Trump: I Would Accept Dirt On Political Opponents If Offered By Foreign Governments [Updated]

In controversial interview, President Donald Trump told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office that he would accept dirt on political opponents from foreign governments and would not necessarily alert his own FBI. He further said that FBI Director Christoper Wray was “wrong” in saying that such contacts should be reported. There is nothing illegal in receiving such information for either politicians or journalists. However, it puts Trump at odds with the view not only of his own agencies but most of the public on the need to alert the FBI. In the aftermath of the interview, various Fox hosts criticized not Trump but ABC for what they portrayed as an ambush. It was not an ambush. It was a standard interview with a highly relevant (and predictable) question by Stephanopoulos. At the same time, the CNN’s Chris Cuomo is also wrong to portray this as endorsing possible criminal conduct. There is nothing illegal in accepting information from foreign intelligence figures, which was done by the Clinton campaign in the Steele Dossier. Trump has downplayed the comments.

Stephanopoulos asked whether his campaign would accept damaging information from countries like China or Russia — or hand it over the FBI. Turmp “I think maybe you do both.” Trump continued “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,. If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”

That alone might not have caused as much of a stir. However, Trump then added that he might not inform the FBI:

“It’s not an interference, they have information — I think I’d take it,” Trump said. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, ‘oh let’s call the FBI.’ The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.

. . . “Somebody comes up and says, ‘hey, I have information on your opponent,’ do you call the FBI? . . . I’ll tell you what, I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don’t call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do . . . ” Oh, give me a break – life doesn’t work that way.”

Stephanopoulos then asked the obvious follow up about the fact that Wray said that the FBI should have been informed about such efforts related to the Trump Tower meeting. Trump then directed contradicted his own FBI: “The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn’t happen like that in life. Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you’d think differently.”

Again, there is no law requiring notice to the FBI. However, this is a government offering dirt on a presidential candidate. It should be concerning for any official. There is nothing unlawful in receiving the information but there is ample reason to inform the FBI of a foreign power interfering with our election, particularly a hostile foreign power. Some have argued that information can be a “thing of value” under federal election laws. If so, receiving information from a foreign government could violate the ban on such contributions. However, I have always viewed such arguments as too sweeping. Obviously, there is a great deal of information that passes from government sources, including information acquired by the Clinton campaign from foreign intelligence figures in the Steele Dossier. The loose interpretation given to any “information” as a “thing of value”
would raise serious first amendment concerns that I have discussed in earlier columns.

The interview added yet another damaging soundbite to use against Trump in the general election. He gained nothing from the comments. He could have acknowledged that he would listen to evidence of possible criminal acts, but that he would simply notify the FBI as a matter of course. Instead, as correctly noted by Fox anchor Brian Kilmeade, opened himself up to an avalanche of bipartisan criticism.

Given the detailed findings of the Mueller report on Russian efforts to influence our election, the President’s statement could not come at a worse time. It also throws into doubt the position of our government after the report and could a course for a major collision between the Wray and Trump on the issue.

367 thoughts on “Trump: I Would Accept Dirt On Political Opponents If Offered By Foreign Governments [Updated]”

  1. Tom and others here who cannot answer the obvious question of why FBI conspirators protected Trump from public knowledge of their investigation of his campaign while blowing up Hillary’s for the same information have company. Trump can’t answer it either.

    “After Trump demeaned top FBI brass as “lowlives,” claimed that the entire investigation into Russian interference and his campaign’s role in it was “a setup” that President Barack Obama “must have known about,” and referenced an August 2016 text message in which then-FBI agent Peter Strzok mentioned “an insurance policy,” Stephanopoulos asked him a critical question.

    “If they were determined to prevent you from becoming president, why wouldn’t they leak it beforehand?” he said.

    But instead of pushing back, Trump acknowledged that Stephanopoulos’s premise was correct.

    “You know what, you’d have to ask them,” Trump said. “And you know what — had that gone out before the election, I don’t think I would have had enough time to defend myself.””

