The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Lagom on December 11, 2016, 03:09:05 PM

Title: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 11, 2016, 03:09:05 PM
Surprised we haven't started a thread on this one yet. Now the intelligence community has a consensus view that Russia conspired to influence our election in favor of Trump. Add this to Trump's pro-Putin rhetoric and appointment of various pro-Russia cabinet members (the SoS, no less) and the conclusions start to draw themselves.

But we don't even have to go there. Straight up, we have the president elect not only refusing to take security briefings because he's "smart," but now flatly denying this bombshell, presumably because it makes him look bad. Post-truth indeed. So far the only "evidence" I've seen why we shouldn't be deeply concerned is that "they also said there were WMDs in Iraq!" Forgive me for not being reassured when the alternative is taking a narcissistic serial liar at his word.

PS - A true leader can still acknowledge the seriousness of the report and the need to investigate without feeling defensive about it, or even acknowledging that it delegitimizes his win. All Trump needs to say is something like "this is an outrage and a threat to American democracy that we will not let stand. I promise my administration will do all within my power to make sure any possible Russian actions are thoroughly investigated and responded to appropriately." That's what a true patriot would do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 11, 2016, 04:24:40 PM
I thought this was a very good article: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a51430/russia-election/

That said, most people (at least trump supporters) simply don't believe this.  They think it's a lie pushed by Hillary supporters.  I AM a Hillary supporter and was disinclined at first to believe this myself until I saw the sources were the leaders of the intelligence community all consistently reaching the same conclusion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 11, 2016, 04:27:02 PM
And now the president elect, who has lied throughout his campaign, gets to lie from the White House and the presidential twitter account.  He is not a patriot.  He is in it for himself and his ego.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: redbirdfan on December 11, 2016, 05:56:51 PM
I wish I could say that I'm surprised.  Don't forget that Trump called for Russia to release Hillary's emails in a press conference and denied Russian interference in the election in a presidential debate.  He referred to Putin as a stronger leader than Obama and seems to bend over backwards to avoid criticizing Putin.  Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Manafort and Tillerson all have direct ties to Russia.  The transition team statement condemning the CIA for the WMD issue was the final straw for me.  I don't understand why Trump routinely puts down US intelligence to avoid acknowledging that Russia interfered with our election.  If we're lucky his reluctance to acknowledge Russia's role simply relates to his insecurity with the legitimacy of his win (in the same vein as his tweet about the popular vote).  Trump's refusal to accept the conclusions of US intelligence should be a concern on both sides of the aisle and to the American public in general. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 11, 2016, 06:52:00 PM
Trump's response follows exactly the same pattern that all of his previous responses have followed going back decades: 1) Flatly deny the allegation, 2) attack whomever asked about it, and 3) attack the source/issue through slander and/or disinformation and/or diversion.

Trump gets asked about his misogynistic behavior/statements? Attack Megyn Kelly and talk about Bill Clinton.
Trump gets asked about Russian tampering? Deny it, discuss 13 year old intelligence failures (which were largely the administration cherry picking, rather than the CIA)

This pattern is also referred to as gaslighting. Even goddamn Teen Vogue sees this:
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america

Amongst a long list of other earlier articles on the same topic:
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+gaslighting+america&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I find Trump and his coterie despicable, but am also sad for humanity that it works.

In general, I think the standard operating procedure should be that if Trump follows this gaslighting pattern, the allegation should be considered factually correct until shown to be otherwise.

So... since gaslighting is well documented in abusive relationships, how are people supposed to deal with it? The solution is to get out of the relationship (DTMFA). Unfortunately, it seems that is not likely to be an option any time soon.

Sigh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 12, 2016, 02:14:01 AM
Any chance the electoral college members can be persuaded that they would be committing treason if they voted for Trump?

The damage that could be done to the USA's interests, and by extension to the interests of the free world, if Trump is this pro-Russia for the next 4 years, is incalculable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 12, 2016, 05:03:57 AM
Any chance the electoral college members can be persuaded that they would be committing treason if they voted for Trump?

I'd say somewhere between none and Buckley's.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on December 12, 2016, 08:23:53 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 12, 2016, 08:31:42 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 08:56:24 AM
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?

I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election. 

I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: trollwithamustache on December 12, 2016, 09:17:54 AM
Its very likely true the Russians hacked both candidates offices. The Chinese probably hacked them both two. Israel runs a pretty tight ship on the intelligence front, so don't be surprised if they probably hacked them both too just to keep tabs on how future policy may affect them. A handful of other countries are smart enough to do this kind of snooping around with a decent cover of plausible deniability. A mess of independent guys probably got into some of both candidates computers too.  I could be totally wrong here, but I suspect the independent guys are more likely to dirty stuff for $$$$ than the state actors.

The problem is we will only see the summary of the report and none of the classified details. None of those details can be verified/checked/commented on by other experts.  All electronic systems that capture a lot of public attention will end up having their security flaws exposed or exploited.

If you want an interesting study in propaganda watch the TV network RT. They've been trying to destabilize America for years and are doing a hilariously amateur job at it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 12, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
Its very likely true the Russians hacked both candidates offices. The Chinese probably hacked them both two. Israel runs a pretty tight ship on the intelligence front, so don't be surprised if they probably hacked them both too just to keep tabs on how future policy may affect them. A handful of other countries are smart enough to do this kind of snooping around with a decent cover of plausible deniability. A mess of independent guys probably got into some of both candidates computers too.  I could be totally wrong here, but I suspect the independent guys are more likely to dirty stuff for $$$$ than the state actors.

The problem is we will only see the summary of the report and none of the classified details. None of those details can be verified/checked/commented on by other experts.  All electronic systems that capture a lot of public attention will end up having their security flaws exposed or exploited.

If you want an interesting study in propaganda watch the TV network RT. They've been trying to destabilize America for years and are doing a hilariously amateur job at it.

This is true. It also seems that Trump won't see them either because he refuses to take the intelligence community seriously unless they are pushing a narrative he likes. This is, independently of the Russia election meddling, also quite terrifying. I have loads of issues with how our intelligence agencies conduct themselves, but for a president to openly doubt them, and by implication position himself to stock them with loyalists (to Trump, not the U.S.)? For a president to make policy based not on actual intelligence briefings but on what someone as "smart" as him thinks is going on? Yikes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on December 12, 2016, 10:07:34 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 12, 2016, 10:36:29 AM
Thanks for starting this thread Lagom,

a decent summary of what we know so far ( from reddit u/NeverHadTheLatin  ): 
(and sorry I didn't url link all the urls - you'll need to copy paste yo selves)

Quote
Everything we know to date:

Trump has become 'an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation'

Ex-director of the CIA publicly states that Putin has be successful in manipulating Trump - "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Trump campaign worked to undermine support for Ukraine

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.

Still, Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.634e44e2df23

Trump states he doesn't believe Putin will invade the Ukraine - after Russia has already annexed Crimea

“He’s not going into Ukraine,” Trump said. “He’s not going to go into Ukraine. You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.” “He’s already there isn’t he?” Stephanopoulos said. “Well, he’s there in a certain way,” Trump said.

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/pence-says-trump-knew-that-russia-invaded-crimea-heres-what-trump-actually-said/

Trump has been unclear on his relationship with Putin

In an interview with ABC News in August 2016, Trump said he had "no relationship with Putin." In an interview with MSNBC in 2013, Trump said "I do have a relationship, and he's very interested in what we're doing."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFgYzf4DV4

Unexplained server connection between Russian bank and Trump Organisation

“I have an outlier here that connects to Russia in a strange way,” he wrote in his notes. He couldn’t quite figure it out at first. But what he saw was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue. “I’ve never seen a server set up like that,” says Christopher Davis, who runs the cybersecurity firm HYAS InfoSec Inc. and won a FBI Director Award for Excellence for his work tracking down the authors of one of the world’s nastiest botnet attacks. “It looked weird, and it didn’t pass the sniff test.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

Russian diplomats and officials were in touch with Trump's team throughout the campaign

Russian government officials conferred with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, a disclosure that could reopen scrutiny of the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton. The statement came from Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who said in an interview with the state-run Interfax news agency that “there were contacts” with the Trump team. “Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Ryabkov said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/moscow-had-contacts-with-trump-team-during-campaign-russian-diplomat-says/2016/11/10/28fb82fa-a73d-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html?utm_term=.e5300ac87f7f

Ex-Trump campaign chairman allegedly received undisclosed cash payments from pro-Russian Ukranian party

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html

Trump advocates Russian hacking

Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

Russia was involved in passing along hacked information about the Clinton campaign to Wikileaks

Officials briefed on the matter were told that intelligence agencies had found that individuals linked to the Russian government had provided WikiLeaks with thousands of confidential emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others.

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there."

In early May, the DNC called in CrowdStrike, a security firm that specializes in countering advanced network threats. After deploying their tools on the DNC’s machines, and after about two hours of work, CrowdStrike found “two sophisticated adversaries” on the Committee’s network.

CrowdStrike linked both groups to “the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services.” APT 29, suspected to be the FSB, had been on the DNC’s network since at least summer 2015. APT 28, identified as Russia’s military intelligence agency GRU, had breached the Democrats only in April 2016, and probably tipped off the investigation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

Russia was involved in the hacking of the Republican party but chose not release hacked information

The Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html)

And I'm adding these comments on NATO: http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-fires-back-after-donald-trump-questions-value-of-defending-allies-1469120175 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-fires-back-after-donald-trump-questions-value-of-defending-allies-1469120175))
--------------------------------------

What's going on? Where's the outrage?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 12, 2016, 10:39:46 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 12, 2016, 10:43:43 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 12, 2016, 10:48:44 AM
Thanks for those links Malaysia. Where is the outrage indeed... I have noticed a substantial drop in the presence of Trump supporters in our various political threads over the past week or two. Perhaps they are finally realizing how crazy the "he's no worse than HRC" narrative was. More likely, they are doing what most do when faced with extreme cognitive dissonance--tune out anything that disrupts the narrative they've created for themselves.

I sometimes feel like I'm becoming a bit numb to it myself, but then I suppose that's gaslighting in a nutshell. This is the most terrifying thing of all. Somehow, the most scandal ridden president in our history (and this is before he's even inaugurated!) is slowly but surely convincing the public (or enough of it, at least), that only he is telling them the truth. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled..."

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 10:54:31 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.

Particularly in a way that is patently false.  Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.  Clinton has never even stood accused, much less been convicted.

Unless by "accused" you mean by angry people on the internet.  In that case she's been accused of just about everything.

We don't need foreign powers to infiltrate the US government to know that Trump is corrupt.  He's admitted it in court.  He's admitted it on television.  Why do people still buy this narrative that he's fighting corruption, rather than embodying it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 12, 2016, 10:58:50 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.

Particularly in a way that is patently false.  Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.  Clinton has never even stood accused, much less been convicted.

Unless by "accused" you mean by angry people on the internet.  In that case she's been accused of just about everything.

We don't need foreign powers to infiltrate the US government to know that Trump is corrupt.  He's admitted it in court.  He's admitted it on television.  Why do people still buy this narrative that he's fighting corruption, rather than embodying it?

Why bring Clinton into this? She is never going to be President. Trump will stand or fail on his own, to be compared with other presidents.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 10:59:57 AM
I am absolutely amazed at the almost supernatural extent of deception evident in trump's campaign and now in the run-up to his presidency.  It's surreal.  I cannot fathom how people are falling for this.  He lies every time he opens his mouth.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on December 12, 2016, 11:02:49 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Doesn't make it okay, just makes it laughable.  The outrage from the Hillary supporters of "how dare they expose our dark terrible secrets" is amusing to me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on December 12, 2016, 11:04:10 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.

Particularly in a way that is patently false.  Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.  Clinton has never even stood accused, much less been convicted.

Unless by "accused" you mean by angry people on the internet.  In that case she's been accused of just about everything.

We don't need foreign powers to infiltrate the US government to know that Trump is corrupt.  He's admitted it in court.  He's admitted it on television.  Why do people still buy this narrative that he's fighting corruption, rather than embodying it?

Yeah, you're right, I'm being loose with my words and such.  But hackers bringing to light emails about the DNC colluding with the Hillary campaign to screw over Bernie, that sort of thing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 11:07:51 AM
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.

... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?

Doesn't make it okay, just makes it laughable.  The outrage from the Hillary supporters of "how dare they expose our dark terrible secrets" is amusing to me.

There were no dark terrible secrets.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 12, 2016, 11:09:45 AM
Beware the danger of false equivalencies. (Potentially) colluding with foreign powers is a far cry from pulling the political levers of a party for a nomination.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: trollwithamustache on December 12, 2016, 11:35:50 AM

Trump is a on a low information diet, even if he didn't read MMM :). What is so magical about daily intelligence briefings?   He's not actually president yet, his only actual job responsibility as president elect is to get all his cabinet and staff people on board so they are ready to go. If Obama makes some decision about Syria and if they tell trump an hour later or two days later what changes?

He is definitely an outsider and a wild card. He likely doesn't believe everything he said while campaigning, and that is both hopefully a good thing if he doesn't build a wall and a bad thing in that we really have no idea what wild $ss thing he's going to try. The China sabre rattling before actually in office seems more dangerous.

My plan is to make my ACLU and EFF donations this year. Next year we will start the first hundred days of useless political news that we as the American public must endure every time we get a new jockey.  By June we might even know what Trump is really up to.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 12, 2016, 11:43:00 AM
He's feuding with members of his own party (Ryan wouldn't speak his name until a few weeks ago.) He's feuding with the intelligence community (all 17 agencies agree -- Russia was involved in the hacking -- but Trump denies it). He's now taking on the defense companies (Lockheed and Boeing).

He'll be done in 2 years. Either he'll be enriching himself at the public trough or he'll be playing footsies too much with Putin.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 12, 2016, 11:45:04 AM

Trump is a on a low information diet, even if he didn't read MMM :). What is so magical about daily intelligence briefings?   He's not actually president yet, his only actual job responsibility as president elect is to get all his cabinet and staff people on board so they are ready to go. If Obama makes some decision about Syria and if they tell trump an hour later or two days later what changes?

He is definitely an outsider and a wild card. He likely doesn't believe everything he said while campaigning, and that is both hopefully a good thing if he doesn't build a wall and a bad thing in that we really have no idea what wild $ss thing he's going to try. The China sabre rattling before actually in office seems more dangerous.

My plan is to make my ACLU and EFF donations this year. Next year we will start the first hundred days of useless political news that we as the American public must endure every time we get a new jockey.  By June we might even know what Trump is really up to.

Because Trump is the poster child for Dunning-Kruger syndrome. The best remedy for D-K is improved subject knowledge. Also, the low-information diet is closely tied to the circle of influence. As president, the circle of influence is pretty frigging big and the low-information diet is a REALLY bad idea.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 12, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
He's feuding with members of his own party (Ryan wouldn't speak his name until a few weeks ago.) He's feuding with the intelligence community (all 17 agencies agree -- Russia was involved in the hacking -- but Trump denies it). He's now taking on the defense companies (Lockheed and Boeing).

He'll be done in 2 years. Either he'll be enriching himself at the public trough or he'll be playing footsies too much with Putin.

It's a matter of time before Trump gets the boot (unless this gaslighting actually works on the masses). But all the while Pence is in charge of the day to day. When Trump goes, the appointments and the Pence will remain. By some measures, Pence is slightly better. By others, not so much.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Norioch on December 12, 2016, 03:46:05 PM
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 12, 2016, 03:59:39 PM
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them.

Plus, you can hardly blame them, honestly. I mean, God, can you imagine the glee with which Putin views having a "useful idiot" in the WH instead of Hillary Clinton? How could he help himself?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 04:11:11 PM
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them.

Plus, you can hardly blame them, honestly. I mean, God, can you imagine the glee with which Putin views having a "useful idiot" in the WH instead of Hillary Clinton? How could he help himself?

"Puppet!  Puppet!  You're the puppet!"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on December 12, 2016, 05:57:51 PM
The sad part is at this point publicly nothing will happen. Trump is basically immune to bad press as his supporters appear to believe everything he says.... Maybe this has been true of presidents for awhile now, the Trump is a particularly brazen and disgusting liar.

I think you can both be happy to see DNC corruption revealed and outraged that a major US party would take foreign hacking aid to help prop up their political capital over an opponents.

If you are only outraged by both sides of this you are just being a jackass.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on December 12, 2016, 06:21:14 PM
I will also say that short of straight out hacking votes Russia could not make Hillary lose the election in a vacuum.

There was a lot of cynicism and dislike for her that made a lot of the bad press stick. Unfortunately you can't fight foreign and domestic false propaganda and real leaks by just bitching about them on the news. You have to put up popular candidates and have messaging that is strong enough to outweigh the slew of shit that inevitably gets tossed at a presidential candidate.

With the global flow information, guaranteeing that the internet never produces facts or false stories maybe even at the behest of a foreign power is next to impossible. A well funded and powerful group like the DNC simply has to be more nimble and find more politically effective ways to counter these outside influences.

Trying to correct this stuff as the administration that allegedly befitted from the foul play is taking office is just an absolute shit show. And even if its true it comes off as propaganda and more political maneuvering.

As sad as it is to say the inept Trump campaign with all its worthless members appears to have outmaneuvered the DNC completely. Trump managed to get the whole media outraged over thin claims of potential hacking and not accepting the outcome if he loses. Then the DNC loses and are essentially forced into a corner encouraged to do all the things Trump was railed on for claiming he would do.

The cynical side of me cant wait for this to be over and hopes Trump's idiocy and lack of leadership will end up shafting the majority of his base so they can see how empty all of his promises were.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 12, 2016, 06:29:39 PM
I will also say that short of straight out hacking votes Russia could not make Hillary lose the election in a vacuum.

There was a lot of cynicism and dislike for her that made a lot of the bad press stick. Unfortunately you can't fight foreign and domestic false propaganda and real leaks by just bitching about them on the news. You have to put up popular candidates and have messaging that is strong enough to outweigh the slew of shit that inevitably gets tossed at a presidential candidate.

With the global flow information, guaranteeing that the internet never produces facts or false stories maybe even at the behest of a foreign power is next to impossible. A well funded and powerful group like the DNC simply has to be more nimble and find more politically effective ways to counter these outside influences.

Trying to correct this stuff as the administration that allegedly befitted from the foul play is taking office is just an absolute shit show. And even if its true it comes off as propaganda and more political maneuvering.

As sad as it is to say the inept Trump campaign with all its worthless members appears to have outmaneuvered the DNC completely. Trump managed to get the whole media outraged over thin claims of potential hacking and not accepting the outcome if he loses. Then the DNC loses and are essentially forced into a corner encouraged to do all the things Trump was railed on for claiming he would do.

The cynical side of me cant wait for this to be over and hopes Trump's idiocy and lack of leadership will end up shafting the majority of his base so they can see how empty all of his promises were.

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."

Among other things.

Is HRC the best candidate the DNC ever put forward? No.

But don't give me this bullshit that she "lost" the election all by herself. She had plenty of shit working against her. And I'm not even going to bring up the fact that she's a woman who made the colossal error of marrying a man that was a philandering piece of shit -- and committed the unspeakable political folly of actually staying in the marriage.

Even though if she had divorced him, that would have just been another strike against her.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 06:52:05 PM
Guess what?  Trump (and trump supporters) no longer get to blame Hillary for everything.  This is now about Trump.  Good luck trying to defend him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: iris lily on December 12, 2016, 07:10:28 PM

Trump is a on a low information diet, even if he didn't read MMM :). What is so magical about daily intelligence briefings?   He's not actually president yet, his only actual job responsibility as president elect is to get all his cabinet and staff people on board so they are ready to go. If Obama makes some decision about Syria and if they tell trump an hour later or two days later what changes?

He is definitely an outsider and a wild card. He likely doesn't believe everything he said while campaigning, and that is both hopefully a good thing if he doesn't build a wall and a bad thing in that we really have no idea what wild $ss thing he's going to try. The China sabre rattling before actually in office seems more dangerous.

My plan is to make my ACLU and EFF donations this year. Next year we will start the first hundred days of useless political news that we as the American public must endure every time we get a new jockey.  By June we might even know what Trump is really up to.

This is pretty good, and other than your donations,I'm on board with what you said. Are ye in D.C. then?
Haha
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: iris lily on December 12, 2016, 07:17:38 PM
Guess what?  Trump (and trump supporters) no longer get to blame Hillary for everything.  This is now about Trump.  Good luck trying to defend him.
But we can blame Obama for wuite some time, just as I still hear occasional Bush blames even 8 years later.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ender on December 12, 2016, 07:21:44 PM
Guess what?  Trump (and trump supporters) no longer get to blame Hillary for everything.  This is now about Trump.  Good luck trying to defend him.
But we can blame Obama for wuite some time, just as I still hear occasional Bush blames even 8 years later.

Precedent has definitely been set.

Everything is the fault of whichever previous president you liked least.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on December 12, 2016, 07:22:24 PM
I hold no view on the role of Russia in this particular election.

But I do find it hilarious to see the United States be on the receiving end of international meddling, after using every trick in the book to install their guys in various countries for the last 50 years.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: waltworks on December 12, 2016, 08:19:17 PM
I can't imagine anything Trump said in an email is much worse than the stuff he said in public, and the folks who voted for him would just say "oh, he's not serious about soliciting a bribe/killing a prostitute/doing meth with the leaders of ISIS, that's how everyone talks, blah blah blah" to justify it, so it sort of doesn't matter that the Trump campaign's dirty laundry didn't get aired by Russian hackers. They aired plenty on their own, and the mouth-breathing voters didn't care.

But sadly I have to agree with those knuckle-draggers a little: the emails made me less likely to vote for Clinton (I wasn't planning to anyway, though). The fact that the Russians interfered in the election and probably tipped it to Trump makes me very nervous about the future of democracy. If twitter bots and a few stolen passwords is all it takes to change the politics of the world - then we are all screwed, because some 13 year old on 4chan thinks chaos would be funny and your 80 year old granny believes every click-bait ad on Breitbart about Clinton killing children at pizza parlors.

If I were Trump, I would *at the least* call for a thorough investigation and levy massive sanctions/inflict serious retaliation on Russia. This kind of crap can't happen, IMO it's bordering on an act of war. I might consider resigning my office, too.

We know he will do neither of those things because he has no honor, but I can dream.

While I'm daydreaming, maybe the EC will decide to elect Kasich or Rubio... or Paul Ryan's dog. I'd go for anyone/thing that isn't obviously insane.

What a cluster.

-W
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 08:39:17 PM
The fact that the Russians interfered in the election and probably tipped it to Trump makes me very nervous about the future of democracy. If twitter bots and a few stolen passwords is all it takes to change the politics of the world - then we are all screwed, because some 13 year old on 4chan thinks chaos would be funny and your 80 year old granny believes every click-bait ad on Breitbart about Clinton killing children at pizza parlors.

Don't you think you're exaggerating the stability of global political institutions?  I think the world is, and has always been, far more fragile than is generally recognized.

Let's make a list of the ingredients required to enact some of the most influential events in modern history.

1.  some student visas, flight lessons, box cutters, and boarding passes = 9/11.

2.  one Browning model 1910 pistol and two bullets = WW1, and then WW2.

3.  a note, a hammer, and a bad attitude = the Protestant Reformation.

4.  a lightly defended ship full of tea = the American Revolution.

I could go on, but you get my point.  History is always at a flashpoint, and all it takes is the right nudge at the right time to dramatically alter the course of world events.  Don't be fooled into thinking this dance is choreographed in any particular direction, it's more like a mosh pit than can go south on you at any moment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cathy on December 12, 2016, 09:11:51 PM
Particularly in a way that is patently false.  Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.

Is this claim true? I don't read the news regularly so I may have missed it, but I don't recall hearing about this.

As far as I know, Trump has settled a variety of lawsuits, but civil settlements typically do not include an admission of wrongdoing. (Certainly, the parties to a settlement can negotiate over whether any wrongdoing will be admitted, but as far as I know this is not a common term in civil settlements.) The fact that somebody has settled a lawsuit by agreeing to pay money does not necessarily mean that they did anything wrong; it could mean, for example, that they decided the case isn't worth litigating for a variety of reasons (such as it being time consuming, and the amount of money not being significant to the person), so the settlement could be an instrument of convenience, rather than an admission of guilty.

It's not my intent to defend Trump, and indeed I express no view on him, but misconstruing settlements has ramifications far beyond Trump. Good people settle lawsuits all the time, and it doesn't necessarily mean they did anything wrong. You simply can't infer that from a settlement, unless an admission of wrongdoing is actually a term of the settlement.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 09:58:39 PM
I wasn't talking about the lawsuits he has settled, but the ones that went to court and that he then lost.

Look him up, he's done some dirty dirty stuff in his life.  Like the time he illegally bought 19 cars for the mob boss who helped him build a casino.  Or the time his father "bought" 3.5 millIon dollars worth of casino chips without gambling, to avoid having it show up as a loan.  Or, you know, that time he coordinated with a hostile foreign power to infiltrate United states government computer systems in order to subvert American democracy.

Okay that last one hasn't been proven in a court of law yet.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gimp on December 12, 2016, 10:05:52 PM
Anything the FBI says about Hillary is true and patriotic and brave, but anything the CIA says about trump is a liberal lie, right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 04:02:23 AM
Precedent has definitely been set.

Everything is the fault of whichever previous president you liked least.

Fuckin' Andrew Johnson....

I hold no view on the role of Russia in this particular election.

But I do find it hilarious to see the United States be on the receiving end of international meddling, after using every trick in the book to install their guys in various countries for the last 50 years.

Right? And typical of Americans, when things don't go our way, or the world dares to reach out and touch US... we completely lose our shit. Absolutely flat chat meltdown...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 04:11:50 AM
I can't imagine anything Trump said in an email is much worse than the stuff he said in public, and the folks who voted for him would just say "oh, he's not serious about soliciting a bribe/killing a prostitute/doing meth with the leaders of ISIS, that's how everyone talks, blah blah blah" to justify it, so it sort of doesn't matter that the Trump campaign's dirty laundry didn't get aired by Russian hackers. They aired plenty on their own, and the mouth-breathing voters didn't care.

But sadly I have to agree with those knuckle-draggers a little: the emails made me less likely to vote for Clinton (I wasn't planning to anyway, though). 
-W

I think that what this election shows is that if the electorate is given more information, voting patterns change dramatically. What scares me is the display of how little we as voters know about the candidates and their activities - even from candidates that have been intensely scrutinized by the public eye and all levels of the government, for decades.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 13, 2016, 06:53:07 AM
Precedent has definitely been set.

Everything is the fault of whichever previous president you liked least.

Fuckin' Andrew Johnson....

Nah, it's all because of that fat bastard Taft.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 13, 2016, 03:53:47 PM
A very long, very detailed account of the hacks:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=http://m.facebook.com
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Freedom2016 on December 13, 2016, 09:21:00 PM
I quite enjoyed this:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/putin-agrees-to-receive-intelligence-briefings-in-trumps-place (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/putin-agrees-to-receive-intelligence-briefings-in-trumps-place)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 15, 2016, 08:55:01 PM
I am amused by this thread, but moreso in light of this particular revelation...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/


So either the Russians hacked the DNC to throw Hillary under the Trump Train, or a jilted Bernie supporter inside the DNC did.  One of these is fake news.  Whom to believe?  The director of the CIA or a former ambassador from Britain who is a major player inside Wikileaks itself.  Should I believe the professional liar, or the foreign diplomat?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 16, 2016, 05:40:57 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/15/we-need-an-independent-public-investigation-of-the-trump-russia-scandal-now/?utm_term=.45e83a38e4d2
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: LadyStache in Baja on December 16, 2016, 07:09:56 AM
p2f
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Enigma on December 16, 2016, 08:06:32 AM
The true horror story here is the American media...  Every time I turn around they have sensationalized something and spun it as "Breaking News".  They were biased and pushed that Trump had absolutely no chance of winning the election, after all Hillary was going to win by a landslide.  In my opinion Russia may have slightly swayed the vote with false propaganda articles.  Yet fake news was coming from everywhere against both candidates just so bloggers could get their day in the spotlight.  As a Cyber Security expert, there are too many safeguards to the voting systems and most is still done by hand.  Yes, computers count the vote but the safeguards and paper trails are there for a reason...

History has shown conspiracy theories are created during every major event.  Recounts are showing that the votes were accurate and costing tax payers thousands of dollars to complete.  Wisconsin recount shows Trump gained votes costing the voters $50k in recounts.  Trump didn't need 306 electoral votes, nor did he need 3 democrat states to flip in his favor, nor did he need the popular vote which he didn't get (lost by 0.1%).  His votes came from the outlying counties (not the cities).  If it was up to the popular vote, Trump stated he would have ran his campaign that way and would have won.  I am inclined to believe that, after all he would have only had to focus on the major cities; whereas, Hillary would have had to sway votes from the outlying counties.

The American media also tried to sway the vote with sensationalized “Breaking News” timed almost too perfectly with negativity about Trump.  I myself could see where Trump's mistakes in the past were under a spotlight and where he was strongly lacking as a politician.  Hillary seemed more and more like a political puppet every time she would stray over giving a definitive yes or no to a negative subject.

If anything I trust the American media much less today than prior to the election.  They have been lying to me almost daily all to ruffle my feathers.  Telling me the next major thing just happened and I need to get emotional, defensive, upset, happy, or scared.  The media is really the unbiased agenda pushing scumbags here.

This would have been a better election if the media just let the candidates focus on their republican or democratic ideals, agendas, and plans for the future of America.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on December 16, 2016, 08:11:54 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 16, 2016, 10:34:41 PM
Interesting responses. Post-truth is an increasingly accurate description for these times, it seems. "Someone said the opposite of the thing I don't like!" Who to believe, indeed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 17, 2016, 04:07:50 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?

How different would voting patterns be if the electorate knew the truth?  I don't think anyone is saying what Russia did was not a big deal. But to suggest that it would have been better to elect a candidate from a party that has been shown to be corrupt is hardly a convincing argument.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on December 17, 2016, 07:23:12 AM
Two thoughts:

1.  An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election.  Seems plausible. 

2.  There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?  We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders.  It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.

This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?

Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?

How different would voting patterns be if the electorate knew the truth?  I don't think anyone is saying what Russia did was not a big deal. But to suggest that it would have been better to elect a candidate from a party that has been shown to be corrupt is hardly a convincing argument.

Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on December 18, 2016, 08:10:19 AM
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this. Also, whether Russia hacked or not is irrelevant. Say they did. Doesn't change the several other e-mail scandals that were not related to hacks. Doesn't change how corrupt the Democratic nominee was. And doesn't change that the Democratic nominee said they wanted to start a war with Russia.

I was sad when Trump won but at least he never advocated to start a war with Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 18, 2016, 08:46:17 AM
Fake news like this??  Did you watch Obama's press conference last Friday?  Was that faked, too?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 18, 2016, 10:16:07 AM
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on December 18, 2016, 10:29:51 AM
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.

Indeed.  Clearly, we got the president we deserve. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 18, 2016, 11:32:58 AM
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on December 18, 2016, 11:49:37 AM
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.

Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.

Christ on a stick.

My statement was "As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this." If you can point me to where they've made a statement otherwise, please inform me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RosieTR on December 19, 2016, 09:17:48 PM
I was sad when Trump won but at least he never advocated to start a war with Russia.

Nah, he seems to prefer having one with China. Or "Djina" as he says. That ought to be fun.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on December 20, 2016, 04:01:10 PM
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.

DNC scandles didn't help but I think they are giving to much credit for their loss to leaked emails. Lets be honest the emails didn't show much we didn't assume wasn't happening already. We knew the Clinton's were to pay to play. We also knew that they were flipping positions because popular opinion was forcing them to.

The reality is that we had a left wing and right wing populist movement in both major parties. One nearly succeeded and the other one went all the way.

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.

Do you think Bernie wouldn't have spent time appealing to the rust belt states? The thing that burns my ass about this election isn't that Hillary lost. Its that we had a left wing alternative to Trump, but the DNC drowned him in the bath tub before he could ruin they coronation. Most states kept to party lines, but Bernie had the same winning message that Trump had without the petty bullshit and lies.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 06:10:48 AM

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.


This is my interpretation of the loss as well. Of course there were many underlying factors, but this to me seems to be the driving force between Hillary's loss.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 06:14:46 AM
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.

Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.

DNC scandles didn't help but I think they are giving to much credit for their loss to leaked emails. Lets be honest the emails didn't show much we didn't assume wasn't happening already. We knew the Clinton's were to pay to play. We also knew that they were flipping positions because popular opinion was forcing them to.

The reality is that we had a left wing and right wing populist movement in both major parties. One nearly succeeded and the other one went all the way.

I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.

Do you think Bernie wouldn't have spent time appealing to the rust belt states? The thing that burns my ass about this election isn't that Hillary lost. Its that we had a left wing alternative to Trump, but the DNC drowned him in the bath tub before he could ruin they coronation. Most states kept to party lines, but Bernie had the same winning message that Trump had without the petty bullshit and lies.
I don't understand people saying this.  Our representatives are their to represent US, not their views.  Why is it a bad thing that a politician will say, my constituents want this therefore I am going to be THEIR rep and fight for it? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 06:28:33 AM
I don't understand people saying this.  Our representatives are their to represent US, not their views.  Why is it a bad thing that a politician will say, my constituents want this therefore I am going to be THEIR rep and fight for it?

How long until they 'flip' again? If they don't really believe in the position, how hard are they going to fight for it? Or will they say "Well, I introduced the bill, it won't pass, whatever, my obligations are met." Or will they fight hard for something like the ACA, and when public perception turns against it they fight just as hard to dismantle it? Maybe these actions would be ok, but they don't strike me as the actions of someone who is going to stand up for my views.

My impression of Clinton, specifically, is that she is so unwilling to state her opinion on controversial subjects until the public perception has been carefully weighed and measured. TPP and Keystone XL pipeline were two topics that I feel perfectly displayed her tendency to only say what people want to hear. It just paints, (for me) any emotional reaction she has about anything as false and calculated.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: davisgang90 on December 21, 2016, 06:30:14 AM
After the first time DNC got hacked they sent out new passwords via email.  That is all.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Pooplips on December 21, 2016, 06:33:04 AM
Following.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 21, 2016, 08:09:51 AM
Who was in power when the Russians meddled in the U.S. election?  Holding Trump accountable for this is not an intelligent response.  If you are not outraged that the Democrats were so cavalier about security, particularly with regards to email, particularly while under investigation for email security related misdeeds, you're so deep into leftist bias you are literally unable to recognize facts and form cogent opinions.

Does anyone here think the emails going back and forth within the Trump camp weren't horribly offensive, inappropriate, and damning?  Were they hacked?

Also, "Trump did Russia email hack" is on par with "Bush did 9/11" as far as conspiracy theory peddling goes.

Erosion of civil liberties?  Are you nuts?  I agree that's a real thing but a foreign power spying on you has zero to do with your civil liberties.  That's an entirely separate issue.

Trump's response to this was inappropriate, but as someone who is not in office yet and has very little he can do about it, also irrelevant.  There is a current POTUS and he did jack shit to prevent this, and has done jack shit about it since he found out about it.

Your anger is entirely misplaced, your damnations and aspersions are being cast in entirely the wrong direction.  It is unlikely that Trump will do a better job, but these things actually happened while someone else was POTUS, and they happened to someone else's campaign security infrastructure.  Desperately latching on to anything and everything you can to blame Trump is unnecessary, he's doing enough really stupid stuff, and rest assured, he will do more.

Save your cries of wolf for when he does something really bad.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 21, 2016, 08:21:23 AM
4 years after his election, Obama was still blaming Bush for everything.  Now it seems, in the last year of his presidency, he gets to blame Trump.  This isn't OK when Republicans do it (see Bill Clinton's reaction when asked about 9/11 and what he did about AQ after the Cole bombing, he was (rightly) outraged at the suggestion that he could've/should've done more, as though it was somehow his fault), it isn't OK when Democrats do it.

As far as I know, blaming the incoming candidate for this shit prior to them taking office is unprecedented.  We are once again being asked to believe by the left in two mutually exclusive things:

1.  Trump is a masterful operator who knows all and sees all, and can perfectly coordinate with a global spy network to rig the election in his favor (and still manage to almost lose/certain secure no mandate at all).

2.  Trump is a hopeless lunatic gas-bag egotist, incompetent in all things, incapable of anything, and an idiot.

I will let you have one and one only!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 21, 2016, 08:22:04 AM
Does anyone here think the emails going back and forth within the Trump camp weren't horribly offensive, inappropriate, and damning?  Were they hacked?

I'd be very surprised if they weren't.  It was in the interests of the people doing the hacking not to release them though.  That's where the outrage comes from, the influence on the election that this illegal activity had.

Trump isn't responsible for the email hacking.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 21, 2016, 08:42:23 AM
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 21, 2016, 08:48:43 AM
4 years after his election, Obama was still blaming Bush for everything.  Now it seems, in the last year of his presidency, he gets to blame Trump.  This isn't OK when Republicans do it (see Bill Clinton's reaction when asked about 9/11 and what he did about AQ after the Cole bombing, he was (rightly) outraged at the suggestion that he could've/should've done more, as though it was somehow his fault), it isn't OK when Democrats do it.

As far as I know, blaming the incoming candidate for this shit prior to them taking office is unprecedented.  We are once again being asked to believe by the left in two mutually exclusive things:

1.  Trump is a masterful operator who knows all and sees all, and can perfectly coordinate with a global spy network to rig the election in his favor (and still manage to almost lose/certain secure no mandate at all).

2.  Trump is a hopeless lunatic gas-bag egotist, incompetent in all things, incapable of anything, and an idiot.

I will let you have one and one only!


I think most of us would say that it's clearly #2, with the amendment that "an idiot" be changed to "a useful idiot for Putin."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 09:53:03 AM
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
But we can blame him for his response, and wonder what Putin has on Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 10:17:57 AM
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.

Absolutely.  But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
But we can blame him for his response, and wonder what Putin has on Trump.

Oooh... I like these kinds of conspiracy theories!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 10:28:47 AM
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 21, 2016, 11:33:18 AM
seems appropriate to post here

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/745069/Calexit-campaign-US-referendum-California-embassy-in-Russia

seems like all the news i like reading lately come from British sources.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 21, 2016, 12:05:21 PM
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.


To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief.  I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 12:09:30 PM
Well argued.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 21, 2016, 12:27:13 PM
Well argued.

Obviously, not arguing with you. That would be a exercise in futility.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on December 21, 2016, 12:47:13 PM
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...

Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
  • There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
  • Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
  • Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
  • Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
  • This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
  • Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.

*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.

**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.

Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.


To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief.  I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality.

I appreciate in discussion when people can admit, especially in the realm of politics, that their view probably contains at least some distortions. Even if they do pretty extensive research. There is no pure source of completely biased free information in the political realm.

I am biased towards believing the Obama administration over Trump, but Democrats have been heavily politicizing Russian influence in this cycle which makes it hard to take all of their statements at face value. I don't think ratcheting up fear of the Russians is good policy even if they are dealing with hacking and adversarial behavior by Putin.

Currently overplaying the influence of Russia in this election after the fact is destabilizing. If all they can prove is that Russia funded and encourage the propagation of fake news to influence voters I think they need to drop this shit now. We shouldn't fight propaganda with fear and undermine our own government leaders to do it. We all know Putin is a ruthless propaganda machine we don't have to go down the same road. Foreign governments trying to spread propaganda and misinformation is nothing new and we all do it. You fight that with better news coverage and winning the trust of your people through good policy, not fear mongering of foreign powers.

If they truly wanted to be effective in creating anti Russian sentiment, they need to be smarter about finding a way to get conservative news outlets and Trump on their side.

If they can prove that votes where straight out hacked then they need to get off their ass right now and do a full information dump to 3rd parties for review of the evidence. I suspect they can't, even though I would personally be happy to see Trump get tossed out on his ass.

Trump has many conflicts of interest, there is no doubt of that. But in fairness economically almost every leader and businessman has entanglements with super powers like Russia if they have any kind of significant wealth. The Clinton's and Bush's had plenty of dealings with people we'd rather they didn't. I don't think that's an excuse but it needs to be said to put fears in perspective.

I can't say if Obama had these kinds of fiscal entanglements but he definitely bought into the EU, Globalization western vision of the world that simply economically doesn't work out well for a large number of people. And clearly Russia is contrary to that vision because the death of NATO and fracture of the EU will open up new alliances and the possibility of expansion to acquire more land and resources.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 01:45:21 PM
Incidentally, I pretty much agree with RangerOne. The Dems are definitely overplaying the Russia boogeyman card, which is not the right move at all, but that is very clearly not what I'm doing despite Quidnon's (and others) non-engagement of the facts that concern me and others.

Let me yet again (no doubt futilely) repeat these points:

1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

2. A proper nonpartisan response to such a blatant attempt to subvert the sovereignty of this great nation is to decry, investigate, and respond appropriately to the foreign aggressor. Note that I am not saying this response should be overly extreme, only that I would expect our president to respond strongly. I surely hope all Americans would agree that we shouldn't just bend over when another country tries to mess with us.

3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

4. This is curious because he could easily smack down Russia and simultaneously look like a stronger leader. It begs the question why he has not.

Perhaps the above doesn't bother you (post fact world and all). But that doesn't change these details. You seem unwilling to question the president elect in literally any situation. Strange that you would make condescending comments on other people's supposed partisanship.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on December 21, 2016, 02:29:01 PM
1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

What evidence has any intelligence agency released to support this? Seriously if there is any share it with me. To the best of my search skills, the only 'evidence' I've found is usually along the lines of either (A) a news entity reporting "some guy, whom won't be disclosed, with an undisclosed role in some undisclosed department told us they have evidence the Russians did it but they didn't disclose the evidence" or (B) "We're sourcing an (A) story."

To the best of my knowledge, the only leaks with public evidence are the DNC hacks; Julian Assange claims it was an inside leak.

Quote
3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

Which public statement has any intelligence agency made in regards to this? Again, if you have links please provide. I desperately want them because I am trying to knowledgeable on this issue. The fact you are saying it is a universal consensus but I can't find one, even one, department saying "The Russians did it" (let alone provide evidence) worries me deeply. One of use is gravely wrong.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 02:31:35 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: boy_bye on December 21, 2016, 02:31:47 PM
Have you guys seen this article from noted journalist and futurist Alex Steffen?

https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd#.sycvyzjtd

I don't think there's anything coincidental about the fact that Putin worked to get Trump in, and I don't think anyone is overplaying the danger.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on December 21, 2016, 02:37:41 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 02:45:46 PM
1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...

What evidence has any intelligence agency released to support this? Seriously if there is any share it with me. To the best of my search skills, the only 'evidence' I've found is usually along the lines of either (A) a news entity reporting "some guy, whom won't be disclosed, with an undisclosed role in some undisclosed department told us they have evidence the Russians did it but they didn't disclose the evidence" or (B) "We're sourcing an (A) story."

To the best of my knowledge, the only leaks with public evidence are the DNC hacks; Julian Assange claims it was an inside leak.

Quote
3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.

Which public statement has any intelligence agency made in regards to this? Again, if you have links please provide. I desperately want them because I am trying to knowledgeable on this issue. The fact you are saying it is a universal consensus but I can't find one, even one, department saying "The Russians did it" (let alone provide evidence) worries me deeply. One of use is gravely wrong.
How many intelligence agencies do you want to say this.  A quick google shows multiple links, here is one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.9d750f948cc5
You also have the President here speaking about it: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/14/barack-obama-entire-news-conference-post-election-nov-14-sot.cnn
And if you want to ignore all of the news agencies how about a report direct from the office of Director of National Intelligence? : https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 02:50:04 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.  Such as why he was removed from being the ambassador. From your article "Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.
His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump."
Also if you read your article some more, we have GOP members agreeing that the information is credible: 'Now whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's the subject of investigation,' said Sen. John McCain on CBS Face the Nation. 'But facts are stubborn things, they did hack into this campaign.'

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 21, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)

I’m not going down that road. This is starting to sound like you want to make the fallacious “but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!” argument.

Is your position, then, that the president elect should just rely on his gut to make all of his decisions, regardless of the facts he is presented? That the media lies more often than not? That it’s more likely than not that the USIC has made a politically motivated, intentionally false statement? That it’s more likely than not that Trump is the sole voice of reason and truth in American politics right now? If your answers are yes, then there is no point in pretending that any subsequent discourse between us will be productive.

Edit - and ditto what Gin1984 said.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 21, 2016, 03:08:44 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 21, 2016, 03:15:06 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Which is why the REST of my post (which you deleted) is important.  Given his was removed from his posted because of misconduct, his honesty is very much in question.  And, funny enough he actually says he did not get the data from a DNC insider BUT from a middleman.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 21, 2016, 04:55:07 PM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about.  The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak.  You have one person SAYING it was.  With what evidence?  And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.

There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public.  And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider.  Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Which is why the REST of my post (which you deleted) is important.  Given his was removed from his posted because of misconduct, his honest is very much in question.  And, funny enough he actually says he did not get the data from a DNC insider BUT from a middleman.

Everyone involved in this is in question.  He is no less trustworthy than the director of the CIA, which is an institution that is based upon deceit & manipulation.  Nor the mouthpeices for the FBI, which has openly contradicted the statements by the CIA.  No one has provided a stitch of evidence, so who do you believe?  I choose to believe no one, and wait till the details come out on their own, if they ever do, which is doubtful.  My point is that there are several narratives being floated around, any of which are plausible from our, less-than-secret-clearance, perspectives.  Anything teh media has been able to provide is full of conjecture.  I do find it reasonable to expect that Russia would try to hack the DNC and/or the RNC.  Maybe they succeeded, maybe they didn't.  What I find difficult to believe is that they leaked this data to Wikileaks, rather than keep it to threaten a President Hillary over public disclosures.  Think about what is more advantageous to a foreign intelligence service; secrets with bad public optics when dealing with a malicious foreign head of state, or the gamble of revealing those documents during an election cycle in the hopes of what? Swinging the election?  They couldn't have known that would have been the result, mind you.  Almost no one thought Trump would win more than 2 weeks out, some no more than 2 hours before midnight.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Pooplips on December 22, 2016, 05:27:27 AM
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 06:14:53 AM
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?

Good question.  I'd have to think on this.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cliffhanger on December 22, 2016, 06:26:14 AM
I have a general question.

How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?

World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?

I think it heavily depends on how much we like the person or country influencing the election and what the results are.

When President Obama explicitly says that the U.K. is going to go to the back of the queue in trade deals if they vote to leave, that's not influencing the election because we like the President and it's not happening to us.

Because we didn't like the results of this presidential election, we're finding any excuse we can. Even over-blowing the effects of Russian hacking and insinuating that the U.S. will become a puppet of Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on December 22, 2016, 06:36:01 AM
1.  We do this type of shit all the time to other countries just like Russia and China and other world powers.   Remember a few years back when it came out that we were tapping the phones of world leaders?  Obama didn't bring attention to this partially for that reason is my guess.  Intelligence is a dirty business. 

2.  Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign, but they did see him and his supporters and the easiest targets for their operations, probably due to their known history of susceptibility to propaganda via Fox News et al. 

3.  Do we really want to antagonize Russia right now?  I am not saying they should get a free pass, but they do have a lot of nukes, plus they are flying our asses into space at regular intervals since we ditched our manned space program. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 22, 2016, 07:55:27 AM
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?

Edit:

Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)

I’m not going down that road. This is starting to sound like you want to make the fallacious “but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!” argument.

Is your position, then, that the president elect should just rely on his gut to make all of his decisions, regardless of the facts he is presented? That the media lies more often than not? That it’s more likely than not that the USIC has made a politically motivated, intentionally false statement? That it’s more likely than not that Trump is the sole voice of reason and truth in American politics right now? If your answers are yes, then there is no point in pretending that any subsequent discourse between us will be productive.

Edit - and ditto what Gin1984 said.

Right now, today, Trump has no power to do anything about this, other than make a public statement, which he did, and it was retarded.  Where is your outrage at the perpetrators of the lack of security in the first place?  You are seeking to indict someone who has yet to actually do anything, and have no issue with the current governmental representatives not doing anything about this.  Trump not denouncing it is because he's dumb, he sees it as an attempt to cast doubt on the outcome of the election, which it very clearly is.  It also very clearly is a serious thing that ought to be dealt with accordingly (because things can be two things at the same thing, these two can be true of the russian hack without it needing to be one or the other).

I understand condemnation of Trump's response.  It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

Trump is not competent or smart enough to be anyone's puppet.  You need to be able to read and follow directions to be a puppet.  Trump accidentally got himself elected president, foreign governments are hostile to us (*gasp*) and way to let a foreign intelligence operation affect you maximally.

Keep calm and carry on folks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 08:13:05 AM

I understand condemnation of Trump's response.  It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

I blame the firewall. (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-04-07)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 22, 2016, 08:27:17 AM
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

Get a clue, Democrats.  You've been outmaneuvered at every turn because you refuse to play dirty enough.  The only two democratic candidates to lose a presidential election in a quarter century both lost the exact same way, by blatantly false character assassination.  America supports your policies, but you have to stop playing by the rules if you want to give them the policies that they want, because the republicans have mastered the dark arts and they know every dirty trick in the book.  It's time to start playing on their level.

I can just picture Steve Bannon laughing greedily on the day Michelle Obama said "when they go low, we go high."  Damn you Michelle, for believing in the dignity of American politics! 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 08:34:03 AM
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

I think the DNC emails quite clearly reveal the opposite line of thinking within the DNC...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 22, 2016, 10:03:18 AM
Right now, today, Trump has no power to do anything about this, other than make a public statement, which he did, and it was retarded.  Where is your outrage at the perpetrators of the lack of security in the first place?  You are seeking to indict someone who has yet to actually do anything, and have no issue with the current governmental representatives not doing anything about this.  Trump not denouncing it is because he's dumb, he sees it as an attempt to cast doubt on the outcome of the election, which it very clearly is.  It also very clearly is a serious thing that ought to be dealt with accordingly (because things can be two things at the same thing, these two can be true of the russian hack without it needing to be one or the other).

I understand condemnation of Trump's response.  It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

Trump is not competent or smart enough to be anyone's puppet.  You need to be able to read and follow directions to be a puppet.  Trump accidentally got himself elected president, foreign governments are hostile to us (*gasp*) and way to let a foreign intelligence operation affect you maximally.

Keep calm and carry on folks.

I posses lots of outrage to go around across all levels of our government, don't worry :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 22, 2016, 10:18:34 AM
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time.  I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,

Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it?  Because it sure looks like collaboration to me.  There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking.  Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened.  Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia.  What else does it take to make it more obvious?

Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is?  The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor?  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.   Remember that little news story from like two years ago?

I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights.  Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents.  OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack.  Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland.  Of course they suppressed voting rights.  Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood.  Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.

I think the DNC emails quite clearly reveal the opposite line of thinking within the DNC...

I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

edit, that was kinda mean.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 22, 2016, 10:31:50 AM
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Every presidential candidate for the next century will be studying the election campaigns of Clinton and Kerry for blueprints on how to destroy popular public servants in favor of unqualified idiots who can be puppeteered from behind the scenes.  This is our future.  Pizzagate is the vanguard of the new generation of American politics.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: shenlong55 on December 22, 2016, 10:41:33 AM
It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.

Out of curiosity, when do you think that President Obama made the information public and why do you think that he's not doing anything about it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cassie on December 22, 2016, 11:57:33 AM
SOL, I totally understand and agree with your points.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 12:42:05 PM
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Well, hopefully these suggestions would be more effective than firebombing republican campaign offices, rioting in the street and staging sit-ins on the floor of the senate when they don't get their way.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cliffhanger on December 22, 2016, 01:06:15 PM
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

Well, hopefully these suggestions would be more effective than firebombing republican campaign offices, rioting in the street and staging sit-ins on the floor of the senate when they don't get their way.

Add burning your own church after spraypainting 'Vote Trump' on it (https://apnews.com/4e14f73be8df4caf90643cd2d757054c/Arrest-in-'Vote-Trump'-burning-of-Mississippi-black-church) to that list.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 22, 2016, 07:18:02 PM
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.

I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

This is, incidentally, what Bill Clinton did in 1992. James Carville reinvented campaigning for the Democrats. No more "Jimmy Carter/Mr. Nice Guy" tactics.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on December 23, 2016, 08:02:07 AM
Quote
I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.

I don't think the dems were playing as squeaky clean as you think - I mean look at the primary process.  I think they did underestimate the extent that a certain swath of voters could be manipulated by negative nationalist rhetoric and the culture wars, and I think a lot of people missed that.  The dems played their own dirty cards, but it didn't matter because 80000 midwest voters who really hated Hillary and thought their problems were due to other people who happened to be brown were enough to tip the election.  Everyone else just basically voted down party lines.

Quote
Specifically, the politicking mud.  I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked.  I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared.  I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing.  I want to become the party of no.  I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn.  I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises. 

What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

That isn't the right answer.  I get your anger and rage, but it won't be effective and it plays right into the hands of the enemy. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ender on December 23, 2016, 08:04:36 AM
I don't think the dems were playing as squeaky clean as you think - I mean look at the primary process.  I think they did underestimate the extent that a certain swath of voters could be manipulated by negative nationalist rhetoric and the culture wars, and I think a lot of people missed that.  The dems played their own dirty cards, but it didn't matter because 80000 midwest voters who really hated Hillary and thought their problems were due to other people who happened to be brown were enough to tip the election.  Everyone else just basically voted down party lines.

Keep in mind Trump actually got fewer votes than Romney in most of the midwest states he won.

Democratic turnout being much lower than in 2012 was the primary driver here - if Clinton had got even close to what Obama got, she would have handily won.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: boy_bye on December 23, 2016, 08:43:24 AM
Quote from: golden1 link=topic=65449.msg1350892#msg1350892

What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

I dunno, what did we get from the last 8 years of "going high"? A kleptocratic coup, that's what.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 23, 2016, 10:41:27 AM
What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end?  A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans.  If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said."  and push to privatize more. 

That isn't the right answer.  I get your anger and rage, but it won't be effective and it plays right into the hands of the enemy.

I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on December 23, 2016, 11:19:30 AM
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I agree about 98% with your sentiments, but like I said in another thread, I think the Democrats could easily win without completely sinking to the morally bankrupt actions Republicans and Trump have sunk to. Here's an easy list that comes to mind:

1. Nominate a candidate with some charisma and without a bunch of negative baggage (whether or not that baggage is "deserved" does NOT matter at all). Clinton was a poor choice, even though she was eminently qualified. Obama had lots of charisma, Hillary Clinton almost none or maybe even negative charisma (such as her laugh that has been repeatedly used as a basis for insult and ridicule by her opponents).

2. Ditch the intellectual (and fair) arguments. Start with a simple (even stupid) slogan like Trump used that resonates with lots and lots of voters or potential voters. Make America Great Again -- Yay!! Just keep mentioning all the stuff voters care about, and for the love of God quit pandering to your "base."

3. Close to #2 above: Appeal to voters' basic wants and ditch all the complicated policy shit. Get in the dirt on the wedge issues, culture wars, etc. Tell voters you'll protect their Medicaid and social security and go after all those welfare cheats.  You can honestly say those things knowing that there are very few actual welfare cheats, and meat-eating Red Staters eat that shit up. Tell voters you'll kick the Islamic State's ass, you'll be tough on North Korea and China and Russia and Iran. Who doesn't agree with that? Details hardly matter, so don't even bring them up.

4. Level lots of effective and even personal zingers at your opponent, particularly in the debates. They don't have to be disgusting insults like Trump used ("look at her face!"), just targeted attacks like the kind Reagan, Obama, and Lloyd "You're no Jack Kennedy" Bentsen have effectively delivered.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 07:28:37 AM
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I agree about 98% with your sentiments, but like I said in another thread, I think the Democrats could easily win without completely sinking to the morally bankrupt actions Republicans and Trump have sunk to. Here's an easy list that comes to mind:

1. Nominate a candidate with some charisma and without a bunch of negative baggage (whether or not that baggage is "deserved" does NOT matter at all). Clinton was a poor choice, even though she was eminently qualified. Obama had lots of charisma, Hillary Clinton almost none or maybe even negative charisma (such as her laugh that has been repeatedly used as a basis for insult and ridicule by her opponents).

2. Ditch the intellectual (and fair) arguments. Start with a simple (even stupid) slogan like Trump used that resonates with lots and lots of voters or potential voters. Make America Great Again -- Yay!! Just keep mentioning all the stuff voters care about, and for the love of God quit pandering to your "base."

3. Close to #2 above: Appeal to voters' basic wants and ditch all the complicated policy shit. Get in the dirt on the wedge issues, culture wars, etc. Tell voters you'll protect their Medicaid and social security and go after all those welfare cheats.  You can honestly say those things knowing that there are very few actual welfare cheats, and meat-eating Red Staters eat that shit up. Tell voters you'll kick the Islamic State's ass, you'll be tough on North Korea and China and Russia and Iran. Who doesn't agree with that? Details hardly matter, so don't even bring them up.

4. Level lots of effective and even personal zingers at your opponent, particularly in the debates. They don't have to be disgusting insults like Trump used ("look at her face!"), just targeted attacks like the kind Reagan, Obama, and Lloyd "You're no Jack Kennedy" Bentsen have effectively delivered.

Fair points. All the democrats really have to do to win is motivate their supporters. If they can't even manage to do that, they don't really deserve to win.

As far as Zingers, the "Do you know what else I prepared for? Being President." Should go down as a classic, imo.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scottish on December 27, 2016, 09:07:14 AM
This too will pass.

I'd argue that we went through something similar in Canada for 10 years with the 'Harper' conservative government.   He had a number of annoying programs - the war on science, banning hijabs, the war on the environment, the Muslim behavioural hotline and the never ending deficit spending.    And don't forget the plans for the giant 'Mother Canada' statue on Cape Breton - similar to the statue of liberty, yet without any cultural significance whatsoever.

(https://i.cbc.ca/1.3111793.1434140624!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/mother-canada-statue.jpg)

The previous government was liberal (i.e. on the left), yet oddly they were the most fiscally responsible government we've had in decades.   At the end, we were all getting disgusted with their apparent corruption, the PM retired and they were booted out of office.

It took them 10 years to find a credible party leader (Justin Trudeau) who is nonetheless mocked for his youth and inexperience.   In a most annoying fashion, the liberal government is already showing signs of the same old corruption problems they had 12 years ago.

In time, the democrats will develop new leadership and supplant the republicans.    Hopefully they will raise the standard of political discourse above the playground insults of M. Trump.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on December 27, 2016, 09:14:21 AM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi". 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on December 27, 2016, 10:15:38 AM
Quote
This too will pass.

I have been trying to cultivate this view while still being wary.  Trump is not like "normal" candidates, and his appeal is not based in reason and logic as far as I can tell.   It is entirely possible that people will get disgusted and this will blow over in 4-8 years.  Or it could be worse than that. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 27, 2016, 01:29:11 PM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 01:40:32 PM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda? Now if we just had a spunky fighter pilot to save us all...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 27, 2016, 01:47:08 PM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda? Now if we just had a spunky fighter pilot to save us all...

The emperor was the quiet power behind everything.  Ain't Trump.  Donald is more of a Jabba figure . . . Likes slave girls, kinda gross, seems to be wealthy but nobody really knows if that's true . . . But somehow he got elected to Vader's position.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 01:52:29 PM
The emperor was the quiet power behind everything.  Ain't Trump.  Donald is more of a Jabba figure . . . Likes slave girls, kinda gross, seems to be wealthy but nobody really knows if that's true . . . But somehow he got elected to Vader's position.

Ha - good point.  And probably the one most likely to employ bounty hunters and keep frozen people for decorations. :D
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scottish on December 27, 2016, 03:09:43 PM
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 27, 2016, 05:02:52 PM
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.

It's only a high-stress job if you give a shit, try to do a good job, and care what happens as a result of your actions or lack thereof.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 27, 2016, 06:12:39 PM
Quote
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.

Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy.  If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it?  Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.

I hear you Sol, I really do.  But I just can't be on board with that.  Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.   

And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back".  Next up - "Return of the Jedi".

Goddamn it!  We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?

If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda?

No.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 30, 2016, 06:50:52 AM
At least Trump is seventy years old.   Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.

It's only a high-stress job if you give a shit, try to do a good job, and care what happens as a result of your actions or lack thereof.

Shit...  he'll probably live forever.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 30, 2016, 07:19:22 AM
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia? I am not really up to date on what is going on but my understanding is some have the perception there was an outsider 'hack' of the election when there was in fact only an insider 'leak' of the DNC's emails. So it would seem, by diplomatic standards, this is unwarranted.

So is this just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

Not really sure, someone splain why please.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 30, 2016, 07:33:26 AM
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia? I am not really up to date on what is going on but my understanding is some have the perception there was an outsider 'hack' of the election when there was in fact only an insider 'leak' of the DNC's emails. So it would seem, by diplomatic standards, this is unwarranted.

So it seems this is just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

Not really sure, some splain why please.

Here's what the BBC had to say about it.

"CrowdStrike identified two actors inside the DNC network that it had seen before - one that it calls Cozy Bear (linked to Russia's FSB [formerly known as the KGB]) and the other Fancy Bear (linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence).  Cozy Bear breached the network and stole data. Fancy Bear was linked to the release of the data from the DNC and other political figures."  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38370630

and

"US intelligence agencies, including the FBI and CIA, concluded that the aim of the hack was to cause damage to Mrs Clinton and the Democrats and favour Mr Trump."   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38464612
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on December 30, 2016, 08:30:39 PM
There were attempts to hack the GOP network as well, though we don't know if the hacks were successful.  They could have been, but the information found might not have been useful to release at this time.

I think the concern is that Putin, an old KGB man, has been successfully trying to destabilize Western democracies by using hackers and a well-funded propaganda organization (his "troll army").

Last year I read this very fascinating description of his agency in St. Petersburg.  He  employs shifts of workers to make fake social media accounts, which are used to spread fake news and influence opinion at home and in other countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

Here's a discussion from the RAND think-tank about his strategy:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE198/RAND_PE198.pdf

Putin has targeted other countries, not just the U.S.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/german-spy-chief-russian-hackers-could-disrupt-elections-bruno-kahl-cyber-attacks
http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2016/12/01/les-elections-en-europe-dans-la-cyberguerre_5041350_3214.html

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 30, 2016, 10:01:25 PM
seems appropriate to ask here.

Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/joint-dhs-odni-fbi-statement-on-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

Quote from: FBI
Today, DHS and FBI released a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) which further expands on that statement by providing details of the tools and infrastructure used by Russian intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and infrastructure associated with the recent U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. government, political and private sector entities.


Quote from: hoping2retire35
So is this just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.

No. Unless, of course, you don't trust FBI.gov.

The joint report is at https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf. It, and the related files, have the technical details.


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 31, 2016, 03:34:09 AM
And Russia is not just hacking political infrastructure: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/30/us/grizzly-steppe-malware-burlington-electric/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/30/us/grizzly-steppe-malware-burlington-electric/index.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scottish on December 31, 2016, 03:25:34 PM
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasé acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: LaineyAZ on December 31, 2016, 03:46:52 PM
If our oligarchy is happy - meaning the stock market is doing well - that's all that matters.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2016, 09:49:19 PM
This was an interesting article from the tech community on the Joint Analysis Report released by DHS and FBI.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 01, 2017, 04:54:49 AM
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasé acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?

Well, Obama did also claim that he has talked to Putin in person, and on the phone (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-obama-said-putin-red-phone-about-election-hack-n697116) and told him sternly that the meddling was unacceptable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 01, 2017, 10:17:30 AM
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation.   And the blasé acceptance from Trump is astounding to me.    I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious.    But expelling a few diplomats?   That's it?
There is nothing Obama can do that cannot be undone by Trump, unless he has the support of Congress, and the congress is majority GOP, who have chosen party over country.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 01, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 01, 2017, 12:44:06 PM
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.

I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) claims made by the intelligence communities.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on January 01, 2017, 01:01:24 PM
Nobody is foolish enough to go to actual war (as opposed to proxy wars) when both sides have enough nuclear warheads to obliterate every major city on the planet before breakfast.

Or at least that's what I am banking on this year.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 01, 2017, 01:11:43 PM
Nobody is foolish enough to go to actual war (as opposed to proxy wars) when both sides have enough nuclear warheads to obliterate every major city on the planet before breakfast.

Or at least that's what I am banking on this year.

Meh.

Nuclear annihilation renders anything you do pointless, so there's no reason to waste time contemplating it.  If it happens, it happens.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 01, 2017, 03:25:45 PM
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.

I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) claims made by the intelligence communities.

Potentially "relatively unsubstantiated," since even the arstechnica op-ed stated:

Quote from: arstechnica
In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.

In other words, computer forensics methods by secretive government agencies probably isn't in the unclassified realm. Considering that many Congressional Republicans (even excluding his detractors like McCain and Graham) are calling for stronger measures should indicate that there is fire to the smoke and not just "sour grapes," as Trump suggests.

Of course, Trump has special knowledge of the hacking that no one has. We'll find out tomorrow and it'll be Great!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 04, 2017, 05:05:38 AM
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) claims made by the intelligence communities.

Potentially "relatively unsubstantiated," since even the arstechnica op-ed stated:

Quote from: arstechnica
actual war.


In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.

In other words, computer forensics methods by secretive government agencies probably isn't in the unclassified realm. Considering that many Congressional Republicans (even excluding his detractors like McCain and Graham) are calling for stronger measures should indicate that there is fire to the smoke and not just "sour grapes," as Trump suggests.

Of course, Trump has special knowledge of the hacking that no one has. We'll find out tomorrow and it'll be Great!

I wasn't saying that the intelligence community doesn't wholeheartedly believe that the Russian government was the main perpetrator. I was merely drawing parallels to similar situations in which mistakes have been made based on intelligence community assurances, even when there is enough evidence to convince the majority of congress.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on January 04, 2017, 05:39:31 AM
I wasn't saying that the intelligence community doesn't wholeheartedly believe that the Russian government was the main perpetrator. I was merely drawing parallels to similar situations in which mistakes have been made based on intelligence community assurances, even when there is enough evidence to convince the majority of congress.

One big difference with Russian hacking seems to be that the intelligence community in this case is not under political pressure to come up with a result that the politicians in charge like, but is coming up with a result that they don't.  So no conformation bias.  (Extraordinary to think that the USA and UK ever had elected politicians who were looking for an excuse to go to war, but that seems to have been how it was.)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on January 04, 2017, 06:42:02 AM
CIA director John Brennan was on PBS last night doing an interview. He talked about the report that Obama requested on Russian election interference.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 08, 2017, 08:11:12 PM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 09, 2017, 07:28:23 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

Except that given that the electoral college did not follow its mandate (choosing not being told how to vote via popular vote elections), it is just a bunch of small popular votes and then given certain states more power.  That is not acceptable either.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2017, 07:44:05 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 09, 2017, 07:58:30 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2017, 08:18:39 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

I recognize that tone is hard to read online. So I am going to not assume that you are trying to be condescending by telling me things as though I do not know them. Though I will admit it's quite difficult, given your first parenthetical remark.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 09, 2017, 05:06:25 PM
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?

I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election. 

I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

I thought Russia also got emails from the Republicans, and there was concern that Republicans could be blackmailed. I wish I could recall where I read that. I assume it was conjecture, because how would someone know for certain until such emails are released.

The point is that it seems easy enough for the Russians to hack large organizations and it seems like they would hack the RNC, too.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 09, 2017, 10:09:48 PM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Great points. There are many examples of rights of the minorities that should be protected against the will of the majority.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 10, 2017, 06:52:59 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Slavery was abolished under the 13 Amendment. In order to ratify this amendment, it would require a proposal by Congress and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Three-fourths technically is a majority.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jamesvt on January 10, 2017, 11:56:36 AM

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Slavery was abolished under the 13 Amendment. In order to ratify this amendment, it would require a proposal by Congress and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Three-fourths technically is a majority.
Majority of the legislatures but not the majority of the population. 99% of the population could be for or against something. It doesn't matter when it comes to ratifying an amendment or even electing a president, especially if one candidate fails to get 270 electoral votes. A candidate could technically become president with under 200k popular votes and with only 3 electoral votes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 10, 2017, 03:49:42 PM
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?

I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election. 

I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

I thought Russia also got emails from the Republicans, and there was concern that Republicans could be blackmailed. I wish I could recall where I read that. I assume it was conjecture, because how would someone know for certain until such emails are released.

The point is that it seems easy enough for the Russians to hack large organizations and it seems like they would hack the RNC, too.

Comey stated that the Russians also hacked RNC computers. The FBI would learn this from computer forensics.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/

Quote from: CNN
Top intelligence officials indicated on Tuesday that the GOP was also a Russian hacking target but that none of the information obtained was leaked.

To further what Sol wrote, there is suspicion that Trump was indeed collaborating with Russians.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

Quote from: CNN
The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Freedom2016 on January 10, 2017, 10:18:12 PM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 10, 2017, 11:02:20 PM
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 10, 2017, 11:03:40 PM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)

Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 10, 2017, 11:10:04 PM
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 10, 2017, 11:11:59 PM
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

Well, Trump tweeted that it was fake news but CNN disagrees with you.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html 

And most of this stuff has been circulating in the intelligence network for months now.  The FBI has them.  A bunch of senators with security posts have known about it.  Obama and Trump both have copies.

The part that is most upsetting isn't that Trump paid some hookers to pee on each other.  Whatever man, pee away.  The upsetting part is the detailed history of how Russian intelligence has been cultivating Trump as an unwitting asset for the past five years.  His personality analysis, pressure points, successful past motivators of desired behavior, that sort of thing.  It's the standard way the KGB (and the US, for that matter) goes about controlling a person who may turn out to be useful to them.

edit:  Wait a second, did you seriously just RETWEET trump's tweet of that link, like to the forum?  You're not making yourself look like a credible analyst of this issue if your deep-dive perspective is to literally retweet the Trumpster.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 10, 2017, 11:26:55 PM
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

Well, Trump tweeted that it was fake news but CNN disagrees with you.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html 

And most of this stuff has been circulating in the intelligence network for months now.  The FBI has them.  A bunch of senators with security posts have known about it.  Obama and Trump both have copies.

The part that is most upsetting isn't that Trump paid some hookers to pee on each other.  Whatever man, pee away.  The upsetting part is the detailed history of how Russian intelligence has been cultivating Trump as an unwitting asset for the past five years.  His personality analysis, pressure points, successful past motivators of desired behavior, that sort of thing.  It's the standard way the KGB (and the US, for that matter) goes about controlling a person who may turn out to be useful to them.

Umm... CNN reports that nothing is verified and that one of the driving reasons this report was given out to certain people was not that these rumors were true (which they may or may not be) but merely that this information was floating around, and the affected parties should know this.  Even buzzfeed points out that there are errors in basic facts in some of these reports.

Reminds me of the Hillary scandals - when Trump is charged with Treason for colluding with a foreign power against America, then I'll support him being impeached and removed from office. Until then, he's just a slimeball tv personality who got elected President.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 11, 2017, 12:29:36 AM
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?

I don't think Republicans have much of a leg to stand on, if "this is a breach of journalistic vetting responsibilities" is going to be their defense on this one.  They just spend the last year crying about how "the American people have a right to know" anything and everything, regardless of source or credibility.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 01:05:07 AM
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?


Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?  Wikileaks themselves, or the CIA?  If you believe either, why?  Has Wikileaks ever given you cause to distrust them?  Has the CIA?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 01:08:36 AM
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

edit:  Wait a second, did you seriously just RETWEET trump's tweet of that link, like to the forum?  You're not making yourself look like a credible analyst of this issue if your deep-dive perspective is to literally retweet the Trumpster.

No, I wasn't even aware that Trump tweeted anything about it.  I don't make his regular rants part of my day, but I find it interesting that you knew that.

And no, CNN didn't dispute that it was unverified.  So, fake news.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 11, 2017, 01:09:27 AM
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?

I don't think Republicans have much of a leg to stand on, if "this is a breach of journalistic vetting responsibilities" is going to be their defense on this one.  They just spend the last year crying about how "the American people have a right to know" anything and everything, regardless of source or credibility.

And so begins the race to the bottom... supported by all parties.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 05:28:32 AM
I don't know what's fact or what's fiction. Part of me is truly concerned how Trump's supporters still continue to support him and thus the actions surrounding him. They still truly see him as a demi-god (heck Trump said so himself). And part of me is admittedly laughing at how quickly I think Trump is going to be impeached. Is there a an entry in the Guinness World Records for this?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cliffhanger on January 11, 2017, 05:49:21 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)

When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news? Unlikely. I bet some troll wrote this dossier as it feeds into the worst of what liberals already believe about Trump.

Guys.. this is just feeding into the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. When the same news organizations that publish this crap then turn around and blab about fake news, it gives Trump legitimate ammo to use against them. They're already starting to campaign for reelection...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 06:02:25 AM
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?


Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?  Wikileaks themselves, or the CIA?  If you believe either, why? Has Wikileaks ever given you cause to distrust them?  Has the CIA?
Yes
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 07:17:44 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)

When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?Unlikely. I bet some troll wrote this dossier as it feeds into the worst of what liberals already believe about Trump.

Guys.. this is just feeding into the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. When the same news organizations that publish this crap then turn around and blab about fake news, it gives Trump legitimate ammo to use against them. They're already starting to campaign for reelection...

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on January 11, 2017, 08:00:18 AM
The story here is that Comey chose to speak publically 10 days before an election about emails on a computer of which he did not know the contents of or if they had any bearing on anything related to HRC.  At the same time, he knew that this information about Trump being compromised, even if not verified, existed.  He chose to release the email information, which turned out to be nothing, but not the Russia stuff, which may or may not turn out to be nothing.  The FBI is playing favorites with unsubstantiated information, and that sucks. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 08:01:44 AM
The story here is that Comey chose to speak publically 10 days before an election about emails on a computer of which he did not know the contents of or if they had any bearing on anything related to HRC.  At the same time, he knew that this information about Trump being compromised, even if not verified, existed.  He chose to release the email information, which turned out to be nothing, but not the Russia stuff, which may or may not turn out to be nothing.  The FBI is playing favorites with unsubstantiated information, and that sucks.
Which I think does mean the president can fire him..... But then is the person who Trump would appoint worse?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 11, 2017, 08:27:31 AM
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/) his MO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9aa06f464835) all year (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-mocks-trump-scientist-claim-many-people-are-saying), to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: llorona on January 11, 2017, 08:28:10 AM
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Million2000 on January 11, 2017, 08:48:28 AM
Reading through the dossier now. Very entertaining, though of course we don't know if its true. The wording and style of the author appear British to me (latin phrases, British spelling). At this point everything is speculation, but what I find interesting is Trump's response (Russia told me it's not true!). It's almost like he's trying to make the speculation stick (the dossier mentions drawing attention away from other scandals) to cover up even larger scandals. My own speculation: if this attention persists and doesn't let up, we could be looking, thankfully, at a very short presidency. Watergate dragged on for years, but Nixon didn't finish his second term. Presidents have been impeached for less.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 09:30:28 AM
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283

Absolutely and I never claimed as such. I think the news outlet was just reporting what it has while saying "hey we can't verify this." Honestly would it be surprising if it were true? And would it really change the minds of any Trump supporter? I mean they have made it this far ignoring his plethora of lies and deceit, I don't think it would change their minds. Might kick start the impeachment proceedings. Fingers crossed. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 09:33:20 AM
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/) his MO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9aa06f464835) all year (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-mocks-trump-scientist-claim-many-people-are-saying), to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

Absolutely I agree Sol. I think folks are going to start labeling everything as fake news now even if it boils down to them just simply not agreeing with it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 09:39:23 AM
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283

Absolutely and I never claimed as such. I think the news outlet was just reporting what it has while saying "hey we can't verify this." Honestly would it be surprising if it were true? And would it really change the minds of any Trump supporter? I mean they have made it this far ignoring his plethora of lies and deceit, I don't think it would change their minds. Might kick start the impeachment proceedings. Fingers crossed.
Congressional GOP members already knew about this.  They don't care.  They are willing to put party in front of country.  So I doubt he will ever be impeached unless people get out and vote in 2018.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on January 11, 2017, 12:39:53 PM
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/) his MO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9aa06f464835) all year (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-mocks-trump-scientist-claim-many-people-are-saying), to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

Absolutely I agree Sol. I think folks are going to start labeling everything as fake news now even if it boils down to them just simply not agreeing with it.

I find it particularly galling that the man who rode to power on birther conspiracies is now complaining about unsubstantiated attacks on him.  Birther conspiracies.  I...just can't believe that people actually voted for the birther-in-chief. 

His voting base has an authoritarian fetish.  It's more important to be strong and dominant, even if obviously lying.  In fact, lying and getting away with brazen lies only cements his dominance.  We can't  rely on his base coming to their senses.  They won't-this is a feature and not a bug for them.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on January 11, 2017, 12:54:17 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 11, 2017, 02:02:56 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 02:03:29 PM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 11, 2017, 02:08:20 PM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

4chan, jumping in and trying to take credit? Wow, I'm shocked -- shocked!

It's possible, I suppose.

Then again, the BBC is saying there's a second source that backs the veracity of the existence of the compromising dossier on Trump.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/672669/bbc-claims-second-source-backs-trump-dossier


Generally speaking, I try not to use cheap, tasteless jokes to mock political figures, because I think doing so is lazy and takes the place of legitimate critique.
This policy is REALLY, REALLY hard to adhere to right now.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on January 11, 2017, 02:13:31 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.

Honestly, that's one of my gut reactions to the whole email hacking thing.  What did they/could they uncover from Trump that's more offensive than what we already know?  Probably not much.  He used a racial slur?  Have the country is already convinced he's David Duke.  He is sexist towards women?  Uh, more than the "grab them by the..." thing?  He's got shady business deals?  I wouldn't even read that news story, I already just assume it.  I mean, basically he's like the opposite of Hillary, his public image is so incredibly unfiltered he's about immune to blackmail and tarnish.  Versus Hillary, who went through so much effort to put on a polished front that any chink it in appears scandalous. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 03:26:13 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Given the accusation of his raping a 13 year old girl and his support for a proven pedophile, that would honestly not surprise me.  I honestly want to know what it would take for the GOP to impeach him, and I don't think there is anything.  The only blackmail I think that would work on Trump is proof that he is not rich.  He has put so much effort into that lie, it does not matter that many people would not care, he'd care.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on January 11, 2017, 03:28:50 PM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

4chan, jumping in and trying to take credit? Wow, I'm shocked -- shocked!

It's possible, I suppose.

Then again, the BBC is saying there's a second source that backs the veracity of the existence of the compromising dossier on Trump.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/672669/bbc-claims-second-source-backs-trump-dossier


Generally speaking, I try not to use cheap, tasteless jokes to mock political figures, because I think doing so is lazy and takes the place of legitimate critique.
This policy is REALLY, REALLY hard to adhere to right now.

I, for one, am perfectly happy to rechristen the birther in chief as the peeOTUS. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 11, 2017, 04:07:30 PM
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Given the accusation of his raping a 13 year old girl and his support for a proven pedophile, that would honestly not surprise me. I honestly want to know what it would take for the GOP to impeach him, and I don't think there is anything.  The only blackmail I think that would work on Trump is proof that he is not rich.  He has put so much effort into that lie, it does not matter that many people would not care, he'd care.

They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 11, 2017, 05:14:54 PM
Generally to get impeached you would have to do something illegal while in office and get caught. There would probably be reviews and investigation before impeachment.

On top of that for an impeachment to result in a removal from office is apparently unprecedented. Nixon resigned.

Embarrassing material probably isn't nearly enough. I doubt an old sex scandal with whores in a foreign country would be enough to get him to resign and I don't believe what has been talked about is a crime. It seems like it would be a first to see someone so high level to be forced into resignation over character defamation of this sort. It certainly seems like there has been plenty of low level politicians that have disappeared from public life over entanglements with paid sex. Most I believe did this stuff with public funding and while holding office.

What would be a crime is if he capitulated to demands by a foreign nation to avoid black mail. Seems like it would be pretty hard to prove though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 11, 2017, 05:17:06 PM
On the plus side I hope people hold this asshole(Trump) under a microscope for his full tenure.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 07:17:52 PM

Embarrassing material probably isn't nearly enough. I doubt an old sex scandal with whores in a foreign country would be enough to get him to resign and I don't believe what has been talked about is a crime.

Well, hiring hookers actually is a crime inside most of the US, but I honestly don't think that Trump would be impeached for a fetish even if he did it in the oval office, on top of the Resolute desk, on national television during a live episode of The Apprentice: Presidential Aid Edition.

That said, this is still fake news, and getting faker by the minute...

Quote
The salacious innuendoes in the periodic reports about Trump’s personal life dominated social media headlines. The mention of Webzilla and Gubarev was among the more specific allegations: that XBT and affiliates “had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.”

Gubarev said he operated 75,000 servers across the globe and got real-time information if there had been hacking or illicit activity tied to his businesses. There is no evidence of that, he said, adding that no one has contacted him.

“I have a physical office in Dallas. Nobody contacted me,” said Gubarev, adding that 40 percent of his business is handled over the servers it runs in Dallas and the United States accounts for about 27 percent of his global business.[/quote

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article125910774.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 11, 2017, 09:17:56 PM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 11, 2017, 10:15:12 PM
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.

The same orgs giving Buzzfeed heat had no problem posting unverified info about HRC. Funny how they clutch their pearls now...

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 11, 2017, 10:40:31 PM
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.

The same orgs giving Buzzfeed heat had no problem posting unverified info about HRC. Funny how they clutch their pearls now...

Yep. Its call hypocrisy and both sides are extremely guilty of this. There are no saints. This is why loyalty to a party or a candidate is pointless.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 11, 2017, 10:54:44 PM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 10:57:21 PM


(http://www.strike-the-root.com/sites/default/files/russians_pooped.jpg)

http://www.strike-the-root.com/did-russians-poop-in-hallway
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: minimalistgamer on January 12, 2017, 05:22:12 AM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.

CNN and MSNBC were terrible leading up to the election. Do you remember Van Jones saying this election result was a whitelash? To me that is an incredibly racist thing to say. Keep in mind, a lot of people that voted Democrat in previous elections, voted Republican this time around. Feel free to disagree with me about how good or bad CNN  is. Bottomline is, I lost respect for it. Just like I lost respect for Fox during the Bush era.

And who could forget the smug Rachel Maddow...my god she is the definition of partisan reporting. How they think they are different or better than Fox, I do not know.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 12, 2017, 05:50:24 AM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.

CNN and MSNBC were terrible leading up to the election. Do you remember Van Jones saying this election result was a whitelash? To me that is an incredibly racist thing to say. Keep in mind, a lot of people that voted Democrat in previous elections, voted Republican this time around. Feel free to disagree with me about how good or bad CNN  is. Bottomline is, I lost respect for it. Just like I lost respect for Fox during the Bush era.

And who could forget the smug Rachel Maddow...my god she is the definition of partisan reporting. How they think they are different or better than Fox, I do not know.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment on Jones. Heck he has publicly chided liberal elitist and says both parties have major faults. And he has a bit of a history of saying things "off the cuff." So I have no argument there. But someone voicing an opinion about an election result isn't fake news.  Bretibart publishes actual fake news stories. Like a story a few days ago claiming President Obama awarded himself the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service. Umm no the DOD nominated him and the SecDef approved it. Heck Snopes has a page dedicated to dispelling Breitbart's stories. Sometimes they do get parts of them correct.

To CNN's credit they refused to publish the "Pissgate" story because it could not be verified.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 12, 2017, 06:00:33 AM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.

This seems interesting. You're attempting to scold someone for allegedly believing "fake news" while using a source with zero credibility who's attempting to convince you they created the story and fed it to some guy named Rick Wilson which was easily disprovable. So you're in essence using actual fake news to try and discredit unverifiable fake news. That's an odd twist, to put I mildly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on January 12, 2017, 06:48:49 AM

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.

This seems interesting. You're attempting to scold someone for allegedly believing "fake news" while using a source with zero credibility who's attempting to convince you they created the story and fed it to some guy named Rick Wilson which was easily disprovable. So you're in essence using actual fake news to try and discredit unverifiable fake news. That's an odd twist, to put I mildly.
The BBC are reporting that the author of the dossier is a respected former MI6 man, named as Christopher Steele, who had postings in Moscow and has sources in the FSB.  He is now a director of Orbis Business Intelligence - https://orbisbi.com/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 07:29:23 AM
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

Huh. That's funny. Someone must have deleted the part of my post where I said that.

/sarcasm

You do know that Trump supporters disproportionately consumed "news" that is actually fake, don't you? As in written with the knowledge that it is not true? And that leading up to the election, the consumption of such news rose significantly?

"Biased" news sources are one thing. Literal lies published with full knowledge that they are not true is quite another. And Trump himself knows how powerful and important inventing news out of whole cloth is to controlling the opinion of his supporters. We know this because he has chosen Steve Bannon, former head of Breitbart (one of the original purveyors of modern fake news) as his chief strategist.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 03:57:36 PM
During an anti-Russia House speech on Thursday by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), C-SPAN was knocked off the air by Russia Today, an English-language network run by the Russian government.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/c-span-broadcast-of-anti-russia-speech-by-dem-congresswoman-knocked-off-the-air-and-replaced-by-russian-state-tv/

United States of Russia, indeed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 12, 2017, 04:09:39 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 12, 2017, 04:11:25 PM
Sounds like more hacktavists... that pretty bad. I can only really interpret that kind of behavior as chaotic. Its seems those kind of hacks could only serve to turn American's more against Russia. Or maybe someone is hoping it will further polarize the right and left.

Another few years of stuff like this and I would imagine most Americans would be ready to completely shit on Russia at every turn and shun their government and any form of cooperation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 12, 2017, 04:22:16 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

Good questions. I get the feeling from many anti Clinton people that they felt her behavior  was a illegal and smoking gun for her being 100% corrupt.

I personally like you found the emails to be mostly benign insider deals, back scratching and basically all the stuff we assume the DNC and RNC were doing anyway.

I also think the to me saying an election was hacked means "they hacked votes". That would clearly be a terrible circumstance demanding a remedy.

A foreign country running a smear campaign  based on real document leaks and disinformation on the internet is a far less tangible crime. I don't like it and I think we should fight that behavior by foreign states. But I don't think it is necessarily wise to inflame anger and destabilize our own government as part of the process to combat this behavior. At least part of the motivation for spending so much time talking about this "hacking" is certainly to either destabilize or box in the Trump administration with regards to his policies on Russia.

The way this is being handled is certainly in part political but I am not sure entirely what consequence the intelligence community and the DNC are hoping for.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: kayvent on January 12, 2017, 04:25:56 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.

For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.

At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 12, 2017, 04:27:44 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

Good questions. I get the feeling from many anti Clinton people that they felt her behavior  was a illegal and smoking gun for her being 100% corrupt.

I personally like you found the emails to be mostly benign insider deals, back scratching and basically all the stuff we assume the DNC and RNC were doing anyway.

I also think the to me saying an election was hacked means "they hacked votes". That would clearly be a terrible circumstance demanding a remedy.

A foreign country running a smear campaign  based on real document leaks and disinformation on the internet is a far less tangible crime. I don't like it and I think we should fight that behavior by foreign states. But I don't think it is necessarily wise to inflame anger and destabilize our own government as part of the process to combat this behavior. At least part of the motivation for spending so much time talking about this "hacking" is certainly to either destabilize or box in the Trump administration with regards to his policies on Russia.

The way this is being handled is certainly in part political but I am not sure entirely what consequence the intelligence community and the DNC are hoping for.

Hacking the actual voting machines would be very difficult. They would have to individually targeted, and the hackers would leave many foot prints.

Russia may have well run had an information operation to help Trump. But proving that got Trump elected would be difficult to do, which is why it's more plausible.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 12, 2017, 04:30:27 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.

For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.

At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.

Possibly. Russia may have run had an information warfare operation going on. But that's a lot different from "hacking."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on January 12, 2017, 05:09:31 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.

For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.

At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
And I have a tough time getting mad at Russia for exposing the bad behavior of the Democrats. "They tilted the election by exposing our efforts to tilt the election" is pretty sad and laughable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 05:31:50 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 12, 2017, 05:37:55 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J

That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 05:38:44 PM
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.

First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.

Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.

Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.

There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.

For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.

At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
And I have a tough time getting mad at Russia for exposing the bad behavior of the Democrats. "They tilted the election by exposing our efforts to tilt the election" is pretty sad and laughable.

It's also a straw man conservatives are already clinging to as they miss what is actually troubling about all of this, which has been discussed in some detail.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 05:40:21 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J

That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.

To repeat myself two posts in a row, no one here is claiming Russia "hacked" the election in the way you seem to mean it. There are plenty of other things to be disturbed about.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 05:45:36 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J

That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.

To repeat myself two posts in a row, no one here is claiming Russia "hacked" the election in the way you seem to mean it. There are plenty of other things to be disturbed about.

I'm pretty disturbed by how many conservatives are very untroubled by this Russian involvement precisely because they're happy it hurt HRC. It's depressing as hell that as long as the involvement helped tilt things their way, it's not a problem for them. As though it's not possible for them to see the larger picture, somehow. It really makes me shake my head.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 12, 2017, 05:55:35 PM
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J

That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.

To repeat myself two posts in a row, no one here is claiming Russia "hacked" the election in the way you seem to mean it. There are plenty of other things to be disturbed about.

I'm pretty disturbed by how many conservatives are very untroubled by this Russian involvement precisely because they're happy it hurt HRC. It's depressing as hell that as long as the involvement helped tilt things their way, it's not a problem for them. As though it's not possible for them to see the larger picture, somehow. It really makes me shake my head.

Conservatives may not be troubled because there have been nothing but allegations so far. No evidence, just conjecture on the part of intelligence agencies.

Part of the problem is that anything the Russian did appears to ephemeral and unquantifiable. We can't really measure how much a possible information/disinformation campaign helped Trump or hurt Hillary, or point to anything really. There isn't a legal basis for doing much about it either.

If Russia had attacked one of our carrier groups, or massively hacked our voting machines, we could clearly point to something and respond, but not so much with this.

It wouldn't be the first time Russia used information warfare against us. The USSR's propaganda strategy abroad took advantage of our open society to further their agenda all the time.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 06:05:15 PM
Conservatives may not be troubled because there have been nothing but allegations so far. No evidence, just conjecture on the part of intelligence agencies.

Part of the problem is that anything the Russian did appears to ephemeral and unquantifiable. We can't really measure how much a possible information/disinformation campaign helped Trump or hurt Hillary, or point to anything really. There isn't a legal basis for doing much about it either.

If Russia had attacked one of our carrier groups, or massively hacked our voting machines, we could clearly point to something and respond, but not so much with this.

It wouldn't be the first time Russia used information warfare against us. The USSR's propaganda strategy abroad took advantage of our open society to further their agenda all the time.

I mean, we addressed all of these points already, and raised a number of others that are seriously concerning, including some that have effectively nothing to do with Russia and entirely to do with Trump's handling of the situation. It doesn't matter that we can't quantify whether this actually influenced the election. If you don't understand why, there are 5 pages of discussion that can help clarify.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 12, 2017, 06:16:12 PM


I'm pretty disturbed by how many conservatives are very untroubled by this Russian involvement precisely because they're happy it hurt HRC. It's depressing as hell that as long as the involvement helped tilt things their way, it's not a problem for them. As though it's not possible for them to see the larger picture, somehow. It really makes me shake my head.

I wouldn't agree with "untroubled", more like "tempered".  Still, the truth comes out little by little, eventually.  You might find that even you have changed your position on this matter in a year or so.  Personally, I'd be shocked to find out that there are actual intelligence agencies in this world that have not attempted to influence elections in other countries in a similar manner.  It says more to me about the quality of online security for our government and sort-of government institutions than it says about the motives or moral codes of the Russian government.  And I'm still not convinced that the Russians actually did the release, even if it was in their interest to do so.  There really wasn't any way for them to know that releasing the info would swing the election, and keeping the info under wraps makes it more useful to undermine a Clinton presidency later on.  Can you imagine what would have happened, if Wikileaks had released this data dump after the election?  Not only would there have been a crap load of upset conservatives, there would also have been a crap-load of upset Bernie Sanders supporters.  That might have resulted in the first impeachment of a president-elect.  Or worse.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 12, 2017, 06:21:05 PM
Conservatives may not be troubled because there have been nothing but allegations so far. No evidence, just conjecture on the part of intelligence agencies.

Part of the problem is that anything the Russian did appears to ephemeral and unquantifiable. We can't really measure how much a possible information/disinformation campaign helped Trump or hurt Hillary, or point to anything really. There isn't a legal basis for doing much about it either.

If Russia had attacked one of our carrier groups, or massively hacked our voting machines, we could clearly point to something and respond, but not so much with this.

It wouldn't be the first time Russia used information warfare against us. The USSR's propaganda strategy abroad took advantage of our open society to further their agenda all the time.

I mean, we addressed all of these points already, and raised a number of others that are seriously concerning, including some that have effectively nothing to do with Russia and entirely to do with Trump's handling of the situation. It doesn't matter that we can't quantify whether this actually influenced the election. If you don't understand why, there are 5 pages of discussion that can help clarify.

I read through the 5 pages.

What I don't see is that 5 pages is the "so what"? of this all. In an open society like ours with freedom of speech and press, how do you prevent a foreign power from disseminating information/disinformation especially if they do it from with in their own borders?

So assuming the allegations are true, what do you want? Another election? More sanctions against Russia? War? Trump to step down?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 06:35:43 PM
I read through the 5 pages.

What I don't see is that 5 pages is the "so what"? of this all. In an open society like ours with freedom of speech and press, how do you prevent a foreign power from disseminating information/disinformation especially if they do it from with in their own borders?

So assuming the allegations are true, what do you want? Another election? More sanctions against Russia? War? Trump to step down?

I mean, if you really read all 5 pages, you skimmed a lot if you don't think those were also addressed. The point of this is not about figuring out ways to stop them from doing this (although we should try our best, obviously). Also, the "allegations" (regarding election meddling) are true--that's pretty indisputable at this point barring an amazingly coordinated conspiracy between over a dozen agencies that any government worker can tell you typically do not collaborate well. And frankly if they were going to bother, I think they would manufacture a much better bombshell than this. Whether the Trump camp colluded with Russia remains less substantiated although there is troubling circumstantial evidence that I truly hope doesn't pan out. I would prefer not to be alive to witness the fallout from the first outright traitorous president in US history. For now I'm going to presume that particular angle is overblown.

