no way to know how deep the international ties go with Trump. I could be wrong though. It's happened.

Look I want him to be a good POTUS, and I would prefer he doesn't get impeached over something stupid.

~Tenth

Trump had to file details of all his creditors (some time ago). I would assume that the job of the FEC is to check out such a submission. Any suggestion that the Russian state or any other state is a creditor of Trump's is speculation, rather than evidence.

I am all for Trump doing a great job and want him succeed, because I think the change of direction in the West is sorely needed. If he turns out to be a poor President and / or corrupt then I think he should be roundly criticised. Jumping on speculations and trying to undermine him before he even begins is not, however, something that I think is reasonable.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

This is the most ignorant post ive ever read. Steele was actually a highly regarded British M16 agent with Russian infomants and that was his niche: russia. He actually gathered intelligence from his russian sources. All intelligence is littered with mistakes. You cant lump this in as "fake news" solely because you are a trump mark. This is actual intelligence from an actual highly reapected retired british agent. Fake news is some website that is obviously spewing lies to fool idiots who are to lazy to actually research what they read. You are an obvious trump supporter who will go to any lengths to continue supporting him. Its only a matter of time before hes indicted/impeached because trump has been dirty for decades. Whats your reason why he wont release his taxes? He never will yet his supporters simply blow that off as if its nothing whereas in truth it reveals much-hence him not releasing them. You cant simply blow that off because the truth is in his taxes-which we will never see. Its the blind leading the blind. By the way-im NPA. Not hillary-not Trump but its easy to see that the trump supporters are the ones being bamboozled the most with clinton supporters a close second but as the poster above said:Clintons not president so get off that worn out excuse blaming her for everything. Its time to get behind your candidate 100% now. No half ass. Then when he falls-you must also admit that you have been conned.

a reply to: Rconrad

Except there are also some highly regarded US Intelligence officials who have called the report baloney, and doubt a single person even wrote it. They have also called into question the entire structure of the report, claiming the method of classifying sources is all wrong. What it comes down to is who you WANT to believe.
The best thing to do is wait for some actual evidence - so far there is nothing substantiated in the report, but there are elements already debunked.

a reply to: UKTruth

Trump had to file details of all his creditors (some time ago). I would assume that the job of the FEC is to check out such a submission. Any suggestion that the Russian state or any other state is a creditor of Trump's is speculation, rather than evidence.

He didn't have to file everything. There are some things that are only included in Tax Returns. The FEC filings are just high level overview and do not include everything. It also doesn't apply to just other countries. He also can't owe money to foreign banks etc.

Which he owes a crap tone to Deutsche Bank for his DC Hotel, that he's renting from the US Government. SO in effect, he becomes his own landlord, and will be overseeing an investigation into Deutsche bank as well for some kind of fraud if I'm not mistaken.

300 Million $'s Worth.

That's a huge conflict of interest in itself.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump had to file details of all his creditors (some time ago). I would assume that the job of the FEC is to check out such a submission. Any suggestion that the Russian state or any other state is a creditor of Trump's is speculation, rather than evidence.

He didn't have to file everything. There are some things that are only included in Tax Returns. The FEC filings are just high level overview and do not include everything. It also doesn't apply to just other countries. He also can't owe money to foreign banks etc.

Which he owes a crap tone to Deutsche Bank for his DC Hotel, that he's renting from the US Government. SO in effect, he becomes his own landlord, and will be overseeing an investigation into Deutsche bank as well for some kind of fraud if I'm not mistaken.

300 Million $'s Worth.

That's a huge conflict of interest in itself.

~Tenth

You know that the President is not subject to conflict of interest laws, right?
The emoluments clause, that he does need to abide by, relates to receiving foreign payments of gifts from another STATE whilst President. How does a mortgage loan taken years ago have a bearing on the emoluments clause?

a reply to: UKTruth

He is subject to conflict of interest when his attorney general is in charge of an investigation of a a bank he personally owes funds to.

He also cannot be his own landlord, that's just ethical nonsense. Law or not.

Also, these Emoluments clause, has never actually been tested by the Supreme Court. So we don't know actually what applies and what doesn't because there is no precedent for a POTUS being challenged. Other than Obama when he wont the Nobel Prize, but he donated that money to charity.