    1. That “obvious question” has been answered numerous times; JanF./ now Anon1’s either does not comprehend the answers, or pretends not to understand.
      So he repeatedly recites the same question like a parrot. There is no point in going over the same territory again and again when some doofus robotically repeats questions that have been answered multiple times.

      1. “anF./ now Anon1’s either does not comprehend the answers, or pretends not to understand.”

        Tom, you better stay away from Anon if he has a hammer in his hand.

        1. I’m not sure if JanF., now anon1, is allowed to handle “complex tools” like a hammer.
          It would take too much instruction, and he’d probably just keep asking the same questions like “explain how this is used”.
          Then he’d conclude that those explaining it to him are unable to explain.

          1. I believe the hammer is integral to his line of work, small construction projects. Unfortunately Anon carries his hammer into the intellectual realm where he is totally unprepared. His problem can be best described by Twain, “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

          2. Ha ha ha, witty little avoidance post. Put up or shut up you phony. Maybe you can help Trump figure out how to answer the most obvious question for you fools. Here it is again:

            I thought the Deep State was out to get Trump and protect Hillary but it manged to do exactly the opposite.

            By the way, didn’t you say or imply that you did not think there was a conspiracy within the government to frame Trump, and that ‘s why you were so upset – I thought you might swoon – when I was so crass as to say you were defending the “Deep State”?

      2. Tom has never answered this question, nor have any Trump cultists here. Trump can’t answer it.

        1.  This one.Jan F on February 23, 2019 at 3:45 PM
          I’m sorry, but I already won this argument. To recap, anyone in the lily white GOP is the one with some ‘splainin’ to do about identity politics and since I’m not, I won’t. Thanks for playing.
          Some people visit these commemt threads to actually discuss/ debate issues.
          Above is a sample of the mindset that “JanF”, who now goes by the name “anon1”, displayed from Day One when he showed up several months ago.
          Operating from that perspective displayed in the JanF/ anon1 comment above, every issue ……every issue…..and every discussion……is wrapped within the delusion that he is a great debater, that he knows which political party is “the good one”, and that delivering sermons and proclamations is far more important than rational dialogue.
          Once these characteristics are put on display by the same person in hundreds of comments, there’s not much point in pretending that anything like a rational exchange is possible with a loon like JanF/ anon1.
          Things can be explained repeatedly to an individual like that, thoroughly covered up and down and sideways, and this is the standard ploy 🙉 used by JanF./anon1.
          If comments to him do not fit in neatly with his bizarre, preconceived notions, he simply discards them.
          Or pretends that those comments were never made.
          There unfortunately is no separate soapbox or pulpit area in these threads for JanF./anon 1 to stand on, so his sermons/ lectures are just part of the threads’ landscape.

        2. Deep state actors don’t all act in sync. there’s your explanation

          its hard for small minds to comprehend, but it’s like making donations to both sides in a campaign. to a fool, it’s inconsistent. to a wise man, who needs to have his voice heard no matter who wins, it’s smart

          Deep State wants to reduce civil society to a lower power level vis a vis the state. That is not a conspiracy rather that is an instinct. It kicked Hillary and it kicked Trump too. It’s a way of showing both sides that the FBI – CIA either or both, are kingmakers. Not the people but the power of the agencies to destroy either candidates or both.

          That’s the point. They can make you and they can break you. That was the whole point; it didn’t matter too much who won. Both sides get the message.

          The notion of the Deep State, is that of an entrenched bureaucracy which is operating as a state within a state, independently of civil society and at times at the expense of it, pursuing its own agenda. it is not a “thing” with a coherent organizational charter, but it is a “thing” which exists informally, subsisting as a collective instinct of those operating at high levels within agencies. Historically, it was discussed in reference to the Turkish republic, where a coterie of officers in the army and other important people, would often operate against the will of the people, to maintain a certain level of secularism against popular Islamism. but, it is a “thing” here too, in that there’s people with deep powers of office in civil service, military, etc., who act to protect their prerogatives and institutional values.

          One of which is power of the agency itself. “J Edgar” was a Deep State actor, if you take it from a leftist perspective, and i would say, that could be a legit notion in certain contexts.