Regardless, that is largely beside the point. As for your question of what I want, Obama's response seemed reasonably good. We want to discourage nations from going too far in this inevitable meddling, just as with the China hacking thing a while back. When other countries mess with us, the response is not to call their president smart and/or deny that they actually messed with us. The response I expect of my leader is to stand up to them and enact carefully considered consequences (never war, which is always the worst option). Do you really want the leader of the free world to be a spineless bootlicker? I thought you conservatives valued strength in your leadership.

ETA - Finally, as I've said what must have been a dozen times by now, none of this would require Trump to step down. This is why I question whether you read the thread.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 12, 2017, 07:11:52 PM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 12, 2017, 08:37:43 PM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

Huh? If he had done it before the election that would have had every Republican crying to high heaven about how he was trying to influence it himself. I am struggling to see your logic here that his approach was somehow more political.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 13, 2017, 06:12:27 AM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

This is pretty far from the mark.  He addressed the issue privately with Putin before the election.  If he had done anything else prior (like most of his advisors suggested) it would be instantly viewed as an attempt to influence the election for Hillary.  He specifically waited until after the election so there could be no accusations of him trying to sway the election.  But then again he is Obama, so there literally is no correct course of action from the POV of the R's
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 13, 2017, 09:55:46 AM
I read through the 5 pages.

What I don't see is that 5 pages is the "so what"? of this all. In an open society like ours with freedom of speech and press, how do you prevent a foreign power from disseminating information/disinformation especially if they do it from with in their own borders?

So assuming the allegations are true, what do you want? Another election? More sanctions against Russia? War? Trump to step down?



I mean, if you really read all 5 pages, you skimmed a lot if you don't think those were also addressed. The point of this is not about figuring out ways to stop them from doing this (although we should try our best, obviously). Also, the "allegations" (regarding election meddling) are true--that's pretty indisputable at this point barring an amazingly coordinated conspiracy between over a dozen agencies that any government worker can tell you typically do not collaborate well. And frankly if they were going to bother, I think they would manufacture a much better bombshell than this. Whether the Trump camp colluded with Russia remains less substantiated although there is troubling circumstantial evidence that I truly hope doesn't pan out. I would prefer not to be alive to witness the fallout from the first outright traitorous president in US history. For now I'm going to presume that particular angle is overblown.

Regardless, that is largely beside the point. As for your question of what I want, Obama's response seemed reasonably good. We want to discourage nations from going too far in this inevitable meddling, just as with the China hacking thing a while back. When other countries mess with us, the response is not to call their president smart and/or deny that they actually messed with us. The response I expect of my leader is to stand up to them and enact carefully considered consequences (never war, which is always the worst option). Do you really want the leader of the free world to be a spineless bootlicker? I thought you conservatives valued strength in your leadership.

ETA - Finally, as I've said what must have been a dozen times by now, none of this would require Trump to step down. This is why I question whether you read the thread.

The media want something on Trump, I don't think there's any doubt about that. Trump hasn't exactly played nice with them so them gunning for him is understandable.

If he acknowledged Russian meddling, that would taint him before he even took office, giving his political opponents a huge stick to hit him with. I can see why that's off the table for him. These are frickin' politicians we're talking about here.

I reviewed the pages again to see if this point had been made and I did not see it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on January 13, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
Remember when it was a big deal for a presidential candidate to have tried marijuana when they were in college?

Trump's responses to the Russian hacking scandal have weakened him in my eyes. If he had stood up and said this isn't acceptable no matter who was elected - I would have been more impressed. Instead he seems whiny to me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 13, 2017, 11:20:28 AM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

Huh? If he had done it before the election that would have had every Republican crying to high heaven about how he was trying to influence it himself. I am struggling to see your logic here that his approach was somehow more political.

And to do something, or wait to something, that is the correct course of action purely because political opponents will whine about it is just about the definition of political motivation. The proper time to point out interference is not after your side has lost, but even before the event is over, even if your side is winning.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 13, 2017, 01:07:09 PM
The media want something on Trump, I don't think there's any doubt about that. Trump hasn't exactly played nice with them so them gunning for him is understandable.

If he acknowledged Russian meddling, that would taint him before he even took office, giving his political opponents a huge stick to hit him with. I can see why that's off the table for him. These are frickin' politicians we're talking about here.

I reviewed the pages again to see if this point had been made and I did not see it.

*boggle*

I and others explicitly addressed this multiple times. Again - if he acted presidential for once, he could easily acknowledge it without tainting the legitimacy of his presidency. It's simple. Ignore that aspect of the problem (he's good at ignoring things, plus it really is arguable whether this actually swung the election) while condemning Russia's actions as unacceptable. BAM, strong leadership. Instead, he continues to look like a weak-kneed, thin-skinned coward who has no problem with other countries meddling in our affairs as long as it helps him and/or hurts his opponents. Pathetic, really. Like I said, at least you used to be able to count on Republicans to offer candidates with a backbone.

Plus even he now has acknowledged that they "probably" did some stuff, but that it doesn't matter because his landslide victory was so yuge. Or something.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on January 13, 2017, 03:49:17 PM
Cartoon in today's The Times
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 03:51:03 PM
Cartoon in today's The Times

I actually imagined the relationship the other way around, with Putin as the pampered cat.  But more like it was in Dune.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 13, 2017, 11:04:59 PM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

This is pretty far from the mark.  He addressed the issue privately with Putin before the election.  If he had done anything else prior (like most of his advisors suggested) it would be instantly viewed as an attempt to influence the election for Hillary.  He specifically waited until after the election so there could be no accusations of him trying to sway the election.  But then again he is Obama, so there literally is no correct course of action from the POV of the R's

Umm... he campaigned relentlessly for Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure how much more he could have tried to get her elected. It's not as if he was trying to appear impartial to who won, or that this information was so secret it couldn't be released. It was held back strictly for political theater; though this is consistent with much of his presidency, I'm still disappointed. It's likely all of his advisors were telling him to allow this information to be released because it would have been the right thing to do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 14, 2017, 12:21:28 AM
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.

This is pretty far from the mark.  He addressed the issue privately with Putin before the election.  If he had done anything else prior (like most of his advisors suggested) it would be instantly viewed as an attempt to influence the election for Hillary.  He specifically waited until after the election so there could be no accusations of him trying to sway the election.  But then again he is Obama, so there literally is no correct course of action from the POV of the R's

Umm... he campaigned relentlessly for Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure how much more he could have tried to get her elected. It's not as if he was trying to appear impartial to who won, or that this information was so secret it couldn't be released. It was held back strictly for political theater; though this is consistent with much of his presidency, I'm still disappointed. It's likely all of his advisors were telling him to allow this information to be released because it would have been the right thing to do.

I still fail to see your reasoning here. If Obama pushed forward with this info earlier, there is a relatively good chance Trump would have sunk with it, especially if its release was timed just right. That President Obama would wait until after the election to release info that very obviously would have helped HRC could somehow be seen as "political theater" really makes no sense whatsoever to me. Perhaps you could expand on why you think this timing fits that narrative more than any other?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 14, 2017, 12:43:36 AM
I still fail to see your reasoning here. If Obama pushed forward with this info earlier, there is a relatively good chance Trump would have sunk with it, especially if its release was timed just right. That President Obama would wait until after the election to release info that very obviously would have helped HRC could somehow be seen as "political theater" really makes no sense whatsoever to me. Perhaps you could expand on why you think this timing fits that narrative more than any other?

The release was timed to avoid complaints from a major political party. How is this not a strictly political reasoning?

Would releasing the information that showed there was concerted effort by Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election through hacking and fake news funding been political if released before the election? Sure - but it would have given the voting public a fuller knowledge of the issues raised from said hacks, and would have been much less politically motivated than keeping it a secret (you know, in the most transparent administration) purely to avoid having political opponents use the information against the candidate one supports.

While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.

Hopefully this expounded upon the reasoning.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 14, 2017, 09:50:42 AM
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.

Are you suggesting that Obama promoted a politically motivated cover-up to help Donald Trump? 

That's a new one.  People hate him for lots of reasons, but "he's secretly a Republican" isn't usually on the list.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on January 14, 2017, 10:58:56 AM
Yeah I still don't get it, but I do agree that I wish he had done so earlier. In other news, we now have conservative icon Bill Kristol tweeting this:

"It's telling, I'm afraid, that Donald Trump treats Vladimir Putin with more respect than he does John Lewis."

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on January 14, 2017, 12:06:31 PM
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.

Are you suggesting that Obama promoted a politically motivated cover-up to help Donald Trump? 

That's a new one.  People hate him for lots of reasons, but "he's secretly a Republican" isn't usually on the list.

Yeah.  I love an appropriately deployed "thanks, Obama" just like the next guy, but blaming Obama for this is missing the forest for the trees.  Shouldn't we spend most of our outrage on the one who is colluding with Putin? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 14, 2017, 01:56:19 PM
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.

Are you suggesting that Obama promoted a politically motivated cover-up to help Donald Trump? 

That's a new one.  People hate him for lots of reasons, but "he's secretly a Republican" isn't usually on the list.

You are clearly misunderstanding.  The fact that withholding this information helped Trump was not the reason it was withheld, merely a predictable side effect. Do you not agree this information should have been released earlier, and that it was not released at a more appropriate time purely to avoid political ramifications?

If you disagree that it should have been relaesed earlier, that is fine, but unless the reasoning is something other than  "because Trump could have used it to attack Obama" than you are still agreeing with my overall premise.

If one agrees it should have been released earlier, they also must agree that it wasnt released for political reasons (as admited by the current administration) and thus basically agree with my premise as well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 13, 2017, 12:46:55 PM
Hey looky here. To the surprise of no one, it seems Flynn was talking to the Russians about lifting sanctions before he should have after all. But I'm sure he was totally acting on his own and in no way coordinating with anyone else within the Trump camp, so thank goodness for that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on February 13, 2017, 07:53:36 PM
And they've corroborated some parts of that dossier...I'm still waiting to see when this finally blows up.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on February 13, 2017, 09:46:03 PM
Great balls of fire!!  I just heard Flynn resigned. Is it true?!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 13, 2017, 09:51:37 PM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: tavore on February 13, 2017, 09:56:46 PM
So now we know how bad it needs to be for any of the swamp creatures to resign/get-thrown-under-the-bus. The next question - who knew what and when?

What makes me mad is that if there was even a whiff of impropriety on the part of the Democrats, Republicans would howl bloody murder, and the Dems would cave in. About time the party developed a spine.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 13, 2017, 11:28:51 PM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.

What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 14, 2017, 04:22:56 AM
It's looking more and more as though Melania made the right decision: no point disrupting your son's education because his father has a short-term work assignment.

At this stage I'd be tempted to put money on Trump being imprisoned, bankrupted and divorced before his 4 years are up.  Field is wide open on the nature of the criminal charges.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on February 14, 2017, 05:31:14 AM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.

What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.

Me, too.  This is treason, and I want to know who else on the trump campaign has been committing treason, up to and including trump himself.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 14, 2017, 07:24:50 AM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.

What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
And why is he being allowed to resign instead of being charged with treason?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 14, 2017, 07:32:14 AM
Yep, he "resigned."

The wheels have started to come off.

What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
And why is he being allowed to resign instead of being charged with treason?
His resignation doesn't prevent a charge of treason.  Who would be the prosecuting authority, and can the recorded phone conversations be admitted as evidence?

Also, if Flynn is guilty of treason, the next question is: were there co-conspirators (I'm guessing yes, from what he has said about taking the fall on it) and what proof is there against them?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scantee on February 14, 2017, 08:43:51 AM
None of Flynn's wrong-doings will have much political impact until congressional Republicans decide to turn on Trump. Right now, they are mostly holding steady in their nothing-to-see-here approach, but cracks are starting to show in the facade. Yesterday Paul Ryan  stated that people (whoever could this be?) who are extremely careless with classified info should be denied access to it, presumably in response to Trump's flagrant open-air national security dealings at Mar-a-Lago.

When will they turn on Trump? My guess is that they are waiting for the mountain of evidence of collusion with Russia to build and turn from circumstantial to confirmed. Most Republicans are smart enough to know that they do NOT want to go down in history as patsies in a cover-up of a foreign governments' intrusion in the US, and that's where this train is headed, so we know they'll need to get off this ride eventually.

Flynn was the first instance of confirmed collusion, more will certainly come. When hard proof drops that Trump knew and was involved -- and, at this point, it seems impossible that he didn't know (and if he truly didn't know that is a problem in its own right) -- they'll turn on him quickly, and en masse.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 14, 2017, 12:31:45 PM
I think Paul Manafort was the first case of confirmed collusion.

Remember back when republicans pretended to be outraged by perceived mishandling of classified information?  Trump just had a top secret diplomatic meeting in a public place, and his national security advisor committed treason and then lied to the administration about it.

This whole thing shades of Watergate and Iran-Contra.  What is it about republican administrations that causes them to so flagrantly break the law in pursuit of more executive power?  Why do people who profess patriotism so actively undermine American ideals?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 14, 2017, 02:49:25 PM
Per CNN, a short summary of what is known so far:

WHAT WE KNOW:

Trump knew Flynn misled officials on Russia calls "for weeks," White House says.
There are now bipartisan calls for an investigation into Flynn.
Press Secretary Sean Spicer says Trump asked for Flynn's resignation. Kellyanne Conway said it was Flynn who decided to resign.


He knew for weeks and was waiting for...what? For Flynn to get busted by the press, I guess? The two major mouthpieces diverge on whether he was fired or left on his own. Cracks upon cracks.

My favorite response was when Trump and friends tried to pivot into complaining about the leaks as if we should be shocked and horrified by them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on February 14, 2017, 03:03:52 PM
I will say it until I am blue in the face, if you voted for Trump almost entirely on the fact that you felt Clinton was irresponsible and dangerous based on her past behavior. And that Trump was better because he has clean political record. Then you were being ridiculous.

Trump and many of his merry band have given every indications both past and present that they would be every bit as shitty or worse than anything the Clinton's have been willing to do in reality or in the tabloids.

From day -365 he has been a cesspool of lies and conflicts of interest but I guess since he is not a politician its all good.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on February 14, 2017, 03:25:49 PM
One thing that may sway Trump supporters on this issue:

Russia is tight with Iran, and one of the big swirling questions is how much of our intelligence is ending up in Putin's hands via one or more compromised individuals in the WH.  Once with Putin, there is a high likelihood that some of that info ends up in Iran.  Given how ginned up the right wing is against Iran, I can't imagine that they'd be OK with our secrets being diverted to ayatollahs.  or maybe I'm a zillion steps behind the Bannons of the world, and he is hoping for exactly this to trigger a war?  I can't understand it, but the right wing does seem anxious for an Iran war to happen.  It would benefit Russia as well by driving up oil prices.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on February 14, 2017, 05:17:34 PM
I'm not sure I understand the seriousness of the situation.

Flynn, a civilian at the time spoke to Russian ambassador about sanctions.

Apparently it is illegal to do so as a civilian. As prepping for the job, isn't this understandable though?

The conversation led to Putin ultimately not expelling diplomats, and kinda preserved decent diplomatic ties. Is this not desirable?

Apparently he lies to Pence, leading to Pence telling press nothing was discussed regarding sanctions.

What difference does it make really?

Am I missing something? Is there some sort of lynchpin that ties it all together?  Perhaps I'm used to public officials getting away with at worse, but this seems pretty minor.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 14, 2017, 05:20:04 PM
I'm not sure I understand the seriousness of the situation.

Flynn, a civilian at the time spoke to Russian ambassador about sanctions.

Apparently it is illegal to do so as a civilian. As prepping for the job, isn't this understandable though?

The conversation led to Putin ultimately not expelling diplomats, and kinda preserved decent diplomatic ties. Is this not desirable?

Apparently he lies to Pence, leading to Pence telling press nothing was discussed regarding sanctions.

What difference does it make really?

Am I missing something? Is there some sort of lynchpin that ties it all together?  Perhaps I'm used to public officials getting away with at worse, but this seems pretty minor.

You think negotiating away a policy stance of the sitting government while you are a private citizen is minor? Yes, I think you are missing something.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 14, 2017, 05:40:34 PM
I think Paul Manafort was the first case of confirmed collusion.

Remember back when republicans pretended to be outraged by perceived mishandling of classified information?  Trump just had a top secret diplomatic meeting in a public place, and his national security advisor committed treason and then lied to the administration about it.

This whole thing shades of Watergate and Iran-Contra.  What is it about republican administrations that causes them to so flagrantly break the law in pursuit of more executive power?  Why do people who profess patriotism so actively undermine American ideals?

Just to add a little fuel to the fire, here's a quote from Rand Paul, basically saying that investigations are only useful if they don't involve Republicans, or get in the way of getting rid of Obamacare.
Quote
And while several other Republican senators have called for investigation of the incident, Paul said it would not make sense to have more investigations, especially of fellow Republicans.
"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/kfile-rand-paul-republican-investigations/index.html

FFS, how can anybody take the GOP seriously at this point?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on February 15, 2017, 03:46:40 AM

You think negotiating away a policy stance of the sitting government while you are a private citizen is minor? Yes, I think you are missing something.

What do you know of Flynn's conversation and what he gave away. Go share your info with the press.

***

Surprised this didn't make it in the thread, this is pretty "holy freaking shit, Trump and our adversary Russian actually were in cahoots." This is disturbing. This needs to be broadcast through every television screen and radio:

Quote
WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials

Quote
The call logs and intercepted communications are part of a larger trove of information that the F.B.I. is sifting through as it investigates the links between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russian government, as well as the hacking of the D.N.C., according to federal law enforcement officials. As part of its inquiry, the F.B.I. has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews, the officials said.

Quote
The White House also declined to comment Tuesday night, but earlier in the day, the press secretary, Sean Spicer, stood by Mr. Trump’s previous comments that nobody from his campaign had contact with Russian officials before the election.

In other words, "in our alternate fact based universe, nothing happened."

Bonus quote from Manafort:

Quote
“It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 06:00:43 AM
That last Manafort quote was absolutely infuriating. Translation: We can't be expected to consider the possibility that not everyone from Russia is telling us the complete truth when they talk to us.

Holy fucking shit, dude.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 15, 2017, 07:08:33 AM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 08:09:48 AM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!

He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2017, 08:10:17 AM
They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him.

I appreciate the optimism inherent in your assumption that this wasn't part of Trump's plan all along.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 09:16:08 AM
By the way, here's a timeline that the NYT put together, of what we know right now.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/14/us/politics/flynn-call-russia-timeline.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 09:57:21 AM

You think negotiating away a policy stance of the sitting government while you are a private citizen is minor? Yes, I think you are missing something.

What do you know of Flynn's conversation and what he gave away. Go share your info with the press.

OK you're right I overstated what we definitively know. Doesn't change the fact that it's most certainly a big deal for a citizen with a different agenda than the sitting government, and without any approval whatsoever from them, to officially discuss policy with foreign governments, especially when it's something like sanctions. But as you say, it's merely the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Unique User on February 15, 2017, 12:53:00 PM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!

He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.

I'd bet money also.  Wondering how long it will take for a story will break on the $19B Rosneft deal and how Trump has his hands all over it. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 15, 2017, 01:16:01 PM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!

He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.

I'd bet money also.  Wondering how long it will take for a story will break on the $19B Rosneft deal and how Trump has his hands all over it.

The Rosneft deal is explicitly mentioned in the Steele Dossier.  As is the Flynn conversation.  In addition, the Russian source of the dossier is dead.  And Steele is still in hiding.  It was widely panned as "fake news" at the time, due to incredible cognitive dissonance of Trump voters at the time.  When will the Trump voters stand up and realize that they elected someone who conspired with Russia to win the Presidency?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fates-of-5-men-connected-to-the-trump-russia-dossier_us_589f5472e4b080bf74f03cd6

Never. I still see folks saying "Well at least we don't have Hillary...." The idiot could start a nuclear war with millions dying and they would still be clinging to the "At least it's not Hillary...."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on February 15, 2017, 01:26:29 PM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 01:33:41 PM
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.

They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.

Make America Russia Great Again!

He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.

I'd bet money also.  Wondering how long it will take for a story will break on the $19B Rosneft deal and how Trump has his hands all over it.

The Rosneft deal is explicitly mentioned in the Steele Dossier.  As is the Flynn conversation.  In addition, the Russian source of the dossier is dead.  And Steele is still in hiding.  It was widely panned as "fake news" at the time, due to incredible cognitive dissonance of Trump voters at the time.  When will the Trump voters stand up and realize that they elected someone who conspired with Russia to win the Presidency?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fates-of-5-men-connected-to-the-trump-russia-dossier_us_589f5472e4b080bf74f03cd6

They will not. The "news" sources they consume will never tell them this -- or else, will couch it as a liberal conspiracy. They will not hear it and understand how absolutely mind-boggling this is. They've been conditioned not to.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Unique User on February 15, 2017, 02:12:39 PM
Another claim in the Steele Dossier comes true.  I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Dossier is true folks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/02/15/mattis-trumps-defense-secretary-issues-ultimatum-to-nato-allies-on-defense-spending/?utm_term=.604ebf6b3dea

Is there anywhere that summarizes the key points in the Dossier?  I want to be able to call my senators and rep on this, one of my senators is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 03:02:52 PM
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 15, 2017, 03:12:20 PM
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.

It makes sense for the GOP to shield Pence as much as possible, in case they do have to remove Trump.  Pence himself is of course fantasizing about this outcome.

It's an interesting narrative, being the mirror image of what happened with Nixon and Agnew in 1973, where Agnew went down to protect the president.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 03:16:55 PM
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.

It makes sense for the GOP to shield Pence as much as possible, in case they do have to remove Trump.  Pence himself is of course fantasizing about this outcome.

It's an interesting narrative, being the mirror image of what happened with Nixon and Agnew in 1973, where Agnew went down to protect the president.

Yup. I have this constant image of Mike Pence riding a roller-coaster, white-knuckling the whole thing, just waiting for it to stop and hoping he'll still be in the car when it does.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 15, 2017, 11:34:37 PM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.

I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 11:54:04 PM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.

I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.

I don't think anyone worrying about nuclear war is worrying about it happening with Russia. Trump loves Russia, why would he go to war with them? I also think most would agree with your latter supposition.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 16, 2017, 05:12:30 AM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.

I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.

Umm nuclear was brought up as an example of the willingness of how far Trump's die hard supporters would go to continue deflecting to Hillary. I don't think there was a question anywhere about starting nuclear war or a suggestion Trump was going to start a nuclear war.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2017, 07:03:18 AM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.

I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.

Umm nuclear was brought up as an example of the willingness of how far Trump's die hard supporters would go to continue deflecting to Hillary. I don't think there was a question anywhere about starting nuclear war or a suggestion Trump was going to start a nuclear war.

I do see Trump's policy as a nuclear threat, albeit a delayed one.

Capitulating over and over will keep Russia happy, absolutely.  The threat happens if they get used to America doing this, and then either this or a different administration at some point decides to stand up to them.  The greater that Russia's reach and power becomes, the greater the chance that the US will feel the need to stand up to them . . . and the greater the risk of nuclear conflict in my opinion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 16, 2017, 08:37:36 AM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on February 16, 2017, 09:50:30 AM
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no?  Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?

But Trump could nuke Iran. I doubt we'd ever go to war directly with Russia especially with Trump's connections there. I could see a proxy war though anywhere on the globe.

How many proxy wars has the Americans and Russians participated in at odd with each other. Meanwhile alot of people die and both super powers come away with lots of new military toys at great expense and justification to buy more war toys.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on February 16, 2017, 09:52:27 AM
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.

Th ways things are going - I might be thrilled with a President paul Ryan. (I have not voted Republican for a long, long time).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 16, 2017, 09:54:49 AM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?

Maybe it's positioning itself to get ready to take Trump back to his homeland. We can only hope.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 16, 2017, 10:06:31 AM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?

Maybe it's positioning itself to get ready to take Trump back to his homeland. We can only hope.

They were just stopping by to drop off a check for Manafort (or was it Flynn? or was it Tillerman? or was it Flynn, or was it....?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 07:45:56 PM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?

They had them off the coast while Obama was president. The last time this ship was off the coast was in 2015... So yes, people who study these things think that there would be a spy ship off the coast if Clinton were president.  People who don't know anything about international affairs with Russia may think differently. But the truth is, the Russians aren't coming.

Ignore that spy ship off the coast (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ignore-spy-ship-coast-russians-aren-t-coming-n722036)

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 07:56:55 PM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?

Maybe it's positioning itself to get ready to take Trump back to his homeland. We can only hope.
Ha. I think to get Trump back to where he fits in will take something with a lot more range than a ship...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jamesvt on February 17, 2017, 07:34:53 AM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Yes. Countries with the capability to have ISR assets active all the time. Russia has always collected on the US and will continue to regardless of who the president is. The same is true for the US. The US has had ISR assets active literally 24/7 365 for the past 50+ years. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 19, 2017, 03:35:09 PM
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Yes. Countries with the capability to have ISR assets active all the time. Russia has always collected on the US and will continue to regardless of who the president is. The same is true for the US. The US has had ISR assets active literally 24/7 365 for the past 50+ years.

I'd posit that a warship would be more likely with Clinton as president than now.  There's less urgency associated with spying on the US when you've already bought and paid for the president.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 20, 2017, 08:57:14 AM
U.S. President Donald J. Trump's statement during his press conference on the Russian ship off the U.S. coast:

    "The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great."

F'ing moron, literally NO ONE with half a brain would say that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 20, 2017, 09:09:46 AM
U.S. President Donald J. Trump's statement during his press conference on the Russian ship off the U.S. coast:

    "The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great."

F'ing moron, literally NO ONE with half a brain would say that.

Well, to be fair, a lot of his supporters probably would say that, if he told them it was great.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on February 20, 2017, 03:16:51 PM
The only other naval situations I recall reading about regularly have commonly been between China and the US in the South China sea. 30 miles out is still international waters. Being so close to the US cost is certainly provocative, but I don't believe it is uncommon for China and Russia to test our military response with each new administration to determine temperament and gauge possible responses if they were to go further.

Do military drills and flybys of our naval vessels are also a typical form of posturing which we typically respond to in kind. I am very poorly versed in the recent history of such behaviors but I would imagine this is in line with our current adversarial situation with countries like Russia. And that while we may still be far from at war with them we are in a cold war like state with them.

I would be somewhat surprised if Trump doesn't simply defer to Republicans and the generals on their responses to such encounters. If he overrules standard procedure in favor of a softer stance it could easily ratchet up the calls for investigation and impeachment over dealings between his campaign and Russia. Republicans are generally not soft when it comes to Putin's Russia our our commitment to maintaining the current world order.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 20, 2017, 08:41:22 PM
Russia is apparently compiling a psychological dossier on Trump and I presume they will test him bigly. The latest Foreign Policy article on Trump/Russia was pessimistic on the notion any great improvement could be achieved by the new administration given the antagonistic nature of each country's objectives and current facts on the ground.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on February 21, 2017, 04:24:04 PM
I am confident the Russian's more than most size up every incoming President to the highest degree possible. The Russian media campaign to pit themselves against Western powers as hero's struggling to preserve their great people is a non stop propaganda machine.

Trump playing into their propaganda is just icing on the cake and we should investigate the shit out of him as anyone who so casually flirts with their rhetoric is at best a security risks with regards to maintaining a strong opposition stance to Russia's absurd leadership.

Why any leader would be stupid enough to compare US to Russia, where literally all of their television and media are 100% state controlled is beyond me.

The only saving grace is that I know the majority of the Republican leadership and all the old generals he is appointing don't have a soft spot for Russian leadership unless a handful of them are legitimately corrupted by the Kremlin.

I make sure to say opposition to the Russian leadership, because in general even given the dire state of Russian media. Russia still has a middle class and its citizens are still often good, live well, are worldly and well informed. Though at the same time, somewhat paradoxically and mostly due to decades of propaganda, Putin is remains popular.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 22, 2017, 01:06:14 PM
U.S. President Donald J. Trump's statement during his press conference on the Russian ship off the U.S. coast:

    "The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great."

F'ing moron, literally NO ONE with half a brain would say that.

Well, to be fair, a lot of his supporters probably would say that, if he told them it was great.

Yes, that's why I put in the "with half a brain" caveat ;-)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 24, 2017, 10:51:22 PM
Trump playing into their propaganda is just icing on the cake and we should investigate the shit out of him as anyone who so casually flirts with their rhetoric is at best a security risks with regards to maintaining a strong opposition stance to Russia's absurd leadership.
Yes, thank god Trump hasn't done something that would truly play into their propaganda like "resetting their relationship with the U.S." Could you imagine how something as silly as that would appear when filtered through their media! A complete security nightmare for the entire country!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on March 02, 2017, 05:12:17 AM
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:

Quote
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”


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=.c83bd09547ed
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 02, 2017, 05:35:23 AM
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:

Quote
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification.  He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."


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=.c83bd09547ed
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on March 02, 2017, 09:39:51 AM
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:

Quote
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification.  He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."


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=.c83bd09547ed

This is correct. Sessions clearly lied to congress, even though he didn't actually have to within the confines of the question.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dogboyslim on March 02, 2017, 04:06:46 PM
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:

Quote
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification.  He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."


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=.c83bd09547ed

This is correct. Sessions clearly lied to congress, even though he didn't actually have to within the confines of the question.
I don't think you can say he clearly lied.  The question was related to the campaign, so the context of the question still has the qualifier of being related to the campaign.  Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't.  Its not clear to me.  At any rate, this story is now dead thanks to our friendly MO senator.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on March 02, 2017, 05:24:34 PM
Maybe you can sympathize with another situation:

After getting groceries-
Did you go to the store to buy booze?
No.

A loaded question like this is likely to bring a perfectly truthful answer-and a reticent attitude about offering more info than asked. Did they ask the same question regarding the other 20 or 30 countries he met with as a part of his current assignment that requires interaction with foreign countries?

It feels like a gotcha situation and is totally worthless except to score a point. He's since recused himself, smart.

Just FYI, I voted against Trump. I just recognize a weak position when I see it. If I can see the way this is playing out, the way the elites are using underhanded tactics to undermine our leader, how do ya think the rest of the country feels-ya know the ones who voted for him. It's time to let go of worthless angles and stick to the important issues. Yes, this Russia thing is serious, but can you truthfully say the administration has acted treacherously so far? It is all supposition, WEAK and will backfire.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on March 02, 2017, 05:27:27 PM
I don't think you can say he clearly lied.  The question was related to the campaign, so the context of the question still has the qualifier of being related to the campaign.  Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't.  Its not clear to me.  At any rate, this story is now dead thanks to our friendly MO senator.

Yes, the question was related to the campaign, but this is the direct quote: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.

Since he did have communications with the Russians, he was unequivocally lying. It doesn't matter what the context of the question was.

If it was a "gotcha" situation, he could easily have clarified long before now.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2017, 07:31:30 PM
Well Sessions recused himself from any investigations into Russian election interference.  If there ever is such an investigation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 03, 2017, 04:04:37 AM
According to this (segment starting at 24.40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4FfVJnAuM

1.  The FBI knew before Sessions was confirmed that he had lied on oath to Congress - because they had been investigating his contacts with Russia from before his confirmation hearings - and did not tell Congress.

2.  FBI Director Comey is refusing to co-operate with the Congress investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, and Congress are contemplating subpoenaing him.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on?  Has the FBI been compromised by the Russians?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on March 03, 2017, 05:44:13 AM
According to this (segment starting at 24.40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4FfVJnAuM

1.  The FBI knew before Sessions was confirmed that he had lied on oath to Congress - because they had been investigating his contacts with Russia from before his confirmation hearings - and did not tell Congress.

2.  FBI Director Comey is refusing to co-operate with the Congress investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, and Congress are contemplating subpoenaing him.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on?  Has the FBI been compromised by the Russians?

Trump's administration is a gigantic shit sandwich.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 03, 2017, 05:56:40 AM
According to this (segment starting at 24.40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4FfVJnAuM

1.  The FBI knew before Sessions was confirmed that he had lied on oath to Congress - because they had been investigating his contacts with Russia from before his confirmation hearings - and did not tell Congress.

2.  FBI Director Comey is refusing to co-operate with the Congress investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, and Congress are contemplating subpoenaing him.

Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on?  Has the FBI been compromised by the Russians?

Trump's administration is a gigantic shit sandwich.
To be fair (hard words to write in relation to Trump) if the FBI/Comey have been compromised then the evidence goes back into the Obama administration.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on March 03, 2017, 06:26:21 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.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 03, 2017, 09:18:23 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.

Do we actually know this? I have not seen any reporting showing the meeting schedule and if meetings with Russia are the only people they have been meeting with. Evidence shows a far greater degree of connection in the Trump admin (and prior campaign staff) than in recent precedent, but that is not to say they have not been meeting elsewhere. If that was their full meeting schedule, then it is indeed a shit sandwich. If not, then it is still damning because of the impropriety of the denials, or content of discussion (sanctions, etc).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on March 03, 2017, 09:30:48 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.

Do we actually know this? I have not seen any reporting showing the meeting schedule and if meetings with Russia are the only people they have been meeting with. Evidence shows a far greater degree of connection in the Trump admin (and prior campaign staff) than in recent precedent, but that is not to say they have not been meeting elsewhere. If that was their full meeting schedule, then it is indeed a shit sandwich. If not, then it is still damning because of the impropriety of the denials, or content of discussion (sanctions, etc).

I don't think there has been specific meeting schedule reporting.  The lack of reporting says mountains though.  Their initial defense was that the Russian meetings were getting to know you introduction things.  It would be a very supportive defense to list other countries you had similar meeting with.  *Crickets*.  Russia meetings were leaked because we do surveillance on all foreign diplomats, that includes non-Russian diplomats but no leaks about them.  No other countries have come forward and admitted to meetings with Trump officials. 

There are a lot of sources of information that could confirm if the Trump team met with other countries, since there is no confirmation, it stands to reason that those meetings did not happen.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 03, 2017, 09:43:09 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.

Do we actually know this? I have not seen any reporting showing the meeting schedule and if meetings with Russia are the only people they have been meeting with. Evidence shows a far greater degree of connection in the Trump admin (and prior campaign staff) than in recent precedent, but that is not to say they have not been meeting elsewhere. If that was their full meeting schedule, then it is indeed a shit sandwich. If not, then it is still damning because of the impropriety of the denials, or content of discussion (sanctions, etc).

I don't think there has been specific meeting schedule reporting.  The lack of reporting says mountains though.  Their initial defense was that the Russian meetings were getting to know you introduction things.  It would be a very supportive defense to list other countries you had similar meeting with.  *Crickets*.  Russia meetings were leaked because we do surveillance on all foreign diplomats, that includes non-Russian diplomats but no leaks about them.  No other countries have come forward and admitted to meetings with Trump officials. 

There are a lot of sources of information that could confirm if the Trump team met with other countries, since there is no confirmation, it stands to reason that those meetings did not happen.

I suspect that the Trump administration are not making any substantive attempt to defend because that would legitimize the allegations and attendant scrutiny.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez 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
.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol 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?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom 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?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cerat0n1a 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."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 03, 2017, 11:33:51 PM
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.  :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache 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."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol 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?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache 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.”
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache 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:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/54/71/93/54719354e086995c086014595f5bd1e2.jpg)

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on March 09, 2017, 02:35:51 PM
Congrats on the walrus.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 04:30:15 PM
It is time to talk of many things, he said. :D
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on March 20, 2017, 08:33:55 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 04:53:48 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 21, 2017, 06:40:10 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
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.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 06:57:33 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 21, 2017, 07:04:34 AM
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)
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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise 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
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown 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?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe 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. ;)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on March 27, 2017, 11:08:50 AM
And the next Republican would likely give him a pardon just like Ford did for Nixon.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle 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).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi 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

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris 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?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 04, 2017, 02:39:51 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?

LOL @ the bolded. Puh-leeze. Read a history book (pretty much any of them) if you really believe that.

But I'll spell it out (AGAIN): the issue is not that anyone is scared of Russian agents toppling the government and folding us into a renewed USSR. That is a strawman so frail it can be blown away by a mouse fart. The issue is that our president and his administration is historically dishonest and corrupt, and has repeatedly colluded with a foreign government (that just happens to be Russia, but it wouldn't matter if it were Saudi Arabia, or China, or East Timor) in order to enrich themselves and their buddies. At least that is what increasingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence seems to suggest. We need a full investigation to know for sure, of course, but brainwashed Trumpbots like yourself appear to see him as incapable of doing wrong and thus won't even think of supporting an investigation of any kind, despite the fact you are sooooo confident there is nothing here. To parrot a favorite line of folks like you: why block investigations at every turn if there is nothing to hide?

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on April 04, 2017, 02:46:14 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?
why would Russia try?
they had great allies in 'more flexible' Obama and the Clintons
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445186/left-hypocrisy-russia-partner-under-obama
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html

Really, Mrs Clinton was given 90%+ chance of winning throughout the campaign. President Hillary was de-facto. Remember? it wasn't long ago. Really think Russia would risk a massive scandal with the new Clinton administration by trying to undermine her? when they'd been such good friends, so many mutual benefits, so many years?




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.

Bold mine

But where is the logic? There is none. There would be only downside for Russia to engage in such risky behavior.
All the hoopla is inane hysteria; trying to create smoke.
Trump as Hitler meme has failed; now it's Trump as Putin. Whatever.
Russia as 'enemy #1' is 'tilting at windmills'. Russia is a convenient way to try to smear Trump.
Just more 'crying Wolf'

Obama+Clinton worked deals with Russia. Facts. If anything, if I was Putin, i'd be pulling for Clinton. A known, flexible candidate. Not the crazy Trump, no one knows what he's going to do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on April 04, 2017, 02:50:33 PM
The issue is that our president and his administration is historically dishonest and corrupt, and has repeatedly colluded with a foreign government (that just happens to be Russia, but it wouldn't matter if it were Saudi Arabia, or China, or East Timor) in order to enrich themselves and their buddies. At least that is what increasingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence seems to suggest. We need a full investigation to know for sure, of course, but brainwashed Trumpbots like yourself appear to see him as incapable of doing wrong and thus won't even think of supporting an investigation of any kind, despite the fact you are sooooo confident there is nothing here. To parrot a favorite line of folks like you: why block investigations at every turn if there is nothing to hide?
I'm sorry, were you referring to the previous O Admin, or current Trump admin? it's hard to tell...

You may attack my opinions, but do not lower yourself to attack my intelligence, or so quickly pigeon-hole me, please. Try to do better than ad hominum. Flinging mud is infantile.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 04, 2017, 04:02:38 PM
The issue is that our president and his administration is historically dishonest and corrupt, and has repeatedly colluded with a foreign government (that just happens to be Russia, but it wouldn't matter if it were Saudi Arabia, or China, or East Timor) in order to enrich themselves and their buddies. At least that is what increasingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence seems to suggest. We need a full investigation to know for sure, of course, but brainwashed Trumpbots like yourself appear to see him as incapable of doing wrong and thus won't even think of supporting an investigation of any kind, despite the fact you are sooooo confident there is nothing here. To parrot a favorite line of folks like you: why block investigations at every turn if there is nothing to hide?
I'm sorry, were you referring to the previous O Admin, or current Trump admin? it's hard to tell...

You may attack my opinions, but do not lower yourself to attack my intelligence, or so quickly pigeon-hole me, please. Try to do better than ad hominum. Flinging mud is infantile.

Apologies, I didn't realize you supported a special investigation of the Trump-Russia ties regarding possible collusion. Also, I never suggested you were unintelligent, just closed-minded and hyper partisan (edit - and ignorant of history, in the case of McCarthyism).

I personally have gladly and loudly criticized Obama, Clinton (both of them), Carter, etc., on many occasions, just as I have criticized Bush (both of them), Reagan, etc. Lots of terrible decision-making to go around in the oval office. This administration just happens to be especially (and very obviously) bad from a corruption standpoint. From a treason standpoint remains to be seen, but there is plenty of smoke here. People like you (or how you are coming across anyway) might "admit" wrongdoing on their "side," but are ever so fond of dismissing it with your own favorite fallacy: tu quoque.

Sorry if I misinterpreted, though. Please do feel free to set the record straight.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 04, 2017, 08:26:01 PM
If anything, if I was Putin, i'd be pulling for Clinton. A known, flexible candidate. Not the crazy Trump, no one knows what he's going to do.

Except that your proposition is completely false. U.S. intelligence agencies have determined with a strong degree of confidence (in intelligence circles, that's as certain as it gets) that Putin did not want H. Clinton to win, that he could not stand her, and he wanted Trump to win. Unless you believe the directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, DIA, and other intelligence agencies are all complicit in this "McCarthy conspiracy to smear Trump," in which case there is no point trying to reason with you.

Besides, not sure if you're following the actual, non-fake news, but one of the central questions of the investigation is to determine if there was a quid pro quo between Putin and Trump (there's already a whole lot of credible "smoke" that this is true, investigations will reveal if there's fire); specifically, that Putin would try to help Trump win in exchange for letting Russia essentially do what it wants in Ukraine and Crimea if Trump does win. See the "unexplained" change to the official Republican Party platform at the RNC convention last summer as just one piece of evidence, plus possible compromising information against Trump as blackmail to ensure Trump upholds his part of the bargain. If this quid pro quo exists, then Putin would not pull for Clinton (with whom he had no agreement), he would pull for Trump, see?

Also, it is important to understand that from the Kremlin's point of view, sowing discord in the U.S. government is a win, no matter the outcome of the election. On that front they've already won. Russia has a long and proud history of trying to sow chaos among adversaries. You know, it wasn't a coincidence that they chose the name "KAOS" for the evil, Russian KGB stand-in in the old "Get Smart" TV show. It is and was such an obvious trait of Russia's dealings with the world that even Hollywood television show writers made fun of it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on April 04, 2017, 10:34:47 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.

It's incredible to me that the conservative side is so tribal that they happily carry water for Russia because they perceive this stance helps Trump.  The same people who, you know, were responsible for McCarthyism, are furiously spinning happy tales of Russia Should Be Our Ally!  Honestly, imagine a Reagan-era Republican looking at this right now. I can't imagine a more wholesale defeat of conservatives and conservative ideals than Trumpism.  All that remains are the grievances.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 05, 2017, 12:06:53 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.

It's incredible to me that the conservative side is so tribal that they happily carry water for Russia because they perceive this stance helps Trump.  The same people who, you know, were responsible for McCarthyism, are furiously spinning happy tales of Russia Should Be Our Ally!  Honestly, imagine a Reagan-era Republican looking at this right now. I can't imagine a more wholesale defeat of conservatives and conservative ideals than Trumpism.  All that remains are the grievances.

So true. Hard to comprehend how the Republican party has shifted so dramatically in recent years. The recent breakdown over "repeal and replace" is just one illustration of how the party is being torn apart by the different factions.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on April 07, 2017, 01:03:25 PM
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their  cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cranberries on April 07, 2017, 01:35:13 PM
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their  cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???

Authoritarian regimes (and Trump wishes he were one) routinely switch alliances and enemies depending on political whims. They need an outside enemy to unite the populace. This is basic politics, not conspiracy. Putin may have helped get Trump elected (possibly by accident), but that says nothing about how long an alliance between the two would last.

This is why I have been extremely wary of the anti-Russia obsession on the political left. It might be true that Russia interfered. It is certainly true that several of Trump's appointments had extremely strong ties to Russia. It is definitely true that stoking xenophobia and anti-other sentiment feeds into the authoritarian's hand when they decide it is time to switch the narrative.

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 07, 2017, 01:36:09 PM
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their  cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???

I'll take your bait. I see no reason to change the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interlopers because of the recent missile strikes to Syria. You can call it "cockamamie conspiracy theories" but there's a reason investigations are being conducted by:

1. The FBI
2. The Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
3. The Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The entire intelligence community has determined Russia interfered with our electoral process and purposely spread "fake news" to aid Trump. At least 6 to 8 close Trump advisers had contacts with Russian foreign agents (Manafort, Sessions, Kushner, Page, Flynn...). Trump's friggin' National Security Advisor had to step down after only 3 weeks because of it. The RNC's official platform regarding Russia was changed because Paul Manafort and another Trump senior adviser (Carter Page?? I don't recall) insisted on it at the convention, after they met with Russian operatives. It's not like the FBI goes around opening national security investigations just because some internet troll made up a conspiracy on a website. And the Congressional investigations have been launched by the president's own party -- hardly a political witch hunt. You realize all this, right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 07, 2017, 01:40:13 PM
+1 to DoubleDown. All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 07, 2017, 01:57:03 PM
^ All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.

I know, I'm just easily baited by calls of "Bueller?? Bueller?" :-)

Plus I didn't want the Fox and Friends and Breitbart crowd to interpret silence as agreement, like we were all instantly forced back under our rocks and forced to admit how stupid we were ever to question Trump and Russian meddling in the election once we saw how Our President and Savior bravely and forcefully stood up to Syria.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on April 07, 2017, 02:10:38 PM
^ All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.

I know, I'm just easily baited by calls of "Bueller?? Bueller?" :-)

Plus I didn't want the Fox and Friends and Breitbart crowd to interpret silence as agreement, like we were all instantly forced back under our rocks and forced to admit how stupid we were ever to question Trump and Russian meddling in the election once we saw how Our President and Savior bravely and forcefully stood up to Syria.

For sure. Should have been "+1" rather than "^" Sorry for being unclear, I am totally in agreement on all fronts!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: BlueHouse on April 07, 2017, 04:18:54 PM

why would Russia try?

well, we can't fully answer that unless and until we know the full extent of Trump's business and personal dealings with foreign powers.  Releasing his tax returns would be a first step in getting more people to trust that there aren't back-channel agreements that could mean he would put his own or his family's interests ahead of the American People.

Why would he promise to release them for so long and then just go back on his word?  What is he hiding?  And I don't ask that from the standpoint of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".  No, this man has more financial entanglements than any other official in the history of our government.  And he's a liar.  Proven repeatedly.  So we really need to verify these financial commitments that he has. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 08, 2017, 07:38:01 AM
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their  cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???

"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on April 10, 2017, 11:08:21 AM
Thanks for posting the Uranium deal links acroy. I guess all of our politicians are on the take.... Anybody flipping their lids over Trumputin romance should take a read of that NYT article-would Clinton be any less entangled? Pretty freaking depressing. Our leaders are globalist, jet setting, self enriching liars.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on April 10, 2017, 02:31:33 PM
I saw this article some time ago... http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ 
It cites acroy's NYT article, but also adds:
"The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on April 10, 2017, 04:42:18 PM
+1 to DoubleDown. All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.

http://www.thebrainwashingofmydad.com/

The movie detailed some of the methods.

In short Russia gathered the email addresses and details of individuals across the country via hacking events. Then Russia identified groups of people who would be susceptible to "fake news" and who also used social media. Russia then bombarded those people with propaganda (fake news) that looked "legit". Whether there are other players involved I don't know.

Supposedly this was easier than trying to hack voting machines directly.

Steer a whole series of demographics (mostly angry white male voters) to believe whatever Russia wanted them to believe. Because this same group discounts the mainstream media as "liberal" or unreliable in other ways, and b/c this same group of people refuse to listen to reason from other sources - they are very useful to the puppeteers.

This is assuming the articles I've read and the movie are correct.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 03:51:44 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 15, 2017, 05:11:19 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 07:11:29 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

Well McMaster denied this happened so obviously it didn't, case closed! Phew!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on May 15, 2017, 07:15:38 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

Well McMaster denied this happened so obviously it didn't, case closed! Phew!

Did you notice how precisely worded his denial was?  He used enough words that someone who blindly supports Trump would hear that it didn't happen, but the words he used are not a denial. He specifically said that they did not discuss "sources," "methods," and "military operations."  There was utter silence regarding disclosure of information.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 15, 2017, 07:20:55 PM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

This is hilarious, in part because Trump is currently the President precisely because so many people were very very concerned with keeping America's secrets.  The Russians never actually hacked Hillary's emails, but they argued successfully that they had the opportunity to steal classified information from Hillary Clinton, and that she was therefore insufficiently protective of America's secrets and was thus untrustworthy to be President.

Then Trump literally sits down with the top Russian spies in America, in the oval office, and just blab blab blab fucking TELLS them classified information.  Outright.  No hacking, no stealing necessary, just tells the Russians classified information.  He spent a year attacking Hillary for making information vulnerable to being stolen, even though it wasn't stolen, and then he gets elected and just starts giving it away?

My favorite part?  The senator from Idaho who suggested this is totally fine because the President has the authority to declassify anything at any time, without any process.  So it's apparently fine for him to share classified information directly with the Russians, because he's the President and he's allowed to do that if he wants to.  Shades of "it's not illegal when the President does it."

The entire intelligence community is rolling their eyes today.  We work SO hard to keep secrets compartmentalized in this country, and the man at the top of the food chain is apparently a loudmouthed braggart who just can't shut the hell up?  How are any of our international partners supposed to trust us when the Pres himself just blabs everything to the Russians?  This is some junior high level he-said-she-said (but don't tell anyone I told you) type bullshit going on right here. 

I am so disappointed right now.  In everyone.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 15, 2017, 07:33:45 PM
Quote
We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word 'confidential'.
-Donald Trump in Greenville North Carolina in September 2016

Quote
Individuals who are ‘extremely careless’ w/ classified info should be denied further access to it.
-Paul Ryan in July 2016

Quote
That is a criminal offense. That makes it an impeachable offense.
-Rep Mo Brooks (R-AL) on Hillary Clinton's potential disclosure of classified information
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 08:24:34 PM
Did you notice how precisely worded his denial was?  He used enough words that someone who blindly supports Trump would hear that it didn't happen, but the words he used are not a denial. He specifically said that they did not discuss "sources," "methods," and "military operations."  There was utter silence regarding disclosure of information.

Good point. The article doesn't claim that he discussed sources or methods, but rather specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 15, 2017, 08:31:10 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 09:07:43 PM
Here is an interesting legal analysis of the situation as it stands from the information we currently possess, albeit the end clearly indicates their overall opinion of the president regardless of this situation (one that I personally share but YMMV).

https://www.lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 09:09:12 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.

One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 15, 2017, 09:44:45 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.

One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.

Remember when we were saying thus at the end of Bush's presidency? Good times. Good times.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 15, 2017, 09:55:08 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.

One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.

Remember when we were saying thus at the end of Bush's presidency? Good times. Good times.

Well at least Bush can decisively vacate his claim to the "worst president in modern history" title. Pretty impressive, in a way, that Trump has so quickly taken a bigly lead on that front.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on May 15, 2017, 10:14:06 PM
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.

This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps.  Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, .  I don't claim to have any specific information.  But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.

One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.

Ironic that Trump's letter firing Comey stated "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence" -- and...now this, a week later. Public trust and confidence of the FBI is not a concern, lol.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on May 16, 2017, 07:45:09 AM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

And don't forget that oldie but goodie: Bengahzi....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2017, 08:43:15 AM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

And don't forget that oldie but goodie: Bengahzi....

How could I forget?

And the answer is: all of the above: 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 11:25:06 AM
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/864448127813783552

I would say "ROFL" except I want to puke.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 11:54:12 AM
Also, even if he's impeached (which at this point seems pretty much impossible), doesn't that just make Trump an even bigger security risk? He knows way too much and if I'm a foreign intelligence agency, I'm already plotting how to get to him if/when he's out of office. I highly doubt he would be any more restrained then...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on May 16, 2017, 11:55:56 AM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere

In the meantime life goes on. Time to get back to it. I like MMM's 'Circle of Concern' graphic enough to post it again.

O hey, my net worth hit a record high yesterday, one more day closer to FI. Thanks Trump Effect!

Carry on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 12:10:36 PM
Good to know you are just as hyper-partisan as ever acroy. Indeed, nevermind that after carefully "denying" that anything improper was said, the words directly out of the mouths of Trump and his lackies have subsequently and explicitly acknowledged his leaking of highly classified intel. Like, that is literally undeniable except through a single-minded commitment to ignorance. So what do Trumpbots like you do? All of the things Kris listed, of course, or else take a big old bite of the "he's president so he can do whatever he wants" shit sandwich and try to regurgitate it back to the rest of us with assurances that people who don't take a big old spoonful are the crazy ones.

But you're right, even though I am not a Democrat, by disagreeing with your stance that Trump is incapable of making mistakes I must be part of the "increasingly small" minority of Americans who disapproves of him. All of the polls that say otherwise (and by increasing margins) are fake news, of course.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on May 16, 2017, 12:13:40 PM
How Trump ultimately leaves the White House:

1)  Walks out on Jan. 20, 2021?  (we won't survive that long)
2)  Impeached?  (not likely with this Congress)
3)  Removed by Pence & the Cabinet under the 25th Am.?  (hmmmm)
4)  In a pine box?  (he doesn't look very healthy)
5)  Gets bored and resigns?  (hope springs eternal)
6)  White House destroyed in nuclear retaliation?  (hope not)
7)  Seeks asylum in Russia?  (this one has possibilities)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Million2000 on May 16, 2017, 12:39:49 PM
Good to know you are just as hyper-partisan as ever acroy. Indeed, nevermind that after carefully "denying" that anything improper was said, the words directly out of the mouths of Trump and his lackies have subsequently and explicitly acknowledged his leaking of highly classified intel. Like, that is literally undeniable except through a single-minded commitment to ignorance. So what do Trumpbots like you do? All of the things Kris listed, of course, or else take a big old bite of the "he's president so he can do whatever he wants" shit sandwich and try to regurgitate it back to the rest of us with assurances that people who don't take a big old spoonful are the crazy ones.

But you're right, even though I am not a Democrat, by disagreeing with your stance that Trump is incapable of making mistakes I must be part of the "increasingly small" minority of Americans who disapproves of him. All of the polls that say otherwise (and by increasing margins) are fake news, of course.

I'm not a Democrat either, in fact many would think of my wife and I as part of "Trump's base", i.e. we're white, Christian, socially conservative, and my wife is Russian (mistakenly believed to love Putin). We're utterly appalled by Trump and his associates. Several friends I've engaged in political discussion in the past are now intolerable to talk to, it's a non-stop whinefest of how bad the other party is. One friend even labeled me a "Socialist" because I took a pragmatic opinion on the state of our country. If I don't read, listen, and watch HIS sources which by the way are just right-wing personalities or as he calls them-"Independent Media" (think Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones), then I am brainwashed by the mainstream media. Feels like I live in a giant mental institution.

I was a Republican until 5 months ago. Trump and the utter disregard of my former party to my fellow countrymen pushed me into what I suppose is purgatory in American politics-Independent. My only hope now is that the Democrats either moderate (not likely) or the Republicans come back from the fringe (not looking likely now either) or a new 3rd party establishes itself like Macron in France somewhere in the middle. These are pretty dark days for our Republic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on May 16, 2017, 12:50:43 PM
Looks like we have BINGO. Fake news, not a big deal, I can't hear you, but her emails.

Oddly, I can't find acroy's posts about the Obama Effect during the market runup of the last 8 years, since anyone credibly invested in the market had to have several net worth highs in that time period.  But, I'm happy to do it for him: Thanks, Obama.

Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere

In the meantime life goes on. Time to get back to it. I like MMM's 'Circle of Concern' graphic enough to post it again.

O hey, my net worth hit a record high yesterday, one more day closer to FI. Thanks Trump Effect!

Carry on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 12:54:30 PM
I really wish the DNC had imploded more thoroughly after the Bernie Sanders fiasco. The establishment wings of both parties are cancerous, although I really never thought someone like Trump would be given the keys to the kingdom so enthusiastically just because he belonged to one of those "sides."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2017, 01:10:53 PM

I was a Republican until 5 months ago. Trump and the utter disregard of my former party to my fellow countrymen pushed me into what I suppose is purgatory in American politics-Independent. My only hope now is that the Democrats either moderate (not likely) or the Republicans come back from the fringe (not looking likely now either) or a new 3rd party establishes itself like Macron in France somewhere in the middle. These are pretty dark days for our Republic.
One could argue that you've remained a Republican while the party cleaved significantly from its former values.  In July '16 I wrote a post about how much the GOP platform had changed and asked the somewhat retorical question: if you believed in the earlier values, what are you now?

...
Oddly, I can't find acroy's posts about the Obama Effect during the market runup of the last 8 years, since anyone credibly invested in the market had to have several net worth highs in that time period.  But, I'm happy to do it for him: Thanks, Obama.
I don't attribute this to anything, but the largest run-ups to my family's wealth (first my parents and now mine) occurred under Clinton and then Obama. We'll see what happens under DJT, but I've never credited or faulted a president for the state of the economy during their first 100 days (too soon).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2017, 01:30:23 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere

In the meantime life goes on. Time to get back to it. I like MMM's 'Circle of Concern' graphic enough to post it again.

O hey, my net worth hit a record high yesterday, one more day closer to FI. Thanks Trump Effect!

Carry on.

Damn, you hit all four with one post! BINGO! Nice!

You did miss the bonus "Benghazi" points, though. Sad!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2017, 02:30:56 PM
Aannnndd the intelligence source country that Trump betrayed by sharing their classified information with Russia is... Israel. Yup. And now Iran has information about their intelligence gathering systems.  Trump has just given Israel a reason to stop sharing information with us -- as well as our other allies, who can't possibly think he's trustworthy going forward.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2017, 02:40:35 PM
Aannnndd the intelligence source country that Trump betrayed by sharing their classified information with Russia is... Israel. Yup. And now Iran has information about their intelligence gathering systems.  Trump has just given Israel a reason to stop sharing information with us -- as well as our other allies, who can't possibly think he's trustworthy going forward.
Adding to that, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran - Israel's mortal enemy. Wittingly or not, DJT may have just handed Iran some nice crumbs about Israeli intelligence gathering all on the eve of Trump's 9 day international trip which includes a stop in Israel.

Speaking of the upcoming trip, I think we've effectively set the bar for "success" at "did not start an international incident".  oy vey!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Million2000 on May 16, 2017, 02:42:35 PM

I was a Republican until 5 months ago. Trump and the utter disregard of my former party to my fellow countrymen pushed me into what I suppose is purgatory in American politics-Independent. My only hope now is that the Democrats either moderate (not likely) or the Republicans come back from the fringe (not looking likely now either) or a new 3rd party establishes itself like Macron in France somewhere in the middle. These are pretty dark days for our Republic.
One could argue that you've remained a Republican while the party cleaved significantly from its former values.  In July '16 I wrote a post about how much the GOP platform had changed and asked the somewhat retorical question: if you believed in the earlier values, what are you now?


I had dinner with a friend recently who like myself is more moderate and now doesn't find a home in either party, said "You didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left you." I really do wish people who aren't party ideologues and just want to live in a decently run country band together and create a new movement or party. Other countries have done this, why can't we? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2017, 02:46:14 PM
Aannnndd the intelligence source country that Trump betrayed by sharing their classified information with Russia is... Israel. Yup. And now Iran has information about their intelligence gathering systems.  Trump has just given Israel a reason to stop sharing information with us -- as well as our other allies, who can't possibly think he's trustworthy going forward.
Adding to that, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran - Israel's mortal enemy. Wittingly or not, DJT may have just handed Iran some nice crumbs about Israeli intelligence gathering all on the eve of Trump's 9 day international trip which includes a stop in Israel.

Speaking of the upcoming trip, I think we've effectively set the bar for "success" at "did not start an international incident".  oy vey!

Yup. I think it's almost a given that Iran now has info on Israel's intelligence gathering.

Hey Trump fans, how do you twist your minds into this being okay?

Oh yeah, I forgot:

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
5) Benghazi.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2017, 03:09:39 PM
you forgot the 6) 'pay-to-play' Clinton foundation.

Oh wait... is that the Trump foundation?  I can't remember.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 03:57:14 PM
More fuel for the fire. Comey memo states Trump asked him to stop his investigation of Flynn:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 16, 2017, 04:35:26 PM
More fuel for the fire. Comey memo states Trump asked him to stop his investigation of Flynn:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

I would think this would be grounds for impeachment, since Trump is trying to shut down the Russian/Trump investigation using the power of his presidency.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on May 16, 2017, 04:54:26 PM
I'd be willing to be a 'memo' of the same meeting will magically appear in the White House as well, with a conflicting account.  Probably using less than 140 characters and mention the electoral college win, of course.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 16, 2017, 05:02:32 PM
More fuel for the fire. Comey memo states Trump asked him to stop his investigation of Flynn:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

I would think this would be grounds for impeachment, since Trump is trying to shut down the Russian/Trump investigation using the power of his presidency.

You might think that, if you mistakenly believed in the preservation of American political norms.  Trump has upended that apple cart.  Obstruction of justice is fine.  Sexual assault is fine.  Nepotism is fine.  Facts don't exist.  Black is white and up is down.

He's making America great again, by destroying everything it stands for.  He's bringing back jobs by offshoring.  He's balancing the budget by cutting taxes.  He's protecting America's secrets by telling them to the Russians.  He respects women more than anyone, because he grabs pussies.  Mexico is paying for the wall, which is why he asked congress to fund it.  The Muslim ban was not a Muslim ban, but is totally working because it was blocked.  He's saving healthcare by taking healthcare away from 24 million Americans.

Next up:  standing up for blue collar Americans by giving a massive tax cut to the wealthy.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 05:04:12 PM
I'd be willing to be a 'memo' of the same meeting will magically appear in the White House as well, with a conflicting account.  Probably using less than 140 characters and mention the electoral college win, of course.

Possibly, but per the NYT article: "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." Not so sure an unverifiable document from the WH would be treated the same. I am starting to think there finally is clear-cut grounds for impeachment, but as the article below details, I doubt it will happen unless Dems take over the midterms, and even then he might be impeached but still not removed from office.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/even-the-biggest-scandals-cant-kill-party-loyalty/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on May 16, 2017, 05:25:07 PM
Quote
Possibly, but per the NYT article: "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." Not so sure an unverifiable document from the WH would be treated the same. I am starting to think there finally is clear-cut grounds for impeachment, but as the article below details, I doubt it will happen unless Dems take over the midterms, and even then he might be impeached but still not removed from office.

That may be the case if you assume that nothing else is going to happen that amounts to grounds for impeachment.  Given that we see a new impeachable offense almost every day (or so it seems), that might change fast.

I am more worried that he will fear impeachment enough that his enablers decide to make a grab for power - wrap themselves in the flag, arrest opponents, promote willing generals (most wouldn't but I'm sure some would, as always).  Suddenly dissent and opposition become life threatening choices, and then it is too late.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2017, 06:18:04 PM
Quote
Possibly, but per the NYT article: "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." Not so sure an unverifiable document from the WH would be treated the same. I am starting to think there finally is clear-cut grounds for impeachment, but as the article below details, I doubt it will happen unless Dems take over the midterms, and even then he might be impeached but still not removed from office.

That may be the case if you assume that nothing else is going to happen that amounts to grounds for impeachment.  Given that we see a new impeachable offense almost every day (or so it seems), that might change fast.

As much as I think this is a total s**t show, I'm not sure that this alone would do it... According to Comey's notes, Trump said "I hope you can let this go" - like many DJT statements it leaves just enough room to wiggle out of.  It can be argued this wasn't an order or a threat, much int he way that me saying to an officer "gee, could you give me a warning instead of a ticket?"...

From the WaPo article:
Quote from: Barak Cohen
There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction. But, on the other hand, you have to realize that — as with any other sort of criminal law — intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 16, 2017, 06:38:56 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 16, 2017, 08:52:56 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 17, 2017, 05:15:40 AM
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is?  Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 17, 2017, 05:23:16 AM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

Yes it's all fake news. What about Clinton, Obama and Benghazi? ( :
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 17, 2017, 07:18:04 AM
Trump has upended that apple cart. 

In addition to Trump upending the apple cart, I think Mitch McConnell and other Republicans that are putting party first, rather than the country first, are also to blame here. The scorched earth politics of the Republicans in the Senate and the House have been responsible for not allowing the debt limit to increase under Obama, refusing to allow Obama to have a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, and now for rushing through an ill-conceived health insurance replacement for Obamacare/ACA are but just some examples. We can also talk about extreme gerrymandering in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, and others. The anti-intellectualism and double-speak of the Republican party up and down is appalling and disingenuous. Bottom line for these people is the ends justify the means, democracy can be thrown under the bus - which is apparent when all they care about is investigating the leakers of Trump's obstruction of the FBI investigations rather than caring about the way Russia has subverted the federal election and whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on May 17, 2017, 07:46:09 AM
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is?  Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
I think they think the motivation is to (somehow?) pull down Trump and install Hillary in his place. For the most part they're still super fixated on "She lost get over it!" Which tells me they're still fixated on her having lost. They're so fixated on that, they are (probably wilfully) completely blind to the present.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 17, 2017, 08:11:01 AM
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is?  Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
I think they think the motivation is to (somehow?) pull down Trump and install Hillary in his place. For the most part they're still super fixated on "She lost get over it!" Which tells me they're still fixated on her having lost. They're so fixated on that, they are (probably wilfully) completely blind to the present.

Oh, for God's sake...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on May 17, 2017, 08:43:13 AM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 

So if you don't trust mainstream media two questions:

1) What are your sources of information?
2) Do you still watch any news that you would consider MSM?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on May 17, 2017, 12:59:32 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 17, 2017, 01:18:18 PM
Yes I meet Trump voters all the time, they are everyday people. I think they're misinformed, but that's my opinion. Many are religiously conservative, or are blue collar and white collar workers who feel that Trump will "drain the swamp" of corrupt politicians, or believe the lies fed by Trump that Hillary's email server at home was a reckless way to handle classified information. Nevermind that Trump just divulged such information to the Russian spymaster, Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, putting in the field secret assets at severe risk.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 17, 2017, 01:57:49 PM
There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.

Nah, I am well aware of, and openly sympathetic to the plight of most Trump supporters, as has been documented thoroughly by many of my other posts on this board. You, however, appear to be pigeonholing everyone who opposes Trump into the same narrowly defined category. You might want to take your own advice.

ETA - Even if we accept your premise completely, I have yet to see a defense of Trump by this supposed 99.9999% of his supporters that is not a part of Kris' list, or at best a litany of past grievances against the major parties (hell, we can even just keep it DNC focused if you like). Yes, those grievances are often legitimate, but they are still irrelevant to whether or not Trump's behavior being discussed here is defensible.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 17, 2017, 04:07:51 PM
Wow, a special prosecutor has been named - Robert Mueller, former FBI director. This just got interesting. I suppose we'll (presumably?) find out our answers now, sooner or later. How those answers are spun by each side remains to be seen.

ETA - The Atlantic on why a special prosecutor is not necessarily the best way to determine malfeasance in this sort of scenario:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/a-special-prosecutor-is-not-the-answer/526662/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Fireball on May 17, 2017, 04:30:50 PM
Wow, a special prosecutor has been named - Robert Mueller, former FBI director. This just got interesting. I suppose we'll (presumably?) find out our answers now, sooner or later. How those answers are spun by each side remains to be seen.

ETA - The Atlantic on why a special prosecutor is not necessarily the best way to determine malfeasance in this sort of scenario:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/a-special-prosecutor-is-not-the-answer/526662/

Potentially good news. I just have this feeling Rosenstein wouldn't have tapped Mueller if he wasn't pretty confident it would turn out well for Republicans. Hopefully I'm wrong. I don't know much about Mueller.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 17, 2017, 06:14:03 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.

Speaking of straw men, we're not talking about Trump voters here.

That ship sailed a while back.  I think it's been well covered that there are many reasons why fewer people voted for him than Clinton in the last election.  Trump's racism and misogyny were well known at that point, so it's not surprising that his stances in these areas hasn't lost him much support.  Security though, was something that Trump campaigned on . . . and he has shown himself woefully unfit for duty as president along these lines, given the treason perpetrated by members of his campaign and the fact that he has personally leaked secret information while boasting to other foreign leaders.

It's somewhat surprising that this doesn't appear to bother his supporters.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on May 17, 2017, 07:06:12 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.

Speaking of straw men, we're not talking about Trump voters here.

That ship sailed a while back.  I think it's been well covered that there are many reasons why fewer people voted for him than Clinton in the last election.  Trump's racism and misogyny were well known at that point, so it's not surprising that his stances in these areas hasn't lost him much support.  Security though, was something that Trump campaigned on . . . and he has shown himself woefully unfit for duty as president along these lines, given the treason perpetrated by members of his campaign and the fact that he has personally leaked secret information while boasting to other foreign leaders.

It's somewhat surprising that this doesn't appear to bother his supporters.

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 17, 2017, 07:23:40 PM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:

"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."

Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.

There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).

Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.

Speaking of straw men, we're not talking about Trump voters here.

That ship sailed a while back.  I think it's been well covered that there are many reasons why fewer people voted for him than Clinton in the last election.  Trump's racism and misogyny were well known at that point, so it's not surprising that his stances in these areas hasn't lost him much support.  Security though, was something that Trump campaigned on . . . and he has shown himself woefully unfit for duty as president along these lines, given the treason perpetrated by members of his campaign and the fact that he has personally leaked secret information while boasting to other foreign leaders.

It's somewhat surprising that this doesn't appear to bother his supporters.

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.

It certainly is indicative of what importanct Trump supporters really attach to security, however.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on May 18, 2017, 08:42:23 AM
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c

Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?

1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...

And don't forget that oldie but goodie: Bengahzi....

How could I forget?

And the answer is: all of the above:

I never did understand why those four men in Benghazi were so much more important than the thousands of soldiers/airmen/sailors who died in the line of duty or the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died in the past twenty years of war in the Middle East starting with Desert Storm I.

All lives are important and should be protected and recognized, never squandered.

The constant lectures about Benghazi by the GOP got really old, especially when the GOP overlooked the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of lives lost during Bush's tenure.

Mistakes are made. Own up to them, study to ensure they they are prevented if possible in the future  and move on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on May 18, 2017, 08:43:28 AM
Also, even if he's impeached (which at this point seems pretty much impossible), doesn't that just make Trump an even bigger security risk? He knows way too much and if I'm a foreign intelligence agency, I'm already plotting how to get to him if/when he's out of office. I highly doubt he would be any more restrained then...

Put him in Chelsea Manning's former cell? /sarcasm of course
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on May 18, 2017, 02:22:34 PM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 18, 2017, 02:32:46 PM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.

Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ncornilsen on May 18, 2017, 05:11:51 PM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.

Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!

both Trump and Clinton supports are hipocrits on this one, unless they didn't care in either case, or are outraged (like I am) in either case. Trump is less defensible, since it happened later... and I think his blab has more chance of doing material harm.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 18, 2017, 05:49:10 PM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.

Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!

both Trump and Clinton supports are hipocrits on this one, unless they didn't care in either case, or are outraged (like I am) in either case. Trump is less defensible, since it happened later... and I think his blab has more chance of doing material harm.

Let's not make this an equivalency, though it is absolutely fair to be outraged by both. Clinton's email server was technically legal, as was Trump's spontaneous declassification of information. Clinton's actions were stupid, but nobody was hurt, and the information wasn't classified at the time of transmittal through the server. Trump betrayed a sensitive ally intelligence source to a foreign power that has been a long-time adversary of both the US and Israel (largely through alignment with Iran). Yes, it was technically legal, but it was a colossal faux pax with far-reaching real world consequences. Honestly, this probably wouldn't have as much traction as it does if he had a  history of making subtle, informed, and strategic foreign policy decisions and actions. He has a history of quite the opposite and the information release is instead emblematic of someone who simply isn't up to snuff for the job.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on May 19, 2017, 06:11:06 AM

The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."

...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.

Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!

I may be on the same page as you, not sure about the "rest" of us.

Even If he said "I hope you can drop [this]" not really impeachable or whatever, but it is also like a a mob boss saying "I hope nothing bad happens to your store." You get the message.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on May 19, 2017, 06:16:26 AM
um. guess I am more disgusted by what he said to Comey. the declassification thing...I have (at this time) no problem with. "hey, enemy of my enemy(Russia), bad guys are over here. I'll let you use that information as you will." bad guy thinks "someone dropped bombs on us, we're dead." Russia thinks "Wonder how they received that information?" Meh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on May 19, 2017, 08:06:03 AM
um. guess I am more disgusted by what he said to Comey. the declassification thing...I have (at this time) no problem with. "hey, enemy of my enemy(Russia), bad guys are over here. I'll let you use that information as you will." bad guy thinks "someone dropped bombs on us, we're dead." Russia thinks "Wonder how they received that information?" Meh.

Except that there are reports the source of the intel is Israel. Which means that Trump, because he just can't help but brag, put Israeli intelligence, and information on their intelligence-collecting strategies -- and potentially information about an under-cover Israeli operative -- in the hands of Russia, who almost certainly would give such information to Iran, one of Israel's most hostile neighbors.

I don't see this as very "meh."

Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 19, 2017, 06:08:48 PM
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.

Actually, I'd argue that this is the silver lining of the whole incident.  Trump has proven himself dangerously incompetent.  His incompetence is now publicly on display for the world to see . . . the sooner that the rest of the world stops trusting America while under his leadership the better.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 19, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.

Actually, I'd argue that this is the silver lining of the whole incident.  Trump has proven himself dangerously incompetent.  His incompetence is now publicly on display for the world to see . . . the sooner that the rest of the world stops trusting America while under his leadership the better.

I worry now that the US won't get intelligence sharing that could have averted an attack on the lives of soldiers abroad or people in the US.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 20, 2017, 11:27:27 AM
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.

Actually, I'd argue that this is the silver lining of the whole incident.  Trump has proven himself dangerously incompetent.  His incompetence is now publicly on display for the world to see . . . the sooner that the rest of the world stops trusting America while under his leadership the better.

I worry now that the US won't get intelligence sharing that could have averted an attack on the lives of soldiers abroad or people in the US.

Elections have consequences.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 26, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
I keep thinking "could there possibly be anything more outrageous to come out of this Russia investigation than [whatever the last major news story was]"

Apparently yes.

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports....
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn


Either this is a giant lie or the biggest boneheaded move by anyone in politics in quite some time.
Article here. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_kushner-705pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.445305a09953)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 26, 2017, 08:20:39 PM
I keep thinking "could there possibly be anything more outrageous to come out of this Russia investigation than [whatever the last major news story was]"

Apparently yes.

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports....
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn


Either this is a giant lie or the biggest boneheaded move by anyone in politics in quite some time.
Article here. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_kushner-705pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.445305a09953)

Woah, I thought this couldn't be accurate when I read your post. Plus now it seems there have been 3 other times Kushner contacted the Russians during and after the election that were not previously disclosed. Can't wait to hear the apologist stance on this one.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 27, 2017, 06:09:37 AM
I doubt there will be any apology.  A fierce denial, then an attack and mis-direct on the 'leakers'.  Some rhetoric. DJT's WH dodge and attack, but never apologize.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 27, 2017, 07:24:09 AM
I read some comments in relation to the article. Same old shift the goalpost fallacies. Fake news, Hillary, Obama, etc. Some will defend this traitor to their death beds. The Trump supporters in my family have grown extremely quiet. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 27, 2017, 08:17:01 AM
The Trump family and campaign and administration's connections with the autocrat Putin is just mind-boggling. The willingness on the part of Trump to undermine our own security interests to curry favor with Putin is shocking.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 27, 2017, 08:21:16 AM
I read some comments in relation to the article. Same old shift the goalpost fallacies. Fake news, Hillary, Obama, etc. Some will defend this traitor to their death beds.
I've found I'm much happier simply not reading the comments on news articles. It's not even set up in a way where conversation and debate can take place, but rather streams shouted-out comments.

Quote
The Trump supporters in my family have grown extremely quiet.
yeah, same here. At least in my family of mostly older retired military republicans their lifelong distrust of Russia is not sitting well with their inherent desire to support their president who comes from their party.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 27, 2017, 10:59:24 AM
I doubt there will be any apology.  A fierce denial, then an attack and mis-direct on the 'leakers'.  Some rhetoric. DJT's WH dodge and attack, but never apologize.

I meant the Trump apologists, as in the supporters who literally seem to think he and his administration are incapable of doing anything wrong. But yeah, the less crazy Trump supporters mostly seem to have gone quiet lately, although I would bet most would say it's because they're sick of listening to the liberal echo chamber and biased media. Better to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 27, 2017, 11:28:31 AM
I doubt there will be any apology.  A fierce denial, then an attack and mis-direct on the 'leakers'.  Some rhetoric. DJT's WH dodge and attack, but never apologize.

I meant the Trump apologists, as in the supporters who literally seem to think he and his administration are incapable of doing anything wrong. But yeah, the less crazy Trump supporters mostly seem to have gone quiet lately, although I would bet most would say it's because their sick of listening to the liberal echo chamber and biased media. Better to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.
Gotcha.
Well, HR McMaster was sent out to say "I would not be concerned" by this, and punted questions to Spicer.  Perhaps unsurprisingly Spicer's response was "We have nothing [to say to the press]."  After trying unsuccesfully to steer the Q&A back towards the G7 McMaster ended the briefing and Spicer left taking no questions.  Nothing from DJT or Kushnur as of yet.

Full-court press on the sunday talk shows by the WH tomorrow?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 27, 2017, 04:45:33 PM
In December 2016 Jared Kushner met with a Russian bank, used as a front by Putin for recruiting spies in the past.

http://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-meeting-russian-bank-gorkov-vnesheconombank-2017-5

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 28, 2017, 07:40:37 AM
...the WH is now considering establishing a 'war room' (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-considers-major-changes-amid-escalating-russia-crisis/2017/05/27/44d1a016-4230-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpshakeup-323pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7c587a69fc46) to combat the growing pressure from probes surrounding the Trump campaigns involvement with Russia during the election.

So - they see themselves at war... with the American public. Earlier I read something about this being viewed by the WH as a "branding and messaging problem" - not about whether what they did was or was not appropriate.

Bottom line is this thing is likely to get even more hostile. How is it we've only started month 5?!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on May 31, 2017, 02:46:03 PM
I think you can all see this as a stress test of the American constitutional system.

As designed, was it built resilient enough to withstand such an overt and intense attempt to wreck it?  Are the checks and balances going to hold the line?

Back in the day none of the 'Founding Fathers' thought that all presidents would be good or competent, nor that all members of Congress or all judges etc.  That's the whole point of a constitutional system - to have a democratic immune system that will limit the damage when any one (or even two) parts become sick. 

Right now you have one branch of government that is wholly compromised, and another that is somewhat compromised (with a chance for redemption in another 18 months). 

The question everyone is watching to see is whether your system is robust enough to withstand this kind of infection.  I think it's up in the air, but it is far from over. 

If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again (as well as their civil rights, which they've been pretty good on for the most part).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on May 31, 2017, 02:50:27 PM
If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again (as well as their civil rights, which they've been pretty good on for the most part).

I dunno, this has been said about the Republican alliance between corporate selling out and religious extremists, and yet here we are. Not that I think this likely or even logistically plausible, but a legit third party really seems like the best way to take our country back from the extremists.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 31, 2017, 04:41:57 PM
If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again

It's under the Democrats the number of uninsured Americans dropped by about half.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 08:47:04 AM
If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again

It's under the Democrats the number of uninsured Americans dropped by about half.
Can't help but notice that health care is now in the Russia OT thread, while the health-care thread has lately been dominated by discussions on Russia.  Black is white, up is down and dogs are sleeping with cats.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 08:56:16 AM
...Back to Russia!

DJT is giving back the two compounds in NY and MD which Obama took away as a penalty for meddling in the presidential election.

Originally the WH position was that the US would turn the compounds back over to the Russians if Moscow would lift the freeze on construction of a US Consulate in St. Petersburg

For reasons one can only guess, the new position is that Russia gets the compounds back with no concessions to the US whatsoever.

The "great deal-maker" (possibly the greatest in history) plopped down his chips and then apparently folded before looking at the cards. Or maybe he knows Russia is holding five aces. Whatever.  I'm just pissed that the punishment for Russian sanctions appears to have lasted a grand total of 6 months.

From WaPo's Right Turn (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/01/what-is-trumps-possible-justification-for-this-gift-to-putin/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ce0d4084fd82)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on June 01, 2017, 10:42:47 AM
DJT is giving back the two compounds in NY and MD which Obama took away as a penalty for meddling in the presidential election.
...
I'm just pissed that the punishment for Russian sanctions appears to have lasted a grand total of 6 months.

You're only upset because you've mistakenly assumed that Trump was actually in some kind of negotiation with the Russians where he wanted to get something in return.  He already got everything he wanted.  Returning those compounds to the Russians wasn't him folding his hand, it was him rewarding the Russians for their good work.

We saw the same thing when Trump became the republican nominee and the party promptly changed its official platform to classify Russia as an ally instead of an adversary.  We saw it when they called Moscow during the campaign to discuss lifting sanctions the US imposed over Ukraine, if he won the election.  We saw it when he appointed a recipient of the Russian Order of Friendship to be Secretary of State.

Donald Trump seems to love Russia, for reasons that aren't quite clear.  Remember during the early debates when everyone made fun of him for saying that Russia was the biggest national security threat to America?  Boy did his tune change quickly on that one.

And we already know that several of Trump's buildings were saved from bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs buying up the units as investment properties.  He's literally made hundreds of millions of dollars from personal friends of Vladimir Putin giving him money for empty buildings. 

But all of that would be circumstantial evidence if it weren't for the phone taps, and that's what I think will sink the administration.  The US security apparatus routinely monitors the phones of Russian spies living in the US, and several of them had blatantly illegal phone conversations with members of the administration before during and after the election.  That's the backstory to Trump's claims about Obama wiretapping him: technically we wiretapped Russian spies and suddenly we had all these hours of Trump staffers talking to the Russians.

Like everything else about this administration, the question is not whether any of this happened, it's just a question of how illegal something has to be to take down a president.  Obstruction of justice is illegal, unless you're the president.  Revealing classified information is illegal, unless you're the president.  Nepotism is illegal, unless you're the president.  Pussy grabbing is illegal, unless you're the president.  He's walking a fine line, trying to figure out exactly how much be can get away with.  He openly admits to doing all of these things that would be illegal for anyone else, but then claims immunity because of the office he holds.

At this point I think it's only a matter of time before the special prosecutor decides it was all intentionally malevolent, and thus illegal, or just bumbling incompetence and thus stupidly embarrassing but not prosecutable.  They need to get him under oath to give him the chance to perjure himself, because that's probably the only crime they can definitely nail him for.  Everything else he can chalk up to "honest" mistakes.

Personally, I'm hoping it's incompetence and not malevolent anti-American activity.  Right now Trumps's idiocy is the only thing standing in the way of Paul Ryan's wet dream of destroying the American economy from the inside.  If Trump does get removed from office, then anyone else in the line of succession who would rise to the office is suddenly a competent and experienced right wing crusader who hates everything that makes America great.  Looking at the list (Pence, Ryan, Hatch) makes me fear for the republic if Trump were to leave office before the next election.

No, as a proud American liberal who believes the strength of our nation lies in the cohesiveness of our diversity and our ability to look out for each other, I want Trump to stay in office, to tweet ridiculous things more often, to support fantasy legislation with no chance of passing, and to continue to so perfectly embody everything that is wrong with the republican party that broad swaths of America finally shake off their lingering reagan-era nostalgia and embrace a brighter, cheerier vision of our collective future by voting for people who don't openly espouse hatred and intolerance.  #AnyDemocrat2020

Until then, Mr. President, be true to yourself.  Don't listen to the haters.  You have exactly the instincts America needs most in this time of peril.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 11:24:48 AM
#Sol2020?

Mueller is methodical and criminal investigations generally take a few years (though there's very little that's typical here). I'm guessing 6-24 months before anything comes of the FBI's investigation. The four congressional hearings will make noise and provoke responses (and DJT has committed multiple unforced errors thusfar). 
Given that Pence is next in line I share your trepidation about what will come should DJT be removed from office. "Do nothing" is preferable than the social construct Pence/Ryan want - particualrly if the AHCA is any indication.

But hold on a second, must we wait until 2020?  Let's assume for a second that all this smoke billowing around indeed comes from a fire. Let's also assume that another 16 months of this crap results in the democrat version of the '94 republican revolution.
what then? do we prefer an antagonistic and increasingly hostile president to what could certainly be a lame-duck Pence? As abhorrent as I find many of Pence's beliefs to be, he's unlikely to launch twitter-attacks at Germany, praise dictators and harbor conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 01, 2017, 12:56:42 PM
It's so critical the Democrats regain the US House of Representatives or at least get achingly close. Don't think the Democrats can win the Senate back because most of the elections in 2018 are for Democrat Senate seats.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: tavore on June 01, 2017, 01:02:36 PM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on June 01, 2017, 02:51:26 PM
#Sol2020?

Mueller is methodical and criminal investigations generally take a few years (though there's very little that's typical here). I'm guessing 6-24 months before anything comes of the FBI's investigation. The four congressional hearings will make noise and provoke responses (and DJT has committed multiple unforced errors thusfar). 
Given that Pence is next in line I share your trepidation about what will come should DJT be removed from office. "Do nothing" is preferable than the social construct Pence/Ryan want - particualrly if the AHCA is any indication.

But hold on a second, must we wait until 2020?  Let's assume for a second that all this smoke billowing around indeed comes from a fire. Let's also assume that another 16 months of this crap results in the democrat version of the '94 republican revolution.
what then? do we prefer an antagonistic and increasingly hostile president to what could certainly be a lame-duck Pence? As abhorrent as I find many of Pence's beliefs to be, he's unlikely to launch twitter-attacks at Germany, praise dictators and harbor conspiracy theories.
He'll just electrocute gays and remove bodily autonomy from women.  Oh, maybe even cause an HIV epidemic like he did in the state he was governor of....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 03:40:55 PM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

There's quite a few... 
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee)  Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in).  It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe  (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now).  Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.

Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run.  Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.

Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 01, 2017, 03:46:02 PM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

There's quite a few... 
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee)  Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in).  It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe  (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now).  Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.

Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run.  Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.

Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.

I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: tavore on June 01, 2017, 04:21:41 PM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

There's quite a few... 
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee)  Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in).  It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe  (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now).  Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.

Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run.  Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.

Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.

Tim Kaine was a non-entity in 2016. I put Cory Booker and Martin O'Malley in the same category - hard-core ambition chasers without enough intellectual heft or ethics. Elizabeth Warren is already getting the Hillary/Pelosi treatment - relentlessly mysogynistic demonization. However ludicrous the characterization, some of that mud will stick and a kernel of doubt planted. See how easily all the the Bernie Bros believe the Russian propaganda! She should have challenged for 2016. Kamala Harris will get the same treatment, though she should take advantage of the fact that she isn't in their crosshairs yet. I'm still waiting for her to prove herself.

I'll reserve my judgement on Zuck. He sounds more libertarian than a Democrat. I'm inherently suspicious of the Noblesse Oblige/Tech Knows Best Silicon Valley attitude. And after DJT, are we still stupid enough to think the country should be run like a business?

I'd love for Jerry Brown to run, but again, this is not calling someone from the bench. This is the old guard rising again. The Democrats have not done a good job of nurturing talent.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 01, 2017, 04:31:40 PM
I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.

And Jesse Ventura running as an independent.  Need to find an analogous Democrat candidate.  Or just vote for Jesse: "a plague on both their (Dem and Rep) houses."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 01, 2017, 06:00:22 PM
I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.

And Jesse Ventura running as an independent.  Need to find an analogous Democrat candidate.  Or just vote for Jesse: "a plague on both their (Dem and Rep) houses."
Too bad Arnie's not eligible to run against DJT in the primaries.  I'd just love to see him troll Trump again.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on June 01, 2017, 06:21:56 PM
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on June 01, 2017, 06:44:12 PM
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?

Red herring (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring)?

And yes, they did.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on June 01, 2017, 06:55:55 PM
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?

Red herring (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring)?

And yes, they did.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

John Podesta and his Password being Password and his own cyber security people mistakenly telling him that his inquiry about a questionable email it was a legit email? Come on!!!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gin1984 on June 02, 2017, 11:55:58 AM
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.

Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.

There's quite a few... 
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee)  Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in).  It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe  (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now).  Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.

Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run.  Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.

Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.

The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms.  A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.

Tim Kaine was a non-entity in 2016. I put Cory Booker and Martin O'Malley in the same category - hard-core ambition chasers without enough intellectual heft or ethics. Elizabeth Warren is already getting the Hillary/Pelosi treatment - relentlessly mysogynistic demonization. However ludicrous the characterization, some of that mud will stick and a kernel of doubt planted. See how easily all the the Bernie Bros believe the Russian propaganda! She should have challenged for 2016. Kamala Harris will get the same treatment, though she should take advantage of the fact that she isn't in their crosshairs yet. I'm still waiting for her to prove herself.

I'll reserve my judgement on Zuck. He sounds more libertarian than a Democrat. I'm inherently suspicious of the Noblesse Oblige/Tech Knows Best Silicon Valley attitude. And after DJT, are we still stupid enough to think the country should be run like a business?

I'd love for Jerry Brown to run, but again, this is not calling someone from the bench. This is the old guard rising again. The Democrats have not done a good job of nurturing talent.
I'd love to see Gavin Newsom run, personally.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on June 02, 2017, 12:16:49 PM
More smoke. A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508

Trump lifts sanctions (and immediately after becoming President) because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/

Wasn't there a contingent who wanted a businessperson in the WH to make things more efficient? I think we now see the potential downfalls of that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 12:50:51 PM
A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
...
because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
Admitting the need to invoke Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) here....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on June 02, 2017, 01:14:39 PM
A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
...
because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
Admitting the need to invoke Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) here....

I only wish that the same people who were SO SHOCKED about the Clinton Foundation (n.b. with it's A charity navigator rating and open books) and PAY TO PLAY and SPEECHES TO BANKERS were capable of considering how someone with hundreds of millions in investments from foreign nationals and a compelling history of no guiding principles other than his own self-interest and a tendency to grub for every last dollar might be compromised by such obligations.   So, I hereby invoke my own law of Trump apology: there is no depth to which a Trump voter will not sink to defend him. 

 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 01:20:34 PM
...might be compromised....
Ok, I'll play.

What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?

E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on June 02, 2017, 01:33:12 PM
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 02, 2017, 01:33:42 PM
...might be compromised....
Ok, I'll play.

What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?

E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?

Since I don't have access to the NSA tapes of the conversations Kisylak and other Putinites had with Kushner, Flynn and other Trump campaign officials and administration officials I really don't know.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 02, 2017, 01:34:54 PM
Well... Russia remains in the Paris Climate Accord, while the US doesn't.
Maybe we're not the United States of Russia afterall.

United States of Syria?  (would explain why all our Navy's ships are already designated USS ___)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 02, 2017, 01:36:48 PM
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.
Ha!
The FBI and NSA never opened investigations on Obama's birth certificate, nor were there four congressional committees formed to examine it.

...but good troll Acroy!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: onecoolcat on June 02, 2017, 02:03:08 PM
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.

Is this another one of those Poe's Law things?  As a lifelong (and current) Republican and someone who voted against Obama twice I think Acroy misplaced his :wink. 

In case he's serious, there is genuinely no analogy.  Obama's birth certificate & Muslim thing was embedded in racism and ignorance from the very moment it began and is a black-mark on American politics imo.  There is a concerning amount of smoke regarding the possibility of coordinate Russian meddling in OUR elections and the administrations response to it has been disturbing.

*I voted for Johnson.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 02, 2017, 02:43:29 PM
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.

Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.

Is this another one of those Poe's Law things?  As a lifelong (and current) Republican and someone who voted against Obama twice I think Acroy misplaced his :wink. 

In case he's serious, there is genuinely no analogy.  Obama's birth certificate & Muslim thing was embedded in racism and ignorance from the very moment it began and is a black-mark on American politics imo.  There is a concerning amount of smoke regarding the possibility of coordinate Russian meddling in OUR elections and the administrations response to it has been disturbing.
Based on his previous posts, this is no Poe's Law thing and Acroy is either trolling or (more likely) genuinely supporting these ideas.
Acroy is a staunch defender of Trump and frequent critic (to put it politely) of Clinton and Obama.

From some of his earlier posts:
Quote from: Acroy
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
Quote from: Acroy
(on the Hollywood Access tape) Did anyone watch the tape, and think it was anything but Trump buffooning around, blowing smoke up the young guy's ass? C'mon.
Quote from: Acroy on April 19th
So far I think [Trump's] doing fine. ... By the way, the Russian thing:
https://spectator.org/confirmed-john-brennan-colluded-with-foreign-spies-to-defeat-trump/
"One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s."
Quote from: Acroy on April 5th
the 'Russian Hacker' fiasco fizzles...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/31/the-russia-hacking-fiasco-no-evidence-required/
Quote from: Acroy on Climate Change, March 15th
The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science
Quote from: Acroy on Feb 6th
Bannon: That guy is badass. ...
Enemy: The Establishment, in the forms of Nato, EU, UN, etc. Particularly Merkel

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on June 02, 2017, 02:52:39 PM
Ok, I'll play.

What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?

Was that a return volley of Poe's Law?

Quote
E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?

That is why we have a special prosecutor, n'est-ce pas?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 03:25:36 PM
What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?
Was that a return volley of Poe's Law?
The absence of a smiley was intentional.  Back to the question...?

Quote
Quote
E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't?  Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos?  Or...?
That is why we have a special prosecutor, n'est-ce pas?
To find out if there is anything there, correct? 

When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

Of course, It ain't over till [Robert Mueller] sings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_ain%27t_over_till_the_fat_lady_sings).  Or will that depend on what Mueller sings?

One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.
E.g.,
There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/05/23/there-remains-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion/#242cf2da242c)
Evidence Mounts for Trump's Meddling in Russia Probe. But Is It Obstruction? - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/evidence-mounts-trump-s-meddling-russia-probe-it-obstruction-n763951)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 02, 2017, 03:48:07 PM
@MDM - So your stance is that any criminal investigation that takes longer than a few months to lead to a conviction is probably smoke and mirrors?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on June 02, 2017, 03:59:29 PM
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

Given that more is leaked on an almost weekly basis, your argument has little, well, credence. Given that Mueller was appointed only a few weeks ago, your claim has even less weight.

Quote
One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.

Yeah...?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 03:59:58 PM
@MDM - So your stance is that any criminal investigation that takes longer than a few months to lead to a conviction is probably smoke and mirrors?
Nope, just this one. ;)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 04:00:49 PM
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

Given that more is leaked on an almost weekly basis, your argument has little, well, credence. Given that Mueller was appointed only a few weeks ago, your claim has even less weight.

Quote
One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.

Yeah...?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Any speculation at this point is...speculation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 02, 2017, 04:24:50 PM
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing.  After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one. 