This is going to be an ongoing debate between legal scholars and the courts, because it hasn't actually been addressed before.

So to answer your question, it could have no bearing, or all the bearing in the world.

ETA: This is a good article I read about the various conflicts of interest:

www.theatlantic.com...

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: TheBulk

I love how people keep saying that the entire thing is fabricated - the whole thing in it's entirety was a hoax.

It wasn't. The stuff about the hotel room and the lewd sex stuff is probably fake. The stuff about financial ties to Russia with less than desirable folk? There's evidence to suggest that is true.

Not defending either CNN or Buzzfeed though, they are both less that desirable themselves. But yeah, Trump still has skeletons in his closet that people are going to point out and find.

~Tenth

..... and JFK had skeletons in his closet..... drug addiction, extra-marital affairs, friends with mobsters, etc., but still was an effective president.... not saying Trump is a JFK, but lets give the guy a chance, he's not even been sworn in yet. And as far as Russia, will having a closer, friendlier relationship be a bad thing? We' saw how good Hillary's "reset" worked out.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Trump would be better off addressing all of this now, in order to make sure he can be an effective POTUS.

Thing about JFK is this all came out in the wash after his death didn't it?

And yes, closer ties with Russia are a good thing, unless Putin is playing Trump.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: UKTruth

He is subject to conflict of interest when his attorney general is in charge of an investigation of a a bank he personally owes funds to.

He also cannot be his own landlord, that's just ethical nonsense. Law or not.

Also, these Emoluments clause, has never actually been tested by the Supreme Court. So we don't know actually what applies and what doesn't because there is no precedent for a POTUS being challenged. Other than Obama when he wont the Nobel Prize, but he donated that money to charity.

This is going to be an ongoing debate between legal scholars and the courts, because it hasn't actually been addressed before.

So to answer your question, it could have no bearing, or all the bearing in the world.

~Tenth

He's not subject to any conflict of interest laws.
I agree the Emoluments clause will be debated, but it's not going to cover loans made when he was not President.

a reply to: UKTruth

Okay, just because you aren't SUBJECT to the law, doesn't mean the conflict doesn't exist.

Do you think it's okay for Trump, to oversee and investigation, into a bank he owes money to?

Probably not I would think.

And they will debate things he did before becoming POTUS if they apply today. You can bet your last dollar that the Democrats will literally pull any and all tricks possible to do that. As much as I disagree with those actions, they are going to do it.

There's a litany of conflict of interests, all of them SHOULD be dealt with it. Whether there is a law requiring him to or not.

Trump said he wanted to bring back transparency and to drain the swamp. He should lead by example.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: UKTruth

Okay, just because you aren't SUBJECT to the law, doesn't mean the conflict doesn't exist.

Do you think it's okay for Trump, to oversee and investigation, into a bank he owes money to?

Probably not I would think.

And they will debate things he did before becoming POTUS if they apply today. You can bet your last dollar that the Democrats will literally pull any and all tricks possible to do that. As much as I disagree with those actions, they are going to do it.

There's a litany of conflict of interests, all of them SHOULD be dealt with it. Whether there is a law requiring him to or not.

Trump said he wanted to bring back transparency and to drain the swamp. He should lead by example.

~Tenth

I am in two minds. On the one hand I do see how there is a conflict (although not a legal one). However, there is no real solution other than barring people who have done international business from running for office. That seems worse in terms of people's rights than any conflict of interest that might occur from past business dealings.

What are the options here?

Sell all assets? What about his children and their futures? Wouldn't they just use the money from sales to start again? What then, should relatives be barred from doing certain business?
Also, wouldn't the sales prices be inflated if he sold all the buildings.. or at least the claim would be that they were and we'd be in a building by building he said/she said nightmare. How long will it take to sell them all? He'd be leaving office by the time all the sales went through!

I trust the legal team that have advised him to the extent that they would have landed on the best solution.

The House and Senate have options if Trump blatantly uses the office to profit further. Simple House majority for impeachment and 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove him.

a reply to: UKTruth

I am in two minds. On the one hand I do see how there is a conflict (although not a legal one). However, there is no real solution other than barring people who have done international business from running for office. That seems worse in terms of people's rights than any conflict of interest that might occur from past business dealings.