          Certainly when you have former FBI, DNI, and CIA all denouncing the sitting president at once, the notion of a “slow moving coup” is not exactly implausible.

    2. It get worse for you…….

      Roger Stone is requesting the “evidence” from Crowdstrike of the Russian HACK…….there is none.

      FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike Unredacted or Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking Because None was Produced

      The FBI relied on CrowdStrike’s “conclusion” to blame Russia for hacking DNC servers, though the private firm never produced a final report and the FBI never asked them to, as Ray McGovern explains.

      By Ray McGovern

      the whole Russia agent ruse is base on lies

      But we do have another Cold war with Russia and are closer to WW3 than during the Cuban missile crisis because of Democrats!!

  2. Hillary Clinton not only accepted dirt against Trump, but hired a company to spread it around. One of that company’s employees gave it to her husband, an FBI employee with a responsible position with the agency. The dirt was used to justify a FISA warrant..

    Hillary Clinton and Nellie and Bruce Ohr are walking around free of the press condemnation the President is suffering of saying, hypothetically, he’d do much something much less despicable than Mrs Clinton and the Ohrs did..

    The situation speaks for itself.

    1. And they worked with the FBI to get past being indicted for her illegal servers and worked against Trump with illegal spying on his campaign

      That’s sedition

          1. Missed this. Based on what actions would Hillary be indicted for sedition?

        1. i would say obstruction of justice. others in her cabal, whomever gave false information to support the FISA warrants, should face charges for false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

          that is, if it can be proven she greenlighted the whole thing in advance. maybe she was just on for the ride after the fact. in which case she was just a bad lady.

          sedition charges are nearly impossible to prove against anyone, that’s a waste of effort

    2. Jean L.,
      It SHOULD speak for itself. Re Hillary, no one seems that interested in investigating her claim, and the claims of just about everyone else in her campaign and in the DNC, that they didn’t know anything about the Steele Russian Dossier opposition research.
      The use of intermediaries allowed even the Hillary Campaign and the DNC to cover up these funding for this opposition research.
      So there is no definite evidence that she herself knew; it was set up that way, the deniability, and in the absence of any known investigation into who approved ( in the DNC/ Hillary Campaign) approved these expenditures, who was getting briefed on the Russian opposition research, etc., she and others have been allowed to claim ignorance about the Steele Russian Dossier project.
      The statements and activities of Strzok, Page, McCabe, and the Ohrs have been well- documented.
      It does not good to point that out to the 🙉 hear-no-evil crowd, as they will I’m mediately pivot and deflect away from those facts when they are mentioned.
      And they have been covered again and again here in these threads.
      But while the facts you pointed out SHOULD speak for themselves, there are enough active propagantists here who do not put a great deal of stock in facts and accuracy.
      What are little things like facts and accuracy if they interfere with their demogoguery?

      1. Unfortunately for Tom’s “point”, what speaks loudest is the fact that the information in the Dossier, as well as the fact that Trump was under investigation, was kept from the public by the FBI and the MSM until after the election. What that says – loudly – is that both the FBI and the MSM kept to their traditional principles of not influencing an election (the FBI) and not publishing without confirmation (the MSM).

        Also, as Tom says, the activities of Strzok and Page etc have been documented by a lengthy IG report which found no unprofessional behavior other than the use of agency phones for personal and political communications. In fact, it was noted in that report that Strzok pushed for more aggressive investigative activities in the Clinton email case.

        As Tom says, “the facts … SHOULD speak for themselves, (but) there are enough active propagantists here who do not put a great deal of stock in facts and accuracy. What are little things like facts and accuracy if they interfere with their demogoguery?”