Given that more is leaked on an almost weekly basis, your argument has little, well, credence. Given that Mueller was appointed only a few weeks ago, your claim has even less weight.

Quote
One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google   Trump Russia evidence.

Yeah...?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Any speculation at this point is...speculation.
My speculation on your speculation is... speculative.
But seriously - most investigations, be they congressional or criminal, take several months to a few years to complete.  Sometimes they conclude intentional wrong-doing, sometimes stupidity, other times they fail to find anything conclusive.
We'll just have to wait and see - I wouldn't expect any of the investigations to conclude before this fall, though there will be significant pressure from all sides to hurry this up - WH wants it gone entirely, GOP doesn't want it bleeding into the midterms, Dems want to impeach, and almost everyone else wants the whole thing over so we can go back to watching videos of cats riding Roombas in silly costumes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLt5rBfNucc).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on June 02, 2017, 04:55:02 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

More smoke. A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508
Trump lifts sanctions (and immediately after becoming President) because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 02, 2017, 05:30:57 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 02, 2017, 07:00:24 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 02, 2017, 08:27:40 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?

It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 03, 2017, 05:53:28 AM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?

It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.

Absolutely! He's conserving "battery" life.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 03, 2017, 02:08:57 PM
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.

What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them?  To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers."  Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.

Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.

His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?

It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.

Absolutely! He's conserving "battery" life.

Trump is doing what other pro-Trumpers on here would scream at you for doing if you have to buy your own health insurance through the federal exchange.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 05, 2017, 02:27:30 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 05, 2017, 03:35:26 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
The two reasons I've seen that this is an issue (rather than simply a hilarious gaffe) are:
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 05, 2017, 05:16:40 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBazdpGVoAAweMA.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on June 05, 2017, 11:39:48 PM
I don't think covfefe taught us anything we didn't already know about Trump but it did elevate his typical brand of unbelievable incoherence to a new level of hilarity.

Also, never forget: Ed Balls (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/ed-balls-day-how-the-former--shadow-chancellor-became-twitters-f/)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on June 06, 2017, 05:31:02 AM
FYI: There's a lot of chatter this morning about a leak to the Intercept by a 25 year old named "Reality Winner".  Being pushed hard by fake-news outlets such as Infowars and Palmer Report. Very suspect; I would take this info with a grain of salt until every bit of it is confirmed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on June 06, 2017, 03:00:32 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.

Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 06, 2017, 07:06:25 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.

Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".

It appears I was to diverted with the constant trolling of the mistake when that is not what people are upset about. I haven't listened to or read much of any white house press briefings because they have become nothing but a sad confusing steady stream of lies to protect a child from a harsh unforgiving world.

I agree the assumed necessity on the part of his staff to protect our leaders fragile ego from even the stupidest most obvious mistake is extremely disturbing...

If this man manages to serve more than 1 term then our political system is a complete an utter failure.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on June 06, 2017, 10:32:37 PM
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.

The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...

In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.

Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".

It appears I was to diverted with the constant trolling of the mistake when that is not what people are upset about. I haven't listened to or read much of any white house press briefings because they have become nothing but a sad confusing steady stream of lies to protect a child from a harsh unforgiving world.

I agree the assumed necessity on the part of his staff to protect our leaders fragile ego from even the stupidest most obvious mistake is extremely disturbing...

If this man manages to serve more than 1 term then our political system is a complete an utter failure.

If he manages to finish an entire term, our political system is a complete and utter failure...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 06, 2017, 10:52:12 PM
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on June 06, 2017, 11:17:41 PM
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?

I'm working Thursday night, so that'd probably be a bad plan...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on June 07, 2017, 01:25:48 AM
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?
Perk of FIRE.

Also, it will stop me buying a lovely but unnecessary antique mahogany chest at auction that day.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 07, 2017, 04:59:20 AM
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.

In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?

I was just talking about that with the husband. I work from home, so I'm leaving the possibility open.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 07, 2017, 06:40:10 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on June 07, 2017, 09:19:36 AM
...And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".
Small Group = ?
Team of psychiatrists?
Russian handlers?
Alien overlords?
Small group of people who tweet from the toilet at all hours of the day/night?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 07, 2017, 09:29:45 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Drink on:
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat

Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin

Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 07, 2017, 09:38:28 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Drink on:
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat

Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin

Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower

I like it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on June 07, 2017, 09:49:47 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Drink on:
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat

Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin

Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower

Nobody has said it, but I naturally assume that the drink is vodka, no?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 07, 2017, 11:12:49 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Drink on:
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat

Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin

Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower

What about crowd size or anything in reference to winning the election?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 07, 2017, 11:39:07 AM
Is there some sort of pool?  Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"

Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?

what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Drink on:
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat

Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin

Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower

What about crowd size or anything in reference to winning the election?
Fake news
Illegal leaks
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on June 07, 2017, 12:39:10 PM
Can we start early with Comey's opening statement?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 07, 2017, 05:42:09 PM
Just got done reading Comey's prepared statement. His interactions with Trump sound like a bad mafia movie.

Asking repeatedly for loyalty. Dancing around until they could awkwardly conclude a conversation that made Trump feel okay "Honest Loyalty..." Questioning whether Comey wanted a job that was basically supposed to be a given, so a typical vague allusion to saying you should only stick around if you will be loyal.

Then proceeding to intermittently politely request that the FBI give up their investigation and publicly remind us that he isn't himself being investigated.

Nothing really surprising, though its interesting to get a visual of how it went down and to hear snippets of the petty dance that Trump likes to do.

But apparently 40% of the country doesn't give a shit that this president has pretty much zero ethical boundaries. These conversations sound like one of those don't do this training videos that every corporate office puts out yearly, to remind its employees how not to act.

Its only been 4 or 5 months and having to hear about this wannbe Oligarch parade around the white house  like a spoiled child with an overzealous Republican agenda is annoying and disheartening as the day it was all set in motion.

If ever a president were deserving of no more than a one and done term in office its this guy. Impeachment is too unlikely. Hopefully the Repubs get what they feel they need over 4 years so we don't have to suffer 8 and they can gracefully let the next campaign crumble. Not optimistic about that either though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on June 08, 2017, 06:02:16 AM
If ever a president were deserving of no more than a one and done term in office its this guy. Impeachment is too unlikely. Hopefully the Repubs get what they feel they need over 4 years so we don't have to suffer 8 and they can gracefully let the next campaign crumble. Not optimistic about that either though.

Personally, I'd love to see Trump get primaried and replaced in 2020 which ought to piss off enough of the diehard Trump supporters to squash Republican turnout. Either way, though, if the Dems can't convince the country that they have a better candidate on offer in 2020, we might as well go ahead and sign their death warrant, at least in the red states.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 08, 2017, 07:34:01 AM
Trump has stated he will be tweeting during the Comey testimony. Lawyers are worried it will get him into even more legal trouble. Man this ought to be good. Time for the popcorn.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 08, 2017, 07:53:29 AM
At what time does the Comey testimony start and where can you watch it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 08, 2017, 07:57:05 AM
At what time does the Comey testimony start and where can you watch it?
In 4 minutes. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-james-comey-testify-senate-hearing-russia/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 08, 2017, 07:57:33 AM
Live WaPo stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puGY5JmWqUU
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 08, 2017, 08:12:01 AM
Live WaPo stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puGY5JmWqUU

Popcorn ready...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 08, 2017, 08:13:06 AM
Trump has stated he will be tweeting during the Comey testimony. Lawyers are worried it will get him into even more legal trouble. Man this ought to be good. Time for the popcorn.
I don't have access to Twitter right now. Anyone feel like posting tweets here (assuming his handlers don't tie him up and sit on him)?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 08, 2017, 08:51:24 AM
Trump has stated he will be tweeting during the Comey testimony. Lawyers are worried it will get him into even more legal trouble. Man this ought to be good. Time for the popcorn.
I don't have access to Twitter right now. Anyone feel like posting tweets here (assuming his handlers don't tie him up and sit on him)?
So far he's not tweeting.  Nothing since yesterday.  Maybe cooler heads have secured his phone for the time being?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on June 08, 2017, 09:09:07 AM
Comey be like

(https://i.imgur.com/SUWmQYR.gif)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on June 08, 2017, 12:27:08 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 08, 2017, 12:36:18 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

I felt like Comey had this, "Gee gosh golly Trump asked me about stopping the investigation into Michael Flynn" quality while at the same time he felt perfectly fine about criticizing Clinton's private email server when admitting that he wasn't going to file any wrongdoing charges, and also just days before the election he influences the election by making the earthshattering announcement that he was reopening the email investigation because Weiner's laptop had some duplicate Clinton emails via Huma Abedin.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 08, 2017, 12:39:51 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

The initial pundit take seems to be that Comey aptly backed up his statements and the republicans really couldn't poke holes in any of it. These included opining that he was fired because of the Russia investigation, that Trump demanded loyalty and indirectly asked him to end his investigation prematurely, and somewhat amazingly (to me), outright calling Trump a liar. He also admitted that he had indeed told Trump that he was not personally under investigation (at that time). In any case, few seem to think this will change any minds on the side of the GOP, so at most this is just more fuel for future proceedings if the Dems take over the house in 2018.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on June 08, 2017, 12:53:38 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on June 08, 2017, 01:07:46 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.

Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 08, 2017, 01:10:52 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.

Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.

Only when it's a Republican.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 08, 2017, 01:46:44 PM
After watching the testimony I've come to the conclusion that there could be several possibilities

1) Trump legitimately didn't know what he was doing was inappropriate.  This narrative is currently being pushed by Paul Ryan
2) Trump knew enough to know this was entirely inappropriate, but he did it anyway.  This narrative is backed up by the fact that he asked everyone, including Attorney General Sessions to leave the room.
3) Trump was attempting to stop an ongoing investigation because he did not want them to find out whatever there is to find out.  Here we have lots of smoke but the root cause - if there is one - hasn't been made public. 

I've listed them in order of severity.  Starting with (1) - this is worrisome because it suggests that the POTUS doesn't have a basic understanding of how our government works nor how his actions would be interpreted. The current defense that "he's inexperienced, it's ok" rings hollow to me, and it suggests that we should excuse his actions as an innocent newbie mistake.  Two problems I have with this - one not one single person of at least a half-dozen high-ranking people (including the US attorney general) made any move to stop this closed-door meeting. second, "not knowing better" is not an excuse.  I'm reminded of the pathetic first attempts of managment to shrug off sexual harassment claims saying 'what, i didn't know what i was doing was inappropriate - i just made a comment about her bra".  Ignorance is not a defense for something that should be obvious.

(2) More troubling is the idea that, even though there "may be no 'there' there" DJT knew at some level that his requests were on shaky moral ground but he pressed ahead anyway. In other words, he's so convinced that nothing below-grade happened that he just doesn't give a damn about how he goes about trying to end the whole thing.  This involves an incredible amount of hubris ("Flynn's a great guy - I'm sure there's nothing there even I don't know about") and a complete disrespect for independent investigations. At a minimum it suggests that DJT won't even consider the possibility that the Russians may be craftier than at least one of his staff.

Finally there's the most troubling option (3), that this is in fact at attempt to obfuscate the truth.  Not much was learned from this hearing to put this theory to bed, but nothing Comey said confirms it either.  one interesting factoid is that Comey called out the NY Times expo as being largely false, but as expected would not say what exactly they got wrong nor what the FBI knows (or knew at the time of his firing) - for that we'll have to wait for when/if Mueller makes his report public.  I'm still deeply troubled by this option, as there's just so much damn smoke.  But, is the smoke largely the result of arrogant rookie pols falling into the laps of seasoned Russian opporatives, or is it more deliberate and sinister.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on June 08, 2017, 03:07:18 PM
It's obstruction of justice.  I asked the investigator to stop investigating.  He didn't.  I fired his ass.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on June 08, 2017, 03:18:08 PM
It's obstruction of justice.  I asked the investigator to stop investigating.  He didn't.  I fired his ass.

The reason this isn't an impeachable offense is that he didn't order him to stop the investigation.  He said he hoped he would drop the investigation, instead of telling him to drop the investigation, and that subtle difference is why today's proceedings haven't sparked an impeachment hearing. 

Apparently, asking someone to do something illegal is legal, but telling him to do something illegal is illegal.  I know that I personally have a hard time deciphering when my boss is asking me to do something vs when he is telling me to do something.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 08, 2017, 03:47:58 PM
Ignorance is absolutely no defense here. Though it is no surprise they will play that card and many others, like dragging Comey needlessly through quesetions about Clinton's emails, to mitigate the weight of the fact that we have a president who respect 0 ethical boundaries. Honestly who gives 2 fucks about Obama or Clinton's emails anymore. Why even waste the breath.

But its absolute bullshit that he didn't know this is wrong. He just doesn't care. Comey directly told him that what he was asking is wrong. Comey's words,

No I cannot be "loyal", the FBI must act independently for reasons X, Y and Z.

Trump:
But I need loyalty...

There, that is all any average person would need to know to realize they may be crossing some ethical boundaries. He has plenty of lawyers of officials he could have bounced that off of after their first dinner. Trump knew exactly what he was doing in so far as he wanted the FBI to drop any negative investigation of him or his team. And he wanted to Comey to stay out of his business and not make him look bad, or you know be loyal jerk-off like everyone in his twisted family...

The fact that he though firing Comey would make things easier just makes him completely incompetent or petty. I lean towards him being so petty it makes him do incompetent impulsive things to keep his ego from caving in. The sad part is the Republicans will defend him as long as his presidency suits their ends and or he retains the majority support of the Republican base.

I in the recent past wanted to give his kids the benefit of the doubt. They at the very least all appear to be brighter than their dad and by themselves probably wouldn't be all bad people. But their shameless covering for Trumps consistent unethical behavior is damning when it comes to taking any of them seriously.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 08, 2017, 04:09:07 PM
It's obstruction of justice.  I asked the investigator to stop investigating.  He didn't.  I fired his ass.

The reason this isn't an impeachable offense is that he didn't order him to stop the investigation.  He said he hoped he would drop the investigation, instead of telling him to drop the investigation, and that subtle difference is why today's proceedings haven't sparked an impeachment hearing. 

Apparently, asking someone to do something illegal is legal, but telling him to do something illegal is illegal.  I know that I personally have a hard time deciphering when my boss is asking me to do something vs when he is telling me to do something.

Ethically Trump has crossed enough boundaries to where is completely impeachable if there were the political will to proceed with impeachment. Never going to happen with his own party in control though. Impeachment is political due to the fact that the constitution is open to the prevailing interpretation by congress which need not require the a president to commit an indictable crime.

Committing an indictable crime on Trumps part would however remove the likely Republican interpretation of the constitution that is in fact a requirement to proceed.

Even then its possible if public opinion remained on Trumps side Repubs could drag their feet. Then it seems the President is more or less free to absolve himself of any charges of a crime against the US not brought against him through a process of impeachment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 08, 2017, 06:04:53 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.

Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.

Only when it's a Republican.

I don't think his being Republican is related.  His biggest selling point for the election was that Trump had no idea what he was doing.  It was what he showed people over and over at every chance.  Continuing to demonstrate wild incompetence is continuing to play his base.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 08, 2017, 07:31:37 PM
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?

Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation.  Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation.  Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun.  He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.

It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer:  "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News:  But But Hillary.

Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.

Only when it's a Republican.

I don't think his being Republican is related.  His biggest selling point for the election was that Trump had no idea what he was doing.  It was what he showed people over and over at every chance.  Continuing to demonstrate wild incompetence is continuing to play his base.

yes. But Democrats still have a tiny bit of shame. I do not think they would use this excuse with a straight face.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 09, 2017, 06:06:42 AM

The reason this isn't an impeachable offense is that he didn't order him to stop the investigation.  He said he hoped he would drop the investigation, instead of telling him to drop the investigation, and that subtle difference is why today's proceedings haven't sparked an impeachment hearing. 


Yes, telling someone you “hope” they’ll do something can support an obstruction of justice case.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/documents/3861627-United-States-of-America-v-Collin-McDonald?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=opening-statement&utm_term=newsletter-20170609-774#.a1HAypq6a
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Forever Wednesday on June 09, 2017, 08:28:54 AM
Interesting to see that Comey felt the need to log all correspondence with Trump after meeting him for the very first time. This alone speaks volumes about Trump's character.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 09, 2017, 09:20:59 AM
Interesting to see that Comey felt the need to log all correspondence with Trump after meeting him for the very first time. This alone speaks volumes about Trump's character.

He is a compulsive liar. Not too difficult to make that observation. I would be writing everything down too. And probably recording it and leaking it to the press.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on June 09, 2017, 09:30:49 AM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 09, 2017, 01:12:20 PM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."

This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.

To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved.  WTF!!?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 09, 2017, 05:35:19 PM
Interesting to see that Comey felt the need to log all correspondence with Trump after meeting him for the very first time. This alone speaks volumes about Trump's character.

He actually explained the progression to the point of logging pretty clearly towards the end. It was his first official meetings odd nature that clearly triggered the notes.

He noted before that meeting on 2 or 3 separate occasions Trump had said to him directly in public settings that he hoped he would stay on as FBI director.

You don't even have to read between the lines or know Trump is a compulsive liar. He was clearly being brought into a situation where it was likely his conversations with Trump would be used in a way that would adversely affect his job and the current investigation.  Any diligent and careful person would have recommended taken notes.

I am happy to see those notes and his cautious reporting carry so much credibility. You notice not a single republic of note question his credibility. They only picked at his interpretation of events. I have always heard it was recommended to take notes if for instance you are getting verbally abused at say work but i always assumed it would be taken as not much better than your word versus theirs. But I can really see the value of that diligence in this case as a tool to defend your integrity and experience.

Only Trump was dumb enough to call Comey a liar. Trumps lying about such things is so compulsive I think it is literally a built in defense mechanism for his ego that requires no thought or purpose. He simply cant handle the fact that he did something wrong so instead of taking an ounce of responsibility he will just say its all lies...

I feel so sorry for everyone that has to deal with this jerk off.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 09, 2017, 05:55:31 PM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."

This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.

To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved.  WTF!!?

These are partisan oversight committees. The real investigation is being handled by the FBI which is anything help confirm for me that they are mostly unbiased on their to bring charges against anyone they feel committed a crime against the US.

The congressional and house oversight committees appear to simply be the usual circus side show meant only to garner political capital and trying rally public opinion to their side.

It is absolutely purely a matter of competing partisan narratives and that's all it can be. Sadly you have to cross this political bridge to invoke impeachment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 09, 2017, 06:27:47 PM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."

This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.

To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved.  WTF!!?

These are partisan oversight committees. The real investigation is being handled by the FBI which is anything help confirm for me that they are mostly unbiased on their to bring charges against anyone they feel committed a crime against the US.

The congressional and house oversight committees appear to simply be the usual circus side show meant only to garner political capital and trying rally public opinion to their side.

It is absolutely purely a matter of competing partisan narratives and that's all it can be. Sadly you have to cross this political bridge to invoke impeachment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers.  The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks.  Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 09, 2017, 09:45:28 PM
This thing just keeps getting weirder and weirder...

From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.
Shouldn't this have come up while going through the hiring phase??

DJT:  So people keep trying to tie me to Russia.  I keep telling them I've got nothing to do with Russia

Kasowitz: No problem, I'm very close to some powerful people in the Russian Government. 

DJT: You're hired!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: aaahhrealmarcus on June 10, 2017, 10:41:20 AM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 10, 2017, 10:55:29 AM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
I don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs.  The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.

As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc.  These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan)  But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on June 11, 2017, 09:43:34 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers.  The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks.  Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.

The NSA is an espionage organization, while the CIA is an espionage + covert action organization. They gather, analyze, and disseminate intelligence information. Neither has any criminal investigation component or charter, with the exception of performing counterintelligence (CI) investigations to ferret out moles/leakers/etc. But even in those instances, any information gathered in a CI investigation would be shared with the FBI for the criminal aspect and eventual criminal charges and prosecution. The FBI's National Security division does, in fact, have jurisdiction over watching foreign "diplomats" operating on American soil. So, the CIA, NSA, and other intel agencies would not be conducting any investigations of their own. They would only support the FBI in things like technical matters (for example, if the FBI wanted some help setting up technical surveillance or similar situations), providing background info on foreign diplomats being watched, and so on.

It's a weird and imperfect separation between what the FBI and CIA can do and where -- a legacy of J. Edgar Hoover's insistence on not giving up the FBI's "turf" back when the fledgling CIA was being launched in 1947. And Hoover largely got what he wanted because of his power back then (particularly the dirt he held against politicians at the time), even though most felt it would unduly tie the hands of the CIA to make that weird separation. And that separation did harm the nation (hello, 9/11 and lack of information-sharing between the FBI and CIA... I'm looking at you). Most people believe the CIA wasn't given this jurisdiction because we, as Americans, had such a strong revulsion against Stasi-like state police and domestic intelligence gathering following WWII, but that was more like 1% of the issue, while Hoover's turf claims was 99%.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Chris22 on June 12, 2017, 09:32:25 AM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
I don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs.  The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.

As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc.  These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan)  But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.

...Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros....


(let's not pretend it's a right-wing phenomenon, no?)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 12, 2017, 10:44:09 AM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
I don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs.  The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.

As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc.  These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan)  But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.

...Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros....


(let's not pretend it's a right-wing phenomenon, no?)
Of course - never meant to imply that spending money for influence was exclusive to one party (guilty of picking only the most recent examples), but it's gross hyperbole to equate the level of political influence these people have with the Russian oligarchs.
There's simply no contest.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 12, 2017, 12:27:07 PM
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.

Quote
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."

This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.

To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved.  WTF!!?

These are partisan oversight committees. The real investigation is being handled by the FBI which is anything help confirm for me that they are mostly unbiased on their to bring charges against anyone they feel committed a crime against the US.

The congressional and house oversight committees appear to simply be the usual circus side show meant only to garner political capital and trying rally public opinion to their side.

It is absolutely purely a matter of competing partisan narratives and that's all it can be. Sadly you have to cross this political bridge to invoke impeachment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers.  The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks.  Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.

I would guess the technical application of the FBI to investigate Trumps campaign comes under the mandate to discover if those Americans involved took actions that did harm to America. Criminal or otherwise. That fact that the method of harm was collusion with a foreign government is some what incidental.

Initial information gathering that triggered the FBI investigation, to my recollection of public information, was incidental intelligence gathering by the NSA which routinely monitors foreign communications with Americans. Hence all the unmasking stuff. Of course initially the FBI wouldn't have been doing any such monitoring since they don't investigate foreign communications.

Moving forward though, the FBI may gather some intelligence through the NSA or CIA, but I would expect that the FBI itself and maybe home land security or the only appropriate agencies to investigate Americans and harm they may have done.

The CIA is probably least involved since they mainly operate on a person to person level foreign intelligence gathering.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 12, 2017, 12:47:28 PM
From the AP
Quote
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.

Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.

Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
I don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs.  The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.

As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc.  These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan)  But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.

...Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros....


(let's not pretend it's a right-wing phenomenon, no?)
Of course - never meant to imply that spending money for influence was exclusive to one party (guilty of picking only the most recent examples), but it's gross hyperbole to equate the level of political influence these people have with the Russian oligarchs.
There's simply no contest.

Today of course it is, but the difference is a matter of degrees. Russia has reached the point where true political opposition is nearly impossible in the near term. The wealthy elite, business men and politicians have all merged into a single explicit entity in Russia. They generally aren't out terrorizing the populace and in many ways Russia is still a nice place to live, but the government still has full control over the media, politics and big business all under the same umbrella maintaining political power through imprisonment and killing of major opposition.

The US of course has business and political corruption. But our laws and conventions prevent us still from going anywhere near as far as Russia. Media and politicians can generally oppose each other in public without fear of death or imprisonment. We have reasonably healthy independent media and judiciary. Big money still has competing interests that align under two major competing parties.

In general in all major western countries it is very easy to distinguish systemic corruption in Russia from the pockets of corruption every country has in their system and we all rest along a spectrum.

My primary issue with Trump is that his public disdain for all opposition to his office is running a 24/7 campaign to discredit all entities not on the same page. And he has convinced a non-trivial portion of the population that it is okay and that he is a victim. That is doing an unknown amount of real long term damage to our system and pushing us along the spectrum away from a healthy system and towards a more authoritarian disposition where we are being told to believe a president over and independent and free press. Their is a vast difference between a healthy defense of your policy that opposes the popular press narrative and attempting fully discredit the only organizations able to analyze and criticize political action.

Our other branches of government are mostly holding strong, but they are unfortunately allowing this to continue for partisan gain. To spread the blame beyond Trump, there has been a long campaign in this country to discredit media sources on partisan grounds and this is the most recent culmination of that growing sentiment that some major news groups just can't be trusted.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 13, 2017, 07:37:52 AM
Word on the street is Trump might be firing Mueller as well. Did anyone watch clips of Trump's cabinet meeting? It reminded me of how lil Kim conducts meetings in North Korea. "Say something nice about me or I'll kill your family."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on June 13, 2017, 08:32:19 AM
Word on the street is Trump might be firing Mueller as well. Did anyone watch clips of Trump's cabinet meeting? It reminded me of how lil Kim conducts meetings in North Korea. "Say something nice about me or I'll kill your family."

Re: Firing Mueller...just when I think my mind can't get more boggled by Trump's terrible instincts, I'm proven wrong. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on June 13, 2017, 09:26:06 AM
Word on the street is Trump might be firing Mueller as well. Did anyone watch clips of Trump's cabinet meeting? It reminded me of how lil Kim conducts meetings in North Korea. "Say something nice about me or I'll kill your family."

Re: Firing Mueller...just when I think my mind can't get more boggled by Trump's terrible instincts, I'm proven wrong. 

No kidding. It would appear that the idea made public by a Trump ally (Chris Ruddy) as a way to stimulate a public conversation to "prove" to Trump how bad of an idea it would be. It's painfully unsettling that this seems to be an increasingly more common way for Trump's friends and advisers to communicate with him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on June 13, 2017, 10:45:00 AM
So, basically, since Trump only gets his 'intel' from the right-wing media he consumes with alarming alacrity, the only way his advisors can communicate with him (that he'll pay any attention to) is via those media. This is so bizarre.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 13, 2017, 10:46:43 AM
So, basically, since Trump only gets his 'intel' from the right-wing media he consumes with alarming alacrity, the only way his advisors can communicate with him (that he'll pay any attention to) is via those media. This is so bizarre.

Echo?

echo... echo... echo....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on June 13, 2017, 03:00:36 PM
Sessions as expected doubling down on having valid non Russian reasons for letting Commy go.

I am reading a live written feed of the conversation. I am somewhat surprised no one has hammered on the details on if he felt Commy was lying or misinterpreting Trumps requests to drop the investigation.

The strategy he is employing really is his only option. Dropping a lot of lines to cover his ass like:

 "to the best of my recollection" meaning I could be wrong but I am not lying.

 "I only know what I have read in the paper" alluding to the notion that most of the Russian investigation is hot tabloid crap.

It is a bit of game where he has to try to make the Democrats look crazy for pressing him. It seems the Republican questioners are making a point to use Session's staunch defense of Trump as a means to downplay any accusations made at Sessions.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 13, 2017, 03:02:25 PM
Five times in roughly five minutes Sessions has answered using some variation of "I cannot recall if this was discussed".

ETA:  WaPo's analysis had the following;
Quote
The attorney general underwent a barrage of questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, but about the only thing he could recall is that he didn’t do anything wrong

All of Session's answers seemed designed to give him an 'out' should his testimony be proven later to be false.

Tomorrow morning I'm sure we'll be treated to a barrage of declairations about how this was the greatest testimony ever.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on June 13, 2017, 03:28:43 PM
Yep, tough to lie when you use such generic phrases. Sessions just got nailed for sticking by the Clinton excuse for firing Comey. Called out for his own contradictory statements back then and Trump admitting it was because of the Russian investigation.

Trump needs to testify next. You know since Comey lied so much. He can set the record straight!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 14, 2017, 05:15:44 PM
With an exceedingly rare, near-unanimous vote (97-2) the Senate voted today to block any efforts by the president to scale back sanctions against Russia, and to strengthen those sanctions in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 election and its actions in Syria.

The two senators who voted "no" were Rand Paul and Mike Lee (both R).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on July 05, 2017, 12:23:42 PM
Interesting article referencing the Wall Street journal articles  http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/russia-scandal-takes-alarming-turn-trump-world?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Greenback Reproduction Specialist on July 05, 2017, 01:16:52 PM
speaking of interesting articles....

Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation, actually False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html

Salon reports : The FBI is leading an investigation into Donald Trump’s connections with Russia, actually False, as later revealed by Comey himself.
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/20/the-fbi-is-leading-an-investigation-into-donald-trumps-connections-with-russia/

NY Times reports:F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms, Again False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

This is truly a witch hunt, and the media has already lost credibility for being so careless with their facts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 05, 2017, 01:39:21 PM
speaking of interesting articles....

Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation, actually False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html

Salon reports : The FBI is leading an investigation into Donald Trump’s connections with Russia, actually False, as later revealed by Comey himself.
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/20/the-fbi-is-leading-an-investigation-into-donald-trumps-connections-with-russia/

NY Times reports:F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms, Again False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

This is truly a witch hunt, and the media has already lost credibility for being so careless with their facts.

I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 05, 2017, 02:58:52 PM
speaking of interesting articles....

Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation, actually False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html

I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Yes, that NY Times article probably is accurate - including the part where it says "CNN was forced to apologize after retracting a story on its website that a Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 05, 2017, 03:34:37 PM
Yes, a news outlet got something wrong and retracted, therefore the Russia story is 100% FAKE NEWS. Impeccable logic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Greenback Reproduction Specialist on July 05, 2017, 03:37:03 PM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 05, 2017, 06:09:42 PM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.

None of this matters.
We still have Trump removing Comey because Comey was investigating Putin efforts to undermine the 2016 federal elections, and the Trump's campaign's connections to Putin.
We still have connections of Manafort and Sessions and Kushner with Putin and Kislyak.
And finally, we still don't have any Trump tax returns.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on July 06, 2017, 07:08:39 AM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.


And CNN admitted their fault and retracted, and fired 3 journalists over it. I'm not sure what the problem is. If anything, their actions help their credibility, rather than hurt it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 06, 2017, 08:05:58 AM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.


And CNN admitted their fault and retracted, and fired 3 journalists over it. I'm not sure what the problem is. If anything, their actions help their credibility, rather than hurt it.

Meanwhile, the Trump's extensive list of blatant bullshit claims (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) go completely ignored by his supporters.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 06, 2017, 08:34:28 AM
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?

Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.


And CNN admitted their fault and retracted, and fired 3 journalists over it. I'm not sure what the problem is. If anything, their actions help their credibility, rather than hurt it.

Meanwhile, the Trump's extensive list of blatant bullshit claims (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) go completely ignored by his supporters.

Nevermind Trump (because he doesn't care about being a liar), when was the last time Breitbart retracted a bullshit story?  They're still standing behind their pizzagate "reporting".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 07, 2017, 08:17:10 PM
Someone or organization is trying to plant a fake NSA document to the Rachel Maddow Show to attempt to derail investigating any Trump campaign links to Russia's efforts at altering the presidential outcome.

The link provides an interesting video link to the Rachel Maddow show which explains this fake document

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-forged-nsa-document-discredit-news-organizations_us_595ef40ce4b0d5b458e96791
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 08, 2017, 05:29:34 AM
Someone or organization is trying to plant a fake NSA document to the Rachel Maddow Show to attempt to derail investigating any Trump campaign links to Russia's efforts at altering the presidential outcome.

The link provides an interesting video link to the Rachel Maddow show which explains this fake document

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-forged-nsa-document-discredit-news-organizations_us_595ef40ce4b0d5b458e96791

Don't you know, innocent folks always attempt to derail investigations when there is nothing to find.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 09, 2017, 04:31:53 AM
Well it's not even speculation anymore: DJT Jr. confirms that he, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with a Kremlin official last June.  He claims they never spoke about the campaign, and only talked about sanctions against Russia, including adoption.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 09, 2017, 09:46:19 AM
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 09, 2017, 04:28:03 PM
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753

Too bad Bin Laden is dead. Trump could have corroborated with him to form an anti-terrorism unit.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 09, 2017, 05:38:02 PM
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753

Too bad Bin Laden is dead. Trump could have corroborated with him to form an anti-terrorism unit.

I liked this one from DCResisterBee
"This is like the FBI asking the Mafia to form an anti-crime unit together"

I also like, "Asking Russia for advice on cyber security makes about as much sense as asking the Koch brothers for advice on global warming. Oh, wait.."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 09, 2017, 07:03:08 PM
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753

Too bad Bin Laden is dead. Trump could have corroborated with him to form an anti-terrorism unit.

I liked this one from DCResisterBee
"This is like the FBI asking the Mafia to form an anti-crime unit together"

I also like, "Asking Russia for advice on cyber security makes about as much sense as asking the Koch brothers for advice on global warming. Oh, wait.."

Haha I read those as well. I was reading them off to my family. We were all cracking up.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 10, 2017, 09:45:12 AM
This piece from the Atlantic is a nice summary of the idiocy of Donald Trump Jr. Basically, "Yes we met with a Russian who promised to give us incriminating stuff about Clinton, but then bailed when she didn't have the goods." In other words, we would have been really stoked if the collusion had paid off better. What a dumpster fire.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/if-there-wasnt-collusion-it-wasnt-for-lack-of-trying/533070/

And the source NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

... and speaking of dumpster fires, here's how it's being covered on Faux News:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-meeting-brit-hume-says-no-evidence-collusion
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 10, 2017, 12:37:35 PM
This directly contradicts months from the Trump campaign claiming that they never met with Russian officials nor discussed compaign issues with Russians.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 10, 2017, 01:56:22 PM
Wonder how this is going over behind closed doors. Trump can't use his go to "fake news" quip. Anyone watch the train wreck Conway interview? I don't know how that woman can live with herself. Wowzer!!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 10, 2017, 02:15:21 PM
Meh, par for the course.  It won't matter.

He denied being a sexist even after all those comments about pageant contestants, and then the pussy grabbing tape came out and removed all doubt, and people accepted him.

He denied any and all contact with the Russians, then this happens, but people will still accept him.  This is America today.

His tax evasion, his corrupt charity, his potential nepotism, his conflicts of interest, his fraud lawsuits, none of it will matter.  He denies everything, then when proved to be a liar he attacks his opponents with the same claim instead of admitting any wrongdoing.  People eat it up.  He can do no wrong.

He's currently competing with U. Grant for the title of most corrupt US president ever.  History will judge him to be an embarrassment to our nation, like Grant, but he still gets to be president for as long as he can win elections.  The greatest flaw in democracy is that popularity does not endow any worthiness for the job, so sometimes we end up with dumpster fires as leaders.  We'll either move past it, or sunset.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 10, 2017, 02:35:36 PM
Meh, par for the course.  It won't matter.

He denied being a sexist even after all those comments about pageant contestants, and then the pussy grabbing tape came out and removed all doubt, and people accepted him.

He denied any and all contact with the Russians, then this happens, but people will still accept him.  This is America today.

His tax evasion, his corrupt charity, his potential nepotism, his conflicts of interest, his fraud lawsuits, none of it will matter.  He denies everything, then when proved to be a liar he attacks his opponents with the same claim instead of admitting any wrongdoing.  People eat it up.  He can do no wrong.

He's currently competing with U. Grant for the title of most corrupt US president ever.  History will judge him to be an embarrassment to our nation, like Grant, but he still gets to be president for as long as he can win elections.  The greatest flaw in democracy is that popularity does not endow any worthiness for the job, so sometimes we end up with dumpster fires as leaders.  We'll either move past it, or sunset.

Well, there is still the Mueller wild card. He could throw a wrench into Trump's cogs. It seems likely that Trump would just fire him if it seemed problematic, and then it would simply be a political football if enough Republicans would turn on Trump at that point. Given their current level of acceptance of his behavior, I'm not particularly hopeful.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 10, 2017, 07:20:41 PM
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 10, 2017, 08:18:11 PM
Meh, par for the course.  It won't matter.

He denied being a sexist even after all those comments about pageant contestants, and then the pussy grabbing tape came out and removed all doubt, and people accepted him.

He denied any and all contact with the Russians, then this happens, but people will still accept him.  This is America today.

His tax evasion, his corrupt charity, his potential nepotism, his conflicts of interest, his fraud lawsuits, none of it will matter.  He denies everything, then when proved to be a liar he attacks his opponents with the same claim instead of admitting any wrongdoing.  People eat it up.  He can do no wrong.

He's currently competing with U. Grant for the title of most corrupt US president ever.  History will judge him to be an embarrassment to our nation, like Grant, but he still gets to be president for as long as he can win elections.  The greatest flaw in democracy is that popularity does not endow any worthiness for the job, so sometimes we end up with dumpster fires as leaders.  We'll either move past it, or sunset.
I think what's hard to grasp sometimes is the level of hatred for Hillary. There is now this non-falsifiable view held by intransigent Trumpistas that Trump's blunders since assuming office are excusable because Hillary would have done far, far worse, corrupt, criminal things.

My former boss at work who voted for Trump without shame***, recently agreed with me that Trump is ineffectual and an embarrassment (baby steps).

***speaking of shame, I live in one of the reddest parts of the country; many, many people came back from the polls on election day and meekly and with shame admitted to voting for Trump. Red America has a brain and a conscience but it is superseded by the propaganda machine that leveled Hillary. The country is in trouble if tribalism and habit continue to win out over reason.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 10, 2017, 10:47:09 PM
I think what's hard to grasp sometimes is the level of hatred for Hillary. There is now this non-falsifiable view held by intransigent Trumpistas that Trump's blunders since assuming office are excusable because Hillary would have done far, far worse, corrupt, criminal things.

My former boss at work who voted for Trump without shame***, recently agreed with me that Trump is ineffectual and an embarrassment (baby steps).

***speaking of shame, I live in one of the reddest parts of the country; many, many people came back from the polls on election day and meekly and with shame admitted to voting for Trump. Red America has a brain and a conscience but it is superseded by the propaganda machine that leveled Hillary. The country is in trouble if tribalism and habit continue to win out over reason.

I think this may be true. Many on the left tend to characterize the Trump voters as inexplicably slavish in their devotion to him. And surely, there are a fair number of those folks out there. But as someone who pathologically reads many of the cesspool of comments on news articles (yes, I know, I need a life), I have recently noticed (albeit anecdotally) and interesting trend towards even more "but Hillary" responses than ever (as opposed to "snowflake," "Obama," "this isn't actually a big deal," etc.), the more bombs that are dropped. They may not even realize it, but I think these people instinctively understand that Trump really is the disaster everyone says he is, thus they have to revert to the one core belief that they think still justifies voting for such a disaster--HRC would have been even worse.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 11, 2017, 05:48:05 AM
Many Trump supporters support him for reasons similar to many post-Lewinsky Clinton supporters: they agree with his policies and choose to overlook his personal behavior.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 11, 2017, 06:08:44 AM
There has been a concerted, semi-cordinated effort to discredit and demonize HRC for over 25 years, going back to when she was first lady of Arkansas and then FLOTUS.  It would be hard for anyone to overcome that.  I certainly don't think she's the best we have to offer, but she's certainly not the evil-incarnate many have portrayed her as.
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on July 11, 2017, 08:30:18 AM
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.

Mueller issues a report implicating Tr*mp, the Rs in Congress reluctantly call on Tr*mp to resign for the good of the nation, he refuses, impeachment!  Maybe?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 08:40:40 AM
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.

Mueller issues a report implicating Tr*mp, the Rs in Congress reluctantly call on Tr*mp to resign for the good of the nation, he refuses, impeachment!  Maybe?

More likely Mueller issues a report implicating Trump, the Rs in Congress suddenly claim Mueller is on the Russian payroll and try him for treason, Trump gives a campaign rally style speech at Mueller's public execution.  Adoring crowds chant "drain the swamp" as democracy dies.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 11, 2017, 09:01:14 AM
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.

Mueller issues a report implicating Tr*mp, the Rs in Congress reluctantly call on Tr*mp to resign for the good of the nation, he refuses, impeachment!  Maybe?

More likely Mueller issues a report implicating Trump, the Rs in Congress suddenly claim Mueller is on the Russian payroll and try him for treason, Trump gives a campaign rally style speech at Mueller's public execution.  Adoring crowds chant "drain the swamp" as democracy dies.
So, your basic Turkey/Erdogan scenario?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 09:29:41 AM
Many Trump supporters support him for reasons similar to many post-Lewinsky Clinton supporters: they agree with his policies and choose to overlook his personal behavior.

Maybe, except his policies are backfiring as well. American's are paying for the wall. ISIS wasn't defeated in 30 days. Coal and manufacturing jobs aren't coming back as he promised. Repeal and replace is highly unfavorable in every single state. And he doesn't know what to do with NK because bullying didn't work. His approval ratings have plunged. He still won't acknowledge Russia hacked the election. And every day seemingly more and more evidence of Russia collusion.

Frankly I have no ideal what policies they are still supporting. He's torn apart families by deporting a few hard working folks back to Mexico. Maybe that is it? Perhaps it's the watered down version of his Muslim ban that finally got approved? At this point I am more likely to agree those still supporting him just love pissing off liberals. Policies be damned.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: boy_bye on July 11, 2017, 09:50:28 AM
Many Trump supporters support him for reasons similar to many post-Lewinsky Clinton supporters: they agree with his policies and choose to overlook his personal behavior.

Maybe, except his policies are backfiring as well. American's are paying for the wall. ISIS wasn't defeated in 30 days. Coal and manufacturing jobs aren't coming back as he promised. Repeal and replace is highly unfavorable in every single state. And he doesn't know what to do with NK because bullying didn't work. His approval ratings have plunged. He still won't acknowledge Russia hacked the election. And every day seemingly more and more evidence of Russia collusion.

Frankly I have no ideal what policies they are still supporting. He's torn apart families by deporting a few hard working folks back to Mexico. Maybe that is it? Perhaps it's the watered down version of his Muslim ban that finally got approved? At this point I am more likely to agree those still supporting him just love pissing off liberals. Policies be damned.

Yep. He's never had any coherent or consistent policy stances. He embraces the last thing that was said to him, either by humans around him or on Fox News.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 11, 2017, 10:00:18 AM
...Russia hacked the election.
If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).

If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 11, 2017, 10:18:03 AM
...Russia hacked the election.
If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).

If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.

1. Two wrongs do not make a right. We have done things that are bad, but that does not mean we should accept overt foreign tampering. We should be especially vigilant when our candidates potentially colluded with them. Sovereignty is important.

2. This is just a single report, and it correctly states to be cautious of running to far with it, but:
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/06/heres-the-public-evidence-that-supports-the-idea-that-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.3c092403ecba

Quote
“Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election,” the Intercept’s report said, detailing the NSA’s analysis supporting that claim. It noted, though, that the analysis represents only one point of evidence to the charges it presents and that the document does not include the raw intelligence supporting the claims. That said, it comports with what was released publicly by the intelligence agencies.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 10:20:09 AM
...Russia hacked the election.
If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).

If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.

Or the third choice that I was actually referring to whereby they actually hacked voting systems in 39 states accessing a campaign finance database in one state and trying to alter voter data in another. Which of course more fits the literal definition of hacking.  Trump thinks it could have been some fat guy lying on his bed. The fact that he won't accept what every single US agency has concluded, that it indeed was Russia, is extremely telling.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 11, 2017, 10:36:53 AM
...Russia hacked the election.
If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).

If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.

I mean, to me this reads like classic deflection, but whatever. The fact remains many of the policies Trump was elected on, that you claim people support, people clearly (by polling--re: Trumpcare) don't actually support, or have not been effectively executed as promised (wall, ISIS, etc.). The only things I've seen actually happening that I know these people "support" are a) Gorsch b) making America hostile towards immigrants again b) pissing off liberals daily c) at least he's not HRC d) a lot of handwaving at actual "conservative" policies (the definition of conservatism an ever moving target, but as long as their favorite bobble head supports something...)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 10:42:38 AM
"But Benghazi!"

See how easy that is?  We don't need to worry about colluding with the Russians, or sexual assaults, or fraud convictions, or the emolument clause, or hidden tax returns, or six bankruptcies, or martial infidelities, or demonizing immigrants, or voter suppression, or enciting violence against the free press, or carny hands.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.

Trump could go on Fox and say "of course I colluded with the Russians to beat crooked Hillary, I had to do it to make America great again" and his supporters world lap it up.  They don't care that it's illegal or immoral or that he previously denied it.  Nothing matters anymore.  He's untouchable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 11:00:57 AM
Manchurian Candidate
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 11, 2017, 11:36:02 AM
The email exchange reported in this article is pretty good (and by good, I mean damning, bad, and treasonous). I'm curious how the veracity of the emails was confirmed. Though, it should be noted that Don Trump Jr confirmed the meetings and the general progression of events, so at present I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the wording.

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on July 11, 2017, 12:08:52 PM
The email exchange reported in this article is pretty good (and by good, I mean damning, bad, and treasonous). I'm curious how the veracity of the emails was confirmed. Though, it should be noted that Don Trump Jr confirmed the meetings and the general progression of events, so at present I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the wording.

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia

Don Jr tweeted out screenshots of the actual email exchange so the wording is quite accurate.  No word on the post meeting follow-up emails...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 11, 2017, 12:13:24 PM
The email exchange reported in this article is pretty good (and by good, I mean damning, bad, and treasonous). I'm curious how the veracity of the emails was confirmed. Though, it should be noted that Don Trump Jr confirmed the meetings and the general progression of events, so at present I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the wording.

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia

Don Jr tweeted out screenshots of the actual email exchange so the wording is quite accurate.  No word on the post meeting follow-up emails...
Yep, he tweeted them out.
How fucking stupid is he? Did he really think this would help him? Wow. Or is he assuming the world is as Sol says it is and the Trumps have some sort of teflon immunity?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TornWonder on July 11, 2017, 12:19:51 PM
"But Benghazi!"

See how easy that is?  We don't need to worry about

colluding with the Russians
no evidence of this
Quote
or sexual assaults
no evidence of this
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime
Quote
or the emolument clause
people that use this as argument against Donald Trump obviously don't understand what it is
Quote
or hidden tax returns
what purpose would releasing them do, would it change your opinion of him to see a clean tax return with no ties to Russian companies, or would you probably still hate him?
Quote
or six bankruptcies
out of hundreds of enterprises he created
Quote
or martial infidelities
at least he got them out of the way before he entered office?
Quote
or demonizing immigrants
only criminal ones
Quote
or voter suppression
of illegal voters
Quote
or enciting violence against the free press
tweeting a gif is inciting violence?  I hope you're joking
Quote
or carny hands
you're body shaming now?

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Quote
Trump could go on Fox and say "of course I colluded with the Russians to beat crooked Hillary, I had to do it to make America great again" and his supporters world lap it up.  They don't care that it's illegal or immoral or that he previously denied it.  Nothing matters anymore.  He's untouchable.
Is there anything Trump could do that would give you a positive opinion of him?  If not, aren't you simply the opposite side of the coin you claim to hate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on July 11, 2017, 12:32:08 PM
no evidence of this

Careful, it's a black hole. Anyone going in?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on July 11, 2017, 12:39:43 PM
Could anyone give a solid explanation as to the legal implications of what Donald Jr. has admitted to?

It certainly seems suspicious and dirty but honestly I don't know what is and isn't allowed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 11, 2017, 12:42:57 PM
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime

That's true.  Trump has settled out of court on hundreds of cases to make them go away.  Most recently he settled one of the Trump University lawsuits by paying the plaintiffs 25 million dollars.  Sol should have used:

Quote
or fraud convictions
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 11, 2017, 12:44:53 PM
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Hillary Clinton has never been convicted of any crime.

Pot - meet kettle.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 12:46:53 PM
Donald Trump committed fraud in his charity foundation. He was informed by the IRS of self-dealing. He had to correct this.
Are you saying because he corrected the self dealing that he didn't commit a crime?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 11, 2017, 01:07:09 PM
Could anyone give a solid explanation as to the legal implications of what Donald Jr. has admitted to?

It certainly seems suspicious and dirty but honestly I don't know what is and isn't allowed.

I am no expert but the majority of op-eds I've read so far trend more towards "what he did was contemptible and should have no place in American democracy, might technically along very (very) narrow legal lines have been illegal, even, but probably isn't prosecutable."

Kind of like sharing crucial intel with a non-ally that probably got operatives killed and at a minimum damaged relations with an actual ally who is crucial to our middle east policy. Not technically illegal if the president did it, so it's all good, right?

Anyway, the consensus still seems to be that proof of a cover up is the most likely path towards criminal charges for most of these guys.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on July 11, 2017, 01:10:23 PM
Quote
or enciting violence against the free press
tweeting a gif is inciting violence?  I hope you're joking
Twitter is a means of communication, if words can incite violence then so can gifs. More importantly, do you think this is the only instance of Trump inciting violence against the press? calling the media the "enemy of the American people" sounds rather inciteful to me.
Quote
or carny hands
you're body shaming now?
This is not a joke about his hands, it's a joke about his ego. Graydon Carter referred to Trump as "short-fingered" in Spy Magazine in 1988. Since then Trump has periodically mailed pictures of himself to Carter with his hands circled to indicate they are normal sized. He even received one that said "See, not so short" written in gold sharpie just before Trump announced his nomination. 28 years later.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 11, 2017, 01:22:42 PM
Could anyone give a solid explanation as to the legal implications of what Donald Jr. has admitted to?

It certainly seems suspicious and dirty but honestly I don't know what is and isn't allowed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

Quote
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

Quote
A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

So almost everyone agrees - he, at the very least, violated campaign finance law.  I think there will need to be something more to prove anything beyond that.  Of course, the investigations are still ongoing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 01:36:04 PM

or sexual assaults
no evidence of this

Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TornWonder on July 11, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime

That's true.  Trump has settled out of court on hundreds of cases to make them go away.  Most recently he settled one of the Trump University lawsuits by paying the plaintiffs 25 million dollars.  Sol should have used:

Quote
or fraud convictions

He has settled a lawsuit, in civil court.  For him to be convicted of a crime, he would have to be tried in a criminal court, which has never happened.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on July 11, 2017, 01:42:29 PM
I try not to publicly waste too much time shit talking Trumps family. I don't believe they are as ignorant or potentially mentally ill as Trump himself is. By that standard they appear very normal and maybe even well adjusted. But I do think at this point none of them are worth defending from a political standpoint because it has been made evident that they are 100% loyal to Trump.

His kids, in-laws and his wife all relentlessly cover for him even when their narrative runs counter to the truth staring you right in the face. I kind of get it, its a tough road if your daddy is a public figure and a piece of shit. I can't say I wouldn't roll with it and defend him if I were in their place. I mean why should I give a shit about the American public, the media or the truth over my own father if he treats me well and looks out for me?

But that is exactly the reason none of those people should be in any appointed position of power or influence within our government. Clearly all of his family are too conflicted to act in anyone's interest but their own families.

The only silver lining, for a more left leaning person, that may come out of Trump is that we may actually see a congress willing to cut back on some of the presidential overreached we were all too happy to allow in the Bush and Obama years.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TornWonder on July 11, 2017, 01:47:13 PM

or sexual assaults
no evidence of this

Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.

I'm not defending sexual assault, I'm defending against false accusations.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 01:50:05 PM
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime

That's true.  Trump has settled out of court on hundreds of cases to make them go away.  Most recently he settled one of the Trump University lawsuits by paying the plaintiffs 25 million dollars.  Sol should have used:

Quote
or fraud convictions

Trump is guilty of fraud.  Not just settling lawsuits, actually losing lawsuits.  Multiple lawsuits, where a judge declared him guilty.  His supporters claim this doesn't count because it is his family businesses and subsidiaries that have been convicted, not him personally, but I don't see the distinction.

So I comfortably stand by my earlier statement.  Trump is guilty of fraud, and it still doesn't matter at all to his supporters.  Just like it didn't matter when he admitted sexual assault, or colluding with the Russians, or tax evasion, or taking payments from foreign governments, or anything else.

Yep, he tweeted them out.
How fucking stupid is he? Did he really think this would help him? Wow. Or is he assuming the world is as Sol says it is and the Trumps have some sort of teflon immunity?

Trump junior only released the emails because he knew the times was going to do it mere hours later, and it looks better to release incriminating evidence yourself than to have it uncovered by investigative journalists.  He didn't release then to clear himself, he released them as damage control.  Notice the headlines are all "Tump junior releases..." instead of "NYTimes reveals..."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on July 11, 2017, 01:59:58 PM
Trump junior only released the emails because he knew the times was going to do it mere hours later, and it looks better to release incriminating evidence yourself than to have it uncovered by investigative journalists.  He didn't release then to clear himself, he released them as damage control.  Notice the headlines are all "Tump junior releases..." instead of "NYTimes reveals..."
And now Trump supporters can say "this can't really be incriminating, no one is that stupid."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on July 11, 2017, 02:05:09 PM

or sexual assaults
no evidence of this

Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.

I'm not defending sexual assault, I'm defending against false accusations.
So Trump made a false accusation against himself?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: onecoolcat on July 11, 2017, 02:40:59 PM
"But Benghazi!"

See how easy that is?  We don't need to worry about

colluding with the Russians
no evidence of this
Quote
or sexual assaults
no evidence of this
Quote
or fraud convictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crime
Quote
or the emolument clause
people that use this as argument against Donald Trump obviously don't understand what it is
Quote
or hidden tax returns
what purpose would releasing them do, would it change your opinion of him to see a clean tax return with no ties to Russian companies, or would you probably still hate him?
Quote
or six bankruptcies
out of hundreds of enterprises he created
Quote
or martial infidelities
at least he got them out of the way before he entered office?
Quote
or demonizing immigrants
only criminal ones
Quote
or voter suppression
of illegal voters
Quote
or enciting violence against the free press
tweeting a gif is inciting violence?  I hope you're joking
Quote
or carny hands
you're body shaming now?

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Quote
Trump could go on Fox and say "of course I colluded with the Russians to beat crooked Hillary, I had to do it to make America great again" and his supporters world lap it up.  They don't care that it's illegal or immoral or that he previously denied it.  Nothing matters anymore.  He's untouchable.
Is there anything Trump could do that would give you a positive opinion of him? If not, aren't you simply the opposite side of the coin you claim to hate.

He could resign from office.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 03:54:19 PM

or sexual assaults
no evidence of this

Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.

I'm not defending sexual assault, I'm defending against false accusations.

You missed the bolded part. Try again?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 11, 2017, 04:09:39 PM
He has settled a lawsuit, in civil court.  For him to be convicted of a crime, he would have to be tried in a criminal court, which has never happened.

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Can you point to the criminal court case where Hillary was tried and convicted?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 04:25:16 PM
He has settled a lawsuit, in civil court.  For him to be convicted of a crime, he would have to be tried in a criminal court, which has never happened.

Quote
.  America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.
Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.

Can you point to the criminal court case where Hillary was tried and convicted?

You're banging your head on a brick troll wall.  In the brave new world of Trump's America, Hillary is a criminal without ever appearing in court, but Trump is innocent after literal convictions.

Also, Hillary was working with Russians, Hillary is too old to be president, Hillary is too secretive, Hillary disclosed classified information, Hillary is in the pocket of wall street, and Hillary wants to ruin healthcare.  Not Trump though, he's innocent of all of those charges.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: golden1 on July 11, 2017, 04:31:58 PM
Stop trying to convert Trump supporters.  It’s a lost cause.  They belong to a cult.  They would live, die or kill for him I think.  At a certain point, they went all in, and there is no leaving the cult.  Any action of his is justifiable.  They will rationalize away actions that they would disown their own family members for. 

I don’t get it, but I think, at some level, he just “feels” right to these people.  I have a visceral distaste for the man that runs deep, but these people look at him and the things he does and says and they feel warm and happy inside.  I have a hard time even looking at his face (and I think that is part of the appeal too for Trumpers).  They love that he pisses liberals off.

It doesn’t matter what he does, legal or illegal.  It doesn’t matter what his policies are.  It doesn’t even matter that his policies will likely hurt them personally.   The only thing that matters is that he makes them feel better about themselves.  The rest is just irrelevant.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 11, 2017, 04:47:16 PM
Stop trying to convert Trump supporters.  It’s a lost cause.  They belong to a cult.  They would live, die or kill for him I think.  At a certain point, they went all in, and there is no leaving the cult.  Any action of his is justifiable.  They will rationalize away actions that they would disown their own family members for. 

I don’t get it, but I think, at some level, he just “feels” right to these people.  I have a visceral distaste for the man that runs deep, but these people look at him and the things he does and says and they feel warm and happy inside.  I have a hard time even looking at his face (and I think that is part of the appeal too for Trumpers).  They love that he pisses liberals off.

It doesn’t matter what he does, legal or illegal.  It doesn’t matter what his policies are.  It doesn’t even matter that his policies will likely hurt them personally.   The only thing that matters is that he makes them feel better about themselves.  The rest is just irrelevant.

Agreed. They wouldn't care if he literally destroyed the country, as long as it pissed liberals off.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 11, 2017, 05:11:49 PM
Sure looks like Donald Trump junior is going to jail.

Any bets on how long the presidential pardon takes?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 11, 2017, 05:23:39 PM
Sure looks like Donald Trump junior is going to jail.

Any bets on how long the presidential pardon takes?

He can pardon preemptively a la Ford/Nixon. I'm surprised he hasn't pardoned his entire family and everyone he likes for everything they may have done already.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 11, 2017, 06:36:05 PM
Sure looks like Donald Trump junior is going to jail.

Any bets on how long the presidential pardon takes?

He can pardon preemptively a la Ford/Nixon. I'm surprised he hasn't pardoned his entire family and everyone he likes for everything they may have done already.

He could preemptively pardon himself?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 06:51:24 PM
Kristof's column about the implications of Donald Jr.'s emails are spelled out really well.

"This is also arguably “soft collusion,” acceptance of a foreign power’s interference in an election for one’s own benefit. Whether there was a quid pro quo and “hard collusion,” we’ll have to see. We do have the outlines of a quid pro quo, in which each side was signalling what it wanted: The Trump campaign wanted dirt on the Clintons, and Russia wanted an easing of sanctions if Trump was elected.
After this meeting, the Trumps or the White House denied at least eight times that such a meeting had taken place. That is duplicity on top of collusion."


The Trumps Embraced a Russian Plot
https://nyti.ms/2u4r5t0 via @NickKristof
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 11, 2017, 08:20:59 PM
There may be something tangible in this latest brouhaha.  Problem is all the previous "cry wolf" episodes of "this is finally the thing that will bring Trump down" that ultimately evaporated. 

As with any cry wolf situation, sometimes there really is a wolf but too often there isn't.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 08:47:37 PM
There may be something tangible in this latest brouhaha.  Problem is all the previous "cry wolf" episodes of "this is finally the thing that will bring Trump down" that ultimately evaporated. 

As with any cry wolf situation, sometimes there really is a wolf but too often there isn't.

I'm sure Trump tries to make things look like wolves merely crying by blocking evidence from being discovered - so he fired Comey.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 11, 2017, 08:54:05 PM
I'm sure Trump tries to make things look like wolves merely crying by blocking evidence from being discovered - so he fired Comey.
How does firing Comey block evidence from being discovered? 

For background, I'm assuming the head of the FBI is analogous to the CEO of some science-based company.  The CEO doesn't personally discover new products, the R&D folks do.  Similarly, the head of the FBI doesn't personally discover evidence, the agents in the FBI do.  I don't have personal knowledge of the FBI's inner workings so that assumption may be incorrect.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 11, 2017, 10:19:12 PM
That's a question to ask Trump
Trump to NBC: "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story."

Firing Comey was meant to send a message to the FBI to stop investigating the "made up story."

Maybe the FBI agents you refer to are going to go real slow.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 12, 2017, 04:31:41 AM
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO.  He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.

none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end.  Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ncornilsen on July 12, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO.  He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.

none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end.  Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.

I think Trump had a good case to fire Comey. He willingly came out and told the world that Clinton wasn't under investigation... for whatever reason. He refused to do the same thing for Trump when he wasn't under investigation... seeming to want the speculation to continue to damage Trump.

Anyway, looks like Donny JR is in hot water. If he is guilty, I hope he is punished to the full extent of the law, along with anyone else who was directly and provably involved. As far as I'm concerned, trump has accomplished the mission I had in mind - ending Hillary Clinton's political career. Impeach the fucker for all I care now.

Also, I would agree that almost all of Trumps support centers around how much he pisses liberals off. Look at the headlines on shitbart: "obama FURIOUS this or that" etc. If he were to back off on the controversy, he'd loose this support.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on July 12, 2017, 10:15:36 AM
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO.  He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.

none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end.  Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.

I think Trump had a good case to fire Comey. He willingly came out and told the world that Clinton wasn't under investigation... for whatever reason. He refused to do the same thing for Trump when he wasn't under investigation... seeming to want the speculation to continue to damage Trump.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the difference is Clinton wasn't under investigation, and there was minimal chance that she would be after that point. Whereas with Trump, the odds of him subsequently becoming the subject of an investigation were/are much, much higher. Saying Trump wasn't under investigation and then having him come under investigation would have been a huge problem.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 12, 2017, 10:17:41 AM
I'm sure Trump tries to make things look like wolves merely crying by blocking evidence from being discovered - so he fired Comey.
How does firing Comey block evidence from being discovered? 

For background, I'm assuming the head of the FBI is analogous to the CEO of some science-based company.  The CEO doesn't personally discover new products, the R&D folks do.  Similarly, the head of the FBI doesn't personally discover evidence, the agents in the FBI do.  I don't have personal knowledge of the FBI's inner workings so that assumption may be incorrect.

Also, anyone with half a brain (which, unfortunately, the US President lacks) would have known that firing the FBI director would bring MORE scrutiny, not less.

However, I'm starting to be swayed by the argument that Trump is just a dummy (along with a sexual predator and a liar, etc.) and he really didn't do anything knowingly with Russia, but his entire campaign staff, close advisers, and family, were basically owned by Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 12, 2017, 10:34:44 AM
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO.  He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.

none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end.  Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.

I think Trump had a good case to fire Comey. He willingly came out and told the world that Clinton wasn't under investigation... for whatever reason. He refused to do the same thing for Trump when he wasn't under investigation... seeming to want the speculation to continue to damage Trump.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the difference is Clinton wasn't under investigation, and there was minimal chance that she would be after that point. Whereas with Trump, the odds of him subsequently becoming the subject of an investigation were/are much, much higher. Saying Trump wasn't under investigation and then having him come under investigation would have been a huge problem.

Exactly. As Comey himself stated. The investigation into Clinton was pretty much done. The Trump campaign investigations were just beginning, and as he said during the hearings, the FBI is very wary of saying someone is not under investigation, because of the subsequent obligation to correct such a statement creates if further down the road the situation changes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 12, 2017, 11:19:12 AM
Huh.

Quite a "coincidence."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: redbirdfan on July 12, 2017, 09:45:47 PM
I highly doubt that Trump didn't know about the meeting.  His son, son-in-law and campaign manager had the meeting in the same place where Trump lived and worked at the time.  I would be shocked if the Secret Service didn't have to clear everyone who entered Trump Tower to meet with Trump, Jr. and/or the campaign manager.  Even if Jr., Manafort and Kushner ALL somehow initially forgot about the meeting AND the email chain I cannot believe that they were not reminded of the just-released email chain after: 1) the DNC was hacked and the emails were leaked; 2) Podesta's emails were hacked; 3) Wikileaks started dumping emails right after the Access Hollywood tape broke.  Keep in mind that Trump stated that Chris Christie had to know about Bridgegate because those closely associated with him orchestrated it/knew about it. 

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/262394-trump-christie-totally-knew-about-bridgegate


I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious.  Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal.  The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison.  This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion.  Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government.  We are well past the looking glass here.  No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this.  The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on July 13, 2017, 01:24:53 AM
I highly doubt that Trump didn't know about the meeting.  His son, son-in-law and campaign manager had the meeting in the same place where Trump lived and worked at the time.  I would be shocked if the Secret Service didn't have to clear everyone who entered Trump Tower to meet with Trump, Jr. and/or the campaign manager.  Even if Jr., Manafort and Kushner ALL somehow initially forgot about the meeting AND the email chain I cannot believe that they were not reminded of the just-released email chain after: 1) the DNC was hacked and the emails were leaked; 2) Podesta's emails were hacked; 3) Wikileaks started dumping emails right after the Access Hollywood tape broke.  Keep in mind that Trump stated that Chris Christie had to know about Bridgegate because those closely associated with him orchestrated it/knew about it. 

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/262394-trump-christie-totally-knew-about-bridgegate


I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious.  Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal.  The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison.  This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion.  Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government.  We are well past the looking glass here.  No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this.  The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.
Post of the day.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 13, 2017, 06:04:55 AM
I highly doubt that Trump didn't know about the meeting.  His son, son-in-law and campaign manager had the meeting in the same place where Trump lived and worked at the time.  I would be shocked if the Secret Service didn't have to clear everyone who entered Trump Tower to meet with Trump, Jr. and/or the campaign manager.  Even if Jr., Manafort and Kushner ALL somehow initially forgot about the meeting AND the email chain I cannot believe that they were not reminded of the just-released email chain after: 1) the DNC was hacked and the emails were leaked; 2) Podesta's emails were hacked; 3) Wikileaks started dumping emails right after the Access Hollywood tape broke.  Keep in mind that Trump stated that Chris Christie had to know about Bridgegate because those closely associated with him orchestrated it/knew about it. 

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/262394-trump-christie-totally-knew-about-bridgegate


I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious.  Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal.  The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison.  This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion.  Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government.  We are well past the looking glass here.  No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this.  The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.

Perfectly stated, redbirdfan.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 14, 2017, 08:35:07 PM
...
I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious.  Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal.  The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison.  This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion.  Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government.  We are well past the looking glass here.  No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this.  The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.

Great post redbirdfan.  I'm constantly wondering how those who lined up behind DJT after the convention around this time last year can come to terms with the wrenching turns he has led them through.  Colluding with Russian operatives is now something 'most anyone would do'. Medicaid has gone from something we need to protect to something we must shred. He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 14, 2017, 09:52:44 PM
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....

Ironic that after calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as soon as the election is over he admits she never actually did anything illegal, and now we have a special prosecutor (appointed by Republicans, no less) investigating Trump, instead.

But this is classic Trump.  He knows he colluded with the Russians, so he attacked Clinton for her ties to Russia.  He knows his charity is a fraud (and here I use the technical legal meaning of the word), so he attacked the Clinton foundation for being crooked.  He knows he's the oldest person ever elected to be President, in the entire history of the country, so he attacked Clinton's health and called her too frail.  He knows his immigrant wife worked illegally in the US, so he attacked illegal immigrants.  He knows he dodged the draft thee times, so he claimed to be the only candidate who supported the military.  He knows he's publicly cheated on his wives before being multiply divorced, so he attacked the Clinton family's values.  Every single weakness he has a candidate, he has instead turned into an attack ad on his opponents.

Face it folks, he a world class con man.  All fluff, no substance.  Why do you think congressional republicans are running away from him so fast?

On the bright side, now that he's in office I'm glad he's too teflon for anything to stick.  Impeachment would be a godsend for the conservatives because it would get ride of the single biggest obstacle to enacting their agenda.  I hope Trump keeps on keeping on being Trump, making fun of disabled people, calling women fat and stupid, bragging about pussy grabbing, praising the Russians, taking payments from foreign governments, pushing that Mexico wall, crying about healthcare, the works.  He's like a liberal Manchurian Candidate, sabotaging the tea party from the inside by pretending to be their most stalwart champion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on July 17, 2017, 07:38:36 AM
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....

Ironic that after calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as soon as the election is over he admits she never actually did anything illegal, and now we have a special prosecutor (appointed by Republicans, no less) investigating Trump, instead.

But this is classic Trump.  He knows he colluded with the Russians, so he attacked Clinton for her ties to Russia.  He knows his charity is a fraud (and here I use the technical legal meaning of the word), so he attacked the Clinton foundation for being crooked.  He knows he's the oldest person ever elected to be President, in the entire history of the country, so he attacked Clinton's health and called her too frail.  He knows his immigrant wife worked illegally in the US, so he attacked illegal immigrants.  He knows he dodged the draft thee times, so he claimed to be the only candidate who supported the military.  He knows he's publicly cheated on his wives before being multiply divorced, so he attacked the Clinton family's values.  Every single weakness he has a candidate, he has instead turned into an attack ad on his opponents.

Face it folks, he a world class con man.  All fluff, no substance.  Why do you think congressional republicans are running away from him so fast?

On the bright side, now that he's in office I'm glad he's too teflon for anything to stick.  Impeachment would be a godsend for the conservatives because it would get ride of the single biggest obstacle to enacting their agenda.  I hope Trump keeps on keeping on being Trump, making fun of disabled people, calling women fat and stupid, bragging about pussy grabbing, praising the Russians, taking payments from foreign governments, pushing that Mexico wall, crying about healthcare, the works.  He's like a liberal Manchurian Candidate, sabotaging the tea party from the inside by pretending to be their most stalwart champion.

We don't agree on a lot, but I agree wit you on this.  If Trump is out and Pence survives the fallout or worst case scenario, Paul Ryan steps up then it is all aboard the conservative fail train.  Let Trump limp along until at least 2018 after the Left recovers the house and senate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Unique User on July 18, 2017, 09:30:00 AM
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....

Ironic that after calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as soon as the election is over he admits she never actually did anything illegal, and now we have a special prosecutor (appointed by Republicans, no less) investigating Trump, instead.

But this is classic Trump.  He knows he colluded with the Russians, so he attacked Clinton for her ties to Russia.  He knows his charity is a fraud (and here I use the technical legal meaning of the word), so he attacked the Clinton foundation for being crooked.  He knows he's the oldest person ever elected to be President, in the entire history of the country, so he attacked Clinton's health and called her too frail.  He knows his immigrant wife worked illegally in the US, so he attacked illegal immigrants.  He knows he dodged the draft thee times, so he claimed to be the only candidate who supported the military.  He knows he's publicly cheated on his wives before being multiply divorced, so he attacked the Clinton family's values.  Every single weakness he has a candidate, he has instead turned into an attack ad on his opponents.

Face it folks, he a world class con man.  All fluff, no substance.  Why do you think congressional republicans are running away from him so fast?

On the bright side, now that he's in office I'm glad he's too teflon for anything to stick.  Impeachment would be a godsend for the conservatives because it would get ride of the single biggest obstacle to enacting their agenda.  I hope Trump keeps on keeping on being Trump, making fun of disabled people, calling women fat and stupid, bragging about pussy grabbing, praising the Russians, taking payments from foreign governments, pushing that Mexico wall, crying about healthcare, the works.  He's like a liberal Manchurian Candidate, sabotaging the tea party from the inside by pretending to be their most stalwart champion.

We don't agree on a lot, but I agree wit you on this.  If Trump is out and Pence survives the fallout or worst case scenario, Paul Ryan steps up then it is all aboard the conservative fail train.  Let Trump limp along until at least 2018 after the Left recovers the house and senate.

If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything.  I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to  mid-terms.  That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 10:00:00 AM

If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything.  I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to  mid-terms.  That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018

I have a high degree of confidence that Trump will last through the midterms.  Here's why
Forcing him our will involve drafting articles of impeachment, BUT those articles must come from the House (currently controlled by the GOP) and by precedence would be drafted by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Gowdy - R/SC).
Nothing to date has shown that the House is willing to tolerate articles of impeachment so far - suggesting we'd need something substantially more damning to go down this route so long as the GOP holds the majority.  What that could be I'd only hazard a guess.

Even if articles were drafted, it would be followed by months of high-drama testomonies and a trial, none of which the GOP wants.  They'll avoid this at all costs, up and until it become apparent that NOT doing so will cost them their seats.  Unfortunately, too many are in such ridiculously safe districts that there's no reason for them to set fire to their own boat while they're still in it.

Trump could quit and resign, but this seems unlike too - while he's been infurated by circumstances thus far he seems to adore the title and is convinced not only that he's done nothing wrong, but that everything would be "great" if people would just do what he says.

The wildcard is still Mueller, and DJT's team seems busy laying the groundwork to discredit him already.  FBI investigations though typically take upwards of a few years, and we're on month 2.  Plus, the huge scope of this investigation on so many fronts suggests it will take longer than other investigations. Even if Mueller has found criminal wrongdoing the indictments won't come out until the end when he's confident he's learned all he can from the investigative portion. I don't expect to hear anything from Mueller until 2018 at the earliest.

Interestingly, I think the most probable scenario is a strong GOP challenger to the incumbent DJT during the 2020 primary. This is something we haven't seen in over a generation - Buchanan held a lackluster challenge to H.W. in 92, but the last time a GOP seriously challenged the incumbent president was Reagan in 1980.  I think this scenario will become much more likely should the GOP lose the house in 2018 and with it whatever ability they could have had to draft legislation in committee and get sent to the WH.
If this happens get ready for a stream of attack ads from within the GOP about how Trump has been a false republican, and all the counter-punching we saw during the 2016 GOP primary taken up a new level.  DJT demands loyalty above all else, so any factions that challenge him will become 'the enemy' with no holds barred. Maybe the GOP will split, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a bad thing (indeed, I think it would be great if both the Dems and Reps split into 2 or more parties). 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 18, 2017, 11:39:26 AM

If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything.  I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to  mid-terms.  That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018

I have a high degree of confidence that Trump will last through the midterms.  Here's why
Forcing him our will involve drafting articles of impeachment, BUT those articles must come from the House (currently controlled by the GOP) and by precedence would be drafted by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Gowdy - R/SC).
Nothing to date has shown that the House is willing to tolerate articles of impeachment so far - suggesting we'd need something substantially more damning to go down this route so long as the GOP holds the majority.  What that could be I'd only hazard a guess.

Even if articles were drafted, it would be followed by months of high-drama testomonies and a trial, none of which the GOP wants.  They'll avoid this at all costs, up and until it become apparent that NOT doing so will cost them their seats.  Unfortunately, too many are in such ridiculously safe districts that there's no reason for them to set fire to their own boat while they're still in it.

Trump could quit and resign, but this seems unlike too - while he's been infurated by circumstances thus far he seems to adore the title and is convinced not only that he's done nothing wrong, but that everything would be "great" if people would just do what he says.

The wildcard is still Mueller, and DJT's team seems busy laying the groundwork to discredit him already.  FBI investigations though typically take upwards of a few years, and we're on month 2.  Plus, the huge scope of this investigation on so many fronts suggests it will take longer than other investigations. Even if Mueller has found criminal wrongdoing the indictments won't come out until the end when he's confident he's learned all he can from the investigative portion. I don't expect to hear anything from Mueller until 2018 at the earliest.

Interestingly, I think the most probable scenario is a strong GOP challenger to the incumbent DJT during the 2020 primary. This is something we haven't seen in over a generation - Buchanan held a lackluster challenge to H.W. in 92, but the last time a GOP seriously challenged the incumbent president was Reagan in 1980.  I think this scenario will become much more likely should the GOP lose the house in 2018 and with it whatever ability they could have had to draft legislation in committee and get sent to the WH.
If this happens get ready for a stream of attack ads from within the GOP about how Trump has been a false republican, and all the counter-punching we saw during the 2016 GOP primary taken up a new level.  DJT demands loyalty above all else, so any factions that challenge him will become 'the enemy' with no holds barred. Maybe the GOP will split, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a bad thing (indeed, I think it would be great if both the Dems and Reps split into 2 or more parties).

I feel like this is a careful what you wish for proposition, but I still think it would be hilarious if Dwayne Johnson ran against him in the Republican primary.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 11:59:25 AM
Is "the rock" a republican?
It would be a curious spectacle though.  What's DJT going to argue, that he lacks sufficient experience?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 18, 2017, 12:07:33 PM
...he lacks sufficient experience?
One can make a reasonable case that nobody has sufficient experience.  Some state governors may have the most - a combination of leadership responsibility and the need to negotiate with a legislative body.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 12:13:49 PM
Well the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal*  has called on Trump, his family members and his staff to release every detail of all meetings with Russian officials, as well as his tax returns, concluding: If there really is nothing to the Russia collusion allegations, transparency will prove it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trumps-and-the-truth-1500332545 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trumps-and-the-truth-1500332545)

 * Many consider the WSJ to be a conservative leaning, "real news" organization.  Just sayin'.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 12:18:02 PM
...he lacks sufficient experience?
One can make a reasonable case that nobody has sufficient experience.  Some state governors may have the most - a combination of leadership responsibility and the need to negotiate with a legislative body.

Yes, experience falls along a spectrum, and few (save perhaps past presidents still eligible, e.g. G.H.W.B) can claim sufficient experience.
The point I was making though was that DJT ran precisely on how he was an 'outsider' and NOT a career politician.  Johnson presents an interesting hypothetical twist since he, too, would have no political experience nor ties to Washington "insiders". 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 18, 2017, 12:26:47 PM
The point I was making though was that DJT ran precisely on how he was an 'outsider' and NOT a career politician.  Johnson presents an interesting hypothetical twist since he, too, would have no political experience nor ties to Washington "insiders".
Yes, agreed with all that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on July 18, 2017, 01:36:09 PM
Is there anything Trump could do that would give you a positive opinion of him?  If not, aren't you simply the opposite side of the coin you claim to hate.

You should ask yourself the flip question, is there anything he could do to make you dislike him?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: zoltani on July 18, 2017, 01:47:45 PM
I thought this was a pretty good breakdown of the entire russia scandal up to this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCQMWwOZUw

The really damning, and potentially frightening thing, revolves around Paul Manafort's ties to Putin and an agenda on furthering Putin's policies abroad. He has been responsible for putting pro-putin leaders in office in other countires.

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”


I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on July 18, 2017, 02:09:19 PM
I thought this was a pretty good breakdown of the entire russia scandal up to this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCQMWwOZUw

The really damning, and potentially frightening thing, revolves around Paul Manafort's ties to Putin and an agenda on furthering Putin's policies abroad. He has been responsible for putting pro-putin leaders in office in other countires.

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”


I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.

Yes and and he is just a generally morally corrupt business person. He is happy to do anything he can get away with for the Russian government if it helps him do business there.

And Putin is happy to oblige as long as having an pliable US president is useful. Russia has already gain a great deal. In 6 months US leadership among powerful Western countries has lessened and confidence among relevant NATO nations in our leadership is at an all time low. That in itself is a massive win even if congress prevented Trump from making any real policy changes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 03:19:43 PM

I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.

IDK if Trump is the "Useful Idiot" or not - but should we really be surprised that someone with absolutely no political experience is being outfoxed by someone who's spent two decades as a world leader and before that was a high ranking counter-intelligence officer in the  KGB?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 18, 2017, 04:19:21 PM

I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.

IDK if Trump is the "Useful Idiot" or not - but should we really be surprised that someone with absolutely no political experience is being outfoxed by someone who's spent two decades as a world leader and before that was a high ranking counter-intelligence officer in the  KGB?

I thought he was a master negotiator!  He even wrote a book about the art of the deal that I'm SURE Putin hasn't read.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 04:37:32 PM

I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.

IDK if Trump is the "Useful Idiot" or not - but should we really be surprised that someone with absolutely no political experience is being outfoxed by someone who's spent two decades as a world leader and before that was a high ranking counter-intelligence officer in the  KGB?

I thought he was a master negotiator!  He even wrote a book about the art of the deal that I'm SURE Putin hasn't read.

Yeah, and I can take Floyd Mayweather in a fight.  After all, I've seen at least half of the Rocky movies...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 18, 2017, 04:57:52 PM
Thoughts on this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/europe/trump-putin-undisclosed-meeting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I suspect that this is where the real discussion, for better or for worse, occurred. Given that it was Trump, I expect mostly for worse. I wonder if Putin sees Trump as a foreign leader or an asset (in the tradecraft sense of the word)?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 18, 2017, 05:03:52 PM
Thoughts on this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/europe/trump-putin-undisclosed-meeting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I suspect that this is where the real discussion, for better or for worse, occurred. Given that it was Trump, I expect mostly for worse. I wonder if Putin sees Trump as a foreign leader or an asset (in the tradecraft sense of the word)?

No way to tell what it means.  On one hand, it's not particularly unusual for two world leaders to have a private, undisclosed meeting.  OTOH, the optics of this couldn't be get much worse.  Was there ever a point when DJT stopped and thought "gee, maybe a secret meeting with Putin right now might not be a great idea in case it gets out."

Think Russia leaked it to the NYT?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on July 19, 2017, 12:27:39 PM
stopped and thought

These 3 words need never be applied to Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 19, 2017, 06:11:59 PM
Oh my goodness, Trump just threw Sessions under the bus. What a freak show.

Trump Tells The Times He Wouldn’t Have Appointed Sessions if He Had Known Sessions Would Recuse Himself on Russia
https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 06:14:03 AM
Oh my goodness, Trump just threw Sessions under the bus. What a freak show.

Trump Tells The Times He Wouldn’t Have Appointed Sessions if He Had Known Sessions Would Recuse Himself on Russia
https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv

Trump demands 'loyalty', but he won't hesitate to throw his most loyal followers under the bus.  Geez.  Sessions was one of the very first to (very publicly) jump on the Trump train.  Then he gave up a very safe senate seat where he could have been perpetually re-elected, then lied/forgot in his confirmation hearing about his meetings with the Russians during the campaign, damaging his reputation and exposing himself to accusations of perjury.  That is the very reason why he agreed to recuse himself from all Russian matters.  His reward - a verbal flogging from his boss.

With friends like these...

Also interesting to note that Trump got in some shots against Rosenstein and questioned Mueller's independence.  He even went so far as to say any investigation into his finances by Mueller would be crossing a "red line".  What about those tax returns you promised, buddy??


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 20, 2017, 07:20:04 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342700-poll-nearly-half-of-trump-voters-dont-think-trump-jr-met-with-russian

You cannot reason with Trump voters.  They are delusional.

Quote
77 percent of the Trump voters said they think Trump should stay in office even if the campaign did collude with Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on July 20, 2017, 07:25:07 AM
Oh my goodness, Trump just threw Sessions under the bus. What a freak show.

Trump Tells The Times He Wouldn’t Have Appointed Sessions if He Had Known Sessions Would Recuse Himself on Russia
https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv (https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv)

Quote
“Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the president.”

Is it... normal for the president to talk about himself/his office in the third person like that? It seems weird, but for all I know they've all done it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 07:41:54 AM
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.

Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.

Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination

Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.  Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.

... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Unique User on July 20, 2017, 08:12:11 AM

If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything.  I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to  mid-terms.  That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018

I have a high degree of confidence that Trump will last through the midterms.  Here's why
Forcing him our will involve drafting articles of impeachment, BUT those articles must come from the House (currently controlled by the GOP) and by precedence would be drafted by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Gowdy - R/SC).
Nothing to date has shown that the House is willing to tolerate articles of impeachment so far - suggesting we'd need something substantially more damning to go down this route so long as the GOP holds the majority.  What that could be I'd only hazard a guess.

Even if articles were drafted, it would be followed by months of high-drama testomonies and a trial, none of which the GOP wants.  They'll avoid this at all costs, up and until it become apparent that NOT doing so will cost them their seats.  Unfortunately, too many are in such ridiculously safe districts that there's no reason for them to set fire to their own boat while they're still in it.

Trump could quit and resign, but this seems unlike too - while he's been infurated by circumstances thus far he seems to adore the title and is convinced not only that he's done nothing wrong, but that everything would be "great" if people would just do what he says.

The wildcard is still Mueller, and DJT's team seems busy laying the groundwork to discredit him already.  FBI investigations though typically take upwards of a few years, and we're on month 2.  Plus, the huge scope of this investigation on so many fronts suggests it will take longer than other investigations. Even if Mueller has found criminal wrongdoing the indictments won't come out until the end when he's confident he's learned all he can from the investigative portion. I don't expect to hear anything from Mueller until 2018 at the earliest.

Interestingly, I think the most probable scenario is a strong GOP challenger to the incumbent DJT during the 2020 primary. This is something we haven't seen in over a generation - Buchanan held a lackluster challenge to H.W. in 92, but the last time a GOP seriously challenged the incumbent president was Reagan in 1980.  I think this scenario will become much more likely should the GOP lose the house in 2018 and with it whatever ability they could have had to draft legislation in committee and get sent to the WH.
If this happens get ready for a stream of attack ads from within the GOP about how Trump has been a false republican, and all the counter-punching we saw during the 2016 GOP primary taken up a new level.  DJT demands loyalty above all else, so any factions that challenge him will become 'the enemy' with no holds barred. Maybe the GOP will split, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a bad thing (indeed, I think it would be great if both the Dems and Reps split into 2 or more parties).

While I would agree that the above makes perfect sense, it does not take into account Trump's inability to keep his mouth shut and not incriminate himself through whining and/or bragging.  NY Times interview published today is a perfect example.   His personality makes me think there is a strong likelihood in him eventually pulling a Nathan Jessep and just admitting what happened. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 20, 2017, 08:29:29 AM
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 20, 2017, 08:46:00 AM
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

FTFY.

And: no.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on July 20, 2017, 08:58:42 AM
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.

Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.

Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination

Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.  Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.

... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.

As for the others, I think they were using it as a rhetorical device--with varying levels of success.

However, I'm now eagerly awaiting the day when Trump starts using the royal We.  “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly We think is very unfair Us,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, We would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but We're not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to Us.”
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 09:02:55 AM
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

An interesting question.  I think which representatives support Trump will depend greatly on their re-election potential.
Regarding impeachment, the person who's backing matters the most is Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Oversight committee and a member of the tea party.
He is from one of the safest republican districts, having won re-election with 67% of the vote in 2016. In order for him to allow either censureship or articles of impeachment to proceed he'll need to calculate that a) Trump will definitely lose and b) the alternative (in this case Pence) will be favorable to his goals and re-election over the status quo (DJT).  This is a hard sell - while his district is 'safe,' it holds a lot of Trump voters (DJT won there by 25%)  Short of some immense pressure from other ranking members (and don't leave our Elijah Cummings) Gowdy can basically stonewall most attempts to hold DJT accountable.

Most of the other GOP members are similarly protected - it will take a LOT for them to turn on their standard bearer and POTUS.  Now, if the GOP loses the house in 2018 they'll lose the committee chairs along with it, and I predict articles and limitations to rain down on the WH for months. Here, the risk is that the Dems will go too far, releasing pent-up frustration and turning legitimate concerns into a endless series of petty complaints... and they might lose that argument. It would be similar to how the investigation of WJC wound up focusing on an affair with intern - something the public largely decided was morally reprehensible but not a matter of national security.

This is the cynic in my talking - my personal wish is that, when regarding the presidency each member acted with what they believed to be the best for the country.  But in reality I think each considers what is best for themselves and their constituents, even when the issue is with the executive branch.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 09:09:09 AM
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.

Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.

Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination

Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.  Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.

... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.

As for the others, I think they were using it as a rhetorical device--with varying levels of success.

However, I'm now eagerly awaiting the day when Trump starts using the royal We.  “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly We think is very unfair Us,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, We would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but We're not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to Us.”

Maybe DJT thinks that's what people mean when they write "US".  POTUS... US meeting European leaders... Strong words from US against N. Korea... US pulls out of Paris agreement...
DJT: I must be an US now!
(joking of course...)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on July 20, 2017, 09:14:52 AM
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.

Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.

Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination

Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got.  Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.

... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.

As for the others, I think they were using it as a rhetorical device--with varying levels of success.

However, I'm now eagerly awaiting the day when Trump starts using the royal We.  “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly We think is very unfair Us,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, We would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but We're not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to Us.”

Maybe DJT thinks that's what people mean when they write "US".  POTUS... US meeting European leaders... Strong words from US against N. Korea... US pulls out of Paris agreement...
DJT: I must be an US now!
(joking of course...)
Headcannon accepted.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 09:24:08 AM
NYT's interview aside, I'm less concerned with DJT's latest mud-flinging at Sessions as I am with his actual deeds regarding Russia.

Following an hour long secrete meeting with Putin in which DJT did not even have his own interpreter present, Trump has decided to cut off support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels, effectively siding with Russia.  Remember that just 3 months ago DJT ordered an air strike against Assad for retaliation on Assad's use of chemical weapons, and Trump UN appointee Nikki Haley declared "in no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government"

A secret meeting with Putin and suddenly DJT has changed his mind on who to support in Syria?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 20, 2017, 09:28:51 AM
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

An interesting question.  I think which representatives support Trump will depend greatly on their re-election potential.
Regarding impeachment, the person who's backing matters the most is Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Oversight committee and a member of the tea party.
He is from one of the safest republican districts, having won re-election with 67% of the vote in 2016. In order for him to allow either censureship or articles of impeachment to proceed he'll need to calculate that a) Trump will definitely lose and b) the alternative (in this case Pence) will be favorable to his goals and re-election over the status quo (DJT).  This is a hard sell - while his district is 'safe,' it holds a lot of Trump voters (DJT won there by 25%)  Short of some immense pressure from other ranking members (and don't leave our Elijah Cummings) Gowdy can basically stonewall most attempts to hold DJT accountable.

Most of the other GOP members are similarly protected - it will take a LOT for them to turn on their standard bearer and POTUS.  Now, if the GOP loses the house in 2018 they'll lose the committee chairs along with it, and I predict articles and limitations to rain down on the WH for months. Here, the risk is that the Dems will go too far, releasing pent-up frustration and turning legitimate concerns into a endless series of petty complaints... and they might lose that argument. It would be similar to how the investigation of WJC wound up focusing on an affair with intern - something the public largely decided was morally reprehensible but not a matter of national security.

This is the cynic in my talking - my personal wish is that, when regarding the presidency each member acted with what they believed to be the best for the country.  But in reality I think each considers what is best for themselves and their constituents, even when the issue is with the executive branch.

I agree impeachment with a Republican House is very unlikely, but that isn't the only recourse. Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 09:42:50 AM
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.

An interesting question.  I think which representatives support Trump will depend greatly on their re-election potential.
Regarding impeachment, the person who's backing matters the most is Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Oversight committee and a member of the tea party.
He is from one of the safest republican districts, having won re-election with 67% of the vote in 2016. In order for him to allow either censureship or articles of impeachment to proceed he'll need to calculate that a) Trump will definitely lose and b) the alternative (in this case Pence) will be favorable to his goals and re-election over the status quo (DJT).  This is a hard sell - while his district is 'safe,' it holds a lot of Trump voters (DJT won there by 25%)  Short of some immense pressure from other ranking members (and don't leave our Elijah Cummings) Gowdy can basically stonewall most attempts to hold DJT accountable.

Most of the other GOP members are similarly protected - it will take a LOT for them to turn on their standard bearer and POTUS.  Now, if the GOP loses the house in 2018 they'll lose the committee chairs along with it, and I predict articles and limitations to rain down on the WH for months. Here, the risk is that the Dems will go too far, releasing pent-up frustration and turning legitimate concerns into a endless series of petty complaints... and they might lose that argument. It would be similar to how the investigation of WJC wound up focusing on an affair with intern - something the public largely decided was morally reprehensible but not a matter of national security.

This is the cynic in my talking - my personal wish is that, when regarding the presidency each member acted with what they believed to be the best for the country.  But in reality I think each considers what is best for themselves and their constituents, even when the issue is with the executive branch.

I agree impeachment with a Republican House is very unlikely, but that isn't the only recourse. Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Yeah.... that seems like an even bigger hill to climb than just drafting articles of impeachment.

For all these reasons I stick by my earlier prognosis that DJT is going to stick around through 2018. Maybe when the congressional compaign season is in full swing and polls start showing who is and isn't likely to be elected things might start to shift.  Dems don't have the numbers and too few GOPers will risk party war for Pence over DJT. Pence himself has been shown to be the biggest 'yes' man despite being left out to dry multiple times defending Trump only to have Trump contradict him.  It would be fascinating to see Pence turn on Trump though (but no evidence shows he'll ever do this). Shame, Pence is one of the few individuals whom DJT cannot remove or even effectively threaten.

For now we've got the status quo, and this endless weekly barrage of 'breaking news' and blockbuster statements and new revelations of misdeeds and outrageous statements.  ::sigh::
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 20, 2017, 02:59:25 PM
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 03:22:25 PM
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on July 20, 2017, 03:58:23 PM
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

If will be absolutely ridiculous if he actually does this. I am not convinced enough people will turn against him, but if that didn't do it nothing but a democratic majority will.

That level of obstruction of justice is probably even worse than any collusion he could have been a party too... I am also utterly convinced he will do it too. No way he stops at firing Comey if the investigation intensifies. Letting things go is not in his DNA.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 20, 2017, 04:00:47 PM
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.

August recess coming up. Maybe he will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and whomever else before the August recess, and then make a recess appointment of Kushner or maybe Trump Jr. as the AG.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 04:40:08 PM
hmm... i never even pondered recess appointments.  That would be truly diabolical. 
(i feel like this is the plot to some half-baked political thriller)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 20, 2017, 06:14:24 PM
hmm... i never even pondered recess appointments.  That would be truly diabolical. 
(i feel like this is the plot to some half-baked political thriller)

If what's happening now was a plot in any political thriller that was pitched to any movie studio before Trump got elected they wouldn't have taken it up because it would be too unbelievable, yet here we are.

I wonder if the Senate will continue being in session, like they did with Obama, but not conducting business, just so Trump can't do recess appointments.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 20, 2017, 06:35:12 PM
That would be wierd... it would be the president's own party which would have to stay "in session" to keep the president from not using any recess appointments.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 20, 2017, 08:52:32 PM
Well, it seems he is now investigating the scope of his pardoning power, as well as ways to build a conflict of interest case against Mueller:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_campaign=pubexchange_article&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_term=.7343855937f7

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 21, 2017, 06:31:35 AM
Well, it seems he is now investigating the scope of his pardoning power, as well as ways to build a conflict of interest case against Mueller:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_campaign=pubexchange_article&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_term=.7343855937f7

Ah.... it seems like only yesterday (actually it was a full TWO MONTHS ago) when a slew of republicans sung Mueller's praises and declared he would be fair and thorough.
Begin the drum beat of GOPers tearing at his credibility...

