Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 62428 times)

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
  • Location: Southern California
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #300 on: March 03, 2017, 05:02:33 PM »

I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Actually Sessions has, per Wapo:
Quote
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ecebaaf41944
.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2017, 05:05:29 PM by Johnez »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #301 on: March 03, 2017, 05:29:04 PM »
Regardless of how harmless the meetings were, the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury. Also, much of what we seem to know about the numerous Russia connections in the administration at a minimum seem to fall in the cover up being worse than the crime category. Perhaps there is no treason here and never was, but when you lie to congress (not to mention the American public!) and stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5343
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #302 on: March 03, 2017, 06:49:55 PM »
stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.

Perhaps because he had just witnessed another cabinet official get the classic Trump "You're Fired" for doing the exact same thing?  I think Sessions realized his career was over if he admitted to doing the same thing, so he lied to Congress to cover it up.  Why not go all in, if you're going to get fired anyway?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #303 on: March 03, 2017, 09:04:30 PM »
stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.

Perhaps because he had just witnessed another cabinet official get the classic Trump "You're Fired" for doing the exact same thing?  I think Sessions realized his career was over if he admitted to doing the same thing, so he lied to Congress to cover it up.  Why not go all in, if you're going to get fired anyway?

I dunno, aren't Trump and Sessions BFFs?

cerat0n1a

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
  • Location: Cambridge, UK
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #304 on: March 03, 2017, 11:18:38 PM »
the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury.

"I did not have international relations with that country."

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #305 on: March 03, 2017, 11:33:51 PM »
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #306 on: March 04, 2017, 02:33:50 PM »
Regardless of how harmless the meetings were, the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury. Also, much of what we seem to know about the numerous Russia connections in the administration at a minimum seem to fall in the cover up being worse than the crime category. Perhaps there is no treason here and never was, but when you lie to congress (not to mention the American public!) and stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.
Yes. He should have went with the classic "I don't remember." Defense.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #307 on: March 04, 2017, 02:34:09 PM »
the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury.

"I did not have international relations with that country."
Classic.  :)
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #308 on: March 06, 2017, 05:55:47 AM »

I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Actually Sessions has, per Wapo:
Quote
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ecebaaf41944
.


I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much.  Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia.  If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc...  But no, they only meet with Russia.

Actually Sessions has, per Wapo:
Quote
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ecebaaf41944
.

This is True and to be honest I don't fault Sessions for meeting the Russian ambassador, lots of lawmakers meet foreign dignitaries.  I fault him for omitting it when specifically asked.  I was referring primarily to the cadre of Trump associates who were civilians (Kushner, flynn, manafort etc...)and had no reason to have meetings with the Russians.  If Sessions meetings drifted into Trump policy discussions, that would be an issue.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #309 on: March 06, 2017, 11:04:01 AM »
After this weekend I can say with even more confidence "This administration is nothing but a shit sandwich."

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1384
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #310 on: March 06, 2017, 11:17:48 AM »
After this weekend I can say with even more confidence "This administration is nothing but a shit sandwich."

But at least we are being distracted from substantive policy things like bills to defund the EPA, get rid of the CPB, etc.

And yes. The image of the sandwich in my mind resembles a sloppy joe.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5343
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #311 on: March 06, 2017, 11:38:57 AM »
And yes. The image of the sandwich in my mind resembles a sloppy joe.

Made in a greasy shit diner, then dropped on a NY sidewalk and stepped on, then put on a fancy plate and sold to rural Americans as good wholesome American fare. 

Everyone is talking about the stepped-on sloppy joe shit sandwich TV commercial that aired during the Superbowl and man are they excited about it.  #MAG(gross)A

In totally unrelated news, last week with zero cameras present, Trump signed a new bill allowing mentally ill people to buy guns.  Because the NRA told him mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a firearms issue. WTF, dude?

Tasty Pinecones

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #312 on: March 06, 2017, 03:28:41 PM »
Did anyone else see where Marine Le Pen (French presidential candidate) has financial ties to Russia? She says she could not get a loan anywhere but Russia.

