U.S President: Donald Trump

The Flynn stuff seems to be gaining traction. Lots of reports now that the White House knew of the contacts weeks ago but not the VP.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

As long as his supporters see him trying to do the right thing by trying to get the ban in place, he'll be happy. The courts' decisions against him may also help him reinforce his anti-establishment image, which again will go down well with his supporters. It's all about the perceptions of voters and not any threats for as you say, the vetting procedures have worked well.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

Google headline to read full article or subscribers can use link below

Pressure builds for probe into Trump-Russia ties
The White House is facing mounting pressure to explain the relationship between President Donald Trump and the Kremlin, after Michael Flynn was fired as national security adviser following claims that he may have illegally discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to Washington.
The abrupt ousting of Mr Flynn after 24 days in the White House role has intensified the focus on the Trump administration’s ties to Russia and made it impossible for the White House to convince sceptics that all is smooth inside the West Wing.
https://www.ft.com/content/d9c46b52-...8-6876151821a6

Trump is far too good a business man to have not known anything about the people he hires

This from Trump via twit machine

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

So obviously the way to go when your best bud has caught lying and doing dodgy stuff is go on the offensive and blame the people who uncovered the truth.

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

The Flynn stuff seems to be gaining traction. Lots of reports now that the White House knew of the contacts weeks ago but not the VP.

Nah it's all fake news and "illegal leaks"

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes because Trumps Muslim ban was thrown out of court and denied ,had the judges agreed with it he would have won ,even you should be able to understand that simple piece of logic.You can be as pedantic as you like Mick pretending that because one judge initially allowed it "so not ALL the courts disagreed at all"(but the rest banned the ban)that just makes you look ridiculous ,you need to accept that he was wrong ,the judges said he was wrong ,you need to accept it .No doubt you will come up with more reasons why you are right and the USA's judiciary are wrong because your armchair degree is better than mine but i really can't be arsed with you and your ilk any more so i'll leave you to come up with more ways to be wrong

I never questioned the judiciary result, I was merely highlighting your blanket statement that 'All Courts' disagreed with Pierre, was inaccurate. Thus, I'm not wrong, so you will not be leaving me or my ilk at all. You made an incorrect assertion and I corrected you, like I have many times over. Get over it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes because Trumps Muslim ban was thrown out of court and denied

No it wasn't. Trumps attempt to lift the ban on his temporary travel restriction order was denied. Muslims weren't mentioned

the judges said he was wrong ,you need to accept it

But nothing to do with muslims, it was because due process was not applied to nationals with rights to enter the US, they even went out of their way to say that it was nothing to do with muslims.

see above

No because you continue to prove that you do not have a clue about what the original EO was about, and what the subsequent court hearings and rulings are.

You're ignorant, bottom line.

Just continue to sit there with you fingers in your ears shouting " Muslim ban" like a five year old.

---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Well the vetting procedure that Obama put in place seems to be working because no one from any of those countries has committed a terrorist act

How many have tried and failed?

[pip08456]

I'm still trying to get my head around why it's a ban on travel.

As I understand it it's just a suspension for 9 months whilst the administration of the country gets reports from the agentcies involved in the vetting to ensure the correct procedures are in place and any changes to said vetting to be implemented.

That sounds like a country that has control of it's borders.

We hear that ISIS is being pushed back in certain areas. Where are they going to go join the refugee stream? The only other option is to back them into a corner and kill them all!

Europe has and is suffering due to ISIS connected terrorism, why should America also leave itself open to it?

Originally Posted by pip08456

I'm still trying to get my head around why it's a ban on travel.

As I understand it it's just a suspension for 9 months whilst the administration of the country gets reports from the agentcies involved in the vetting to ensure the correct procedures are in place and any changes to said vetting to be implemented.

That sounds like a country that has control of it's borders.

We hear that ISIS is being pushed back in certain areas. Where are they going to go join the refugee stream? The only other option is to back them into a corner and kill them all!

Europe has and is suffering due to ISIS connected terrorism, why should America also leave itself open to it?

How many people live in the country's effected by Trumps ban? How many ISIS terrorists have carried out attacks within the EU? Do the sums and let us know if you think its a fare "policy"! Unless you're so small minded you think every person in those 7 country's is a potential terrorist? Is every Irish man IRA? Is every Spaniard ETA? ect ect? No travel bans for those country's////

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Flynn stuff seems to be gaining traction. Lots of reports now that the White House knew of the contacts weeks ago but not the VP.

It's now being widely reported that Trump's spokesman has admitted that Donald Trump knew two weeks before dismissing Michael Flynn that he had misled senior officials over phone conversations with the Russian ambassador.

[pip08456]

And we know this is true because...

Note, I'm not saying it isn't.

[TheDaddy]

The man is obsessed by size, the size of his vote, the size of his desk, of all the things to get 'upset' about and he chooses the small desk

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a7580821.html

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Flynn stuff seems to be gaining traction. Lots of reports now that the White House knew of the contacts weeks ago but not the VP.

it all seems to be kicking off, but it's not really that big a deal. What he did was outside of protocol but you would have to be naïve to think that potential incoming administrations don't speak to representatives of other governments.

As expected the democrats are trying to implicate this as a connection with the alleged Russian hacking, as some kind of tit for tat deal along the lines of "you help us get elected and we'll op sanctions" Which is bollocks, the so called hacking of Clinton had no real effect on the outcome of the election anyway.

The person most angry would be Mike Pence, as he went out an defended Flynn when Flynn and Trump knew he done it.

I think it depends on what happens next. There will be many questions such as did anyone tell Flynn to phone them? It also depends on if the GOP can continue to resist calls for an investigation, more of them are splitting on the issue.

If this were or becomes an isolated issue it would die down. If it keeps developing then who knows.

[tweetiepooh]

ISIS kill more Muslims than non. No big surprise as the areas they "work" in are Muslim majority. Blow up Wembly Stadium during a soccer match - you kill more soccer fans than soccer haters.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Which is bollocks, the so called hacking of Clinton had no real effect on the outcome of the election anyway.

I doubt there's conclusive evidence either way on this but the Russians aren't stupid so must have believed it worthwhile.

[nomadking]

Are we seriously expected to believe that any dodgy communication would occur in such a relatively open and discoverable manner? At the very least, any Russian involvement would insist on more hidden methods.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Are we seriously expected to believe that any dodgy communication would occur in such a relatively open and discoverable manner? At the very least, any Russian involvement would insist on more hidden methods.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/u...ael-flynn.html

The White House had examined a transcript of a wiretapped conversation that Mr. Flynn had with Mr. Kislyak in December, according to administration officials. Mr. Flynn originally told Mr. Pence and others that the call was limited to small talk and holiday pleasantries.

But the conversation, according to officials who saw the transcript of the wiretap, also included a discussion about sanctions imposed on Russia after intelligence agencies determined that President Vladimir V. Putin’s government tried to interfere with the 2016 election on Mr. Trump’s behalf. Still, current and former administration officials familiar with the call said the transcript was ambiguous enough that Mr. Trump could have justified either firing or retaining Mr. Flynn.