(just a quick search of earlier GOP comments on Mueller - we'll see how many change their tune in the weeks ahead)
McCain - a great choice for special counsel
Roskam - a man of the utmost integrity
Issa - somebody we all trust
FLores - I’m fine with [Mueller's appointment]
Meadows - Mueller's appointment is] a prudent move, and it certainly means that the administration is taking it seriously
Lankford - Mueller's appointment will make it work faster
Chaffetz - Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials.
Comstock - [Appointing Mueller is the] right thing to do and the right choice
Spicer - [President Trump] wants the truth and these investigations to get to the bottom of the situation
Murkowski - [this special procescutor will] restore the public’s trust
Ryan - My priority has been to ensure thorough and independent investigations are allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead.... The addition of Robert Mueller as special counsel is consistent with this goal
Rubio - For the sake of the country, all parties must fully cooperate with [Mueller's] efforts
Cornyn - [Mueller] is a well-respected law enforcement professional
Lance - I support the independence of the special counsel,
Burr - This assures everybody that one of the most reputable individuals is overseeing the review
Graham - There's no reason to fire Mueller. What's he done to be fired?
Collins -  Excellent choice for special counsel by Deputy AG. Fmr FBI Director Bob Mueller has sterling credentials & is above reproach
FLake - I think there's a lot of confidence in Mueller around here... we've all dealt with him
P. King - I think Bob Mueller’s as good as you’re going to find (http://I think Bob Mueller’s as good as you’re going to find)
Gingrich - [Muller would be a ] superb choice [for special prosecutor].
Duncan - Mueller is great choice! We must follow the FACTS wherever they lead & put this to rest one way or other
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 21, 2017, 09:29:39 AM
Mass pardon of all of Trump's associates/family incoming.

You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).

I really hope he does this: Takes out a pen, and says "I pardon all of my supporters, all Republicans, everyone in my family and campaign staff for any crime or crimes they may have committed."

That would be great. Then, by default, the justice department could only investigate democrats and anti-trump folks since the rest have no convict-able crimes to pursue.

Make America Great Again! (by letting all criminals go free... oh, we're the tough on crime party? nah, only when it's not us doing the crime)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 21, 2017, 09:44:32 AM
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).


I've been wondering this - suppose a pardon was granted; would that actually stop all five investigations (Mueller's plus the four congressional inquiries)? Granted many in the WH would certainly make the argument that with no potential crime there should be no investigation.  But could the investigations continue on the basis of uncovering the truth, regardless of whether someone goes to jail?  Could it continue under the premise that potentially non-pardoned individuals might be involved (for example: democrats, lobbyists not ever part of the Trump campaign?)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 21, 2017, 09:50:20 AM
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).


I've been wondering this - suppose a pardon was granted; would that actually stop all five investigations (Mueller's plus the four congressional inquiries)? Granted many in the WH would certainly make the argument that with no potential crime there should be no investigation.  But could the investigations continue on the basis of uncovering the truth, regardless of whether someone goes to jail?  Could it continue under the premise that potentially non-pardoned individuals might be involved (for example: democrats, lobbyists not ever part of the Trump campaign?)

I feel like this makes sense, unless Trump outs all of the people still in the shadows by preemptively pardoning them as well, I guess.

I find this entire scenario highly implausible, but for the sake of the thought experiment, the fallout would be a good litmus test of the boundaries of partisanship in this country right now. I'm not sure I can think of anything more inherently corrupt than a president pardoning himself, so it would be interesting to see how many people still try to argue that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 21, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Bye bye, Spicey!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 21, 2017, 10:56:31 AM
Bye bye, Spicey!
I wonder what Melissa McCarthy will do now...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 21, 2017, 11:09:41 AM
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).


I've been wondering this - suppose a pardon was granted; would that actually stop all five investigations (Mueller's plus the four congressional inquiries)? Granted many in the WH would certainly make the argument that with no potential crime there should be no investigation.  But could the investigations continue on the basis of uncovering the truth, regardless of whether someone goes to jail?  Could it continue under the premise that potentially non-pardoned individuals might be involved (for example: democrats, lobbyists not ever part of the Trump campaign?)

I feel like this makes sense, unless Trump outs all of the people still in the shadows by preemptively pardoning them as well, I guess.

I find this entire scenario highly implausible, but for the sake of the thought experiment, the fallout would be a good litmus test of the boundaries of partisanship in this country right now. I'm not sure I can think of anything more inherently corrupt than a president pardoning himself, so it would be interesting to see how many people still try to argue that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

I tend to agree that it's implausible. But we are in a sequence of implausible events.... who knows what the probability of anything is at this point really.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 21, 2017, 11:24:31 AM
For anyone who might be thinking (or wishing) that we're near the end of all of this:

Notes: 
Mueller was appointed on May 17th 2017; 65 days ago
Watergate was stopped at 150 days when Nixon abolished the office of the special prosecutor (Saturday Night Massacre)
Whitewater investigation started in 1994 investigating real estate and culminated in the 1999 impeachment trial over an affair and perjury charges but continued until 2002
Excluding the preemptively terminated Watergate, all investigations have exceed 1 year; most have continued well into year #3.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/05/Length.jpg&w=1484)

Full Article Here. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/17/how-long-will-the-special-counsels-investigation-of-russia-take-possibly-years/?utm_term=.5a018f38b0b4)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on July 21, 2017, 03:15:32 PM
Mass pardon of all of Trump's associates/family incoming.


If anyone is stupid enough to do it, it would be Trump... No one has even been accused of a crime yet...

But wait I guess its all just part of his master negotiating skills. But wait didn't he write that book explaining how all his skills are put to use?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all)

I still find it laughable that people take "The Art of the Deal" as evidence that Trumps master negotiating skills are a careful strategy. But I guess it is easy enough to dismiss one persons insight if you think he is out to get your president.

I'll grant you his methods were effective in this election cycle and likely will be for the next one, but I see it as more evidence of his practiced ability to prey on the desperation of real people to gain power and money. Many unscrupulous people have this ability and those willing to use it tend to be rich. I have zero respect for all of them because they are societal leeches.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 22, 2017, 06:58:30 AM
Russia's ambassador has said he and Sessions discussed the 2016 campaign during two meetings last year (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/21/jeff-sessions-just-got-in-more-trouble-and-now-hes-put-trump-in-a-box-too/?utm_term=.e025db9470b3)

If true, that makes approximately 2,374 people in the Trump administration that spoke to Kislyak last year (would hate to see his phone bill). How stupid are these people? For a while, I have believed that no actual crimes have been committed by Team Trump because everyone is too incompetent to actually succeed in committing one.

In other news, Kushner found $10.6M that he lost under his sofa cushion and had forgotten about. Rumor has it he is now sweeping his tool shed for Kandinskys. At least McCain eventually figured out how many houses he owned.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 22, 2017, 01:05:35 PM
Trump officially declared he has complete power to pardon as he went off on the usual; Obamacare, Clinton, news outlets and even tossed in his own administration.

He has all but officially announced his guilt.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 22, 2017, 06:26:41 PM

He has all but officially announced his guilt.

Let's be careful here.  This could absolutely be DJT trying to hide some serious crime, but what precisely what and how many are still unknown (besides what has already been revealed). 
There's also the possibility that his interest in pardons are about protecting someone else (his sons, perhaps) or that he believes no one has a right to know anything about his personal finances ("it's none of your damn business!!") because that would be very bad for his businesses (loans, debt, losing money)
Of course not wanting any of this to become public makes his decision to become a public servant was a really dumb thing to do.

I'm just saying - innocent until proven guilty and all.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 23, 2017, 02:22:14 PM

He has all but officially announced his guilt.

Let's be careful here.  This could absolutely be DJT trying to hide some serious crime, but what precisely what and how many are still unknown (besides what has already been revealed). 
There's also the possibility that his interest in pardons are about protecting someone else (his sons, perhaps) or that he believes no one has a right to know anything about his personal finances ("it's none of your damn business!!") because that would be very bad for his businesses (loans, debt, losing money)
Of course not wanting any of this to become public makes his decision to become a public servant was a really dumb thing to do.

I'm just saying - innocent until proven guilty and all.

Innocent until proven guilty is a great, fundamentally important legal concept.  It has no bearing (and should have no bearing) on public opinion.  If you're technically not in violation of the law, but have behaved in a manner reprehensible to the average person you should not do jail time.  You should expect to be reviled though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 23, 2017, 02:36:26 PM

Innocent until proven guilty is a great, fundamentally important legal concept.  It has no bearing (and should have no bearing) on public opinion.  If you're technically not in violation of the law, but have behaved in a manner reprehensible to the average person you should not do jail time.  You should expect to be reviled though.

Perhaps.  But angry mobs get out of control because they view opponents as guilty and condemn people without reflection. Just look at how many people believe HRC is "the most crooked politician in history" and cite deleted emails as 'proof'. If the "never Trump" camp (of which I am a member) wants to avoid a similar hypocracy, we cannot also equate a lack of cooperation with guilt. 

DJT has certainly said and done plenty so far to be critical of, nad there's plenty of investigative material coming in the monhts ahead.  Why make judgements on him based on speculation and conjecture?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 23, 2017, 02:39:24 PM
Perhaps.  But angry mobs get out of control because they view opponents as guilty and condemn people without reflection. Just look at how many people believe HRC is "the most crooked politician in history" and cite deleted emails as 'proof'. If the "never Trump" camp (of which I am a member) wants to avoid a similar hypocracy, we cannot also equate a lack of cooperation with guilt. 

DJT has certainly said and done plenty so far to be critical of, nad there's plenty of investigative material coming in the monhts ahead.  Why make judgements on him based on speculation and conjecture?
Well said.

Revulsion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 23, 2017, 08:07:31 PM
I apologise if this has been answered else where.

I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts where some unscrupulous actor could get them? A knife in the back happened to our republic long before anyone hacked the DNC. Oddly enough it was from the DNC itself! Why are Democrats not calling for a complete reform of their party? The core is rotten and corrupt, yet I only hear "Russian Meddling."

Clinton got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and blamed the foreign guy for her actions. And that's what bugs me. That if those emails had never come out, everyone would be content with the illusion that our election had been by the people.

And everyone will say "Russia shouldn't have meddled in our election." I figure Democrats shouldn't have run a terrible candidate, who ran a disastrous campaign, that didn't appeal to a disillusioned base and then maybe the hack would not have been so effective.

I assume I poked a beehive but I honestly believe that Democrats tried to float the Titanic and proceeded to ram every damn iceberg in a 10 mile radius.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 23, 2017, 10:03:45 PM
The escalating series of actions that Trump is doing such as firing Comey, and now trying to discredit and potentially fire Mueller suggest he has something to hide.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 23, 2017, 10:28:52 PM
The escalating series of actions that Trump is doing...suggest he has something to hide.
Could be.

Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 24, 2017, 12:58:22 AM
Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.

That's being pretty charitable. 

Imagine if Obama had refused to release his birth certificate and then started speaking Swahili in the White House and sending his paycheck to Kenya, and you have some idea of how Trump is responding to the "innuendo".  Despite the fact that those birther criticisms were totally baseless, OF COURSE he responded in a transparent manner by releasing all documents and providing corroborating witnesses and freely discussing the topic with the press.  He did not fire anybody.  He did not threaten anybody.  He did not deliberately encourage the rumors by doing things that made it look like they were all true, and then give speeches claiming that it's probably not true, but even if it was true it would be totally fine and he would just pardon himself.

Trump is trolling the nation again, just like he did with "there's nobody better on women than me" after the pussy grabbing tape, and "I'm the only one who respects the military" after trashing Gold Star families at the convention.  Just like he did with Rosie O'Donnel and the birther conspiracy and "I'll release my taxes the day I win the nomination" and Mexican rapists who "some of them, I assume, are good people."  He's a deliberately inflammatory caricature of himself.  He thrives by pissing other people off, even when he debases and degrades and contradicts himself to do it, so of course he'll deny all contact with the Russians and then the very next day invite the Russian literally into the Oval Office for a secret meeting.  It's like he's constantly trying to see exactly how far he can push things before everyone realizes he's just joking about this whole "being President" thing.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 24, 2017, 06:02:18 AM
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 24, 2017, 06:22:00 AM
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...

Clinton could have run an honest campaign. The DNC could have done its job and been unbiased. Yet both failed to do their jobs. They had chosen Clinton long before Sanders appeared on the scene. Yet Democrats are saying "Russia harmed our electoral system." It was already damaged by the DNC actions. All the hacking did was reveal it.

And for a supposedly experienced group of politicians, why did they leave evidence of their manipulations online? Basic criminals know not to leave fingerprints. 30 year political veterans should know not to leave a paper trail. So out of idiocy or incompetence they screwed up.

Clinton ran the largest, most powerful political machine the world had ever seen. (The Titanic.) But the Clinton name is cursed. The icebergs are the problems she had on the campaign trail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 24, 2017, 07:22:50 AM
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...

Clinton could have run an honest campaign.

Is that why you think Clinton lost because she wasn't honest enough?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 24, 2017, 08:04:09 AM
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...

Clinton could have run an honest campaign. The DNC could have done its job and been unbiased. Yet both failed to do their jobs. They had chosen Clinton long before Sanders appeared on the scene. Yet Democrats are saying "Russia harmed our electoral system." It was already damaged by the DNC actions. All the hacking did was reveal it.

And for a supposedly experienced group of politicians, why did they leave evidence of their manipulations online? Basic criminals know not to leave fingerprints. 30 year political veterans should know not to leave a paper trail. So out of idiocy or incompetence they screwed up.

Clinton ran the largest, most powerful political machine the world had ever seen. (The Titanic.) But the Clinton name is cursed. The icebergs are the problems she had on the campaign trail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html)

Thank you for responding.  I will say I disagree with many of your interpretations and assumptions.  For starters I've never believed that either the DNC or the RNC are 'neutral, unbiased' entities.  They are private political parties and have always sought out and supported candidates who exemplified their message.  To me it was common sense that they would support HRC - a high profile democrat for over three decades - over Sanders, who has never been a democrat. Or, to use your parlance, the DNC's "job" is to support candidates who fit the party line and have the best chance of pushing their agenda.  It can be argued that the DNC made a grave miscalculation here, but we'll never know how it could have turned out.  I'd also say that the RNC tried and failed to support candidates who supported the GOP platform.  As a result, under DJT the GOP's platform is splintered and largely non-compatible with what it was under the Bushes and Reagan.

Were they idiots for leaving an electronic trail?  possibly, but that doesn't denote that their strategies were either unexpected or illegal. To my knowledge all the emails really showed was a concerted effort to defeat and discredit other political challengers.  What did we expect they were saying behind closed doors - "gee, Bernie is great and i secretly hope he wins but how can we run for president and not ever make him look bad"?  common...The major mistake the HRC campaign made was to use a private server, then lie about how it was used and botch several opportunities to come clean about it.  I chalk that up to arrogance (another thing politics has plenty of). It also makes no sense to me why people are so willing to condemn HRC for saying unflattering things about her opponents in private email conversations when DJT said similar things in the national press.  What's the message?  You be nasty in public but not in private?

Finally there's this assertion that Russian interference is somehow not something to be concerned about because of the way HRC ran her campaign. Let's dispatch with that notion - regardless of what you believe HRC is or is not guilty of, it does not justify or negate a foreign entity attempting to influence our democratic elections. The "HRC is a corrupt politician so anything Russia may ahve done doesn't matter" doesn't add up. We cannot ignore severe crimes simply because we don't like who they were perpetrated against.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 24, 2017, 08:42:25 AM
Clinton could have run an honest campaign.

How many people in the Trump Administration have resigned/been fired over lying?  How many SF-86 updates does one administration need?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 24, 2017, 10:01:39 AM
On the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with the Russian American lawyer in June 2016 Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 24, 2017, 10:04:46 AM
On the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with the Russian American lawyer in June 2016 Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

(https://i.imgflip.com/q2q9q.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 24, 2017, 10:08:42 AM
On the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with the Russian American lawyer in June 2016 Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

(https://i.imgflip.com/q2q9q.jpg)

Comes from Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig  who stated this on today's OnPoint.

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/07/24/mueller-follow-money-trump-russia
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 24, 2017, 10:20:52 AM
^Was referring to this line:

Quote
Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 24, 2017, 10:23:21 AM
^Was referring to this line:

Quote
Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

That's precisely what came from Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 24, 2017, 10:50:19 AM
Regarding Kushner's prepared statements for the Senate's closed door hearing - I'm not certain which is version is more frightening.

According to Kushner, he arrived late, had no idea what the meeting was about, did not read the long email chain and somehow missed that the subject line was "Re: Russia – Clinton – private and confidential".  Furthermore, he did not seem to think that anything was amiss to have several people from Russia (whom he claims not to have known who they were) in Trump tower discussing changing international policy (in this case sanctions on Russian adoptions) during a campaign.

In short, his position is that he was an extremely busy yet clueless rube unaware of campaign laws.  Nothing about the meeting or the email chain aroused his suspicion, and he basically forgot it ever happened during his filings.  It didn't even raise suspicion when Kislyak told him he wanted to convey information from what he called his ‘generals,’ but that they could not come to the United States and “he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation.”  Again, a foreigner asking him to set up a private way to communicate didn't strike him as odd or potentially a legal grey area - so much so he says he plum forgot about it until it resurfaced just recently.

At the same time he claims to have been a senior advisor to DJT's campaign, kept in the loop on email chains from both DJT and Jr. and frequently invited to sit in on each other's meetings. 

He seems to be arguing that he was unaware of what was going on BECAUSE he was too busy and too involved.  He was both clueless and indespensible. He witnessed closed-door meetings with Russians but thought so little of them he begged a staffer to call him on his cell to get him out of the meeting.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 24, 2017, 10:55:32 AM
^^And he never did it.  I'm not disputing that he tweeted it, I'm disputing that he ever had the "damaging information" to begin with.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 24, 2017, 11:07:23 AM
Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.

That's being pretty charitable. 

Imagine if Obama had refused to release his birth certificate and then started speaking Swahili in the White House and sending his paycheck to Kenya, and you have some idea of how Trump is responding to the "innuendo".  Despite the fact that those birther criticisms were totally baseless, OF COURSE he responded in a transparent manner by releasing all documents and providing corroborating witnesses and freely discussing the topic with the press.  He did not fire anybody.  He did not threaten anybody.  He did not deliberately encourage the rumors by doing things that made it look like they were all true, and then give speeches claiming that it's probably not true, but even if it was true it would be totally fine and he would just pardon himself.

Trump is trolling the nation again, just like he did with "there's nobody better on women than me" after the pussy grabbing tape, and "I'm the only one who respects the military" after trashing Gold Star families at the convention.  Just like he did with Rosie O'Donnel and the birther conspiracy and "I'll release my taxes the day I win the nomination" and Mexican rapists who "some of them, I assume, are good people."  He's a deliberately inflammatory caricature of himself.  He thrives by pissing other people off, even when he debases and degrades and contradicts himself to do it, so of course he'll deny all contact with the Russians and then the very next day invite the Russian literally into the Oval Office for a secret meeting.  It's like he's constantly trying to see exactly how far he can push things before everyone realizes he's just joking about this whole "being President" thing.
Charity is good, is it not? :)

I have no idea whether Trump is a "master manipulator" (as Scott Adams states) or merely a loose cannon.  The whole Russia thing, at the heart of it, seems pretty much politics as usual and not close to being worth all the discussion about it (whatever "it" is).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 24, 2017, 11:19:36 AM
Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.

That's being pretty charitable. 

Imagine if Obama had refused to release his birth certificate and then started speaking Swahili in the White House and sending his paycheck to Kenya, and you have some idea of how Trump is responding to the "innuendo".  Despite the fact that those birther criticisms were totally baseless, OF COURSE he responded in a transparent manner by releasing all documents and providing corroborating witnesses and freely discussing the topic with the press.  He did not fire anybody.  He did not threaten anybody.  He did not deliberately encourage the rumors by doing things that made it look like they were all true, and then give speeches claiming that it's probably not true, but even if it was true it would be totally fine and he would just pardon himself.

Trump is trolling the nation again, just like he did with "there's nobody better on women than me" after the pussy grabbing tape, and "I'm the only one who respects the military" after trashing Gold Star families at the convention.  Just like he did with Rosie O'Donnel and the birther conspiracy and "I'll release my taxes the day I win the nomination" and Mexican rapists who "some of them, I assume, are good people."  He's a deliberately inflammatory caricature of himself.  He thrives by pissing other people off, even when he debases and degrades and contradicts himself to do it, so of course he'll deny all contact with the Russians and then the very next day invite the Russian literally into the Oval Office for a secret meeting.  It's like he's constantly trying to see exactly how far he can push things before everyone realizes he's just joking about this whole "being President" thing.
Charity is good, is it not? :)

I have no idea whether Trump is a "master manipulator" (as Scott Adams states) or merely a loose cannon. The whole Russia thing, at the heart of it, seems pretty much politics as usual and not close to being worth all the discussion about it (whatever "it" is).
I don't think the bolded part is an either/or situation. Charity is fine, as long as it includes a reasoned look at the situation. There is a heck of a lot more than just innuendo here. And even if there were no issue with the Russians, his response to it is very problematic because it shows a disregard for the judicial processes. This is hardly politics as usual. I'm not going to normalize Trump's behavior by implicitly accepting that statement.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: boy_bye on July 24, 2017, 11:29:41 AM
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.

Really, a gold mine? Podesta's risotto recipe? People in an office talking shit about someone who's talking shit about them publicly?

Talk about a nothingburger that the media couldn't stop harping on ...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 24, 2017, 11:41:43 AM
There is a heck of a lot more than just innuendo here.
There is a lot of smoke.  Agreed that determining whether it is coming from a Trump fire or Democratic smoke machine is the core issue.
Quote
And even if there were no issue with the Russians...
That would pretty much end this thread.
Quote
...his response to it is very problematic because it shows a disregard for the judicial processes. This is hardly politics as usual. I'm not going to normalize Trump's behavior by implicitly accepting that statement.
Not saying Trump is normal ;) so in that sense it may be unusual.  But making mountains out of molehills is something the far right and left do on a regular basis.
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 24, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
It's vital to maintain vigilance against the abuse of the presidential office, whether that be collusion with Russia to use stolen emails to damage the opposition candidate, or whether it's changing foreign policy of the US for personal financial gain, not to mention the possibly illegal effort to block investigation of that collusion.

I can be critical of Trump and also be critical of Obama, one doesn't have to be on the extreme right or left to do so.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 24, 2017, 04:05:01 PM
I can be critical of Trump and also be critical of Obama, one doesn't have to be on the extreme right or left to do so.
Yes, indeed!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 24, 2017, 04:56:48 PM
I have not seen an answer to this question.

Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other  politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight?  You lost me with that anaolgy...

Clinton could have run an honest campaign. The DNC could have done its job and been unbiased. Yet both failed to do their jobs. They had chosen Clinton long before Sanders appeared on the scene. Yet Democrats are saying "Russia harmed our electoral system." It was already damaged by the DNC actions. All the hacking did was reveal it.

And for a supposedly experienced group of politicians, why did they leave evidence of their manipulations online? Basic criminals know not to leave fingerprints. 30 year political veterans should know not to leave a paper trail. So out of idiocy or incompetence they screwed up.

Clinton ran the largest, most powerful political machine the world had ever seen. (The Titanic.) But the Clinton name is cursed. The icebergs are the problems she had on the campaign trail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html)

Thank you for responding.  I will say I disagree with many of your interpretations and assumptions.  For starters I've never believed that either the DNC or the RNC are 'neutral, unbiased' entities.  They are private political parties and have always sought out and supported candidates who exemplified their message.  To me it was common sense that they would support HRC - a high profile democrat for over three decades - over Sanders, who has never been a democrat. Or, to use your parlance, the DNC's "job" is to support candidates who fit the party line and have the best chance of pushing their agenda.  It can be argued that the DNC made a grave miscalculation here, but we'll never know how it could have turned out.  I'd also say that the RNC tried and failed to support candidates who supported the GOP platform.  As a result, under DJT the GOP's platform is splintered and largely non-compatible with what it was under the Bushes and Reagan.

Were they idiots for leaving an electronic trail?  possibly, but that doesn't denote that their strategies were either unexpected or illegal. To my knowledge all the emails really showed was a concerted effort to defeat and discredit other political challengers.  What did we expect they were saying behind closed doors - "gee, Bernie is great and i secretly hope he wins but how can we run for president and not ever make him look bad"?  common...The major mistake the HRC campaign made was to use a private server, then lie about how it was used and botch several opportunities to come clean about it.  I chalk that up to arrogance (another thing politics has plenty of). It also makes no sense to me why people are so willing to condemn HRC for saying unflattering things about her opponents in private email conversations when DJT said similar things in the national press.  What's the message?  You be nasty in public but not in private?

Finally there's this assertion that Russian interference is somehow not something to be concerned about because of the way HRC ran her campaign. Let's dispatch with that notion - regardless of what you believe HRC is or is not guilty of, it does not justify or negate a foreign entity attempting to influence our democratic elections. The "HRC is a corrupt politician so anything Russia may ahve done doesn't matter" doesn't add up. We cannot ignore severe crimes simply because we don't like who they were perpetrated against.

Internet ate my response.

The concept you speak of is called Realpolitick. I cannot fault a person for being pragmatic. However, impartiality is a tenant of the DNC's charter. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2989759-Impartiality-Clause-DNC-Charter-Bylaws-Art-5-Sec-4.html )  The DNC is now being sued over their partiality because Bernie supporters donated expecting impartiality. Why list your Ideals if you only support them when they are convenient? Or were those people fools?

You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.

My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 24, 2017, 05:25:25 PM
ok - I can see from the document you linked that the DNC chairperson is charged with impartiality according to their bylaws

Quote
In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness
as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment extensively on the legality of a private entity not following its own bylaws.
I do know that a person can excercize impartiality and evenhandedness even when they have an opinion about the person(s) they are dealing with. Judges do this on a daily basis.
Let me ask this:  what actions did the DNC chair take that showed impartiality or were unevenhanded?  I'm asking because I really don't know of any, but wouldn't be surprised if some exist.

Quote
You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.

My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?

Yes - both burglar teams are in the wrong, and both actions should be examined.  But if we find that one was your cousin there to steal beer from your fridge, and the other were convected murderers armed to the teeth and carrying equipment to break into your safe... my point is just as we must be skeptical of some claims that the election was stolen by the Russians, we also must not not ignore other transgressions by saying things like "... but Hillary and her emails! Benghazi! Paid speeches!"
Both extremes seem to be willing to overlook various transgressions by focusing on something completely unrelated. I think that's a grave mistake.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 24, 2017, 05:40:07 PM
ok - I can see from the document you linked that the DNC chairperson is charged with impartiality according to their bylaws

Quote
In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness
as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment extensively on the legality of a private entity not following its own bylaws.
I do know that a person can excercize impartiality and evenhandedness even when they have an opinion about the person(s) they are dealing with. Judges do this on a daily basis.
Let me ask this:  what actions did the DNC chair take that showed impartiality or were unevenhanded?  I'm asking because I really don't know of any, but wouldn't be surprised if some exist.

Quote
You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.

My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?

Yes - both burglar teams are in the wrong, and both actions should be examined.  But if we find that one was your cousin there to steal beer from your fridge, and the other were convected murderers armed to the teeth and carrying equipment to break into your safe... my point is just as we must be skeptical of some claims that the election was stolen by the Russians, we also must not not ignore other transgressions by saying things like "... but Hillary and her emails! Benghazi! Paid speeches!"
Both extremes seem to be willing to overlook various transgressions by focusing on something completely unrelated. I think that's a grave mistake.

Indeed, it's all just the tu quoque fallacy over and over. HRC is 100% irrelevant to questions about DJT. Also, at this point, she is a completely insignificant person in the scope of the world compared to DJT. The reasoning that we should still care about her as much/more than the POTUS is so bad it's laughable. You want to talk about Hillary? Go start a thread about her. But if you want to make a coherent point about any actions Trump and his team did or did not take, then stop talking about Hillary.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on July 24, 2017, 05:42:47 PM
And everyone will say "Russia shouldn't have meddled in our election." I figure Democrats shouldn't have run a terrible candidate, who ran a disastrous campaign, that didn't appeal to a disillusioned base and then maybe the hack would not have been so effective.

I assume I poked a beehive but I honestly believe that Democrats tried to float the Titanic and proceeded to ram every damn iceberg in a 10 mile radius.

In the last presidential elections I voted for HR Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore, WJ Clinton, and Dukakis. And I agree with this part you wrote above. Hillary Clinton was a pretty horrible candidate. I mean, we could argue about whether the perception of her was legitimate or unfairly painted on her, but perception is reality when it comes to voting and politics. I actually think she's super smart, super-informed on the issues, and I agree with many of her policy stances. But she was wildly unpopular. The DNC chose as their candidate one of the most unpopular people they could. I just saw an article the other day that says HRC is actually still more unpopular than Trump, who I view as just about the most pathetic excuse for a human being anyone could dream up.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 24, 2017, 06:04:55 PM
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.

Really, a gold mine? Podesta's risotto recipe? People in an office talking shit about someone who's talking shit about them publicly?

Talk about a nothingburger that the media couldn't stop harping on ...
Risotto is exactly the point! Only a limousine liberal coastal elite would cook that; here in the heartland we eat Hamburger Helper!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 24, 2017, 07:02:33 PM
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.

Really, a gold mine? Podesta's risotto recipe? People in an office talking shit about someone who's talking shit about them publicly?

Talk about a nothingburger that the media couldn't stop harping on ...

Again, if you are perceived as corrupt, doing things that could be interpreted as corrupt will not help you.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 24, 2017, 07:25:44 PM
ok - I can see from the document you linked that the DNC chairperson is charged with impartiality according to their bylaws

Quote
In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness
as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment extensively on the legality of a private entity not following its own bylaws.
I do know that a person can excercize impartiality and evenhandedness even when they have an opinion about the person(s) they are dealing with. Judges do this on a daily basis.
Let me ask this:  what actions did the DNC chair take that showed impartiality or were unevenhanded?  I'm asking because I really don't know of any, but wouldn't be surprised if some exist.

Quote
You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.

My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?

Yes - both burglar teams are in the wrong, and both actions should be examined.  But if we find that one was your cousin there to steal beer from your fridge, and the other were convected murderers armed to the teeth and carrying equipment to break into your safe... my point is just as we must be skeptical of some claims that the election was stolen by the Russians, we also must not not ignore other transgressions by saying things like "... but Hillary and her emails! Benghazi! Paid speeches!"
Both extremes seem to be willing to overlook various transgressions by focusing on something completely unrelated. I think that's a grave mistake.

Indeed, it's all just the tu quoque fallacy over and over. HRC is 100% irrelevant to questions about DJT. Also, at this point, she is a completely insignificant person in the scope of the world compared to DJT. The reasoning that we should still care about her as much/more than the POTUS is so bad it's laughable. You want to talk about Hillary? Go start a thread about her. But if you want to make a coherent point about any actions Trump and his team did or did not take, then stop talking about Hillary.

I figure Trump is the White House leaker. The timing and the fact that no solid evidence comes with it makes me think he is trolling you. He coopted the liberal "Russia-gate" narrative for his own ends.

Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.

Yet, what are you doing to reform your party? To make sure that your party will do what it says? That is the heart of the DNC email problem and the nomination. They read like Cersei Lannister talking about her "small folk." The "small folk" have been forgotten by both parties.

And until you figure out how to get back in touch with them, you better get used to Trump being president.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 24, 2017, 07:40:06 PM
^Trump is not clever or deft enough to be Frank Underwood
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on July 24, 2017, 09:32:17 PM

I figure Trump is the White House leaker. The timing and the fact that no solid evidence comes with it makes me think he is trolling you. He coopted the liberal "Russia-gate" narrative for his own ends.

Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.

Yet, what are you doing to reform your party? To make sure that your party will do what it says? That is the heart of the DNC email problem and the nomination. They read like Cersei Lannister talking about her "small folk." The "small folk" have been forgotten by both parties.

And until you figure out how to get back in touch with them, you better get used to Trump being president.

First, I am not a Democrat. I think at best the DNC is only somewhat less terrible than the RNC at the moment, but I would throw them both out in an instant if I could. My views mostly align with more Americans than not, tbh, based on issue polling. Too bad the parties don't actually represent the will of the people.
 
Second, LOL at your apparent buy-in to the "Trump is playing 12 dimensional chess" narrative. I couldn't care less about his "trolling." Third, you are still completely deflecting because, apparently, you have nothing constructive to say about the actual topic of discussion other than a bunch of hand-wavy BS about some sort of "intelligentsia" machinations.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 24, 2017, 09:50:41 PM
Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.


Meanwhile Trump and the Republicans have done nothing to improve the lot of the  middle class, in fact they may cause millions to lose access to healthcare. And the middle class aren't getting the factory and coal jobs that were promised.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 25, 2017, 04:03:13 AM

I figure Trump is the White House leaker. The timing and the fact that no solid evidence comes with it makes me think he is trolling you. He coopted the liberal "Russia-gate" narrative for his own ends.

Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.

Yet, what are you doing to reform your party? To make sure that your party will do what it says? That is the heart of the DNC email problem and the nomination. They read like Cersei Lannister talking about her "small folk." The "small folk" have been forgotten by both parties.

And until you figure out how to get back in touch with them, you better get used to Trump being president.

First, I am not a Democrat. I think at best the DNC is only somewhat less terrible than the RNC at the moment, but I would throw them both out in an instant if I could. My views mostly align with more Americans than not, tbh, based on issue polling. Too bad the parties don't actually represent the will of the people.
 
Second, LOL at your apparent buy-in to the "Trump is playing 12 dimensional chess" narrative. I couldn't care less about his "trolling." Third, you are still completely deflecting because, apparently, you have nothing constructive to say about the actual topic of discussion other than a bunch of hand-wavy BS about some sort of "intelligentsia" machinations.

Meh. You wanted me to talk about Trump. I talked about Trump. I got the usual "Trump is an childish, arrogant buffoon" routine. Yet some how he managed to live a year and a half in the media spotlight and national intelligence microscope without leaking a video of him in a Russian hat yelling "Nos Vadania Comrade!"

I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 25, 2017, 06:00:44 AM
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.

None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 25, 2017, 07:08:51 AM
Ol' Donnie is tweeting up a storm again today...this morning's tidbits include classified info, throwing Sessions under the bus (even more), and now throwing McCabe (acting director of FBI) under the bus as well.

He's certainly acting like a guilty man.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gondolin on July 25, 2017, 07:31:46 AM
Quote
I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack.

Umm... Because those superdelegates were US citizens duly empowered by a legitimate political party and Russian intelligence officers are not? This is one of the most pathetic attempts at a false equivalency I've seen in a while.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gondolin on July 25, 2017, 07:37:35 AM
Also, this is your daily reminder that while reasonable people can disagree about what each campaign knew when and if any hacking was significant, it is known by the entire IC that Russia attempted hacks against 21 state electoral systems and were running propaganda campaigns at the precinct level during the campaign.

These are acts of war and, while Trump may claim not to care, you can be damn sure that *Mattis* cares an awful lot.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 25, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.

None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.

I was looking for consistency. I shrug my shoulders because I figure it was an attack on a corrupt system. I admit that I was wrong and the system is clean.

You guys have fun.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Samuel on July 25, 2017, 11:55:38 AM
Umm... Because those superdelegates were US citizens duly empowered by a legitimate political party and Russian intelligence officers are not? This is one of the most pathetic attempts at a false equivalency I've seen in a while.

Seriously. One of the very, very few silver linings in this absurd fiasco is the amusement of watching the Gumby level contortions people are forced to use to try and defend this President.

I'm sure there is a sensible right wing argument that could be made but I have yet to see it. Probably because at this point it would have to include the words "it's time to see the tax returns".
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 25, 2017, 12:20:23 PM
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.

August recess coming up. Maybe he will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and whomever else before the August recess, and then make a recess appointment of Kushner or maybe Trump Jr. as the AG.

Apparently the minority party can block recess appointments via a filibuster, which the democrats are doing to Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/trump-recess-appointments/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/trump-recess-appointments/index.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 25, 2017, 12:26:01 PM
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.

Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller.  Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.

Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright.  Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet.  With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.

August recess coming up. Maybe he will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and whomever else before the August recess, and then make a recess appointment of Kushner or maybe Trump Jr. as the AG.

Apparently the minority party can block recess appointments via a filibuster, which the democrats are doing to Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/trump-recess-appointments/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/trump-recess-appointments/index.html)

Thank goodness
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 25, 2017, 06:06:03 PM
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.

None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.

I was looking for consistency. I shrug my shoulders because I figure it was an attack on a corrupt system. I admit that I was wrong and the system is clean.

You guys have fun.
Do you know why the Democrats instituted a primary system with superdelegates? It's because they were smart (stupid?) enough to want to avoid what happened this cycle on the Republican side where one of the weakest candidates emerged from the primaries. Some argue Bernie would have won (I'm skeptical about the prospects of everyone's manic socialist uncle winning, though Biden almost certainly would have) but (IIRC) even without the superdelegates, Hillary was ahead in ordinary delegates and even more ahead in primary votes, since a fair amount of Bernie's success came from caucus primary states with much smaller turnouts. Superdelegates are indeed a thumb on the scale but it's massively more transparent and democratic than the white smoke of a papal conclave.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 25, 2017, 06:36:18 PM
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.

Thanks for your time.

None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.

I was looking for consistency. I shrug my shoulders because I figure it was an attack on a corrupt system. I admit that I was wrong and the system is clean.

You guys have fun.
Do you know why the Democrats instituted a primary system with superdelegates? It's because they were smart (stupid?) enough to want to avoid what happened this cycle on the Republican side where one of the weakest candidates emerged from the primaries. Some argue Bernie would have won (I'm skeptical about the prospects of everyone's manic socialist uncle winning, though Biden almost certainly would have) but (IIRC) even without the superdelegates, Hillary was ahead in ordinary delegates and even more ahead in primary votes, since a fair amount of Bernie's success came from caucus primary states with much smaller turnouts. Superdelegates are indeed a thumb on the scale but it's massively more transparent and democratic than the white smoke of a papal conclave.

I believe it was in response to McGovern? In the 80's?

I would argue that super delegates make them less adaptable. But you folks are not here to argue Democrat policies. So I surrender. Enjoy your Russia-gate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 25, 2017, 07:03:31 PM
I think the DNC is in the shitter with no clear political narrative and a paucity of serious and talented (undamaged) candidates to put forward. The Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches, and have an ideological edge in SCOTUS at the federal level. Republicans control 32 state legislatures and have 33 state governors. Some of the discrepancy can be attributed to gerrymandering but much of it cannot. The Democrats should be thinking hard about what they are doing wrong, when on paper, their identity politics-based demographic coalition should be thriving. But this thread isn't about any of that (though I'd welcome one that got into such issues); this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 25, 2017, 08:49:12 PM
this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.

Yep. Super delegates being part of a democratic system is not even in the same universe as foreign meddling in an election.  Trying to conflate the two is, well to put it nicely, disingenuous. There is no logical counter point to Russia meddling.  Only deflection.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 25, 2017, 08:55:10 PM
I think the DNC is in the shitter with no clear political narrative and a paucity of serious and talented (undamaged) candidates to put forward. The Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches, and have an ideological edge in SCOTUS at the federal level. Republicans control 32 state legislatures and have 33 state governors. Some of the discrepancy can be attributed to gerrymandering but much of it cannot. The Democrats should be thinking hard about what they are doing wrong, when on paper, their identity politics-based demographic coalition should be thriving. But this thread isn't about any of that (though I'd welcome one that got into such issues); this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.

Yes. You hit everyone of my points on the head actually. Except go one step further. I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time? Was it that we expected the worst out of our candidates? (Fake news requires doubtful minds to germinate in.) Was the election simply a series of amateur mistakes that we are trying to fit a narrative to now because it was so damn insane? We have five investigations going, four "smoking guns" and what seems to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Did Russia actually do this damage, or was the damage actually there for a while and this election was going to expose it one way or the other?

There are lots of questions. But I don't think we can have an honest discussion between the two camps.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on July 26, 2017, 06:03:28 AM
I think the DNC is in the shitter with no clear political narrative and a paucity of serious and talented (undamaged) candidates to put forward. The Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches, and have an ideological edge in SCOTUS at the federal level. Republicans control 32 state legislatures and have 33 state governors. Some of the discrepancy can be attributed to gerrymandering but much of it cannot. The Democrats should be thinking hard about what they are doing wrong, when on paper, their identity politics-based demographic coalition should be thriving. But this thread isn't about any of that (though I'd welcome one that got into such issues); this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.

Yes. You hit everyone of my points on the head actually. Except go one step further. I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time? Was it that we expected the worst out of our candidates? (Fake news requires doubtful minds to germinate in.) Was the election simply a series of amateur mistakes that we are trying to fit a narrative to now because it was so damn insane? We have five investigations going, four "smoking guns" and what seems to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Did Russia actually do this damage, or was the damage actually there for a while and this election was going to expose it one way or the other?

There are lots of questions. But I don't think we can have an honest discussion between the two camps.

I will take a stab at your questions with my opinion.  I am going to level a significant amount of blame on one side of the spectrum, but believe me there are problems with the left as well.  I just don't think they are as easy to articulate accurately and are more complex.  The country has been shifting into disparate ideological camps for almost 20+ years now.  It had mostly been beneath the surface until recently.  Twenty years of Fox News and other right wing entertainment that masquerades as news as exacerbated the problem of fake news.  They have primed the pump by getting their viewers angry and upset with Washington based on misleading or flat out wrong information.  This earns them a lot of money, which is their reason for existing.

When you are conditioned to always believe the worst about someone, or a party, or a race etc....it is very easy to exploit that with additional fake information.  That's why the electorate was so willing to believe the fake news this time around and help swing the election.  That is far from the only factor, there is also the unnatural hatred of Clinton, genuine economic concerns, and a unfailing faith in believe that the leopards will only other peoples faces (love that meme).

As far as Russia, I think very few people actually believe that Putin masterminded Trumps rise and they get together and hash out plans together.  There is a significant amount of evidence that the Trump organization was used extensively for laundering Russian money.  It was just business to them.  Putin and the leadership probably didn't care at all about the trumps at all except for as a way to launder their money for a small cut.  When Trump started really getting political a few years ago is when the Russian leadership probably took notice and realized they had financial leverage over someone.  It is going to be hard to prove an explicit quid pro quo, but Russian interfered likely to screw with America (because that is what they like to do).  They know Trump is friendly to Russia based on the previous decades of financial interactions, and if they can swing it for him, it can only benefit them. 

Do I think Trump and Putin sat in a room 2 years ago and hashed out a plan....no.  Do I think Russia made some asks of the Trump organization through his children/aides.....almost certainly.  There are far too many inexplicable events that fit that narrative exactly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 26, 2017, 06:43:09 AM
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?

You are asking to be persuaded of something that no one with any credibility (that I'm aware of) is even claiming. The issue is that Trump encouraged (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282), applauded (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/donald-trump-russian-hacking-twitter), and possibly even participated in (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/07/21/timeline-donald-trump-jr-s-contradictory-statements-about-the-russia-meeting/?utm_term=.e50b8be82de8) Russia's interference with our elections. And now that he's under investigation for possible collusion, he's using every interference technique in the goddamn books to try to stop and/or undermine the investigation. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether or not Russia's meddling swayed the electoral results; I just want to know whether or not Trump and his associates acted illegally or unethically to further his own interests by colluding with a hostile nation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 26, 2017, 06:55:33 AM
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?

You are asking to be persuaded of something that no one with any credibility (that I'm aware of) is even claiming. The issue is that Trump encouraged (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282), applauded (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/donald-trump-russian-hacking-twitter), and possibly even participated in (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/07/21/timeline-donald-trump-jr-s-contradictory-statements-about-the-russia-meeting/?utm_term=.e50b8be82de8) Russia's interference with our elections. And now that he's under investigation for possible collusion, he's putting using every interference technique in the goddamn books to try to stop and/or undermine the investigation. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether or not Russia's meddling swayed the electoral results; I just want to know whether or not Trump and his associated acted illegally or unethically to further his own interests by colluding with a hostile nation.

+1.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on July 26, 2017, 07:10:53 AM
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?

You are asking to be persuaded of something that no one with any credibility (that I'm aware of) is even claiming. The issue is that Trump encouraged (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282), applauded (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/donald-trump-russian-hacking-twitter), and possibly even participated in (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/07/21/timeline-donald-trump-jr-s-contradictory-statements-about-the-russia-meeting/?utm_term=.e50b8be82de8) Russia's interference with our elections. And now that he's under investigation for possible collusion, he's putting using every interference technique in the goddamn books to try to stop and/or undermine the investigation. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether or not Russia's meddling swayed the electoral results; I just want to know whether or not Trump and his associated acted illegally or unethically to further his own interests by colluding with a hostile nation.

Exactly.  Personally, I suspect Trump would have squeaked out his electoral win regardless of Russia.  And at any rate, we probably won't ever know that one way or the other, so it doesn't matter at this point.

Whether or not Trump is a legitimate president isn't in question to me.  He is appalling, incompetent, and potentially mentally ill IMO, but he got elected. 

The issue of Trump's Camp colluding with Russia is a different one (though related) to Russia going around the world (in other nations as well as ours) and trying to fuck around with their elections.  We would need to be investigating the Russia angle even if Dems controlled all three branches of government!  Tangential to the important issue (Russian interference) is the secondary issue: potential that 1) Trump or members of  his camp colluded in electoral meddling in any way that was illegal; 2) or Trump or members of his camp are subject to undue leverage or blackmail by a foreign government.

The real irony is that in the 2012 elections, the Romney and the GOP were all, OBAMA IS TOO SOFT ON PUTIN! RUSSIA IS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE OMG!  And (apart from Russian interference in elections, which was not being discussed then) I mostly thought the GOP was acting hysterical.  But now the GOP (and esp its voters) views Russia as 'no big deal', while the nuttiest elements of the left seem to think that Trump could never have won without Russian help. 

In reality, Russian is not our friend, but isn't America's One-Eyebrowed Baby either.  However, Russian attempts to undermine democratic elections is a very real concern to ALL WESTERN NATIONS. This would still be true if Clinton had won!  Our PRIMARY concern is maintaining free, fair, and democratic elections to the extent we are capable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 26, 2017, 08:04:41 AM
Moreover members of the Trump team lied before the Senate about whether they met with Russians like the ambassador Kisylak.

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for his security clearance"
"Sessions did not disclose the same contacts with Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearings"
"Sessions' met with Russian officials while he played a prominent role in the Trump campaign"
"Kushner prematurely submitted his SF-86 form without listing foreign contacts "
"Flynn is under investigation for not properly disclosing payments linked to Russia for his foreign trips."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-officials-meetings/index.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 26, 2017, 08:19:15 AM
So Trump has decided to alienate ~1.5 million Americans, barring them from serving in the military.  Glad he Made America...DISCRIMINATE Again.

Now he's throwing Sessions, the man he appointed as AG, under the bus for being TOO NICE with HRC.  This, after he supposedly fired Comey for being too mean to her (jk it's because he was investing his Russia ties).

Nixon just cut ties with his AG over much less.  Trump is just publicly admonishing him daily.  Dude...you can fire him any time you want!  What a petulant ****ing child.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 09:20:31 AM
The real irony is that in the 2012 elections, the Romney and the GOP were all, OBAMA IS TOO SOFT ON PUTIN! RUSSIA IS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE OMG!  And (apart from Russian interference in elections, which was not being discussed then) I mostly thought the GOP was acting hysterical.  But now the GOP (and esp its voters) views Russia as 'no big deal', while the nuttiest elements of the left seem to think that Trump could never have won without Russian help. 
Good point.  The narratives have changed somewhat since then, haven't they?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 26, 2017, 09:26:25 AM
The real irony is that in the 2012 elections, the Romney and the GOP were all, OBAMA IS TOO SOFT ON PUTIN! RUSSIA IS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE OMG!  And (apart from Russian interference in elections, which was not being discussed then) I mostly thought the GOP was acting hysterical.  But now the GOP (and esp its voters) views Russia as 'no big deal', while the nuttiest elements of the left seem to think that Trump could never have won without Russian help. 
Good point.  The narratives have changed somewhat since then, haven't they?

To be fair, the republican congress is going to pass a veto-proof sanctions package against russia that also eliminates the presidents ability to remove the sanctions without congressional approval.

I think republicans still don't like russia (at least republican politicians), but they hate giving the democrats a win even more so that's why they want to downplay the russian collusion story until it's 100% obvious it occurred.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 09:38:01 AM
...downplay the russian collusion story until it's 100% obvious it occurred.
That's assuming it did occur.  If there were solid evidence Feinstein et al. would be trumpeting it, not saying such evidence hasn't been found (e.g., There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/05/23/there-remains-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion/#3f26de08242c)).

Yes, there's lots of smoke, but the source of the smoke is debatable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 26, 2017, 09:49:49 AM
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/07/01/mattis-delays-new-transgender-policy-for-us-military/

26 days ago the Secretary of Defense said 6 months was necessary to make a decision on transgenders in the military.

Today, Trump cowardly made the announcement on Twitter that all transgenders would be banned from serving.  The Pentagon was caught off guard.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 26, 2017, 09:58:09 AM

I think republicans still don't like russia (at least republican politicians), but they hate giving the democrats a win even more so that's why they want to will downplay the russian collusion story until even after it's 100% obvious it occurred.

FTFY.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 26, 2017, 10:23:48 AM

Yes, there's lots of smoke, but the source of the smoke is debatable.

LMAO, what? The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign. Oh we forgot we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!! They already admitted to collusion. The question isn't where the smoke is coming from. It's how much gasoline is this administration going to continue pouring on the fire? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 10:35:15 AM
...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!
In all seriousness - so what?

People met and meet with Russians all the time.  Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time.  As wenchsenior noted, in 2012 it was Obama criticizing Romney for being obsessed with Russia.  Now the Republicans say the Democrats are obsessed with Russia.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose#French).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 26, 2017, 10:40:47 AM

Yes, there's lots of smoke, but the source of the smoke is debatable.

LMAO, what? The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign. Oh we forgot we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!! They already admitted to collusion. The question isn't where the smoke is coming from. It's how much gasoline is this administration going to continue pouring on the fire?

The other possibility is that they were simply incompetent rubes who didn't know better and were roped in by the Russians. I think that for people with experience like Manfort, this explanation simply has no credibility. None.

And as to whether or not the Russians attempted to interfere, there's always this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Pi_UAmZpE

Here's the quote from Comey: ""There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle," he said. "They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication, they did it with overwhelming technical efforts and it was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government. There should be no fuzz on that."

Also, many within the GOP establishment including ethics lawyers from the Bush administration have said that the appropriate responses to Russians calling up offering incriminating information about Clinton ranged from ignoring it to calling the FBI.

If your response to this is "so what", then we have a very different view of what is acceptable behavior. Politics is a bare-knuckle fight, but there are still boundaries.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 10:52:35 AM
If your response to this is "so what", then we have a very different view of what is acceptable behavior.
Yup.  Let's hear it for diversity!

Of course, we might need to discuss what "this" we are responding to.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 26, 2017, 11:16:27 AM
Politics is a bare-knuckle fight, but there are still boundaries.

Anyone who has been trained to fight, in any discipline, will tell you that the key to victory is learning which rules you can bend, and which you can break.  People who want to play by all the rules are destined to lose, and that's true in the ring (ask Tyson), or the football field (ask Brady), or in Congress (ask McConnell).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: BookValue on July 26, 2017, 11:25:46 AM
Politics is a bare-knuckle fight, but there are still boundaries.

Anyone who has been trained to fight, in any discipline, will tell you that the key to victory is learning which rules you can bend, and which you can break.  People who want to play by all the rules are destined to lose, and that's true in the ring (ask Tyson), or the football field (ask Brady), or in Congress (ask McConnell).

Aside here, but there is no evidence that Brady cheated. He shouldn't be mentioned in the same context as Tyson
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 26, 2017, 11:47:56 AM
Aside here, but there is no evidence that Brady cheated. He shouldn't be mentioned in the same context as Tyson

While I disagree that deflategate left Brady unbesmirched (he did get suspended after all), I was just using his name as a stand in for the oft-fined cheater Patriots he led.

yourteamcheats.com/NE
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: BookValue on July 26, 2017, 11:59:19 AM
Aside here, but there is no evidence that Brady cheated. He shouldn't be mentioned in the same context as Tyson

While I disagree that deflategate left Brady unbesmirched (he did get suspended after all), I was just using his name as a stand in for the oft-fined cheater Patriots he led.

yourteamcheats.com/NE

Yeah, those cheating cheaters who cheat.
I don't like people perpetuating the myth of Brady cheating, when there is no evidence of such. Reading something other than ESPN reporting will show what a witch hunt that whole case was.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 26, 2017, 12:22:47 PM
...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!
In all seriousness - so what?

People met and meet with Russians all the time.

Nice false equivalence

Quote
Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time.

So essentially to you the release of a pussy grabbing tape is the same as setting up meetings with foreign adversaries to illegally obtain detrimental information to an opposing campaign, and then lie about it. Wow, just wow!

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 26, 2017, 12:56:45 PM
^Cult45 is mastering the art of moving the goal posts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on July 26, 2017, 01:35:27 PM
Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time. 

No, they don't, not in this way. They do not "look for" information illegally hacked from a rival's political committee, especially hacked and stolen by a foreign f*cking hostile government. And meeting with them to discuss what they could get is the definition of conspiracy.

Here is just one example: Al Gore's campaign once received a packet of information stolen by an insider from the Bush campaign. Their response was to hand it over, unopened, to the FBI. That was information taken from within the campaign, literally delivered to their laps, by a US campaign insider -- and yet the Gore campaign did not exploit it, let alone express interest in receiving it. Compare that to the Trump campaign willingly seeking information hacked and stolen from U.S. computer systems by a hostile foreign power, which is magnitudes of order worse.

Here's another thing: Anyone claiming that Trump's actions are "business as usual, everyone does it" clearly is not paying attention. There's nothing usual about Trump, including the collusion with Russia. Presidents don't usually invite Russia to hack into U.S. computer systems or to hack their rival, they don't usually fire the FBI Director for not pledging "loyalty" and killing the investigation, they don't usually go on a public and nasty campaign against their own appointed Attorney General for not quashing the investigation, they don't usually repeat obvious lies every day (such as about crowd sizes to name just one), they don't usually call Senate, House, and FBI inquiries "hoaxes" and "witch hunts," and so on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 03:14:01 PM
Nice false equivalence
I was waiting for that one - seems to be de rigueur to say at some point in these discussions. ;)

Quote
...setting up meetings with foreign adversaries to illegally obtain detrimental information to an opposing campaign, and then lie about it. Wow, just wow!
Again, when leading Democrats (Feinstein et al.) start saying there is real evidence, that could be worth paying attention to.  Until then, not so much.

And meeting with them to discuss what they could get is the definition of conspiracy.
Gosh, a meeting.  How awful.

Quote
Here is just one example: Al Gore's campaign once received a packet of information stolen by an insider from the Bush campaign. Their response was to hand it over, unopened, to the FBI. That was information taken from within the campaign, literally delivered to their laps, by a US campaign insider -- and yet the Gore campaign did not exploit it, let alone express interest in receiving it.
Good for Gore's campaign.  Seriously - no sarcasm.

Quote
Compare that to the Trump campaign willingly seeking information hacked and stolen from U.S. computer systems by a hostile foreign power, which is magnitudes of order worse.
Not according to Assange - of course, one needs to decide whether/what to believe about him.

Quote
Here's another thing: Anyone claiming that Trump's actions are "business as usual, everyone does it" clearly is not paying attention. There's nothing usual about Trump, including the collusion with Russia. Presidents don't usually invite Russia to hack into U.S. computer systems or to hack their rival, they don't usually fire the FBI Director for not pledging "loyalty" and killing the investigation, they don't usually go on a public and nasty campaign against their own appointed Attorney General for not quashing the investigation, they don't usually repeat obvious lies every day (such as about crowd sizes to name just one), they don't usually call Senate, House, and FBI inquiries "hoaxes" and "witch hunts," and so on.
I'm on record agreeing that Trump is not normal, so I agree with you about that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 26, 2017, 03:48:18 PM
Nice false equivalence
I was waiting for that one
So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 04:04:28 PM
Nice false equivalence
I was waiting for that one
So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.
Uh, no.  I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 26, 2017, 06:06:41 PM
Nice false equivalence
I was waiting for that one
So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.
Uh, no.  I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.

No you didn't type or no it's not a fallacy? If you don't believe it's a false equivalence then feel free to explain how "people meet with Russia all the time" is equivalent to the meeting we were discussing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on July 26, 2017, 07:37:02 PM
Gosh, a meeting.  How awful.

You realize that a meeting with employees to discuss Q4 revenue is different than a guy having a meeting with a hitman to discuss having his wife killed, right? Would that defense fly when prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder, saying, "Golly, it was just a meeting. A presidential campaign (the most senior members on the campaign, no less) meeting with representatives of a foreign government (including former and possibly still active intelligence agents!) to discuss the promised compromising information on his political opponent is a real big, fat, ugly problem.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 09:26:51 PM
Nice false equivalence
I was waiting for that one
So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.
Uh, no.  I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.

No you didn't type or no it's not a fallacy? If you don't believe it's a false equivalence then feel free to explain how "people meet with Russia all the time" is equivalent to the meeting we were discussing.
No it wasn't a fallacy.

Just as the onus was on the birthers to prove that Obama wasn't born in the US (and of course they failed to do so), the onus on someone accusing Trump of whatever Trump is being accused of is to prove that case.  What specifically is it you suspect Trump of doing with Russia?  Note that I'll give you "being a loose cannon, self-contradictory, and not making sense on many things" for free, because I think that also - but those aren't the topic of this thread.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 09:29:34 PM
You realize that a meeting with employees to discuss Q4 revenue is different than a guy having a meeting with a hitman to discuss having his wife killed, right? Would that defense fly when prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder, saying, "Golly, it was just a meeting.
No comment. ;)

Quote
A presidential campaign (the most senior members on the campaign, no less) meeting with representatives of a foreign government (including former and possibly still active intelligence agents!) to discuss the promised compromising information on his political opponent is a real big, fat, ugly problem.
Exactly what problem?  Legal?  "Looks bad"?  Other?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 26, 2017, 10:08:13 PM
It's not yet clear if a law was broken, but further investigations by Mueller and other investigators might yet find conspiracy to violate election law.

Donald Trump Jr. and Russia: What the Law Says
https://nyti.ms/2vaFUqI
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 26, 2017, 10:16:51 PM
It's not yet clear if a law was broken, but further investigations by Mueller and other investigators might yet find conspiracy to violate election law.

Donald Trump Jr. and Russia: What the Law Says
https://nyti.ms/2vaFUqI
Agreed - they might, they might not.

Or, as my Magic 8-Ball might advise, "Reply hazy try again" or "Ask again later".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 27, 2017, 05:55:36 AM
Nice false equivalence
I was waiting for that one
So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.
Uh, no.  I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.

No you didn't type or no it's not a fallacy? If you don't believe it's a false equivalence then feel free to explain how "people meet with Russia all the time" is equivalent to the meeting we were discussing.
No it wasn't a fallacy.

I'll help you out. False Equivalence - A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

You've established the shared trait (meetings with Russia), but stopped short of proving how all meetings are precisely the same. As in all meetings with Russia relate to obtaining dirt on an opposing candidate. Obviously you cannot (but certainly try), otherwise you wouldn't be tossing in birther comments.

So try again?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on July 27, 2017, 06:43:53 AM
Nice false equivalence
I was waiting for that one
So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.
Uh, no.  I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.

No you didn't type or no it's not a fallacy? If you don't believe it's a false equivalence then feel free to explain how "people meet with Russia all the time" is equivalent to the meeting we were discussing.
No it wasn't a fallacy.

Just as the onus was on the birthers to prove that Obama wasn't born in the US (and of course they failed to do so), the onus on someone accusing Trump of whatever Trump is being accused of is to prove that case.  What specifically is it you suspect Trump of doing with Russia?  Note that I'll give you "being a loose cannon, self-contradictory, and not making sense on many things" for free, because I think that also - but those aren't the topic of this thread.

It is a fallacy and you are digging a hole for yourself that you can't escape.  If the sitting president meets with Russia, or a Senator, or any other government official, meets with their Russian counterpart to discuss, say Nuclear disarmament or something.  That meeting is documented on their calendar, there are readouts, there are official translators etc...  They are Proper. 

A meeting without any of the above, by people who are legally not able to represent the US (candidates and their staff.....even the POTUS elect has no authority for internatonal decisions) is a problem and in no way equivalent. 

The independent investigation is trying to prove the case like you said, that's their job.  Lots of people in this thread and elsewhere have specifically said what they suspect happened.  There is significant evidence supporting that assertion, unlike the birth certificate fiasco.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 27, 2017, 07:27:14 AM
"The further Mr. Mueller progresses, the more Mr. Trump panics. His reactions betray his motives. No reasonable observer could conclude that Mr. Trump is willing to open his books. Having refused to release his tax returns, he risks a constitutional crisis to stop US law enforcement officers from looking into his business dealings. The two are obviously connected. Sooner or later, serious investigators end up following the money. Mr. Mueller is nothing if not thorough. Mr. Trump is nothing if not ruthless."

John Harwood, journalist CNBC.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on July 27, 2017, 07:41:28 AM
"Can I pardon myself?"  That's the question you don't want to hear from a president. 

 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on July 27, 2017, 07:50:02 AM
This thread absolutely destroys Trump's transgender "ban" - https://twitter.com/MichaelSkolnik/status/890362449446264832

-Eleven personal trips this year by Trump to Mar-A-Lago: $29 million
Medical services for transgender people in the military: $8.4 million

-61 days of protecting Melania living in Trump Tower cost more than the medical services for all 15,000 transgender members of the military.

-"US taxpayers will pay more for Trump's 18 day Aug. vacation than for the medical services for 15,000 transgender soldiers for entire year"

-In 2016 the DOD spent abt $5M on healthcare for transgendered service members(2015 spent $41M on  Viagra & $84M for erectile dysfunction tx)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 27, 2017, 10:07:32 AM
I'll help you out....
It is a fallacy....
Again, discussion of debate lingo may be interesting to some but it's not relevant to what Trump did or didn't do "with Russia." 

If/when actual evidence (e.g., something that Sen. Feinstein would label "evidence") comes out then we'll see what we'll see.  Until then it seems much ado about nothing.

Unless you are talking about things Russia did independent of Trump.  There does seem plenty of evidence in that area.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on July 27, 2017, 10:11:57 AM
I'll help you out....
It is a fallacy....
Again, discussion of debate lingo may be interesting to some but it's not relevant to what Trump did or didn't do "with Russia." 

If/when actual evidence (e.g., something that Sen. Feinstein would label "evidence") comes out then we'll see what we'll see.  Until then it seems much ado about nothing.

Unless you are talking about things Russia did independent of Trump.  There does seem plenty of evidence in that area.

Discussion of "debate lingo"...that violates the terms of intelligent discourse and also the forum rules. Brush it off all you want, but that won't change the facts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 27, 2017, 10:16:27 AM
...that won't change the facts.
"Facts about what Trump did or didn't do" is indeed on topic.  Unless we're talking only about what Russia did or didn't do...?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dividendman on July 27, 2017, 10:21:29 AM
Maybe a bit off topic, but can the president give the military orders via tweet? I guess so right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on July 27, 2017, 10:24:23 AM
...that won't change the facts.
"Facts about what Trump did or didn't do" is indeed on topic.  Unless we're talking only about what Russia did or didn't do...?
Dude... I've read a lot of forum debates and seen a lot of cases where the person in the wrong was able to move the goalposts and never really get pegged down. But this? Just admit that you made a false equivalency on the meeting thing.

In all seriousness - so what?

People met and meet with Russians all the time.  Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time.  As wenchsenior noted, in 2012 it was Obama criticizing Romney for being obsessed with Russia.  Now the Republicans say the Democrats are obsessed with Russia.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose#French).
People meet with Russians all the time. That statement means nothing. The context and the topic of the meeting mean everything.

Edit: And I'll also add that just because you made one poor argument doesn't mean anything else you've said is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, admitting a mistake will only give more credibility to everything else you say. Denying it tells a different story.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 27, 2017, 10:28:54 AM
...that won't change the facts.
"Facts about what Trump did or didn't do" is indeed on topic.  Unless we're talking only about what Russia did or didn't do...?

Thus your original comment was off topic and indeed a fallacy (since others meeting with Russia has no bearing on Trump or the meeting we were discussing). Admit it or continue to shift the goalpost. It really doesn't matter. I think your comment now belongs more appropriately under the topic "OP is the only who doesn't see it."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 27, 2017, 11:07:55 AM
MDM seems to be looking for specific evidence of legal collusion, so let's review what we know.

The Russian government attempted to interfere with and undermine American democracy.  Donald Trump's campaign knew this was happening, and gave both explicit consent and public endorsement of this process.  Campaign staffers met secretly with Russian intelligence operatives on multiple occasions, to discuss how they could establish a quid pro quo with the Russians for their help with the election, for example by lifting sanctions, changing the GOP platform plank about Russia, and establishing secret backchannel communications to avoid US intelligence monitoring.  These compromised campaign staffers were then appointed to positions of power in the US government that required security clearances, and they lied to security investigators and concealed their foreign contacts, sometimes in front of the US Senate, in order to hide their complicity. 

The national security advisor (Flynn) was forced to resign over these lies.  The campaign manager (Manafort) was forced to resign because he was literally being paid by the Russians to advance Russian interests, and subsequently had to register as a foreign agent.  The white house senior advisor (Kushner) was recruited by Russian intelligence, agreed to circumvent official protocols in order to assist Russia, and is now under investigation.  The Attorney General (Sessions) lied to congress about meeting with the Russians and had to recuse himself in order to save his job.

None of that is evidence of collusion by Trump, personally, so it basically won't affect him if he just fires all of those people.

But we also know that Trump had received millions of dollars from Russian oligarchs closely tied to Putin, ostensibly as "investments" in failing real estate deals.  These look like bribes, but are probably legal.  There is no law against accepting ridiculous sums of money from Putin for items of nominal value.

And we know that Trump knew about the Russian hacks of the DNC, but so far we don't have any public evidence that Trump or his campaign assisted in the release and dissemination of that information, like on Facebook, other than making public statements that it should be leaked.

And lastly, Trump publicly admitted to obstruction of justice.  He said he tried to squash the Russia investigation internally, and then fired FBI Director Comey over it when he wouldn't do it.  That's about as clear cut of a case as I think can be made.

The Trump Jr. meeting in which he solicited opposition research on Clinton will probably warrant a fine but no jail time.  It's illegal, but not very illegal.  More importantly, it demonstrates that the campaign was actively seeking to collude.

And in the middle of all of this, while Trump continued to deny any connection with the Russians even as six of his top staffers admitted to it, Trump invited the lead Russian spy in the US for a private meeting in the Oval Office.  That was a pure troll move, I think, designed to send the clear message that he considers himself above the law.  It was "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and get away with it" all over again.

So what else do we really need?  What additional forms of collusion would reach the legal threshold required to convict of collusion?

And for the record, comparing this list to the birther conspiracy is laughably absurd.  There was never any evidence to support that theory other than "he's black" and it was promptly and completely debunked right up front.  There was no long list of high level staffers being fired over it.  Nobody ever had to admit any part of it was true after lying about it to congress and federal investigators.  No foreign government ever confirmed it.  It's fine to ask for evidence, but let's not pretend that the evidence of Russian collusion is as non-existent as was the evidence for Obama being born in Kenya.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 27, 2017, 11:09:16 AM
Just admit that you made a false equivalency on the meeting thing.
...
People meet with Russians all the time. That statement means nothing. The context and the topic of the meeting mean everything.

Edit: And I'll also add that just because you made one poor argument doesn't mean anything else you've said is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, admitting a mistake will only give more credibility to everything else you say. Denying it tells a different story.
Thus your original comment was off topic and indeed a fallacy (since others meeting with Russia has no bearing on Trump or the meeting we were discussing). Admit it or continue to shift the goalpost. It really doesn't matter. I think your comment now belongs more appropriately under the topic "OP is the only who doesn't see it."

Opinions differ.

You may choose to believe that something improper happened.  And I suspect you're smart enough to realize the difficulty in proving something improper didn't happen - even in normal circumstances, let alone when Trump is involved.

But a meeting with Russians is not prima facie evidence of anything improper, regardless of who was or wasn't in the room, what was publicized or not, etc.  If anything, the false equivalence lies in equating "a meeting happened" to "Trump is guilty".  The "context and topic" are indeed more relevant, but still aren't evidence of actual wrongdoing - at least according to what I've seen, but then IANAL.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 27, 2017, 11:12:34 AM
MDM seems to be looking for specific evidence of legal collusion, so let's review what we know.
...
sol, thanks for bringing this back to relevant issues.  Good summary!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: deadlymonkey on July 27, 2017, 11:27:18 AM
MDM seems to be looking for specific evidence of legal collusion, so let's review what we know.

The Russian government attempted to interfere with and undermine American democracy.  Donald Trump's campaign knew this was happening, and gave both explicit consent and public endorsement of this process.  Campaign staffers met secretly with Russian intelligence operatives on multiple occasions, to discuss how they could establish a quid pro quo with the Russians for their help with the election, for example by lifting sanctions, changing the GOP platform plank about Russia, and establishing secret backchannel communications to avoid US intelligence monitoring.  These compromised campaign staffers were then appointed to positions of power in the US government that required security clearances, and they lied to security investigators and concealed their foreign contacts, sometimes in front of the US Senate, in order to hide their complicity. 

The national security advisor (Flynn) was forced to resign over these lies.  The campaign manager (Manafort) was forced to resign because he was literally being paid by the Russians to advance Russian interests, and subsequently had to register as a foreign agent.  The white house senior advisor (Kushner) was recruited by Russian intelligence, agreed to circumvent official protocols in order to assist Russia, and is now under investigation.  The Attorney General (Sessions) lied to congress about meeting with the Russians and had to recuse himself in order to save his job.

None of that is evidence of collusion by Trump, personally, so it basically won't affect him if he just fires all of those people.

But we also know that Trump had received millions of dollars from Russian oligarchs closely tied to Putin, ostensibly as "investments" in failing real estate deals.  These look like bribes, but are probably legal.  There is no law against accepting ridiculous sums of money from Putin for items of nominal value.

And we know that Trump knew about the Russian hacks of the DNC, but so far we don't have any public evidence that Trump or his campaign assisted in the release and dissemination of that information, like on Facebook, other than making public statements that it should be leaked.

And lastly, Trump publicly admitted to obstruction of justice.  He said he tried to squash the Russia investigation internally, and then fired FBI Director Comey over it when he wouldn't do it.  That's about as clear cut of a case as I think can be made.

The Trump Jr. meeting in which he solicited opposition research on Clinton will probably warrant a fine but no jail time.  It's illegal, but not very illegal.  More importantly, it demonstrates that the campaign was actively seeking to collude.

And in the middle of all of this, while Trump continued to deny any connection with the Russians even as six of his top staffers admitted to it, Trump invited the lead Russian spy in the US for a private meeting in the Oval Office.  That was a pure troll move, I think, designed to send the clear message that he considers himself above the law.  It was "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and get away with it" all over again.

So what else do we really need?  What additional forms of collusion would reach the legal threshold required to convict of collusion?

And for the record, comparing this list to the birther conspiracy is laughably absurd.  There was never any evidence to support that theory other than "he's black" and it was promptly and completely debunked right up front.  There was no long list of high level staffers being fired over it.  Nobody ever had to admit any part of it was true after lying about it to congress and federal investigators.  No foreign government ever confirmed it.  It's fine to ask for evidence, but let's not pretend that the evidence of Russian collusion is as non-existent as was the evidence for Obama being born in Kenya.

All of the above, but I would add, that Donald Trump who claims to be very hands on and so in control of his business that he refused to release ownership or control to others was completely in the dark while every one of his advisors conducted these interactions with Russians.  We are somehow supposed to believe, that coincidently all of his advisors, acting under their own direction, sought out and engaged in these meetings/interactions, without absolutely any instruction or knowledge on the part of Trump.  Sounds legit.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 27, 2017, 11:35:58 AM
If anything, the false equivalence lies in equating "a meeting happened" to "Trump is guilty".

No one made that claim thus it's a straw-man fallacy. And it's an improper use of false equivalence. You are drawing a conclusion not comparing two opposing arguments. Perhaps we found the problem.

Quote
The "context and topic" are indeed more relevant, but still aren't evidence of actual wrongdoing - at least according to what I've seen, but then IANAL.

Yet that has been explained numerous times as evidence of your fallacy that you still keep denying. Kind of like you are arguing against yourself. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 27, 2017, 11:52:42 AM
If anything, the false equivalence lies in equating "a meeting happened" to "Trump is guilty".
No one made that claim thus it's a straw-man fallacy. And it's an improper use of false equivalence. You are drawing a conclusion not comparing two opposing arguments. Perhaps we found the problem.
Quote
The "context and topic" are indeed more relevant, but still aren't evidence of actual wrongdoing - at least according to what I've seen, but then IANAL.
Yet that has been explained numerous times as evidence of your fallacy that you still keep denying. Kind of like you are arguing against yourself. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.....

Let's go back to the original(?) post that seems to bother you (if you have a different one in mind, please advise):
...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!
In all seriousness - so what?

People met and meet with Russians all the time.  Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time.  As wenchsenior noted, in 2012 it was Obama criticizing Romney for being obsessed with Russia.  Now the Republicans say the Democrats are obsessed with Russia.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose#French).

Was "met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton" not put forth as evidence Trump did something wrong?  Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were trying to say?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 27, 2017, 12:10:35 PM
If anything, the false equivalence lies in equating "a meeting happened" to "Trump is guilty".
No one made that claim thus it's a straw-man fallacy. And it's an improper use of false equivalence. You are drawing a conclusion not comparing two opposing arguments. Perhaps we found the problem.
Quote
The "context and topic" are indeed more relevant, but still aren't evidence of actual wrongdoing - at least according to what I've seen, but then IANAL.
Yet that has been explained numerous times as evidence of your fallacy that you still keep denying. Kind of like you are arguing against yourself. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.....

Let's go back to the original(?) post that seems to bother you (if you have a different one in mind, please advise):
...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!
In all seriousness - so what?

People met and meet with Russians all the time.  Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time.  As wenchsenior noted, in 2012 it was Obama criticizing Romney for being obsessed with Russia.  Now the Republicans say the Democrats are obsessed with Russia.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose#French).

Was "met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton" not put forth as evidence Trump did something wrong?  Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were trying to say?

Actually my original comment was "The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign." I only stated Trump himself had a big announcement because of the sheer timing of it looks suspicious. I made no conclusion of guilt either way on Trump himself.

The source of your response was surrounding the meeting itself, which as far as we know, didn't include Trump Sr. But it sure showed at the very least, collusion. The fallacy lies with your desire to insinuate it's like all other meetings, which of course it is not. It's been beaten into the ground by myself an others.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 27, 2017, 01:42:25 PM
MDM seems to be looking for specific evidence of legal collusion, so let's review what we know.

The Russian government attempted to interfere with and undermine American democracy.  Donald Trump's campaign knew this was happening, and gave both explicit consent and public endorsement of this process.  Campaign staffers met secretly with Russian intelligence operatives on multiple occasions, to discuss how they could establish a quid pro quo with the Russians for their help with the election, for example by lifting sanctions, changing the GOP platform plank about Russia, and establishing secret backchannel communications to avoid US intelligence monitoring.  These compromised campaign staffers were then appointed to positions of power in the US government that required security clearances, and they lied to security investigators and concealed their foreign contacts, sometimes in front of the US Senate, in order to hide their complicity. 

The national security advisor (Flynn) was forced to resign over these lies.  The campaign manager (Manafort) was forced to resign because he was literally being paid by the Russians to advance Russian interests, and subsequently had to register as a foreign agent.  The white house senior advisor (Kushner) was recruited by Russian intelligence, agreed to circumvent official protocols in order to assist Russia, and is now under investigation.  The Attorney General (Sessions) lied to congress about meeting with the Russians and had to recuse himself in order to save his job.

None of that is evidence of collusion by Trump, personally, so it basically won't affect him if he just fires all of those people.

But we also know that Trump had received millions of dollars from Russian oligarchs closely tied to Putin, ostensibly as "investments" in failing real estate deals.  These look like bribes, but are probably legal.  There is no law against accepting ridiculous sums of money from Putin for items of nominal value.

And we know that Trump knew about the Russian hacks of the DNC, but so far we don't have any public evidence that Trump or his campaign assisted in the release and dissemination of that information, like on Facebook, other than making public statements that it should be leaked.

And lastly, Trump publicly admitted to obstruction of justice.  He said he tried to squash the Russia investigation internally, and then fired FBI Director Comey over it when he wouldn't do it.  That's about as clear cut of a case as I think can be made.

The Trump Jr. meeting in which he solicited opposition research on Clinton will probably warrant a fine but no jail time.  It's illegal, but not very illegal.  More importantly, it demonstrates that the campaign was actively seeking to collude.

And in the middle of all of this, while Trump continued to deny any connection with the Russians even as six of his top staffers admitted to it, Trump invited the lead Russian spy in the US for a private meeting in the Oval Office.  That was a pure troll move, I think, designed to send the clear message that he considers himself above the law.  It was "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and get away with it" all over again.

So what else do we really need?  What additional forms of collusion would reach the legal threshold required to convict of collusion?

And for the record, comparing this list to the birther conspiracy is laughably absurd.  There was never any evidence to support that theory other than "he's black" and it was promptly and completely debunked right up front.  There was no long list of high level staffers being fired over it.  Nobody ever had to admit any part of it was true after lying about it to congress and federal investigators.  No foreign government ever confirmed it.  It's fine to ask for evidence, but let's not pretend that the evidence of Russian collusion is as non-existent as was the evidence for Obama being born in Kenya.

A well written summation of events and really helps to put things in perspective.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 27, 2017, 03:26:27 PM
Actually my original comment was "The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign." I only stated Trump himself had a big announcement because of the sheer timing of it looks suspicious. I made no conclusion of guilt either way on Trump himself.

The source of your response was surrounding the meeting itself, which as far as we know, didn't include Trump Sr. But it sure showed at the very least, collusion. The fallacy lies with your desire to insinuate it's like all other meetings, which of course it is not. It's been beaten into the ground by myself an others.
Ah, thank you, that makes the point to which you are objecting clearer.

There is a difference between saying "all meetings are identical, thus Trump is innocent" (to which I disagree) vs. "the fact that a meeting occurred with Trump (or his staff) and some Russians means Trump (or his staff) is guilty of something" (to which I disagree).

Regarding "collusion" and other charges, see the article DavidAnnArbor linked in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/united-states-of-russia/msg1639075/#msg1639075.  From what I know, that is a fair recap of events to date.  Do we agree on that?

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 27, 2017, 05:37:35 PM
Actually my original comment was "The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign." I only stated Trump himself had a big announcement because of the sheer timing of it looks suspicious. I made no conclusion of guilt either way on Trump himself.

The source of your response was surrounding the meeting itself, which as far as we know, didn't include Trump Sr. But it sure showed at the very least, collusion. The fallacy lies with your desire to insinuate it's like all other meetings, which of course it is not. It's been beaten into the ground by myself an others.

There is a difference between saying "all meetings are identical, thus Trump is innocent" (to which I disagree) vs. "the fact that a meeting occurred with Trump (or his staff) and some Russians means Trump (or his staff) is guilty of something" (to which I disagree).

Regarding "collusion" and other charges, see the article DavidAnnArbor linked in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/united-states-of-russia/msg1639075/#msg1639075.  From what I know, that is a fair recap of events to date.  Do we agree on that?

(http://freakoutnation.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2013/04/headdesk-350x262.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on July 27, 2017, 06:52:39 PM
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56666/russia-putin-oligarchs/?src=social-text

More Senate testimony yesterday
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 27, 2017, 07:09:52 PM
Do we agree on that?
<snip>
I'll take that as a yes. ;)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 28, 2017, 08:56:17 AM
Maybe Trump should ask Putin how to fix healthcare, now that congressional Republicans have apparently given up on the idea?  I hear that the universal coverage in Russia works pretty well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 28, 2017, 09:18:12 AM
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56666/russia-putin-oligarchs/?src=social-text

More Senate testimony yesterday
Great share. Thanks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on July 28, 2017, 11:52:32 AM
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56666/russia-putin-oligarchs/?src=social-text

More Senate testimony yesterday
Great share. Thanks.

It really puts in perspective the story that Obama was weak on Russia/ignored Russian threats.  It seems that the Magnitsky Act was a really big problem for Putin and backed him into a corner.  Obama and Trump are such studies in opposites.  Obama was content to pursue a quiet end goal.  Trump is only interested in the headlines and could care less if the end goal is reached.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: redbirdfan on July 28, 2017, 12:18:01 PM
I'm not prone to hyperbole.  I believe the Russian rhetoric can be over the top at times.  I'm perfectly content letting Mueller conduct his investigation and accepting the results.  For the sake of argument let's assume that Trump/his campaign/his family didn't collude with Russia.  Let's assume that Mueller conducts his investigation and determines that it was all just a bunch of smoke.  Let's assume that changing the Republican platform to be more pro-Russia was just happenstance.  Assuming all of that, we still have a serious problem in my humble opinion.

Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in July.  The Russians hacked the DNC in June.  The Russians attempted to hack into the election software that manages voter rolls in August 2016.  The Russians attempted to target local election officials in October 2016.  Presumably Donald Trump/Pence/Flynn would have been briefed on this info by as part of the presidential daily briefs beginning in July.  Despite the intelligence community being unanimous in the belief that Russia interfered/attempted to interfere in our election, Donald Trump has bent over backwards to sow seeds of doubt with the American public.  He did this while still a candidate for office during the presidential debates and he has continued to do it as the President of the United States. 

Maybe he did/does it because of election insecurity and not because of an underlying crime/conspiracy.  Maybe there was no collusion. But think about what that means.  The President of the United States is purposefully disparaging our intelligence community and misleading the American public for no reason at all.  That does not make me feel better.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on July 29, 2017, 06:57:09 PM
I'm not prone to hyperbole.  I believe the Russian rhetoric can be over the top at times.  I'm perfectly content letting Mueller conduct his investigation and accepting the results.  For the sake of argument let's assume that Trump/his campaign/his family didn't collude with Russia.  Let's assume that Mueller conducts his investigation and determines that it was all just a bunch of smoke.  Let's assume that changing the Republican platform to be more pro-Russia was just happenstance.  Assuming all of that, we still have a serious problem in my humble opinion.

Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in July.  The Russians hacked the DNC in June.  The Russians attempted to hack into the election software that manages voter rolls in August 2016.  The Russians attempted to target local election officials in October 2016.  Presumably Donald Trump/Pence/Flynn would have been briefed on this info by as part of the presidential daily briefs beginning in July.  Despite the intelligence community being unanimous in the belief that Russia interfered/attempted to interfere in our election, Donald Trump has bent over backwards to sow seeds of doubt with the American public.  He did this while still a candidate for office during the presidential debates and he has continued to do it as the President of the United States. 

Maybe he did/does it because of election insecurity and not because of an underlying crime/conspiracy.  Maybe there was no collusion. But think about what that means. The President of the United States is purposefully disparaging our intelligence community and misleading the American public for no reason at all. That does not make me feel better.

While constantly calling out "fake news" as well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 29, 2017, 09:05:18 PM
When facts are very heavily slanted against you, you're not going to win by focusing on the truth.  It's far more effective to play smoke and mirror games in an attempt to discredit the facts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on July 30, 2017, 01:15:19 AM
When facts are very heavily slanted against you, you're not going to win by focusing on the truth.  It's far more effective to play smoke and mirror games in an attempt to discredit the facts.

Yes.  Anyone wanting Trump to shut up about Russia and fake news and get on with being President and implementing policy doesn't understand that it's an approach that will lead to eventual disaster for Trump and his minions, when Mueller makes his report and the prosecutions/impeachment begin. 

Trump's strategy for long-term survival is 1) to disrupt, delay and discredit the investigations, and 2) cry "fake news" and "Hilary" and "conspiracy" often enough that there is a sizeable proportion of the US population to object to any action being taken against him and his people, so that it becomes difficult for Congress to proceed against him and any legal cases can be tied up for years.  Chaos is Trump's only strategy, now that he understands (I think) that he can't buy or bully his way out on this one the way he's bought or bullied his way out of all the other legal cases against him over the years.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 30, 2017, 12:16:13 PM
I'm not prone to hyperbole.  I believe the Russian rhetoric can be over the top at times.  I'm perfectly content letting Mueller conduct his investigation and accepting the results.  For the sake of argument let's assume that Trump/his campaign/his family didn't collude with Russia.  Let's assume that Mueller conducts his investigation and determines that it was all just a bunch of smoke.  Let's assume that changing the Republican platform to be more pro-Russia was just happenstance.  Assuming all of that, we still have a serious problem in my humble opinion.

Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in July.  The Russians hacked the DNC in June.  The Russians attempted to hack into the election software that manages voter rolls in August 2016.  The Russians attempted to target local election officials in October 2016.  Presumably Donald Trump/Pence/Flynn would have been briefed on this info by as part of the presidential daily briefs beginning in July.  Despite the intelligence community being unanimous in the belief that Russia interfered/attempted to interfere in our election, Donald Trump has bent over backwards to sow seeds of doubt with the American public.  He did this while still a candidate for office during the presidential debates and he has continued to do it as the President of the United States. 

Maybe he did/does it because of election insecurity and not because of an underlying crime/conspiracy.  Maybe there was no collusion. But think about what that means.  The President of the United States is purposefully disparaging our intelligence community and misleading the American public for no reason at all.  That does not make me feel better.

Actually, most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors. Even the paranoid hippy/druid guy doubts it.

But the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.

You can point to your articles and all your red string as evidence. The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds. And liberals reactions immediately after the election (riots, safe space crying, the hippy I mentioned above said his town entered a "day of mourning") just makes the entire hacking crisis look like pouting.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on July 30, 2017, 12:50:41 PM
I'm not prone to hyperbole.  I believe the Russian rhetoric can be over the top at times.  I'm perfectly content letting Mueller conduct his investigation and accepting the results.  For the sake of argument let's assume that Trump/his campaign/his family didn't collude with Russia.  Let's assume that Mueller conducts his investigation and determines that it was all just a bunch of smoke.  Let's assume that changing the Republican platform to be more pro-Russia was just happenstance.  Assuming all of that, we still have a serious problem in my humble opinion.

Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in July.  The Russians hacked the DNC in June.  The Russians attempted to hack into the election software that manages voter rolls in August 2016.  The Russians attempted to target local election officials in October 2016.  Presumably Donald Trump/Pence/Flynn would have been briefed on this info by as part of the presidential daily briefs beginning in July.  Despite the intelligence community being unanimous in the belief that Russia interfered/attempted to interfere in our election, Donald Trump has bent over backwards to sow seeds of doubt with the American public.  He did this while still a candidate for office during the presidential debates and he has continued to do it as the President of the United States. 

Maybe he did/does it because of election insecurity and not because of an underlying crime/conspiracy.  Maybe there was no collusion. But think about what that means.  The President of the United States is purposefully disparaging our intelligence community and misleading the American public for no reason at all.  That does not make me feel better.

Actually, most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors. Even the paranoid hippy/druid guy doubts it.

But the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.

You can point to your articles and all your red string as evidence. The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds. And liberals reactions immediately after the election (riots, safe space crying, the hippy I mentioned above said his town entered a "day of mourning") just makes the entire hacking crisis look like pouting.

I'm firmly convinced that there are some Trump supporters that will continue to support him regardless of anything that could happen.  Trump knows it, too. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/25/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-not-lose-any-voters
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 30, 2017, 01:33:42 PM
You can point to your articles and all your red string as evidence. The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds. And liberals reactions immediately after the election (riots, safe space crying, the hippy I mentioned above said his town entered a "day of mourning") just makes the entire hacking crisis look like pouting.

What exactly is "red string evidence?"  Is there "blue string evidence" as well? If so what would be the difference? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 30, 2017, 01:43:42 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 30, 2017, 02:45:30 PM
most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors.

Really?  Even the part about the Russians trying to undermine American democracy by interfering in our elections?  How about the part where Trump went on national tv to ask the Russians to hack his opponents?  What about the part where he admitted to firing the FBI director for refusing to shut down a criminal investigation?

Because those three parts are pretty well established facts.  I don't think anyone really disputes those.

But lots of folks, even liberals, are still unclear on whether Trumps deference to the Russians is just bad policy because he's an idiot, or bad policy because the Russians have leverage over him and asked him to change it.  In the end, I'm not sure that part really matters.  They got what they wanted either way.

Quote
But the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.

You're confused.  Nobody brings up the popular vote as evidence of Russian hacking unless they fundamentally misunderstand the electoral college.  If anything, the only person who loves to bring up the election over and over again is Donald Trump himself. 

But the Russians did totally try to hack the election, by multiple means.  Right now, it looks like they infilitrated a variety of voting systems but were unable to change the vote totals, which is good.  What's no so good is that they were much more successful with convincing Americans to legitimately change their votes, with targeted fake news stories on facebook.  I'm not sure it still counts as "hacking" if you just trick someone into doing something you want them to do.

Quote
The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds.

Is it also too vague to change the minds of the entire US intelligence community?  The Russian hacking facts I've laid out above aren't really in dispute among the people who have access to the relevant information.  The fact that parts of the public are still skeptical of these facts is a testament to the power of Donald Trump to mislead people, but a deceived public doesn't change the fact that they are still true facts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 30, 2017, 03:40:59 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

https://pics.me.me/me-explaining-conspiracy-theories-to-my-friends-😂😂-we-all-3326447.png
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 30, 2017, 04:07:45 PM
You really have to be careful, here, to make the distinction between

1.  The Russians hacking the election, which is definitely a real thing that totally happened, and

2.  Donald Trump actually helping the Russian hack the election, which would be a crime.

Trump wants very much to conflate these two issues, for some reason that I've yet to fully grasp.  He's been trying to confuse people into thinking that #1 didn't happen, so #2 must not also have happened, but that seems exactly backwards to me.  He should instead by trying desperately to separate the two, because #1 is now an established fact and #2 would potentially send him to prison.  He should be forcefully defending himself from #2 while acknowledging #1 and what a big problem it is.

Unfortunately, lots of Americans have heard Trump outright lie about #1 often enough that they believe him instead of the collective conclusion of the entire US intelligence community in 100% agreement (about #1).

I think we're still up in the air on #2, whether or not his campaign aided the hacking efforts.  They certainly seemed eager for them to proceed, and both publicly (at the convention) and privately (like in Jr.'s emails) encouraged those activities.  They offered advice on how to maximally impact the election by hacking, but if they didn't actually do the hacking or disseminating themselves, is that really a crime?  If I tell you how I want you to murder someone and then you go do it, am I also guilty of murder?  Of some lesser crime, but still legally culpable?

We already know that most of his senior staff has been guilty of a variety of things regarding Russia.  Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn, Marc Kasowitz, Michael Cohen, Jeff Sessions, and Donald Trump Jr have each admitted to inappropriate dealings with the Russians, to varying levels of severity.  They met with Russian spies, or were literally being paid by foreign powers to work on their behalf.  Then they lied to security investigators, and/or the Senate, about meeting with Russian spies or working for foreign powers.  They all look dirty, but that doesn't mean Trump himself necessarily did anything illegal.  He could have been the clueless figurehead in the middle of a vast Russian conspiracy, rather than the head of the conspiracy.

And I'm still not sure it matters.  Russia has totally pwned us, one way or the other.  If they want to undermine American power and influence in the world, they've certainly accomplished that goal with this adminstration, and arguably they can continue to enhance it by feeding the story line that basically the entire White House staff is dirty, whether it's true or not.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 30, 2017, 04:13:01 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 30, 2017, 04:19:07 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 30, 2017, 04:57:39 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 30, 2017, 05:01:43 PM
most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors.

Really?  Even the part about the Russians trying to undermine American democracy by interfering in our elections?  How about the part where Trump went on national tv to ask the Russians to hack his opponents?  What about the part where he admitted to firing the FBI director for refusing to shut down a criminal investigation?

Because those three parts are pretty well established facts.  I don't think anyone really disputes those.

But lots of folks, even liberals, are still unclear on whether Trumps deference to the Russians is just bad policy because he's an idiot, or bad policy because the Russians have leverage over him and asked him to change it.  In the end, I'm not sure that part really matters.  They got what they wanted either way.

Quote
But the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.

You're confused.  Nobody brings up the popular vote as evidence of Russian hacking unless they fundamentally misunderstand the electoral college.  If anything, the only person who loves to bring up the election over and over again is Donald Trump himself. 

But the Russians did totally try to hack the election, by multiple means.  Right now, it looks like they infilitrated a variety of voting systems but were unable to change the vote totals, which is good.  What's no so good is that they were much more successful with convincing Americans to legitimately change their votes, with targeted fake news stories on facebook.  I'm not sure it still counts as "hacking" if you just trick someone into doing something you want them to do.

Quote
The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds.

Is it also too vague to change the minds of the entire US intelligence community?  The Russian hacking facts I've laid out above aren't really in dispute among the people who have access to the relevant information.  The fact that parts of the public are still skeptical of these facts is a testament to the power of Donald Trump to mislead people, but a deceived public doesn't change the fact that they are still true facts.

Point 1. They know. They just have more important things to do. And they figure Trump was the better choice.

Point 2. That was the "Communist" Liberal I was quoting. He goes well with the "I investigated Gamergate so I know corruption when I see it" Liberal.

Point 3. Didn't that assessment go from 17 down to 3? Also "hand picked for the job" doesn't reassure me.

https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/evidence-of-russian-hacking-is-inconclusive-d485726b962f

Most of the evidence released publicly lists Tor nodes as the primary attacker. That won't stand up in a court of law.

http://g-2.space
"Guccifer" as he was called had no verifiable hacking successes.

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.


https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

The political side:
“If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.” Jennifer Palmeri, Former Clinton Presidential Campaign communication manager. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/24/the-clinton-campaign-warned-you-about-russia-but-nobody-listened-to-us/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.a2d2d8ddd159

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/
Yes. It is from March, before Comey. But it was the crime o the century! How could they back down or have doubts?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia?amp
And here are rank and file Democrats saying "Russia isn't a big issue to voters. Back off." Yet it continues.

http://disinfo.com/2017/05/how-the-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque/
It's almost like someone is protecting their brand.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 30, 2017, 05:47:06 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
"red string evidence"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on July 30, 2017, 05:57:19 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
"red string evidence"

Hmm, I remember a bunch of hand waving BS he got called out on, but no mention of "red string evidence." Perhaps it was in reference to Covfefe. Oh well ( :
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 30, 2017, 06:03:50 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
"red string evidence"

Hmm, I remember a bunch of hand waving BS he got called out on, but no mention of "red string evidence." Perhaps it was in reference to Covfefe. Oh well ( :

https://pics.me.me/me-explaining-conspiracy-theories-to-my-friends-😂😂-we-all-3326447.png
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on July 30, 2017, 06:04:31 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?

