Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 195764 times)

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1600 on: June 13, 2018, 04:37:00 PM »
Just checking to make sure everybody here is aware that North Korea shares a border with Russia.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1601 on: June 14, 2018, 05:53:47 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7984
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1602 on: June 14, 2018, 07:16:55 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.

Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.

*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1603 on: June 14, 2018, 07:20:11 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.

Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.

*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.

In area's not directly linked to the 2016 election.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7984
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1604 on: June 14, 2018, 07:39:53 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.

Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.

*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.

In area's not directly linked to the 2016 election.
First off - that's not correct.  Papadopoulos pleaded guilty about lying to the FBI about a obtaining "dirt" on Clinton during the campaign. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. 13 Russian nationals and three companies were charged for election meddling.
So yes, some of the indictments and guilty pleas are directly linked to the 2016 election. Others (e.g. most of the charges against Manafort) are from before the campaign started.

Second - it shouldn't matter whether federal crimes committed are directly related to the election or not. Crimes are crimes, regardless of whether they happened in 2014 or 2016/17. 

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1605 on: June 14, 2018, 08:12:40 PM »
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!

This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)

You read that and go "Man, that is shady."

Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.

Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)

"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.

Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.

*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.

In area's not directly linked to the 2016 election.
First off - that's not correct.  Papadopoulos pleaded guilty about lying to the FBI about a obtaining "dirt" on Clinton during the campaign. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. 13 Russian nationals and three companies were charged for election meddling.
So yes, some of the indictments and guilty pleas are directly linked to the 2016 election. Others (e.g. most of the charges against Manafort) are from before the campaign started.

Second - it shouldn't matter whether federal crimes committed are directly related to the election or not. Crimes are crimes, regardless of whether they happened in 2014 or 2016/17.

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7984
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1606 on: June 15, 2018, 06:17:59 AM »

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing.  It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT.  Full stop.  We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain.  These two findings are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States.  Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others.  Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years. 
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.

So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away.  Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign.  It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1607 on: June 15, 2018, 06:38:05 AM »
Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

No one can help you if you believe there's nothing directly involving the election.  The indicments, the guilty pleas...the FACTS say otherwise.

Penn42

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 194
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1608 on: June 16, 2018, 06:42:21 AM »
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

I cannot believe I'm actually about to participate in this thread.... But here goes nothing!

The great thing about liars is you always get to hold them to their word.  In any semi normal situation their lies or hypocrisies will at the least discredit them.  I'm no lawyer, but I would guess whether or not he is a trustworthy individual has little to do with the legal standing of any of his statements of intent.  I don't think there's any such thing as the "I was just lying" defense.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1609 on: June 16, 2018, 07:12:07 AM »
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?

I cannot believe I'm actually about to participate in this thread.... But here goes nothing!

The great thing about liars is you always get to hold them to their word.  In any semi normal situation their lies or hypocrisies will at the least discredit them.  I'm no lawyer, but I would guess whether or not he is a trustworthy individual has little to do with the legal standing of any of his statements of intent.  I don't think there's any such thing as the "I was just lying" defense.

It's also important to remember that Trump lies for personal gain. He gains nothing by admitting to obstruction. But to be fair, Trump can say and do anything and his loyal followers will still support him. 

I can't imagine the inevitable shit storm conservatives would be bringing down on the WH if this were a Dem behaving this way.   

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1610 on: June 16, 2018, 07:55:29 AM »

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing.  It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT.  Full stop.  We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain.  These two findings are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States.  Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others.  Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years. 
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.

So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away.  Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign.  It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.

Zooming out even more you find some strange political moves. If Trump is half as dangerous as everyone implies, Congress should be throwing up roadblocks to stop him, right?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/congress-just-passed-terrible-surveillance-law-now

The FBI searches the information gathered in FISA as regularly as common people use Google. An amendment was proposed to require the FBI to get warrants. That amendment was voted down by Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.)

One bill doesn't mean anything. How about two?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-have-new-plan-expand-indefinite-detention-and-endless-global-war

Tim Kaine helped cook this one up. Allows the president to bypass Congress when starting wars.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/russia-probes-wouldn-t-expand-if-the-democrats-win-warner-says

"The top Democrat working on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe doesn’t see his party ramping up investigations into Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election should they win control of Congress in November elections.

Americans “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said Wednesday at the Recode Code Conference in California"

-Big Picture- You have criminal indictments. Lots and lots of them. Each one proving that Trump and crew owes *something* to the Russians.  Yet niether group in Congress seems to be bothered by that. They keep trying to give him power. Also the *many* successes you point to does not inspire confidence in Mark Warner, who has access to more information than you do.