Just go to Google News and search for "Marine Le Pen russian loan". She reminds me alot of Trump. Also a conservative.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1384
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #313 on: March 06, 2017, 03:40:01 PM »
Did anyone else see where Marine Le Pen (French presidential candidate) has financial ties to Russia? She says she could not get a loan anywhere but Russia.

Just go to Google News and search for "Marine Le Pen russian loan". She reminds me alot of Trump. Also a conservative.

This may not be what you are talking about specifically, but it is a very useful piece of context for Russia's involvement in both the USA and Europe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/putin-trump-le-pen-hungary-france-populist-bannon/512303/

The closing quote from the Atlantic article is:
Quote
“I don’t think we should underestimate the degree to which the undermining of the fabric of Western society is a fundamental aim of what Putin is all about,” said Ivo Daalder, President Obama’s former permanent representative to NATO and now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “We are in a very different time period that has far more to do with the 1920s and 1930s than it does with 2010. We are at a tipping point where the success of these [populist] movements raises fundamental question about the [viability of the] international order we are living in.”

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #314 on: March 06, 2017, 03:57:52 PM »
And yes. The image of the sandwich in my mind resembles a sloppy joe.

Made in a greasy shit diner, then dropped on a NY sidewalk and stepped on, then put on a fancy plate and sold to rural Americans as good wholesome American fare. 

Everyone is talking about the stepped-on sloppy joe shit sandwich TV commercial that aired during the Superbowl and man are they excited about it.  #MAG(gross)A

In totally unrelated news, last week with zero cameras present, Trump signed a new bill allowing mentally ill people to buy guns.  Because the NRA told him mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a firearms issue. WTF, dude?

Makes me think of this:




Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #315 on: March 06, 2017, 06:59:27 PM »

In totally unrelated news, last week with zero cameras present, Trump signed a new bill allowing mentally ill people to buy guns.  Because the NRA told him mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a firearms issue. WTF, dude?
Jesus titty fucking christ. Really? I had not heard of this.

Eta- odd to see Trump and republicians and the ACLU agree that this Law (which hadn't taken effect) was an overstep.  I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 07:08:06 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5343
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #316 on: March 06, 2017, 07:46:27 PM »
I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.

The law that Trump just repealed didn't forbid bulimic people from buying guns.  It just required background checks for people who receive state disability payments for mental health diagnoses so severe that they can't work.

But hey, if you think everybody should be able to buy guns regardless of their history of mental illness, then President Trump is right there with you.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #317 on: March 07, 2017, 02:04:35 AM »
I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.

The law that Trump just repealed didn't forbid bulimic people from buying guns.  It just required background checks for people who receive state disability payments for mental health diagnoses so severe that they can't work.

But hey, if you think everybody should be able to buy guns regardless of their history of mental illness, then President Trump is right there with you.
Well, him and the ACLU.

And it wasn't just people receiving benefits; just people with disabilities that also couldn't manage their own financial affairs.  Hardly a group of mass shooters or terrorists in waiting.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 02:08:44 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2415
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #318 on: March 07, 2017, 05:45:16 AM »
OK, I've been trying to work out what the actual law is that has changed.  It's a bit Byzantine: where's Cathy when you need her?

The starting point is the Gun Control Act 1968.  That inserts into Section 102. Chapter 44 (Firearms) of title 18, United States Code a new section 922(g)(4) which among other provisions prevents the sale of firearms or ammunition"to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."  The definition of those terms does not appear in that Act.

27 CFR 478.11 contains a definition of adjudicated as a mental defective and of committed to a mental institution.  A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court—or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications—has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment.  I found a reference to this definition being changed in 2007 by the NICS Act but couldn't chase down the details of how.

The restriction on sales to persons adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed started to take practical effect with the requirement of background checks in the Brady Act of 1993.  Background checks under the Brady Act were given a greater degree of effectiveness by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) set up in 1998 and amended in 2007.  That system is only as good as the information provided to it, and the practical implementation of the passing of information to relevant bodies so that the NICS background checks system can work properly) was still ongoing in January 2017.   https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007 was the Obama regulation of December 2016 which was aimed at improving the information held in the NICS system on mentally ill people who met the definition of not being able to buy firearms.   It was this implementation provision that was repealed by Congress and Trump in February 2017 - http://www.snopes.com/congress-gun-legal-mental/

So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.