I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back.  Not at all what I guessed. :)

Explained what?
"red string evidence"

Hmm, I remember a bunch of hand waving BS he got called out on, but no mention of "red string evidence." Perhaps it was in reference to Covfefe. Oh well ( :
You may be missing the point of this series of quotes, that starts with
Quote from: MasterStache on Today at 03:33:42 PM
What exactly is "red string evidence?"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on July 30, 2017, 06:33:02 PM
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):

(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)

That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 30, 2017, 07:04:28 PM
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):

(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)

That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on July 30, 2017, 08:21:29 PM
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):

(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)

That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?

Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.

See?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 30, 2017, 09:21:36 PM
So now that the US Congress is likely to pass sanctions against Putin and cronies and Putin is retaliating by kicking out many US diplomats, where can this seriously strained relationship lead ?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 30, 2017, 09:49:53 PM
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):

(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)

That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?

Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.

See?

Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.

 I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on July 30, 2017, 10:22:45 PM
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):

(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)

That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?

Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.

See?

Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.

 I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.

I have no idea. My problem is with your claim "The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack" which is based on speculation. The source you cited also claimed that speed is 80% of gigabit LAN rate, which is completely wrong. It's approximately 20% of gigabit ethernet's capability.  They were called out in the comments and admitted fault but still have not corrected the article.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 30, 2017, 10:44:10 PM
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/

They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:

Quote
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?

Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):

(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)

That's over 4x 23MB/sec.

They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."

Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?

And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)

Do we have forensics on it?

Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.

See?

Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.

 I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.

I have no idea. My problem is with your claim "The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack" which is based on speculation. The source you cited also claimed that speed is 80% of gigabit LAN rate, which is completely wrong. It's approximately 20% of gigabit ethernet's capability.  They were called out in the comments and admitted fault but still have not corrected the article.

I tried to write a quick and dirty summary for people. I did post a bunch of stuff. And you found the comments. Thanks for that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gondolin on July 31, 2017, 06:31:48 AM
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.

Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on July 31, 2017, 08:06:49 AM
and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

A frugal choice!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on July 31, 2017, 08:43:10 AM
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.

Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.

Actually I have an associates in Industrial Electrical. Your point still stands. I am asking questions because I know enough to get into trouble. (I'm running Linux Mint now.)

And the author does point out that it is speculation. I had not found the comment section going into.more detail.

But it has raised a question of why the DNC used a private security firm instead of the FBI when Russians hacked their server. There was a serious crime and the scene disappeared as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on July 31, 2017, 07:06:08 PM
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.

Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.

Actually I have an associates in Industrial Electrical. Your point still stands. I am asking questions because I know enough to get into trouble. (I'm running Linux Mint now.)

And the author does point out that it is speculation. I had not found the comment section going into.more detail.

But it has raised a question of why the DNC used a private security firm instead of the FBI when Russians hacked their server. There was a serious crime and the scene disappeared as far as I can tell.

I work in IT. The datacenter gear I manage uses $30k/mo in electricity.

There are a lot of questions without enough answers to make the claims they're making.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on July 31, 2017, 07:31:49 PM
Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.

 I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.
To answer this specifically: there's usually nothing to be gained from disclosing internal infrastructure with conspiracy theorists, or even fans.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on August 01, 2017, 08:41:00 AM
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.

Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.

Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.

Actually I have an associates in Industrial Electrical. Your point still stands. I am asking questions because I know enough to get into trouble. (I'm running Linux Mint now.)

And the author does point out that it is speculation. I had not found the comment section going into.more detail.

But it has raised a question of why the DNC used a private security firm instead of the FBI when Russians hacked their server. There was a serious crime and the scene disappeared as far as I can tell.

I work in IT. The datacenter gear I manage uses $30k/mo in electricity.

There are a lot of questions without enough answers to make the claims they're making.

And we have a lot of disturbing saber rattling over those claims.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on August 01, 2017, 10:39:19 AM
Another one for the recommended reading list. This is an op-ed from TPM putting the WaPo article in context:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/making-sense-of-the-big-wapo-story-and-the-false-statement

And the article in the WaPo about Trump personally dictating a misleading statement about Donny Jr's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airforceone-759pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7334bd539af4

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on August 01, 2017, 12:32:38 PM
And the article in the WaPo about Trump personally dictating a misleading statement about Donny Jr's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airforceone-759pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7334bd539af4

Today's news about Trump intervening in the Trump Jr. Russia meeting affair certainly looks like some of the first hard evidence of the President being directly involved in a secret cover-up.  And for what reason?  He didn't have to do that.  He could have kept his hands clean and just stayed out of the entire affair.

Until this, I was holding out hope that Trump was just a clueless idiot surrounded by conspirators.  Now it looks like, in at least this one case, be was not only not clueless but purposefully and actively involved the conspiracy.

It would be delicious irony if the the thing that finally brings down Trump is totally unnecessary meddling in the criminal proceedings of his own family.  For all his spurious talk about loyalty, and his simultaneous wanton destruction of his supposed political allies, he suddenly seems uniquely vulnerable to weaknesses in the very family he previously claimed made him so robustly qualified to be president.

I love it when incompetent people fail publicly, I just wish it wasn't my country at stake this time.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on August 01, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
And the article in the WaPo about Trump personally dictating a misleading statement about Donny Jr's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airforceone-759pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7334bd539af4

Today's news about Trump intervening in the Trump Jr. Russia meeting affair certainly looks like some of the first hard evidence of the President being directly involved in a secret cover-up.  And for what reason?  He didn't have to do that.  He could have kept his hands clean and just stayed out of the entire affair.

Until this, I was holding out hope that Trump was just a clueless idiot surrounded by conspirators.  Now it looks like, in at least this one case, be was not only not clueless but purposefully and actively involved the conspiracy.

It would be delicious irony if the the thing that finally brings down Trump is totally unnecessary meddling in the criminal proceedings of his own family.  For all his spurious talk about loyalty, and his simultaneous wanton destruction of his supposed political allies, he suddenly seems uniquely vulnerable to weaknesses in the very family he previously claimed made him so robustly qualified to be president.

I love it when incompetent people fail publicly, I just wish it wasn't my country at stake this time.

Not to mention Trump's lawyer point blank lied about Donnie "weighing in" claiming originally that it wasn't true. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on August 02, 2017, 01:02:29 PM
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on August 02, 2017, 02:28:34 PM
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
The letter is fucking great.

I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on August 02, 2017, 02:53:05 PM
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
The letter is fucking great.

I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".

Hell I am surprised he didn't toss in something about winning the election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on August 02, 2017, 03:15:31 PM
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
The letter is fucking great.

I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".

Hell I am surprised he didn't toss in something about winning the election.
But he did! See the last sentence.
"That is a big part of the reason I was elected."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on August 02, 2017, 04:49:48 PM
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
The letter is fucking great.

I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".

Hell I am surprised he didn't toss in something about winning the election.
But he did! See the last sentence.
"That is a big part of the reason I was elected."

Oh shit I missed that. Probably laughing way too hard!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on August 03, 2017, 04:51:44 PM
Is impaneling a grand jury considered fake news?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-impanels-washington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287

.... and the plot thickens. It is also possible that Mueller found malfeasance that is unrelated to Russia and is following through on that as a matter of due diligence. Regardless, it is an interesting and important development.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Fireball on August 09, 2017, 09:31:06 AM
Surely no one in Manafort's position would keep incriminating documents at his home, but you never know.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-conducted-predawn-raid-of-former-trump-campaign-chairman-manaforts-home/2017/08/09/5879fa9c-7c45-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.18c6f3595b88
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on August 14, 2017, 06:24:30 PM
.... adding more evidence that "this Russia thing" just isn't going away...

Quote
Three days after Donald Trump named his campaign foreign policy team in March 2016, the youngest of the new advisers sent an email to seven campaign officials with the subject line: “Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin.”
(The Washington Post reports 8/14/2017)

Between March and September [2016], the self-described energy consultant sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump... or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials.

To experts in Russian intelligence gathering, the [email] chain offers further evidence that Russians were looking for entry points and playing upon connections with lower-level aides to penetrate the 2016 campaign.

Steven L. Hall, who retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of managing the agency’s Russia operations, said when told by The Post about the emails: “The bottom line is that there’s no doubt in my mind that the Russian government was casting a wide net when they were looking at the American election. I think they were doing very basic intelligence work: Who’s out there? Who’s willing to play ball? And how can we use them?”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-emails-show-aides-repeated-efforts-to-set-up-russia-meetings/2017/08/14/54d08da6-7dc2-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russians-558pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4cb15670b4b9 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-emails-show-aides-repeated-efforts-to-set-up-russia-meetings/2017/08/14/54d08da6-7dc2-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russians-558pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4cb15670b4b9)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: SoundFuture on August 15, 2017, 03:15:32 PM
.... adding more evidence that "this Russia thing" just isn't going away...

Quote
Three days after Donald Trump named his campaign foreign policy team in March 2016, the youngest of the new advisers sent an email to seven campaign officials with the subject line: “Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin.”
(The Washington Post reports 8/14/2017)

Between March and September [2016], the self-described energy consultant sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump... or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials.

To experts in Russian intelligence gathering, the [email] chain offers further evidence that Russians were looking for entry points and playing upon connections with lower-level aides to penetrate the 2016 campaign.

Steven L. Hall, who retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of managing the agency’s Russia operations, said when told by The Post about the emails: “The bottom line is that there’s no doubt in my mind that the Russian government was casting a wide net when they were looking at the American election. I think they were doing very basic intelligence work: Who’s out there? Who’s willing to play ball? And how can we use them?”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-emails-show-aides-repeated-efforts-to-set-up-russia-meetings/2017/08/14/54d08da6-7dc2-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russians-558pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4cb15670b4b9 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-emails-show-aides-repeated-efforts-to-set-up-russia-meetings/2017/08/14/54d08da6-7dc2-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russians-558pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4cb15670b4b9)

And it doesn't matter if you actually get anywhere or not, because sowing seeds of doubt are just as, if not more useful, than actually having operatives. Anything that reads like this will be found and it will look damning regardless of the outcome.  This was a strategy classically employed by the USSR, and is no doubt just one more piece in Putin's reunification day dream.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 10, 2017, 11:36:27 AM
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/10/u-s-media-help-russia-destabilize-united-states/

Relevant article. I read it, makes more sense of the whole situation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 10, 2017, 04:50:54 PM
I'm reading the first few paragraphs and I'm already confused by the article. They sure need an editor to better organize this.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 11, 2017, 01:44:30 PM
I'm reading the first few paragraphs and I'm already confused by the article. They sure need an editor to better organize this.
Good, I'm not the only one. I'll need to take notes as I go if I have much chance of keeping up but maybe if I have some time tonight.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 11, 2017, 03:19:04 PM
I'm reading the first few paragraphs and I'm already confused by the article. They sure need an editor to better organize this.
Good, I'm not the only one. I'll need to take notes as I go if I have much chance of keeping up but maybe if I have some time tonight.

Don't get too invested.

H2r has a long history of posting inflammatory garbage links to this forum.  I don't even click on them anymore. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 25, 2017, 03:15:07 PM
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on October 26, 2017, 10:17:26 AM
Was the DNC muckraking or doing due-diligence on their political opponent?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 26, 2017, 10:36:54 AM
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 26, 2017, 11:20:34 AM
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: vern on October 26, 2017, 11:23:00 AM
Irony alert!  There was collusion with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on October 26, 2017, 11:34:27 AM
So after a year of investigations: Who did what colluding?

Samp-creature establishment Dems+Repubs (they are not so different, it would seem) and national security agencies, with their 4th estate MSM buddies turning a blind eye.

- James Comey prepared to exonerate Hillary Clinton before interviewing her.
- Fusion GPS executives invoking the Fifth Amendment.
- The Podesta Group coming under the scrutiny of Mueller.
- New revelations about Uranium One.
- Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Trump dossier.
- O Administration possible knowledge/complicity in some of the above....

Dirty!!

At least one promise was kept: that of O. to the Russians, to 'be more flexible' following the 2012 re-election :)

And so the worm turns....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: HPstache on October 26, 2017, 11:38:41 AM
This is going to be an entertaining few weeks ahead... The tables are turning quickly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on October 26, 2017, 11:43:20 AM
Irony alert!  There was collision with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/

Sure.  This totally explains why the Trump campaign insisted on only one change to the RNC platform that had to do with Ukraine policy.  Because Hillary.  It also explains why Trump won't enforce Russia sanctions. Again, Russia is controlling him, via Hillary.  And, it explains why his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russian operatives who stated they represented the government to trade info on Hillary in exchange for discussing "adoptions".  Hillary's fault-again!

I mean, this is some quality whataboutism. The DNC might have used Russian sources to dig up dirt on Trump....because that's where the dirt was.  Maybe if Trump wasn't so sketchy about Russia, there wouldn't have been so much dirt there.  I mean, if you are looking for dirt on Bill Clinton, you buy it from brassy ladies in Arkansas, because that's where the dirt is.  If you are looking for dirt on Trump...

Btw-the treason is trading U.S. policy for the dirt.  Like, for example, dicking around on sanctions.  Not opposition research.  Unless you can point to what Hillary traded, that ain't treason. 


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on October 26, 2017, 11:56:48 AM
Irony alert!  There was collision with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/

Sure.  This totally explains why the Trump campaign insisted on only one change to the RNC platform that had to do with Ukraine policy.  Because Hillary.  It also explains why Trump won't enforce Russia sanctions. Again, Russia is controlling him, via Hillary.  And, it explains why his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russian operatives who stated they represented the government to trade info on Hillary in exchange for discussing "adoptions".  Hillary's fault-again!

I mean, this is some quality whataboutism. The DNC might have used Russian sources to dig up dirt on Trump....because that's where the dirt was.  Maybe if Trump wasn't so sketchy about Russia, there wouldn't have been so much dirt there.  I mean, if you are looking for dirt on Bill Clinton, you buy it from brassy ladies in Arkansas, because that's where the dirt is.  If you are looking for dirt on Trump...

Btw-the treason is trading U.S. policy for the dirt.  Like, for example, dicking around on sanctions.  Not opposition research.  Unless you can point to what Hillary traded, that ain't treason.

The die hard Trump-bots will grasp at whatever straws they can to prove that HRC is the real villain here. She has to be since that's the only excuse they seem to have left to justify their vote. And pissing off liberals, of course, so I guess worst case they can always fall back on that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: StarBright on October 26, 2017, 11:58:40 AM
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 26, 2017, 12:05:34 PM
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it up to now has made clear that it was the product of opposition research.

Exactly. It's not illegal and Hillary doesn't have to retroactively file as a foreign agent.

Everyone here realizes that Mueller is investigating White House collusion with Russia, right? He doesn't care about Benghazi or whatever other "crooked Hillary" things that can be dredged up this week.

There will be grand juries. It probably won't reach Trump, because it rarely goes that far, but Flynn and Manafort are likely to see the inside of a court.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Scortius on October 26, 2017, 03:47:07 PM
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?

It's also weird because it's been well documented that the dossier was funded by Republicans during the primary election and Hillary contributed additional funding only after she won the right to run against Trump. Strangely all the new articles coming out this week seem to be pointedly ignoring the first part.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 26, 2017, 04:14:08 PM
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?

It's also weird because it's been well documented that the dossier was funded by Republicans during the primary election and Hillary contributed additional funding only after she won the right to run against Trump. Strangely all the new articles coming out this week seem to be pointedly ignoring the first part.

Yup. even in the mainstream media.

Liberal bias, indeed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on October 26, 2017, 04:55:05 PM
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10

DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.

I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?

It's also weird because it's been well documented that the dossier was funded by Republicans during the primary election and Hillary contributed additional funding only after she won the right to run against Trump. Strangely all the new articles coming out this week seem to be pointedly ignoring the first part.

Yup. even in the mainstream media.

Liberal bias, indeed.

But Hannity and Alex Jones told me that Hillary herself, after personally murdering Benghazi and running a pedophile pizzeria, delivered nuclear weapons to Russia. Yeah.  The tables are turning, indeed! At this rate, she'll never be president.

Also, Trumpers need to stop pretending to give a shit about pay to play, since Trump apparently was going to throw out a Chinese dissident at the behest of Steve Wynn, but then changed his mind because of his membership at Mar-A-Lago. So ethical. Much billionaire-doesn't-need-our-money. Wow. What's the difference between Clinton and Trump's pay to play?  One-there's no evidence that Hillary changed any policy because of donations (see contrast to Trump, above) and two-donations to Clinton went to buy orphans AIDS drugs and donations to Trump go straight into his pocket.  So, again, I am so sick of hearing faux outrage about the Clinton Foundation.  If conservatives actually GAVE A SHIT about any of this, they wouldn't have voted for Trump.

I am extra pissed today since apparently my tax-deferred 401k contributions may be slashed to 2k and my property tax bill will no longer be deductible because conservatives can't figure out how to have Steve Mnuchin pay less in taxes so his wife will keep pretending she wants to sleep with him without making my taxes go up. Are we great again yet? Rant over.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 26, 2017, 06:29:55 PM
Irony alert!  There was collision with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/

Sure.  This totally explains why the Trump campaign insisted on only one change to the RNC platform that had to do with Ukraine policy.  Because Hillary.  It also explains why Trump won't enforce Russia sanctions. Again, Russia is controlling him, via Hillary.  And, it explains why his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russian operatives who stated they represented the government to trade info on Hillary in exchange for discussing "adoptions".  Hillary's fault-again!

I mean, this is some quality whataboutism. The DNC might have used Russian sources to dig up dirt on Trump....because that's where the dirt was.  Maybe if Trump wasn't so sketchy about Russia, there wouldn't have been so much dirt there.  I mean, if you are looking for dirt on Bill Clinton, you buy it from brassy ladies in Arkansas, because that's where the dirt is.  If you are looking for dirt on Trump...

Btw-the treason is trading U.S. policy for the dirt.  Like, for example, dicking around on sanctions.  Not opposition research.  Unless you can point to what Hillary traded, that ain't treason.

The die hard Trump-bots will grasp at whatever straws they can to prove that HRC is the real villain here. She has to be since that's the only excuse they seem to have left to justify their vote. And pissing off liberals, of course, so I guess worst case they can always fall back on that.

It's a matter of perception. If you woke up on November 9th and asked "How could we lose?", Then Russia-gate makes sense to you.

To me, the question is "How could you win?", Then Russia-gate looks like the Democrats deflecting blame. You can point to Obamacare as a center piece and dozens of other well meaning initiatives at the national level. But at the local level, things weren't looking great. I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds. Explain why Democrats had a strong candidate. Explain why they ran a good campaign. (There was a third thing that needed to be explained. Can't remember right now.)

I find the lack of soul searching from liberals disturbing. They seemed to have jumped to McCarthyism with a slight nudge rather than a hard shove. Any disagreement with liberals and their actions (Whether Democrat or Antifa) sets off a wave of snarling.

Some idea's from a libertarian that was branded a "Trump bot" for questioning a narrative.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 26, 2017, 07:05:14 PM
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds.

Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 26, 2017, 09:13:58 PM
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds.

Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.

Mike Madigan and the Democrats have ruled Illinois for 30 years and we are essentially the "Greece" of the United States. Chicago is losing residents at such a rate it will be the next Detroit. Common reasons being high taxes, budget stalemate, crime, and unemployment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html

Yes, Trump is a toxic brand of napalm. But compared to the chain of landfill fires that is Illinois politics, he is simply a tangy scent on top of burning garbage.

Democrats still looked paralyzed when faced with a crisis.

"You guys want end up like Illinois? Vote Democrat"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on October 26, 2017, 10:16:11 PM
It's a matter of perception. If you woke up on November 9th and asked "How could we lose?", Then Russia-gate makes sense to you.

To me, the question is "How could you win?", Then Russia-gate looks like the Democrats deflecting blame. You can point to Obamacare as a center piece and dozens of other well meaning initiatives at the national level. But at the local level, things weren't looking great. I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds. Explain why Democrats had a strong candidate. Explain why they ran a good campaign. (There was a third thing that needed to be explained. Can't remember right now.)

I find the lack of soul searching from liberals disturbing. They seemed to have jumped to McCarthyism with a slight nudge rather than a hard shove. Any disagreement with liberals and their actions (Whether Democrat or Antifa) sets off a wave of snarling.

Some idea's from a libertarian that was branded a "Trump bot" for questioning a narrative.

I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on October 26, 2017, 10:20:05 PM
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds.

Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.

Mike Madigan and the Democrats have ruled Illinois for 30 years and we are essentially the "Greece" of the United States. Chicago is losing residents at such a rate it will be the next Detroit. Common reasons being high taxes, budget stalemate, crime, and unemployment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html

Yes, Trump is a toxic brand of napalm. But compared to the chain of landfill fires that is Illinois politics, he is simply a tangy scent on top of burning garbage.

Democrats still looked paralyzed when faced with a crisis.

"You guys want end up like Illinois? Vote Democrat"

Please. If you think the corrupt assholes in Illinois (where I lived for 7 years) represent the soul of the Democratic party, you are being willfully obtuse. Just like those liberals who claim Trump represents some sort of proof of a cancer borne from Republicanism. No. Both party's greatest failing is that they prop up any and all who bear their standard. An actual libertarian would agree this is obvious.

Unfortunately for those leaning right, your party chose a much worse candidate than Democrats have yet manage to muster. Doesn't mean Republicans lose and Democrats win. It's only, merely, America that loses.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 26, 2017, 11:19:58 PM
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds.

Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.

Mike Madigan and the Democrats have ruled Illinois for 30 years and we are essentially the "Greece" of the United States. Chicago is losing residents at such a rate it will be the next Detroit. Common reasons being high taxes, budget stalemate, crime, and unemployment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html

Yes, Trump is a toxic brand of napalm. But compared to the chain of landfill fires that is Illinois politics, he is simply a tangy scent on top of burning garbage.

Democrats still looked paralyzed when faced with a crisis.

"You guys want end up like Illinois? Vote Democrat"

Please. If you think the corrupt assholes in Illinois (where I lived for 7 years) represent the soul of the Democratic party, you are being willfully obtuse. Just like those liberals who claim Trump represents some sort of proof of a cancer borne from Republicanism. No. Both party's greatest failing is that they prop up any and all who bear their standard. An actual libertarian would agree this is obvious.

Unfortunately for those leaning right, your party chose a much worse candidate that Democrats have yet manage to muster. Doesn't mean Republicans lose and Democrats win. It's only, merely, America that loses.

It does damage to their brand name. Like you said, they prop up anyone who claims their name. They should clean house and yet they haven't.

It's a matter of perception. If you woke up on November 9th and asked "How could we lose?", Then Russia-gate makes sense to you.

To me, the question is "How could you win?", Then Russia-gate looks like the Democrats deflecting blame. You can point to Obamacare as a center piece and dozens of other well meaning initiatives at the national level. But at the local level, things weren't looking great. I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.

You have to change people's minds. Explain why Democrats had a strong candidate. Explain why they ran a good campaign. (There was a third thing that needed to be explained. Can't remember right now.)

I find the lack of soul searching from liberals disturbing. They seemed to have jumped to McCarthyism with a slight nudge rather than a hard shove. Any disagreement with liberals and their actions (Whether Democrat or Antifa) sets off a wave of snarling.

Some idea's from a libertarian that was branded a "Trump bot" for questioning a narrative.

I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.

Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge. Something about the whole ordeal has left me thinking there is a rot or hollowness to Democrats.

My apologies if that appears tangential and empirical, but I simply cannot square what appears to be apathy to, as the mayor of one of the communities put it, "community genocide." (His words, not mine.) I imagine there were lots of policies such as these from Democrats that would poison a town as surely as republicans would. And people aren't stupid, they can at least guess how this all plays out.

Republicans will at least lie to you with a straight face. Democrats will lie with a kindly smile.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on October 27, 2017, 09:40:25 AM
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 27, 2017, 09:55:28 AM
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.

You have an interesting idea of liberty.  The regulations that Trump has overturned have made America significantly LESS free.  They have removed protections for average citizens in order to favor big businesses.  They have deprived you of your rights (to sue banks for stealing from you, as a recent example).  That's not making America great, that's making America oppressively plutocratic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 27, 2017, 09:57:23 AM
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Is this...is this a legitimate question?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/

Quote
Attorney General Jeff Sessions rolled back a series of Obama-era curbs on civil-asset forfeiture on Wednesday, strengthening the federal government’s power to seize cash and property from Americans without first bringing criminal charges against them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/title-vii/535182/

Quote
President Trump announced a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. That evening, the Department of Justice made another significant move in the fight over LGBT rights, albeit with less flash than a tweet storm: It filed an amicus brief in a major case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, arguing that it’s not illegal to fire an employee based on his or her sexual orientation under federal law.

Quote
The administration has also rejected Obama-era protections for transgender students.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/senate-cfpb-arbitration-repeal/index.html

Quote
Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote Tuesday night to repeal a rule that made it easier for Americans to sue their banks and credit card companies.

Quote
"Tonight's vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country," Richard Cordray, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in a statement. "Wall Street won and ordinary people lost."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/06/trump-administration-allows-employers-refuse-pay-birth-control/

Quote
Companies will be able to cite religious or moral objections to birth control, and deny the funding to their employees – a new policy which unpicks a key provision of Obamacare.

So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 27, 2017, 10:03:42 AM
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.

Even rich straight guys have less liberty than before, after the repeal of consumer protection and asset forfeiture laws.  Let's not pretend Republicans are all that worried about WHO they steal liberty from, as long as businesses and CEOs win.  Notice none of those examples target corporations, their only real constituency.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 27, 2017, 10:17:28 AM
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on October 27, 2017, 10:19:06 AM
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.

acroy's posts never fail to be knee-slappers
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 27, 2017, 10:25:44 AM
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.

acroy's posts never fail to be knee-slappers

I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements. Comes across (to me) like Sean Hannity - cheerleading the Prez regardless of what's done.  Plenty to criticism about all previous presidents, but hard to make a quantitative case that DJT has increased American liberty.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 27, 2017, 10:32:25 AM
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!

Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
Even if Trump supported every policy that I favor I would want him out. In fact, all the more so because the vice president he would theoretically leave behind would still get things done without making us the butt of the world's jokes. He's extremely untrustworthy and isn't very intelligent outside of the few things he understands regarding manipulation of the media and people. Even you should be a little wary that his political views have changed so drastically over the last 10-20 years. No matter how much you like him now it must tickle the back of your brain to make you wonder what his real motives are; Why does someone change parties like that? Is it because he saw an opportunity for a power grab in the Republican party that didn't exist with the Democrats? After all scientific studies have shown the brains of declared republicans are more reactive to danger cues than the general population, maybe he understood this means they are more receptive to fear mongering (his primary tactic). Frankly I don't think we need scientific studies to tell us this but we do have them. If he changes parties and his positions on key issues to match in order to follow opportunity, when will he turn on his party again? When will he turn on his country?

Regarding your thoughts on liberty, these may in fact be goals of the libertarian party but as Sol has noted they do not lead to more liberty for everyone. Deregulation gives more liberty to those who already have power and money while taking away the ability of individuals to defend themselves. If your problem with regulations is that you think implementation is poorly managed and overly bureaucratic I hear you, but thinking the answer is to burn it down and give all the power to the guys with money... I just don't get the thought process.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on October 27, 2017, 10:43:51 AM
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.
Yawn. Enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics / professional victimization already.

  They have removed protections for average citizens in order to favor big businesses.  They have deprived you of your rights (to sue banks for stealing from you, as a recent example). 
Nope. I deprived myself of the ability to sue when I, of my own free will, signed the agreement not to sue.

I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

Civil asset forfeiture: good point. That is BAD stuff and violates basic rights, terrible.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 27, 2017, 11:06:50 AM
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.
Yawn. Enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics / professional victimization already.

  They have removed protections for average citizens in order to favor big businesses.  They have deprived you of your rights (to sue banks for stealing from you, as a recent example). 
Nope. I deprived myself of the ability to sue when I, of my own free will, signed the agreement not to sue.

I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

Civil asset forfeiture: good point. That is BAD stuff and violates basic rights, terrible.

Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in about half an hour.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 27, 2017, 11:11:57 AM

I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

Good to hear back from you Acroy.  My statement wasn't an ad-hominum attack, but rather an observation that several different times you've popped in to assert your positive opinion on current political events, but then didn't address or respond to the legitimate criticisms.

Encouraging critical thinking is a good thing, but for that there needs to be some critical arguments made.  Saying "enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics" or labeling others as living inside an "echo chamber" isn't refuting their points, its just calling them names.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 27, 2017, 11:21:09 AM
Saying "enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics" or labeling others as living inside an "echo chamber" isn't refuting their points, its just calling them names.

You mean like an ad hominem attack? 

With some forum posters, I can never tell if their hypocrisy is intended to be ironic or if it's just an amazing lack of self-awareness.  Sometimes it takes months for me to feel like I have a handle on people.  We were more than ten pages into "Top is in (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/top-is-in/)" before I figured out Thorstach was just there for the lulz like all of the rest of us.  Acoy has been pretty consistently obtuse, though, so I think he leans more straight-up troll.  He seems to enjoy making outrageous statements just to get an animated reaction out of people.  That's okay, too.  It takes all kinds.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 27, 2017, 11:29:31 AM
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 27, 2017, 11:42:32 AM
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.

Without any details on the where and what you are specifically referencing it's hard to make definitive statements, but TNC operates under a free-market approach towards habitat conservation.  I'm guessing what they've done here that you are objecting to is acquiring the rights to marsh land they deemed 'critical habitat' through a combination of gifts and straight-up pruchasing, then bundled that land together, possibly granting easements to certain donors. 
This strategy isn't illegal or even unethical, though sometimes it has unintended side effects like reducing the tax base.  You seem to be hating on this organization in particular - why? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 27, 2017, 11:44:47 AM
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

You do realize that, only yesterday, you posted in a thread about Trump and Russia a list of things that Obama and Clinton potentially did wrong or that were illegal. It was like you cut&paste the headlines from Foxnews.

Seriously, check it out. The top articles at Foxnews right now are:

"Fusion GPS hiring murky by design, gives key Democrats dossier deniability" (Hillary!)
"Turley on Russia: 'Allegations against Clintons could potentially be criminal'" (Hillary!)
"STEPHEN MILLER: Hillary Clinton and Democrats lose the high ground on Russia" (Hillary!)
"KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: The Fusion GPS bombshells have just begun to drop (Hillary!)"
"Inside the relationship between Russia and Fusion GPS" (HILLARY!)

If you look at CNN, the top story is about Trump and the gag order, the 2nd biggest story is about Catalonia, and the 3rd is about the letdown of the JFK papers.

Now, given that CNN has some Trump articles and opinion pieces, it also has some Clinton pieces below the Trump headline:

"Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions and accusations"
"Did Clinton help approve uranium deal?"

You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 27, 2017, 11:46:16 AM
Civil asset forfeiture: good point. That is BAD stuff and violates basic rights, terrible.

So you are OK with the Trump administration's assault on transgender rights - serving in the military, fighting to ensure LGBT isn't a protected class of employment.  I'm sure they're seeing SO MUCH LIBERTY.  :eye roll:

Women lost the ability to have birth control if their employer simply doesn't feel like covering said birth control.  SO MUCH LIBERTY.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 27, 2017, 11:51:35 AM
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.

You do realize that, only yesterday, you posted in a thread about Trump and Russia a list of things that Obama and Clinton potentially did wrong or that were illegal. It was like you cut&paste the headlines from Foxnews.

Seriously, check it out. The top articles at Foxnews right now are:

"Fusion GPS hiring murky by design, gives key Democrats dossier deniability" (Hillary!)
"Turley on Russia: 'Allegations against Clintons could potentially be criminal'" (Hillary!)
"STEPHEN MILLER: Hillary Clinton and Democrats lose the high ground on Russia" (Hillary!)
"KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: The Fusion GPS bombshells have just begun to drop (Hillary!)"
"Inside the relationship between Russia and Fusion GPS" (HILLARY!)

If you look at CNN, the top story is about Trump and the gag order, the 2nd biggest story is about Catalonia, and the 3rd is about the letdown of the JFK papers.

Now, given that CNN has some Trump articles and opinion pieces, it also has some Clinton pieces below the Trump headline:

"Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions and accusations"
"Did Clinton help approve uranium deal?"

You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.

And let me guess...conveniently ignored the initial funding of the dossier research came from a GOP client.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 27, 2017, 12:15:53 PM
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)

When one of the big stories breaks I often check out the conservative angle first - Fox, Washington Times, LA Daily, The Federalist...

How far to the left would you say you read opposing views? Do you make it to Reuters? C-span?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 27, 2017, 12:31:12 PM
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)

When one of the big stories breaks I often check out the conservative angle first - Fox, Washington Times, LA Daily, The Federalist...

How far to the left would you say you read opposing views? Do you make it to Reuters? C-span?

I'm often shocked at what some people consider to be the 'extreme edge' on the other side of whichever spectrum they fall on.
For example, CNN is often derided as having a 'bleeding-heart liberal bias' to those who consider themsleves staunchly conservative, but has an audience which can be considered pretty centrist.  Likewise, Fox is far from the more extreme right-wing outlets (it just happens to have the broadest audience).

(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2014/10/PJ_14.10.21_mediaPolarization-09.png)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 27, 2017, 12:57:34 PM
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?

Is this...is this a legitimate question?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/

Quote
Attorney General Jeff Sessions rolled back a series of Obama-era curbs on civil-asset forfeiture on Wednesday, strengthening the federal government’s power to seize cash and property from Americans without first bringing criminal charges against them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/title-vii/535182/

Quote
President Trump announced a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. That evening, the Department of Justice made another significant move in the fight over LGBT rights, albeit with less flash than a tweet storm: It filed an amicus brief in a major case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, arguing that it’s not illegal to fire an employee based on his or her sexual orientation under federal law.

Quote
The administration has also rejected Obama-era protections for transgender students.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/senate-cfpb-arbitration-repeal/index.html

Quote
Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote Tuesday night to repeal a rule that made it easier for Americans to sue their banks and credit card companies.

Quote
"Tonight's vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country," Richard Cordray, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in a statement. "Wall Street won and ordinary people lost."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/06/trump-administration-allows-employers-refuse-pay-birth-control/

Quote
Companies will be able to cite religious or moral objections to birth control, and deny the funding to their employees – a new policy which unpicks a key provision of Obamacare.

So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.

He's a libertarian asking another libertarian. Most of these responses are liberty-reducing from the perspective of a mainstream liberal, not necessarily a libertarian.

Libertarians do not like the civil asset forfeiture.

If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on October 27, 2017, 01:09:42 PM
He's a libertarian asking another libertarian. Most of these responses are liberty-reducing from the perspective of a mainstream liberal, not necessarily a libertarian.

Libertarians do not like the civil asset forfeiture.

If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.

As far as I can tell, Acroy is a culture warrior, making him not a libertarian by definition. I totally agree with your latter analysis btw. The best outcome I can hope for at this point is 1) that Trump doesn't get too many of our soldiers (not to mention South Koreans) killed/start a major conflict and 2) congress actually does something to curb the very real and very bipartisan expansion of executive authority in recent decades.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 27, 2017, 01:13:26 PM
Quote
If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.

sooo... basically here we measure every failure as a success?
Color me unimpressed, but that's akin to taking pride in winning the match because your opponent simply didn't show up.  A 'win by default' sort of outlook.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on October 27, 2017, 01:18:06 PM
Quote
If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.

sooo... basically here we measure every failure as a success?
Color me unimpressed, but that's akin to taking pride in winning the match because your opponent simply didn't show up.  A 'win by default' sort of outlook.

I agree with this too. Trump's disasters are not really a net positive, it's more that curbing executive overreach (assuming that actually happens) is a potential silver lining in what is still a total shit show.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 27, 2017, 01:35:44 PM
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?

I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)

When one of the big stories breaks I often check out the conservative angle first - Fox, Washington Times, LA Daily, The Federalist...

How far to the left would you say you read opposing views? Do you make it to Reuters? C-span?

I'm often shocked at what some people consider to be the 'extreme edge' on the other side of whichever spectrum they fall on.
For example, CNN is often derided as having a 'bleeding-heart liberal bias' to those who consider themsleves staunchly conservative, but has an audience which can be considered pretty centrist.  Likewise, Fox is far from the more extreme right-wing outlets (it just happens to have the broadest audience).
Like you said, this shows the relative opinions of viewers, not the level of bias of the outlet so it tells us something but it's not a good way to rate the bias of a network. MSNBC & CNN should certainly be further left than NPR & BBC. And Fox news only gets dragged towards the middle because the more reasonable people who can't accept anything that doesn't have at least some conservative bias are left with a cable news network that has become steadily more unreasonable over the years, particularly since Trump came on the scene.

I would guess CNN & NBC types are closer to the middle just because they have more passive viewers who just aren't that interested and don't go out of their way to listen to NPR or find BBC. They just click on the TV and let it play in the background. (generalizations of course, but it would effect the data)

And I will give it to Fox that they are less likely to be dishonest than those you see on the far right of this line but in terms of bias, they hold that pretty strong. Bias isn't good in the media but dishonest tactics and conspiracy speculation are the real enemy to truth.

Here's a good tool to determine the bias of various news sites.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/)

And again, just because a source is unbiased doesn't mean it is the truth and just because it is biased doesn't make it fake news. It's just something to take into consideration and remind you that they may not be telling both sides of a story.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 27, 2017, 02:59:27 PM
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.

At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 27, 2017, 04:09:36 PM
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.

Without any details on the where and what you are specifically referencing it's hard to make definitive statements, but TNC operates under a free-market approach towards habitat conservation.  I'm guessing what they've done here that you are objecting to is acquiring the rights to marsh land they deemed 'critical habitat' through a combination of gifts and straight-up pruchasing, then bundled that land together, possibly granting easements to certain donors. 
This strategy isn't illegal or even unethical, though sometimes it has unintended side effects like reducing the tax base.  You seem to be hating on this organization in particular - why?

I understand it is legal.

My town and farm are in the path of this thing. And where the Nature Conservancy goes, Fish and Wildlife is usually right behind them. Which will make this federally protected land.

From what we have heard these refuges start an economic death spiral. Flooding doesn't stay contained, wrecking homes. Crops are destroyed by animals hiding in the refuge. Any infrastructure improvements require 7 plans that don't affect the refuge. People refuse to buy homes in the area, driving values down.

I mean, if your retirement plan hinged on selling your house and moving somewhere only to find that it's losing value as you approach retirement, you would be angry too, right?

You are probably asking, "why did you agree to have this if it is nothing put trouble?" We didn't agree. A small group donated land to U.S. Fish and Wildlife at which point they decided 18,000 acre Refuge was in order. It seems to have been done opaquely and rammed through.

They insist their 18 year old Enviromental Assessment is still valid.

It has been officially open to the public but there is no "Land Protection Plan" available.

We had a nice conference about the river. Most state agencies described it as "one of the healthiest in the state. Except for the sand that is filling it in." When Fish and Wildlife was asked about the sand, they said "not our problem."

Should we aquire land around healthy rivers when there are damaged rivers that need those resources? Should we interfere with with people who actually take care of the environment? Should we envelope a river choking on sand in federally protected lands?

I'm not here to argue about the Refuge. It is simply a fact of life at this point. We will handle it as it comes. My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.

And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 27, 2017, 04:11:21 PM
At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.

The Nature Conservancy's business model is to pay fair market value for natural lands in order to protect them from development.  They're literally a free-market solution to environmental problems.  They absolutely have a politicized agenda, but they also absolutely play within the rules of our current market-based economy.

If someone doesn't like what they do with their land, then they should have offered a better price for it.  That's the conservative's solution.  All power to the wealthy.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 27, 2017, 04:12:06 PM
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.

I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach.  Government's job is to protect existing property rights.  In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers.  They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.

And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer.  Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth.  Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.

At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.

At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.

We have one of the healthiest rivers in our state according to officials because our people take care of it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 27, 2017, 09:58:04 PM
Mueller filed his first charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html

I'm guessing Manafort is due to get a visit in a few days from the US Marshals.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on October 27, 2017, 10:43:31 PM
It's somewhat amusing to see these story titles  (https://news.google.com/news/headlines?gl=US&ned=us&hl=en)associated with the respective news organizations:
(https://s1.postimg.org/3j277wvgf3/screenshot_202.png)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 28, 2017, 02:28:47 AM
My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.

And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.
One of the problems I see with US government is that as a population Americans sit back and say "we've got this wonderful Constitution, everything will be all right".  To which I say: horseshit: since the French Revolution idealistic, entrenched constitutions all over the world have failed to create or save democratic societies based in the rule of law.

The USA Constitution is just a piece of vellum.  It has good and bad parts, and its effects depend entirely on the individuals who use it.  To those of us on the outside USA elections now look hopelessly corrupt and corruptible, which spills on down to USA government which is run by ideological placemen and subject to private interests masquerading as public interest legislation.  And it can't be put right because of your precious Constitution, which your Supreme Court interprets as allowing "free speech" to morph into "unlimited political influence peddling by anyone with enough money", which means that there is no truth and no centre left in American political discourse.

In another thread I tried to make the point that there is more to the USA than the constitution, and got back the response that no, the two were the same and the USA had no existence outside the constitution.  Until that attitude starts to change, things will get worse and worse for the USA and for the rest of the world.  Unless Trump blows it all up first.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on October 28, 2017, 10:43:07 PM
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine.  AKA straight white guys.
That is basically the classic conservative mindset, from what I can tell. As long as straight white guys are all set, fuck everybody else.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 29, 2017, 10:35:20 AM
My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.

And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.
One of the problems I see with US government is that as a population Americans sit back and say "we've got this wonderful Constitution, everything will be all right".  To which I say: horseshit: since the French Revolution idealistic, entrenched constitutions all over the world have failed to create or save democratic societies based in the rule of law.

The USA Constitution is just a piece of vellum.  It has good and bad parts, and its effects depend entirely on the individuals who use it.  To those of us on the outside USA elections now look hopelessly corrupt and corruptible, which spills on down to USA government which is run by ideological placemen and subject to private interests masquerading as public interest legislation.  And it can't be put right because of your precious Constitution, which your Supreme Court interprets as allowing "free speech" to morph into "unlimited political influence peddling by anyone with enough money", which means that there is no truth and no centre left in American political discourse.

In another thread I tried to make the point that there is more to the USA than the constitution, and got back the response that no, the two were the same and the USA had no existence outside the constitution.  Until that attitude starts to change, things will get worse and worse for the USA and for the rest of the world.  Unless Trump blows it all up first.

We are far from perfect and we do need to change culturally.

At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.

The Nature Conservancy's business model is to pay fair market value for natural lands in order to protect them from development.  They're literally a free-market solution to environmental problems.  They absolutely have a politicized agenda, but they also absolutely play within the rules of our current market-based economy.

If someone doesn't like what they do with their land, then they should have offered a better price for it.  That's the conservative's solution.  All power to the wealthy.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/September-2011/The-Ongoing-Poverty-of-Pembroke-Illinois/

That is the town that is being battered. They have a standard of living equal to a third world country. Them buying the land isn't an option.

A large company has begun buying land as a defensive measure against the refuge. So yes, the system works.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 29, 2017, 10:56:10 AM

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/September-2011/The-Ongoing-Poverty-of-Pembroke-Illinois/

That is the town that is being battered. They have a standard of living equal to a third world country. Them buying the land isn't an option.

A large company has begun buying land as a defensive measure against the refuge. So yes, the system works.

Blaming the town's hardships on the Nature Conservancy seems far fetched.

The last line in the article implies that the land conservation is just the latest hope for the town, not a death knell or impeding threat. The economic hardship there long predates any discussion of conservation, and is in fact a good candidate for conservation exactly because the economy has been so poor for so long that they didn't clear the land and use it for ag (apparently because of poor soils).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 29, 2017, 12:52:08 PM
@ gentmach -

I don't really understand the hostility that you have towards The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Fish & Wildlife.  You agreed earlier that TNC's business model is to pay fair market value for land, and that this is clearly a legal practice.  The rest of your assertions run contrary to what I know about TNC (which is a fair bit since I've done contract work for them) and their impact on society. 

First, broadly speaking wildlife preserves do not cause land values to plummet (quite the opposite, as it reduces supply and creates open spaces), and act of TNC purchasing land actually stabilizes or increases the surrounding land values.  It's basic supply and demand economics.  In fact, one of the key challenges TNC has in most areas is as they purchase large plots of land the per acre cost keeps increasing, until they reach a point when its no longer economically feasible to continue their strategy.  TNC has to make decisions about just how much land in one area they can bid on, and weigh having multiple parcels in one region (habitat fragmentation) vs paying more for a less land that is contiguous.

The article you linked was interesting, and it shows a community that has been one of the poorest for at least 40 years. The article itself is 6 years old and cites numerous other media attention this community has recieved since the 1970s for being so poor.  What appears to be happening is you are attributing TNC's presence as the causation of their problems (i.e. a 'false correlation'). There can be community blow-back whenever land that was formerly people's homes and businesses gets converted into something else, but I think you are shooting the messenger here, so to speak. The article's end line is that TNC may be a dim hope here.

As for environmental impact statemenets (EIS), the need for them and their standards are determined by the NEPA.  Again speaking broadly, they are generally required whenever new development is proposed on a particular site.  It does not surprise me that an 18yo EIS is still appropriate when the intended use for a parcel of land is essentially "zero new development".  That is the opposite of what EISs are intended for (to assess impacts on new uses, which basically means new infrastructure in place). 
Again, your anger seems misdirected; this is the statute we have.  If we required more frequent EISs, including when there's little/no new deelopment planned would cause untold delays in development. 

Likewise, Fish and Wildlife's mandate is resource management of public lands, where the 'resource' is living things which typically have cultural or economic value (i.e we like to fish/hunt/photograph them). Sand isn't in their jurisdiction.  Again, your anger seems misdirected.

It's certainly tragic when a community is gripped in poverty, but scapegoating a charitable organization operating both legally and ethically, or blaming a federal agency (and process) for not doing things which aren't under their jurisdiction isn't fair.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 29, 2017, 01:04:55 PM
I would have to agree with Nereo and Glenstache
I think the Nature Conservancy might be helping the town's economic life by providing areas of great natural beauty that will remain undeveloped and pristine.
Sandy soil ecosystems are sensitive and have their own unique flora and fauna and they should be protected.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 29, 2017, 02:32:10 PM
@ gentmach -

I don't really understand the hostility that you have towards The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Fish & Wildlife.  You agreed earlier that TNC's business model is to pay fair market value for land, and that this is clearly a legal practice.  The rest of your assertions run contrary to what I know about TNC (which is a fair bit since I've done contract work for them) and their impact on society. 

First, broadly speaking wildlife preserves do not cause land values to plummet (quite the opposite, as it reduces supply and creates open spaces), and act of TNC purchasing land actually stabilizes or increases the surrounding land values.  It's basic supply and demand economics.  In fact, one of the key challenges TNC has in most areas is as they purchase large plots of land the per acre cost keeps increasing, until they reach a point when its no longer economically feasible to continue their strategy.  TNC has to make decisions about just how much land in one area they can bid on, and weigh having multiple parcels in one region (habitat fragmentation) vs paying more for a less land that is contiguous.

The article you linked was interesting, and it shows a community that has been one of the poorest for at least 40 years. The article itself is 6 years old and cites numerous other media attention this community has recieved since the 1970s for being so poor.  What appears to be happening is you are attributing TNC's presence as the causation of their problems (i.e. a 'false correlation'). There can be community blow-back whenever land that was formerly people's homes and businesses gets converted into something else, but I think you are shooting the messenger here, so to speak. The article's end line is that TNC may be a dim hope here.

As for environmental impact statemenets (EIS), the need for them and their standards are determined by the NEPA.  Again speaking broadly, they are generally required whenever new development is proposed on a particular site.  It does not surprise me that an 18yo EIS is still appropriate when the intended use for a parcel of land is essentially "zero new development".  That is the opposite of what EISs are intended for (to assess impacts on new uses, which basically means new infrastructure in place). 
Again, your anger seems misdirected; this is the statute we have.  If we required more frequent EISs, including when there's little/no new deelopment planned would cause untold delays in development. 

Likewise, Fish and Wildlife's mandate is resource management of public lands, where the 'resource' is living things which typically have cultural or economic value (i.e we like to fish/hunt/photograph them). Sand isn't in their jurisdiction.  Again, your anger seems misdirected.

It's certainly tragic when a community is gripped in poverty, but scapegoating a charitable organization operating both legally and ethically, or blaming a federal agency (and process) for not doing things which aren't under their jurisdiction isn't fair.

I understand the Conservancy's mission. The preferred method they use is buy the land for pennies on the dollar at a tax sale or use straw buyers. Completely legal if slightly underhanded.

My problem with Democrats is that they are supposed to protect the least among us, right? I see an operation to shuffle minorities around under the guise of preserving nature. You guys see the preserving nature part. That too is a perfectly legitimate view.

I have a problem with trust in this instance. If I keep my land private and am adjacent to public lands, can I trust them to maintain the drainage network? It is a law that they have to maintain them. That is subject to the availability of funds though. So could I be forced to sell because there was never any "funds" available? I mean, it's not like there's a threat of government shutdown over budgets every two years or so, right?

In the 1930's Indiana decided to straighten their part of the river. So for about 90 years now that sand has been working it's way into our section of river.

So, you see, that sand is not a natural part of the river. Indiana screwed up. Our section being clogged up because of a mistake by man.

http://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/sediment-choking-out-wildlife-in-the-kankakee-river/article_46c1a389-7f22-5d38-9516-73a27acc2f04.html

Now for the past 50 years DNR and Army Corps of Engineers have been attempting to clean the river of sand. Once again, the problem has been of funding. We have lots of studies of what to do, but we cannot actually act upon those suggestions.

Now you wish to throw Fish and Wildlife into the mix. The guys that insist that the nearest refuge can only be walked on foot. I have my doubts that they will allow heavy equipment into their areas.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 30, 2017, 08:02:16 AM
gentmarch -

Can you explain what you mean by when you say "I see an operation to shuffle minorities around under the guise of preserving nature"?


I'm also a tad confused by something that you said earlier "I mean, if your retirement plan hinged on selling your house and moving somewhere only to find that it's losing value as you approach retirement, you would be angry too, right?".  The area that you hold your land has been has been economically downtrodden for 40 years now.  What made you think that buying the land was going to be a good investment plan for retirement in the first place?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2017, 08:06:22 AM
Well we've gone from a "nothing-burger" to a full indictment against Paul Manafort, former campaign chairman for Trump.  Not only has he been charged of criminal wrongdoing, but among the 12 criminal charges are 'conspiracy against the United States' and 'conspiracy to launder money'.  If convicted Manafort could spend the rest of his life in jail.

Interesting to see where it goes from here.  Will Michael Flynn be next?  Kushner?  Now that the charges have been made the screws will be on Manafort to cut a deal.  Given that DJT threw him under the bus already I wonder how deep his loyalty will lie.

Other questions I have:  what will DJT do in the next 72 hour to  try to distract and distance himself from this media storm?  He's already tried claiming that his former campaign chairman played only a "minor role" (laughable). I expect him to viciously attack Mueller now.  Maybe he'll start another fight on a gold-star family or insinuate that McCain is a Vietnamese spy or escalate tensions with Kim Jong Un.

Will he pardon Manafort?  Will Manafort flip?  How many more indictments will we see by year's end?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manafort-and-former-business-partner-asked-to-surrender-in-connection-with-special-counsel-probe/2017/10/30/6fe051f0-bd67-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel-817am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c6f1875aa906 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manafort-and-former-business-partner-asked-to-surrender-in-connection-with-special-counsel-probe/2017/10/30/6fe051f0-bd67-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel-817am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c6f1875aa906)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 30, 2017, 08:13:45 AM
I have a problem with trust in this instance. If I keep my land private and am adjacent to public lands, can I trust them to maintain the drainage network? It is a law that they have to maintain them. That is subject to the availability of funds though. So could I be forced to sell because there was never any "funds" available? I mean, it's not like there's a threat of government shutdown over budgets every two years or so, right?

And guess which party makes threats to shutdown the government funding?  Clue: It's not the Democrats.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2017, 08:24:35 AM
gentmach, GuitarStv, DavidAnnArbor, GlenStach, Sol & others

While there's much to be said on the topic of TNC, wildlife refuges and communities in poverty, we've strayed far from the thread topic, precisely at a time when indictments are becoming public.

If you wish to discuss furhter I suggest we create a separate thread and get this one back on track.
Mahalo
~n~
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 30, 2017, 08:40:12 AM
Well we've gone from a "nothing-burger" to a full indictment against Paul Manafort, former campaign chairman for Trump.  Not only has he been charged of criminal wrongdoing, but among the 12 criminal charges are 'conspiracy against the United States' and 'conspiracy to launder money'.  If convicted Manafort could spend the rest of his life in jail.

Interesting to see where it goes from here.  Will Michael Flynn be next?  Kushner?  Now that the charges have been made the screws will be on Manafort to cut a deal.  Given that DJT threw him under the bus already I wonder how deep his loyalty will lie.

Other questions I have:  what will DJT do in the next 72 hour to  try to distract and distance himself from this media storm?  He's already tried claiming that his former campaign chairman played only a "minor role" (laughable). I expect him to viciously attack Mueller now.  Maybe he'll start another fight on a gold-star family or insinuate that McCain is a Vietnamese spy or escalate tensions with Kim Jong Un.

Will he pardon Manafort?  Will Manafort flip?  How many more indictments will we see by year's end?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manafort-and-former-business-partner-asked-to-surrender-in-connection-with-special-counsel-probe/2017/10/30/6fe051f0-bd67-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel-817am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c6f1875aa906 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manafort-and-former-business-partner-asked-to-surrender-in-connection-with-special-counsel-probe/2017/10/30/6fe051f0-bd67-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel-817am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c6f1875aa906)

And then there's this: Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopolous has pled guilty to to making false statements to FBI agents. Via Business Insider correspondent Natasha Bertrand. @NatashaBertrand

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: surfhb on October 30, 2017, 08:52:13 AM
I think Mueller is working with the NY DA to bring state charges Upon those indicted.   This way it would be impossible for Capt Shitbag to pardon them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on October 30, 2017, 09:47:24 AM
Don't worry guys, this has nothing to do with Trump. Also, something something Hillary. (◔_◔)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on October 30, 2017, 09:52:28 AM
Don't worry guys, this has nothing to do with Trump. Also, something something Hillary. (◔_◔)

I guess we are all learning what a nothingburger tastes like.  So far, what the right has trotted out in response is:

1.  HILLARY!!!1!!
2. John Podesta (see point 1)
3. Sure, Manafort is a criminal, but-like-way before he was Trump's campaign manager
4. deafening silence

I miss the W Republicans.  They at least always had their talking points ready to go at minute one. 

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on October 30, 2017, 10:25:04 AM
He's a libertarian asking another libertarian. Most of these responses are liberty-reducing from the perspective of a mainstream liberal, not necessarily a libertarian.

Libertarians do not like the civil asset forfeiture.

If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).

The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.

As far as I can tell, Acroy is a culture warrior, making him not a libertarian by definition. I totally agree with your latter analysis btw. The best outcome I can hope for at this point is 1) that Trump doesn't get too many of our soldiers (not to mention South Koreans) killed/start a major conflict and 2) congress actually does something to curb the very real and very bipartisan expansion of executive authority in recent decades.

Go back and watch the final episode of Ken Burn's "Vietnam War". What a mess the USA left behind in Vietnam. I wonder what the end of the Korean war was like.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2017, 10:36:40 AM

3. Sure, Manafort is a criminal, but-like-way before he was Trump's campaign manager

This one in particular seems like a very poor defense, and one that has the potential to backfire spectacularly.
Either
i) the Trump campaign knew about his foreign dealings (likely) and just didn't give a damn, or
ii) they were entirely ignorant - which would show a shocking callousness in vetting high-level employees. 

Remember that Ivanka and Jared Kurshner pushed hard for Trump to hire Manafort to replace the combative Cory Lewandowski. 

Imagine for a second that this scenario played out at a fortune 500 company; A top level executive was indicted for multiple felonies with a potential sentence of life.  That company's defense would never, ever be: well we kinda knew about this but it was before we hired him so no problem for us! Hell no!  They could flirt with #2 (we didn't know!) but would put out press blurbs about how they were implementing a top-down review of hiring practices to ensure no additional person - past or present - could be in a similar position.

...but Trump's response thus far has been firmly #1. 
Quote from: Trump
Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????


DJT's focus on HRC is also wearing thin. Why aren't HRC and the Dems the focus?  Because you are sitting in the WH, and the breadcrumbs from Russia have all led to people from within the campaign (Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, DJT himself...)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 30, 2017, 10:54:19 AM
Imagine for a second that this scenario played out at a fortune 500 company;

Trump has never had the chops to operate as a F500 CEO.  His brand has always been a third-rate impersonation of a real multinational.  You should go read some of the things the Davos crew has said about him.  They all knew from day one he was a faker.

Say what you will about our global corporate elite, for all of their sins they are at least not stupid.  They know how to read the tea leaves and analyze a competitor, and they've never considered Trump to be a real player.  The fact that even we lowly peons can so easily identify the difference between the correct response and Trump's actual response is maybe telling.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on October 30, 2017, 11:13:27 AM
Brand awareness is all Trump has ever had to offer. Everyone has heard of that blowhard so he MUST be a competent businessman/politician/alpha male - right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 30, 2017, 11:40:31 AM
I think everyone sort of expected Manafort would go to jail eventually.  The only question was what sort of deal he would cut on his way down, to lessen his sentence in exchange for telling the truth about everyone else involved.

It's hard to know for sure from the outside, but I think Trump's strategy has been to just committ his worst crimes right out in the open, in an attempt to normalize them.  The president can't obstruct justice, so just tell 60 Minutes that you're firing the top law enforcement official pursuing you in order to stop the investigation.  The president can't racially discriminate, so just admit publicly that it's a Muslim ban.  The candidate can't collude with a foreign power, so just go on tv and ask for Russia's help during the election.  The president can't pay his own family to work in the white house, so just hire as many of them as you can and say "this is totally normal now."  The president can't personally profit from his office, so just tell the secret service to rent space in one of your buildings.

It's not subtle, but by stoking the public outrage over blatantly illegal actions he buys himself some cover from the courts.  People think it must not be illegal if he is being so open about it.  Like walking into a bank and convincing the teller to open the vault for you, it's amazing what you can get away with in life with enough confidence and bluster.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2017, 12:03:20 PM
Trump does seem to have a knack for 'normalizing' the formerly indefensible (and illegal) as a way of doing what he wants.  But I also think he reacts to what is directly in front of him, future consequences be damns.  If someone criticizes him he counterpunches, regardless of whether he'll need their votes later (McCain, Corker, Flake).  He'll throw someone under the bus to deflect responsibility or criticism even if they might reveal things late he'd rather keep private (Flynn, Manafort, McConnell).
In other words - hit back regardless of the longer-term consequences. 

Intersting addition:  WH press briefing just occurred with S. Huckabee-Sanders essentially non-answering any questions regarding the Manafort/Russia story ("no comment at this time" - "I have no spoken to the president about this issue" etc).  A bit surprising that a clear and alternative narrative wasn't provided to the press.  My guess is they're still devising a strategy from among a short list of crappy options (e.g. attack Mueller, divert attention, disavow Manafort).  The relative silence on Manafort is particualrly interesting to me - what could he tell the special investigator that DJT might not want know?

Also - its seems very curious to me that Michael Flynn and his lawyers have been quite silent for the last several weeks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 30, 2017, 12:41:56 PM
Also - its seems very curious to me that Michael Flynn and his lawyers have been quite silent for the last several weeks.

I think Michael Flynn is a cooked goose.  He's taken the fifth on everything, and refused to testify to avoid perjury.  There is nothing he can say that will help him in any way.  I think he knows he screwed up and is just putting his affairs in order before he goes away.

Jeff Sessions and Jared Kushner, otoh, look ready to go down for perjury, so the less they say now the better.  They're both on record lying under oath repeatedly, and you can only claim "whoops" so many times before people start to see the pattern.

Edit:  The part of this whole scenario that most intrigues me is the potential presidential pardons it generates.  Will the President pardon the people who committed conspiracy on his behalf?  Will he try to pardon himself?  Was Joe Arpaio just testing the waters?  Does the power of the pardon effectively negate all of rest of the constitution?  I mean what's the point of having a constitution that delineates separation of powers if this one power in one branch can nullify anything in the rest of the document?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jambongris on October 30, 2017, 02:06:04 PM
Also - its seems very curious to me that Michael Flynn and his lawyers have been quite silent for the last several weeks.

I think Michael Flynn is a cooked goose.  He's taken the fifth on everything, and refused to testify to avoid perjury.  There is nothing he can say that will help him in any way.  I think he knows he screwed up and is just putting his affairs in order before he goes away.

Jeff Sessions and Jared Kushner, otoh, look ready to go down for perjury, so the less they say now the better.  They're both on record lying under oath repeatedly, and you can only claim "whoops" so many times before people start to see the pattern.

Edit:  The part of this whole scenario that most intrigues me is the potential presidential pardons it generates.  Will the President pardon the people who committed conspiracy on his behalf?  Will he try to pardon himself?  Was Joe Arpaio just testing the waters?  Does the power of the pardon effectively negate all of rest of the constitution?  I mean what's the point of having a constitution that delineates separation of powers if this one power in one branch can nullify anything in the rest of the document?

I'm not American so it's possible I misheard or misunderstood, but I thought the president could only pardon people convicted of federal crimes and so Mueller was trying to get everyone charged at the state level.

Can any Americans fact check that?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 30, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
Also - its seems very curious to me that Michael Flynn and his lawyers have been quite silent for the last several weeks.

I think Michael Flynn is a cooked goose.  He's taken the fifth on everything, and refused to testify to avoid perjury.  There is nothing he can say that will help him in any way.  I think he knows he screwed up and is just putting his affairs in order before he goes away.

Jeff Sessions and Jared Kushner, otoh, look ready to go down for perjury, so the less they say now the better.  They're both on record lying under oath repeatedly, and you can only claim "whoops" so many times before people start to see the pattern.

Edit:  The part of this whole scenario that most intrigues me is the potential presidential pardons it generates.  Will the President pardon the people who committed conspiracy on his behalf?  Will he try to pardon himself?  Was Joe Arpaio just testing the waters?  Does the power of the pardon effectively negate all of rest of the constitution?  I mean what's the point of having a constitution that delineates separation of powers if this one power in one branch can nullify anything in the rest of the document?

I'm not American so it's possible I misheard or misunderstood, but I thought the president could only pardon people convicted of federal crimes and so Mueller was trying to get everyone charged at the state level.

Can any Americans fact check that?
Dunno if there has ever been a court case about it. The President can pardon anyone for any offense committed against the United States. The DOJ website and practically everyone I have read says this means federal crimes. In the US, states and the federal government are dual sovereigns, and the President is the executive of the federal sovereign, NOT the state sovereigns. President can no more tell a Governor what to do or pardon a state crime than a governor can tell the President what to do or pardon a federal crime. An analogous scenario would be the President of the EU trying to pardon a French criminal for a French crime.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2017, 03:29:20 PM

I'm not American so it's possible I misheard or misunderstood, but I thought the president could only pardon people convicted of federal crimes and so Mueller was trying to get everyone charged at the state level.

Can any Americans fact check that?
Here is my understanding, backed up by about 20 minutes of fact checking and reading...

The United States constitution gives the president the  "...power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  (Article II, Section II (http://constitutionus.com/))
The executive (President) pardon power extends only to federal crimes and offensives, an intentionally vague definition.

State charges are certainly possible, but Mueller, as a special counsel under the federal Department of Justice, cannot issue criminal charges under the jurisdiction of any particular state.  That must be done by the attorney general of the state in question.  What Mueller can do is work in conjunction with state AGs.  It appears he has done this with - at a minimum, New York state (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/manafort-mueller-probe-attorney-general-242191). 
Under 'dual sovereignty' rules it is possible for someone to be charged at both the state and federal level resulting from the same act.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: surfhb on October 30, 2017, 03:59:30 PM
Id love to see Capt Shitbag fire Mueller.    Its very Possible
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 30, 2017, 04:07:38 PM
Id love to see Capt Shitbag fire Mueller.    Its very Possible

I've been waffling back and forth all day between thinking he's not nearly that stupid, and then thinking he's exactly that stupid.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2017, 06:39:16 PM
Id love to see Capt Shitbag fire Mueller.    Its very Possible

I've been waffling back and forth all day between thinking he's not nearly that stupid, and then thinking he's exactly that stupid.

All three of DJT's lawyers made comments that firing Mueller definitely isn't about to happen - which is a bit weird in and off itself. 
- There are no discussions and there is no consideration being given to terminating Mueller.
- There’s no firing-Robert-Mueller discussions
- No, no, no. [Firing Mueller] never come up and won’t come up


Pretty unequivical statements about what you are definitely not going to do.  Odd that they are spending effort to say what they are NOT considering.
Maybe it's the truth.  Maybe his legal team is trying earnestly to prevent it from happening in the best interest of their client (DJT). I guess we'll find out over the next few days.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 30, 2017, 07:41:48 PM
Id love to see Capt Shitbag fire Mueller.    Its very Possible

I've been waffling back and forth all day between thinking he's not nearly that stupid, and then thinking he's exactly that stupid.

All three of DJT's lawyers made comments that firing Mueller definitely isn't about to happen - which is a bit weird in and off itself. 
- There are no discussions and there is no consideration being given to terminating Mueller.
- There’s no firing-Robert-Mueller discussions
- No, no, no. [Firing Mueller] never come up and won’t come up


Pretty unequivical statements about what you are definitely not going to do.  Odd that they are spending effort to say what they are NOT considering.
Maybe it's the truth.  Maybe his legal team is trying earnestly to prevent it from happening in the best interest of their client (DJT). I guess we'll find out over the next few days.

I would sort of guess this -- saying it so emphatically, over and over, makes it a little harder for Trump to contradict them so directly and do it.

That said, I can't imagine Trump would really have any compunction about going against what others have said he would not do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: phil22 on October 30, 2017, 08:05:14 PM
i believe that one: trump can't pardon himself.  that wouldn't hold up.  and two: anyone he pardons can no longer plead the 5th, so they'd be forced to testify against higher-ups or trump himself -- or be held in contempt of court effectively negating the pardon.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: surfhb on October 30, 2017, 08:37:12 PM
i believe that one: trump can't pardon himself.  that's wouldn't hold up.  and two: anyone he pardons can no longer plead the 5th, so they'd be forced to testify against higher-ups or trump himself -- or be held in contempt of court effectively negating the pardon.

Mueller has been working with the NY DA.     I believe they will be presenting state charges....these cannot be pardoned by the President.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 30, 2017, 09:00:53 PM
I would sort of guess this -- saying it so emphatically, over and over, makes it a little harder for Trump to contradict them so directly and do it.

I feel like the repeated and direct statements his legal team has made to the media are just the only way those guys have of exerting any influence at all on Trump.  He watches cable news all day.  He tweets about what he sees.  He doesn't so much care what's in the daily classified briefings, he only cares what's in the public eye.  CNN is thus much more important to him than the FBI.

And from that perspective, Trump's team has always made statements to the media that they don't feel they can make to Trump himself, but that he needs to hear.  They can't advise him to not fire Mueller because it just doesn't sink in, but if they all tell the media that he won't fire Mueller, and that becomes the media narrative, he'll take that narrative seriously.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Zamboni on October 30, 2017, 09:29:18 PM
I've been avoiding this thread  . . .  today seems like the right day to join.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: phil22 on October 30, 2017, 09:47:46 PM
i believe that one: trump can't pardon himself.  that's wouldn't hold up.  and two: anyone he pardons can no longer plead the 5th, so they'd be forced to testify against higher-ups or trump himself -- or be held in contempt of court effectively negating the pardon.

Mueller has been working with the NY DA.     I believe they will be presenting state charges....these cannot be pardoned by the President.

right, i think both federal and state charges will be filed for that reason.  the charges unsealed today were federal -- perhaps to temp trump into making a pardon and thus moving this thing along.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 31, 2017, 02:34:55 AM
CNN is thus much more important to him than the FBI.
Wow.  But accurate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 31, 2017, 04:25:51 AM
I've been avoiding this thread  . . .  today seems like the right day to join.

welcome to the new black hole of hte forum!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on October 31, 2017, 07:30:19 AM
The talk here is much more interesting than the news at times. People talking plainly.

I don't believe anything Trump or his team SAYS b/c as demonstrated time and again that talk is very cheap.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on October 31, 2017, 08:16:40 AM
Sure, they might not fire Mueller. But they might find other ways to stop the investigation. Like defunding him. (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/mueller-investigation-republicans-russia-242108)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 31, 2017, 08:22:41 AM
So Papadop met with the FBI (Director Comey I believe) and lied to them in late January...hmmm what else happened that day?  Oh, Trump's request for loyalty from Comey.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on October 31, 2017, 08:31:06 AM
I find the whole "pardon prevents one from taking the fifth" thing fascinating. But does that extend to state crimes as well? In other words, if you receive a federal pardon, and then are brought into a federal court to discuss the events for which you have received a pardon, can you continue to invoke the 5th and justify that with the possibility of state levels crimes and charges. Because what you say in federal court could be used as evidence in a state court.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: surfhb on October 31, 2017, 09:01:40 AM
Sure, they might not fire Mueller. But they might find other ways to stop the investigation. Like defunding him. (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/mueller-investigation-republicans-russia-242108)

That would be just as bad and would cause the GOP to implode.   Here's hoping

Great times we are living in
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on October 31, 2017, 09:19:33 AM
Drain the Swamp!
The more dirt Mueller exposes, the better.
Manafort, Gates, and now Podesta all getting caught with dirty money, pedaling Russian / Ukrainian influence for years, under multiple administrations.  From a purely partisan point of view, neither the R's nor the D's are liking where this is going. Most of 'em are damned swamp creatures! From my point of view, GREAT. If it does take down DJT, fine. If he's a dirty swamp rat he needs to go too.

I suspect (hope) the special council finds many interesting things, especially as it expands it's inquiry well outside the initial mandate. Throw those rats into the grind of the justice system! But so far, collusion between Trump campaign and Russia is not one of them, and I suspect it will remain this way :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on October 31, 2017, 09:39:47 AM
Drain the Swamp!
The more dirt Mueller exposes, the better.
Manafort, Gates, and now Podesta all getting caught with dirty money, pedaling Russian / Ukrainian influence for years, under multiple administrations.  From a purely partisan point of view, neither the R's nor the D's are liking where this is going. Most of 'em are damned swamp creatures! From my point of view, GREAT. If it does take down DJT, fine. If he's a dirty swamp rat he needs to go too.

I suspect (hope) the special council finds many interesting things, especially as it expands it's inquiry well outside the initial mandate. Throw those rats into the grind of the justice system! But so far, collusion between Trump campaign and Russia is not one of them, and I suspect it will remain this way :)

I'm not sure how this squares with the Papadopolous conviction, since he admits to meeting with Russian operatives who offered him illegally obtained material AND the Mueller documents cite to high level campaign officials being in the loop on those meetings.  It's possible that DJT himself wasn't aware of the collusion, but it seems incorrect to me to state that the "Trump campaign" is in the clear.  Manafort himself approved the Papadopolous travel, and I think you can't get more "Trump campaign" than the campaign manager.  And, this is just the first stage of the investigation.  As an aside, while John Podesta was the Clinton campaign manager, Tony Podesta is not the same person, though they are siblings. 

As a sign of how screwed the key players know they are, they are moving from the "no collusion" defense to the "what's wrong with talking to our friends, the Russians?" defense.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/10/papadopoulos_plea_blurs_the_line_between_collusion_and_cover_up.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 31, 2017, 09:43:40 AM
But so far, collusion between Trump campaign and Russia is not one of them, and I suspect it will remain this way :)

[MOD NOTE: that first bit wasn't really necessary.  Thank you]


Then you're a naive fool who doesn't understand how the FBI operates.  Since the '80s they've been focused on organizational tactics.  Many on Mueller's team are cut from this cloth.  They don't waste time ONLY on low level staffers and individual charges.  This is just the opening move.  They're setting themselves up to go after the whole campaign.  That's how this works.

They start low level (Papadopolous) and get him to cooperate.  They move up the chain of command until they have everyone around the head of who was responsible.  They've done this for decades with criminal organizations and it's likely the tactics they are employing now.  It's why these federal investigations take so long.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 31, 2017, 10:10:55 AM
Papadopoulos erased his Facebook page because it mentioned talking with Russians. He got a new phone number because the old one had records of calls with Russians. He met with a source in London to get info on Clinton...from Russia.

This was in the employ of the campaign as a "foreign policy adviser." If that's not collusion, it's pretty damn close.

It seems that Republicans are hoping that Mueller will expand his investigation to Hillary (Benghazi!) and Obama ("He's even blacker than we thought!").
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 31, 2017, 10:23:40 AM
Papadopoulos erased his Facebook page because it mentioned talking with Russians. He got a new phone number because the old one had records of calls with Russians. He met with a source in London to get info on Clinton...from Russia.

This was in the employ of the campaign as a "foreign policy adviser." If that's not collusion, it's pretty damn close.

It seems that Republicans are hoping that Mueller will expand his investigation to Hillary (Benghazi!) and Obama ("He's even blacker than we thought!").

I'm pretty sure something along these lines happened somewhere in the Trump campaign HQ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2J5OWdu3xM

But seriously, with people as undisciplined and clueless as many on his staff appear to have been, it does not speak well for Trump "hiring the best people."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 31, 2017, 10:25:19 AM
So far, it doesn't look like anything in these indictments wasn' already reported by the press.  We already knew manafort worked for the Russians.  We already knew the Trump campaign met with the Russians to try to get emails.  We already knew about the shady real estate deals to launder money.

These things have been out in the open for over a year now.  I feel like we're currently getting last season's reruns on Netflix while the new season is already airing on cable.  We're behind the curve on the current narrative.  There must be so much more in the works that were not seeing yet, based on what's dribbling out today.

For example, flynn and sessions and kushner have all done the same sort of stuff that's behind the charges against papadopolous and manafort and gates.  Trump himself has publicly sought to collude with Russia, while claiming he had no knowledge about his entire staff colluding with Russia.  Today I'm wondering if mueller's initial charges are just an attempt to reestablish the legal baseline that yes, this stuff is actually illegal and our laws still mean something.  Just because you flaunt the law publicly doesn't make it okay.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 31, 2017, 10:53:05 AM
Agree.  Lots of Trump people have lied and lied and lied, including on formal disclosure documents, and now someone has been convicted of a criminal offence of lying. Flynn, Sessions and Kushner are all now looking at slam dunk criminal convictions.

Which is to say, the former Trump National Security Adviser, the current Trump Attorney General and the senior Trump White House adviser.  All about to be convicted criminals.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on October 31, 2017, 11:23:48 AM
Agree.  Lots of Trump people have lied and lied and lied, including on formal disclosure documents, and now someone has been convicted of a criminal offence of lying. Flynn, Sessions and Kushner are all now looking at slam dunk criminal convictions.

Which is to say, the former Trump National Security Adviser, the current Trump Attorney General and the senior Trump White House adviser.  All about to be convicted criminals.

If Kushner goes to jail (dare to dream) because he operated in an ethical void to manipulate himself into a position of power all in service of the endless well of resentment caused his father being convicted....it would be poetic.  And, just like his dad, he's brought this all on himself.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 31, 2017, 01:32:30 PM
Worth noting - for all this talk here and in the media about collusion - "Collusion" is not a federal crime and its legal definition is vague. 
As such, people largely get to decide what their own definition is and make declarations that there is or is no collusion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 31, 2017, 01:47:55 PM
So far, it doesn't look like anything in these indictments wasn' already reported by the press.  We already knew manafort worked for the Russians.  We already knew the Trump campaign met with the Russians to try to get emails.  We already knew about the shady real estate deals to launder money.

These things have been out in the open for over a year now.  I feel like we're currently getting last season's reruns on Netflix while the new season is already airing on cable.  We're behind the curve on the current narrative.  There must be so much more in the works that were not seeing yet, based on what's dribbling out today.


Agreed that what we learned yesterday has already been reported. What's significant is that we now have one guilty plea (Papadopoulos) and charges against two members of Trump's upper echelon (Manafort & Gates). No longer can people argue that this is all speculation - official charges have been made. Mueller now also has a ton of leverage extracting information from everyone he talks to.  Whomever cuts a deal now gets reduced sentences - those that lie or take the 5th (Flynn) do so knowing that others are being offered deals (the so called 'prisoner's dilemma')

If we were placing bets my money would be on Michael Flynn being indicted next - he's on record having lied to the FBI and failed to register as a foreign agent. These may be small potatoes and all there is to his criminal transgressions, but its enough to put him behind prison for a few years if he doesn't cooperate.  Taking money from Turkey and failing to initially disclose that could be construed as conspiracy against the US - not something any 3-star general wants on his dossier.

Kurshner will be towards the very end, if Mueller indeed brings charges against him.  Ditto for Sessions. IMO Mueller will want as many signed statements and plea-deals lined up before DJT goes ballistic and starts firing and pardoning left and right.

Just my predictions...

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on October 31, 2017, 03:22:13 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook

those dam' Russians - LOL

It's clear Russia have been working to incite disruption in the US - as they have been off and on for decades. And, frankly, as the US does to many other governments throughout the world.

As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html


Then you're a naive fool

OK
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2017, 03:30:12 PM


As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html


Apparently not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 31, 2017, 03:58:31 PM


As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html


Apparently not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

Getting people riled up about who paid for the dossier (everyone, apparently) is a great distraction from what it actually said and if it is true. The veracity of it appears to still be in question.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2017, 04:17:10 PM


As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html


Apparently not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

Getting people riled up about who paid for the dossier (everyone, apparently) is a great distraction from what it actually said and if it is true. The veracity of it appears to still be in question.

Yup. Both by the Trump campaign and by career whataboutists who make a religion of blinding themselves to serve their own agendas.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 31, 2017, 04:37:12 PM
Thank you, acroy for ignoring the points of my post. Troll on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 31, 2017, 05:33:22 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook

those dam' Russians - LOL

It's clear Russia have been working to incite disruption in the US - as they have been off and on for decades. And, frankly, as the US does to many other governments throughout the world.

As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.

Yep. The Russians have a long history of meddling in the affairs of other nations. US candidates have historically not cooperated with them, though. US candidates have also usually not staffed with people with strong financial and professional ties to the Kremlin's lackeys.

There is a big difference between funding opposition research to find out what another candidate has done, and coordinating with a foreign nation to illegally steal information from another candidate for political gain, and (it appears increasingly likely) a form of quid pro quo in terms of reducing sanctions against Russia, and weakening US opposition to Russian interests. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 31, 2017, 06:38:16 PM
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on October 31, 2017, 06:45:54 PM
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2017, 06:56:05 PM
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?

Lord. Again:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2017, 06:58:53 PM
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?

Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:

"Who paid for it?

During the Republican primaries, a donor opposed to Mr. Trump becoming the party’s presidential candidate retained a research firm called Fusion GPS to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The donor has never been identified, but several possible suspects have denied responsibility, including officials from the so-called super PACs that supported the rival campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida."

But you'd have to, you know, actually READ the article to know that.

And yeah, the NYT sucks in that they have succumbed to the urge to write click-bait headlines, like everyone else. That's part of the reason Hillary lost -- because even they seem to care more about clicks than they do about the truth.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on October 31, 2017, 07:11:44 PM
Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:

"Who paid for it?

During the Republican primaries, a donor opposed to Mr. Trump becoming the party’s presidential candidate retained a research firm called Fusion GPS to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The donor has never been identified, but several possible suspects have denied responsibility, including officials from the so-called super PACs that supported the rival campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida."

But you'd have to, you know, actually READ the article to know that.

And yeah, the NYT sucks in that they have succumbed to the urge to write click-bait headlines, like everyone else. That's part of the reason Hillary lost -- because even they seem to care more about clicks than they do about the truth.
Kris, I'm cut to the quick that you would think I hadn't read the article. ;)

I did read it, and learned something (maybe?), because what I'd gleaned from other superficial headlines was that it was known that Rubio or Bush or some other Republican candidate had funded the initial research.  Come to find out, if the NYT can be believed, "[t]he donor has never been identified."

I will admit to enjoying how it goes against type when the NYT/WaPo publishes something anti-Dem/pro-Rep, and when Fox News, etc., publishes something anti-Rep/pro-Dem.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2017, 07:29:09 PM
Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:

"Who paid for it?

During the Republican primaries, a donor opposed to Mr. Trump becoming the party’s presidential candidate retained a research firm called Fusion GPS to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The donor has never been identified, but several possible suspects have denied responsibility, including officials from the so-called super PACs that supported the rival campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida."

But you'd have to, you know, actually READ the article to know that.

And yeah, the NYT sucks in that they have succumbed to the urge to write click-bait headlines, like everyone else. That's part of the reason Hillary lost -- because even they seem to care more about clicks than they do about the truth.
Kris, I'm cut to the quick that you would think I hadn't read the article. ;)

I did read it, and learned something (maybe?), because what I'd gleaned from other superficial headlines was that it was known that Rubio or Bush or some other Republican candidate had funded the initial research.  Come to find out, if the NYT can be believed, "[t]he donor has never been identified."

I will admit to enjoying how it goes against type when the NYT/WaPo publishes something anti-Dem/pro-Rep, and when Fox News, etc., publishes something anti-Rep/pro-Dem.

So, you’re saying that...the donor to the conservative group was not identified, and therefore... a liberal?

That seems...

A bit of a stretch.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on October 31, 2017, 07:42:39 PM
So, you’re saying that...the donor to the conservative group was not identified, and therefore... a liberal?

That seems...

A bit of a stretch.
Of course it's a stretch, and of course I didn't say it.

Merely that the donor remains unidentified.  One can reasonably guess that, at that time, the DNC would have been thrilled to see Trump as the candidate and thus be an unlikely donor.  But whether it was the RNC, one of the other primary candidates, a rich donor who just didn't like Trump, etc. - it seems we don't know that answer at this point.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: redbirdfan on October 31, 2017, 07:48:55 PM
Serious question...what definition of collusion are we using?  I am more than willing to let Mueller's investigation go where it may, however, at some point we just need to acknowledge that none of this is normal.  We have a REPUBLICAN president who has publicly attacked John McCain for being captured, several Republican senators, Gold Star parents, a Gold Star widow and the various leaders of other countries (including those armed with nukes).  This same president has had received overwhelming evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and that Russia was behind the Podesta email hack and yet he has never publicly said anything to definitively acknowledge that Russia was responsible for anything.  He has gone out of his way to convey the Russian hacks and attempted interference as a hoax. 

Meanwhile we have:

1. A president who has attacked everyone except Putin;
2. the Republican platform being altered to be more pro-Russia;
3. meetings between everyone associated with the campaign and Russians that were initially denied and only admitted to after each person was outed by the press;
4. Kushner contacting Russian bankers for money and failing to disclose the contacts;
5. Kushner attempting to establish a back channel with Russians behind the back of US intelligence;
6. Manafort literally being paid by pro-Russia oligarchs with undisclosed, offshore money (so much so that he was not paid by the campaign to be the campaign manager);
7. An email to set up a meeting that was couched as being part of the Russian government's desire to help get Trump elected - and said meeting was attended by a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, the son of the president, the president's son-in-law and the same campaign manager indebted to and working as an agent for pro-Russianoligarchs (and no one seemed to be surprised by the notion that Russia wanted to help Trump get elected)
SPOILER ALERT - the meeting took place and everyone involved lied about it...then the president personally dictated a misleading statement about the meeting...then Don Jr. published the email regarding the meeting minutes before WaPo was going to do so...
8.   the President refusing to acknowledge Russia's interference with the election in general or with the respective hacks in particular;
9. the Trump campaign asking wikileaks (generally known to be working with information supplied by Russia) for the emails of HRC;
10. Nigel Farage, a campaign surrogate, having various meetings with Assange and the Ecuadorean embassy;
11.  Roger Stone hinting that he knew of the wikileaks haul of emails before it was public knowledge;
12. the President publicly asking Russia to obtain HRC's emails;
13. the President reading from the hacked emails on the campaign trail and stating that he loves wikileaks;
14. the President appointing a Sec. of State known to be on good terms with Putin;
15.  Flynn purportedly informing the Russians that sanctions would be lifted, and then lying about it, which caused him to  be fired;
16. the President meeting with Putin without anyone else from the U.S. being present;
17.  both of the people named as the President's foreign policy advisors (George Papadopolous and Carter Page) having extremely shady relationships with Russia with George P. pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about Russia;
18. the President being  reluctant to sign off on a bill imposing sanctions on Russia;
19. the President has yet to impose the sanctions set forth in the bill;

...and those are just the things that I can think of off the top of my head.  Again, serious question, at what point do we have evidence of collusion?

TL;DR: If this isn't evidence of collusion, what is?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on November 01, 2017, 08:40:05 AM
A lot of your list is entirely unrelated to actual collusion, especially this:

Quote
We have a REPUBLICAN president who has publicly attacked John McCain for being captured, several Republican senators, Gold Star parents, a Gold Star widow and the various leaders of other countries (including those armed with nukes)

None of this has any relations at all to the charges of collusion. These are all "I don't like Trump," which isn't evidence of collusion.

Anyways, I'd say some of the above is evidence that some collusion may have happened, but some evidence something happened doesn't justify punishment or other action. Obviously in the case of impeachment it's up the House and Senate, and they can impeach for whatever they hell they want despite whatever evidence does or does not exist. To be fined by the FEC or sentenced to prison requires substantially different standards of evidence, which is probably why Paul Manafort is under arrest for fraud and money laundering charges, and making false statements to the FBI.


It's obvious Mueller has more info than he's letting on, but I doubt he has any concrete information that would lead to impeachment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on November 01, 2017, 08:47:02 AM
Serious question...what definition of collusion are we using?  I am more than willing to let Mueller's investigation go where it may, however, at some point we just need to acknowledge that none of this is normal.  We have a REPUBLICAN president who has publicly attacked John McCain for being captured, several Republican senators, Gold Star parents, a Gold Star widow and the various leaders of other countries (including those armed with nukes).  This same president has had received overwhelming evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and that Russia was behind the Podesta email hack and yet he has never publicly said anything to definitively acknowledge that Russia was responsible for anything.  He has gone out of his way to convey the Russian hacks and attempted interference as a hoax. 

Meanwhile we have:

1. A president who has attacked everyone except Putin;
2. the Republican platform being altered to be more pro-Russia;
3. meetings between everyone associated with the campaign and Russians that were initially denied and only admitted to after each person was outed by the press;
4. Kushner contacting Russian bankers for money and failing to disclose the contacts;
5. Kushner attempting to establish a back channel with Russians behind the back of US intelligence;
6. Manafort literally being paid by pro-Russia oligarchs with undisclosed, offshore money (so much so that he was not paid by the campaign to be the campaign manager);
7. An email to set up a meeting that was couched as being part of the Russian government's desire to help get Trump elected - and said meeting was attended by a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, the son of the president, the president's son-in-law and the same campaign manager indebted to and working as an agent for pro-Russianoligarchs (and no one seemed to be surprised by the notion that Russia wanted to help Trump get elected)
SPOILER ALERT - the meeting took place and everyone involved lied about it...then the president personally dictated a misleading statement about the meeting...then Don Jr. published the email regarding the meeting minutes before WaPo was going to do so...
8.   the President refusing to acknowledge Russia's interference with the election in general or with the respective hacks in particular;
9. the Trump campaign asking wikileaks (generally known to be working with information supplied by Russia) for the emails of HRC;
10. Nigel Farage, a campaign surrogate, having various meetings with Assange and the Ecuadorean embassy;
11.  Roger Stone hinting that he knew of the wikileaks haul of emails before it was public knowledge;
12. the President publicly asking Russia to obtain HRC's emails;
13. the President reading from the hacked emails on the campaign trail and stating that he loves wikileaks;
14. the President appointing a Sec. of State known to be on good terms with Putin;
15.  Flynn purportedly informing the Russians that sanctions would be lifted, and then lying about it, which caused him to  be fired;
16. the President meeting with Putin without anyone else from the U.S. being present;
17.  both of the people named as the President's foreign policy advisors (George Papadopolous and Carter Page) having extremely shady relationships with Russia with George P. pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about Russia;
18. the President being  reluctant to sign off on a bill imposing sanctions on Russia;
19. the President has yet to impose the sanctions set forth in the bill;

...and those are just the things that I can think of off the top of my head.  Again, serious question, at what point do we have evidence of collusion?

TL;DR: If this isn't evidence of collusion, what is?

People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.

The Trump campaign meetings are shady. Which is a behavior we have come to expect from politicians.

Also depends on how hawkish you are. Is compromise collusion? Maybe.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 01, 2017, 09:03:32 AM
It's obvious Mueller has more info than he's letting on, but I doubt he has any concrete information that would lead to impeachment.

I don't think impeachment is his goal, or even in his purview.  He's looking for criminal behavior.  Things that break specific laws.  He's found a bunch, and I expect he'll find a bunch more.  None of that necessarily leads to impeachment.

But it does sway public opinion.  Donald Trump hired a criminal to run his campaign, and then acted surprised when that criminal committed treason, sorry "conspiracy against the United States" as if he thought Manafort was a really swell guy who just made some mistakes.  No, he's a lifelong criminal and a foreign agent, and he has no place in US government much less literally running the campaign of one of our national party candidates. 

This is Manchurian Candidate stuff of the highest order.  Russian operatives have infiltrated all levels of the Trump campaign and the Trump white house.  I guess Trump could argue he was oblivious to the fact that half of the people working for him are Russian operatives, but I think a simpler explanation is that he knows full well what's up because he's the mastermind of the whole operation.  His own son admitted to colluding with the Russians and then lied about it.  The whole family looks dirty, to me.

But we live in bizarro backwards world now, where admitting to pussy grabbing isn't really sexual assault, and asking Russia to hack your opponent's emails isn't really colluding, and refusing entry to people from Muslim countries isn't really a Muslim ban, and making your health insurance more expensive is actually lowering costs, and Mexico is apparently going to pay for the wall, and tax breaks for the wealthy will give your $4000 if you're poor.  Nothing this administration does seems to make any sort of logical sense.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 01, 2017, 09:21:03 AM
Don't forget that taking freedoms and protections away from people = more liberty. I'm beginning to think liberty means something different to some people in this country, and that they really believe that investing more power back into groups that have long held privilege and control in this country really is promoting liberty.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on November 01, 2017, 09:39:41 AM
This isn't new - The conservatives have used dog whistle politics for ages.

They say liberty and they mean liberty for white, hetero males.
They say tax cuts and they really mean tax cuts for certain people.
The tax cuts end up amounting to $1.50 a week for the little guy and X millions of dollars of tax cuts for the guys at the top.
Democracy for everyone when conservatives actually mean gerrymandering.
Smaller government which really means smaller benefits or fewer safety nets for the poor and more government spending on everything else.
And on and on and on.

Its gotten to a point where I hear their leadership speak I expect the opposite of what the words mean.

I get that most (some?) conservative voters want what their party SAYS (heck, I want some of what the GOP says) but I think fewer of them understand what is really being done. I wish the media was reporting more on a politician's long game than what they said yesterday.

Backwards land indeed. Even more obvious than before.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gondolin on November 01, 2017, 09:42:10 AM
Quote
Trump campaign meetings are shady. Which is a behavior we have come to expect from politicians.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? This attitude, that "shady" politicians are "what we expect" and thus, by inference, there's no point to asserting the rule of law or holding people accountable is so brazenly defeatist that it beggars belief.

Sure, there are corrupt politicians (especially at the state level). They are routinely investigated, prosecuted, forced to resign, and imprisoned. It's deplorable that 5 out of the last 7 Illinois governors have spent time in jail. But, it's waaaaay better than the alternative.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 01, 2017, 09:46:31 AM
But it does sway public opinion.  Donald Trump hired a criminal to run his campaign, and then acted surprised when that criminal committed treason, sorry "conspiracy against the United States" as if he thought Manafort was a really swell guy who just made some mistakes.  No, he's a lifelong criminal and a foreign agent, and he has no place in US government much less literally running the campaign of one of our national party candidates. 

I only hire the BEST people - DJT
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 01, 2017, 09:51:51 AM
But it does sway public opinion.  Donald Trump hired a criminal to run his campaign, and then acted surprised when that criminal committed treason, sorry "conspiracy against the United States" as if he thought Manafort was a really swell guy who just made some mistakes.  No, he's a lifelong criminal and a foreign agent, and he has no place in US government much less literally running the campaign of one of our national party candidates. 

I only hire the BEST people - DJT

Well, both of the references on on his resume gave him great reviews: Viktor Yanukovych and Vladimir Putin. They said almost the same things even!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on November 01, 2017, 09:59:41 AM
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.
What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts?  And what are their sources of information?

I mean, come ON.  There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.

Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on November 01, 2017, 10:17:27 AM
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.
What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts?  And what are their sources of information?

I mean, come ON.  There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.

Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.

People have doubts that human-influenced climate change is real, too. And that the earth is round(ish). And that we've been to the moon.

That doesn't mean those doubts are legitimate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on November 01, 2017, 11:23:45 AM
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.
What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts?  And what are their sources of information?

I mean, come ON.  There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.

Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

https://nef4rhc.wordpress.com Collects all the current doubts into one single report.

As for politicians having shady meetings, I figure the reason we heard about this one was because they bungled it. Experienced politicians would have two or three layers between them and the actual meeting.

For better or worse, the show has begun. We can only let it run its course.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 01, 2017, 11:49:50 AM
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: shenlong55 on November 01, 2017, 01:16:42 PM
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.
What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts?  And what are their sources of information?

I mean, come ON.  There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.

Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

https://nef4rhc.wordpress.com Collects all the current doubts into one single report.

As for politicians having shady meetings, I figure the reason we heard about this one was because they bungled it. Experienced politicians would have two or three layers between them and the actual meeting.

For better or worse, the show has begun. We can only let it run its course.

Just thought the follow-up to that first article deserved a link as well...