Is Congress inept? Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. These moves are dangerously negligent in that case.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11283
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1611 on: June 18, 2018, 06:47:57 PM »

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing.  It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT.  Full stop.  We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain.  These two findings are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States.  Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others.  Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years. 
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.

So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away.  Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign.  It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.

Zooming out even more you find some strange political moves. If Trump is half as dangerous as everyone implies, Congress should be throwing up roadblocks to stop him, right?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/congress-just-passed-terrible-surveillance-law-now

The FBI searches the information gathered in FISA as regularly as common people use Google. An amendment was proposed to require the FBI to get warrants. That amendment was voted down by Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.)

One bill doesn't mean anything. How about two?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-have-new-plan-expand-indefinite-detention-and-endless-global-war

Tim Kaine helped cook this one up. Allows the president to bypass Congress when starting wars.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/russia-probes-wouldn-t-expand-if-the-democrats-win-warner-says

"The top Democrat working on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe doesn’t see his party ramping up investigations into Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election should they win control of Congress in November elections.

Americans “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said Wednesday at the Recode Code Conference in California"

-Big Picture- You have criminal indictments. Lots and lots of them. Each one proving that Trump and crew owes *something* to the Russians.  Yet niether group in Congress seems to be bothered by that. They keep trying to give him power. Also the *many* successes you point to does not inspire confidence in Mark Warner, who has access to more information than you do.

Is Congress inept? Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. These moves are dangerously negligent in that case.


Congress is not inept.  It's filled with some of the brightest minds in the United States.  Your pondering all presupposes that the Republican president isn't doing exactly what the Republican congress wants though.  Not a safe assumption IMHO.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1612 on: June 20, 2018, 02:56:29 PM »

That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.

Regarding the 13 companies

"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"

From the Aaron Mate article.

Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.

I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing.  It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT.  Full stop.  We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain.  These two findings are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States.  Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others.  Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years. 
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.

So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away.  Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign.  It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.

Zooming out even more you find some strange political moves. If Trump is half as dangerous as everyone implies, Congress should be throwing up roadblocks to stop him, right?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/congress-just-passed-terrible-surveillance-law-now

The FBI searches the information gathered in FISA as regularly as common people use Google. An amendment was proposed to require the FBI to get warrants. That amendment was voted down by Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.)

One bill doesn't mean anything. How about two?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-have-new-plan-expand-indefinite-detention-and-endless-global-war

Tim Kaine helped cook this one up. Allows the president to bypass Congress when starting wars.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/russia-probes-wouldn-t-expand-if-the-democrats-win-warner-says

"The top Democrat working on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe doesn’t see his party ramping up investigations into Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election should they win control of Congress in November elections.

Americans “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said Wednesday at the Recode Code Conference in California"

-Big Picture- You have criminal indictments. Lots and lots of them. Each one proving that Trump and crew owes *something* to the Russians.  Yet niether group in Congress seems to be bothered by that. They keep trying to give him power. Also the *many* successes you point to does not inspire confidence in Mark Warner, who has access to more information than you do.

Is Congress inept? Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. These moves are dangerously negligent in that case.


Congress is not inept.  It's filled with some of the brightest minds in the United States.  Your pondering all presupposes that the Republican president isn't doing exactly what the Republican congress wants though.  Not a safe assumption IMHO.

"The bill was passed by a split vote of 256 to 164: 191 Republicans and 65 Democrats voted for the measure and 119 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted against it"

https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/vbyp59/house-vote-702-fisa

Enough Democrats crossed party lines to get bill 702 passed.

Glenn Greenwald makes the arguement:

"But the most important point here is what this says about how Democrats really view Donald Trump. How can anyone rational possibly take seriously all the righteous denunciations from people like Pelosi, Schiff, and Swalwell about how Trump is a lawless, authoritarian tyrant existentially threatening American democracy when those very same people just yesterday voted in favor of vesting him the virtually limitless power to spy on Americans with no warrants or safeguards? If someone really believed those accusations about Trump — as opposed to just pretending to believe them for cynical political manipulation of their followers — how could they possibly have done what they did yesterday?"

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trump-as-a-lawless-treasonous-authoritarian-just-voted-to-give-him-vast-warrantless-spying-powers/

Nereo made the claim that the investigations were "bearing fruit" about how dangerous the Trump administration is.

Yet this appears to be "business as usual."

Explain to me how giving the "Russian Puppet"/"Dictator-in-the-making," the Patriot Act is a good idea.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11283
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1613 on: June 20, 2018, 05:57:31 PM »
Well, that's disturbing.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1614 on: June 20, 2018, 08:23:35 PM »

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
  • Location: England
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #1615 on: July 09, 2018, 12:48:25 PM »