And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #319 on: March 07, 2017, 05:50:36 AM »
I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.

The law that Trump just repealed didn't forbid bulimic people from buying guns.  It just required background checks for people who receive state disability payments for mental health diagnoses so severe that they can't work.

But hey, if you think everybody should be able to buy guns regardless of their history of mental illness, then President Trump is right there with you.
Well, him and the ACLU.

And it wasn't just people receiving benefits; just people with disabilities that also couldn't manage their own financial affairs.  Hardly a group of mass shooters or terrorists in waiting.

To be fair we are talking about mental health conditions that might range from moderate intellectual disabilities to depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. I would agree that there are folks in this broad range of mental health conditions who absolutely should not own firearms. And folks who should be allowed to own firearms. Unfortunately it was a broad sweeping legislation. But I don't think the answer is to scrap the whole thing either.

The VA does something similar with veterans who have psychiatric disabilities and have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their VA benefits. However the veteran in question is notified of the proposed determination and the supporting evidence, and is provided with an opportunity to request a hearing, be represented by counsel, and to contest the determination by presenting other relevant medical evidence.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #320 on: March 07, 2017, 06:04:32 AM »
So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.

And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2415
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #321 on: March 07, 2017, 06:40:20 AM »
So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.

And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
What if there are people who are severely mentally impaired for whom the only record of that impairment which could be available on the NICS system will be through their claim for disability?  They are not being reported because they receive aid money, but because there is information available through the aid money system that they do not pass the background checks.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #322 on: March 07, 2017, 08:26:36 AM »
So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.

And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
What if there are people who are severely mentally impaired for whom the only record of that impairment which could be available on the NICS system will be through their claim for disability?  They are not being reported because they receive aid money, but because there is information available through the aid money system that they do not pass the background checks.
They are so severely mentally impaired they can not handle their own finances and their only source of income is welfare (because they can't work) and they have no history of violence AND they somehow find the money to buy a gun without their financial controller being aware AND they suddenly decide to commit a crime using that gun? Seems like we are in the level of absurdly small number of people here... while disenfranchising a lot of people strictly because they are on welfare. Probably why the ACLU had such a problem with it in the first place.

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who have violent histories or propensity for crime; I don't feel this law did that, or made anyone safer. I wouldn't have argued to remove it, but I can see why many did.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #323 on: March 09, 2017, 02:35:51 PM »
Congrats on the walrus.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #324 on: March 09, 2017, 04:30:15 PM »
It is time to talk of many things, he said. :D
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #325 on: March 20, 2017, 08:33:55 AM »
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #326 on: March 21, 2017, 04:53:48 AM »
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live.
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2415
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #327 on: March 21, 2017, 06:40:10 AM »
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live.
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia.  The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.

Isn't that enough?  That there are people now running the USA government that may have colluded with Russia?  With the obvious implication that they may still be colluding with Russia, including being subject to compromat which influences them to continue to collude with Russia? While in the White House and having access to USA government secrets?  And access to the secrets of the Five Eyes too?

It's more than enough for me, for now.

Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #328 on: March 21, 2017, 06:57:33 AM »
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live.
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia.  The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.

Isn't that enough?  That there are people now running the USA government that may have colluded with Russia?  With the obvious implication that they may still be colluding with Russia, including being subject to compromat which influences them to continue to collude with Russia? While in the White House and having access to USA government secrets?  And access to the secrets of the Five Eyes too?

It's more than enough for me, for now.

Yes, they are conducting an investigation. Much like the previous investigations of prominent political figures and their campaigns, I would wait for the evidence and conclusions of the investigation before I decide to burn anyone at the stake.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2415
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #329 on: March 21, 2017, 07:04:34 AM »
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live.
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia.  The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.

Isn't that enough?  That there are people now running the USA government that may have colluded with Russia?  With the obvious implication that they may still be colluding with Russia, including being subject to compromat which influences them to continue to collude with Russia? While in the White House and having access to USA government secrets?  And access to the secrets of the Five Eyes too?