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#vips-dissent
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 01, 2017, 01:47:13 PM

Just thought the follow-up to that first article deserved a link as well...
[snip]

This was already discussed up-thread.  Please read the previous comments to avoid rehashing.

ETA: see here (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/united-states-of-russia/msg1643019/#msg1643019).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: shenlong55 on November 01, 2017, 03:42:59 PM

Just thought the follow-up to that first article deserved a link as well...
[snip]

This was already discussed up-thread.  Please read the previous comments to avoid rehashing.

ETA: see here (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/united-states-of-russia/msg1643019/#msg1643019).

I've been following this thread since it started and do not recall reading that article.  Granted I haven't read every article linked in the thread, so maybe I just missed it, but I also looked over the page that you linked and did not see any links to it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on November 01, 2017, 06:12:54 PM
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".

I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."

1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.

Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is  is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on November 01, 2017, 06:24:45 PM
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".

I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."

1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.

Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is  is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.

Yeah, those FBI indictments are silly liberal meltdowns...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: crazyworld on November 01, 2017, 06:31:15 PM
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".



I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."

1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.

Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is  is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.

you must mean some "fine people"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on November 01, 2017, 06:46:42 PM
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions.  Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement.   There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".

I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."

1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.

Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is  is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.

Yeah, those FBI indictments are silly liberal meltdowns...

Yeah. Led by a man who’s a lifelong Republican.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: phil22 on November 01, 2017, 06:55:54 PM
Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.

russia didn't suddenly decide to use trump as a puppet.  this has been developing for decades.  trump has decades of history with the russians (https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate).  he'll reflexively attack and insult anyone at the drop of a hat and yet will not speak ill of the russians -- the only logical explanation is that he's under their thumb in some way.  he's compromised and surrounded both by russian influence and shady handlers like stone and manafort.

Quote
2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.

Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?

it's been reported that manafort has been under FISA surveillance for years.  we are just starting to see the beginnings of what the surveillance and investigation have found.  we still don't know who involved in the campaign was caught red handed but it'll be more than just manafort.  yep, we'll have to just wait and see.

if trump's term is cut short it'll be the first time foreign influence caused a removal of the president from office.  the government is slow but it seems to be on the right track.

Quote
3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.

the first amendment gives you the right to speak without being arrested -- it doesn't mean you get to speak at any venue of your choosing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on November 03, 2017, 11:56:11 AM
anytime someone says drain the swamp, it usually means, in that context, someone working for the Federal Gov. in DC; possibly including FBI agents. Not saying the indictments are not warranted (ha!) but just that they are what they are, for tax evasion not presidential election conspiracy.

*Most Republican politicians do not like trump any more than nearly all Democrats.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on November 03, 2017, 11:58:17 AM
anytime someone says drain the swamp, it usually means, in that context, someone working for the Federal Gov. in DC; possibly including FBI agents. Not saying the indictments are not warranted (ha!) but just that they are what they are, for tax evasion not presidential election conspiracy.

*Most Republican politicians do not like trump any more than nearly all Democrats.

They're sure willing to hang around in the same trough and eat the same slop, though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on November 03, 2017, 12:29:56 PM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on November 03, 2017, 12:39:49 PM
I'm more interested in the next round of indictments from Mueller.  I assume Flynn is on deck, although I would take Jared Kushner or Don Jr. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 03, 2017, 12:50:53 PM
I'm more interested in the next round of indictments from Mueller.  I assume Flynn is on deck, although I would take Jared Kushner or Don Jr.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/jared-kushner-robert-mueller-documents-russia-investigation/index.html

Quote
Jared Kushner has turned over documents in recent weeks to special counsel Robert Mueller as investigators have begun asking in witness interviews about Kushner's role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey, CNN has learned.

Mueller's investigators have expressed interest in Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, as part of its probe into Russian meddling, including potential obstruction of justice in Comey's firing, sources familiar with the matter said.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on November 03, 2017, 01:04:33 PM
Hey thanks, I get great customer service here. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on November 03, 2017, 01:13:45 PM
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Are you serious?  Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using.   Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?

Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:

"Who paid for it?

The NYT article was published on the 25th and the original funder of the dossier was unknown at that time.

On the 27th the Washington Free Becon announced they were the original funder for the anti-Trump opposition research project with Fusion GPS.
http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/fusion-gps-washington-free-beacon/

They pulled the plug in the spring and it was picked up by the DNC/HRC campaign (which we just found out were actually one and the same)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-free-beacon-funded-original-fusion-gps-anti-trump-opposition-effort/article/2638850

And what does Mueller want with Podesta, hmmmm?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/tony-podesta-stepping-down-from-lobbying-giant-amid-mueller-probe-244314

So many swamp rats getting so uncomfortable. I LOVE it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 03, 2017, 01:18:47 PM
So many swamp rats getting so uncomfortable. I LOVE it.

You mean like the entirety of Trump's inner circle?  Me too.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on November 03, 2017, 01:34:22 PM
So many swamp rats getting so uncomfortable. I LOVE it.

You mean like the entirety of Trump's inner circle?  Me too.

Rumor has it that Nostradamus told Shakespeare to have Mercutio say A plague on both your houses (https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/14450.html), referring not to the Montagues and Capulets but to the Republicans and Democrats.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 03, 2017, 01:37:01 PM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

If Trump moves on Mueller, it'd be a serious shit show. The term "Saturday Night Massacre" comes to mind.

How long could the Republican-led Senate refuse impeachment proceedings in this case?


Eta: The Republicans really need to get over Hillary. She lost. Their obsession is both sad and comical.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on November 03, 2017, 03:50:02 PM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: surfhb on November 03, 2017, 04:22:35 PM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on November 03, 2017, 04:39:21 PM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway.  I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress.  I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: surfhb on November 03, 2017, 05:43:36 PM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway.  I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress.  I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.

Its the Indy voters who elected this guy.   

Either way,  for the GOP establishment to back the President in firing Mueller would pretty much seal their fate.    Were talking about 3 extreme right congressmen here.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 03, 2017, 10:04:05 PM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway.  I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress.  I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.

Its the Indy voters who elected this guy.   

Either way,  for the GOP establishment to back the President in firing Mueller would pretty much seal their fate.    Were talking about 3 extreme right congressmen here.   

Yep. Trump's approval rating is 37%. Worse, his disapproval rating is 57%. If Trump fires Mueller, the numbers will shift and not in his favor. Even staunch Republican Congresslings won't want to face down a 60%+ disapproval.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on November 04, 2017, 09:09:21 AM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway.  I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress.  I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.

Its the Indy voters who elected this guy.   

Either way,  for the GOP establishment to back the President in firing Mueller would pretty much seal their fate.    Were talking about 3 extreme right congressmen here.   

Yep. Trump's approval rating is 37%. Worse, his disapproval rating is 57%. If Trump fires Mueller, the numbers will shift and not in his favor. Even staunch Republican Congresslings won't want to face down a 60%+ disapproval.

Well, I sincerely hope you guys are correct.  But currently 8 in 10 GOP voters actively approve of the job Trump is doing. And those are the people that elect the Republican congresspeople.  Generally speaking, the GOP base approves of Trump more than they approve of the GOP congress, and many of them agree with Trump that the Russia investigation is bogus.  I see no reason to think that they won't stick by Trump no matter what, and turn on any congressperson that distances themselves from Trump.  So I am not at all optimistic that the GOP will move against Trump, no matter what is discovered about him.

ETA: I have almost bottomless pessimism about humanity, so admittedly that might be tamping down my hope.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 06, 2017, 10:10:40 AM
Конечно, вокруг этого огня много дыма.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/wilbur-ross-russia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on November 07, 2017, 08:40:16 AM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

What makes you think the House GOP caucus will tolerate what they think is a witch-hunt?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on November 07, 2017, 09:31:23 AM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

What makes you think the House GOP caucus will tolerate what they think is a witch-hunt?

They (most of them) don't think it's a witch hunt.

They just want tax reform for rich people more than they want a functioning government.

And they're more afraid of being primaried by a crazy pro-Trump person than they are of being beaten by a Democrat in the generals.

Most of them know Trump is awful. But they care more about themselves than they do about the country.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 07, 2017, 09:44:51 AM
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517

http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.

Wont happen.   Most want Capt shithead gone.  Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down?    I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting.    This makes Watergate look like childs play

What makes you think the House GOP caucus will tolerate what they think is a witch-hunt?

They (most of them) don't think it's a witch hunt.

They just want tax reform for rich people more than they want a functioning government.

And they're more afraid of being primaried by a crazy pro-Trump person than they are of being beaten by a Democrat in the generals.

Most of them know Trump is awful. But they care more about themselves than they do about the country.

There is a large contingent of the Republican Party (the Tea Partiers) who entered public office because they actively want to destroy government.  I wonder how different things would be without them in the mix (and suspect that things would be much more reasonable overall).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 07, 2017, 10:34:42 AM
There is a large contingent of the Republican Party (the Tea Partiers) who entered public office because they actively want to destroy government.  I wonder how different things would be without them in the mix (and suspect that things would be much more reasonable overall).

It's only a matter of time until we start learning about how the original tea party movement was funded by Russian oligarchs with ties to Putiin.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 07, 2017, 10:41:22 AM
There is a large contingent of the Republican Party (the Tea Partiers) who entered public office because they actively want to destroy government.  I wonder how different things would be without them in the mix (and suspect that things would be much more reasonable overall).

It's only a matter of time until we start learning about how the original tea party movement was funded by Russian oligarchs with ties to Putiin.

Nah.  The Koch brothers are an American problem, don't try to blame everything on Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 07, 2017, 01:01:32 PM

Well, I sincerely hope you guys are correct.  But currently 8 in 10 GOP voters actively approve of the job Trump is doing. And those are the people that elect the Republican congresspeople.  Generally speaking, the GOP base approves of Trump more than they approve of the GOP congress, and many of them agree with Trump that the Russia investigation is bogus.  I see no reason to think that they won't stick by Trump no matter what, and turn on any congressperson that distances themselves from Trump.  So I am not at all optimistic that the GOP will move against Trump, no matter what is discovered about him.


There's an interesting subtext regarding the current public support/disapproval of DJT.  Almost all polls use whats called a 'self-selection' question where they ask the respondent whether they consider themselves a part of the GOP, Democratic party or independent. While its true that he still holds a strong majority of self-selected GOP individuals, there's increasing indications that fewer people in total are describing themselves as a likely GOP voter.  He's literally shrinking the GOP party as many traditional conservatives and right-of-center individuals find themselves unable to support his positions.
These people aren't likely to get behind progressive candidates that the Dems keep tossing out (Sanders, Warren, etc) but they could support a more moderate Dem (if any exist at the national level anymore), or more likely just stay home/place a symbolic vote for a 3rd-party 'also-ran'.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 03:10:27 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/7/16616912/carter-page-testimony-trump-russia

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/carter-page-testimony-released/index.html

Carter Page's turn is definitely coming up soon.

SO.  MUCH.  WINNING.

Here is what this U of NH professor found in Page's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last week (where Page contradicted himself a bunch of times):

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/927999713714081799/photo/1

As he notes at the end of the tweet thread - this is what we've found out from public testimony.  You can imagine how much more Mueller knows.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 09, 2017, 03:16:58 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/09/politics/stephen-miller-interviewed-special-counsel-russia-investigation/index.html

Walking PR disaster Stephen Miller has been interviewed by Mueller.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 10, 2017, 10:10:57 AM
Flynn and his son are next. Flynn Sr will have leverage applied re: his son's sentence and roll over.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/wsj-flynn-turkey/index.html

It may never get to Trump but it'll reach high (Sessions?).

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 10, 2017, 10:41:41 AM
Flynn and his son are next. Flynn Sr will have leverage applied re: his son's sentence and roll over.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/wsj-flynn-turkey/index.html

It may never get to Trump but it'll reach high (Sessions?).
We shall see where this goes.
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort), albeit for crimes committed largely before the campaign started.
Flynn Jr & Sr, Page, Kurshner, Sessions... there's a lot of high-profile people under this microscope.  Will their conduct rise to the level of criminal charges? we shall see...

Just keep in mind that special prosecutors have all taken several years to conduct their investigations.  We are in, what, month 7?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 10, 2017, 01:41:36 PM
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort),

Why is this not already the biggest story in the land? 

The President of the United States hired a literal foreign agent to run his campaign.  It's like a KGB spy becoming Speaker of the House, and nobody bats an eye.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 10, 2017, 01:55:20 PM
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort),

Why is this not already the biggest story in the land? 

The President of the United States hired a literal foreign agent to run his campaign.  It's like a KGB spy becoming Speaker of the House, and nobody bats an eye.

The response has been equally baffling to me. 
[quote = Trump]Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign.[/quote]
The indictment is for offenses occurring between 2010 and 2014. The subtext here is that we should be utterly unconcerned that the chief campaign manager of the sitting POTUS was both a foreign agent and an alleged criminal a few years back.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 10, 2017, 01:58:27 PM
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort),

Why is this not already the biggest story in the land? 

The President of the United States hired a literal foreign agent to run his campaign.  It's like a KGB spy becoming Speaker of the House, and nobody bats an eye.

Because in Trump Land facts don't matter, only fee fees.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 10, 2017, 02:04:36 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359812-mueller-investigation-involves-member-of-congress-for-the-first

The Mueller investigation now includes a member of Congress.  You won't be surprised to learn it's a Republican Congressman.

http://www.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-michael-flynn-turkey-russia-2017-11

Devin Nunes is also being looked at in the Michael Flynn debacle with Turkey.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on November 10, 2017, 02:26:21 PM
"Foreign agent" in this context means "lobbyist," not "espionage." RT was just forced to register as a foreign agent today. It's not like they are stealing F-22 secrets, they are just funded by the Russian government and spread propaganda they think is favorable.

It's not even a serious crime to fail to register. DOJ rarely prosecutes for it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 10, 2017, 02:31:45 PM
The Mueller investigation now includes a member of Congress.  You won't be surprised to learn it's a Republican Congressman.

uh-oh.  I wonder how much longer a GOP controlled congress will permit this investigation to continue unimpeded when one/some of their own members are persons of interest.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Samuel on November 10, 2017, 02:36:26 PM
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort),

Why is this not already the biggest story in the land? 

The President of the United States hired a literal foreign agent to run his campaign.  It's like a KGB spy becoming Speaker of the House, and nobody bats an eye.

The response has been equally baffling to me. 
[quoteTrump]Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign.[/ quote]
The indictment is for offenses occurring between 2010 and 2014. The subtext here is that we should be utterly unconcerned that the chief campaign manager of the sitting POTUS was both a foreign agent and an alleged criminal a few years back.

Plus this doesn't mean Mueller doesn't also have evidence for additional charges against Manafort he could bring later. Mueller is working with the New York Attorney General as well so if Trump fights back by firing him or issuing pardons (which he almost certainly will at some point) the NY AG could still bring state charges that a Trump pardon wouldn't fix. By not hitting him with everything now they are fully clear of any potential "double jeopardy" issues should Trump pardon Manafort. I think they're pressuring Manafort really hard to flip on those higher up the chain.

Timing the Manafort charges with the announcement of Papadopoulos's guilty plea (remember, the plea happened months ago and he's been "cooperating" since) means republicans can't simply deny that the shenanigans were completely separate from the campaign.

This, Trump supporters, is what "three dimensional chess" looks like. It's not freaking out on twitter to distract from bad press.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 11, 2017, 07:45:12 AM
Well Trump just announced that he spoke with Putin who said Russia "absolutely did not meddle in our election".
So I guess that settles it.

Also just in:  OJ Simplson definitely did not kill his wife, Pete Rose certainly did not gamble on baseball games, Barry Bonds never took steroids and the civil war really had nothing to do with slavery. 

Glad we have that covered.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on November 13, 2017, 07:30:49 AM
It's likely the hack on the NSA is an orchestrated effort by Russia/Putin. This hacking makes it even more treasonous to me that Trump and any Republican has any connection whatsoever to Russia.

Security Breach and Spilled Secrets Have Shaken the N.S.A. to Its Core
https://nyti.ms/2ji4LZ0

"One passage, possibly hinting at the Shadow Brokers’ identity, underscored the close relationship of Russian intelligence to criminal hackers. “Russian security peoples,” it said, “is becoming Russian hackeres at nights, but only full moons.”
Russia is the prime suspect in a parallel hemorrhage of hacking tools and secret documents from the C.I.A.’s Center for Cyber Intelligence, posted week after week since March to the WikiLeaks website under the names Vault7 and Vault8. That breach, too, is unsolved."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 13, 2017, 07:35:02 AM
Mueller: lying
Comey: lying
Obama: lying
Clinton: lying
Federal judges: lying
His sex assault accusers: lying
Scientists about climate change: lying
Doctors about Affordable Care Act: lying
Mother of slain U.S. soldier: lying
Putin: He means it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2017, 08:32:55 AM
Mueller: lying
Comey: lying
Obama: lying
Clinton: lying
Federal judges: lying
His sex assault accusers: lying
Scientists about climate change: lying
Doctors about Affordable Care Act: lying
Mother of slain U.S. soldier: lying
Putin: He means it.
I'd be laughing if I wasn't crying inside.

You also forgot:
The media
George Papadopoulos
...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on November 13, 2017, 08:43:42 PM
Donald Trump Jr. was communicating secretly with WikiLeaks as they were releasing hacked emails from the Clinton campaign (under the guidance of Russian Intelligence):

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/politics/wikileaks-donald-trump-jr-2016-election/index.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 14, 2017, 09:58:55 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/jeff-sessions-testify-house-judiciary-committee-likely-face-110304060--abc-news-topstories.html

Sessions magically remembers meeting Papadopolous after previously testifying he did not recall.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 14, 2017, 07:11:01 PM
Sessions magically remembers meeting Papadopolous after previously testifying he did not recall.

Everything about the Trump administration is conveniently unrememberable until the press does some fact checking.

Examples from the Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/14/a-brief-history-of-things-that-jeff-sessions-and-team-trump-could-not-recall-until-the-media-reminded-them/

sessions forgot meeting Papadopolous
trump forgot meeting with Papadopolous
trump jr forgot meeting with the russians
kushner forgot meeting with the russians
trump jr forgot seeking out dirt on clinton
sessions forgot meeting with the russians
sessions forgot discussing the campaign with the russians

And that's not even touching Manafort or Flynn.  Those are just the most recent cases where administration officials were asked direction questions and testified they "couldn't remember" the answers, only to have the media remind them days later by quoting its own reporting.  Why is it that everyone in America knows that Trump Jr met with the Russians but Trump Jr mysteriously gets amnesia every time he's asked about it?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on November 14, 2017, 07:17:04 PM
Yeah but what about Obama's birth certificate?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on November 14, 2017, 07:20:21 PM
Sessions magically remembers meeting Papadopolous after previously testifying he did not recall.

Everything about the Trump administration is conveniently unrememberable until the press does some fact checking.

Examples from the Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/14/a-brief-history-of-things-that-jeff-sessions-and-team-trump-could-not-recall-until-the-media-reminded-them/

sessions forgot meeting Papadopolous
trump forgot meeting with Papadopolous
trump jr forgot meeting with the russians
kushner forgot meeting with the russians
trump jr forgot seeking out dirt on clinton
sessions forgot meeting with the russians
sessions forgot discussing the campaign with the russians

And that's not even touching Manafort or Flynn.  Those are just the most recent cases where administration officials were asked direction questions and testified they "couldn't remember" the answers, only to have the media remind them days later by quoting its own reporting.  Why is it that everyone in America knows that Trump Jr met with the Russians but Trump Jr mysteriously gets amnesia every time he's asked about it?

When the situation becomes tenuous, distract! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/politics/justice-department-uranium-one-special-counsel.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 14, 2017, 07:28:15 PM
Yeah but what about Obama's birth certificate?

Roy Moore says it's a forgery.  He's pretty sure of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZOcvZ0Vnw).

But he can't remember if he sexually assaulted a 16 year old girl on January 3rd, 1978 in his pickup truck parked behind the Olde Hickory House in Gadsen Alabama.  He doesn't deny it, he just doesn't recall.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 14, 2017, 08:06:43 PM
Yeah but what about Obama's birth certificate?

Roy Moore says it's a forgery.  He's pretty sure of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZOcvZ0Vnw).

But he can't remember if he sexually assaulted a 16 year old girl on January 3rd, 1978 in his pickup truck parked behind the Olde Hickory House in Gadsen Alabama.  He doesn't deny it, he just doesn't recall.

It makes sense.  When there you commit as many sexual assaults of minors as it appears that Moore has they probably all kinda run together and get confusing over time.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 14, 2017, 10:01:21 PM
Oh fer fooks sake.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/360298-us-contracts-company-of-former-kgb-boss-as-security-for-moscow

Ugh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 15, 2017, 08:19:56 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/w6I393q.jpg)

When you've completely lost it...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on November 15, 2017, 08:42:28 AM

When you've completely lost it...

Same shit, different shouting face

(http://cjrarchive.org/img/posts/glenn_beck_tides.png)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 15, 2017, 10:02:11 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/w6I393q.jpg)

When you've completely lost it...
They forgot the direct line between Bill and Hillary. So scandalous!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on November 15, 2017, 12:42:56 PM
That kind of crap always just makes me think of Charlie in the mailroom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Glfe6UeXQ
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 15, 2017, 12:59:18 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/christopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier-accurate

Christopher Steele believes his dossier is "70-90% accurate."

Quote
Steele delivered a total of 16 reports to Fusion between June and early November 2016, but his sources started to go quiet from July, when Trump’s ties to Russia came under scrutiny. According to Harding’s account, he was shocked by the extent of collusion his sources were reporting.

“For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience,” Steele told friends.

Steele flew to Rome in June to brief his FBI contact with whom he had shared his Fifa report, and returned in September to meet a full FBI team of investigators. He described their response as “shock and horror”, and they asked him to explain his methods and to pass on future reports.

However, as the weeks went by leading up to the 8 November election, the FBI told him it could not go public with material involving a presidential candidate, and then his FBI contacts went silent altogether. Steele told a friend it was clear he had passed on a “radioactive hot potato”.

Unless her name is Clinton, amirite?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on November 15, 2017, 02:21:58 PM
That kind of crap always just makes me thing of Charlie in the mailroom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Glfe6UeXQ
And our response should be just like Mac's:

"Sean, not only does none of this make any sense...All of these people have been explaining what really happened for days!"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 16, 2017, 12:11:32 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/mueller-trump-hicks-713318

Mueller will interview Hope Hicks soon.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 17, 2017, 09:29:10 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/robert-mueller-subpoenaed-top-trump-campaign-officials-report.html

Quote
More than a dozen top Trump campaign officials subpoenaed in Mueller probe

SO MUCH WINNING.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 20, 2017, 08:58:01 AM
Mueller has directed the DOJ to release a broad array of documents and internal communications, including any emails relating to the firing of Director Comey.
This is the first (known) records request from the made to the DOJ from Mueller.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-sends-wide-ranging-request-documents-justice/story?id=51261366 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-sends-wide-ranging-request-documents-justice/story?id=51261366)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on November 21, 2017, 06:28:43 PM
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 21, 2017, 06:46:56 PM
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story

In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?

Was someone indicted over Obama's birth certificate?  Did any senior administration officials resign in disgrace?  Did a judge issue any no-knock warrants for Obama conspirators?

I like your chutzpah, but I think you're reaching in this case.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on November 21, 2017, 07:40:00 PM
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story

In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?

Was someone indicted over Obama's birth certificate?  Did any senior administration officials resign in disgrace?  Did a judge issue any no-knock warrants for Obama conspirators?

I like your chutzpah, but I think you're reaching in this case.

It’s like it in the sense that Trump supporters hope for some sense of moral equivalency.

Which is fucking sad. But hey.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 22, 2017, 07:13:48 AM
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story

In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?

Was someone indicted over Obama's birth certificate?  Did any senior administration officials resign in disgrace?  Did a judge issue any no-knock warrants for Obama conspirators?

I like your chutzpah, but I think you're reaching in this case.

It’s like it in the sense that Trump supporters hope for some sense of moral equivalency.

Which is fucking sad. But hey.

Trumps actions caused much of the controversy for the Russian scandal and the birther commotion, so they resemble one another in that way.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 22, 2017, 10:25:08 AM
just a troll, guys.  Classic false equivalency at work.  Nothing to see here....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: tralfamadorian on November 22, 2017, 04:21:27 PM
I'll just leave this here:

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565654507/journalist-investigating-trump-and-russia-says-full-picture-is-one-of-collusion
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on November 22, 2017, 07:05:25 PM
I'll just leave this here:

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565654507/journalist-investigating-trump-and-russia-says-full-picture-is-one-of-collusion

Wow, really great interview.  Almost makes me want to buy the book.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on November 23, 2017, 07:46:08 AM
Interview is definitely a primer on the collusion between Trump and Putin.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 23, 2017, 06:16:14 PM
Flynn's lawyer has shut down communications with the WH, possibly signalling he's now cooperating with Mueller's investigation.

It's been pretty notable that Flynn has been so silent for so long.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flynns-lawyer-shuts-down-communications-with-trumps-team-a-sign-he-may-be-cooperating-with-mueller-probe/2017/11/23/75de75ea-d09b-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_flynn-625pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.3f51a54a3b20 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flynns-lawyer-shuts-down-communications-with-trumps-team-a-sign-he-may-be-cooperating-with-mueller-probe/2017/11/23/75de75ea-d09b-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_flynn-625pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.3f51a54a3b20)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on November 25, 2017, 02:19:00 PM
Mueller: lying
Comey: lying
Obama: lying
Clinton: lying
Federal judges: lying
His sex assault accusers: lying
Scientists about climate change: lying
Doctors about Affordable Care Act: lying
Mother of slain U.S. soldier: lying
Putin: He means it.

Well, when you look at it that way...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on November 28, 2017, 08:06:53 AM
The Columnist reviews Luke Harding’s new book, “Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.” Odds Are, Russia Owns Trump

https://nyti.ms/2icfx2N

Interesting tidbit:

"One uncanny aspect of the investigations into Trump’s Russia connections is that instead of too little evidence there’s too much. It’s impossible to keep it straight without the kind of chaotic wall charts that Carrie Mathison of “Homeland” assembled during her manic episodes. "
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 28, 2017, 08:54:45 AM
The Columnist reviews Luke Harding’s new book, “Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.” Odds Are, Russia Owns Trump

https://nyti.ms/2icfx2N

Interesting tidbit:

"One uncanny aspect of the investigations into Trump’s Russia connections is that instead of too little evidence there’s too much. It’s impossible to keep it straight without the kind of chaotic wall charts that Carrie Mathison of “Homeland” assembled during her manic episodes. "

My biggest fear about relying on the special prosecutor is that the evidence Mueller & his aids collects might not see the light of day.  There are two ways that could happen
i) the investigation gets shut down
ii) aspects of the investigation result in plea-bargins or no criminal charges.

The former is a constant possibility, and the wider the net gets cast the more members of congress might fear unflattering things about themselves or their party will come out, threatening their own careers or their majority.  The natural tendancy here is to eliminate the threat and shut it down.

the latter is talked about much less but equally unsettling. The only evidence that will become public will be that which is directly applicable to filed criminal charges. There may be a lot of wrong-doing uncovered by the probe which falls into the murky grey area of prosecutable.  There's a lot of unethical, immoral and even illegal crap that could have taken place but won't rise to the level of criminal charges.  Those findings are unlikely to see the light of day.  In the same vein, someone who is so screwed legally might coorporate in exchange for keeping the more sordid details out of the public record, so while we may learn that person A pleads guilty to lying on federal forms and accepting gifts from hostile powers without the proper declarations we won't learn about how he sold his country downriver to do lines of coke on a Russian hooker.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on November 28, 2017, 09:45:12 AM
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story
In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
The 'desperate hope' makes it feel quite similar. Sorry ya'll but thesvenster and I do recognize the same hysterically absurd tune being played in different venues.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 28, 2017, 10:07:10 AM
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story
In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
The 'desperate hope' makes it feel quite similar. Sorry ya'll but thesvenster and I do recognize the same hysterically absurd tune being played in different venues.

Papadopolous pled guilty.
Manafort and Gates charged.
Flynn no longer communicating with Trump/White House.

Ah yes, a birther conspiracy based on fantasy vs. an actual, ongoing investigating.

Totally similar...if you don't live in a world of facts, I guess.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 28, 2017, 11:01:38 AM
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story
In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
The 'desperate hope' makes it feel quite similar. Sorry ya'll but thesvenster and I do recognize the same hysterically absurd tune being played in different venues.

You've brought up two things here: 1) a "desperate hope" by critics that an investigation will get rid of a sitting president and 2) an (in your words) "hysterical" attention being paid to the allegations.

I don't deny that there is a strong, perhaps desperate hope among both camps (the "birther" camp and the "Russian-conspiracy" camp) that supporting evidence will nullify a president.  However you're making a false equivalence that Obama's birth certificate is on par with the already known and agreed upon transgressions surrounding people who have worked for the Trump campaign.

Put another way, we could ask "is this level of attention appropriate for the situation?"  Unlike Obama's birth certificate, the 2016 election has generated five federal investigations (two in the senate, two in the house, plus the special council), and it has resulted in multiple criminal charges after a very short time (by special council standards).

There's no equivalency here.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on November 28, 2017, 11:44:29 AM
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story
In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
The 'desperate hope' makes it feel quite similar. Sorry ya'll but thesvenster and I do recognize the same hysterically absurd tune being played in different venues.

And when you recognized people making outlandish claims about Obama's birth certificate, I assume you periodically "checked in" to assure them that they were being fools?  According to you, both claims are absurd, so I can only assume that your dedication to reasoned discourse required you to chastise your own side for desperate hope.  I guessing not, because [reasons].

Btw-I'm not at all agreeing with you.  These things aren't the same, other than that the cheeto dust on some guy in his mom's basement doing "analysis" on the birth certificate will be the same orange color as Paul Manafort's prison jumpsuit.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on November 30, 2017, 12:23:11 PM
So in summary:

the Trump group plus GOP supporters are trying to muddy up the news media to distract us all while they and their friends try to derail any and all regulations so they collectively can pocket as much money as possible at the expense of the rest of our nation and possibly our allies as well.

Too simplified or inaccurate?

What would the USA look like the GOP and their supporters got everything they wanted? Feudal Europe? A dictatorship? 1953? The would-be differences are overblown by media hyperbole?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 30, 2017, 12:31:30 PM
What would the USA look like the GOP and their supporters got everything they wanted? Feudal Europe? A dictatorship?

Russia.  The USA would look a lot more like Russia, if the GOP got everything they wanted.  A corrupt oligarchy where power and wealth are concentrated among the political allies of the defacto emperor-for-life.  Democracy treated as a farce, a public tool subverted by state corruption.  Murder of political adversaries routinely carried out in public.  Warlike expansion undertaken in the name of patriotism.  Most of the nation too deeply impoverished to care about anything but survival, while the favored political elite become the wealthiest individuals on the planet.  Bears everywhere.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 30, 2017, 12:48:26 PM
What would the USA look like the GOP and their supporters got everything they wanted? Feudal Europe? A dictatorship?

Russia.  The USA would look a lot more like Russia, if the GOP got everything they wanted.  A corrupt oligarchy where power and wealth are concentrated among the political allies of the defacto emperor-for-life.  Democracy treated as a farce, a public tool subverted by state corruption.  Murder of political adversaries routinely carried out in public.  Warlike expansion undertaken in the name of patriotism.  Most of the nation too deeply impoverished to care about anything but survival, while the favored political elite become the wealthiest individuals in the planet.  Bears everywhere.

The republican turnaround on Russia is like in those romantic comedies where two people hate each other to ridiculous levels, but then discover that they're really the same inside and end up super happy together.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 30, 2017, 12:51:04 PM
What would the USA look like the GOP and their supporters got everything they wanted? Feudal Europe? A dictatorship?

Russia.  The USA would look a lot more like Russia, if the GOP got everything they wanted.  A corrupt oligarchy where power and wealth are concentrated among the political allies of the defacto emperor-for-life.  Democracy treated as a farce, a public tool subverted by state corruption.  Murder of political adversaries routinely carried out in public.  Warlike expansion undertaken in the name of patriotism.  Most of the nation too deeply impoverished to care about anything but survival, while the favored political elite become the wealthiest individuals in the planet.  Bears everywhere.
+1
(adding) .... state controlled media as the only individuals given access, and their reports thoroughly pre-vetted.  High-profile federal positions given to sycophants who lack any experience in the agencies they are now tasked to run. Unquestioning fealty towards the military. Critics slandered with impunity. ...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on November 30, 2017, 02:22:07 PM
I can get behind more bears.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 30, 2017, 02:45:09 PM
I can get behind more bears.
You know where there are lots of bears but not all that other stuff Sol listed?  Canada.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 30, 2017, 02:57:00 PM
I can get behind more bears.
You know where there are lots of bears but not all that other stuff Sol listed?  Canada.
This page will provide much useful information for the more-bears scenario.
https://www.bearmageddonnews.com/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 30, 2017, 04:03:31 PM
I can get behind more bears.
You know where there are lots of bears but not all that other stuff Sol listed?  Canada.
This page will provide much useful information for the more-bears scenario.
https://www.bearmageddonnews.com/

Well that was a corner of the internet I had not ventured into yet...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 01, 2017, 06:33:34 AM
reminds me of
http://www.exoticmeatmarkets.com/

Hey, you don't even have to travel to get your lion meat; can't beat that price.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 01, 2017, 07:41:14 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/flynn-charged-lying-fbi-plea-hearing-set-u-142319424.html

Flynn is being charged with lying to the FBI.  Plea hearing set at 10:30 am.

He's flipped.  This is a small-fries charge, which leads one to wonder what he's avoiding in exchange for cooperating with Mueller.  Very few bigger fish than Flynn...Don Jr., Kushner, and POTUS is about it.

Come on Trumpies, come tell us how this is nothing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 07:53:48 AM
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible.  Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago.  Median investigation length is 2 years.  Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).


Wonder what Flynn's plea will be...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 01, 2017, 07:56:31 AM
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible.  Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago.  Median investigation length is 2 years.  Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).


Wonder what Flynn's plea will be...

I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 08:03:32 AM

I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.

Could be that, or he could know the case against him is air-tight and he'll take a plea in exchange for reduced sentencing.  Could be either...

What irritates me now is that he is and in all likelihood will continue to earn a cushy military pension.  The military is loathe to ever strip away an officer's pension, even if they are convicted in civilian court. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 08:06:53 AM
How ironic and hypocritical is this now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-VieLZAM04 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-VieLZAM04)

(for the click-adverse: Michael Flynn leading the chant to "Lock her up" a few months before he was reportedly meeting with the Russians)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 01, 2017, 08:09:32 AM

I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.

Could be that, or he could know the case against him is air-tight and he'll take a plea in exchange for reduced sentencing.  Could be either...

What irritates me now is that he is and in all likelihood will continue to earn a cushy military pension.  The military is loathe to ever strip away an officer's pension, even if they are convicted in civilian court.
Curious, why should someone lose a pension for being convicted of a crime? He is not being sued.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 08:16:56 AM

I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.

Could be that, or he could know the case against him is air-tight and he'll take a plea in exchange for reduced sentencing.  Could be either...

What irritates me now is that he is and in all likelihood will continue to earn a cushy military pension.  The military is loathe to ever strip away an officer's pension, even if they are convicted in civilian court.
Curious, why should someone lose a pension for being convicted of a crime? He is not being sued.
IMHO, committing a federal crime which carries the penalty incarceration should also nullify one's military pension. It's a principle thing. Military benefits are paid for through our tax dollars.  It seems particularly apt in this case because Flynn was actively being paid by foreign powers and then lying about it to the FBI.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 01, 2017, 08:17:27 AM

I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.

Could be that, or he could know the case against him is air-tight and he'll take a plea in exchange for reduced sentencing.  Could be either...

What irritates me now is that he is and in all likelihood will continue to earn a cushy military pension.  The military is loathe to ever strip away an officer's pension, even if they are convicted in civilian court.
Curious, why should someone lose a pension for being convicted of a crime? He is not being sued.


Quote
CAN A VETERAN RECEIVE RETIRED MILITARY PAY WHILE IN PRISON?

Generally, yes. Being convicted of a crime almost never jeopardizes a federal pension – the rare exception to this rule are charges relating to criminal disloyalty to the United States: espionage, treason, sabotage, etc.
- https://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-benefits/incarcerated-veterans.html (https://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-benefits/incarcerated-veterans.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 08:24:08 AM
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 01, 2017, 08:29:47 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-now-urged-seven-officials-help-end-russia-probes-728072

Trump has urged at least seven officials to end Russia investigation(s).

Yeah, he's totally acting like an innocent person.  /s
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 01, 2017, 08:31:35 AM
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381

I guess it comes down to how you view things.

- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?

If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on December 01, 2017, 08:42:47 AM
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381

I guess it comes down to how you view things.

- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?

If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
Enemies are only entities that we are at war with. So no, Russia is not an enemy.

ETA: Could there be other "criminal disloyalty"? Perhaps, but treason seems pretty unlikely.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 01, 2017, 08:51:56 AM
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381

I guess it comes down to how you view things.

- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?

If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
Enemies are only entities that we are at war with. So no, Russia is not an enemy.

ETA: Could there be other "criminal disloyalty"? Perhaps, but treason seems pretty unlikely.

Seems like that's kinda a loophole.  The last time the US officially declared war was 1941.  Helping the Taliban, Saddam's army, the VC, or North Korea then wouldn't have counted as treason.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on December 01, 2017, 09:00:12 AM
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381

I guess it comes down to how you view things.

- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?

If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
Enemies are only entities that we are at war with. So no, Russia is not an enemy.

ETA: Could there be other "criminal disloyalty"? Perhaps, but treason seems pretty unlikely.

Seems like that's kinda a loophole.  The last time the US officially declared war was 1941.  Helping the Taliban, Saddam's army, the VC, or North Korea then wouldn't have counted as treason.
My understanding is that we can be "at war" with an entity such as the Taliban so yes, aiding the Taliban would have been treason. And if we're legally still at war with North Korea then yes, that would be treason as well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 01, 2017, 09:02:27 AM
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible.  Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago.  Median investigation length is 2 years.  Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).

I think this investigation is proceeding so rapidly because, as criminals go, this group seems pretty inept.  Lots of obvious federal crimes were right out in the open from the beginning, widely reported by the press, it's just the Trump so dramatically upset what's considered "normal" in DC that he seemed to think he could get away with breaking the law, too. 

He got away with pussy grabbing, so why not taking payments from foreign powers, or disclosing classified information, or laundering money for the Russian mob?  I mean he literally went on TV and asked the Russians to hack Hillary's email in order to sway the vote, how is that not collusion just because he did it publicly instead of privately?  Brazenness does not make things any less illegal.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 01, 2017, 09:09:21 AM
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381

I guess it comes down to how you view things.

- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?

If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
Enemies are only entities that we are at war with. So no, Russia is not an enemy.

ETA: Could there be other "criminal disloyalty"? Perhaps, but treason seems pretty unlikely.

Seems like that's kinda a loophole.  The last time the US officially declared war was 1941.  Helping the Taliban, Saddam's army, the VC, or North Korea then wouldn't have counted as treason.
My understanding is that we can be "at war" with an entity such as the Taliban so yes, aiding the Taliban would have been treason. And if we're legally still at war with North Korea then yes, that would be treason as well.

The US did not declare war on the Taliban or North Korea
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Undeclared_wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Undeclared_wars)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on December 01, 2017, 09:18:05 AM
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible.  Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago.  Median investigation length is 2 years.  Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).


Wonder what Flynn's plea will be...

I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.

I'm guessing to protect his son from being charged.  His son is a real piece of work and should thank his lucky stars that his dad actually seems to care what happens to him.  I suspect Don Jr. would not get so lucky.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 01, 2017, 09:19:47 AM
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible.  Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago.  Median investigation length is 2 years.  Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).


Wonder what Flynn's plea will be...

I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.

I'm guessing to protect his son from being charged.  His son is a real piece of work and should thank his lucky stars that his dad actually seems to care what happens to him.  I suspect Don Jr. would not get so lucky.

Ha, yeah. As insular and nepotistic as DJT and his family is, he'd sell any damn one of them down the river if his own neck was on the line.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on December 01, 2017, 09:19:55 AM
The US did not declare war on the Taliban or North Korea
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Undeclared_wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Undeclared_wars)
Yes, so we can be at war without actually declaring war.

The real point here though is that the US does not consider Russia an enemy. There could always be exceptions that I'm unaware of but I think the qualifiers for treason were made specific to avoid it's use by politicians as a tool to undermine other politicians. If any political action that benefitted Russia could be considered treason, that would be a very broad definition.

This part doesn't really relate.

EDIT
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 01, 2017, 09:21:33 AM
As part of his plea bargain, Flynn will testify that then-candidate Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on December 01, 2017, 09:27:07 AM
As part of his plea bargain, Flynn will testify that then-candidate Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.
Citation?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 01, 2017, 09:30:18 AM
As part of his plea bargain, Flynn will testify that then-candidate Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.
It does also seem that Flynn has a wee bit of a credibility problem. I suspect that Mueller recognizes this and would require something more substantive than just Flynn's testimony.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on December 01, 2017, 09:39:07 AM
After ManafortMonday and FlynnFriday, what else can we look forward to?  TrumpTuesday?  SoMuchWinningWednesday? SoninLawSunday?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 01, 2017, 09:39:29 AM
As part of his plea bargain, Flynn will testify that then-candidate Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.
Citation?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-flynn-charged-making-false-statements-fbi-documents/story?id=50849354

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936628560374071296?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 01, 2017, 09:58:12 AM
After ManafortMonday and FlynnFriday, what else can we look forward to?  TrumpTuesday?  SoMuchWinningWednesday? SoninLawSunday?
Don't forget the ever-popular Schadenfreude Saturday.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Stachey on December 01, 2017, 10:18:56 AM
After ManafortMonday and FlynnFriday, what else can we look forward to?  TrumpTuesday?  SoMuchWinningWednesday? SoninLawSunday?
Don't forget the ever-popular Schadenfreude Saturday.

DotardDecember?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 10:29:23 AM
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381

I guess it comes down to how you view things....

my comment was meant to mean what is possible and likely to be prosecutable. Greed seems to be the underlying motive here, not undermining the US and/or supporting Russia.

Regardless, I find it frustrating that a high ranking officer gets to keep his/her military benefits during and after incarceration.  IMO "no federal convictions" shouldn't be too high a standard.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 01, 2017, 10:41:19 AM
Do you think that Trump finds it even more annoying that during the transition Obama specifically warned him to not hire Flynn for anything? (Remember, Obama fired Flynn from DIA).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 01, 2017, 10:43:28 AM
Do you think that Trump finds it even more annoying that during the transition Obama specifically warned him to not hire Flynn for anything? (Remember, Obama fired Flynn from DIA).

No, I don't.  In fact I expect that Obama's warning was part the reason Flynn got the job.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on December 01, 2017, 10:44:12 AM
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 01, 2017, 10:52:14 AM
Do you think that Trump finds it even more annoying that during the transition Obama specifically warned him to not hire Flynn for anything? (Remember, Obama fired Flynn from DIA).

No, I don't.  In fact I expect that Obama's warning was part the reason Flynn got the job.

i think in January 2017 that this is probably at least partially true... that Trump would willfully disregard advice from Obama just because. I also think that Trump is capable of convincing himself of pretty much anything, and will somehow twist it to be Obama's fault, or maybe Hillary's too.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 01, 2017, 10:56:52 AM
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824

Quote
44/ (When I get a number of new readers—as today—people ask me to restate my bona fides: Harvard Law School, 2001; public defender for eight years in two jurisdictions; trained at Georgetown/Harvard as a criminal investigator; represented 2000+ defendants in cases up to homicide;

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936626565210927105

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on December 01, 2017, 11:01:30 AM
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936626565210927105

Yeah I don't doubt his credentials, but it would be nice to hear a similar analysis from someone else to corroborate his conclusions.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 01, 2017, 11:03:44 AM
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936626565210927105

Yeah I don't doubt his credentials, but it would be nice to hear a similar analysis from someone else to corroborate his conclusions.

Considering it just happened three hours ago, I'd say wait for the "morning papers." They timed it perfectly for the weekend news cycle.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: tralfamadorian on December 01, 2017, 11:07:47 AM
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824

Excerpt from above:
"8/ What this indicates—beyond any serious doubt—is the following: Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former Director of the FBI, believes Mike Flynn's testimony will *incriminate* the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, or both of these two men."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on December 01, 2017, 11:11:57 AM
Considering it just happened three hours ago, I'd say wait for the "morning papers." They timed it perfectly for the weekend news cycle.

Yeah, I'm just impatient :D

When the Manafort and Papadopalous indictments came out, Preet Bharara released a special episode of his podcast to go over the charges, I'm hoping he does something similar for this.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 01, 2017, 11:15:41 AM
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824

Excerpt from above:
"8/ What this indicates—beyond any serious doubt—is the following: Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former Director of the FBI, believes Mike Flynn's testimony will *incriminate* the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, or both of these two men."

It's Kushner. The whole "going in to talk about Flynn" meeting was more about getting Kushner to implicate himself. The main objective wasn't about Flynn, who had already flipped at that point.

Mueller is likely done with any plea deals. Kushner and Sessions are next.


Eta: Any of the Trumpees want to admit that there's a Russian problem yet? Or are you still holding out for that "nothingburger?"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 01, 2017, 11:17:10 AM
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824

Excerpt from above:
"8/ What this indicates—beyond any serious doubt—is the following: Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former Director of the FBI, believes Mike Flynn's testimony will *incriminate* the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, or both of these two men."

Downthread, he also strongly emphasized just how sweet of a deal Flynn is getting. Subtext being that he gave Mueller very significant information. It also doesn't rule out information against others in addition to Trump/Pence.

ETA: one of the big problems here is that it's kind of a shitshow all the way down the line of succession.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 01, 2017, 11:31:20 AM
Eta: Any of the Trumpees want to admit that there's a Russian problem yet? Or are you still holding out for that "nothingburger?"

#cult45 is awfully quiet today.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on December 01, 2017, 11:34:50 AM
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936664246594793472

Quote
BREAKING NEWS: As predicted early on in this thread, it has now been revealed that Jared Kushner directly ordered Michael Flynn to engage in negotiations with the Russians during the last weeks of the Obama presidency (specifically, in December 2016).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 01, 2017, 11:43:53 AM
It's Kushner.

It's always been Kushner.  Boy's going to jail, I think.  I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.

Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the  next inauguration?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 01, 2017, 11:52:52 AM
It's Kushner.

It's always been Kushner.  Boy's going to jail, I think.  I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.

Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the  next inauguration?

Don't forget the NY Attorney General is also lurking in the shadows here.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 01, 2017, 11:53:50 AM
It's Kushner.

It's always been Kushner.  Boy's going to jail, I think.  I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.

Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the  next inauguration?

Next move is Trump's. He'll fire Mueller and than, as SethAbramson wrote, "all hell will break loose." Trump won't get a chance to pardon Kushner.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 11:55:49 AM
It's Kushner.

It's always been Kushner.  Boy's going to jail, I think.  I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.

Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the  next inauguration?

Assuming Kushner is next up on charges, why do you assume that he will 'gladly take the fall' for DJT? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 01, 2017, 12:22:13 PM
It's Kushner.

It's always been Kushner.  Boy's going to jail, I think.  I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.

Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the  next inauguration?

Assuming Kushner is next up on charges, why do you assume that he will 'gladly take the fall' for DJT?

I don't think the FBI can flip Kushner.  He's made too many mistakes to self correct at this point, so his fortunes and his freedom are entirely tied to Donald.  He's better off accepting a life sentence to preserve Trump's power, and waiting for the inevitable pardon.  He'll still be rich after a short stay at club fed.

He's banging the emperor's daughter.  That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup.  So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing.  I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence.  His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JetBlast on December 01, 2017, 01:00:46 PM

He's banging the emperor's daughter.  That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup.  So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing.  I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence.  His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
Mussolini had his son-in-law executed. Just saying.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 01, 2017, 01:34:20 PM

He's banging the emperor's daughter.  That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup.  So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing.  I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence.  His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
Mussolini had his son-in-law executed. Just saying.

I predict 100% loyalty, too, because he kind of doesn't have much of a choice but to be loyal and hope for the best.

But Trump would sell him out if he had to. Trump would sell anyone out, depending on the price, including and up to Ivanka. It would just depend on the price.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 01:38:47 PM

He's banging the emperor's daughter.  That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup.  So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing.  I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence.  His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
Mussolini had his son-in-law executed. Just saying.

I predict 100% loyalty, too, because he kind of doesn't have much of a choice but to be loyal and hope for the best.

But Trump would sell him out if he had to. Trump would sell anyone out, depending on the price, including and up to Ivanka. It would just depend on the price.
Sol - you made a compelling case for why Kurshner will clam up and stay loyal.  Whether DJT will repay his loyalty is a different question.

Speaking of which..  what will Trump's next twitter-storm bring?  I'm guessing it'll be tomorrow morning ~5am.
Will he attempt his own "Saturday Night Massacre"?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 01, 2017, 01:43:27 PM

He's banging the emperor's daughter.  That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup.  So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing.  I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence.  His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
Mussolini had his son-in-law executed. Just saying.

I predict 100% loyalty, too, because he kind of doesn't have much of a choice but to be loyal and hope for the best.

But Trump would sell him out if he had to. Trump would sell anyone out, depending on the price, including and up to Ivanka. It would just depend on the price.
Sol - you made a compelling case for why Kurshner will clam up and stay loyal.  Whether DJT will repay his loyalty is a different question.

Speaking of which..  what will Trump's next twitter-storm bring?  I'm guessing it'll be tomorrow morning ~5am.
Will he attempt his own "Saturday Night Massacre"?
Or maybe Trump's escape plan is a dementia plea...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 01:47:37 PM
Or maybe Trump's escape plan is a dementia plea...
And admit he doesn't have one of the greatest minds of all time? Publicly declare his own weakness? Phttt.... never!

I'm guessing
i) he really was barely around - just a few weeks!
ii) he went rogue
iii) but HILLARY, morning Joe MURDER, and drug-carrying MUSLIMS!!! (that is, deflect with other controversies)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on December 01, 2017, 01:53:46 PM
The White House has already started labeling Flynn as an Obama official, so they're obviously going with the tried and true "it's Obama's fault" tact. It's worked wonders before, why not now?!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Lagom on December 01, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/flynn-charged-lying-fbi-plea-hearing-set-u-142319424.html

Flynn is being charged with lying to the FBI.  Plea hearing set at 10:30 am.

He's flipped.  This is a small-fries charge, which leads one to wonder what he's avoiding in exchange for cooperating with Mueller.  Very few bigger fish than Flynn...Don Jr., Kushner, and POTUS is about it.

Come on Trumpies, come tell us how this is nothing.

Indeed. Remember when the birther conspiracy resulted in multiple charges, indictments, and guilty pleads by senior administration officials???

Maybe Acroy can refresh us on those details.  (◔_◔)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Freedom2016 on December 01, 2017, 02:19:24 PM
If dotard tries to fire Mueller, Abramson predicts "all hell breaks loose." What would that mean, exactly?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 01, 2017, 02:26:54 PM
If dotard tries to fire Mueller, Abramson predicts "all hell breaks loose." What would that mean, exactly?
This, I presume...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 01, 2017, 02:34:16 PM
If dotard tries to fire Mueller, Abramson predicts "all hell breaks loose." What would that mean, exactly?

http://theweek.com/articles/734087/what-trump-fires-mueller

Quote
Trump couldn't fire Mueller directly — he'd have to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing Mueller's probe, and then maybe a couple of people after that before the position was eventually put in the hands of someone willing to do his bidding. And now that the indictments have started, it would be even clearer if Trump moved to get rid of Mueller that doing so would be for no purpose other than obstruction of justice.

*This was written after the Manafort Monday indictments.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/1/16585934/mueller-trump-fired

Quote
So getting rid of Mueller would be enormously costly to Trump, and could well fail to end his legal problems. This is likely why White House aides are currently advising against it.

But it’s entirely possible that, whether out of fear of what Mueller will turn up or simple annoyance at the investigation itself, Trump will pull the trigger anyway. And if he does so, the political system will be thrown into a major crisis.

Quote
So the ball would then be in congressional Republicans’ court to decide whether firing Mueller was a step too far for President Trump.

Oh, great.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 01, 2017, 05:43:25 PM

Eta: Any of the Trumpees want to admit that there's a Russian problem yet? Or are you still holding out for that "nothingburger?"

I'm sure we can get a straight answer from Huckabee-Sanders, LOL. She has sunk to a point that she is the new "Bagdad Bob". For any of you young punks :)  this was Saddam's Hussein' personal spokesperson, and actually had a lot in common with Spicer and Huckabee, credibility wise, although Bob was a hell of a lot more attractive than Sanders. One of Bob's last, and best performances, was standing before the cameras and swearing that the rumors of the coalition over-running Bagdad, were nothing but lies spread by infidels. As he was trying to sell that line, American tanks could be seen behind him, speeding through intersections, in the background. I'm guessing the current king of pathological liars, Huckabee-Sanders, will be facing her "Bagdad Bob" moment in the not too distant future. I'm sure it will play something like Trump being hours away from a Nixonian resignation, while Sanders is at the podium talking about how the fake news media is distorting the facts, and the presidents lawyers have been assured by Mr. Mueller, that he has and will continue to, find that the president has nothing to do with the fake, Democrat driven, Hillary lead, Russian distraction.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sherr on December 01, 2017, 07:22:36 PM
Sol - you made a compelling case for why Kurshner will clam up and stay loyal.  Whether DJT will repay his loyalty is a different question.

DJT has never repaid anyone's loyalty. He demands it from everyone, gives it to no one.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Bateaux on December 01, 2017, 09:11:05 PM
America won today.  It's been a long year of losing.  There is a slight glimmer of hope that we're worth saving. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: surfhb on December 01, 2017, 10:05:00 PM
Remember, Mueller will bring up state charges against anyone holding the hot potato at the end.   These are not pardonable crimes. 

What Id give to see Capt Asshat's Son In Law roll over on him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 02, 2017, 05:26:54 AM
Remember, Mueller will bring up state charges against anyone holding the hot potato at the end.   These are not pardonable crimes. 

What Id give to see Capt Asshat's Son In Law roll over on him.

My guess is that it's more than likely, assuming he is even offered the opportunity.  Jared's father was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering, and served time in federal prison.  Jared was allegedly quite bitter about the whole affair, and in keeping with the whole pathology of the Trump cabel, the fact that his dad was convicted of multiple crimes was not the important take away for young Jared. No, he concentrated his rage on that round ball of shit, Chris Christie, who at the time, was the prosecutor who put daddy away for a total of eighteen crimes. Once Jared had the power, he successfully extracted his revenge from tubby, and anybody who got close to the Trump throne, who was even associated with Christie. 

Bottom line for Kushie?  He, like his FIL, is self deluded enough to believe that the rule of law is beneath him, but Jared watched his father suffer from "unwarranted prosecution", and will unlikely be willing to suffer the same fate in service to his great Orange Overlord. OTOH,  Mueller might have little interest in saving Jared, finding that a full bore prosecution is well warranted, and there will be no deal. Given that it appears that Mueller got everything he wanted from Flynn, THEN called Jared to testify. It's likely that the goal was to rack up repeated examples of Jared perjuring himself under oath. Given that Jared somehow "forgot" to list roughly 100 contacts with foreign government and business contacts, it's not hard to imagine that he wove a tale for Mueller that is going to cost him dearly in the coming months.

The other issue is how many of Trump's closest confidants are really starting to see how he is willing to toss ANYBODY under the bus to save himself. Bizarrely, Flynn enjoyed complete support, and a close relationship, with Trump for many months after Trump could no longer fend off pressure from Intelligence community regarding the fact that Flynn is, either compromised by the Russians, a liar, or both. Flynn told a close friend that one strong factor in his decision to flip was that Trump had now abandoned him to twist in the wind. I imagine that there are lots of high level Trump staffers who are spending this weekend sweating like a dog trying to shit a peach pit. 

Anybody else notice, that the Twitterer in chief, who never goes more than a few hours without attacking anybody and everybody, hasn't made a peep in the 24 hours since Flynn plead guilty. The silence is not only stunning, but speaks volumes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 02, 2017, 09:16:20 AM
Anybody else notice, that the Twitterer in chief, who never goes more than a few hours without attacking anybody and everybody, hasn't made a peep in the 24 hours since Flynn plead guilty. The silence is not only stunning, but speaks volumes.

It's a concerted effort by his aides and lawyers to keep him busy 24/7 to avoid a twitter firing of Mueller.

Every time he reaches for his keyboard, they distract him by complimenting his brilliance or hair.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 02, 2017, 10:47:03 AM
Anybody else notice, that the Twitterer in chief, who never goes more than a few hours without attacking anybody and everybody, hasn't made a peep in the 24 hours since Flynn plead guilty. The silence is not only stunning, but speaks volumes.

It's a concerted effort by his aides and lawyers to keep him busy 24/7 to avoid a twitter firing of Mueller.

This is a short-term strategy bound to fail, like hoping if you just keep teenagers busy enough they won't discover the opposite sex. Sooner or later the dam will break.  Coverage of Flynn's plea cannot be interpreted as anything but a negative, regarldes of the spin.  Even Fox News is basically conceding "yup, he's guilty" before saying "...but it doesn't prove collusion".

That's the best they've got thus-far; collusion isn't proven (yet). But there's no way they can shake off the fact that multiple people within their campaigns have committed crimes associated with a foreign nation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 02, 2017, 11:05:28 AM
Even odds on a Saturday Night Massacre?

Nixon fired two before he found a jelly spine (How did we ever get to where Bork was a SC nominee?). Trump may have to fire more.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 02, 2017, 12:39:42 PM
Trump's tweet this morning is painting a pretty clear picture of obstruction of justice.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 02, 2017, 12:53:20 PM
Trump's tweet this morning is painting a pretty clear picture of obstruction of justice.

Which tweet?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on December 02, 2017, 01:51:36 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618

Quote
I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/02/trumps-first-tweet-about-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-could-be-a-problem-for-him
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 02, 2017, 02:17:22 PM
That's a tweet that wasn't cleared by WH lawyers.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 02, 2017, 02:32:32 PM
::facepalm::
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 02, 2017, 07:21:51 PM
I'm looking forward to Huckabee-Sanders trying to answer questions from the press about why the President asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, now that he's admitted that he already knew Flynn had been lying to the FBI at that point.

Seems like textbook obstruction of justice, to me.  He knew one of his senior staff had committed a crime, and he tried to help him get away with it.

Dude, you're the F'ing President.  Try to act like it once in a while.

Also, if you're not interested in being Presidential and just want to be a common criminal, maybe stop tweeting out evidence against yourself quite so often.  I would hate to be your lawyer.  Better Call Saul.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on December 02, 2017, 07:44:00 PM
I hope Mueller has Flynn in a safe location. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 03, 2017, 03:39:48 AM
maybe stop tweeting out evidence against yourself quite so often.  I would hate to be your lawyer.  Better Call Saul.
Don't know if you caught it, but when the Orange Oligarch was first shopping for a legal firm to help with this mess, the press went to the top three or four most likely candidates in the DC legal community. They asked if any of these high power firms, with past experience in presidential shenanigans, were going to be accepting the job? Several commented for the record, essentially saying, "why work for a guy that refuses to listen to you, and doesn't pay his bills".  Interesting to be the most powerful man in the world, with access to billions in personal assets, and unable to sign the best of council, because you are too arrogant and dishonest to be of interest to those most qualified to save you.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 03, 2017, 08:07:08 AM
maybe stop tweeting out evidence against yourself quite so often.  I would hate to be your lawyer.  Better Call Saul.
Don't know if you caught it, but when the Orange Oligarch was first shopping for a legal firm to help with this mess, the press went to the top three or four most likely candidates in the DC legal community. They asked if any of these high power firms, with past experience in presidential shenanigans, were going to be accepting the job? Several commented for the record, essentially saying, "why work for a guy that refuses to listen to you, and doesn't pay his bills".  Interesting to be the most powerful man in the world, with access to billions in personal assets, and unable to sign the best of council, because you are too arrogant and dishonest to be of interest to those most qualified to save you.
Trump has always cared more about image and loyalty than substance. When fill out his administration he approached it as if it were a casting call, emphasizing the "look" he was after, regardless of whether the people were even above average from the applicant pool. Remember - he was irritated by Spicer' first press conference not because it was so absurdly confrontational (he apparently loved that) but because Spicey was wearing an ill fitting suit. How dare his wardrobe be sub-par!!

In that regard, not sure you could find a more distinct "look" for a lawyer than his now council Ty Cobb.   It's a style not encountered often outside film-noire flicks.
(https://am14.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2017/12/Ty-Cobb-Getty-640x480.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 03, 2017, 03:01:32 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618

Quote
I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/02/trumps-first-tweet-about-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-could-be-a-problem-for-him

Realizing Trump's error, his lawyers did damage control:

Quote
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, told CNN on Sunday that he wrote a tweet for the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account about the firing of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 03, 2017, 03:52:17 PM

Realizing Trump's error, his lawyers did damage control:

Quote
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, told CNN on Sunday that he wrote a tweet for the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account about the firing of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.
I wonder if there is any legal liability for claiming to have written a post when you didn't.  In one scenario DJT is (at the very least) implying that what comes from @realDonaldTrump is from him. If its not, is that a problem?  If it is but his lawyer says its wasn't to shield him from legal liability - is that kosher?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Peter Parker on December 03, 2017, 04:00:19 PM

Realizing Trump's error, his lawyers did damage control:

Quote
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, told CNN on Sunday that he wrote a tweet for the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account about the firing of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.
I wonder if there is any legal liability for claiming to have written a post when you didn't.  In one scenario DJT is (at the very least) implying that what comes from @realDonaldTrump is from him. If its not, is that a problem?  If it is but his lawyer says its wasn't to shield him from legal liability - is that kosher?

I don't give a damn who wrote it given this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMb3GbwbApY

Also I think the attorney may have pierced the attorney/client privilege by doing this as well...

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 03, 2017, 04:16:23 PM

Realizing Trump's error, his lawyers did damage control:

Quote
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, told CNN on Sunday that he wrote a tweet for the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account about the firing of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.
I wonder if there is any legal liability for claiming to have written a post when you didn't.  In one scenario DJT is (at the very least) implying that what comes from @realDonaldTrump is from him. If its not, is that a problem?  If it is but his lawyer says its wasn't to shield him from legal liability - is that kosher?

I don't give a damn who wrote it given this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMb3GbwbApY

Also I think the attorney may have pierced the attorney/client privilege by doing this as well...

Yeah, that's kinda what I'm getting at - the WH has maintained on multiple occasions that tweets from @realDonaldTrump are "official policy".  ... Makes it a little hard to walk-back later unless the account was used without his permission (e.g. hacked)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 03, 2017, 04:53:43 PM
Makes it a little hard to walk-back later unless the account was used without his permission (e.g. hacked)

I expect the lawyer will soon issue a new statement claiming to have hacked djt's personal Twitter account and posted there without his permission, using trump's distinctive 3rd grade reading level vocab and grammar.  Sad!!!!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Johnez on December 03, 2017, 05:09:36 PM
Damn, so the Dump Truck can't get his lies straight. And now he has his lawyers lying in public. I'm embarrassed as an American that this guy is our leader, imagine working for him... At this rate Mueller's gonna have enough to flip the whole administration before year's end.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Barbaebigode on December 04, 2017, 04:39:58 AM
So his lawyer ate his homework? WTF

If they said that trump got the dates wrong or misworded something it would be more credible for a guy that lives in his own reality.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 04, 2017, 05:42:03 AM
So his lawyer ate his homework? WTF

If they said that trump got the dates wrong or misworded something it would be more credible for a guy that lives in his own reality.

They can’t say that, because DJT’s schtick is to never admit weakness and always project extreme confidence.  He has “one of the greatest minds of all time” and is “smarter than the generals”.
His gaffs are never gaffs, but some cunning trick you just don’t understand (remember  ‘Covfefe’?)

I’m pretty sure the fastest way you could provoke his ire is to tell the world he did something wrong.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 04, 2017, 11:01:43 AM
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-02-01/donald-trumps-tweets-are-now-presidential-records

Doesn't matter who wrote it.

Quote
A U.S. National Archives spokesperson has recently said that posted tweets are considered presidential records.

Here's another conflicting point in the "I fired Flynn because he lied" plot.  After Comey testified, Trump admitted he made up the possibility of having tapes to ensure Comey told the truth.

Quote
“When [Comey] found out that there may be tapes out there…I think his story may have changed,” Trump said on Fox Friday. “Then he has to tell what actually took place at the events.”

Quote
“It wasn’t very stupid,” Trump continued. “He did admit that what I said was right and, if you look further back before he heard about that, maybe he wasn’t admitting that.”

http://time.com/4829936/donald-trump-james-comey-tapes-bluff/

So Trump makes up having tapes of recorded conversations to intimidate a witness into telling the truth (?) and then after says he did.

So now we have Trump admitting he knew Flynn lied to FBI & Pence, kept him employed for 18 days after learning he lied to the FBI, and then via Comey's admittedly truthful testimony, asked the director of the FBI to drop the case against Flynn.

This is the head of the United States attempting to interfere and stop a criminal investigation into his National Security Adviser.  This is coming straight from Trump himself.

Now...imagine what we don't yet know (but Mueller does).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 04, 2017, 11:14:21 AM
This is the head of the United States attempting to interfere and stop a criminal investigation into his National Security Adviser.  This is coming straight from Trump himself.

Now...imagine what we don't yet know (but Mueller does).

I don't think we need anything else.  This is already enough for Mueller to bring charges.

After congress has extracted all of the compliant utility out of trump that they think they can get, they'll dump him.  Trump knows this, and must be terrified at how fragile his position is.  He's basically Mitch McConnell's little bitch from here on out.  He'll do anything and everything to stay in good graces with congress because he knows they can dispose of him at any time for the crimes he has committed.

But congress has other considerations too.  It's bad party politics to impeach your president, no matter how guilty he is.  They'll want to find a way to soothe the message so they don't lose voters.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 04, 2017, 11:32:39 AM
They'll want to find a way to soothe the message so they don't lose voters.

I think this is the issue, the Republicans aren't going to do anything to alienate Trump voters, so therefore they won't do anything when Mueller brings forth charges of obstruction of justice. Trump's negative tweets about the FBI has to really irk not just the FBI, but many people in uniform as well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 04, 2017, 11:39:43 AM
They'll want to find a way to soothe the message so they don't lose voters.

I think this is the issue, the Republicans aren't going to do anything to alienate Trump voters, so therefore they won't do anything when Mueller brings forth charges of obstruction of justice. Trump's negative tweets about the FBI has to really irk not just the FBI, but many people in uniform as well.

He has been undermining the intelligence agencies as well - since before he got in office.  It's absurd.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 04, 2017, 11:43:45 AM
I don't think we need anything else.  This is already enough for Mueller to bring charges.
It may be 'enough to bring charges', but a competent prosecutor (which Mueller definitely is) will not stop at 'enough.'  He will continue the investigation until there is "nothing left" that can be proven. My greatest fear regarding this investigation is that it will get terminated and the reports will be forever buried and/or destroyed.  It would not surprise me if someone has already made the calculation that facing a charge of willfully destroying evidence is preferable to whatever that evidence says.  Similarly, DJT may decide that the fallout from his own "Saturday Night Massacre" would be preferable to those reports becoming part of the public sphere.

Quote
After congress has extracted all of the compliant utility out of trump that they think they can get, they'll dump him.  Trump knows this, and must be terrified at how fragile his position is.  He's basically Mitch McConnell's little bitch from here on out.  He'll do anything and everything to stay in good graces with congress because be knows they can dispose of him at any time for the crimes he has committed.
the GOP is definitely riding DJT as far and as long as they get their wish list.  I'm not convinced that Trump undertsands this though.  He likely (still) thinks that he's a brilliant person who can fix the nation's problems if only everone would listen to him and stop doing pesky things like following established law and checking his power.
He's also never been one to hold his punches when personally attacked.  I remember a magazine article where he talked about his strategy of counter-attacking   regardless of the long-term fallout.  Something along the lines of: I'll hit back even if it means we'll both wind up in quicksand.  I'll worry about the quicksand later.  That's continued to be his strategy as a politician.  He's attacked members of his own party who's votes he needed for a legislative "win" - and worried about the consequences later (or not at all).  See McCain, Flake, McConnell, Cruz, Corker, Ryan etc.

The GOP will ride DJT to get their tax cuts, then they'll try to drive him to shred the social safety net.  Given its legendary status of the "third rail" of politics and Trump's longtime insistance that he will not cut SS I wonder how much traction this will get.  I imagine much of his rural base will revolt if told they are privatizing SS like Ryan deeply wants.  If we get to this point I predict DJT and the GOP will fracture and the whole thing will grind to a halt.

Quote
But congress has other considerations too.  It's bad party politics to impeach your president, no matter how guilty he is.  They'll want to find a way to soothe the message so they don't lose voters.
This latest crop of GOP has shown little spine.  Few spoke up when he ridiculed Cruz's wife, when he mocked a disabled reporter, when he talked about Mexicans being rapists, when he tried to enact two travel bans that were "definitely bans!!!", when he repeatedly called for a former secretary of state to be locked up, when he - repeatedly - pissed off our closest allies, when he attacked the FBI, when he tweeted racist graphics and videos, when he appointed those who had donated to his charity to positions they had no experience in, when he praised dictators and said the US will no longer consider human rights abuses, when he refused to release his taxes, when he again brought up the 'birther' conspiracy he started after he claimed to be the one who ended it, ...

Yeah, they won't vote to impeach him.  I think that there's at least a few dozen members who secretly hope they lose the house in '18 or '20 so that the democrats can be the ones to finally start the impeachment process.  And/or that Mueller does their dirty work for them by bringing up obstruction and/or collusion charges.  They they'll have a giant shield to cower behind when they say "well it's not me saying this, but given the charges and our laws I simply have no choice".  I'm guessing that some of them actually yearn for the days when they were the minority party (or didn't control the WH) when they could grandstand on taxes and healthcare with little fear that they'd actually have to do something and then be held accountable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 04, 2017, 11:47:43 AM
He has been undermining the intelligence agencies as well - since before he got in office.  It's absurd.
No, it's strategic.  This is a guy with decades of shady business dealings, and who's been under investigation since before the election was held. The intelligence agencies are a big threat to him and his family.  His attempts to undermine and discredit them are a preemptive strike; ruin their credibility and suggest political partiality before any analysis or charges are brought. He's already hard at work discrediting the witness.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 04, 2017, 01:40:37 PM
He has been undermining the intelligence agencies as well - since before he got in office.  It's absurd.
No, it's strategic.  This is a guy with decades of shady business dealings, and who's been under investigation since before the election was held. The intelligence agencies are a big threat to him and his family.  His attempts to undermine and discredit them are a preemptive strike; ruin their credibility and suggest political partiality before any analysis or charges are brought. He's already hard at work discrediting the witness.
Don't forget that he is also working hard to undermine the media ("fake news") that might report on the facts found against him.

I don't believe the Republicans have any honour for the Constitution at all: they demonstrated that they had already lost that when refusing to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court for nothing more than party political advantage.  Trump is going to spend the next couple of years demonstrating that the best Constitution in the world (if it is that) is worthless when not enough people with power have the courage to stand up for the rule of law.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 04, 2017, 02:08:37 PM

I don't believe the Republicans have any honour for the Constitution at all: they demonstrated that they had already lost that when refusing to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court for nothing more than party political advantage.  Trump is going to spend the next couple of years demonstrating that the best Constitution in the world (if it is that) is worthless when not enough people with power have the courage to stand up for the rule of law.

We shall see.  Current and recent events have the tendency to seem like they will continue indefinitely (recency bias). These 'constitutional crises' have happened before and were ultimately curtailed, though often taking a few years to play out.  Joe McCarthy ran his red-scare for 4 years before he overreached and got trampled by the US Army and the US Senate (who took about that long to grow a spine).  It took 26 months for Nixon to resign after the break-in and subsequent arrests at the Watergate Hotel.

Hopefully a combination of evidence, re-election fears and basic human decency will snap enough politicians back into their constitutionally mandated roles.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 04, 2017, 03:05:45 PM
https://twitter.com/SarahHuckabee/status/794255968448020480

LOL SHS.

Quote
When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 04, 2017, 03:07:15 PM
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/04/jeff-sessions-president-obstruct-justice-bill-clinton-278517

Sessions argued in 1999 that Presidents CAN obstruct justice, contradicting Trump's lawyer.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Barbaebigode on December 05, 2017, 05:11:19 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller

The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 05, 2017, 05:35:28 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller

The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...

Well DJT said months ago in an interview with the NY Times that any inquiry into his personal finances would be a 'red line' - we'll see what he does about this latest development.

"Follow the money" is a prosecutor's mantra. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 05, 2017, 10:08:15 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller

The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...

Well DJT said months ago in an interview with the NY Times that any inquiry into his personal finances would be a 'red line' - we'll see what he does about this latest development.

"Follow the money" is a prosecutor's mantra.

Pure speculation: The loan backer is intimately involved with the Russian Government.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 05, 2017, 10:17:46 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller

The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...

Well DJT said months ago in an interview with the NY Times that any inquiry into his personal finances would be a 'red line' - we'll see what he does about this latest development.

"Follow the money" is a prosecutor's mantra.

Pure speculation: The loan backer is intimately involved with the Russian Government.
Could be (again, "we shall see"...).  I wonder whether any business irregularities and financial transgressions will pop up from DJT's past, and how those might play out.  his supporters will doubtless argue that these were before he was candidate or president Trump and therefore we should ignore them. I think that's ridiculous; a crime is a crime regardless of your current occupation. Whether he can be prosecuted for such things while in office is an open legal question.

Ultimately I think more transparency is healthy for our government. If there's nothing there it would be nice to end that speculation. If he bribed and cheated others and lied on his taxes, we ought to know about it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 05, 2017, 10:41:41 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller

The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...

Well DJT said months ago in an interview with the NY Times that any inquiry into his personal finances would be a 'red line' - we'll see what he does about this latest development.

"Follow the money" is a prosecutor's mantra.

It would be interesting to know when DJT heard about this - did Deutsche Bank tell him at the time, has he found out since, or did he find out when the rest of us did?  The "tell" would be a tweetstorm on something diversionary.


Pure speculation: The loan backer is intimately involved with the Russian Government.
Seems logical, when not much else about a loan that size from that bank does.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 05, 2017, 11:00:16 AM
It would be interesting to know when DJT heard about this - did Deutsche Bank tell him at the time, has he found out since, or did he find out when the rest of us did?  The "tell" would be a tweetstorm on something diversionary.

I doubt he had any official advance notice. Criminal probes don't want to telegraph their moves, and subpoenas typicalyl come with conditions to NOT tell the client. Still, team Trump has to have anticipated this. It's beyond obvious that Mueller would want to investigate financial ties between Trump and Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on December 06, 2017, 10:21:09 PM
Oops.

Bloomberg corrects Dec. 5 story that said subpoena ‘zeroed in’ on Trumps (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/deutsche-bank-said-to-be-subpoenaed-by-mueller):
Quote
Those records pertain to people affiliated with President Donald Trump, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the action hasn’t been announced. Several news outlets -- including Bloomberg -- reported yesterday that the subpoena targeted Trump and his family’s bank records, which was disputed by Trump’s personal lawyer and the White House.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 07, 2017, 07:45:39 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-jr-testimony-house-intel-committee-russia-probe-2017-12?__twitter_impression=true

Quote
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said on Wednesday that Trump Jr. invoked attorney-client privilege and "refused to share anything" about what he and his father may have discussed about the statement when it was being drafted.

Trump Jr. did tell the committee, however, that he engaged in a back-and-forth about the wording of the statement with communications director Hope Hicks, a committee source confirmed to Business Insider.

"I think the overriding issue here is, why does every road lead to Russia?" Speier said on Wednesday.

You can't invoke attorney-client privilege if neither you nor your father are an attorney, Donnie.

Just another case of "Russia amnesia."  It's a mysterious medical condition that has afflicted Don Jr., Kushner, Sessions, and others in the Trump administration where they suddenly forget everything if you mention the word "Russia" to them.  Doctors cannot yet explain the condition.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 07, 2017, 08:11:31 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-jr-testimony-house-intel-committee-russia-probe-2017-12?__twitter_impression=true

Quote
Trump Jr. "has a very serious case of amnesia," and ... was "pretty non-responsive" during the meeting.

I just took a 3-day emergency 1st responder refresher course.  Memory loss and unresponsiveness are considered life-threatening conditions which require immediate transport to the nearest medical facility and close evaluation by advanced medical personnel.
Hopefully he is getting the medical treatment he needs.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 07, 2017, 08:21:14 AM
Oops.

Bloomberg corrects Dec. 5 story that said subpoena ‘zeroed in’ on Trumps (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/deutsche-bank-said-to-be-subpoenaed-by-mueller):

Quote
We have confirmed that the news reports that the Special Counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false. No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources,” Trump’s lawyer John Dowd wrote in an email Dec. 5.

Interesting. There can be three conclusions from this; 1) Mueller indeed has not subpoenaed financial records for DJT, 2) Mueller has but Deutsche-Bank declined to share that with his council (possible if ordered not to under the subpoena) or 3) Mueller has subpoenaed the records, Deutsche-Bank told as much to Trump's legal team and Dowd is lying.

3) seems unlikely to me - as I understand it would immediately put Dowd on the hot-seat on the bar
2) is certainly possible, though the definitive wording in Dowd's statement ("No subpoena has been issued or received") is curious
1) ...how could Mueller possibly NOT follow financial connections between Russia and DJT... unless he already has them.  Maybe Mueller will subpoena those records in the future.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 07, 2017, 08:30:22 AM
Interesting. There can be three conclusions from this; 1) Mueller indeed has not subpoenaed financial records for DJT, 2) Mueller has but Deutsche-Bank declined to share that with his council (possible if ordered not to under the subpoena) or 3) Mueller has subpoenaed the records, Deutsche-Bank told as much to Trump's legal team and Dowd is lying.

3) seems unlikely to me - as I understand it would immediately put Dowd on the hot-seat on the bar
2) is certainly possible, though the definitive wording in Dowd's statement ("No subpoena has been issued or received") is curious
1) ...how could Mueller possibly NOT follow financial connections between Russia and DJT... unless he already has them.  Maybe Mueller will subpoena those records in the future.

A bank cannot tell you when the Federal government has issued a subpoena for your banking records in a criminal investigation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 07, 2017, 10:59:02 AM
Interesting. There can be three conclusions from this; 1) Mueller indeed has not subpoenaed financial records for DJT, 2) Mueller has but Deutsche-Bank declined to share that with his council (possible if ordered not to under the subpoena) or 3) Mueller has subpoenaed the records, Deutsche-Bank told as much to Trump's legal team and Dowd is lying.

3) seems unlikely to me - as I understand it would immediately put Dowd on the hot-seat on the bar
2) is certainly possible, though the definitive wording in Dowd's statement ("No subpoena has been issued or received") is curious
1) ...how could Mueller possibly NOT follow financial connections between Russia and DJT... unless he already has them.  Maybe Mueller will subpoena those records in the future.

A bank cannot tell you when the Federal government has issued a subpoena for your banking records in a criminal investigation.

Interesting if that's a point of fact.  I had always assumed it was dependent on the wording of each individual subpoena. Glad I've never found out via direct experieince. 
if that's the case it's very curious that Dowd would issue that particular statement, as it's both meaningless and potentially false. I get that a big part of his job is to present a front of innocence for his client, but...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 07, 2017, 11:07:44 AM
I get that a big part of his job is to present a front of innocence for his client, but...

Just like with the obstruction tweet, I'm pretty sure Dowd would say anything to protect the President.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 07, 2017, 11:28:11 AM
Another possibility is that the Deutsche Bank loans were not to Trump personally but to one or more of the extensive network of companies which are part of the Trump organisation.  So the bank's denials and Trump's lawyers could both be correct, in the narrowest sense that the loans were made to a limited company owned by Trump rather than to Trump in person.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 07, 2017, 11:36:20 AM
Another possibility is that the Deutsche Bank loans were not to Trump personally but to one or more of the extensive network of companies which are part of the Trump organisation.  So the bank's denials and Trump's lawyers could both be correct, in the narrowest sense that the loans were made to a limited company owned by Trump rather than to Trump in person.
ah, good point.  Within the legal system one must always consider that the statement is both true and constructed with so narrow a focus as to be completely useless.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 08, 2017, 03:35:03 AM
So the great orange oligarch suffers what, to any reasonable observer, appears to be a mini-stroke while giving a speech, and the White House sends their professional pathological prevaricator, Sanders Huckabee, out to the podium to claim that he just needed a bit of water?  WTF?  This tragicomedy is degrading to the caliber of a third world dictatorship.

Kind of remind me of the knight getting his arm lopped off with sword in the Monte Python movie. "It's just a flesh wound". he responds after looking down at his missing limb. The pres. spends 15-20 seconds of a speech, slurring his words, and it''s "Nothing to see here folks. The president just needed a drink of water. Can we drop the desperate attempt at fabricating fake news, and move on to how the president is working hard to lower taxes on the working folks, and kill Obamacare, so we all can have great, affordable healthcare? "
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 08, 2017, 05:39:15 AM
Can’t say what his health is, but I’m annoyed by their responses to inquiries (asking questions about it is “frankly ridiculous” said SHS).  DJT and Co. spent 2016 openly questioning HRC’s health,  going so far as to ‘diagnose’ her with dysphasia. 
What’s fair for team Trump to do towards others is unfair for anyone to do to him.  Such a double standard.

In other news, Manafort’s lawyers have acknowledged that he edited the Ukrainian Op-Ed piece.  Now he has to defend how this didn’t violate the gag-order placed on him with his indictment earlier last month.  Do these people ever stop and ask themselves “gee, should I be doing this?”  The arrogance is just mind-boggling.  How hard it is to simply do nothing related to other countries for a month?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 08, 2017, 06:12:35 AM
Another possibility is that the Deutsche Bank loans were not to Trump personally but to one or more of the extensive network of companies which are part of the Trump organisation.  So the bank's denials and Trump's lawyers could both be correct, in the narrowest sense that the loans were made to a limited company owned by Trump rather than to Trump in person.
ah, good point.  Within the legal system one must always consider that the statement is both true and constructed with so narrow a focus as to be completely useless.

like never sending or recieving classified information to your private email server...oh wait completely false!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 08, 2017, 06:14:39 AM
Can’t say what his health is, but I’m annoyed by their responses to inquiries (asking questions about it is “frankly ridiculous” said SHS).  DJT and Co. spent 2016 openly questioning HRC’s health,  going so far as to ‘diagnose’ her with dysphasia. 
What’s fair for team Trump to do towards others is unfair for anyone to do to him.  Such a double standard.

In other news, Manafort’s lawyers have acknowledged that he edited the Ukrainian Op-Ed piece.  Now he has to defend how this didn’t violate the gag-order placed on him with his indictment earlier last month.  Do these people ever stop and ask themselves “gee, should I be doing this?”  The arrogance is just mind-boggling.  How hard it is to simply do nothing related to other countries for a month?

I find the double standard of the "Hillary collapsed, so she is dying within the next 48 hours" to be less of a concern than the fact that he obviously suffered a neurological event, and that POS Sanders stands in front of the camera and lies about it. He is arguably the most powerful man in the world, was struck with some sort of brain trauma while speaking to tens of millions, and the WH attempts to dismiss it. Sorry. but hell no.  I have spent the last two decades living with a partner who has a debilitating brain injury. Fact is, you do not just randomly start slurring your speech, and dismiss it as no big deal.

Manafort is no different than a lot of Trump's closest inner circle. They have spent a lifetime fully engaged in the belief that they are superior to most, and that rules, laws, common decency, respect for any of your "lessers", honestly, and personal integrity are all signs of weakness. Trump has become, arguably, wildly successful following this set of "values", and actively cultivates relationships with others who he sees as sharing his values. As was mentioned earlier here by another poster, I also believe that trump more fully embraced Flynn after Obama personally recommended that he dump Flynn, before it bites him in the ass.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 08, 2017, 06:56:31 AM

I find the double standard of the "Hillary collapsed, so she is dying within the next 48 hours" to be less of a concern than the fact that he obviously suffered a neurological event, and that POS Sanders stands in front of the camera and lies about it. He is arguably the most powerful man in the world, was struck with some sort of brain trauma while speaking to tens of millions, and the WH attempts to dismiss it. Sorry. but hell no.  I have spent the last two decades living with a partner who has a debilitating brain injury. Fact is, you do not just randomly start slurring your speech, and dismiss it as no big deal.

Manafort is no different than a lot of Trump's closest inner circle. They have spent a lifetime fully engaged in the belief that they are superior to most, and that rules, laws, common decency, respect for any of your "lessers", honestly, and personal integrity are all signs of weakness. Trump has become, arguably, wildly successful following this set of "values", and actively cultivates relationships with others who he sees as sharing his values. As was mentioned earlier here by another poster, I also believe that trump more fully embraced Flynn after Obama personally recommended that he dump Flynn, before it bites him in the ass.

Under any 'normal' presidency (Rep or Dem) there would be a push to assure the nation and the world that whatever biological malady he suffered was examined and is/was more of a hiccup than a degenerative disorder.  That we have a fully functional executive branch is paramount to our government. Of course this is no normal presidency, and they are less interested in doing what's best and more about never admitting anything is wrong.

POS Sanders stands in front of the camera and lies about it.   That's the job she signed up for.  I have no respect for her now, but her job for better or worse is to stand up and say whateve lie DJT gives her.  Same with Spicey, same with the next guy/gal (what, you think SHS will be around in 3 years?  I'd take that bet!)

Yeah, Manafort, Trump etc. have always operated as if the rules didnd't apply to them.  Still, the arrogance led to one of the most boneheaded moves. the guy's being investigated for his connections with Ukraine. At some point you think he might say "gee, maybe now's not a good time to edit an OpEd for Ukraine".   Nope - that thought didn't seem to ahve crossed his mind.

the picture that's emerging from this whole debacle isn't of some great, well-concocted conspiracy but one of multiple cocky, arrogant people motivated by greed convinced that they could do as they pleased and somehow not get away with it, and then lie unconvincingly about it when people started asking questions. A well concocted conspiracy would have been much better hidden.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 08, 2017, 07:03:43 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-physical-exam-announced-day-slurred-speech-article-1.3684068

assurance is on the way
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 08, 2017, 07:37:30 AM
Nereo, good post. The arrogance is a really fascinating situation. In the end most of these clowns will end up self-destructing, and it will be entirely self-inflicted. Chances are they are all intelligent and driven enough to have enjoyed much success, without to need to operate in a moral vacuum.

As for Shitbag Sarah, I guess the draw of fame and power is worth selling your soul for?  Like you noted, trump's spokespeople seem to last as long as a jumbo roll of paper towels. Pretty hard to imagine, absent some off the wall, far right political operations, she is really employable in any normal career, here in the real world.  After having a very prominent position of looking the American public in the eye, while continually telling outrageous lies, and attempting to promote an alternative reality, based on what the bleach blond crack whore so eloquently coined as, "alternative facts".

[MOD NOTE:  I'm not even sure who we're talking about, but knock off the misogynistic insults.]
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 08, 2017, 08:17:53 AM
I dint think Trump had a stroke. I think his dentures came loose.  He's s 71 year old man with the most beautifully perfect teeth in the world, of course they're dentures.

But this is just as devastating as a health problem, to a man like trump who is so vain about his appearance.  He will absolutely refuse to admit that his fixodent failed him, just like he refuses to admit that he uses spray on tanner, or a hairstylist who specializes in weaves.  He's a tv personality obsessed with appearances, so he can't admit that he has fake teeth.  Not after he attacked Hillary for being too old to be president (he's older).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 08, 2017, 09:06:49 AM
Not for nothing, but the DW has a complete set of uppers, and watched the video repeatedly. She claims that based on experience, there is no way his denture fell. At best he would of needed a subtle break in his speaking, to force them upward with his tongue, which is possible, but hardly something you could do without being noticed. The other tell-tale is that it wouldn't result in an intermittent pattern of clarity and slur. On this I tend to agree, as I have been greatly concerned, when she is talking from another room, and her speech is consistently slurred. I end up running to see if she is having some sort of neurological issue, like one of her occasional seizures, only to find her really pissed that her adhesive failed again, and the denture fell.
No, based on a hell of a lot of person experience living with a stroke victim who wears dentures, my money is on the likely possibility that Orange Oligarch had a TIA (mini-stroke) in front of the camera. Given his supposed decades of sleep deficit, and use of the prostate drug finasteride, with it's known side effects, to combat hair loss, he has probably done a great deal of potential damage to his brain.

"At the same time, a recent study demonstrated changes in the levels of certain steroids in cerebrospinal fluid of men taking finasteride for hair loss. These steroids have been shown to influence brain function, and their presence may help explain the profound psychological changes such as depression and suicidality that have been associated with finasteride use."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 08, 2017, 09:11:54 AM
At best he would of needed a subtle break in his speaking, to force them upward with his tongue, which is possible, but hardly something you could do without being noticed.

I just figured he was trying to power through to the end of the speech, since he was mere sentences away, without making the obvious gesture of putting his teeth back in place.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on December 08, 2017, 09:19:22 AM
Look, I hate that idiotic man-child as much as the next person, but I've watched it a few times, and it seems clear to me that he's having trouble with his lower teeth. Look at the way he juts his jaw out and seems to be trying to do something with his tongue repeatedly. And I don't see anything else wrong with him (well, no more than usual) in terms of any other body tremors, eyes not focusing, or any other facial evidence. This really seems like a non-issue to me. The dude has ill-fitting bottom teeth. Didn't put on enough Poli-Dent yesterday morning or something.

It was pretty surreal to hear him at the end, though. "God bless the United Sthahsashezezsszhz."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 08, 2017, 09:28:07 AM
Let's not be "that guy" obsessively over-analyzing potential maladies from afar.  Sometime was amiss at least twice in recent days - but there's little evidence it was caused by the Russians (you know, topic of this thread).

If Donald has a severe physical malady is almost certain to crop up again in the months to come; if its dentures or drymouth or whatever then that's that.  Congress has a duty to ensure the POTUS is capable of preforming his duties, though whether they would step in is questionable given their tacit defense of his worst antics to date.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 08, 2017, 09:29:08 AM
the picture that's emerging from this whole debacle isn't of some great, well-concocted conspiracy but one of multiple cocky, arrogant people motivated by greed convinced that they could do as they pleased and somehow not get away with it, and then lie unconvincingly about it when people started asking questions. A well concocted conspiracy would have been much better hidden.
I have an alternative theory that these are all people whose ambition is greater than their abilities and that it was the cognitive dissonance created by this that led them all to crookedness - it was the only way in which they could marry their lack of ability with the level of worldly success they craved as proof of their superiority.

This is why they really believe that the world is against them rather than it just being a convenient story in their defence: in their eyes all they have done is what was necessary to get what was rightly due to them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 08, 2017, 09:42:50 AM

This is why they really believe that the world is against them rather than it just being a convenient story in their defence: in their eyes all they have done is what was necessary to get what was rightly due to them.
Yeah...

Trump: Never in history has anyone been treated as unfairly as I have.  Also, I'm worth TEN BILLION DOLLARS!!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 08, 2017, 10:10:31 AM
Nereo, good post. The arrogance is a really fascinating situation. In the end most of these clowns will end up self-destructing, and it will be entirely self-inflicted. Chances are they are all intelligent and driven enough to have enjoyed much success, without to need to operate in a moral vacuum.

As for Shitbag Sarah, I guess the draw of fame and power is worth selling your soul for?  Like you noted, trump's spokespeople seem to last as long as a jumbo roll of paper towels. Pretty hard to imagine, absent some off the wall, far right political operations, she is really employable in any normal career, here in the real world.  After having a very prominent position of looking the American public in the eye, while continually telling outrageous lies, and attempting to promote an alternative reality, based on what the bleach blond crack whore so eloquently coined as, "alternative facts".

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump (to put it mildly).  It's fine to be upset when someone lies to you on a regular basis.  Complain about what these people are doing, abuses of power, or give examples of incompetence.  Lowering yourself to simple name calling and unsupported speculation isn't going to help your case though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 08, 2017, 10:23:51 AM
Nereo, good post. The arrogance is a really fascinating situation. In the end most of these clowns will end up self-destructing, and it will be entirely self-inflicted. Chances are they are all intelligent and driven enough to have enjoyed much success, without to need to operate in a moral vacuum.

As for Shitbag Sarah, I guess the draw of fame and power is worth selling your soul for?  Like you noted, trump's spokespeople seem to last as long as a jumbo roll of paper towels. Pretty hard to imagine, absent some off the wall, far right political operations, she is really employable in any normal career, here in the real world.  After having a very prominent position of looking the American public in the eye, while continually telling outrageous lies, and attempting to promote an alternative reality, based on what the bleach blond crack whore so eloquently coined as, "alternative facts".

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump (to put it mildly).  It's fine to be upset when someone lies to you on a regular basis.  Complain about what these people are doing, abuses of power, or give examples of incompetence.  Lowering yourself to simple name calling and unsupported speculation isn't going to help your case though.

Seriously, you and I are about as far apart as it gets in our core values. Be that, the nanny state, personal responsibility, not degrading women by using inappropriate rape analogies, your definition of what is "unsupported speculation" in this case, etc..... How about a bit of an agreement here?  You refrain from offering your opinion on my posts, and I will do the same, eh? Doesn't seem real difficult, is it? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: paddedhat on December 08, 2017, 10:34:29 AM
At best he would of needed a subtle break in his speaking, to force them upward with his tongue, which is possible, but hardly something you could do without being noticed.

I just figured he was trying to power through to the end of the speech, since he was mere sentences away, without making the obvious gesture of putting his teeth back in place.

Oh, I can certainly be wrong here, but I haven't heard the DW slip in and out of crisp annunciation, when a denture is loose. The other issue is the unscheduled appearance for a physical at Walter Reed. Somebody either identified a major issue, or the need to clearly point to the lack of one, for that egotistical mess to agree to head over there for a complete work up.

OTOH, after reading Kris's post, I watched the video again, and if you look for a failure in a lower denture, there is a lot of reason to believe that it may be the case. Particularly going beyond was Kris noted, and carefully watching him as he sits down. At that point he is clearly doing something odd with his tongue.