        1. So McCabe and Strzok were fired because if professional conduct?
          And others demoted for the same reason, because they behaved “professionally”?
          I’m not sure why, especially after Strzok’s Congressional testimony, there are some who feel obligated to act as apologists for these people.
          If the discussion had been about Hillary, “She can’t will, can she? We’ll stop it”, and the “insurance policy” was discussed just in case Hillary won, I can guarantee that Hillaryites would be demanding their heads on a platter.
          But when those discussions involve a candidate they dislike, that conduct is OK?
          I won’t even go into the situation with the Ohrs, who collaborated with Steele after the FBI severed ties with Steele in the fall of 2016.
          While Nellie Ohr is working for the firm that selected Steele.
          So there appears to be no disagreement on these basic, established facts. That disagreement is primarily over the ” so what”, dismissive position some cling to because Hillary’s opponent, not Hillary, was the one involved in these discussions and activities ( which include at least the appearance of conflicts of interest).
          Maybe they were in pressed after watching Strzok’s testimony, and like his honey at the FBI (and Strzok himself), so him as a great guy who did absolutely nothing wrong.
          There were valid reasons why people were fired and demoted, sometimes in reverse order, when the conduct of these officials came to light.
          I have yet to see that IG Horowitz stated that their conduct……any and all of the above…..was professional.

          1. Horowitz says he found no affirmative evidence that Strzok skewed his decision-making for political reasons. But he says he “did not have confidence” that Strzok’s decision in the campaign’s final month to prioritize the Trump campaign/Russia probe over new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop “was free from bias.” He writes that Strzok and other FBI employees “brought discredit to themselves” and hurt the bureau’s reputation
            This is what Horwitz actually concluded. He carefully parsed the wording of his conclusions by saying “no affirmative evidence” ( he could not prove that Strzok’s biases influence his actions) in one instance, and that he was “not confident” that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Trump campaign investion over the Hillary email investgations was “free form bias”.

            1. “from bias”, not “form bias”.
              Also, the segment of the article I posted in the above comment was from VOX, written in mid-June 2018 ( the 16th?), immediately after IG Horowitz completed his first report.

              1. From the IG report:

                “We searched for evidence that the Weiner laptop was
                deliberately placed on the back-burner by others in the
                FBI to protect Clinton, but found no evidence in emails,
                text messages, instant messages, or documents that
                suggested an improper purpose. We also took note of
                the fact that numerous other FBI executives—including
                the approximately 39 who participated in the
                September 28 SVTC—were briefed on the potential
                existence of Midyear-related emails on the Weiner
                laptop. We also noted that the Russia investigation was
                under the supervision of Priestap—for whom we found
                no evidence of bias and who himself was aware of the
                Weiner laptop issue by September 29. However, we
                also did not identify a consistent or persuasive
                explanation for the FBI’s failure to act for almost a
                month after learning of potential Midyear-related emails
                on the Weiner laptop…….”

                1. That as-yet-unexplained delay…..the nearly month long “failure to act” …..has yet to be resolved.
                  It may have been covered in some report or testimony that I missed…..but as of a year ago, when IG Horowitz issued his first report…..there was no explanation.
                  Nor have I seen that issue addressed since then.
                  The closest thing to a possible explanation is the Horowitz comment that he was “not confident” that the decision to prioritize the investigation of the Trump Campaign over the Hillary email investigation was free from bias.

                  1. Yeah, gee Tom, that really speaks loudly for ………. what? There are a myriad of possible explanations and you hope it’s because of a conspiracy apparently backfiring – it was announced 1.5 weeks before the election – by a group that still kept Trump’s investigation secret. But hey Jr G-man, you don’t think there was a conspiracy so the voices in your head speaking so loudly must have some other point.

                    Oh, what could it be?

                2. Anon only posts those portions which to him seem to back up what he wishes to think leaving out all incriminating evidence against those he wishes to support. No one argues that the good stuff Anon wishes to portray isn’t legitimate only that that the bad stuff he leaves out paints a completely different picture, one of a guilty person. In addition Anon’s understanding of words, especially in a legal context, is limited. He doesn’t seem to understand that when phrases are written in an unusual way it is not because of innocence rather one is leaving guilt to be decided by others when looking at the greater picture..

          2. “because OF professional conduct”…I frequently hit the letter i next to the letter o on this smartphone.

        2. I did not mention any names in that particular comment that I made earlier to Jean L., but I see that janF./anon1 recognized herself with I mentioned characteristics like demogoguery.🤭

    3. Steele was the firmer head of the British MI-6 Russia desk and as such had FBI contacts of his own who he contacted with the information which judged concerning. He has his own consulting business which one might assume he would not want to damage by promoting scurrilous information to professional contacts.

