John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president (page 3)

Simon

There is still ZERO evidence of any hacking done by any foreign government. All we have is the CIA saying "trust us, we think it might have happened".

His business deals and insider trading is more concerning to be honest, that's where his missteps are most likely to be.

As for the DNC - I think Bernie would have been the anti-establishment change that would have satisfied people but without the ugly personality. It looked like the guy had scruples and hasn't been cashing in all the time.

Hillary and the DNC killed dead any excitement and passion that the dems had. She generated as much enthusiasm to turn out and vote as a wet fish and then did little to help the people on the ground in the important states. Terrible candidate by any measure but especially in a "we want change and are sick of Washington insiders" election. Dems were thoroughly out of touch with real people.

General Flynn wasn't running for election and wasn't secretary of state and any crime or failure of his does not excuse Clinton. The left has to get past this game of trying to find someone worse to compare against. Put up a decent candidate who isn't mired in corruption and is competent, it really is that simple.

Simon

I don't get this statement. You are saying we can only trust a political candidate who publishes all his or her email communication? That's not something I think ANY candidate has EVER done.

Good attempt at deflection, but that is not what it's about. Those are not the emails that were published - her private server vs the compromised DNC servers (although I doubt a server in her basement was secure). The press coverage and the investigative coverage has been utterly appalling and amateurish - like no one even knows how DNS and Emai works at a basic level.

But anyway, she is employed by the state, she is supposed to be accountable TO US (well, you Murcans)

The emails she sends as part of her role should not be published as a matter of course but should be subject to the rules of people making requests that are approved or for future reference as a record.

That's so we can make sure that, for instance, she isn't making personal deals using her role for personal enrichment or such like and that if she fucks up, there is a record of it - what happened and how it happened.

She tried to sidestep the rules of governance and accountability and put herself above the law for her own benefit.

It's her fault if she mixed in personal emails - that server should have been handed over with everything intact if she was truly sorry and wanted to recover her reputation. As it was, the FBI never even got to look at it directly and what info they got was 2nd hand after they'd gone on a delete-spree. Pathetic and criminal.

Other's have done much, much worse (Bush + Chaney deleted 22 MILLION emails and all records of the lead-up to the Iraq invasion). It doesn't excuse what she did and that is a failure by Obama to hold them accountable.

They are all a fucking shower colluding and passing the baton back and forth. Maybe Trump is the broom that politics needs (although I suspect he's just a different pig looking for a turn at the trough).

pbrow

US intelligence has reliable intel that iraq has weapons of mass destruction and Bush agrees... bush is an idiot and a war mongerer

US intelligence has reliable intel that russia hacked and rigged our elections and Trump disagrees... Trump is an idiot and not fit for office

Cant win for losing...

pbrow

Village Idiot

Simon,
There is still ZERO evidence of any hacking done by any foreign government. All we have is the CIA saying "trust us, we think it might have happened".

The CIA, FBI, NSA and a dozen other intelligence organizations have stated unequivocally that the Russians were behind it. They were even able to tell that Russians in high positions were congratulating themselves on Trump's win.

Here is the declassified version of the intelligence communities report.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Simon

Yes, the security agencies have said there is evidence, but the document claiming to show it does not show any actual evidence and there is lots of evidence that it is not the Russians. It's as believable as Colin Powell's presentation about WoMD's was.

I don't trust the CIA, FBI or NSA - I believe they are politicized and on their own side, which is rarely that of absolute truth.

Village Idiot

I don't trust the CIA, FBI or NSA - I believe they are politicized and on their own side, which is rarely that of absolute truth.

Why should all those agencies tell a falsehood? What would motivate them to do that? There must be a motive if upwards of 17 different agencies are in collusion with each other on a matter of grave importance.

Calebs Airplane

Trump used a lot of misdirection throughout his campaign mainly by directly and indirectly claiming that the election was being rigged against him (knowing all along that it was being rigged in his favor by his butt buddy Putin). But Trump will NOT fail as president. He will get exactly what he wants out of his Presidency. What that means for the rest of us remains to be seen,

Simon

Why should all those agencies tell a falsehood? What would motivate them to do that? There must be a motive if upwards of 17 different agencies are in collusion with each other on a matter of grave importance.

So they can pass a law that would allow them to shutdown any non-controlled news-source which on the surface would be "Russian" but in reality could be any independent blog or news organization. They are an arm of the government but often have their own agenda (remember Bush' advice to Obama ... "whatever you do, don't piss off the intelligence people").

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-02/house-quietly-passes-bill-targeting-russian-propaganda-websites

It is good, when the CIA tell us something, to ask "why are they telling us this? what are they trying to convince people to support?". It's like a magician - watch their other hand and you might see what's going on.

As usual, they will come away with more power and control and we'll have less and it won't be a good thing. Now they want to control information to the public. This should be terrifying but there's a nice salacious story that has everyone clamouring to support them getting their new powers.

Village Idiot

@Simon: You keep mentioning the CIA but there were a dozen and a half agencies involved in this. Are you claiming that the FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security, etc. are in collusion with the CIA with the same or similar motives? It sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory.

bohm

She tried to sidestep the rules of governance and accountability and put herself above the law for her own benefit.

...as did Colin Powell, as did the people who send those emails in the first place. And how did she benefit, exactly?

There has been a number of official investigations into her use of emails. The conclusion of those investigations is that she was "careless" and no charges have been filed.

I don't trust the CIA, FBI or NSA - I believe they are politicized and on their own side, which is rarely that of absolute truth.

Sorry but this is just pure conspiracy. The same kind of sweeping dismissals can be used to dismiss official findings regarding 9/11 or any other similar incident.

Yes, the CIA failed during Iraq but the two situations are very different in that for Iraq it was not 17 agencies making statements and they were reacting largely based on bad second-hands accounts and Saddam Hussain having done his best to make it appear as if he had WMDs to scare of Iran. Why is the FBI untrustworthy because the CIA shat the bed 13 years ago?

If you don't like the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. just read the report and look at the available evidence.

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

Share this