Edit to add:  I'm sure there are a few knowledgeable folks here, when it comes to speech issues. So, my question is, what impact does the something like a loose lower denture have, with regard to creating stroke like, slurred speech? I was always under the impression that speech difficulties are frequently a problem caused by the relationship between the tongue and the roof of the mouth?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 03:08:12 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/painfully-obvious-trump-charged-mueller-roger-stone-747155

If you believe Roger Stone, he says it's painfully obvious Trump will be charged by Mueller.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 03:25:04 PM
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/12/08/Fox-News-is-practically-begging-Trump-to-fire-Mueller/218781

^This is a truly terrifying read on the State-run Fox "News" Network.

https://shareblue.com/judiciary-dem-issues-dire-warning-gop-is-plotting-to-let-trump-fire-mueller/#.WjGXT14OafA.twitter

Quote
Last week, Trump huddled with anti-Mueller congressional forces on Air Force One who have previously described Mueller’s investigation as a “coup” against Trump and “very dangerous.” No doubt Trump got an earful about how the former Marine and longtime Republican prosecutor now represents the dark side.

And yes, Trump’s own attorneys have also recently moved into the fever swamps. Now fully embracing far-right conspiracy theories, they’ve put Mueller in their sights and are demanding that the Department of Justice appoint a second special counsel to investigate the work of Mueller and his team.

Quote
After listening to hours of the GOP’s bashing, Rep. Eric Swawell (D-CA) warned that Republicans were signaling to the White House that they would OK with Trump trying to obstruct justice.

So the State Propaganda Network is peddling BS conspiracy theories and paving the way for a denial if charges are brought against Trump (if he's innocent, why so scared?).  This is a network that broadcasts to millions of people daily - POTUS being one of them.

Now, it appears, there's a faction of the GOP paving the way for Trump/Rosenstein to fire Mueller.  Astounding.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 13, 2017, 03:51:14 PM
how would firing Mueller play out in context of also trying to pass this tax bill?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 13, 2017, 10:58:40 PM
how would firing Mueller play out in context of also trying to pass this tax bill?

Firing Mueller would be a total shit-show but he could do it at any time if he feels things getting away from him.

I'm sure his aides are urging him to wait until the tax bill is passed. If that takes too long -- after the New Year -- all bets are off.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 14, 2017, 07:42:50 AM


Quote
Last week, Trump huddled with anti-Mueller congressional forces on Air Force One who have previously described Mueller’s investigation as a “coup” against Trump and “very dangerous.” No doubt Trump got an earful about how the former Marine and longtime Republican prosecutor now represents the dark side.

And yes, Trump’s own attorneys have also recently moved into the fever swamps. Now fully embracing far-right conspiracy theories, they’ve put Mueller in their sights and are demanding that the Department of Justice appoint a second special counsel to investigate the work of Mueller and his team.


Maybe that's what they meant by creating more jobs?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 14, 2017, 07:44:36 AM
interesting feature in teh Washington Post about how DJT has allowed Russian interference of the 2016 election to go unchecked
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_trumprussia%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.030fdc1f2573 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_trumprussia%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.030fdc1f2573)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 14, 2017, 09:08:58 AM
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/12/14/16762840/mueller-trump-gaetz-jordan-perry-fire

^Vox lays out the 4 main points of the anti-Mueller movement.  It's all crap.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/941159085998858241

^Fox "News" is just a propaganda network.  Period.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 14, 2017, 09:55:40 AM
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/12/14/16762840/mueller-trump-gaetz-jordan-perry-fire

^Vox lays out the 4 main points of the anti-Mueller movement.  It's all crap.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/941159085998858241

^Fox "News" is just a propaganda network.  Period.
Whether it's "crap" or not is largely irrelevant - what matters is whether enough people (and people of importance) believes the "crap".
Propaganda is influential for a reason, even when its demonstrably false.  The trick is combating it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 03, 2018, 07:31:43 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon says meeting between Don Jr. and Russians was "treasonous" and "unpatriotic."

That, uh, kind of undermines Breitbart's narrative that this is all a Democratic hoax.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 03, 2018, 07:51:27 AM
Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon says meeting between Don Jr. and Russians was "treasonous" and "unpatriotic."
...with friends like these, who needs enemies?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 05, 2018, 08:15:45 AM
Michael Schmidt's piece in the NYTimes shows a field of landmines for the Trump White House in the months ahead

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)

Among the reporting
1) Mueller now has substantiated many of the notes that Comey himself took after meeting with DJT, including (via Priebus) that Trump urged Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn ("... I hope you can let this go") and to state publicly that DJT was not under investigation.

2) Rosenstein kept the original memo drafted for firing Comey (now with Mueller) indicating that the reason given (he botched the investigation of Clinton's emails) was bogus

3) AG Jeff Sessions directed one of his aids to seek out damaging information on Comey as part of an effort to undermine the FBI director

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 05, 2018, 11:02:14 AM
Michael Schmidt's piece in the NYTimes shows a field of landmines for the Trump White House in the months ahead

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)

Among the reporting
1) Mueller now has substantiated many of the notes that Comey himself took after meeting with DJT, including (via Priebus) that Trump urged Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn ("... I hope you can let this go") and to state publicly that DJT was not under investigation.

2) Rosenstein kept the original memo drafted for firing Comey (now with Mueller) indicating that the reason given (he botched the investigation of Clinton's emails) was bogus

3) AG Jeff Sessions directed one of his aids to seek out damaging information on Comey as part of an effort to undermine the FBI director

I agree that the new reporting confirms a pattern of obstruction of justice by multiple parties. 

But it won't matter.  Trump has so upset the apple cart that nothing matters anymore.  America as we knew her is dead and gone.  Nepotism is fine. Obstruction is fine.  Racism is fine.  Money laundering is fine.  Treason is fine.  We've gone full-on banana republic.  MAGA has finally killed American exceptionalism. Our formerly lofty ideals are now a joke.

Maybe a new administration can pull us from the ashes, or maybe too much has already burned and our empire is falling.  We've certainly abdicated all moral authority on the world stage, lost all credible leadership, and diminished our global relevance and influence.  The future belongs to China and Russia now, and they've earned it with (very different styles of) steady and effective goal-based leadership.  They've finally beaten Goliath.

But it was a nice run.  We helped win some world wars and we profited from the aftermath.  We admirably spread some democracy, but ultimately failed in the most democratic way possible.  I'm sure autocrats and dictators around the world are grinning ear to ear to see their post-war predictions finally playing out as envisioned.  Democracy plus capitalism was always an uneasy alliance, and now it has proven rotten at the core.  We are undone.

So America is at a turning point, I think.  The next decade will either require a full reversal of everything trumpish, or a full embrace of autocracy and the ruination of our constitution and our history.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 05, 2018, 11:34:35 AM
I'm not willing to throw in the red, white and blue towel just yet, Sol.
Yes, DJT has normalized everything from nepotism to crass behavior and language on the world stage. But while this is at least the temporary norm, we're a long way from embracing it.  AN overwhelming majority thinks negatively of his conduct, his tweets, his treatment of women.  Most believe he is racist or has racist tendencies. His approval ratings started in the toilet and have steadily crawled further down the drain.

So where might salvation come from?  Demographics might be the lynchpin. Those under 35 are the least supportive of DJT specifically and the most supportive of a wide range of social issues he rants and raves against (religious tolerance, gay rights, an interconnected global economy, easier immigration, de-criminalization of marijuana...).  Meanwhile, his (and now the GOP's) staunch base of rich white old guys is slowly dying off. It's very hard for me to imagine enough young people switching their minds to join this new GOP fast enough to replace all the members they are losing as their oldest members expire. Unapproval among blacks, latinos and people with advanced degrees continues to be incredibly high.
EVen without this demographic shift his support and power are subtly and slowly eroding. Support of republicans in general has slipped several points, though still in the upper 70s.  And at least of those non-GOP Trump voters are discovering that going for a candidate just because he promised to 'blow up the system' and 'drain the swamp' hasn't had the desired consequences on their day to day lives.

We've gone through such soul-searching national epidemics before.  McCarthy's 'red scare' went largely unchecked for almost 8 years before it consumed that SOB.  The Civil Rights movement lasted a good decade and featured such ignoble highlights as Gov Faubus blocking segregation, f-tards firebombing black churches while people were inside and tens of thousands of kkk marching in downtown DC.  We've also imprisioned US citizens simply because they or their parents might ahve come from asia, called for the 'extermination' of native americans who we had previously signed treaties with in good faith and (how could we forget) enslaved over ten million people. 
Yeah, we've done some monumentally bad stuff over the last three centuries, as has every single society on earth. But as you mentioned, Sol, we've interspaced those crimes with lots of very good, helping to lift the lifespan, standard of living and representation for billions.

... all is not lost, as long as we don't all just give up...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Gondolin on January 05, 2018, 11:58:24 AM
Quote
We are undone.

Sol, I HATE Trump and everything he does to my core. So, in general, I agree with you about the direction of the country.

That said, are you sure you haven't given in hyperbole here? Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of the MAGA spirit yourself? Ya know, by appealing to a glorious, unblemished, imaginary American past where "everything was better"?

The nation survived the Grant administration, survived the Harding administration, survived the Nixon administration.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on January 05, 2018, 12:16:11 PM
The Senate Judiciary committee just handed down its first criminal referral for . . . Christopher Steele.  Apparently, they're alleging Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier.  To be clear -- not that anything actually in the dossier is a lie.  But that he lied to the FBI about having talked to reporters about the dossier.

Meanwhile, the FBI is renewing its investigation into the Clinton investigation.  It really doesn't even matter for what.

We've seen some undemocratic stuff in the past 12 months, but transparently using law enforcement apparatus to pursue political enemies seems like a new low.

The wind is howling outside my window.  And I am chilled to the bone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/us/politics/christopher-steele-dossier-judiciary-committee.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/us/politics/clinton-foundation-fbi.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 05, 2018, 12:18:09 PM
Quote
We are undone.

Sol, I HATE Trump and everything he does to my core. So, in general, I agree with you about the direction of the country.

That said, are you sure you haven't given in hyperbole here? Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of the MAGA spirit yourself? Ya know, by appealing to a glorious, unblemished, imaginary American past where "everything was better"?

The nation survived the Grant administration, survived the Harding administration, survived the Nixon administration.

I absolutely am indulging in hyperbole.  It's my bread and butter, if you haven't noticed yet.

I have previously made the came argument that you made, about surviving bad presidents before.  Today I am feeling pessimistic, though.  The news coming from the white house today is unlike anything we've seen in generations.  The level of corruption and intentional destruction of American ideals, both from our leaders and the people who support them, does not give me hope that we will recover like we have in the past.  The nation is sick.

All empires die.  Is today our day?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 05, 2018, 12:55:25 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/ryan-nunes-russia-investigation-9affc788894a/

Spoiler - Paul Ryan said he'd do something, then two months later went against his word.  I am SHOCKED.

Quote
Only two months after promising that he would not allow Congress to interfere in the ongoing Russia investigation, House Speaker Paul Ryan on Wednesday reportedly backed colleague Devin Nunes in his attempts to subpoena the FBI for documents related to the matter.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/official-fbi-investigating-clinton-foundation-months-n835006

Official: FBI investigating Clinton Foundation ‘for months’

Welcome to The Banana Republic of America.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on January 05, 2018, 01:52:35 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/ryan-nunes-russia-investigation-9affc788894a/

Spoiler - Paul Ryan said he'd do something, then two months later went against his word.  I am SHOCKED.

Quote
Only two months after promising that he would not allow Congress to interfere in the ongoing Russia investigation, House Speaker Paul Ryan on Wednesday reportedly backed colleague Devin Nunes in his attempts to subpoena the FBI for documents related to the matter.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/official-fbi-investigating-clinton-foundation-months-n835006

Official: FBI investigating Clinton Foundation ‘for months’

Welcome to The Banana Republic of America.

Trump is selling golf club memberships to get access to him (marked up twofold), and that money goes into his personal accounts.  The Clintons took donations for charity (a highly rated one, at that), and there's no evidence that they personally profited.  I...don't get this?  What is to investigate? What line can you draw from the charity to any actions as SoS?  Spoiler: there isn't one, but people are going to keep yelling about Uranium One until everyone just believes that she did something wrong.

Clinton has been investigated for years, and nothing has come of it.  Team Trump has been investigated for a few months, and Mueller's already bagged a few convictions, including the head honcho of the campaign.  It's like the Republicans are yelling about Hillary going 36 mph in a 35 zone while Trump is driving 85 mph the wrong way down the street running every light and has left a mangled pedestrian corpse a few miles back.  And we're yelling for the cops to stop him while they are busy giving Hillary a ticket, and Republicans are the bystanders saying "oh-so you don't CARE about the law! She was speeding!"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 05, 2018, 02:17:49 PM
Not to engage in our own variety of whataboutism, but the Trump foundation has already been convicted and fined for tax fraud.  It is admittedly corrupt.  It's not an allegation or an investigation, it was convicted of fraud.  It's not that different from Trump university, or the bankrupt casinos, or the pageants, or the RE seminars.  This has always been his business model.

It wouldn't even surprise me if the Clinton foundation is also afoul of some tax laws.  Personal family foundations are, by their very nature, tax dodges.  The fact that Trump's was fined for tax evasion and Clinton's hasn't been yet doesn't really change my opinion on that matter.  I assume all family foundations are at least somewhat dirty, or else why have one?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 05, 2018, 02:59:32 PM

Clinton has been investigated for years, and nothing has come of it.  Team Trump has been investigated for a few months, and Mueller's already bagged a few convictions, including the head honcho of the campaign.  It's like the Republicans are yelling about Hillary going 36 mph in a 35 zone while Trump is driving 85 mph the wrong way down the street running every light and has left a mangled pedestrian corpse a few miles back.  And we're yelling for the cops to stop him while they are busy giving Hillary a ticket, and Republicans are the bystanders saying "oh-so you don't CARE about the law! She was speeding!"
Besides giving me a chuckle, your post highlights something I wish more people would appreciate and aknowledge - namely that the supposed sins of one person do not nullify the actions of another. 

"...but, but HILARY!" has been the GOP sycophant knee-jerk response to every allegation made against DJT over the past 2 years. It seeks to deflect but ultimately its the thinnest of ice one can stand on.  This is the intellectual equivalent of every 8 year old who has cried "But HE did it FIRST!"  How far did that excuse get you with your parent(s)? I'm guessing not very, and for good reason.
As Sol said I wouldn't be surprised if some tax irregularities in the Clinton Foundation came to light resulting in financial penalties. I wouldn't even be surprised if something there amounts to fraud.  But its not a defense for DJT, just a blatant and deliberate distraction.

Ironically the FBI's probe into the Clinton foundation (and DJT's enthusiastic support of said probe) should, in a logical world, only support investigation and charges of the Trump White House.  If we're going to say that the former FLOTUS and SoS must be above board and all of her actions should be carefully investigated for illegal activity, we must also hold that same standard to other senior members of the executive branch.

This is the dangerous gambit DJT is playing; he is trying to make the case that intense sustained investigations of his rivals and predecessor is warranted while simultanously arguing that any investigations revolving around him are a "hoax" and a "witch hunt". Further, the past could (and IMO should) come back to haunt the GOP.  Kenneth Starr was initially the special investigator looking into the Whitewater real estate deals, but ultimately honed in on WJC's affair after more than 4 years and $60MM (equiv to $92MM today)*.  Republicans are already getting itchy after 7 months, a plea deal and several indictments, and are yelling that Mueller is investigating beyond his original scope.

Speaking of which, "investigation beyond the original scope" also strikes me as an absolutely terrible, terrible defense.  This is like arguing a traffic cop should only issue a traffic ticket and go on his way even when he noticed the dead naked boy in your passenger seat after pulling you over for speeding. If there's evidence of a crime it should be pursued, regardless of the original approach.


*Of note: it took 4.5 years for Starr's investigation to land with the findings that caused WJC's impeachment. However the special investigation continued for almost another 4 years before finally being officially terminated. If Mueller were given the same leeway his invesigation would conclude in early 2025.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 05, 2018, 11:22:37 PM
The Senate Judiciary committee just handed down its first criminal referral for . . . Christopher Steele.  Apparently, they're alleging Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier.  To be clear -- not that anything actually in the dossier is a lie.  But that he lied to the FBI about having talked to reporters about the dossier.

Given that Trump besmirches the FBI every chance he gets, I'm sure it'll be their top priority to meet him at the airport next time he's in the states.

Similarly, with all the love thrown across the pond, the Brits won't be in any hurry to track him down and reveal his whereabouts.

If it gets to the level of an arrestable crime. They'd better hurry, though. They have a year before their "But! But! Hillary!" campaign meets a roadblock.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on January 07, 2018, 06:47:43 AM
It wouldn't even surprise me if the Clinton foundation is also afoul of some tax laws.  Personal family foundations are, by their very nature, tax dodges.  The fact that Trump's was fined for tax evasion and Clinton's hasn't been yet doesn't really change my opinion on that matter.  I assume all family foundations are at least somewhat dirty, or else why have one?

I don't agree that family foundations are tax dodges, they are meant to disburse grants of money to worthy causes. My understanding is that the Clinton Foundation did very good work, and the State Department would work with private foundations to help get aid to desperate parts of the globe.
Foundation tax returns are public and can be studied.

The Trump Foundation is in a class by itself, as Donald Trump used foundation money to buy things for his own personal benefit, was caught by the IRS for doing this, and forced to backtrack the wrongdoing. Trump would also lie and say his foundation was funded by his own personal money, when it was funded by outside donors to the foundation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 07, 2018, 07:56:39 AM
The Trump Foundation is in a class by itself, as Donald Trump used foundation money to buy things for his own personal benefit, was caught by the IRS for doing this, and forced to backtrack the wrongdoing. Trump would also lie and say his foundation was funded by his own personal money, when it was funded by outside donors to the foundation.

As much as it pains me to say this, I feel like Donald Trump's defense in this case was valid.  He's just an idiot.  I think he genuinely didn't know that he couldn't use a charitable foundation to buy himself stuff, and I think that his business is structured in such a way that no lawyer or accountant was ever going to tell him.  Trump has always surrounded himself with the ultimate YES-men, people who will flatter his vanity without any argument.  I think he gets bad advice, and in this case no one told him he was committing tax fraud.

I mean if you still believe that Trump is some kind of super stable genius playing 3D chess, then sure you can fault him for tax evasion.  But that's not the portrait I see.  I see a 70 year old overweight white grandpa who is very set in ways and unlikely to listen to anybody about anything.  His family has always been rich so he grew up believing that rules didn't apply to him (in business, in sex, etc) and now that he's President his confirmation bias is overwhelming.  His twitter feed paints a picture of puppy dog, living moment to moment, without any forethought or memory of anything at all.

So yea, the Trump foundation is clearly fraudulent.  But even the Clinton foundation, which has legitimately dispersed billions of dollars to worthy causes, exists in a fuzzy grey area of tax law where you can pay no taxes on your income that you donate to it, while retaining control of the donated assets.  You can pay your children or relatives to work for the foundation, while avoiding the gift tax.  And you can solicit outside donations to the foundation, which presents the opportunity for people or nations to attempt to curry favor with you by giving you money.  It's legal, but still shady.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 07, 2018, 08:05:44 AM
The Trump Foundation is in a class by itself, as Donald Trump used foundation money to buy things for his own personal benefit, was caught by the IRS for doing this, and forced to backtrack the wrongdoing. Trump would also lie and say his foundation was funded by his own personal money, when it was funded by outside donors to the foundation.

As much as it pains me to say this, I feel like Donald Trump's defense in this case was valid.  He's just an idiot.  I think he genuinely didn't know that he couldn't use a charitable foundation to buy himself stuff, and I think that his business is structured in such a way that no lawyer or accountant was ever going to tell him.  Trump has always surrounded himself with the ultimate YES-men, people who will flatter his vanity without any argument.  I think he gets bad advice, and in this case no one told him he was committing tax fraud.


How much does this matter though? Certainly our laws consider intent during the punishment phase, but if Trump is the only voice who matters and he selected people who would let him do whatever he wanted and wouldn't stop him from violating tax law, he'd still be in the wrong. "I didn't know better" doesn't go far in our legal system.  What's worse for him is the literally dozens of statements he's made over the years that he would donate "my own money" and then didn't.  That's going beyond "I didn't know" to "I just didn't care".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on January 08, 2018, 07:00:48 PM
  But even the Clinton foundation, which has legitimately dispersed billions of dollars to worthy causes, exists in a fuzzy grey area of tax law where you can pay no taxes on your income that you donate to it, while retaining control of the donated assets.  You can pay your children or relatives to work for the foundation, while avoiding the gift tax.  And you can solicit outside donations to the foundation, which presents the opportunity for people or nations to attempt to curry favor with you by giving you money.  It's legal, but still shady.

And if you look at the Form 990 for the Clinton Foundation, you can see all the hours of work that the Clintons did for this charity, but they were paid nothing for their work.
Any instrument of tax can be abused, the devil is in the details. What did the Trump Foundation do, what did the Clinton Foundation do. But, it's more sexy to find a scandal with the Clintons, when nothing of the sort ever existed. That the Clintons must be committing some sort of wrong doing is just sloppy thinking that was propogated by not just Fox News but the mainstream media. In the meantime Trump's wrongdoing bordered on criminality.

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/311/311580204/311580204_201512_990.pdf
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on January 09, 2018, 12:18:44 PM
Fusion GPS interview transcript:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/3974a291-ddbe-4525-9ed1-22bab43c05ae/934A3562824CACA7BB4D915E97709D2F.simpson-transcript-redacted.pdf

Why was Grassley so adamant about keeping this private?  Is there any new information?  What was his end game with his criminal referral of the Fusion GPS head?  From what I understood, he was basing the criminal referral on information the FBI itself gave him. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 09, 2018, 12:21:18 PM
  But even the Clinton foundation, which has legitimately dispersed billions of dollars to worthy causes, exists in a fuzzy grey area of tax law where you can pay no taxes on your income that you donate to it, while retaining control of the donated assets.  You can pay your children or relatives to work for the foundation, while avoiding the gift tax.  And you can solicit outside donations to the foundation, which presents the opportunity for people or nations to attempt to curry favor with you by giving you money.  It's legal, but still shady.

And if you look at the Form 990 for the Clinton Foundation, you can see all the hours of work that the Clintons did for this charity, but they were paid nothing for their work.
Any instrument of tax can be abused, the devil is in the details. What did the Trump Foundation do, what did the Clinton Foundation do. But, it's more sexy to find a scandal with the Clintons, when nothing of the sort ever existed. That the Clintons must be committing some sort of wrong doing is just sloppy thinking that was propogated by not just Fox News but the mainstream media. In the meantime Trump's wrongdoing bordered on criminality.

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/311/311580204/311580204_201512_990.pdf

I think the phrase is FAKE EQUIVALENCY.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 09, 2018, 12:33:03 PM
Fusion GPS interview transcript:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/3974a291-ddbe-4525-9ed1-22bab43c05ae/934A3562824CACA7BB4D915E97709D2F.simpson-transcript-redacted.pdf

Why was Grassley so adamant about keeping this private?  Is there any new information?  What was his end game with his criminal referral of the Fusion GPS head?  From what I understood, he was basing the criminal referral on information the FBI itself gave him.

Just doing the dirty work for Trump - trying to undermine a (not THE) source of the investigation into Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2018, 12:49:22 PM
Fusion GPS interview transcript:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/3974a291-ddbe-4525-9ed1-22bab43c05ae/934A3562824CACA7BB4D915E97709D2F.simpson-transcript-redacted.pdf

Why was Grassley so adamant about keeping this private?  Is there any new information?  What was his end game with his criminal referral of the Fusion GPS head?  From what I understood, he was basing the criminal referral on information the FBI itself gave him.

Just doing the dirty work for Trump - trying to undermine a (not THE) source of the investigation into Trump.

Seems like it.  As long as the transcript remained private critics could basically whisper anything they wanted about Fusion GPS. The less the public knew for sure the more doubt they could cast over the entire episode. Now that it's public Feinstein is clearly hoping that this uncertainty will deminish somewhat. 

Of course the release of more information won't influence many - most still inaccurately equate Edward Snowden with Wikileaks.  Still, this is a battle for the 15-20% of the population that still might be budged.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 09, 2018, 12:51:00 PM
Feinstein is a patriot and a GD hero.

So far, this only confirms that the GOP were trying to play obstruction politics.  There's not much here, other than A LOT of what is out there publicly (including the non-pee tape parts of the Steele dossier) were ALREADY CONFIRMED BY THE FBI.

Many in the intel community believe Trump or those close to him are being blackmailed by the Russians...most likely because of the pee tape, according to Simpson's testimony.

Grassley committed to making this public until it was politically inconvenient do so and backtracked.  **** him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 09, 2018, 01:02:27 PM
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-misses-deadline-information-u-190415824.html

Thanks, Twitter.  You idiots.

Quote
Twitter Inc. missed a deadline on Monday to provide the U.S. Senate Intelligence committee with information about alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, a spokeswoman for the committee's top Democrat, Senator Mark Warner, said on Tuesday.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 10, 2018, 08:34:14 AM
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-official-floated-withdrawing-us-forces-to-please-putin

Quote
A member of Trump’s National Security Council staff had a radical notion: to pare back American troops in Europe as a way to curry favor with the Kremlin
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on January 10, 2018, 10:32:54 AM
Just gonna leave this here.

US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations - Minority Staff Report: "Putin's Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for US National Security:

"Following attacks like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, U.S. presidents have rallied the country and the world to address the challenges facing the nation. Yet the current President of the United States has barely acknowledged the threat posed by Mr. Putin’s repeated attacks on democratic governments and institutions, let alone exercised the kind of leadership history has shown is necessary to effectively counter this kind of aggression. Never before in American history has so clear a threat to national security been so clearly ignored by a U.S. president."

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FinalRR.pdf (https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FinalRR.pdf)

Here's the Cliff's Notes:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/us/politics/trump-russia-election-interference.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/us/politics/trump-russia-election-interference.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on January 10, 2018, 10:44:39 AM
...Minority Staff Report....

...www.nytimes.com....
Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 10, 2018, 10:49:49 AM
...Minority Staff Report....

...www.nytimes.com....
Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)

And we wonder why Trump gets away with it...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 10, 2018, 11:18:41 AM
...Minority Staff Report....

...www.nytimes.com....
Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)

Political posturing is like farting - everyone does it but  pretend they don't; some spend most of their time alerting the transgressions of another to anyone who will listen, but ultimately it dissipates and what's left can't be covered up by more farting.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on January 10, 2018, 11:30:52 AM
...Minority Staff Report....

...www.nytimes.com....
Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)

And we wonder why Trump gets away with it...
Substitute
- Republicans for Democrats
- Fox News for the NY Times
- Obama for Trump
and we would have analogous observations to a paper critical of Obama, correct?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 10, 2018, 11:34:59 AM
Well DJT has now turned his anger on Senator Feinstein.  She's now "sneaky".
... not the most damaging adjective used against a political opponent.

Quote from: Trump
The fact that Sneaky Dianne Feinstein, who has on numerous occasions stated that collusion between Trump/Russia has not been found, would release testimony in such an underhanded and possibly illegal way, totally without authorization, is a disgrace. Must have tough Primary!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 10, 2018, 12:44:17 PM
...Minority Staff Report....

...www.nytimes.com....
Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)

And we wonder why Trump gets away with it...
Substitute
- Republicans for Democrats
- Fox News for the NY Times
- Obama for Trump
and we would have analogous observations to a paper critical of Obama, correct?

Lol
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 10, 2018, 12:48:56 PM
She released de-classified testimony.  Nothing illegal or unauthorized.

Trump is a snowflake in need of a safe space, apparently.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on January 10, 2018, 12:53:44 PM
- Fox News for the NY Times
Lol
True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 10, 2018, 01:31:23 PM
Ooooohhh... now there IS collusion...
...but it's between the Democrats and Russia. 
Or so says DJT today addressing reporters at the WH.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 10, 2018, 01:32:01 PM
- Fox News for the NY Times
Lol
True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)

It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on January 10, 2018, 01:46:00 PM
- Fox News for the NY Times
Lol
True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)
It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct?  But ad hominem, not so much.

It is unfortunate that most "news" sources really aren't, but rather are businesses looking to attract ad revenue by attracting an audience.  Different sources aim to attract different audiences.   Real Clear Politics often has amusing (if one can see beyond a far-left or far-right bubble) juxtapositions of articles on exactly the same subject, but with very different slants.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 10, 2018, 01:56:48 PM
- Fox News for the NY Times
Lol
True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)
It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct?  But ad hominem, not so much.

It is unfortunate that most "news" sources really aren't, but rather are businesses looking to attract ad revenue by attracting an audience.  Different sources aim to attract different audiences.   Real Clear Politics often has amusing (if one can see beyond a far-left or far-right bubble) juxtapositions of articles on exactly the same subject, but with very different slants.
Thus the danger of people believing there is a (false) equivalence between news and propaganda.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on January 10, 2018, 02:27:30 PM
- Fox News for the NY Times
Lol
True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)
It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct?  But ad hominem, not so much.

It is unfortunate that most "news" sources really aren't, but rather are businesses looking to attract ad revenue by attracting an audience.  Different sources aim to attract different audiences.   Real Clear Politics often has amusing (if one can see beyond a far-left or far-right bubble) juxtapositions of articles on exactly the same subject, but with very different slants.
Thus the danger of people believing there is a (false) equivalence between news and propaganda.
Agreed.  If only there were a foolproof way to distinguish between those.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 10, 2018, 02:31:05 PM
- Fox News for the NY Times
Lol
True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)
It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct? But ad hominem, not so much.


Nope. I'm calling out a behavior. An action. Because people who are trolling don't actually believe what they are saying/writing. They're just saying it to be provocative and get an emotional reaction out of people.

That's the charitable interpretation. Because the other interpretation would be that you actually believe that Fox and the NYT are equivalent. Which... well, I'll stop there, because there aren't a lot of charitable ways to put that...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on January 10, 2018, 02:36:51 PM
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct?  But ad hominem, not so much.

Be the change you wish to see in the world...

Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)

Or not.

Not that any of us are really expecting you to, your history in this thread is evident, but I'd like to point out that you didn't actually address any of the facts in the two links, instead just resorted to a form of ad hominem yourself.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

    1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on January 10, 2018, 03:22:49 PM
I'm calling out a behavior. An action.
If disagreement merits "calling out", then so be it.

Quote
That's the charitable interpretation. Because the other interpretation would be that you actually believe that Fox and the NYT are equivalent. Which... well, I'll stop there, because there aren't a lot of charitable ways to put that...
Equivalent?  That's a subjective metric.  There are times that one is more accurate than the other, and vice versa.  Would you agree to that?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on January 10, 2018, 03:33:01 PM
Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)
Or not.

Not that any of us are really expecting you to, your history in this thread is evident, but I'd like to point out that you didn't actually address any of the facts in the two links, instead just resorted to a form of ad hominem yourself.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

    1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Why, yes, that is the definition.  See also "irony" - "the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."

I realize that the majority of people commenting in this forum don't like Trump's politics.  Probably an even larger majority (one that includes me) think he's not a particularly nice person.  But I also think a theme in this thread, that Trump did something traitorous with the Russians, is incorrect.  If and when Mueller or others demonstrate otherwise, I'll stand corrected.  Until then, however....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 10, 2018, 03:58:34 PM

I realize that the majority of people commenting in this forum don't like Trump's politics.  Probably an even larger majority (one that includes me) think he's not a particularly nice person.  But I also think a theme in this thread, that Trump did something traitorous with the Russians, is incorrect.  If and when Mueller or others demonstrate otherwise, I'll stand corrected.  Until then, however....
yup - we shall see.
For now all we can say for certain is that four members of his campaign have been indicted and two are cooperating with the special prosecutor. Whether this extends to DJT himself is still publicly unknown.  If we make the jump that it does extend to DJT it will interesting to see what transgressions took place, and when.  Was it something boneheaded where the denial and attempts to conceal were far worse than the original transgression (the coverup was worse than the crime), or are there serious transgressions afoot? What-if all violations were before he became a candidate (a-la Manafort)?

The what-if game can be fun to play, but also would like the re-emphasize 'wait and see'....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on January 10, 2018, 04:07:47 PM

I realize that the majority of people commenting in this forum don't like Trump's politics.  Probably an even larger majority (one that includes me) think he's not a particularly nice person.  But I also think a theme in this thread, that Trump did something traitorous with the Russians, is incorrect.  If and when Mueller or others demonstrate otherwise, I'll stand corrected.  Until then, however....
yup - we shall see.
For now all we can say for certain is that four members of his campaign have been indicted and two are cooperating with the special prosecutor. Whether this extends to DJT himself is still publicly unknown.  If we make the jump that it does extend to DJT it will interesting to see what transgressions took place, and when.  Was it something boneheaded where the denial and attempts to conceal were far worse than the original transgression (the coverup was worse than the crime), or are there serious transgressions afoot? What-if all violations were before he became a candidate (a-la Manafort)?

The what-if game can be fun to play, but also would like the re-emphasize 'wait and see'....
Well said - I can agree with that!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on January 16, 2018, 11:17:46 AM
Bannon has been subpoenaed by Mueller's Grand Jury.

It's also worth noting that Bannon has the same lawyer (not just firm--same lawyer) as Priebus and McGahn.  Meaning their interests likely align or at least are not in conflict.

I see a tweetstorm a-brewin'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/steve-bannon-mueller-russia-subpoena.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 16, 2018, 07:07:19 PM
Bannon has been subpoenaed by Mueller's Grand Jury.

It's also worth noting that Bannon has the same lawyer (not just firm--same lawyer) as Priebus and McGahn.  Meaning their interests likely align or at least are not in conflict.

I see a tweetstorm a-brewin'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/steve-bannon-mueller-russia-subpoena.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Trump needs to learn not to piss on people right before they're headed to a Grand Jury about Trump.

I doubt Bannon will roll, or even if he has to, but he could have some juicy tidbits about Trump Jr and the Russians.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 16, 2018, 07:44:27 PM
when testifying, both lying and omitting the truth is a federal crime. Importantly, Bannon doesn't know what other members of team Trump have already said under oath - if he tries to lie he risks being charged himself

Interestingly, I've heard several legal opinions that subpoenaing Bannon is a crafty legal move by Mueller to give Bannon political cover for talking to the special council.  Basically he can now say "hey I didn't want to share intimate details of the campaign on the record but I had no legal option but to do so."

...somehow Bannon doesn't strike me as the sort of fellow that would be willing to go to prison for it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on January 16, 2018, 09:20:39 PM
The timing is sure interesting. Is it too much of a stretch to think that Mueller knew he wanted Bannon, but intentionally chose to wait until his estrangement from Trump was well and truly complete? The breakup was brewing for months, so it's not like anyone was surprised.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on January 16, 2018, 09:32:12 PM
Trump will just end up hanging himself by burning bridges with everyone around him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 17, 2018, 04:30:33 AM
The timing is sure interesting. Is it too much of a stretch to think that Mueller knew he wanted Bannon, but intentionally chose to wait until his estrangement from Trump was well and truly complete? The breakup was brewing for months, so it's not like anyone was surprised.

To me it seems more likely that Bannon was on a rather lengthy list of people his team needs to interview, with a check mark next to his name denoting “possibly won’t be forthcoming”. 
When DJT and Bannon “broke up” Mueller said “looks like a good opportunity to get the facts”

Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 17, 2018, 07:50:15 AM
Trump will just end up hanging himself by burning bridges with everyone around him.

It won't work.  We have an infrastructure problem so the bridge will just collapse.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 17, 2018, 07:57:16 AM
Slimy Devin Nunes issued a subpoena to press Bannon to respond to the House committee yesterday but Bannon refused.

This was likely Nunes trying to get out in front of what Bannon could tell Mueller about his time with the Trump administration.

Bannon's refusal could be because 1) he knew this was the tactic Nunes would try or 2) he's going to refuse to answer any questions.  Which brings us to DJT in the campaign of 2016 - "If you're pleading the 5th it's because you're guilty of something."

If the book is true, at least Bannon's excerpts, it sounds like he knew a bit about that Don Jr. meeting with the Russians and the fact that he threw out the word "treasonous" makes me think Bannon's loyalty is to the country, not Trump.  I'm not sure what he's going to be able to provide Mueller but we'll see.

UPDATE - https://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-will-tell-all-to-robert-mueller-source-says

Quote
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon broke some bad news to House investigators Tuesday, announcing that the White House had invoked executive privilege to keep him from answering many of their questions.

But executive privilege—the president’s right to keep certain information from the public so he can have frank conversations with aides—will not keep Steve Bannon from sharing information with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, according to a person familiar with the situation.

“Mueller will hear everything Bannon has to say,” said the source, who is familiar with Bannon’s thinking.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on January 19, 2018, 05:46:24 PM
I hope Mueller is building an ever more conclusive iron clad case against Trump
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 12:09:49 PM
https://www.axios.com/scoop-sessions-fbi-trump-christopher-wray-877adb3e-5f8d-44a1-8a2f-d4f0894ca6a7.html

Mr. Mueller adds Jeff Sessions to his interview list.

There's really no one left except Kushner, Don Jr., Pence, and DJT.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2018, 12:21:36 PM
https://www.axios.com/scoop-sessions-fbi-trump-christopher-wray-877adb3e-5f8d-44a1-8a2f-d4f0894ca6a7.html

Mr. Mueller adds Jeff Sessions to his interview list.

There's really no one left except Kushner, Don Jr., Pence, and DJT.
Those four are certainly the biggest fish in the pond, but there's also Conway, Hicks, Eric & Ivanka Trump.  All were involved in the 2016 campaign and to my knowledge haven't been interviewed as of yet.  Each could provide useful statements about various meetings (both what was said and corroborating who was there).
Then there's the re-interviews, anytime Mueller finds two statements that don't line up.

For better or worse this thing is going to drag on for many months longer.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 23, 2018, 12:46:30 PM
I hope Mueller is building an ever more conclusive iron clad case against Trump

I hope so as well, but only because I hope it will mobilize voters against the GOP for the next few cycles.

Nothing will actually HAPPEN to Trump even if a case against him were ironclad.  He's extremely unlikely to be removed from office; the GOP establishment might hate him, but they won't do anything as long as he's popular with the base.  Which he is, and that won't change under any circumstances.  And though the Dems stand a good chance of taking the House next fall, they are unlikely to get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate even if they somehow retake it.  And even if they DID retake both houses and were able to muster the votes to boot Trump from office, I suspect Trump's popularity would INCREASE in response (same thing happened during the Clinton impeachment), and GOP leaning voters that are currently un-enthused would suddenly become re-energized to vote. 

I think any attempt to impeach would backfire on the Dems' chances to retake the presidency, unfortunately.  I do not think they should pursue it with any seriousness.

Apart from Trump  himself being in trouble, he's likely to pardon anyone who does get nailed and is not immune.   Something might happen to him after he leaves office, in the event of criminal wrong-doing. One would hope.  But I'm not too optimistic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2018, 01:04:58 PM
Quote
Apart from Trump  himself being in trouble, he's likely to pardon anyone who does get nailed and is not immune.   Something might happen to him after he leaves office, in the event of criminal wrong-doing. One would hope.  But I'm not too optimistic.

Sitting presidents are not immune to legal persecution, though if Mueller were to find criminal wrong-doing it would trigger a constitutional crisis if congress did not also start impeachment proceedings.

Otherwise I agree that the chances of impeachment under current circumstances remain low.  The only thing that will cause the GOP to buck their standard-bearer is if/when it becomes evident that they cannot win elections and retain (or regain) the majority with him at the helm.  Given the electoral map the GOP will very likely maintain the senate in the mid-terms, so that buffers whatever might happen in the House.

2020.... is way more interesting.  Assuming the GOP loses seats in the midterms and DJT is still historically unpopular, the GOP will be defending at least 21 seats. Several current incumbents will be in their early 80s or late 70s.
Calling any election 3 years out is impossible... but they have some stiff headwinds.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 01:11:02 PM
https://www.axios.com/scoop-sessions-fbi-trump-christopher-wray-877adb3e-5f8d-44a1-8a2f-d4f0894ca6a7.html

Mr. Mueller adds Jeff Sessions to his interview list.

There's really no one left except Kushner, Don Jr., Pence, and DJT.
Those four are certainly the biggest fish in the pond, but there's also Conway, Hicks, Eric & Ivanka Trump.  All were involved in the 2016 campaign and to my knowledge haven't been interviewed as of yet.  Each could provide useful statements about various meetings (both what was said and corroborating who was there).
Then there's the re-interviews, anytime Mueller finds two statements that don't line up.

For better or worse this thing is going to drag on for many months longer.

Sorry...I meant of the possible people up the chain potentially to be charged/indicted.  Sessions marks the first cabinet member interviewed but I'm not sure he's smart enough to participate in collusion/obstruction of justice.  He was likely interviewed because of all of his contacts with Russians during the campaign and Mueller probably wants to know who he reported up to in the Trump campaign.

There's no logical explanation that Trump and/or Pence didn't know about the Don Jr. meeting, didn't know about the Papadopolous "leak," didn't know about Manafort, etc. etc.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 23, 2018, 01:11:56 PM
Apart from Trump  himself being in trouble, he's likely to pardon anyone who does get nailed and is not immune.   Something might happen to him after he leaves office, in the event of criminal wrong-doing. One would hope.  But I'm not too optimistic.

Trump does a lot of business in New York. When he leaves office, he'll get walloped by the NY AG.

It's interesting that a pardon is not an expungement in many states; Arpaio found that out recently (as did I).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on January 23, 2018, 01:21:15 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-we-can-be-certain-that-mueller-wont-prove-trump-russia-collusion-595db7f1401b

The only collusion we can factually verify are various swamp creatures colluding to 1) sink Bernie 2) smear Trump the candidate 3) smear Trump the president elect 4) smear Trump the president.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2018, 01:21:42 PM
Quote
There's no logical explanation that Trump and/or Pence didn't know about the Don Jr. meeting, didn't know about the Papadopolous "leak," didn't know about Manafort, etc. etc.

The current defense seems to be that the campaign was so disjointed, so chaotic that various participants didn't have a clue what the others had been up to and normal vetting and oversight simply didn't happen.

Ironically "Fire and Fury" might offer some credence to that defense.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2018, 01:27:40 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old.  For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years.  Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 01:35:08 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old.  For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years.  Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"

Didn't you know - facts don't matter anymore.  You get to say literally whatever you want and people have to believe you.  It's the internet, after all.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 23, 2018, 01:38:58 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old.  For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years.  Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"

Didn't you know - facts don't matter anymore.  You get to say literally whatever you want and people have to believe you.  It's the internet, after all.

Truth. Let’s face it, in this climate any decent troll should be able to make a good living at it, like Alex Jones. Anyone not monetizing it is either lazy or just not very good at it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 01:44:13 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old.  For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years.  Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"

Didn't you know - facts don't matter anymore.  You get to say literally whatever you want and people have to believe you.  It's the internet, after all.

Truth. Let’s face it, in this climate any decent troll should be able to make a good living at it, like Alex Jones. Anyone not monetizing it is either lazy or just not very good at it.

How do we know acroy hasn't found his FIRE job AS ALEX JONES?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 23, 2018, 01:45:00 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old.  For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years.  Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"

Didn't you know - facts don't matter anymore.  You get to say literally whatever you want and people have to believe you.  It's the internet, after all.

Truth. Let’s face it, in this climate any decent troll should be able to make a good living at it, like Alex Jones. Anyone not monetizing it is either lazy or just not very good at it.

How do we know acroy hasn't found his FIRE job AS ALEX JONES?

I don't think his posts have enough exclamation points.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Samuel on January 23, 2018, 02:01:33 PM
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old.  For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years.  Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"

2 guilty pleas, actually. Flynn and Papadopoulos.

And the only reason to settle those cases now versus at the end of the investigation is because they're actively cooperating and providing valuable information on those higher up in the campaign leadership.

But yeah, nothing to see here.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on January 23, 2018, 02:03:47 PM
https://www.axios.com/scoop-sessions-fbi-trump-christopher-wray-877adb3e-5f8d-44a1-8a2f-d4f0894ca6a7.html

Mr. Mueller adds Jeff Sessions to his interview list.

There's really no one left except Kushner, Don Jr., Pence, and DJT.
Those four are certainly the biggest fish in the pond, but there's also Conway, Hicks, Eric & Ivanka Trump.  All were involved in the 2016 campaign and to my knowledge haven't been interviewed as of yet.  Each could provide useful statements about various meetings (both what was said and corroborating who was there).
Then there's the re-interviews, anytime Mueller finds two statements that don't line up.

For better or worse this thing is going to drag on for many months longer.

Sorry...I meant of the possible people up the chain potentially to be charged/indicted.  Sessions marks the first cabinet member interviewed but I'm not sure he's smart enough to participate in collusion/obstruction of justice.  He was likely interviewed because of all of his contacts with Russians during the campaign and Mueller probably wants to know who he reported up to in the Trump campaign.

There's no logical explanation that Trump and/or Pence didn't know about the Don Jr. meeting, didn't know about the Papadopolous "leak," didn't know about Manafort, etc. etc.
She's been under the radar so far, but does anyone seriously believe that Ivanka didn't know what her father, brother and husband were up to?  She's been working in the business for years, including working on the dodgy "Iranian Republican Guard money" deal in Azerbaijan, and she was fully involved in the campaign.   Her defence of ignorance would have to rely on the notion that she is dumb as a tub of bricks and twice as oblivious.  Which may be true, of course, but probably wouldn't chime with her own view of herself.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 23, 2018, 02:28:47 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

Pro tip: Instead of parroting echo-chamber right-wing talking points, do some (primary source) research beforehand.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2018, 02:42:46 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

Pro tip: Instead of parroting echo-chamber right-wing talking points, do some (primary source) research beforehand.
Nah - acroy has a history of tossing incendiary comments into a thread and then leaving, only to do it again months later. My guess is he's off chuckling to himself.  Scan his comments earlier in this thread and on other "off-topic" threads.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on January 23, 2018, 02:44:57 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

Pro tip: Instead of parroting echo-chamber right-wing talking points, do some (primary source) research beforehand.

Perhaps 2 years ago was when the plot to collude began? Did he mean closing in on 2 years of getting away with it? But seriously, let's just stop responding to acroy.

On the other hand he does provide some insight as to where the bat shit crazy conspiracy theories come from.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 23, 2018, 02:54:54 PM
You're both right. Mea culpa. Don't respond to trolls.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2018, 02:54:55 PM
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

Pro tip: Instead of parroting echo-chamber right-wing talking points, do some (primary source) research beforehand.

Perhaps 2 years ago was when the plot to collude began? Did he mean closing in on 2 years of getting away with it?
The "closing in on 2 years" statement had me scratching my head, too... Mueller's investigation is less than 8 months old.  This thread is just over 1 year.  Two years ago was before Flynn (plea-bargain), before the now infamous meeting in Trump Tower, before the hacking of the DNC.

I'll withhold final judgement on the Trump/Russia issue until Mueller finishes his investigation, but many of the events in question are much more recent than 2 years.
Bizarre...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 23, 2018, 04:20:20 PM
Acroy does have one valid point, I think, which is that collusion is hard to prosecute.  Proving it is easy.  Doing anything about it, when it's the President, is basically impossible.

I suspect that Mueller will present an ironclad case, and it still won't matter.  My prediction is that Trump personally directed his campaign staff to coordinate with Russia to undermine US foreign policy in exchange for their help in swaying the election, and that this will be backed up by multiple witnesses and a trove of corroborating documents.  Trump will deny it, of course, but the standards for criminal conviction will be easily surpassed.  A crime was clearly committed, he had motive, opportunity, and means, and everyone interviewed will agree it was Trump as the ringleader of his campaign's misdeeds. 

And after the nation's highest law enforcement agency presents absolute proof of multiple crimes, nothing will happen.  Trump's comment about shooting someone in Times Square is ringing more and more true.  He'll go to McConnell and Ryan and privately say "Yes, I deliberately broke six different laws in this election, but you need me and we all know I'm untouchable,  so get down on your knees and suck it."  And they will.  They'll gladly keep a known traitor as President, to support a political agenda that they know most the country hates.

And without Congress to take action, the President is basically immune.  He could literally murder his family in the white house tonight and stay President.  He could send a tweet that reads "I colluded with Russia" and stay President.  He could go on 60 minutes and admit to obstruction of justice, and stay President (wait, that last one already happened, bad example?).

America is a vast nation full of natural resources and profitable businesses and hard working citizens.  Our greatness does not lay in Washington DC, but across our lands.  At the moment, the reigns of power have been seized by small cadre of profiteering zealots but this is a temporary situation.  Elections will eventually set us on the right path again, or they won't and America will fall.  You can't do much about it either way, as we are all sort of along for the ride in this great experiment.  So vote your conscience, as often as possible, and try to accept that sometimes the system will fail.  Sometimes I think that in cases where our electoral system is so easily subverted, that's a sign of weakness in our system and maybe it should fail.  If Russia can so easily tear America apart, then does America really deserve to lead the world anymore?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2018, 05:51:47 PM
I’ll quibble with one point, Sol, and that’s the idea that a President is impervious to criminal prosecution while in office.  The constitution prevents this, although congress - if its doing its job - would initiate impeachment proceedings. 

Unless I’m very wrong Mueller could (hypothetically) bring federal charges against DJT.

I will say that I’m not as convinced that its risen to that point...  we shall see..
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on January 23, 2018, 08:00:55 PM
The federal courts and the Democrats in the Senate have been able to prevent some bad things from happening. The media have been able to highlight egregious Republican efforts at dismantling health care, and throwing out DACA residents. So I don't think our democracy will fail, because we have enough institutions to prevent that, for the moment.

Could a really crazy beefed up Patriot Act become enacted by Congress if we had another terrorist attack, resulting in the suspension of press freedoms?
If these institutions, like the courts, the press, and the minority party are undermined, then yes American democracy would fail.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on January 23, 2018, 08:23:36 PM
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/biden-confirms-reports-mcconnell-blocked-obama-warning-americans-russian-election-interference/

Quote
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected the Obama administration’s efforts to warn the public about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, former vice president Joe Biden said Tuesday.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 23, 2018, 10:05:41 PM
Whoa. Rick Gates may have flipped.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/rick-gates-new-attorney-mueller-russia-investigation/index.html

Mueller is gathering quite a stable. Who's the big whale? And will Trump try to kill the investigation before the whale is harpooned?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on January 24, 2018, 12:58:34 PM
responding to @sol and @nereo, there's an open debate among legal scholars about whether a sitting president can be indicted by a special prosecutor.  There was a memo drafted by Ken Starr and staff concluding that Bill Clinton could be indicted by a special prosecutor.  But since that time, the rules that govern special prosecutors have changed. The regulations governing Mueller mandate that he “comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.” They permit removal of the special counsel for “good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”

As Clinton was about to leave office, his Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel ruled that the president could not be indicted, and the OLC’s stated function is “to provide controlling advice to Executive Branch officials on questions of law.”

On the other side, is the less technically sophisticated but more inherently compelling "No one is above the law" argument.

My best guess is that if Mueller can implicate Trump, he may name him as an unindicted coconspirator a la Leon Jaworski in Watergate.  But there's also debate over whether that would be permissible under current DOJ rules.  It depends on the strength of the evidence.

Either way, Trump's not getting removed from office except by impeachment, which is a political process and not a legal one.  And, deep down, I'm worried that no matter how compelling the evidence is, nothing matters enough to the Republicans to actually remove him.

Sigh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2018, 01:40:22 PM
thanks for the input Aelias.
I've read many of the arguments for and against prosecuting a sitting president, and to be clear I'm not discussing basic obstruction charges or collusion (which isn't an actual federal crime).  Those do seem very unlikely to result in any criminal prosecution, in part because Clinton already set the precedent.  What I was more reacting to is the idea that a sitting president could never be criminally prosecuted for any reason, such as Sol's murder analogy.  Here I believe constitutional law is much more clear.  Speaking in strict hypotheticals - Mueller could arrest Trump if there was a severe enough crime involved (like murder).
But - in a way Sol's critique stands, because it would fall to the DOJ to choose whether or not to prosecute, and its unlikely Mueller would even get the green light to put DJT into handcuffs.

Ironically, Congress does not a federal crime to have occured in order to impeach:  "The President... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, treason, bribery and high crimes and Misdemeanors"
I again share Sol's view taht this current congress won't start impeachment proceedings unless its clear that its necessary and undeniable to preserve their place in congress.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 24, 2018, 06:27:02 PM
See also: should really understand the legal meaning of obstruction.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370620-trump-fighting-back-against-russia-probe-is-not-obstruction

The underpinnings here relating to complete disregard for how the laws apply to him. They are simply an obstacle to overcome rather than something to be respected. Ugh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 24, 2018, 06:31:34 PM
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them
Why rig the voting machines when you can get Americans to do something stupid on their own through disinformation? See also, piles of russian bots, memes, twitter feeds, etc.

But on the topic of voting machines, it was probably not all that effective, but not for lack of trying:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 24, 2018, 06:35:45 PM
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them

Does it need to be altering vote totals to be illegal?

For example, there are laws against foreign countries buying traditional advertising supporting or attacking candidates.  Russia can't take out billboards for Trump, or buy commercials on prime time tv.  But Russia can apparently buy advertising on facebook and twitter, which is just as effective as print or broadcast media, and they can do so covertly (by using front companies to make the purchases) and they can blatantly lie while doing so (since libel laws apparently don't apply to places like facebook where everything is a lie anyway). 

If Russia had done on tv/radio/print what they did on facebook/twitter, that would absolutely be a crime.  The problem in this case is that Trump seems to have realized that the laws hadn't yet caught up with the realities of modern digital advertising, and encouraged Russia to flaunt those rules by skirting the letter of the law.

Does it count as "collusion" if a presidential candidate asks for and then receives the covert help of a foreign government to sway a US election using means that technically are not yet illegal, because the technology is evolving quickly?  It it illegal to promise a foreign government special treatment, if they successfully help you win your election?  What if you do that with a foreign national with close family ties to a foreign leader, but who is not publicly employed by foreign government?  What if you do it with a US citizen who IS publicly employed by a foreign power?  Because Trump appears to have done all of those things, and I'm pretty sure Mueller is going to think at least one of those is a crime.

But like I said, it won't matter.  We've already established that Trump gets to break the law, for reasons of political expediency.  For example, we have laws against nepotism, which he has flagrantly flaunted in the white house.  We have laws about emoluments and bribery of public officials, which he has flagrantly flaunted with his hotels and the Trump Foundation.  We have laws against firing civil servants for political reasons, which he has flagrantly flaunted with Comey and then Wray.  There's a strong case to be made that he's the most obviously corrupt President in US history, and that's saying something because that's a crowded space to play in.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on January 24, 2018, 07:29:36 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/democrats-warn-russia-trying-to-influence-mueller-investigation.html

Quote
California Democrats Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff released a letter to the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook warning of possible Russian influence on the special counsel's investigation.
A website monitoring Russia-linked Twitter accounts found that their use of #releasethememo increased nearly 300,000 percent in just a few days.
The politicians urged the CEOs to conduct their own examination and submit their findings to Congress.

Nope, nothing to see here! Nothing at all!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on January 25, 2018, 06:50:12 PM
https://www.volkskrant.nl/media/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~a4561913/

Quote
Hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference with the American elections. For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. That's what de Volkskrant and Nieuwsuur have uncovered in their investigation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 25, 2018, 06:53:57 PM
The NY Times is reporting that Trump fired Mueller back in June, then had to withdraw it when white house counsel threatened to resign.

In effect, the white house counsel seems to have saved the Trump presidency, by avoiding the Saturday night massacre scenario.  Looks like clear intent to obstruct justice, to me.

Is anyone shocked?  What would that even take, anymore?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2018, 06:46:09 AM
A recession?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on January 26, 2018, 07:06:22 AM
A recession?

Bingo.  My husband and I have discussed this at length. For there to be a credible threat to remove Trump from office, Republicans (House Republicans particularly) have to turn on him. They won't do that as long as the economy is strong, particularly the stock market.  And since the tax bill has dumped an unimaginable pile of money on corporations, I think they pushed out the inevitable downturn at least a year.

I take a little comfort in watching Trump crow about the Dow, because I know it can't last.  Live by the Dow, die by the Dow.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on January 26, 2018, 07:24:10 AM
I was left wondering how long 'til Melania goes absent. She quit the Davos trip and went to FL. I wonder how tied up he has her with the pre-nup.

He has now cheated on each of his wives. I can't see how the evangelical conservatives can wrap their belief system around their President's actions and support him.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2018, 07:29:29 AM
A recession?
...
I take a little comfort in watching Trump crow about the Dow, because I know it can't last.  Live by the Dow, die by the Dow.

I'm not even sure this will work to trip up teflon Don.  Remember just over a year ago the unemployment numbers were 'fake' and 'one of the bigest hoaxes' and "total fiction'- Candidate Trump frequently talked about the 'real unemployment' number being over 20%.  Several times he indicated unemployment was probably over 40%. Now president Trump crows about the 'historically low' rate of 4.x% every chance he gets. 

According to Candidate Trump, under Obama our economy was in shambles.  President Trump now tweets weekly about record highs for the Dow.  Oddly, he never credited Obama and the dozens of market highs under his watch (which started in 2013 and continued nearly non-stop for the last three years of his presidency)

So Trump called every good economic indicator under Obama fake and fraud, but now touts those same numbers as evidence of being the greatest president in modern history. What will happen when we hit an inevitable downturn? Something tells me he'll 1) blame democrats ("if the loser democrats weren't blocking our way our economy would be so great!", 2) call the numbers 'fake' again ("a bunch of liberal, unelected losers want our economy to fail and are publishing fake numbers about unemployment and jobs.  Get a life!!") and 3) basically tell everyone (again) that he alone can fix it.
His base will continue to lap it up. The GOP in congress will spout the talking points handed down to them, no matter how absurd - because the only alternative would be ceding control to the Dems.
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on January 26, 2018, 07:33:58 AM
I think we are going to see an indictment of DJT but no trial until he leaves office.  Then the "deal" will be dismissal of the charges with prejudice in exchange for his resignation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 26, 2018, 07:37:22 AM
A recession?

Nahh, they will just blame it on the Dems or claim fake news and say the economy is doing well. Pretty much SOP by now. Maybe even blame it on the border wall not getting funded/built or Clinton's emails.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on January 26, 2018, 07:37:41 AM
https://www.volkskrant.nl/media/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~a4561913/

Quote
Hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference with the American elections. For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. That's what de Volkskrant and Nieuwsuur have uncovered in their investigation.

Wow.  This is not getting enough attention. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2018, 07:39:25 AM

He has now cheated on each of his wives. I can't see how the evangelical conservatives can wrap their belief system around their President's actions and support him.
The evangelical conservatives got into bed with the GOP over gay marriage and the 'defense of marriage act' (among others), as well as with anti-abortion legislation. 

Now they are proverbially married to supporting the GOP, 'for better or worse.'  It doesn't matter how flawed the candidate is, because the alternative is to either butt out of politics altogether or support a democrat.  They won't butt out of politics because its become an enormous cash-cow for both them and the GOP; nothing unzips evangelical's pocketbooks faster than a good sermon about combating the evil of homosexuality or those poor unbaptized, unborn souls. Likewise they won't support even centrist Dem candidates because losing the war is worse than supporting a seemingly endless stream of immoral politicians.
The justify their support of DJT by saying that "only God can judge" and that their 'true support is with the bible' - basically the ends justify the means approach.

Ironically, what most have forgotten is that the entire concept of Seperation of Church & State was brought about by our founders NOT to keep the religion out of the state, but to keep the state out of religion. You can't force your religion into politics without politics infiltrating your religion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on January 26, 2018, 07:42:02 AM
A recession?
...
I take a little comfort in watching Trump crow about the Dow, because I know it can't last.  Live by the Dow, die by the Dow.

. . .

So Trump called every good economic indicator under Obama fake and fraud, but now touts those same numbers as evidence of being the greatest president in modern history. What will happen when we hit an inevitable downturn? Something tells me he'll 1) blame democrats ("if the loser democrats weren't blocking our way our economy would be so great!", 2) call the numbers 'fake' again ("a bunch of liberal, unelected losers want our economy to fail and are publishing fake numbers about unemployment and jobs.  Get a life!!") and 3) basically tell everyone (again) that he alone can fix it.
His base will continue to lap it up. The GOP in congress will spout the talking points handed down to them, no matter how absurd - because the only alternative would be ceding control to the Dems.

Ugh. You're right, of course. This is why, even as multiple bombshell reports are dropping daily, I'm struggling with the growing sense that nothing matters anymore.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 26, 2018, 07:57:38 AM
The NY Times is reporting that Trump fired Mueller back in June, then had to withdraw it when white house counsel threatened to resign.

In effect, the white house counsel seems to have saved the Trump presidency, by avoiding the Saturday night massacre scenario.  Looks like clear intent to obstruct justice, to me.

Is anyone shocked?  What would that even take, anymore?

I've always maintained that nothing about the Russia investigation itself would lead to anything where Trump could really be legally nailed.  Only his efforts to stop said investigation would be likely to do so. 

As to what it would take to remove him from office? The Dems taking the House and filibuster proof majority in the Senate, which is unlikely to happen. So Trump will serve out his term, and his base will continue to believe none of these reports.  Given the perversity of human nature, I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump's approval ratings (which have been ticking up slightly in recent weeks) rise a bit the worse things get for him, as hold-their-nose GOP voters start to rally back to him as he gets in more trouble.

I really see no bottom to our politics going forward, without extensive changes to gerrymandering and campaign finance. 

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2018, 08:06:48 AM
Quote
I've always maintained that nothing about the Russia investigation itself would lead to anything where Trump could really be legally nailed.  Only his efforts to stop said investigation would be likely to do so. 

"The coverup is worse than the crime". 
hard to judge if this is the case here until all the facts are out, but it certainly looks like the WH's actions have made this whole situation worse. It's possible that the initial actions of the Trump campaign mostly fell into the "politically stupid but not worthy of criminal prosecution" - but the actions to cover up those actions are looking quite bad.

Back in June both DJT and Conway are on the record (on tape) saying that conversations about firing Mueller "never came up" and they were absolutely not considering doing it. If this latest report is true its another lie on top of an attempt to stop an investigation from finding... what exactly?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 26, 2018, 08:17:05 AM
Back in June both DJT and Conway are on the record (on tape) saying that conversations about firing Mueller "never came up" and they were absolutely not considering doing it. If this latest report is true its another lie

Wait wait wait.  You mean Donald Trump is a liar?

Well, this just upsets my whole world view.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2018, 08:46:26 AM
Quote
Back in June both DJT and Conway are on the record (on tape) saying that conversations about firing Mueller "never came up" and they were absolutely not considering doing it. If this latest report is true its another lie

Wait wait wait.  You mean Donald Trump is a liar?

Well, this just upsets my whole world view.
Shocking, i know.  Turns out the guy who led the birther movement, who said Hillary Clinton started it, who said real unemployment might be over 40%, who claims his won the popular vote if you deduct 3-5 million illegal votes, who claims to have had the largest inaugeration crowd, 'period', who promised to release his tax returns once a 'routine audit' was completed, who said his 58 story Trump Tower was actually 68 stories, who's committed adultery on three different women, who got five medical deferments from the draft for an issue that 'went away', who... (crap this would take too long)...  might not always tell the truth.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 26, 2018, 09:23:21 AM
It isn't just Trump who is trying to obstruct. This guy is a real POS as well.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ethics-complaint-alleges-rep-devin-120823661.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ethics-complaint-alleges-rep-devin-120823661.html)

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
Nunes has installed himself as the WH's personal congressional firewall. He's like Conway or S. Sanders but with the advantage that he controls and actual committee in the US House. He basically parrots whatever talking points the WH gives out
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on January 26, 2018, 12:13:01 PM

He has now cheated on each of his wives. I can't see how the evangelical conservatives can wrap their belief system around their President's actions and support him.
The evangelical conservatives got into bed with the GOP over gay marriage and the 'defense of marriage act' (among others), as well as with anti-abortion legislation. 

Now they are proverbially married to supporting the GOP, 'for better or worse.'  It doesn't matter how flawed the candidate is, because the alternative is to either butt out of politics altogether or support a democrat.  They won't butt out of politics because its become an enormous cash-cow for both them and the GOP; nothing unzips evangelical's pocketbooks faster than a good sermon about combating the evil of homosexuality or those poor unbaptized, unborn souls. Likewise they won't support even centrist Dem candidates because losing the war is worse than supporting a seemingly endless stream of immoral politicians.
The justify their support of DJT by saying that "only God can judge" and that their 'true support is with the bible' - basically the ends justify the means approach.

Ironically, what most have forgotten is that the entire concept of Seperation of Church & State was brought about by our founders NOT to keep the religion out of the state, but to keep the state out of religion. You can't force your religion into politics without politics infiltrating your religion.

"Only God can judge" until one of their wedge issues pops up and then we're off to the judgement races.... ;)

What we need for added entertainment value is for the next bombshell to reveal that DJT is actively gay or molested his daughters. I wonder if even THAT would knock his approval numbers down any?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2018, 12:36:53 PM

He has now cheated on each of his wives. I can't see how the evangelical conservatives can wrap their belief system around their President's actions and support him.
The evangelical conservatives got into bed with the GOP over gay marriage and the 'defense of marriage act' (among others), as well as with anti-abortion legislation. 

Now they are proverbially married to supporting the GOP, 'for better or worse.'  It doesn't matter how flawed the candidate is, because the alternative is to either butt out of politics altogether or support a democrat.  They won't butt out of politics because its become an enormous cash-cow for both them and the GOP; nothing unzips evangelical's pocketbooks faster than a good sermon about combating the evil of homosexuality or those poor unbaptized, unborn souls. Likewise they won't support even centrist Dem candidates because losing the war is worse than supporting a seemingly endless stream of immoral politicians.
The justify their support of DJT by saying that "only God can judge" and that their 'true support is with the bible' - basically the ends justify the means approach.

Ironically, what most have forgotten is that the entire concept of Seperation of Church & State was brought about by our founders NOT to keep the religion out of the state, but to keep the state out of religion. You can't force your religion into politics without politics infiltrating your religion.

"Only God can judge" until one of their wedge issues pops up and then we're off to the judgement races.... ;)

What we need for added entertainment value is for the next bombshell to reveal that DJT is actively gay or molested his daughters. I wonder if even THAT would knock his approval numbers down any?
There's the old saying about a "dead girl or a live boy" ending any politician's career - however for DJT we knew long before the campaign he had tabloid-trysts, numerous apperances on Howard Stern well documented affairs, plus those comments to Hollywood Access. All of that was out in the open months and years before the election. Plenty of stuff worse than that has been alleged (the Steele dossier). So I'm not convinced that a public sex-tape would even move the needle against him.  After all, everyone pretty much knew he was a hedonistic, womanizing twerp back in the 90s.

"Only god can judge" - this is their defense for supporting morally flawed candidates. It's never stopped them from judging their opponents.  Hillary's crooked, Bill's a womanizer, Obama's a closet-Muslim, Daniels is a whore, Frankin disrespected women ... but as good christians we must forgive DJT's treatment of women, judge-not former Judge Roy Moore, pray Limbaugh can beat his addiction, and by golly Meehan had love and good intentions in his heart, nothing else. Hypocrisy runs deep whenever you mix religion with politics.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on February 02, 2018, 11:08:02 AM
OMGGGGGG  IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

This? This is it?  This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump?  This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?

Lol.  They're screwed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Barbaebigode on February 02, 2018, 11:31:21 AM
OMGGGGGG  IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

This? This is it?  This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump?  This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?

Lol.  They're screwed.

Yeah, it shows that Rodstein gave credit to a guy that might be biased in his work. Now Trump has a flimsy excuse to fire him and try to burn the republic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: fattest_foot on February 02, 2018, 11:34:45 AM
OMGGGGGG  IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

This? This is it?  This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump?  This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?

Lol.  They're screwed.

Not sure how you can take this stance.

Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?

It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 02, 2018, 11:48:30 AM
It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?

It's a memo written by a GOP hack that's sleeping with the WH. How are the allegations proven true?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 02, 2018, 11:50:47 AM
OMGGGGGG  IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

This? This is it?  This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump?  This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?

Lol.  They're screwed.

Not sure how you can take this stance.

Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?

It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?

IMHO, this is not a conspiracy theory proven true. It is also worth noting that even if the FBI were conspiring, it does not follow that Trump campaign was not colluding, or willfully benefiting from Russian interference. It is possible that Steele was adamant about Trump not being elected because his research indicated that Trump was compromised. The "why" is clearly omitted in so many places in this memo that it is hard to read as anything but chaff.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2018, 11:51:23 AM

Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?

It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?
Could you be more specific here?  What illegal steps did the intelligence agencies take to derail DJT?

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 02, 2018, 11:56:11 AM
OMGGGGGG  IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

This? This is it?  This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump?  This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?

Lol.  They're screwed.

Not sure how you can take this stance.

Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?

It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?

LOL.  Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

This is a cherry-picked memo that proves nothing.

1) We know the dossier did not serve as the basis for the FISA warrant.  It was corroborating evidence that the FBI ALREADY HAD - that's it.
2) The Steele dossier was originally funded back in 2015 by Paul Singer...a REPUBLICAN donor.
3) Carter Page was under surveillance as far back as 2013 - he had proven ties to Russia back then.

Let me get this straight...the conspiracy is that the FBI and DOJ conspired to make sure the election of Donald Trump did not happen...yet they publicly acknowledged the re-investigation into Clinton's email (which resulted in nothing) just days before the election BUT kept secret all of the ongoing surveillance and investigation into Trump's campaign?

Just...seriously...say out loud your conspiracy.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on February 02, 2018, 12:32:09 PM
OMGGGGGG  IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

This? This is it?  This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump?  This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?

Lol.  They're screwed.

Not sure how you can take this stance.

Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?

It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?

There are many reason to be skeptical about this memo, but here's one I'm not seeing discussed all that much.

There is a HIGH standard for proving to a FISA Court that an American citizen should be placed under surveillance as part of a counterintelligence investigation.  The idea is that the Court places a check on the power of the government to surveil its own citizens.  This is necessary and a very important check on the power of the government's surveillance apparatus.

As is discussed in the Memo, FISA warrants have to be renewed by the FISA Court every 90 days.  These warrants are approved if and only if there is a demonstration that the surveillance is producing valuable intelligence. The warrant on Page renewed 3 times after the initial warrant was granted.

If they sought the first warrant on October 21, 2016, the subsequent warrants would have been sought on January 19, April 19, and July 18, 2017.  Think about what happened by July 18, 2017.  BuzzFeed published the Dossier back in January 2017.  By July, the House and Senate Intel Committees were trying to get Glenn Simpson to testify.  By that point, this was pretty much all out in the open.  The fact that the FISA Court approved the initial warrant and three subsequent renewals, while there was already public reporting questioning the origins and veracity of Dossier, suggests to me that there was sufficient other evidence there to warrant surveillance.

I had actually expected that the memo would contain allegations against the FISA Court as well.  Or evidence that the Court had asked about the origins of the dossier, and the DOL had lied.  Or something to that effect.  Because that would suggest that the Court considered that information relevant but the information was hidden.  But the Memo contains no allegations against the Court.

So, no, I don't find these allegations of bias compelling.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on February 02, 2018, 01:09:24 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_GPS#Trump_dossier_and_Christopher_Steele

In September 2015, Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative political website, to do opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In spring 2016 when Trump had emerged as the probable Republican candidate, the Free Beacon stopped funding investigation into Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon

From October 2015 to May 2016, the Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on "multiple candidates" during the 2016 presidential election, including Donald Trump. The Free Beacon stopped funding this research when Donald Trump had clinched the Republican nomination. Fusion GPS would later hire former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and produce a dossier alleging links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Paul Singer, a billionaire and hedge fund manager, who is a major donor to the Free Beacon, said he was unaware of this dossier until it was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017. On October 27, 2017, the Free Beacon publicly disclosed that it had hired Fusion GPS, and stated that it "had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."

The Free Beacon came under criticism for its reporting on Fusion GPS. Three days before it was revealed that it was the Free Beacon that had funded the work by Fusion GPS, the Free Beacon wrote that the firm's work “was funded by an unknown GOP client while the primary was still going on." The Free Beacon has also published pieces that have sought to portray the work by Fusion GPS as unreliable "without noting that it considered Fusion GPS reliable enough to pay for its services." In an editor's note, Continetti said "the reason for this omission is that the authors of these articles, and the particular editors who reviewed them, were unaware of this relationship," and that the outlet was reviewing its editorial process to avoid similar issues in the future.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on February 02, 2018, 01:50:07 PM
Here is another good list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump–Russia_dossier_allegations

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2018, 01:52:01 PM
Am I the only one who feels completely underwhelmed by this memo?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 02, 2018, 01:59:50 PM
Am I the only one who feels completely underwhelmed by this memo?

As an indictment of federal law enforcement, yes it's underwhelming, but I think there is still value in it.

Specifically I think it very clearly demonstrates just how corrupt the Devin-Nunes-led House intelligence committee has become.  It appears to be doing Trump's obstruction-of-justice dirty work for him.

If Mueller is pursuing an obstruction of justice charge against Trump, any demonstrated collusion between Trump and Nunes would pretty much clinch it.

The specifics of the memo itself don't seem to help Trump nearly as much as he seems to think it should.  It basically says that Trump's campaign staff were under criminal investigation, which we already knew.  I mean, some of them have already been indicted.  I'm not sure why Trump thinks it helps him to release a memo that says "law enforcement was investigating the criminals who worked for me" as if that somehow proves his innocence.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2018, 02:14:14 PM
Am I the only one who feels completely underwhelmed by this memo?

As an indictment of federal law enforcement, yes, but I think there is still value in it.

Specifically I think it very clearly demonstrates just how corrupt the Devin-Nunes-led House intelligence committee has become.  It appears to be doing Trump's obstruction-of-justice dirty work for him.

If Mueller is pursuing an obstruction of justice charge against Trump, any demonstrated collusion between Trump and Nunes would pretty much clinch it.

Yeah... I get that... I just feel like all of these things had already occurred by yesterday (and in many ways long before that).  We had the FBI and the Dems publicly state that this was against the interests of our intelligence agencies and bad for our national security. They did it anyway.

Now that I've read it I keep thinking.... really?  this is it?? There doesn't seem to be anything here that wasn't already reported on, most of the insinuations are pretty thin and in several cases it seems counter-constructive to the GOP narrative that this is a politically motivated witch hunt - (e.g. it was Papadopoulos who first alerted the FBI to possible interference, not the Steele dossier; FISA courts extended survellance warrants no less than 3 times, suggesting they were effective at uncovering information not already reported on).

DJT risks further demonstrating that he's not acting in the interests of the United States (by going against 'grave concerns' of the FBI - whom he picked for god's sakes)... all to accomplish... what, exactly?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 02, 2018, 02:23:01 PM
DJT risks further demonstrating that he's not acting in the interests of the United States (by going against 'grave concerns' of the FBI - whom he picked for god's sakes)... all to accomplish... what, exactly?

I don't think Trump cares about the details.  The actual memo could reak "j/k just kidding" and he'd release it anyway, because he thinks the whole idea of the existence of a critical memo plays favorably with his base.  For him it's more about managing the theatricality of the process than about the specific content, and he thinks the public perception around it will help discredit the inevitable indictment against him. 

So the "purpose" of it is to lay the groundwork for the constitutional crisis he sees coming.  It's not about legal criteria, because he knows he's already lost the legal battle.  I think he's planning to rely on Congress, with the support of 25% of die-hard Americans who will support him no matter what, to snuff the impeachment process.  He knows he can't win on the facts, so he's playing the people instead.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2018, 02:39:27 PM
oh FFS.  As an analogy - if one were accused of plotting to set their house on fire, the strategy here would be to actually set the house on fire, and then argue after the fact that that those trying to bring fire-starting indictments aren't interested in stopping the current fire, and earlier allegations show a prosecutorial bias against the fire-starter.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 02, 2018, 02:42:07 PM
DJT risks further demonstrating that he's not acting in the interests of the United States (by going against 'grave concerns' of the FBI - whom he picked for god's sakes)... all to accomplish... what, exactly?

I don't think Trump cares about the details.  The actual memo could reak "j/k just kidding" and he'd release it anyway, because he thinks the whole idea of the existence of a critical memo plays favorably with his base.  For him it's more about managing the theatricality of the process than about the specific content, and he thinks the public perception around it will help discredit the inevitable indictment against him. 

So the "purpose" of it is to lay the groundwork for the constitutional crisis he sees coming.  It's not about legal criteria, because he knows he's already lost the legal battle.  I think he's planning to rely on Congress, with the support of 25% of die-hard Americans who will support him no matter what, to snuff the impeachment process.  He knows he can't win on the facts, so he's playing the people instead.

Yep. The value is in the hubub, rather than the details. The outcry following the memo release also plays to his base.

We have definitely cemented that Nunes is a foot soldier with this, though. Interesting legal question: Can Mueller actually subpoena communications from the Intelligence Committee? That would seem to be necessary to prove coordination on the memo preparation as posited above.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 02, 2018, 02:44:54 PM
I don't think this one really is made more clear though use of analogy.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 02, 2018, 02:47:17 PM
Quote from: foxnews
White House: Document 'raises serious concerns' about integrity of decisions by DOJ and FBI

Quote from: foxnews
Fitton: FISA memo is 'devastating blow' to Mueller's Russia investigation


See? The DOJ and FBI are flawed with their investigations. Mueller has nothing. Nothing! #shameful

It also provides cover for a Kushner pardon.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 02, 2018, 02:49:35 PM
Quote from: foxnews
White House: Document 'raises serious concerns' about integrity of decisions by DOJ and FBI

Quote from: foxnews
Fitton: FISA memo is 'devastating blow' to Mueller's Russia investigation


See? The DOJ and FBI are flawed with their investigations. Mueller has nothing. Nothing! #shameful

It also provides cover for a Kushner pardon.
We can add this to the pile:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/372072-republican-rep-on-memo-fbi-conduct-constitutes-treason
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on February 02, 2018, 04:33:23 PM
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 02, 2018, 04:45:53 PM
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.

There is some tasty irony here given that the focus of Mueller's investigation is to look at foreign influences attempting to undermine our government. Remember when Mueller was appointed and there was bipartisan praise for how sterling his reputation and ability to be independent was? Notice also how the Nunes memo says nothing about Mueller? Even Trey Gowdy (aka, Mr. Benghazi) says that the Nunes memo has nothing to do with Mueller.

A lot of people are calling for Mueller's investigation to end without knowing what his investigation has found or how it has actually been conducted. So far, what is known is that a lot of partisans are unhappy, and that there have been multiple guilty pleas.

There is no disagreement among intelligence agencies that Russia interfered with our election process. None. Zero. Let's let the investigations into that bear fruit. That is far more important than the career of any individual politician or investigator.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on February 02, 2018, 05:38:05 PM
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.

There is some tasty irony here given that the focus of Mueller's investigation is to look at foreign influences attempting to undermine our government. Remember when Mueller was appointed and there was bipartisan praise for how sterling his reputation and ability to be independent was? Notice also how the Nunes memo says nothing about Mueller? Even Trey Gowdy (aka, Mr. Benghazi) says that the Nunes memo has nothing to do with Mueller.

A lot of people are calling for Mueller's investigation to end without knowing what his investigation has found or how it has actually been conducted. So far, what is known is that a lot of partisans are unhappy, and that there have been multiple guilty pleas.

There is no disagreement among intelligence agencies that Russia interfered with our election process. None. Zero. Let's let the investigations into that bear fruit. That is far more important than the career of any individual politician or investigator.

Not a fan of anyone being investigated due to political differences. Using the power of state to go after political rivals is never okay. Also, I suggest you look up the 16 Intel agencies and let us know why many of them would be involved when their responsibility is not aligned. Can't imagine the air force Intel agency looking into this.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2018, 05:40:58 PM
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.

Just got to say this out loud...

you want the investigation to be stopped, and the investigator investigated by a new investigative team for the way they did their investigating?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on February 02, 2018, 05:42:36 PM
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.

Just got to say this out loud...

you want the investigation to be stopped, and the investigator investigated by a new investigative team for the way they did their investigating?

Mostly, but I never said Mueller should be investigated
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2018, 05:45:17 PM
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.

Just got to say this out loud...

you want the investigation to be stopped, and the investigator investigated by a new investigative team for the way they did their investigating?

Mostly, but I never said Mueller should be investigated

So we stop the investigation but don't investigate it?  How come?
Do we just sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 02, 2018, 05:46:48 PM
So, for those of us who read the memo and can critically think . . . it really seems like a silly bit of theatrics.  Trump obviously knows the folks he's targeting though.  He's using the same tactics that are used to sucker them into homeopathic treatment, autism being caused by vaccines, or climate change denial.  Just lie constantly, over and over, with the pretence of authority and a glimmer in your eye.  There is a subset of the population who will respond to it.

You can see them in this thread conveniently forgetting all of the key facts in the case in order to argue the ridiculous narrative that multiple government agencies are out to get Donald Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on February 02, 2018, 05:49:16 PM
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.

Just got to say this out loud...

you want the investigation to be stopped, and the investigator investigated by a new investigative team for the way they did their investigating?

Mostly, but I never said Mueller should be investigated

So we stop the investigation but don't investigate it?  How come?
Do we just sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened?

You start with proof. Evidence is thrown out all the time but a fair and impartial system of justice is what we are supposed to have. I get it, lots here don t like the president but that does not mean we allow crimes to take place in order to be rid of him. The ends don t justify the means.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2018, 05:55:59 PM
what crimes are you referring to?  How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on February 02, 2018, 06:00:40 PM
what crimes are you referring to?  How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?

Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 02, 2018, 06:06:47 PM
what crimes are you referring to?  How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?

Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.

Do we understand correctly that an investigation to undermine political process is to undo the Trump election?

The investigation is about Russian election interference. Many of Trump's associates were neck-deep in Russian contacts. Manfort is probably the poster child for this. That should be investigated.

For the simple version, see:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/12/01/timeline-events-related-russia-investigation/914959001/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on February 02, 2018, 06:26:36 PM
what crimes are you referring to?  How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?

Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.

Do we understand correctly that an investigation to undermine political process is to undo the Trump election?

The investigation is about Russian election interference. Many of Trump's associates were neck-deep in Russian contacts. Manfort is probably the poster child for this. That should be investigated.

For the simple version, see:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/12/01/timeline-events-related-russia-investigation/914959001/

I need more. US citizens can meet with Russian officials. So now we can only meet with citizens from an acceptable country? I understand that if you are working on behalf of a foreign government in a position to influence US policy you must register and if this is the case then let's start investigating there. What I have an issue with us using the power of the state to go after political opponents. Let's stay in topic and stop trying to gloss over the fact that a political party apparently tried to undermine our system of government by using the power of state as their enforcement mechanism.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 02, 2018, 06:57:37 PM
Let's stay in topic and stop trying to gloss over the fact that a political party apparently tried to undermine our system of government by using the power of state as their enforcement mechanism.

Yes!  That's why we have an investigation!  Trump totally did that! 

Then he continued to do it, by firing one staff member and government official after another that he felt was more loyal to the country and the constitution than to him personally.  He has actively undermined the justice department and the fbi at every turn.  He is systematically tearing down the democratic norms that make America great.  I see that you and I are united in demanding a reckoning.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on February 02, 2018, 07:07:20 PM
Let's stay in topic and stop trying to gloss over the fact that a political party apparently tried to undermine our system of government by using the power of state as their enforcement mechanism.

Yes!  That's why we have an investigation!  Trump totally did that! 

Then he continued to do it, by firing one staff member and government official after another that he felt was more loyal to the country and the constitution than to him personally.  He has actively undermined the justice department and the fbi at every turn.  He is systematically tearing down the democratic norms that make America great.  I see that you and I are united in demanding a reckoning.

Oh. Please explain what he was doing when this information went to the FISA courts. Stop trying to be cutesy, as a supposed federal employee you know the rules. You are arguing something that I am not. When is it okay to use the power of state to go after political rivals? When is that ok?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2018, 08:25:00 PM
what crimes are you referring to?  How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?

Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.

You said we “cannot allow crimes to take place” just to justify and investigation.
I repeat: what crimes are you referring to?
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Mac_MacGyver on February 02, 2018, 08:51:25 PM
what crimes are you referring to?  How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?

Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.

You said we “cannot allow crimes to take place” just to justify and investigation.
I repeat: what crimes are you referring to?
 

Not sure how I can make this more simple. You need evidence of a crime to start an investigation and a political smear campaign is not evidence of a crime. What I have an issue with is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals. Furthermore you are putting in quotes what I did not say, not sure how laws work in Italy if your location is correct but it is a crime to falsify information to a court in the United States. Back To The pOint though, When Is It ok To Use The Power of the state TO Go after Political rivals? Sorry About THe Capital Letters, Its The amazon Fire.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 02, 2018, 09:10:21 PM
what crimes are you referring to?  How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?

Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.

You said we “cannot allow crimes to take place” just to justify and investigation.
I repeat: what crimes are you referring to?
 

Not sure how I can make this more simple. You need evidence of a crime to start an investigation and a political smear campaign is not evidence of a crime. What I have an issue with is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals. Furthermore you are putting in quotes what I did not say, not sure how laws work in Italy if your location is correct but it is a crime to falsify information to a court in the United States. Back To The pOint though, When Is It ok To Use The Power of the state TO Go after Political rivals? Sorry About THe Capital Letters, Its The amazon Fire.

I think nereo is in Canada.

Who is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals? Congress? Trump? Hillary? What proof is there of that occurring?

Remember, there are already 2 guilty pleas from Trump campaign staffers for lying to the FBI about dealings with foreign nationals.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Fireball on February 02, 2018, 09:20:30 PM
Let's stay in topic and stop trying to gloss over the fact that a political party apparently tried to undermine our system of government by using the power of state as their enforcement mechanism.

Yes!  That's why we have an investigation!  Trump totally did that! 

Then he continued to do it, by firing one staff member and government official after another that he felt was more loyal to the country and the constitution than to him personally.  He has actively undermined the justice department and the fbi at every turn.  He is systematically tearing down the democratic norms that make America great.  I see that you and I are united in demanding a reckoning.

When is it okay to use the power of state to go after political rivals? When is that ok?

Do you think this investigation is also inappropriate?

www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/22/doj-scrutiny-opens-door-to-new-uranium-one-investigation.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 03, 2018, 12:19:18 AM
I'm just getting more and more confused about this whole memo thing. 

One of Trump's foreign policy advisors was caught up in a Russian spy ring in 2013 (three people went to prison) and then he went to Russia while working for Trump and gave some anti-American speeches.  The FBI's job is to keep an eye on Americans it thinks might might be working for foreign powers, so they were wiretapping him.  With good reason, it sounds like.

The wiretaps were renewed four times, 90 days apart.  Between the third and fourth renewals, and apparently unrelated, the Steele dossier was made public and Nunes thinks this means the wiretaps were an illegal abuse of power by the FBI.

I just don't get it.  How does it help Trump to admit that another one of his staffers was working for the Russians?  Why does he thinks this protects him? 

Yea, we get it.  Like half of your senior campaign staff were secretly working for the Russians.  Why are you publicly adding names to that list, and blaming democrats?  I used to think the whole memo things was just a PR stunt, and the content of the memo was kind of irrelevant, but instead it looks like the content is actually pretty damning for Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: shuffler on February 03, 2018, 12:47:18 AM
The wiretaps were renewed four times, 90 days apart.  Between the third and fourth renewals, and apparently unrelated, the Steele dossier was made public and Nunes thinks this means the wiretaps were an illegal abuse of power by the FBI.
What does the date of the Steele dossier being made public have to do with anything?

Nunes claims that the Steele dossier and its origins/funding was known to the FBI and was part of the evidence presented in the original FISA application.  Before the dossier was public.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 03, 2018, 01:14:38 AM
The wiretaps were renewed four times, 90 days apart.  Between the third and fourth renewals, and apparently unrelated, the Steele dossier was made public and Nunes thinks this means the wiretaps were an illegal abuse of power by the FBI.
What does the date of the Steele dossier being made public have to do with anything?

Nunes claims that the Steele dossier and its origins/funding was known to the FBI and was part of the evidence presented in the original FISA application.  Before the dossier was public.

Yep, the timeline is important. The dossier was created years after the FBI took an interest in Carter Page, as sol noted. Back when Russian spies were talking about recruiting him.

It's also ironic that the memo, in its effort to counter Russian-Trump connections, mentions Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with officials from...Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 03, 2018, 01:26:00 AM
was part of the evidence presented in the original FISA application.  Before the dossier was public.

Was the FISA warrant before or after he got caught up with the Russian spy ring in 2013 that sent three people to federal prison?

See?  The whole thing is baffling.  Why would he draw attention to this?  Approximately half of his senior was staff was either on the Russian payroll, or had been recruited by Russian spies, or was secretly promoting Russian interests.  Perhaps all three at the same time.  I fail to see what advantage Trump sees in publicizing this problem.  How does this protect him from accusations of collusion with Russia, to publicly add another name to this list?

Maybe it's just like Don Jr releasing the emails that the NY Times was about to release, proving their attempt at collusion?  Like they think it's better to get the bad info out there themselves, rather than having the press report it and being caught apparently red handed?  That's all I can figure, that it's an attempt to get out in front of the story by claiming ownership of it? 

"Yes, my foreign policy adviser was working for the Russians, but it's okay because the FBI was investigating him for being an unregistered foreign agent."  That doesn't exactly seem like it protects Trump from the Russia investigation, that seems to add another count to the indictment. 

Seriously people, how many people in the Trump campaign leadership have to be taking money from the Russians before it's plain that Russia was interfering with the campaign?  You'd think one would be enough.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 03, 2018, 05:09:58 AM
sol, your mistake is that you are using logic logic whereas Trump is using Trump logic.

Trump logic says that most people, most of the time, take what is said to us at face value.  We don't investigate every statement for its underlying logic, partly because we are conditioned as children to accept what adults say to us and tend to keep that as our default, partly because life's too short, partly because it's a fair amount of work to investigate facts fully, partly because unravelling someone else's twisted logic is a difficult intellectual exercise beyond the interest or capacity of most people.

So Trump tells lies.  He knows that a small subset of people in the media will investigate and correct them.  He knows that most people will either eagerly believe what he has said because it accords with their world view or they will casually go along with it because doing anything else is more effort than they are prepared to put in.  Trump hopes that if he tells enough lies he will sufficiently bamboozle enough people that 1) the Republicans in Congress will be able to get away with continuing to support him and 2) there will be a sufficiently large sector of public opinion to allow Republicans to continue to support him, and possibly to enable juries not to convict him, his friends and associates.

Short term, Trump is going to continue lying and obfuscating and to continue getting away with it.  Longer term, my hope is that Mueller will get enough guilty pleas, and enough sufficiently compelling evidence in prosecutions, that a proportion of the previously bamboozled in Congress and the public will reassess their views and swing behind what appears to many of us to be the truth: that Trump conspired with the Russians to affect the public messaging in the 2016 Presidential election and that he has been trying to cover up for that ever since.  If Mueller doesn't, then god help us all because the Trump playbook is the playbook of undemocratic leaders throughout history and all over the world.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 03, 2018, 06:31:23 AM

You said we “cannot allow crimes to take place” just to justify and investigation.
I repeat: what crimes are you referring to?
 

Not sure how I can make this more simple. You need evidence of a crime to start an investigation and a political smear campaign is not evidence of a crime. What I have an issue with is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals. Furthermore you are putting in quotes what I did not say, not sure how laws work in Italy if your location is correct but it is a crime to falsify information to a court in the United States. Back To The pOint though, When Is It ok To Use The Power of the state TO Go after Political rivals? Sorry About THe Capital Letters, Its The amazon Fire.

Your statements are so disjointed I can only come up with two possibilities - either you do not understand the publicly available facts of this dicussion (not entirely surprising, given the level of obstufication going on by multiple parties) or you do understand them but you just don't care.

To clear up a few things first so we can have an actual discussion.
1) I am currently in Canada, but a US citizen.
2) in reference to above, here is the your quote from earlier
Quote
I get it, lots here don t like the president but that does not mean we allow crimes to take place in order to be rid of him. The ends don t justify the means.
.  Several people have asked you which crimes you are referring to, including myself. From what I gather in your response the (a) crime you are talking about is falsifying information to a federal court (in this case FISA).  Ok, let's unpack that this entire statement a bit more

1) There were four FISA warrants issued (three renewals), with the original focusing on Carter Page.  Mr Page has been  has been on the intelligence community's radar since at least 2013. Ergo, the timeline is wrong - it makes no sense to claim that the warrants were issued because of the Steele dossier, as they had already been issued and renewed twice before this time period.
Ironically the latest memo discloses that it was another Trump Advisor - George Papadopoulos - that triggered the FISA warrant on Carter Page, and Papadopoulos has plead guilty for lying to the FBI about his RUssian contacts.

2) regarding the 'Steele dossier' - the complaint here seems to be that it must be rejected out of hand because it was paid for first by a conservative group and then by the HRC campaign. However, who paid for it isn't justification for rejecting what was inside it. Steele was an MI6 intelligence operative - with whom we have an ongoing alliance ("Five Eyes").

3) The idea that political affiliation has 'tainted' the investigation. This line is flawed both in theory and in practice.  For theory - there's no expectation that members of the justice department will share the same political views as the people they are investigating. A 'jury of your peers' does not mean only people who think just like you. Judges sentence people with opposing political views all the time. In practice this line of attack makes even less sense.  Mueller was appointed by a republican (Bush) and is republican himself. Wray was appointed by Trump. Papadopoulos (who triggered the FISA warrants in the first place) was a senior-level Trump campaign staffer. This latest memo shows that at least one of the FISA renewals was approved by Boente, who Trump appointed to temporarily replace acting AG Yates (who he fired). Rosenstein (another republican) was also appointed by Trump.  Sessions (yet another Trump appointee and Republican) recused himself after giving false testimony under oath to congress about previous encounters with Russian operatives (he maintains it was an clerical error, but has not changed his recusal). If anything its noteworthy how many republicans are at the heart of this investigation.