It's more than enough for me, for now.

Yes, they are conducting an investigation. Much like the previous investigations of prominent political figures and their campaigns, I would wait for the evidence and conclusions of the investigation before I decide to burn anyone at the stake.
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude.  The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #330 on: March 21, 2017, 07:08:35 AM »
Paste is starting a 5 part series on Trump's connections to Russia.  Here's an article that has collected a timeline of the  Trump-Russia connections and statements over the years.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/the-kremlins-man-how-donald-trumps-own-words-conne.html

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #331 on: March 21, 2017, 07:15:06 AM »
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude.  The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.
I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #332 on: March 22, 2017, 11:41:59 AM »
Part II, on Trump/Russia business ties that are currently known, is here: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/the-kremlins-man-how-donald-trumps-businesses-are.html

Part III, Mysterious Deaths and Arrests
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/the-kremlins-man-the-mysterious-deaths-and-arrests.html

He's been involved in some dirty, dirty stuff.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2017, 12:11:17 PM by Poundwise »

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2415
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #333 on: March 22, 2017, 11:47:17 AM »
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude.  The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.
I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.
Both Tillerson and Wilbur Ross have significant ties to Russia - that's both the USA's foreign and commerce policies currently in dubious hands, and Homeland Security only beyond Russian influence because of leaked security information.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #334 on: March 22, 2017, 12:50:57 PM »
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude.  The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.
I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.

I imagine metric is referring to more than just the Clinton email investigation, though I am no History buff. I would at least note that scope and nature of the investigation into the Trump team is more disturbing because if at all true it inherently means treason was committed.

But at this point all you can do is wait. Just listening to a bit of the live hearings, the FBI literally cant share any useful information. The final conclusion could be that no one was engaged in any inherently nefarious or treasonous acts.

I can't lie part of me hopes it is that bad just see Trump thrown out on his ass like the piece of shit his business and public history tells us he is. The other part of me would be sad to see the US's global reputation sullied and have public trust in government further eroded.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5343
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #335 on: March 22, 2017, 12:54:36 PM »
part of me would be sad to see the US's global reputation sullied

I think it's been too late for that since early last November.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3444
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #336 on: March 22, 2017, 01:14:17 PM »
part of me would be sad to see the US's global reputation sullied

I think it's been too late for that since early last November.
Don't worry, the US foreign policy and image abroad has been the butt of a joke for about as long as I've been alive.

Last November just confirmed everyone's opinion on the subject.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #337 on: March 22, 2017, 05:15:36 PM »
Come on, Obama was a freakin' rock star internationally! The US foreign policy reputation could not have been that bad (and was probably even pretty favorable) with him at the helm, no?
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

Tasty Pinecones

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #338 on: March 27, 2017, 10:44:26 AM »
Any chance whatsoever that the intelligence agencies will quietly start limiting what they share with Trump just in case he and his turn out to be a hotline to the Kremlin?

Or maybe they'll share loaded information and see if it comes out on the other side?

I know people who rattle on about their fears of some new world order run by "liberals and the United Nations". I think an American president in collusion with the Kremlin would be far scarier.

I don't want to see Trump pull a Nixon while he boards the WH helicopter - waving at the cameras with a big smile, I want to see Trump and his team escorted to the WH gate and pushed into the street. "You can pickup your papers and smart phones next Tuesday at the FBI office at such and such address..."

I know it would never happen but I'd like to see that... I don't expect any of them to serve time in jail. The system doesn't work that well. ;)

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2415
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #339 on: March 27, 2017, 11:06:27 AM »
The best chance of Trump serving time is probably through his finances - tax fraud, money laundering (that Florida tear-down) or foreign emoluments.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Tasty Pinecones