      The Dossier was used as part of the first FISA application for Page and was identified in that application as produced by a private firm for opposition research. As Mueller later confirmed, the information on Page was largely correct if not completely accurate.

      1. funny that anon 1 left out seversl facts, e.g., that Steele, a self-identifed Trump-hater motivated to destroy Trump’s candidacy, withheld exculpatory evidence; that the identification of DNC/clinton as the payers/requesters was buried ina footnote in the FISA application, and that the factual allegations that were verfied were not harmful to Trump–the most damaging were never proven and in fact, many were dismissed. Anon merely adds to the propaganda with selective presentations and his/her comments must therefore be dismissed as merely opinion.

        1. Lin,.
          Virtually every comment made by anon1 ( formerly using the name of JanF) is shaped by the insane level of bias and partisanship that she displayed in her Feb.24, 2019 comments.
          Anyone who comes here to comment on this thread with that mentality is not interest in actual debate.
          Additionally, in her “mind”, such as it is, the stunts she repeatedly pulls means that she “wins” every argument.

          1. Typically Tom has no answer for what has been “speaking loudly” but prefers his innuendos and then personal attacks. That is boring to most of us I hope and I’m happy to stick closely to the facts.

            1. There are numerous facts and details that have been presented by me, and others, that deal with the issues under discussion ( Steele’s role and activities, the FBI players demoted or dismissed, the Ohrs DOJ/ Steele,/ Fusion GPS Nexus, etc.
              No one can help it if JanF./ anon1 would not recognize facts if they bit her in the ***.
              There are a couple of people who comment here who very rarely comment on the issues under discussion, and almost exclusively limit their participation here to “chiming in” as compliant “yes-men” ( or “yes-women”.
              Ironically, these particular individuals have often commented about a lack of “substance”, when there is substantive, detailed discussion going on all around them.
              Another category that ignores/ dismisses facts would be the JanF/ anon1 demogogue/ propagantist segment of participants here.
              Prior to a couple of years ago, there was not the extreme level of activity by these relatively few individuals.
              It was likelier that real debate would occur without these individuals constantly deflecting, distorting, and lying in attempts to “score points” .
              These transparent stunts generally have the opposite effect, since most people pick up on there games.
              As far as the references to my “personal attacts”, I think it’s worthwhile every now and then to hold these people accountable for their roles in the deterioration of the quality of these threads.
              It may be evidently from some of my comments that I have a good deal of contempt for the 4-5 people who constantly engage in the activities I mentioned above.
              When they keep “crossing the line”, show no integrity or intellectual honesty, they are, in my view, just “asking for it” when they’re called out on their stunts.
              It may be that these particular individuals heightened performance of these stunts in the past couple of years is related to the Trump nomination, then election victory, and that it somehow entitles them to lie their way through a debate.
              In a “big tent/ open forum comment section like this, it inevitably attracts and mostly accommodates those who continually play these games.
              Only in rare instances, after perhaps putting up with hundreds of exhibitions of outright dishonesty from someone who comments here, is someone barred from further participation here.
              And they may simply re-appear via another alias/sock puppet. This is the only forum where I’ve posted comments over the past c.5 years, but in browsing other sites’ threads, it’s clear that a few determined and prolific charlatans, liars, demogogue, and propagandists can disrupt normal debate and dialogue in any thread.

              1. I’m sorry, were you talking to me?

                Let me know when you want to challenge a supposed lie from me. I actually have a record of admitting errors of fact, unlike any of your buddies who you think so highly of because they agree with you.

                1. Anon, you are a liar and to date have admitted no errors of substance. I think you admitted the error of a date but didn’t admit the error of insulting the poeple you were communicating with when you made that error. All in all you have a malignant personality and add nothing but discord to the blog. Tom is far more of a man than you are and he along with many on the blog have challenged your lies only to hear you say that your never saw the challenges even after they were repeated.

