Mr trump Tells ABC News "It’s not an interference. They have information. I think I’d take it."

My guess is that very few of us click your links.

 

Why do we fall for the "squire" defense. The interview doesn't raise issues about the Steele report regarding Clinton. If you want to prosecute Clinton, then open up a separate investigation. But that isn't related to the issue at hand.

The current issue is whether Trump is willing to accept influence from a foreign government for personal gain. Trump's defense can't be, well somebody else did it so I'm in the clear. But we the public spend way too much time trying to compare past behavior rather than discussing the current issue on it's own merits.

Trump's statements risk national security today, not years ago.​

 

“When you see my financial statement, at some point, I assume it’s gonna be released, you’ll be very impressed with the job I’ve done,” he told Stephanopoulos. “Much, much bigger, much much better than anybody.”

Then he kicked Mulvaney out of the Oval Office for coughing and asked to do another take, because news interviews function just like The Apprentice.

 

Good questions, and I, too, would like more detail on this from Ms. Otero. I appreciate that you took the time to consider content. You lost me a bit there on your discussion of Brennan, though. Not sure where you're driving.

 

So you didn't read about the methodology and are just going with what it feels like to you. Got it.

 

Deleted

 

Let's get one thing clear about the difference between what Trump did and Steele. Trump's campaign welcomed and attempted to get information from a foreign adversary loyal to that government.

Steele used sources to gather information as intel agencies do. Intel gathering methods by agencies is quite a bit different than welcoming dirt on an opponent from sources acting on behalf of the adversarial government.

The articles you posted don't make that distinction and seem to be doing their best to blur that distinction.

 

You should read their own website closer.

 

I was just wondering how they classify someone like John Brennan. MSNBC hired him because he somehow represents the CIA, right? He has insider knowledge or something? So I wonder if the study classifies him as a "paid contributor" or an "institutional spokesperson." Is he in the same category as someone like S.E. Cupp?

 

Not to take any side on Ad Fontes Media's categorization of Brennan, but simply to consider the logic of such, I would guess due to his experience as CIA operative, station chief, and Director, and his experience as Deputy National Security Advisor, he would be more likely characterized on the basis of the experience of his career, rather than his very recent gig as paid contributor. Surely, though, he is paid to contribute to MSNBC on the basis of his knowledge and experience. We don't have a plethora of individuals with his practical familiarity of the mechanics and operation of our Intelligence Community.

 

The British accent probably makes it seem more legitimate to them.

 

FIFY.

 

TL;DR

Stopped reading when you called me dishonest for trying to have an honest discussion with you and just asking a question that you dodged and got bent out of shape about. I really don't have time to obsess over your opinion. I just actually thought you had something of value to say, but instead you want to be hostile. I see how it is deck. You ain't got no love in that ice cold heart of yours.

 

Translation: “I couldn’t respond intelligently to anything in your post so instead I’m going to act offended and pretend that you said nothing of value.”

 

His troll game is weak.

 

I engaged you very clearly on the Census rigging and you had nothing there.

I don’t think your non response has anything to do with post length tbh. You just sort of seem to be picking and choosing your battles.

Inviting meddling in our elections and trying to rig the census are two very clear cases of threats to our democracy. I’m sure you can justify in your own brain because you think your tribe benefiting justifies since you hate liberals so much, and think cheating to beat evil libs who might expand healthcare access or increase taxes on the top 1% is going to destroy the world. Heaven forbid you might not be able to buy a new AR with a high capacity mag... oh no!! Totally justifies rigging our democracy to avoid that.

Just admit you don’t care dude. There would be a higher level of respect if you just did that. The Trump/McConnell regime are openly a threat to democracy and you are just lying to us and to yourself about it because you want to win.. win on the issues you care about and win stupid internet thread arguments on a local sports forum.

 

The lengths that presumably smart people will go to look dumb to defend what trump did...

 

Or use a British spy and not worry about any of that.

 

LOL... this false equivalency has been deflated a number of times and its funny you keep bringing it up. But... you keep being you.