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #340 on: March 27, 2017, 11:08:50 AM »
And the next Republican would likely give him a pardon just like Ford did for Nixon.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4342
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #341 on: March 27, 2017, 11:31:29 AM »
Come on, Obama was a freakin' rock star internationally! The US foreign policy reputation could not have been that bad (and was probably even pretty favorable) with him at the helm, no?
It was getting better during Obama's time in office after W's time in which people literally were lying and saying they were Canadian instead of from the states.  However, that does not mesh well with the opinions of the GOP so they like to say that Obama was too soft internationally and we looked weak.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #342 on: March 27, 2017, 08:06:32 PM »
Come on, Obama was a freakin' rock star internationally! The US foreign policy reputation could not have been that bad (and was probably even pretty favorable) with him at the helm, no?
It was getting better during Obama's time in office after W's time in which people literally were lying and saying they were Canadian instead of from the states.  However, that does not mesh well with the opinions of the GOP so they like to say that Obama was too soft internationally and we looked weak.
And yet the criticism of Hillary was she was far too hawkish and was going to get us in a quagmire in the ME (I write this as Trump deploys 400 ground troops to Syria, with another 1000 possibly to follow). The problem with Obama is he wasn't Republican enough for the Republicans. No amount of foreign policy deftness could bridge that gap. Obama's policy was a risk-averse long-game approach with modest achievements (e.g. Iran deal, containment of ISIL) with many of the more difficult problems still unresolved (Russia, NK).

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #343 on: March 28, 2017, 08:13:21 AM »
Follow the money. The Trump brand was either renegotiating loans or getting new ones.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/kushner-meeting-russian-banker-tied-to-putin/index.html


lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #344 on: March 28, 2017, 05:39:20 PM »
So do Trump and Ryan have a quid pro quo going? Specifically, Trump doesn't throw Ryan under the bus on the health care reform meltdown as long as Ryan keeps Nunes on the investigative panel to obstruct its progress. The Yates hearing was pulled by Nunes as soon as the only path to blocking her testimony otherwise would require Trump citing executive privilege. This really is Stupid Watergate.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #345 on: March 28, 2017, 06:08:49 PM »
So do Trump and Ryan have a quid pro quo going? Specifically, Trump doesn't throw Ryan under the bus on the health care reform meltdown as long as Ryan keeps Nunes on the investigative panel to obstruct its progress. The Yates hearing was pulled by Nunes as soon as the only path to blocking her testimony otherwise would require Trump citing executive privilege. This really is Stupid Watergate.

Seems like it, eh? Can they keep it going or will the wheels fall off? Nixon tried to contain Watergate too.

The Senate is going to start looking into it and Graham and McCain are not friendly with the Trump administration.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #346 on: April 04, 2017, 01:29:50 PM »
Dominoes?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/blackwater-founder-held-secret-seychelles-meeting-to-establish-trump-putin-back-channel/2017/04/03/95908a08-1648-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.89820e35893c

Sometimes seems like literally everyone who has ever tried to abuse the US governmental process to enrich themselves is a big Trump supporter/involved with Russia in some way. Go figure.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #347 on: April 04, 2017, 01:41:39 PM »
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #348 on: April 04, 2017, 01:58:57 PM »
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.

Yeah. So why should we care at all that a failed superpower with ambitions of toppling the world's #1 superpower can effectively change the outcome of our presidential election?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1384
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #349 on: April 04, 2017, 02:37:55 PM »
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.

Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.

I'm not sure that GDP is the issue so much as that Putin has a long track record of doing exactly what his is accused of in other countries. Marie LePen comes to mind if we need something else more recent and openly acknowledged. A great way to improve your standing in the world is to shift the stance of other nations to be more favorable, especially when one of those countries has the leverage to impose economically significant sanctions. Just to bring that point home, some of those sanctions were put in place (along with the sending-home of some 30 diplomats) were  put in place in direct response to evidence that Russia directly attempted to influence our election (and no, not by changing vote tallies directly).

If this were McCarthy, the question would be: Do you love America enough to stand up to foreign fellow travelers and conspirators? A love of Russia is fine and protected speech, even for the president and I have no problem with that in a legal sense even if I disagree with it personally. If the Trump campaign played dirty with Russia to help win, or in a quid-pro-quo then it is starting to smell a lot like treason. It is not currently conclusive (just as the FBI investigation of Clinton did not lead to a trial or conviction), but there is enough smoke to wonder if there is a fire, so to speak.