                2. The one million person march in Hong Kong from last week, eclipsed on June 16 and the mark is estimated at 2 million. Western mass media barely notices. All you hear about is Iran, what a naughty boy trump is, and the usual assortment of “causes”

                  1. This is not going to work out well for Hong Kong. There is no escaping the fact that they are under the control of China. Perhaps they were better off under the British or, better yet, an independent country.

                    Hong Kong is useful as revenue to the Chinese, but they will not tolerate dissent. The Social scoring system will come to that island.

                3. Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 2:03 PM
                  No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

                  This is absurd x 2 says: February 24, 2019 at 2:35 PM
                  That’s a fact, not an opinion.

                  At this point I can’f figure if this remark is indicative of camp or stupidity.

                  Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 3:53 PM
                  My remark is a statement of fact. Anyone who doubts it is a moral or mental defective.

                  1. The Feb. 24 th comment by anon1 ( he/she was posting under the name “JanF” then) was labeled as from “anonymous” due to no area provided to entered name and email.
                    I posted it as a reminder of JanF/ now Anon1’s perception of “facts”.
                    It’s not likely that anyone who views their opinions….even extreme, somewhat crazed opinions….as facts will “admit errors of fact”.
                    It is extremely unlikely.
                    I point this out again to emphasize the mindset of this type of “debater”, who can not and will not recognize any view, any evidence, any comments that do not neatly fit into that person’s opinion/”fact” framework.
                    Rather than playing the game of going over the same territory I’ve already covered about a dozen times,
                    which is JanF./ anon’s way of getting others to waste time, I’ll emphasize that a delusional person who is convinced that their opinions are facts does not come to a forum like this to engage in discussion or debate.

        2. lin, any intelligent and informed person would oppose Trump’s becoming president, which the results confirm. That is different than besmirching one’s own well established reputation by corrupting information, the product Steele sells. The Dossier was presented as “raw intelligence”, meaning these were allegations from connected sources worth investigating farther. As far as we know, Steele did this work by himself and did not employ staff to do that investigating.

          Nothing in FISA warrants is named, including the candidates (“candidate 1”, etc). The judges would have to be fools to not guess which it might have been who produced the opposition research (an already suspect source) and were free to ask who it was if they did not know and cared.

          The information regarding Page was largely correct, though some details were not, and were corroborated by Mueller. Page had been a person of interest to the FBI over Russian connections going back to 2013.

          1. Lin,
            In case there was ever any doubt about who the “intelligent and informed” one is in these comment threads, we have JanF./now anon1’s word for it that JanF./ anon1 is the “intelligent and informed” one.😉😄😂🤣

      2. It’s worth noting that the FBI severed ties with Steele when they discovered that he was trying to get the media to “run with” the allegations” contained in the opposition research project he directed.
        There was also a criminal referral to DOJ about 18 months ago concerning allegations that Steele lied to the FBI about those media contacts.
        As is well-known, Steele and “his
        client” ultimately had to settle for a rag like Mother Jones to print allegations from the dossier.
        It’s idiotic to dismiss that pre-election MJ’s article simply because the words “dossier” and “Steele” do not appear in that article.
        That excuse, used earlier in this thread, demonstrates the extreme contortions and distortions some will go to in order to try to distort the facts.

        1. Tom, that is correct, and further proof of the FBI’s innocence regarding a plot to get Trump. Can’t you hear those facts “speaking loudly” to you?

          Oh, I forgot you don’t think there was an FBI conspiracy and agree with me on this point.

          1. I made it clear to any normal individual that there were bad actors within the FBI and the DOJ.
            I can’t control the statements and claims that the few other-than- normal 🤪😳 individuals here like to make.

  3. Did Stephenopolis Set Trump up ?

    Of course he did. What a stupid question.

    We expect “gotcha” questions out of journalists.

    The question was an obvious trap and Trump had no possible answer aside fromt he one he gave.

    If he said he would not accept dirt from foreign powers – he would be calling his own 2016 campaign corrupt – possibly criminally so.

    If he said he would tell the FBI about anything, again he indicts his own 2016 campaign.