I only want them to investigate current conflicts. Stuff that's occuring now. I don't care about the deals he closed ten years ago, I wanna know about the ones he has now.

What are the options here?

The blind trust would have been great. I don't really think what he's done so far meets a criteria I would accept as being free from conflict. If we think for one minute that Trump JR. isn't going to go to Dad for advice then we are all crazy.

It should not stop him from becoming POTUS, on that we agree. I just laugh when he promised to be the most transparent POTUS ever. He's not going to be that, because he values his business more than he values America.

If he didn't, he'd give it all up to run the free world and he'd do just fine after he left office, if he's such a yuge genius.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: UKTruth

I am in two minds. On the one hand I do see how there is a conflict (although not a legal one). However, there is no real solution other than barring people who have done international business from running for office. That seems worse in terms of people's rights than any conflict of interest that might occur from past business dealings.

I only want them to investigate current conflicts. Stuff that's occuring now. I don't care about the deals he closed ten years ago, I wanna know about the ones he has now.

What are the options here?

The blind trust would have been great. I don't really think what he's done so far meets a criteria I would accept as being free from conflict. If we think for one minute that Trump JR. isn't going to go to Dad for advice then we are all crazy.

It should not stop him from becoming POTUS, on that we agree. I just laugh when he promised to be the most transparent POTUS ever. He's not going to be that, because he values his business more than he values America.

If he didn't, he'd give it all up to run the free world and he'd do just fine after he left office, if he's such a yuge genius.

~Tenth

A blind trust is unworkable without selling everything. Trump knows what he owns.
There is no better solution that has been put forward than the one his lawyers have come up with.

There were similar debates with Rockerfeller and it was those debates which ultimately concluded that a President or Vice President could not be held to conflict of interest laws.

I get the nervousness and mistrust, but sometimes you have to judge based on what happens, not on what you are afraid might happen.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I really hate having to defend Trump. I hated having to defend Bush and Obama too....im sensing a trend.

But im not feeling it is his role to prove himself innocent, especially when its innocent of claims made in a report where we know at least some of the information was fabricated.

Trump is a salesman. And he like to project wealth as part of his sales strategy. What he said in a conference where he is projecting wealth to create a sales opportunity....im not thinking its something I'd take to the bank. On a side note, when I see Trump speaking about his plans for his term, it feels like a used car salesman.

He should end with "And the air blows cold...."

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And Obama should have never had to defend himself against Trump's birtherism attacks.



Tit for tat and all that.

The GOP during the primary were the ones who hired this former MI6 in the first place. I doubt they'd hire some moron to dig up opposition research on Trump.

Once it became clear Trump was the frontrunner, they ditched the plan to use the man and his services.

Let's not forget the man who's private consulting agency compiled this also worked on the Russia/FIFA scandal, and did a lot of solid work there.

The source of this information isn't some 4Chan troll or some over-zealous journalist (despite what Trump fans have desperately claimed). It isn't "fake" in the sense it's been written by some ignorant moron with a penchant for fantasy.

There are real ties between Trump's former campaign manager, Manafort and his receiving 12.7 million dollars in payments from pro-Putin political parties.

Every day more and more is pouring out. I suggest people quietly step off the Trump train and let it go careening off the tracks, smoking and full of flames.

I don't think anyone will fault anyone if they quietly change their minds and dump Trump.

CNN must be relegated to national enquire status. WORSE than fake news,political propaganda.

There is such a thing as counter intelligence. The best spy you can have is one you know about that's actually your enemies spy. This dude was clearly played.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: TheBulk


It wasn't. The stuff about the hotel room and the lewd sex stuff is probably fake. The stuff about financial ties to Russia with less than desirable folk? There's evidence to suggest that is true.


~Tenth

So are you saying that the mention of the lewd sex stuff was just a hook to help sell and otherwise dull and hard to follow disjointed tabloid tale of dark shadowy financial jig dancing? Couldn't sell it with just strait missionary position sex no sir.

a reply to: Kettu

I'd have to change my mind to like Trump. I have a rather low opinion of the man.

But I have a lower opinion of partisan mud slinging.