    Further he sets his future campaigns up.

    If he says he would not accept dirt from a foreign power, or he would report anything to the FBI, then he spends the entire 2020 election cycle answer stupid questions about every person in his campaign 3 steps removed from a foreigner.

    The BIG advantage he has on this issues is that everything he is accused of the Clinton campaign actually did.

    Clinton did get dirt on Trump from Russia and went to great lengths to hide that.
    Clinton did not report to the FBI that foreign agents were providing her with dirt,
    She tried to sell the dirt to the FBI.

    Further we have Clinton’s machinations with the Ukraine which are even more direct.

    Then we have the possibility that the Trump Tower meeting may have been orchestrated by the Clinton Campaign.

    Pretty much all the attempts by “russians” to get into the Trump campaign were not real russians but other FBI assets or associates of Clinton.

    I have no problems with Staphanopolis’s question. But I am not going to pretend it was not a setup, a gotcha.

  4. Turley is MOSTLY correct – as is Trump.

    Absolutely the statement bothers most of us.

    Which is precisely why Clinton went to such tremendous efforts to keep secret her machinations with Steele.

    Everything that is offensive should not be illegal.

    Alot of our stupidity is the result of language mangling.

    What is “Foreign interference” ?

    The US meddles overtly and covertly in elections arround the world.
    There is nothing that any nation has done to us, that we have not routinely done to others.

    Our government, our Press our people express their oppinions on the outcome of elections accross the world. We do so from the whitehouse, from the state department, from the UN, from the CIA, from our media, from social media.

    Are americans alone permitted to express views on foreign elections ?

    We behave arrogantly and hypocritically. We claim ownership of the internet – in fact all media. Facebook is OURS, Twitter is OURS, Google is OURS, The airwaves are OURS. We are free to express ourselves – but damn anyone else who holds an oppinion about us.

    What exactly is it that constitutes “foriegn interference in our elections” that is so heinous ?

    With respect to laws purporting to make such things “illegal”.

    Nonsense. The relations of nations with each other is an enormous millinia long example of working anarcho-capitalism.

    There is no such thing as “international law”, there are no international cops, and international courts can say whatever they wish their power is limited to the voluntary compliance of nations, or the willingness of other nations to go to war.

    The last point is significant.
    With respect to individuals in our own country we should make no law we are not prepared to kill people for disobeying – because any law vigorously resisted is either toothless or requires force – to the point of killing to enforce.
    We saw that with NYC laws regarding selling loose cigarettes and Eric Garner.

    With respect to our restrictions on the conduct of other nations, the standard is nearly the same. We can not expect any nation to conform its conduct to our expectations if we are unwilling to go to war to enforce that.

    If Russia wishes to post politically on Social media about US elections – are you going to go to war to stop that ? If not, quit the whining.

    What we have is a real world example of the anarcho-capitalism of free speech.

    You need not like what Russia has to say – but you can not silence russia without war.

    And if you can not silence a foreign power, why would you be so stupid as to think you can or should silence individuals ? The rich, corporations, unions, churches, Nazi’s, the KKK.

    Trump has committed one of the cardinal sins in politics.

    He has spoken the truth.

    Those who oppose him may wish to think about how that actually will impact people.

    Most of us grasp that what Trump said was actually true.
    Unpleasant, and offensive – but still true.

    Are voters going to loath Trump for saying something offensive ?
    Or respect him for doing what most politicians do not – telling the truth.

    Most of this “Trump lies” garbage fits in this catagory.

    As politicians go Trump lies very little. the chattering classes are offended not because he purportedly lies, but because he is blunt and mostly tells the truth.

  5. What “conspiracy did I allegedly”, stupid.
    JanF./ anon1 is the one babbling about “the Deep State” in what exchanges we may have had, and then that fool turns around and claims that I am the one alleging conspiracy.
    I would try to explain to JanF/ anon why liars like her are not highly regarded, and why I do not have unlimited patience with the internet trash like her do not add anything to the content of the comment threads; but given her stated mindset from day one, it obviously does not do any good to try to explain anything to a clown like that.

Comments are closed.