4) undercutting the argument that this is some sort of 'witch hunt' are two grand jury indictments and two guilty pleas. This includes Michael Flynn's guilty plea - Trump's national security advisor & US Army Lt. General. The significance of this should be underplayed for three reasons; i) had Flynn's lawyers believed the case was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct (which ultimately would get the case against him tossed out) its almost inconceivable he would have pled guilty, and ii) this is someone appointed to a cabinet level position by DJT despite warnings from the previous administration and iii) his guilty plea occurred just 7 months into the appointment of Mueller - which is remarkable for its rapidity.  The average duration of special councils is about two years, with many taking far longer.  In all likelihood we are in somewhere in the first quarter of this investigation and we already have these charges and confessions.

To be clear - I maintain that we must 'wait and see' where the evindence goes before condemning more people in the court of public opinion. Many here see so much smoke and conclude there must be a much bigger fire, and that DJT must be at the heart of it - I don't think it is wise to make this leap.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 03, 2018, 12:12:27 PM
Mr Page has been indicted by the special prosecutor
Not yet?  He was "male 1" in the evidence leading to the 2013 spying convictions, though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 03, 2018, 12:19:14 PM
Mr Page has been indicted by the special prosecutor
Not yet?  He was "male 1" in the evidence leading to the 2013 spying convictions, though.

Good catch - updated post to correct.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 03, 2018, 12:34:02 PM
I hope the deep state reveals more of the Trump-Russia collusion
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 06, 2018, 08:37:16 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/just-when-it-seemed-the-gops-nunes-memo-couldnt-look-worse?hl=1&noRedirect=1 (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/just-when-it-seemed-the-gops-nunes-memo-couldnt-look-worse?hl=1&noRedirect=1)

"According to Nunes, the FBI may have notified the court, but the information was in a footnote, so it doesn’t really count. In effect, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has gone from accusing federal law enforcement of withholding pertinent information from a judge to arguing that the pertinent information wasn’t in a large enough font."

Seriously can't make this shit up! In related news the Dem memo is on the President's desk waiting for his approval. Anyone want to wager a guess what the odds of him shooting it down are, since he was so vindicated by the GOP memo, except that he wasn't.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on February 06, 2018, 09:00:27 AM
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 06, 2018, 09:11:47 AM
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.

As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 06, 2018, 09:26:55 AM
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.

As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.

Indeed. I always thought this type of person was just a caricature. Are there really people who defend Nixon even 20 years later? Well, yes, and there will be people in 20 years who think Trump and friends were framed by the "deep state," damn the guilty pleas.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 06, 2018, 09:27:53 AM
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.

As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.

It is fascinating in a very comical and sad way. I do get a chuckle every someone provides the inevitable "what about Hillary-ism" while also using the phrase "smoke and mirrors."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 06, 2018, 10:00:28 AM
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.

Here's a pro tip for life:

Stop watching Sean Hannity.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: zoltani on February 06, 2018, 10:14:40 AM
Russia has been influencing foreign elections for many years now. To think that it "can't happen here" is pretty naive.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 06, 2018, 11:11:30 AM
Russia has been influencing foreign elections for many years now. To think that it "can't happen here" is pretty naive.

Every U.S. intelligence agency agrees - they influenced the 2016 election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: zoltani on February 06, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
Russia is very good at sowing dissent and causing citizens to loose faith in their government. That is their playbook they have been following. Now look at how divided we are, how tribal we are becoming, and the loss of faith in government. Not only did they influence the election but we are still falling for their game everyday. Looking at where Russia has done this in the past the end game does not look good for us.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on February 08, 2018, 08:46:21 AM
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.

Here's a pro tip for life:

Stop watching Sean Hannity.

The problem with that statement is:

CounterPunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08/the-russia-thing/)
The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/)
Spiked Online (
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-russia-frenzy-gripping-washington/19546#.WnxvJ8tME0M)
Caitlyn Johnstone (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857)
Aaron Mate (https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g) (This one is fun because the Russa-gater seems to rage quit.)

All these are left leaning outlets that have no love for Trump, but agree there is no collusion.

Also the point out that you can't ask about Mueller's evidence without:
A. Getting a Gish gallop fallacy about all the evidence.
B. Being accused of being a Putin Puppet, Russian Bot, Troll Farm or Useful idiot.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 08, 2018, 09:02:00 AM
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.

Here's a pro tip for life:

Stop watching Sean Hannity.

The problem with that statement is:

CounterPunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08/the-russia-thing/)
The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/)
Spiked Online (
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-russia-frenzy-gripping-washington/19546#.WnxvJ8tME0M)
Caitlyn Johnstone (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857)
Aaron Mate (https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g) (This one is fun because the Russa-gater seems to rage quit.)

All these are left leaning outlets that have no love for Trump, but agree there is no collusion.

Well, shit. Get rid of Mueller and dismiss the charges! Nothing to see here.

The point is that Sean Hannity is part of the right echo chamber. Your cherry-picked articles are not part of the left echo chamber (wtf is Caitlin Johnstone?). You need to mention Maddow and the Fire book and probably MSNBC for the same effect.

Quote
Also the point out that you can't ask about Mueller's evidence without:
A. Getting a Gish gallop fallacy about all the evidence.
B. Being accused of being a Putin Puppet, Russian Bot, Troll Farm or Useful idiot.

C. Wondering how you know about the Mueller team's evidence. Are you privy to the investigation?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on February 08, 2018, 09:19:41 AM
And just for the record:


The problem with that statement is:

CounterPunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08/the-russia-thing/)
The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/)
Spiked Online (
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-russia-frenzy-gripping-washington/19546#.WnxvJ8tME0M)
Caitlyn Johnstone (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857)
Aaron Mate (https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g) (This one is fun because the Russa-gater seems to rage quit.)

All these are left leaning outlets that have no love for Trump, but agree there is no collusion.


Only got through the first three and I absolutely agree that irresponsible media outlets are aggressively speculating with every little piece of new evidence, sometimes before it's even substantiated. This will inevitably lead to further distrust of the media. But they absolutely did NOT say there is no collusion. So to recap:

Counterpunch - You read between the lines to see what you wanted to see
Intercept - You read between the lines to see what you wanted to see
Spiked - Right biased source and the article was published 3/10/2017 and did not claim there was no collusion, only that the accusations were baseless. in early 2017. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiked-magazine/ (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiked-magazine/)

I did not check your last 2 sources.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on February 08, 2018, 11:27:09 AM
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.

Here's a pro tip for life:

Stop watching Sean Hannity.

The problem with that statement is:

CounterPunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08/the-russia-thing/)
The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/)
Spiked Online (
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-russia-frenzy-gripping-washington/19546#.WnxvJ8tME0M)
Caitlyn Johnstone (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857)
Aaron Mate (https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g) (This one is fun because the Russa-gater seems to rage quit.)

All these are left leaning outlets that have no love for Trump, but agree there is no collusion.

Well, shit. Get rid of Mueller and dismiss the charges! Nothing to see here.

The point is that Sean Hannity is part of the right echo chamber. Your cherry-picked articles are not part of the left echo chamber (wtf is Caitlin Johnstone?). You need to mention Maddow and the Fire book and probably MSNBC for the same effect.

Quote
Also the point out that you can't ask about Mueller's evidence without:
A. Getting a Gish gallop fallacy about all the evidence.
B. Being accused of being a Putin Puppet, Russian Bot, Troll Farm or Useful idiot.

C. Wondering how you know about the Mueller team's evidence. Are you privy to the investigation?

I find it odd that liberals are agreeing with right wing people.

I'm not privy to the investigation. I just find the blind trust in our intelligence services disturbing.

As for the second guy, I was in a bit of a rush. So here are more articles.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/23/the-increasingly-unhinged-russia-rhetoric-comes-from-a-long-standing-u-s-playbook/

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/

There is more but I ran out of time again.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 08, 2018, 05:45:26 PM
I find it odd that liberals are agreeing with right wing people.

It happens. I find it odd that conservatives are agreeing with left wing people.

Senators John McCain, Flake, and Graham, among others

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/

etc.

Quote
I'm not privy to the investigation. I just find the blind trust in our intelligence services disturbing.

Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians before Trump took office. Michael Flynn wasn't some junior Trump staffer in Tulsa; he was the National Security Advisor.

Papadopoulos tried to arrange a meeting between Trump, the then Republican nominee, and Putin, the Russian dictator President. He emailed Manafort and Lewandowski and attended a meeting with Trump where he mentioned his connections and attempts. He also pled guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russian officials.

Given the above, a far more relevant question is, why do Trumpians have such blind faith that there aren't more skeletons in the closet?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 08, 2018, 06:05:37 PM
Quote
Given the above, a far more relevant question is, why do Trumpians have such blind faith that there aren't more skeletons in the closet?
Perhaps an even more basic question would be: how can anyone qualitatively state that the entire investigation has been a sham?

Maybe all the bad fruit has already fallen from the tree.  Maybe not.  But the National Security Advisor - a Lt General - plead guilty and was forced out of his post.  That would rank among the top scandals just about any other year.  Yet somehow people still question whether the investigation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Norioch on February 08, 2018, 06:22:08 PM
Not sure how I can make this more simple. You need evidence of a crime to start an investigation and a political smear campaign is not evidence of a crime. What I have an issue with is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals.

Even if you dismiss the Steele Dossier as "a political smear campaign" as if the fact that it was partially funded by political rivals (both Democrat and Republican) immediately means that everything in it is false (even though many of its allegations have already been independently verified by other sources!), the investigation was already well underway before the FISA renewal in question, so the investigation was not *started* as a result of the Dossier. And it's just baffling to see the claim that the purpose of the investigation is "to prosecute polical rivals". Mueller is a Republican, Rosenstein is a Republican, and James Comey was a Republican for most of is life (now unaffiliated, but never a Democrat). Why would they be Trump's political rivals? Isn't it possible that the purpose of the investigation is to actually expose real crimes?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on February 09, 2018, 04:38:09 AM
I find it odd that liberals are agreeing with right wing people.

It happens. I find it odd that conservatives are agreeing with left wing people.

Senators John McCain, Flake, and Graham, among others

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/

etc.

Quote
I'm not privy to the investigation. I just find the blind trust in our intelligence services disturbing.

Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians before Trump took office. Michael Flynn wasn't some junior Trump staffer in Tulsa; he was the National Security Advisor.

Papadopoulos tried to arrange a meeting between Trump, the then Republican nominee, and Putin, the Russian dictator President. He emailed Manafort and Lewandowski and attended a meeting with Trump where he mentioned his connections and attempts. He also pled guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russian officials.

Given the above, a far more relevant question is, why do Trumpians have such blind faith that there aren't more skeletons in the closet?

Flynn was trying to influence Russians. And was actually paid by Turkish officials.

"According to prosecutors, on Dec. 22, Mr. Flynn discussed with Mr. Kislyak an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter."(https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html?referer=https://t.co/VLw3wOLCCG)

I meant to say independent journalists keep find holes in the story. (I was in bit of a rush.)

Post Iraq War our intelligence services shouldn't be able to say "we have evidence" and use that "evidence" to raise tensions with a nuclear power. Why are we making decisions based on evidence we haven't seen.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 09, 2018, 09:46:08 AM
I find it odd that liberals are agreeing with right wing people.

It happens. I find it odd that conservatives are agreeing with left wing people.

Senators John McCain, Flake, and Graham, among others

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/

etc.

Quote
I'm not privy to the investigation. I just find the blind trust in our intelligence services disturbing.

Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians before Trump took office. Michael Flynn wasn't some junior Trump staffer in Tulsa; he was the National Security Advisor.

Papadopoulos tried to arrange a meeting between Trump, the then Republican nominee, and Putin, the Russian dictator President. He emailed Manafort and Lewandowski and attended a meeting with Trump where he mentioned his connections and attempts. He also pled guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russian officials.

Given the above, a far more relevant question is, why do Trumpians have such blind faith that there aren't more skeletons in the closet?

Flynn was trying to influence Russians. And was actually paid by Turkish officials.

"According to prosecutors, on Dec. 22, Mr. Flynn discussed with Mr. Kislyak an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter."(https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html?referer=https://t.co/VLw3wOLCCG)

I meant to say independent journalists keep find holes in the story. (I was in bit of a rush.)

Post Iraq War our intelligence services shouldn't be able to say "we have evidence" and use that "evidence" to raise tensions with a nuclear power. Why are we making decisions based on evidence we haven't seen.

Flynn did not register as a foreign agent beginning with his Turkey work. He did not register until well into 2017. This seems difficult to pass off as ignorance given his prior positions in the military and government.

Flynn straight up lied to the FBI about contacts with the Russians including both the Israel issue above and later pre-inauguration discussions with the Russians directly relating to sanctions imposed by the Obama administration (in response to Russian election meddling fittingly enough). Again, "Oops, I forgot." is a bit tough to swallow here. Do either of these things, in a vacuum, prove collusion? Of course not. However, trying to paint Flynn as an innocent who was just working for Turkey (Erdogan is no saint, by the way) is a misleading portrait of his actions.

Detailed timeline at:
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/michael-flynns-russia-timeline/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: acroy on February 09, 2018, 11:16:28 AM
As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.

Here's a pro tip for life:

Stop watching Sean Hannity.
So all you've got in response to things you don't like is to throw shade at me personally? You gotta do what you gotta do, hope you feel better, and it helps you move on from the 'Denial/Anger' stages of grief. Life Happiness Tip: stop watching MSM, they teach the arts of bias, personal insults and snark, not things to be proud of. Learn how to read and determine facts from opinion - the two are so easily confused.

Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia

*crickets*

Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.
As far as I can see the 'rest' of Russiagate is easily-spun conjecture, largely spun by triggered, hateful MSM. You'll see what you want to see. "Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." That's what I'm trying to do here, and I'll probably fail, people seem pretty invested in their opinion.

In the meantime, this is rapidly turning into Obamagate. Who knew and did what when in the O admin? Why are the swamp creatures suddenly so worried about facts coming to light? The same swamp creatures who claimed there was 'no scenario' Trump could win, his chance of winning is 'the Easter Bunny, doesn't exist' etc etc. And then he won, and 'their world ended'. Seldom have they been more wrong and never has it felt so good.

I'm glad O is gone and richer too. May the trend continue!
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367972-the-link-between-obamas-departure-and-your-increasing-wealth
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 09, 2018, 11:42:50 AM
Acroy, let's say your kid is going to a school.  A couple close drinking buddies of the teacher of your kid have turned out to be a pedophiles and arrested.  The teacher in the room next to your teacher has turned out to be a pedophile and was indicted.  The teaching assistant in your kid's classroom has turned out to be a pedophile and was indicted.  There's an ongoing investigation into the teacher of your kid.

Would you be telling all your fellow parents to move on and stop worrying?  Would you be arguing that the investigation was biased?  Would you still send your kid to the school?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 09, 2018, 11:57:51 AM
I'm glad O is gone and richer too. May the trend continue!
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367972-the-link-between-obamas-departure-and-your-increasing-wealth

The fact that you think the President, in less than 13 months in office, has much of an impact on GDP, job growth, or the stock market tells me all I need to know about how little you understand about the correlation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 09, 2018, 12:06:41 PM

Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia

*crickets*

Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.

The relevant facts that you are missing is that all four people you mentioned actively worked for the Trump campaign, and one of the two who pleaded guilty was appointed by Trump to an executive-level cabinet position after the election.  That's huge regardless of whether this is all there is, or whether more indictments are forthcoming. That investigation has already proven it has merit.

The other relevant fact that you are ignoring is that there was state-sponsored Russian interference in our election.  This has been confirmed by basically every intelligence agency we have, under oath and in public hearings. Whether there was willing cooperation on the US side is under investigation. It seems beyond bizarre to suggest that we shouldn't even investigate. That's what your so-called 'Russiagate' is; an investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

Finally I'll just reiterate how incredibly fast all of this has happened from a legal standpoint. In just over 7 months we have two guilty pleas and two convictions. It did not take very long as all to find criminal behavior that a grand-jury found prosecutable. Based on all other previous special investigations we can expect this to go on for at least another 18 months, probably longer.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on February 09, 2018, 12:06:55 PM
As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.

Here's a pro tip for life:

Stop watching Sean Hannity.
So all you've got in response to things you don't like is to throw shade at me personally? You gotta do what you gotta do, hope you feel better, and it helps you move on from the 'Denial/Anger' stages of grief. Life Happiness Tip: stop watching MSM, they teach the arts of bias, personal insults and snark, not things to be proud of. Learn how to read and determine facts from opinion - the two are so easily confused.

Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia

*crickets*

Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.
As far as I can see the 'rest' of Russiagate is easily-spun conjecture, largely spun by triggered, hateful MSM. You'll see what you want to see. "Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." That's what I'm trying to do here, and I'll probably fail, people seem pretty invested in their opinion.

In the meantime, this is rapidly turning into Obamagate. Who knew and did what when in the O admin? Why are the swamp creatures suddenly so worried about facts coming to light? The same swamp creatures who claimed there was 'no scenario' Trump could win, his chance of winning is 'the Easter Bunny, doesn't exist' etc etc. And then he won, and 'their world ended'. Seldom have they been more wrong and never has it felt so good.

I'm glad O is gone and richer too. May the trend continue!
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367972-the-link-between-obamas-departure-and-your-increasing-wealth

Actually there's been about a thousand other responses which you either deny or ignore, that's the fascinating part.

Those charged held prominent roles in Trump's campaign so yes there is a connection between Trump and Russia even if there is no proof of his personal guilt. But maybe that's where the big misunderstanding lies. Are you under the impression that this investigation is to prove Trump broke the law?

You have supported the notion that the entire investigation is a political witch hunt and yet it has uncovered considerable wrongdoing by those within the campaign and who were active members of Trump's administration.

If the Whitehouse was being run like a business (which is what a lot of Trump voters think would be great) management would be responsible for the actions of their subordinates even if they were entirely unaware of their employees' illegal actions. It implies that management has poor judgment and failed to conduct due diligence in hiring them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: the_gastropod on February 09, 2018, 12:18:57 PM
Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia

I feel like you've already taken a bit of flack for this. But I'd like to add one more important point: these were *plea bargains*. Aka, they're guilty of more than their charges indicate. They also have information Mueller deems valuable enough to give them such bargains. It's pretty unbelievable you think this investigation is a witch hunt.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Norioch on February 09, 2018, 01:53:41 PM
Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia

*crickets*

Trump Jr. has already publicly released emails admitting that he tried to conspire with the Russian government to get opp research on Hilary, which is a violation of 52 U.S. Code Section 30121. He admitted to it.

Trump Sr. has already stated publicly on national television that the reason he fired Comey was to stop the Russia investigation. That's obstruction of justice. He admitted to it.

There have been four indictments and two guilty pleas already, after seven months of investigation. The reason Trump Jr. and Trump Sr. yet haven't been indicted yet is because the investigation is ongoing, which means there's still potentially more we don't know about that they might be guilty of. It is *absurd* to just dismiss all this as "nothing to see here", and you're either being horribly disingenuous or horribly deceived if you say that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 09, 2018, 08:46:59 PM
Trump will not declassify the Democtic memo, after releasing the Republican one.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-won-t-declassify-democratic-memo-russia-probe-n846551

I mean, it’s not like we didn’t know it already, but this is just one more reminder: Trump has no shame, no morals, and no ethics. There is no bottom to what he will do.

Buckle up, buttercups.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 10, 2018, 05:56:43 AM
Anyone watch Dirty Money on Netflix? Somewhat on/off topic. 6 episodes ranging from the VW scandal to HSBC money laundering for cartels/terrorist and the last episode is called The Confidence Man and it's about Trump's business empire. All the episodes were great. I highly advise to watch them all. It only solidified a lot of what I already know (I did learn some new things).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 10, 2018, 09:54:56 AM
Anyone watch Dirty Money on Netflix? Somewhat on/off topic. 6 episodes ranging from the VW scandal to HSBC money laundering for cartels/terrorist and the last episode is called The Confidence Man and it's about Trump's business empire. All the episodes were great. I highly advise to watch them all. It only solidified a lot of what I already know (I did learn some new things).

Yes! HSBC, Valeant, Scott Tucker and the Trump episodes were eye popping.  I mean, much of the Trump and HSBC stories I already knew, but to see the pieces put together in one coherent episode - well it was unsettling.

I'm not sure that people who voted for trump will appreciate that final slow pan over the faces of mesmerized Trump/Apprentice fans.

These episodes left me looking at the progressive movement as our only viable way out of these messes. Once they're in office, constitutional amendment to get money out of politics, declare corporations aren't people, etc. (I don't want anyone to send me any stupid d'souza docs about how some early 'progressives' were fascists - IDGAF). 

Any industry that is a public good shouldn't be allowed to organize as a for-profit. Non-profits can compensate workers well enough, and they don't require management to pursue anti-human projects for short term profits and growth.

Did you catch that Power Lunch segment during the Valeant episode?  It was like a intro to a WWF match. This is what for-profit 'news' looks like. 

Quote
"An explosion of M&A action in big pharma that is our big story and we've got every angle covered for ya!!! Top gun activist investor Bill Ackman, teaming up with VALEANT, Canadian drug company to bid for the botox maker ALLERGAN! WE call it PhARmaPaLOozA what does it mean for you? This, folks, is POWER LUNCH, And this, Sue, is your pOweR LuNCh on drUGs!!!!!!

I about fell out of my chair.  People WATCH that bullshit?  They think it's 'journalism'????   This is FOR-PROFIT SHOW BUSINESS - and shitty show business at that.

Consumer banking, news, healthcare,... any industry with regular decision points pitting people against profits, should not be for-profit.  Political campaigns too-they should rely on public funding, not on corporate / private donations- WTF do people expect?  As it is, for-profit corporations regularly engage in disinformation campaigns to keep us confused and thus,keep us buying their products. Just as corporate sponsored politicians engage in disinformation campaigns to keep us enraged and voting against the evil strawmen they draw in our minds on the for-profit news outlets day in and day out.

I cannot believe the bullshit we're living through these days.  And as far as I can tell it's all because we're A) children of the television age and 2) we've been conditioned to glorify unfettered capitalism - "the less 'evil regulation' the better" - and support it without question. Who are the biggest modern day capitalists of them all?  Russian oligarchs and Putin.  It makes sense that many die hard libertarians are totes down with Russia Today (double meaning intended).

/rant over.

MasterStache you brought out some rage leading me to think about those episodes again. I cannot believe the outcomes. It's just ... ugly.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Fireball on February 10, 2018, 11:43:12 AM
Anyone watch Dirty Money on Netflix? Somewhat on/off topic. 6 episodes ranging from the VW scandal to HSBC money laundering for cartels/terrorist and the last episode is called The Confidence Man and it's about Trump's business empire. All the episodes were great. I highly advise to watch them all. It only solidified a lot of what I already know (I did learn some new things).

Just started last night with the VW episode. It never ceases to amaze me how trusting that some people are with the business sector. VW, Philip Morris, Big Oil, etc have proven time and time again that profit is way more important than people's lives.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on February 10, 2018, 11:54:51 AM

Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia

*crickets*

Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.

The relevant facts that you are missing is that all four people you mentioned actively worked for the Trump campaign, and one of the two who pleaded guilty was appointed by Trump to an executive-level cabinet position after the election.  That's huge regardless of whether this is all there is, or whether more indictments are forthcoming. That investigation has already proven it has merit.

The other relevant fact that you are ignoring is that there was state-sponsored Russian interference in our election.  This has been confirmed by basically every intelligence agency we have, under oath and in public hearings. Whether there was willing cooperation on the US side is under investigation. It seems beyond bizarre to suggest that we shouldn't even investigate. That's what your so-called 'Russiagate' is; an investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

Finally I'll just reiterate how incredibly fast all of this has happened from a legal standpoint. In just over 7 months we have two guilty pleas and two convictions. It did not take very long as all to find criminal behavior that a grand-jury found prosecutable. Based on all other previous special investigations we can expect this to go on for at least another 18 months, probably longer.

Yes. The argument about "we've seen no collusion, this is a sham, and the whole investigation needs to be called off" is like police getting a search warrant for heroin in a house.  They enter the front door into the living room and see four bundles of cocaine in plain view and seize them. There's no evidence of heroin, though - so the whole thing is a sham, right?  No need to search the rest of the house...obviously it was a scam from the start.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 10, 2018, 02:34:53 PM
Anyone watch Dirty Money on Netflix? Somewhat on/off topic. 6 episodes ranging from the VW scandal to HSBC money laundering for cartels/terrorist and the last episode is called The Confidence Man and it's about Trump's business empire. All the episodes were great. I highly advise to watch them all. It only solidified a lot of what I already know (I did learn some new things).

Yes! HSBC, Valeant, Scott Tucker and the Trump episodes were eye popping.  I mean, much of the Trump and HSBC stories I already knew, but to see the pieces put together in one coherent episode - well it was unsettling.

I'm not sure that people who voted for trump will appreciate that final slow pan over the faces of mesmerized Trump/Apprentice fans.

These episodes left me looking at the progressive movement as our only viable way out of these messes. Once they're in office, constitutional amendment to get money out of politics, declare corporations aren't people, etc. (I don't want anyone to send me any stupid d'souza docs about how some early 'progressives' were fascists - IDGAF). 

Any industry that is a public good shouldn't be allowed to organize as a for-profit. Non-profits can compensate workers well enough, and they don't require management to pursue anti-human projects for short term profits and growth.

Did you catch that Power Lunch segment during the Valeant episode?  It was like a intro to a WWF match. This is what for-profit 'news' looks like. 

Quote
"An explosion of M&A action in big pharma that is our big story and we've got every angle covered for ya!!! Top gun activist investor Bill Ackman, teaming up with VALEANT, Canadian drug company to bid for the botox maker ALLERGAN! WE call it PhARmaPaLOozA what does it mean for you? This, folks, is POWER LUNCH, And this, Sue, is your pOweR LuNCh on drUGs!!!!!!

I about fell out of my chair.  People WATCH that bullshit?  They think it's 'journalism'????   This is FOR-PROFIT SHOW BUSINESS - and shitty show business at that.

Consumer banking, news, healthcare,... any industry with regular decision points pitting people against profits, should not be for-profit.  Political campaigns too-they should rely on public funding, not on corporate / private donations- WTF do people expect?  As it is, for-profit corporations regularly engage in disinformation campaigns to keep us confused and thus,keep us buying their products. Just as corporate sponsored politicians engage in disinformation campaigns to keep us enraged and voting against the evil strawmen they draw in our minds on the for-profit news outlets day in and day out.

I cannot believe the bullshit we're living through these days.  And as far as I can tell it's all because we're A) children of the television age and 2) we've been conditioned to glorify unfettered capitalism - "the less 'evil regulation' the better" - and support it without question. Who are the biggest modern day capitalists of them all?  Russian oligarchs and Putin.  It makes sense that many die hard libertarians are totes down with Russia Today (double meaning intended).

/rant over.

MasterStache you brought out some rage leading me to think about those episodes again. I cannot believe the outcomes. It's just ... ugly.

Yep, moral of the story, you can have enough money to be above the law. The HSBC story I didn't know much about. A bank that went out of its way to hide money laundering for drug cartels further enabling the slaughter of tens of thousands of folks. And they get a slap on the wrist for it because "think of innocent people that would lose their jobs." The race car driver sobbing and blaming the government because him and his brother swindled millions from poor folks. He deserved what he got. Trump was probably the least surprising. I mean I already knew he was a compulsive liar and absolutely horrible businessman (which is why I crack up when folks say he is a great negotiator/businessman). No he is not. He is fucking horrible. He was so bad he started doing business with shady folks in other countries. Yep Russia included.

I will never buy a Volkswagen, never bank with HSBC, and absolutely never support any man/women with the shady moral and ethical character equivalent to Trump.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 16, 2018, 02:24:44 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump

Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was.  Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB.  Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 16, 2018, 02:26:52 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020776/russian-indictments-robert-mueller

The full indictment.  It's worth the 20+ minutes to read the whole thing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on February 16, 2018, 02:37:41 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump

Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was.  Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB.  Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.

This is nonsensical to me. Are you saying that it's Democrats' fault for nominating someone that the Russians hated?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 16, 2018, 02:53:29 PM
There was no Russian interference!
Russia is no worse than the US at interfering in elections!
"Russiagate" is a sham inventend by the left!
Russia may have interfered, but they did not support any particular candidate!
Ok, Russia supported DJT, but there's no proof it influenced anyone's vote

... what will be said next to discredit the validity of the special investigation?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 16, 2018, 03:26:36 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump

Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was.  Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB.  Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.

This is nonsensical to me. Are you saying that it's Democrats' fault for nominating someone that the Russiansliterally everyone but some Democrats hated?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 16, 2018, 03:51:43 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump

Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was.  Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB.  Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.

This is nonsensical to me. Are you saying that it's Democrats' fault for nominating someone that the Russiansliterally everyone but some Democrats hated?

Yes somehow she managed to win the popular vote. Yes she didn't energize as many traditional voters that Democrats often count on, working class whites for example, who believed Trump was such a great businessman.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on February 16, 2018, 03:58:36 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020776/russian-indictments-robert-mueller

The full indictment.  It's worth the 20+ minutes to read the whole thing.
Yes, thanks.

Russia indictments: What Mueller’s new charges mean, and don’t mean - Vox (https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020966/russia-indictments-mueller-internet-research-agency) (and links therein) seems a good summary.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on February 16, 2018, 04:02:12 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump

Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was.  Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB.  Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.

This is nonsensical to me. Are you saying that it's Democrats' fault for nominating someone that the Russiansliterally everyone but some Democrats hated?

No-place the blame where it belongs. It's the fault of the people who voted for Trump and the fault of the people who didn't bother to vote.   

Honestly, I wonder how many Trump voters I even know.  It would be social suicide in my area, but there may be some silent ones lurking.  I'm making a play to get nonvoters engaged this year.  It's a big group of people.



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 16, 2018, 04:06:31 PM
I know a lot of Trump voters here in Michigan, and some of them are my friends. We just agree to disagree, but I don't mind engaging them in friendly discussions about the issues. It's especially curious that some of them need Obamacare subsidies and have voted against their own interests.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 16, 2018, 04:16:39 PM
I know a lot of Trump voters here in Michigan, and some of them are my friends. We just agree to disagree, but I don't mind engaging them in friendly discussions about the issues. It's especially curious that some of them need Obamacare subsidies and have voted against their own interests.

I have a few of them in my family, and I know many more in New England. Broadly speaking I mostly see them in one of three camps (some belong to more than one)
:
1) republicans who's party is a core part of their identity. Mostly these people supported someone else in the primaries and couldn't vote for a non-republican. Note this is true of Democrats as well.

2) people who hated HRC. To them the well was poisoned long before she wrapped up the nomination, and absolutely nothing could bring them to support her.

3) those who feel/felt the recovery had passed them by and/or the government didn't adequitly represent them. I honestly sympahtize a lot with these people, and I can get why they chose to back someone who promised to blow it all up. when you feel like you are forgotten anyone who claims to listen (no matter how unlikely their promises or how sincere they may be) can seem better than the status quo.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 16, 2018, 08:56:01 PM
Yes I know some in categories 1 and 2
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 20, 2018, 09:35:04 AM
There's another guilty plea. Van Der Zwaan, a lawyer, lied to the FBI about meeting Rick Gates and the Ukrainians and "Person A."

Kushner is also getting special attention from Mueller.

Quote
Special counsel Robert Mueller's interest in Jared Kushner has expanded beyond his contacts with Russia and now includes his efforts to secure financing for his company from foreign investors during the presidential transition, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/mueller-investigation-kushner-foreign-financing-efforts/index.html

It'll be fascinating to see how that plays out re:a pardon and forced testimony (or state charges).*


I assume that Trump campaign staffers will stop lying to the FBI at any time as three have flipped. I also suspect that Kushner has been caught lying but Mueller is looking for additional charges.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on February 21, 2018, 07:48:02 AM
Quote
There's another guilty plea. Van Der Zwaan, a lawyer, lied to the FBI about meeting Rick Gates and the Ukrainians and "Person A."

Van Der Zwaan is an interesting catch. His father-in-law is German Khan, "is an owner of Alfa Group, Russia’s largest financial and industrial investment group" with close ties to Putin. Aside from that, Alfa Group was involved in a strange situation where one of their servers kept pinging one in Trump Tower. So far there is no conclusion about the nature of the communication, but it's an interesting coincidence, and all of it adds another thread to the web of connections.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/alex-van-der-zwaan-gates-russia-mueller.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/alex-van-der-zwaan-gates-russia-mueller.html)
2. https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/30/politics/full-us-list-of-russian-oligarchs-with-putin-ties-intl/index.htm (https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/30/politics/full-us-list-of-russian-oligarchs-with-putin-ties-intl/index.htm)l
3. https://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/ (https://www.snopes.com/trump-server-tied-to-russian-bank/)
4. https://www.gq.com/story/how-muellers-latest-indictment-relates-to-the-steele-dossier (https://www.gq.com/story/how-muellers-latest-indictment-relates-to-the-steele-dossier)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 21, 2018, 09:55:07 AM
http://www.euronews.com/2018/02/21/trump-russia-investigation-lawyer-becomes-19th-person-charged-pleads-guilty

The night is dark and full of indictments.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 21, 2018, 02:07:23 PM
Van Der Zwaan is an interesting catch. His father-in-law is German Khan, "is an owner of Alfa Group, Russia’s largest financial and industrial investment group" with close ties to Putin.

I didn't realize that.

Trump's retinue is like a college apartment with 3 messy roommates -- you can't turn around without a (Russian linked) roach scurrying away.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on February 22, 2018, 09:57:05 AM
Quote
Trump's retinue is like a college apartment with 3 messy roommates -- you can't turn around without a (Russian linked) roach scurrying away.

I went down a Reddit comment thread rabbit hole (so take it with a grain of salt) about Van Der Zwaan's guilty plea and I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look! It's tough to say the level of cooperation between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, but there was clearly an independent influence campaign (as spelled out by the Intelligence community), and a lot of contact (and subsequent lying about it) between members of the Trump campaign and Russians with ties to Putin.

I honestly think this all stems from Trump's ties to less-than-reputable sources of international financing (since he can't get anything out of U.S. banks because of his bankruptcy history in the 80s and 90s) and alleged money laundering related to his casinos and real estate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 22, 2018, 10:09:09 AM
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!

Just to throw another log on that fire...  Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries.  The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 22, 2018, 10:22:11 AM
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!

Just to throw another log on that fire...  Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries.  The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.
First and third, I think, and the shortest marriage in the middle was to the American born wife.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on February 22, 2018, 11:09:40 AM
(https://i.imgflip.com/253hyb.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/253hyb)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 22, 2018, 11:43:31 AM
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!

Just to throw another log on that fire...  Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries.  The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.

Unlimited interest free loans with "no strings attached"?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 22, 2018, 03:26:24 PM
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!

Just to throw another log on that fire...  Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries.  The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.

Unlimited interest free loans with "no strings attached"?

"there is definitely nothing in the fine print worth reading.  sign here!"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 22, 2018, 09:33:10 PM
The last episode of the WNYC podcast on Trump, about "alternative financing", has a good theory on sol's questions:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/trumpinc

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 22, 2018, 09:48:47 PM
The last episode of the WNYC podcast on Trump, about "alternative financing", has a good theory on sol's questions:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/trumpinc

Can you provide cliff notes for us?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 22, 2018, 09:53:37 PM
The last episode of the WNYC podcast on Trump, about "alternative financing", has a good theory on sol's questions:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/trumpinc

Can you provide cliff notes for us?
Sure. The gist is that Trump seems to have been laundering Russian money through condos in questionable markets for years, as a way to get just enough money to convince others to give him more financing.

I'll let you take a listen (it's not that long) to see how they reached that conclusion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 22, 2018, 10:40:10 PM
Gates may be pleading guilty soon. He's under indictment on new charges of money laundering and fraud during the campaign (vs years before) and felt the pressure.

http://fox8.com/2018/02/22/new-charges-against-ex-trump-campaign-associates-paul-manafort-and-rick-gates/amp/

This sentence from the indictment strikes me as...amusing. In a future indictment, it's possible the name could simply be substituted.*

Quote from: DOJ
In furtherance of  the scheme, MANAFORT used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States, without paying taxes on that income.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1038391/download


* indictment.replace("MANAFORT", "KUSHNER")
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 22, 2018, 11:45:20 PM
Gates may be pleading guilty soon. He's under indictment on new charges of money laundering and fraud during the campaign (vs years before) and felt the pressure.

I was actually kind of worried to see the news of the new indictments, because it means they're bringing charges instead of working a deal.  If he was being fully cooperative with the investigation, and giving them everything they wanted, they shouldn't need new charges.  Bringing new charges probably means the Mueller team is pissed, because this is them using their leverage against him.  I'd much rather see all mention of the charges against Gates and Manafort go quiet.

I really really hope that Donald Trump is just an idiot who is being played by the Russians instead of being a Russian mole turned wildly successful.  I hope he's a narcissistic grifter who is so insecure that he only cares about maintaining the illusion of wealth, and so took deals with the Russians and the mafia to finance his brand and not because he actually hates America and wants to tear it all down.  I hope that his campaign staff were bought and paid for by the Russian government, instead of being true believers, and can thus be bought back.  I hope that his affection for Soviet women is just a weirdly coincidental personal fetish, and not a sign of his affection for Mother Russia.  I hope that his pro-Russia positions during the campaign were just poorly conceived rally lines designed to get crowd reactions, and are not reflective of an underlying affinity for the actual ideas he has espoused.  I hope his plutocratic tendencies are genuinely homegrown American Reaganism style excesses, and not taught to him by Russian oligarchs.  I hope, but I also fear.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 23, 2018, 02:47:14 AM
Gates may be pleading guilty soon. He's under indictment on new charges of money laundering and fraud during the campaign (vs years before) and felt the pressure.

I was actually kind of worried to see the news of the new indictments, because it means they're bringing charges instead of working a deal.  If he was being fully cooperative with the investigation, and giving them everything they wanted, they shouldn't need new charges.  Bringing new charges probably means the Mueller team is pissed, because this is them using their leverage against him.  I'd much rather see all mention of the charges against Gates and Manafort go quiet.

I really really hope that Donald Trump is just an idiot who is being played by the Russians instead of being a Russian mole turned wildly successful.  I hope he's a narcissistic grifter who is so insecure that he only cares about maintaining the illusion of wealth, and so took deals with the Russians and the mafia to finance his brand and not because he actually hates America and wants to tear it all down.  I hope that his campaign staff were bought and paid for by the Russian government, instead of being true believers, and can thus be bought back.  I hope that his affection for Soviet women is just a weirdly coincidental personal fetish, and not a sign of his affection for Mother Russia.  I hope that his pro-Russia positions during the campaign were just poorly conceived rally lines designed to get crowd reactions, and are not reflective of an underlying affinity for the actual ideas he has espoused.  I hope his plutocratic tendencies are genuinely homegrown American Reaganism style excesses, and not taught to him by Russian oligarchs.  I hope, but I also fear.
I've seen it speculated that Gates, and possibly Manafort, don't have enough good information to give up on Trump in order to do a deal.  That seems to me to be quite likely: both of them only came in to the Trump orbit during 2016, and the Russians had their (financial, and possibly sexual) hooks into Trump long before that.   Manafort left during the campaign, and Gates before Trump took office so any major crimes in office are out of their knowledge too.  I suspect that they were put in place by the Russians (get close to Trump and we'll forget the money you owe us) as a further channel of control.  They might have some knowledge of electoral collusion, I suppose, but without proof to offer Mueller he's probably just going to set them up as an awful warning to others who might have more knowledge.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 23, 2018, 05:43:00 AM
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!

Just to throw another log on that fire...  Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries.  The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.

Unlimited interest free loans with "no strings attached"?

You are more right than you know. Once US banks ceased funding Trump's shoddy business dealings in the US (again I emphasize Trump is an absolutely terrible businessman, and the fact that American banks refuse to give him more money is absolute proof), he sought it elsewhere. Russia happens to be one of those International countries where Trump decided to do businesses. They were more than happy to throw money at him. In interviews with those very close to him they explain that he never really cared who those folks were, what there dealings were, or even how they provided the money to him. He was so money hungry that he literally didn't care about the fine print. That attitude seems to run in the family.

Weather he colluded or not is actually irrelevant to me. The fact that Russia has leverage on the POTUS is much more concerning. And I don't think Trump cares much about being impeached. He cares MUCH more about losing his businesses, and thus the appearance that he is uber successful, ultra-rich, and the best negotiator on the planet. A lot of folks voted for him purely based on this facade.

It's not surprising that he has surrounded himself by those with Russian ties, Russian influence, etc. It's all part of his business. Now that he is President, the Russians couldn't be more pleased. And Trump just passed himself some huge tax breaks. It's a win-win for both.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on February 23, 2018, 07:13:15 AM
Quote
Once US banks ceased funding Trump's shoddy business dealings in the US (again I emphasize Trump is an absolutely terrible businessman, and the fact that American banks refuse to give him more money is absolute proof), he sought it elsewhere.

Adam Davidson wrote two really good articles for The New Yorker last year detailing two corrupt hotel deals by the Trump organization in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Some highlights:

From "Trump's Business of Corruption": One foreign deal, a stalled 2011 plan to build a Trump Tower in Batumi, a city on the Black Sea in the Republic of Georgia, has not received much journalistic attention. But the deal, for which Trump was reportedly paid a million dollars, involved unorthodox financial practices that several experts described to me as “red flags” for bank fraud and money laundering; moreover, it intertwined his company with a Kazakh oligarch who has direct links to Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin. As a result, Putin and his security services have access to information that could put them in a position to blackmail Trump.

From "Donald Trump's Worst Deal": The Azerbaijanis behind the project were close relatives of Ziya Mammadov, the Transportation Minister and one of the country’s wealthiest and most powerful oligarchs. According to the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, Azerbaijan is among the most corrupt nations in the world. Its President, Ilham Aliyev, the son of the former President Heydar Aliyev, recently appointed his wife to be Vice-President. Ziya Mammadov became the Transportation Minister in 2002, around the time that the regime began receiving enormous profits from government-owned oil reserves in the Caspian Sea. At the time of the hotel deal, Mammadov, a career government official, had a salary of about twelve thousand dollars, but he was a billionaire ... But the Mammadov family, in addition to its reputation for corruption, has a troubling connection that any proper risk assessment should have unearthed: for years, it has been financially entangled with an Iranian family tied to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the ideologically driven military force. In 2008, the year that the tower was announced, Ziya Mammadov, in his role as Transportation Minister, awarded a series of multimillion-dollar contracts to Azarpassillo, an Iranian construction company. Keyumars Darvishi, its chairman, fought in the Iran-Iraq War. After the war, he became the head of Raman, an Iranian construction firm that is controlled by the Revolutionary Guard. The U.S. government has regularly accused the Guard of criminal activity, including drug trafficking, sponsoring terrorism abroad, and money laundering ... No evidence has surfaced showing that Donald Trump, or any of his employees involved in the Baku deal, actively participated in bribery, money laundering, or other illegal behavior. But the Trump Organization may have broken the law in its work with the Mammadov family. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, passed in 1977, forbade American companies from participating in a scheme to reward a foreign government official in exchange for material benefit or preferential treatment. The law even made it a crime for an American company to unknowingly benefit from a partner’s corruption if it could have discovered illicit activity but avoided doing so. This closed what was known as the “head in the sand” loophole.

1. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/trumps-business-of-corruption (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/trumps-business-of-corruption)
2. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 23, 2018, 07:21:02 AM
There is video around and about of Ivanka visiting Baku in relation to the Azerbaijan deal so there is evidence of her involvement in the Trump organisation's corruption.  She seems to have flown under the media radar rather so far on the Trump dodgy dealings but I'm betting Mueller hasn't forgotten about her.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 23, 2018, 08:34:46 AM
There is video around and about of Ivanka visiting Baku in relation to the Azerbaijan deal so there is evidence of her involvement in the Trump organisation's corruption.  She seems to have flown under the media radar rather so far on the Trump dodgy dealings but I'm betting Mueller hasn't forgotten about her.

I don't believe he has. Mueller is chasing down every rabbit hole possible. Folks are scared, especially Republicans. It's why they are expending so much effort trying to divert/downplay the investigation. They aren't scared for Trump or his businesses so much as they are concerned about saving their own asses after electing this POS. Too bad so sad!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 08:56:28 AM
Wish I jumped into this convo sooner.

I suspect where there is smoke, there is fire. I am an independent and think both parties are run by clowns and criminals, so I don't want anyone to think I am favoring one over the other.

I am though, a hardcore American.

I am literally fuming at the fact the russians, who I grew up in a time when they were are biggest adversaries, have pretty much gotten away with this and probably a lot more. It blows my mind that politics have gotten so bad here, and people so divisive, that we can't all come to see this as a major threat to the country we love, and instead both sides are using it to their advantage.

If I wasn't such a nationalist, I would sit back and think, let the Russians succeed because everyone has their heads so far up their asses they deserve this. And this is nothing. Due to the lack of any kind of meaningful retaliation, we've essentially collectively told the russians that they may continue.

And I can't put all the blame on Trump, even if I think he's corrupt, because I think Obama was weak as hell too, and part of the reason we got into this mess.

I can't think back to a time when we had a president who made it clear to out rivals that crossing a line would bring retaliation to the point it wasn't worth their effort. It had to have been before I was born in the 70s.

I am more disgusted with this than I am with any other issue facing our country. Imagine what the Chinese are learning from this about us.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 23, 2018, 09:05:45 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-gates-pleads-guilty-mueller-investigation-2018-2

Quote
Rick Gates, a former adviser to President Donald Trump's campaign, is expected to plead guilty Friday and cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, according to multiple reports.

Just a witch hunt, tbh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on February 23, 2018, 09:20:37 AM
https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/paul-manafort-couldnt-convert-pdfs-to-word-documents.html

Quote
So, here’s the essence of what went wrong for Manafort and Gates, according to Mueller’s investigation: Manafort allegedly wanted to falsify his company’s income, but he couldn’t figure out how to edit the PDF. He therefore had Gates turn it into a Microsoft Word document for him, which led the two to bounce the documents back and forth over email. As attorney and blogger Susan Simpson notes on Twitter, Manafort’s inability to complete a basic task on his own seems to have effectively “created an incriminating paper trail.”

Truly "the best people."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 23, 2018, 09:53:55 AM
https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/paul-manafort-couldnt-convert-pdfs-to-word-documents.html

Quote
So, here’s the essence of what went wrong for Manafort and Gates, according to Mueller’s investigation: Manafort allegedly wanted to falsify his company’s income, but he couldn’t figure out how to edit the PDF. He therefore had Gates turn it into a Microsoft Word document for him, which led the two to bounce the documents back and forth over email. As attorney and blogger Susan Simpson notes on Twitter, Manafort’s inability to complete a basic task on his own seems to have effectively “created an incriminating paper trail.”

Truly "the best people."

Hahahaha. Is that for real? It's the 1st result at google.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+edit+a+pdf
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2018, 09:56:06 AM
https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/paul-manafort-couldnt-convert-pdfs-to-word-documents.html

Quote
So, here’s the essence of what went wrong for Manafort and Gates, according to Mueller’s investigation: Manafort allegedly wanted to falsify his company’s income, but he couldn’t figure out how to edit the PDF. He therefore had Gates turn it into a Microsoft Word document for him, which led the two to bounce the documents back and forth over email. As attorney and blogger Susan Simpson notes on Twitter, Manafort’s inability to complete a basic task on his own seems to have effectively “created an incriminating paper trail.”

Truly "the best people."

Hahahaha. Is that for real? It's the 1st result at google.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+edit+a+pdf

Reader (the free Acrobat) can't edit PDFs. The full version is paid and far less common.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on February 23, 2018, 10:07:55 AM

Hahahaha. Is that for real? It's the 1st result at google.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+edit+a+pdf

haha I work in IT support- about half of my job would be unnecessary if everyone could be relied upon to google things before contacting us.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2018, 10:17:51 AM

Hahahaha. Is that for real? It's the 1st result at google.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+edit+a+pdf

haha I work in IT support- about half of my job would be unnecessary if everyone could be relied upon to google things before contacting us.

This is a screen grab from an actual Slack message my wife got. From a developer.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on February 23, 2018, 12:45:41 PM
When will Adobe be outed as a pillar of the Deep State and a hotbed of liberal Clinton supporters? /s
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 23, 2018, 01:59:27 PM
When will Adobe be outed as a pillar of the Deep State and a hotbed of liberal Clinton supporters? /s

PDF has long been known as the Portable Democrat Frame (/s). But this is seriously keystone cops level stuff. Hey, let's not spend $120 to prevent a paper trail on tens of millions in tax fraud. Totally worth it!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on February 23, 2018, 02:01:42 PM
Oh look - you can open a PDF in free LibreOffice Draw and edit the PDF. Imagine that.

Software probably written by a bunch of free software hippies gets the job done. 

You know, the GOP ought to outlaw free and open source software like LibreOffice and Linux and all those folks...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Inaya on February 23, 2018, 02:04:59 PM
Oh look - you can open a PDF in free LibreOffice Draw and edit the PDF. Imagine that.

Software probably written by a bunch of free software hippies gets the job done. 

You know, the GOP ought to outlaw free and open source software like LibreOffice and Linux and all those folks...


Didn't you know that open source software is a threat to national security? It's pretty much the same thing as cryptography.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 25, 2018, 11:29:13 AM
Gates may be pleading guilty soon. He's under indictment on new charges of money laundering and fraud during the campaign (vs years before) and felt the pressure.

I was actually kind of worried to see the news of the new indictments, because it means they're bringing charges instead of working a deal.  If he was being fully cooperative with the investigation, and giving them everything they wanted, they shouldn't need new charges.  Bringing new charges probably means the Mueller team is pissed, because this is them using their leverage against him.  I'd much rather see all mention of the charges against Gates and Manafort go quiet.

I really really hope that Donald Trump is just an idiot who is being played by the Russians instead of being a Russian mole turned wildly successful.  I hope he's a narcissistic grifter who is so insecure that he only cares about maintaining the illusion of wealth, and so took deals with the Russians and the mafia to finance his brand and not because he actually hates America and wants to tear it all down.  I hope that his campaign staff were bought and paid for by the Russian government, instead of being true believers, and can thus be bought back.  I hope that his affection for Soviet women is just a weirdly coincidental personal fetish, and not a sign of his affection for Mother Russia.  I hope that his pro-Russia positions during the campaign were just poorly conceived rally lines designed to get crowd reactions, and are not reflective of an underlying affinity for the actual ideas he has espoused.  I hope his plutocratic tendencies are genuinely homegrown American Reaganism style excesses, and not taught to him by Russian oligarchs.  I hope, but I also fear.

I realize you're making a (fun) point I agree with by posing things as "either Trump is just an idiot beholden to the Russians or he's an actual Manchurian Candidate," but I did want to address the issue of being concerned about additional charges being a sign of weakness in the investigation. I'd say there's a strong case to be made for the opposite conclusion: bringing the additional charges with substantially more prison time involved (a de facto life sentence at least for Manafort) upped the pressure, got Gates to fold, and he is now a willing and highly damaging witness against Manafort. Manafort, in turn, now has lots of incentive to be a prime witness against the next guy above him. And there's only one guy above him.

I'd say there's a 90% chance or greater that Manafort will turn on Trump, and has something valuable to offer the prosecution.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 25, 2018, 01:17:37 PM
Let's parse this out for a moment. 
For context:
In the summer of 2016 virtually every pollster and political analyst predicted that HRC would likely defeat DJT, and that DJT's path to the WH was extremely narrow and would involve winning virtually every battleground state. At the time the Trump campaign was being led by the volatile Cory Lewandowski

Now - this is when Paul Manafort actively pushed to take over the Trump Campaign, a job which he offered to do without pay and seemed destined to fail.  Further, we know from the Mueller indictment that Manafort was in deep financial trouble, securing $20MM in loans against his US properties.

So - why on earth would a man in questionable financial standing take a job without pay to lead a campaign which seemed destined to fail?

Manafort seems too much of a bottom-feeding self-promoter to have done this because he truly believed in DJT's message or out of some patriotic duty.
From the indictments we know he had extensive dealings in Ukraine (which he lied about and ommitted on his declarations). Did he join the DJT for the business connections Trump Inc had been developing in Russia for over a decade? Or alternatively was he nudged into that spot by the oligarchs he was in bed with?
Conversely, why did the Trump campaign take him on?  Was it to really to give the campaign some semblance of 'professionalism' (an image DJT was actively assailing at every campaign rally)? Are we to believe that they were so completely incompetent that the campaign somehow didn't know this man had spent the better part of a decade snuggling with Ukraine & Russia (something that Gates and Manafort really didn't hide)?  Assuming they knew - that means they either didn't care (which would be shocking), or that the *did* care... in the sense that they cared and the fact that Manafort/Gates were all busy in Ukraine was somehow either a non-issue or a plus in their eyes.

... regardless of which line you take down the decision tree, it always winds up at a shocking conclusion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 27, 2018, 10:14:00 PM
And this, folks, is why the President (and his senior advisers) should use a blind trust. And be financially solvent.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/jared-kushner-manipulation-mexico-israel-china-uae/index.html

Quote
Officials from at least four countries have discussed ways they could use Jared Kushner's intricate business arrangements, lack of experience and financial woes to manipulate President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior White House adviser,

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 28, 2018, 06:02:41 AM
NSA director Rogers' testimony on Russian interference was enlightening. 
tl/dr; the NSA has been given no new authority or directives to combat future Russian meddling in upcoming elections.

Quote from: Rogers
What I see on the Cyber Command side leads me to believe that if we don’t change the dynamic here, that this is going to continue, and 2016 won’t be viewed as isolated. This is something that will be sustained over time.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/27/nsa-director-mike-rogerss-careful-indictment-of-trumps-anti-russia-efforts/?utm_term=.0327854fa0b4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/27/nsa-director-mike-rogerss-careful-indictment-of-trumps-anti-russia-efforts/?utm_term=.0327854fa0b4)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 28, 2018, 06:37:06 AM
NSA director Rogers' testimony on Russian interference was enlightening. 
tl/dr; the NSA has been given no new authority or directives to combat future Russian meddling in upcoming elections.

Quote from: Rogers
What I see on the Cyber Command side leads me to believe that if we don’t change the dynamic here, that this is going to continue, and 2016 won’t be viewed as isolated. This is something that will be sustained over time.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/27/nsa-director-mike-rogerss-careful-indictment-of-trumps-anti-russia-efforts/?utm_term=.0327854fa0b4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/27/nsa-director-mike-rogerss-careful-indictment-of-trumps-anti-russia-efforts/?utm_term=.0327854fa0b4)

Here's the c-span video if you've got the time:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?441677-1/nsa-chief-testifies-fiscal-year-2019-budget

jump to 1:30 for the start, to 4:30 for the first question.  ... 9:30 is where Gen Rogers begins talking.

36 minutes - he answers about needing a policy decision from the white house.

43 minutes - Jeanne Shaheen asks directly and he says no he's not received any commands or instruction from the white house.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on February 28, 2018, 08:07:01 AM
Rogers' testimony highlights, I think, the essential dynamic at play here:


Either answer is extremely troubling, but the collective burying-of-heads in the sand on the part of Republicans, no matter the reason why Trump isn't ordering counter-intelligence measures, is the most baffling/disheartening/infuriating aspect of all. I'm not a defender of the Surveillance State by any means and feel it has been much much much too intrusive since 9/11, but I wouldn't doubt the sector's abilities. If the assessment of multiple, separate agencies is that Russia interfered in the election, I think it's hard to argue against that conclusion.

So what gives? Even if Russia interfered, the Republican nominee won the presidency and the party has reaped the spoils so far (Gorsuch, tax cut, travel ban, DACA ending, etc.). I can see them not wanting Mueller to indict Trump, but why are they either on the fence or downplaying Russian election interference, and the continued threat that such interference continues to pose? That I cannot understand for the life of me.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on February 28, 2018, 08:30:49 AM
Quote
So - why on earth would a man in questionable financial standing take a job without pay to lead a campaign which seemed destined to fail?

nereo,

I've been thinking about your question a bit, and I wonder whether there aren't multiple corrupt threads interweaving in all this.


They may all be active, but uncoordinated efforts?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 28, 2018, 08:38:22 AM
Open question: Will Trump lose the support of the military high command?

Since his days as a candidate Trump has surrounded himself by high-ranking military brass, and now the executive branch is filled with them.
Traditionally the military are the most loyal group of people to the office of the President - so it's struck me how many seem to be at odds with DJT and, worse, how many have permanently tarnished their professional reputations serving in his administration. If McMasters goes back to the Pentagon and Kelly leaves as WH Chief of Staff will other generals step in, especially after seeing how they were treated by this administration? Or will the 'call of duty' for these lifetime military men be too hard to break?
As examples:
Flynn permanently tarnished his reputation and plead guilty to lying under oath to the FBI

Rogers gave a rather candid report yesterday that the WH continues not to take the Russian threat seriously

McMasters was called out publicly by Trump after confirming Russian interference

Kelly is tied up with Kushner's loss of security clearance (and at odds with the Trump children in general) and tarnished his reputation being forced to defend Rob Porter.

Mattis seems perpetually trying to prevent the DJT from attacking North Korea, and quickly walks back every inflammatory tweet DJT makes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 28, 2018, 09:13:13 AM
Open question: Will Trump lose the support of the military high command?

Since his days as a candidate Trump has surrounded himself by high-ranking military brass, and now the executive branch is filled with them.
Traditionally the military are the most loyal group of people to the office of the President - so it's struck me how many seem to be at odds with DJT and, worse, how many have permanently tarnished their professional reputations serving in his administration. If McMasters goes back to the Pentagon and Kelly leaves as WH Chief of Staff will other generals step in, especially after seeing how they were treated by this administration? Or will the 'call of duty' for these lifetime military men be too hard to break?
As examples:
Flynn permanently tarnished his reputation and plead guilty to lying under oath to the FBI

Rogers gave a rather candid report yesterday that the WH continues not to take the Russian threat seriously

McMasters was called out publicly by Trump after confirming Russian interference

Kelly is tied up with Kushner's loss of security clearance (and at odds with the Trump children in general) and tarnished his reputation being forced to defend Rob Porter.

Mattis seems perpetually trying to prevent the DJT from attacking North Korea, and quickly walks back every inflammatory tweet DJT makes.

It's certainly possible. I've read in a number of sources that the rank and file tend to support Trump (this support varies by branch), while the high-ranking military tended to have a higher opinion of Obama.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 28, 2018, 09:29:02 AM
Quote
So - why on earth would a man in questionable financial standing take a job without pay to lead a campaign which seemed destined to fail?

nereo,

I've been thinking about your question a bit, and I wonder whether there aren't multiple corrupt threads interweaving in all this.

  • Corrupt financing/money laundering related to Trump's international real estate deals
  • Russian gov't possession of kompromat on Trump related to god knows what (or possibly just the Russians hating Clinton and wanting to reassert their power on the international stage)
  • Manafort scheming to use his position to financially gain/repay debts to his Ukranian business partners as well as sell influence to other nefarious characters

They may all be active, but uncoordinated efforts?

This, to me, remains the great unknown. 
We know from the indictments, federal declaration forms and public testimony that quite a bit of 'below grade' crap (some of it illegal) has been going on with entities of this administration and foreign persons, particularly Russia and the Ukraine. Much of it can be explained away by this being a bunch of international businessmen motivated by greed or the need for debt-financing, but without the guidance of a moral compass.

There's also the omissions, serial-updates and stonewalling on federal declaration forms and in committee hearings. One explanation is (again) that this is a bunch of greedy people from the private business world who don't comprehend that "it's none of your business" is not permitted in their new government positions.  Their collective knee-jerk reaction to any questions about their business dealings may be to lie and obfuscate.  Obviously that gets them in a lot of hot water, but the question remains... is this a coordinated effort? Is there some deeper plot left to uncover? Or is this all just a long, endless stream of relatively minor crimes motivated by greed committed more-or-less independently by a dozen or more people unaccustomed to the public scrutiny over a period of many years?

Or put another way, is this all coordinated conspiracy & collusion, or just a bunch of unrelated illegal idiocy?

again... time will tell.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on February 28, 2018, 02:15:24 PM
Quote
Or put another way, is this all coordinated conspiracy & collusion, or just a bunch of unrelated illegal idiocy?

I'd bet some of it is unrelated, but as many people have said, there's a Russian under every overturned stone. I think a lot has to do with Russia's influence in Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics. So while some oligarch may be pillaging the nation's coffers of his own volition and using Trump real estate to launder the proceeds, there's always that tie back to Putin/Russian government because these corrupt leaders share the same circle of influence.

I think the situation could very well be as you describe...light is shining upon all of this shadiness because of these peoples' new positions in government. If that's the case, then I think it's even more important that we counteract Russian influence (like yesterday) because if the skeptics and people on the fence are waiting for the Collusion Smoking Gun to convince them of the seriousness of the situation, then that day may never come. Trump and Co. might have charges brought against them for any number of white collar crimes while the Intelligence community has to sit on their hands.

That's what still gets me...why hasn't/won't Trump give the order?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 28, 2018, 02:52:26 PM
Hope Hicks resigns from her position as White House communications director the day after testifying (and essentially refusing to answer all questions) to the House Intelligence Committee and its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

... can't tell if this is a coincidence or related.  If it's related, what could it mean?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Norioch on February 28, 2018, 03:08:42 PM
It means she's getting off of a sinking ship.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 28, 2018, 03:16:32 PM
It means she's getting off of a sinking ship.

+1
Getting harder and harder to defend the indefensible. But damnit they sure are trying.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 28, 2018, 03:23:40 PM
It means she's getting off of a sinking ship.

Yeah, but willingly?  Or is she being pushed from those still on the ship or pulled by those awaiting on the other side?

Some possibilities...
1) She wants to get away from this circus and its bright lights and noises.  Honestly I think this is very likely and who could blame her? I wouldn't want to work under this intense spotlight either

2) She's got some dirt (e.g. knows about the Trump Tower meeting and the drafting of the fire-Comey memo) on her hands and hopes by exiting the West Wing she'll stop being a person of interest. The standard Trump Non-Disclosure should be a nice blanket for her, preventing/protecting her from ever having to talk about what happened in the WH.

3) Mueller got to her when he interviewed her a few weeks ago. This seems more far-fetched, but if she's been coerced into cooperating it would presumably follow that she'd no longer be in the WH.  But the statement by DJT and Kelly were positive, so if this is the case they don't know about it (which seems more and more doubtful).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 28, 2018, 03:30:12 PM
Hope Hicks resigns from her position as White House communications director the day after testifying (and essentially refusing to answer all questions) to the House Intelligence Committee and its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

... can't tell if this is a coincidence or related.  If it's related, what could it mean?

Hicks is in a difficult spot.  I haven't seen any reporting that she's personally tied to the Russians, but she's certainly been asked to lie to cover up Russia-related misdeeds and her personal life significantly complicates her professional roles.  She's been romantically involved with like four different senior white house staffers.  It's like a high school in there, and that's got to engender some complicated allegiances.  And anti-allegiances.

She's had a an incredible rise up from the ranks of obscurity to one of the most powerful jobs on the planet, and I wouldn't be surprised if she wants out because she doesn't like the stress.  I can imagine she might be the kind of person who misses the days when powerful men treated her nicely solely because she was a well spoken and attractive young woman, and not because they needed her to cover up treason.  Being a swimsuit model has got be easier than working in the Trump whitehouse, right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 01, 2018, 07:23:32 PM
And now Jared Kushner is getting loans for business ventures, right after meeting with the lenders in White House meetings.
This is just a grotesquely corrupt administration.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 02, 2018, 06:04:45 AM
The Senate Intelligence Committee believes it was house Republicans who leaked a Dem's text messages seeking the author of the Steele dossier back in 2016.

With friends like these, who needs [Russian] enemies?

Speaker Ryan's response?  Go deal with it among yourselves. The speaker will not get involved.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-intelligence-leaders-suspect-republicans-leaked-a-top-democrats-text-messages/2018/03/01/eba80e2c-1d89-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.21ac68b60213 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-intelligence-leaders-suspect-republicans-leaked-a-top-democrats-text-messages/2018/03/01/eba80e2c-1d89-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.21ac68b60213)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 06, 2018, 02:43:28 AM
Here's the link to the New Yorker article which goes into the background on the published Steele dossier and gives details about the second Steele dossier which passes on an allegation that Putin vetoed Romney as Secretary of State because he had been hawkish on Russia, and wanted someone who would not interfere with Russia's actions in Syria and would lift sanctions.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier


It's a single accusation from a single source, but all the circumstantials support it.

I mean, what the everlasting fuck.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 06, 2018, 05:52:21 AM
I mean, what the everlasting fuck.

Somewhere in the last week or two this investigation made a hard turn into bizarro-world.
Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg is refusing to go in front of a grand jury after being subpeonaed.  Not just refused to answer questions or claimed executive privilege as others have done, but he's refusing to go.  And he went on national TV to thumb his nose at Mueller.

Oddly, he says "no one hates Trump more than me" and alternatively praises him and calls Trump "an idiot".
I mean, WTF?? This guy is literally daring Mueller to toss him in jail for contempt (which every judge would agree with).

Add this to a week where we've seen his personal executive picks thumb their noses at him, his long-time assistant resign, and the speaker refute his tariffs (which he basically dropped on them like a bad Friday surprise).

Each week seems weirder than the last.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 06, 2018, 06:07:37 AM
Oddly, he says "no one hates Trump more than me" and alternatively praises him and calls Trump "an idiot".
I mean, WTF?? This guy is literally daring Mueller to toss him in jail for contempt (which every judge would agree with).

Maybe the contempt time is less than whatever he would get for what he really did? Just spitballing here.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 06, 2018, 06:14:59 AM
Oddly, he says "no one hates Trump more than me" and alternatively praises him and calls Trump "an idiot".
I mean, WTF?? This guy is literally daring Mueller to toss him in jail for contempt (which every judge would agree with).

Maybe the contempt time is less than whatever he would get for what he really did? Just spitballing here.
As i understand it, you can be held in contempt indefinitely - so he'd just stay in prison until everything ended or he decided to testify.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 06, 2018, 06:38:28 AM
Oddly, he says "no one hates Trump more than me" and alternatively praises him and calls Trump "an idiot".
I mean, WTF?? This guy is literally daring Mueller to toss him in jail for contempt (which every judge would agree with).

Maybe the contempt time is less than whatever he would get for what he really did? Just spitballing here.
As i understand it, you can be held in contempt indefinitely - so he'd just stay in prison until everything ended or he decided to testify.

Maybe he's worried the Russians will sprinkle some Polonium on his pizza.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/05/salisbury-hospital-police-fire-crews-attend-major-incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on March 06, 2018, 06:56:02 AM
Sounds like he sobered up:
https://www.axios.com/nunberg-now-says-hell-cooperate-with-investigators-1520300941-e164aac2-e662-4684-a8c2-8123e25e77ce.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 06, 2018, 07:06:59 AM
Apparently he's a close ally of Roger Stone... so that explains a bit...
Quote
“Roger is my mentor. Roger is like family... I’m not going to go in there for them to set up a case against Roger. Roger did not do anything. Roger and I were treated like crap by Donald Trump, okay?”

so I guess he really likes Roger.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on March 06, 2018, 08:01:07 AM
Nunberg: I'll never testify!
Nunberg's lawyer: Bro, how long do you want to sit in prison?
Nunberg: I'll testify but I won't like it!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OurTown on March 06, 2018, 08:04:15 AM
Classic case of drunk dialing.  Back in my drinking days, I did that too, but I only made an ass of myself to ex-gfs, not to all of the USA.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 06, 2018, 08:51:11 AM
Here's the link to the New Yorker article which goes into the background on the published Steele dossier and gives details about the second Steele dossier which passes on an allegation that Putin vetoed Romney as Secretary of State because he had been hawkish on Russia, and wanted someone who would not interfere with Russia's actions in Syria and would lift sanctions.

America!  We're number 1!  We're number 1!  We're number 1!    <a bald eagle cries in the distance, before dying of sadness>

Are we tired of all the winning yet?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on March 06, 2018, 06:37:55 PM
Well, Trump and his ilk constantly pushed "drain the swamp" and that is exactly what Mueller is doing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 06, 2018, 06:49:09 PM
Here's the link to the New Yorker article which goes into the background on the published Steele dossier and gives details about the second Steele dossier which passes on an allegation that Putin vetoed Romney as Secretary of State because he had been hawkish on Russia, and wanted someone who would not interfere with Russia's actions in Syria and would lift sanctions.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier


It's a single accusation from a single source, but all the circumstantials support it.

I mean, what the everlasting fuck.

It's an incredible article, and there is an interview with the journalist on Fresh Air.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591130207/journalist-charts-the-bizarre-twists-and-turns-of-the-trump-russia-dossier

One interesting point is that Christopher Steele had a 30 year working, trusting relationship with the FBI doing investigations both from when Steele worked at MI-6 and then later when Steele started his own private company. Steele is an expert on Russia's innerworkings - and the FBI would hire him for research. So when the Republicans try to discredit Steele it's clearly phony and political.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 07, 2018, 05:50:39 AM

One interesting point is that Christopher Steele had a 30 year working, trusting relationship with the FBI doing investigations both from when Steele worked at MI-6 and then later when Steele started his own private company. Steele is an expert on Russia's innerworkings - and the FBI would hire him for research. So when the Republicans try to discredit Steele it's clearly phony and political.
Honestly, this is what pisses me off about politics in general and this threat in particular, and both parties do it. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand the first response is always to criticize the opposite party and insinuate that they are trying to intentionally destroy America.

So we get this - the GOP rips away at Steele and Mueller as if they were Judas reincarnate, while the Dems use the moral failings of DJT as the primary attack against any policy he proposes.  Both are so laser-focused on the individuals and spinning their own narrative about the person that we get so little dialogue about what is true, what is actually being proposed and what is likely to happen from those proposals.

tl/dr; we're a bunch of schoolyard brats too busy trading insults to actually try to move the football one way or another.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 07, 2018, 07:27:55 AM
while the Dems use the moral failings of DJT as the primary attack against any policy he proposes.

I'm not sure what you're reading/hearing, but I see plenty of counter-arguments to Trump's proposal that are policy-based.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 07, 2018, 07:39:59 AM
while the Dems use the moral failings of DJT as the primary attack against any policy he proposes.

I'm not sure what you're reading/hearing, but I see plenty of counter-arguments to Trump's proposal that are policy-based.

There are plenty of policy counter-arguments to DJT's proposals, but they often get lost in the drumbeat of social criticism/outrage over the man himself.  Which is a good argument to make, but when every response is "he's unfit!" and rejection seems to come from abhorence to the man instead of rejection of the policy it reinforces this "us-vs-them" mentality which dominates our politics.

Example:
News - DJT announces a new controversal executive action
Dem response: Trump knows nothing and doesn't bother to learn, he just made this to satisfy his shrinking base, this will only help the wealthy and hurt us overall.

That's how I see almost every action he does play out in the media.  Note that only 1 of the 3 knee-jerk responses in that hypothetical had anything to do with the policy itself, and while there *is* analysis on the policy, much of the outrage is still focused on DJT and his lack of knowledge/fitness/compassion.

It certainly occurs the other way, too
News - Mueller indicts a new person and subpoenas someone else
GOP response - Mueller is out-of-bounds! he hired people who have a political opinion so its all biased! These latest charges have nothing to do with the administration!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 07, 2018, 09:21:53 AM
I don't think the "both sides argument" is true. I think the Republicans truly expend a lot more energy attacking the person, whereas the Democrats are much more policy oriented. And unfortunately, low info. type voters care more about the personalities and drama, and less on the policy issues which directly impact their lives in dramatic ways.
We have to have a crisis before the voters wake up and vote out the Republican party - Watergate, or a recession caused by a war, or a recession caused lack of financial regulation/enforcement.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 07, 2018, 09:32:09 AM
Watergate, or a recession caused by a war, or a recession caused lack of financial regulation/enforcement.

We tried all of those, what else do you have?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 07, 2018, 09:57:36 AM
I don't remember if it was this thread or another one that discussed Hamilton 68, but Taibbi's take is interesting (he's pretty credible, and spent significant time reporting in Russia).

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russiagate-trump-putin-mueller-and-targeting-dissent-w517486
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on March 11, 2018, 09:52:23 PM
Watergate, or a recession caused by a war, or a recession caused lack of financial regulation/enforcement.

We tried all of those, what else do you have?

Would nuclear war get their attention? /s
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jimmymango on March 13, 2018, 08:16:56 AM
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 13, 2018, 08:56:58 AM
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.
By most accounts Tillerson has been absolutely awful as the head of the state department, and regardless of your political leanings its never ideal when the SoS and the President do not see eye to eye on things.   Pompeo has been much friendlier to Trump than Tillerson.
Looks like the CIA is hiring from within, promoting deputy director Haspel to director. My guess is that means as little disruption to the CIA as possible.

Of course this just continues the spinning of hte revolving doors of the executive branch. Its hard for any institution to function well when so many of its leaders keep changing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lbmustache on March 13, 2018, 09:51:42 AM
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.

My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 13, 2018, 10:13:58 AM
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.

My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.

Dems will certainly use this as a way of highlighting Pomeo's connection with torture and extreme interrogation techniques.  They wil do this to further paint this administration as one which violates common decency (even though Pompeo's been through multiple administrations). The hearings will be in the headlines for a while and make a bunch of people squeemish about this man leading the bureau which deals with all foreign nations... but yeah, in the end he'll most likely get confirmed unless he withdraws his name and/or DJT falls out of favor with him (either of which is possible with this administration).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on March 13, 2018, 10:49:22 AM
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.

My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.

Dems will certainly use this as a way of highlighting Pomeo's connection with torture and extreme interrogation techniques.  They wil do this to further paint this administration as one which violates common decency (even though Pompeo's been through multiple administrations). The hearings will be in the headlines for a while and make a bunch of people squeemish about this man leading the bureau which deals with all foreign nations... but yeah, in the end he'll most likely get confirmed unless he withdraws his name and/or DJT falls out of favor with him (either of which is possible with this administration).

Yeah. Because Trump's base actively thinks it's GOOD that with Trump we're tending toward authoritarianism and have no problems using torture ourselves and condoning it in other authoritarian regimes. And Democrats will yell about it, but ultimately they won't be able to do anything about it. And frankly, I'm not even sure they have backbone to stop his confirmation even if they controlled both houses.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 13, 2018, 11:27:46 AM
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.

My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.

Dems will certainly use this as a way of highlighting Pomeo's connection with torture and extreme interrogation techniques.  They wil do this to further paint this administration as one which violates common decency (even though Pompeo's been through multiple administrations). The hearings will be in the headlines for a while and make a bunch of people squeemish about this man leading the bureau which deals with all foreign nations... but yeah, in the end he'll most likely get confirmed unless he withdraws his name and/or DJT falls out of favor with him (either of which is possible with this administration).

Yeah. Because Trump's base actively thinks it's GOOD that with Trump we're tending toward authoritarianism and have no problems using torture ourselves and condoning it in other authoritarian regimes. And Democrats will yell about it, but ultimately they won't be able to do anything about it. And frankly, I'm not even sure they have backbone to stop his confirmation even if they controlled both houses.

To be fair, Americans in general don't really seem to care about torture or other war crimes perpetrated on brown people with foreign sounding names.  There has been no serious push to close Guantanamo bay or halt extrajudicial drone strikes from either party because there's little outrage at what's happening.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on March 13, 2018, 12:20:13 PM
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.

My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.

Dems will certainly use this as a way of highlighting Pomeo's connection with torture and extreme interrogation techniques.  They wil do this to further paint this administration as one which violates common decency (even though Pompeo's been through multiple administrations). The hearings will be in the headlines for a while and make a bunch of people squeemish about this man leading the bureau which deals with all foreign nations... but yeah, in the end he'll most likely get confirmed unless he withdraws his name and/or DJT falls out of favor with him (either of which is possible with this administration).

Yeah. Because Trump's base actively thinks it's GOOD that with Trump we're tending toward authoritarianism and have no problems using torture ourselves and condoning it in other authoritarian regimes. And Democrats will yell about it, but ultimately they won't be able to do anything about it. And frankly, I'm not even sure they have backbone to stop his confirmation even if they controlled both houses.

To be fair, Americans in general don't really seem to care about torture or other war crimes perpetrated on brown people with foreign sounding names.  There has been no serious push to close Guantanamo bay or halt extrajudicial drone strikes from either party because there's little outrage at what's happening.

Quite true.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 13, 2018, 12:37:14 PM
To be fair, Americans in general don't really seem to care about torture or other war crimes perpetrated on brown people with foreign sounding names.  There has been no serious push to close Guantanamo bay or halt extrajudicial drone strikes from either party because there's little outrage at what's happening.

Hey!  Over here!  ... I'm outraged!

I'm also outraged by, for example, our policy of looking the other way as young boys are raped by pedophiles in the Afghan army, and our electoral system, that corruption is legal, and that we're doing zip on global warming. 

But I already cast light on way too many "look at these horrible realities" issues - and very few people in my circle of family or friends wants to look closer. They'd rather watch a football game.  Well, now, half of them won't even do that since a few football players took a knee during the regularly scheduled holy nationalisitic anthem solute, trying to cast a light on another 'look at this horrible reality" issue. 

Huh - they should have plenty of free time to consider war crimes against brown people with foreign sounding names. Time to make some calls.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 18, 2018, 09:18:16 AM
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the investigations (plural) have reached a political boiling point over the last 72 hours.

Let's recap:

This - all in about three days.  And this is excluding non-Russia news, like porn stars and gun laws and the Pennsylvania special election.
That's a lot to unpack.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Luke Warm on March 19, 2018, 06:34:00 AM
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the investigations (plural) have reached a political boiling point over the last 72 hours.

Let's recap:
  • GOP members on the House investigation committee contradicts US intelligence agencies by stating Russia did not attempt to influence the election
  • ...then DEMs and a few GOP members refuted the GOP's conclusion in the media
  • UK concludes Russia assasinated a double-agent on UK Soil
  • US then joins UK in condemning Russia
  • Trump asks Kelly to find a replacement for HR McMaster, who publicly stated Russian interference in 2016 was 'incontrovertible'
  • FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was fired hours before he would collect his full pension
  • McCabe released a statement calling his firing politically motivated and punitive
  • McCabe supposedly kept contemporaneous notes of his interactions with Trump
  • Trump counsil Dowd publicly called for an end to the Russia probe
  • Trump criticized Mueller by name (rare until now), called McCabe's note's "Fake Memos" and claimed nothing had come from the investigation
  • Putin wins re-election in a landslide

This - all in about three days.  And this is excluding non-Russia news, like porn stars and gun laws and the Pennsylvania special election.
That's a lot to unpack.

almost like it's scripted.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 19, 2018, 07:20:10 AM
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the investigations (plural) have reached a political boiling point over the last 72 hours.

Let's recap:
  • GOP members on the House investigation committee contradicts US intelligence agencies by stating Russia did not attempt to influence the election
  • ...then DEMs and a few GOP members refuted the GOP's conclusion in the media
  • UK concludes Russia assasinated a double-agent on UK Soil
  • US then joins UK in condemning Russia
  • Trump asks Kelly to find a replacement for HR McMaster, who publicly stated Russian interference in 2016 was 'incontrovertible'
  • FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was fired hours before he would collect his full pension
  • McCabe released a statement calling his firing politically motivated and punitive
  • McCabe supposedly kept contemporaneous notes of his interactions with Trump
  • Trump counsil Dowd publicly called for an end to the Russia probe
  • Trump criticized Mueller by name (rare until now), called McCabe's note's "Fake Memos" and claimed nothing had come from the investigation
  • Putin wins re-election in a landslide

This - all in about three days.  And this is excluding non-Russia news, like porn stars and gun laws and the Pennsylvania special election.
That's a lot to unpack.

almost like it's scripted.

Trump's actions are stupid.  They are in line with decades of stupidity from him that he has never tried to hide.  If this was scripted, it would be more believable if there was a little subtlety and something to humanize the bad guy.  Unfortunately, it's reality . . . so we just get unfiltered Trump all the time.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 20, 2018, 07:10:54 AM
DJT has hired Joe diGenova, a US attorney, TV pundit and 'deep-state' conspiracy theorist (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/19/trump-is-reportedly-hiring-a-conspiracy-theorist-for-his-legal-team-heres-what-joe-digenova-has-said/?utm_term=.00e0dbcb64ff).

It's getting really hard to keep track of his legal team.  Cobb & McGahn (both employed by the WH, aka taxpayers), Dowd, Sekulow, diGenova...

This is a LOT of high-paid legal aid... and this ins just for DJT; practically everyone else in the WH has lawyer-ed up with their own private council as well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on March 20, 2018, 07:47:53 AM
Who pays for all these lawyers? Us the taxpayers?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on March 20, 2018, 08:05:04 AM
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595145615/questions-mount-about-if-and-when-robert-mueller-will-interview-trump

Thought this was an interesting interview. The Representative simply refuses to have a straight conversation. Talks about how the FBI is untrustworthy and how all these people were fired but fails to mention it was Trump who fired them. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 20, 2018, 08:48:29 AM
Talks about how the FBI is untrustworthy and how all these people were fired but fails to mention it was Trump who fired them.

Is this somehow different from anything else this administration has done?

They blame democrats for not passing a DACA fix, but it was Trump who ended DACA in the first place.

They blame mental health laws for gun violence, but it was Trump who recently removed the restrictions on gun purchases by the mentally ill.

They think the healthcare subsidy system is broken, but they're the ones who tried to remove the subsidies in the first place.

They think our China has too much power in trade negotiations, but Trump is the one who withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership.

You can add to this list yourself, I'm sure.  On every single issue thus far, Trump has complained and vilified and blamed everyone but himself for the very problems that he himself has created or amplified.

It's all part of his "turn your weaknesses into strengths" strategy.  Just like he's the oldest President ever, so he labelled Hillary as too old and frail to be President.  Just like the Trump foundation was fined for fraud, so he made a big deal about the Clinton Foundation.  Just like he's financially backed by the Russians so he went after Clinton for giving a speech in Russia.  He knows his weaknesses, and he uses them to attack his opponents.  This thing with the FBI is no different.

Next week I expect him to come down hard on democrats for not supporting the Me Too movement more forcefully.  He'll find some example of a liberal politician sleeping with a staffer, and he'll act all outraged that anyone could be so improper.  Maybe he'll call that person a pussy grabber?  Or suggest that an improper hush money NDA was involved?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 20, 2018, 09:21:33 AM
Who pays for all these lawyers? Us the taxpayers?
Cobb & McGahn are both paid for and are under the purview of the White House. They are paid out of the federal budget. Every administration has a WH legal council, but I think its new to have two (someone correct me if I"m wrong).  What's interesting with both of them is that, because of their position as official WH counsil, the normal rules of lawyer-client privilege aren't as iron-clad. For example, Mueller or the Senate investigative committee could subpoena all of Cobb's notes. Much of what they do will be discoverable under freedom of information acts (though much is likely protected until after DJT leaves office).

The others are his own personal lawyers, and as such can stonewall and evoke client privilege whenever they want. They were being paid by the RNC - around the holidays Trump announced that he would now pay for his own legal costs... though we've seen how flexible he is with statements like "out of my own pocket" before (e.g. his charitable giving, the Trump foundation, promises made at rallies and on his show...). Last year the NYT reported that DJT was spending about $350,000/month on legal fees; with the addition of diGenova and the intensification of his legal battles on multiple fronts it's hard to imagine that this cost had done anything but increase exponentially.

ETA: Looks like DJT is adding yet another lawyer to his stable: Theodore B Olsen.  The same guy who represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore. Whoops.  Apparently Olsen has gone on record saying he didn't accept the job.  Looks like DJT's still shopping around for yet more advocats.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on March 20, 2018, 01:35:57 PM
Who pays for all these lawyers? Us the taxpayers?
There's at least some reason to suspect the DiGenova was hired more to keep him silent about his role with the rogue NY FBI and NYPD agents who pretended to find new dirt on Weiner's laptop right before the election, forcing Comey to "reopen" and then quickly reclose the Secretary of State server investigation. Oh, and he and his wife provide legal representation for several other players in this whole conspiracy. I smell some convoluted attempt to block investigations from interviewing many key witnesses, including DiGenova himself. Trump seems to think he can wave his had and make anything he's done, even pre-inauguration and pre-election, go away by claiming executive privilege and attorney-client privilege. We are assured by many experts that this is not the case, and yet many in any position of power to oppose this remain quiet (and in my view complicit).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on March 20, 2018, 02:23:15 PM
I'd like to pass the hat here to buy a one way ticket to Russia for DJT and family... I'll start it off with $150... ;)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 20, 2018, 02:52:52 PM
Olsen has gone on record saying he didn't accept the job.  Looks like DJT's still shopping around for yet more advocats.

Why does DJT need lawyers?  He should fire his entire legal team and represent himself, because no one knows more about the constitution and the law than Trump, believe me.  He's the very best, very best. 

And after he builds the very best legal defense in the world, democrats are going to pay for it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 20, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
I suspect that what DJT needs most right now is a lawyer who specializes in plea bargains.  He needs damage control, not defense.  That ship appears to have sailed, and is now sinking, and lawyers are fleeing like rats.

Alternately, I hear there's a former judge from Alabama who is looking for work these days.  Roy something or other, seems like Trump's kind of guy.  I bet he'd do a good job.

...

Jokes, people, they're jokes.  You have to have a sense of humor in these trying times.  Does anyone have any good lines about constitutional crises?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 20, 2018, 03:14:03 PM
Olsen has gone on record saying he didn't accept the job.  Looks like DJT's still shopping around for yet more advocats.

Why does DJT need lawyers?  He should fire his entire legal team and represent himself, because no one knows more about the constitution and the law than Trump, believe me.  He's the very best, very best. 

And after he builds the very best legal defense in the world, democrats are going to pay for it.

Yup, the best National Security Advisor (2...?), the best campaign manager, the best press secretary (4), the best Chief of Staff, the best Secretary of State, the best Chief EConomic Advisor, the best Communications Director (3), the best Health and Human Services Sec., the best chief strategist, the best FBI director, the best deputy Chief of Staff (2), the best senior advisor, the best Staff Secretary...

gee, why don't "the best" ever stick around for very long?

Alternating, I hear there's a former judge from Alabama who is looking for work these days.  Roy something or other, seems like Trump's kind of guy.  I bet he'd do a good job.
Yeah, a real "law-and-order candidate" - 'cept he gets to decide to enforce laws that aren't on the books and ignore ones that are based on his own personal opinions.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 20, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Clearly, he is a president who listens to all of these great people. I mean, why else even have them there right?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/379428-trump-congratulated-putin-after-his-national-security-team-told-him

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on April 09, 2018, 05:47:42 PM
Mark Zuckerberg's statement to congress is worth a read.
Assuming it is true, the extent of Russian propaganda is eye-opening.
https://www.axios.com/read-mark-zuckerberg-testimony-for-congress-1523288674-4ec25015-b37c-4c9e-b367-fd55f9e227f4.html (https://www.axios.com/read-mark-zuckerberg-testimony-for-congress-1523288674-4ec25015-b37c-4c9e-b367-fd55f9e227f4.html)

[excepts - emphasis added]
Quote
III. RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE
...
A. What Happened
...
Our security team has been aware of traditional Russian cyber threats — like hacking and malware — for years. Leading up to Election Day in November 2016, we detected and dealt with several threats with ties to Russia. This included activity by a group called APT28, that the U.S. government has publicly linked to Russian military intelligence services.
...
After the election, we continued to investigate and learn more about these new threats. What we found was that bad actors had used coordinated networks of fake accounts to interfere in the election: promoting or attacking specific candidates and causes, creating distrust in political institutions, or simply spreading confusion. Some of these bad actors also used our ads tools.

We also learned about a disinformation campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) — a Russian agency that has repeatedly acted deceptively and tried to manipulate people in the US, Europe, and Russia. We found about 470 accounts and pages linked to the IRA, which generated around 80,000 Facebook posts over about a two-year period.

Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a Facebook Page associated with the IRA at some point during that period. On Instagram, where our data on reach is not as complete, we found about 120,000 pieces of content, and estimate that an additional 20 million people were likely served it.

Over the same period, the IRA also spent approximately $100,000 on more than 3,000 ads on Facebook and Instagram, which were seen by an estimated 11 million people in the United States. We shut down these IRA accounts in August 2017.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Middlesbrough on May 01, 2018, 07:15:36 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/questions-mueller-wants-to-ask-trump-russia.html

Looks like Mueller has his obstruction case ready for Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 01, 2018, 10:24:45 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385602-muellers-former-assistant-says-grammatical-errors-prove-leaked-questions-came

An interesting possibility...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 01, 2018, 10:41:58 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385602-muellers-former-assistant-says-grammatical-errors-prove-leaked-questions-came

An interesting possibility...

So this theory is that the WH intentionally leaked the questions while simultaneously blasting the leak as 'disgraceful'?  Interesting indeed.
I'm still left wondering how this strategy could benefit DJT.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on May 01, 2018, 12:03:50 PM
I'm still left wondering how this strategy could benefit DJT.

Muddy water helps him
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 09, 2018, 05:52:03 AM
Trump's lawyer/"fixer" was on retainer to a firm owned by a Russian billionaire with close ties to Putin during the 2016 election and well into Trump's first year.  He allegedly received $500k during the first half of 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb)

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on May 09, 2018, 07:08:14 AM
Trump's lawyer/"fixer" was on retainer to a firm owned by a Russian billionaire with close ties to Putin during the 2016 election and well into Trump's first year.  He allegedly received $500k during the first half of 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb)
Not so much draining the swamp, more peeing into it.

It will be interesting to see what contortions the Trump supporters in Congress come up with to justify this $4 million slush fund started during the transition and continuing throughout the first year of the Trump Presidency.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 09, 2018, 07:48:59 AM

"The senators found that the Russians targeted at least 18 states, and said that there is evidence that they also went after three others, scanning them for vulnerabilities. In six states, they went further, trying to gain access to voting websites, and in “a small number of states” actually breached election computer defenses.
In those instances the intruders had the ability to change registration data but appeared unable to change votes, the report stated. The senators cautioned that other Russian attacks and breaches could have gone undetected."

"The senators also sounded concerns on Tuesday about the shrinking number of voting-machine makers. The three largest vendors of voting equipment dominate the industry, and both the companies and their subcontractors that serve local election agencies are largely unregulated. That makes them and other vendors “an enticing target for malicious cyberactors,” the Intelligence Committee wrote.
A National Security Agency analysis leaked last June concluded that Russian military intelligence launched a cyberattack on at least one maker of electronic voting equipment during the 2016 campaign, and sent so-called spear-phishing emails days before the general election to 122 local government officials, apparently customers of the manufacturer. The emails concealed a computer script that, when clicked on, “very likely” downloaded a program from an external server that gave the intruders prolonged access to election computers or allowed them to search for valuable data."

"Russia Tried to Undermine Confidence in Voting Systems, Senators Say"
https://nyti.ms/2KMUn4U
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malaysia41 on May 09, 2018, 08:05:31 AM
Trump's lawyer/"fixer" was on retainer to a firm owned by a Russian billionaire with close ties to Putin during the 2016 election and well into Trump's first year.  He allegedly received $500k during the first half of 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb)
Not so much draining the swamp, more peeing into it.

It will be interesting gross me out to see what contortions the Trump supporters in Congress come up with to justify this $4 million slush fund started during the transition and continuing throughout the first year of the Trump Presidency.

FTFY.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Fireball on May 10, 2018, 08:44:43 PM

"The senators found that the Russians targeted at least 18 states, and said that there is evidence that they also went after three others, scanning them for vulnerabilities. In six states, they went further, trying to gain access to voting websites, and in “a small number of states” actually breached election computer defenses.
In those instances the intruders had the ability to change registration data but appeared unable to change votes, the report stated. The senators cautioned that other Russian attacks and breaches could have gone undetected."

"The senators also sounded concerns on Tuesday about the shrinking number of voting-machine makers. The three largest vendors of voting equipment dominate the industry, and both the companies and their subcontractors that serve local election agencies are largely unregulated. That makes them and other vendors “an enticing target for malicious cyberactors,” the Intelligence Committee wrote.
A National Security Agency analysis leaked last June concluded that Russian military intelligence launched a cyberattack on at least one maker of electronic voting equipment during the 2016 campaign, and sent so-called spear-phishing emails days before the general election to 122 local government officials, apparently customers of the manufacturer. The emails concealed a computer script that, when clicked on, “very likely” downloaded a program from an external server that gave the intruders prolonged access to election computers or allowed them to search for valuable data."

"Russia Tried to Undermine Confidence in Voting Systems, Senators Say"
https://nyti.ms/2KMUn4U

I feel like as a country that we should be FREAKIN' THE HELL OUT over this stuff. I don't think most people realize how important it is that our elections are trustworthy and valid.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 11, 2018, 05:59:13 AM

"The senators found that the Russians targeted at least 18 states, and said that there is evidence that they also went after three others, scanning them for vulnerabilities. In six states, they went further, trying to gain access to voting websites, and in “a small number of states” actually breached election computer defenses.
In those instances the intruders had the ability to change registration data but appeared unable to change votes, the report stated. The senators cautioned that other Russian attacks and breaches could have gone undetected."

"The senators also sounded concerns on Tuesday about the shrinking number of voting-machine makers. The three largest vendors of voting equipment dominate the industry, and both the companies and their subcontractors that serve local election agencies are largely unregulated. That makes them and other vendors “an enticing target for malicious cyberactors,” the Intelligence Committee wrote.
A National Security Agency analysis leaked last June concluded that Russian military intelligence launched a cyberattack on at least one maker of electronic voting equipment during the 2016 campaign, and sent so-called spear-phishing emails days before the general election to 122 local government officials, apparently customers of the manufacturer. The emails concealed a computer script that, when clicked on, “very likely” downloaded a program from an external server that gave the intruders prolonged access to election computers or allowed them to search for valuable data."

"Russia Tried to Undermine Confidence in Voting Systems, Senators Say"
https://nyti.ms/2KMUn4U

I feel like as a country that we should be FREAKIN' THE HELL OUT over this stuff. I don't think most people realize how important it is that our elections are trustworthy and valid.

I agree, but I think it's been part of a progression.  Citizens are disillusioned with politics and the two party system., and feel a change in candidates doesn't do much.  Then they live in increasingly polarized districts, so they feel their vote doesn't matter. Each new administration offers superficially similar promises (Hope, Greatness, etc) but not much seems to change, which breed cynicism about real change actually happening.

So by the time the Russians come around putting their bear-paws on the scale a lot of people think: "hey, its always the same, my vote doesn't matter, and all these promises wind up being for nought, so what difference does it make it some silly foreigners are sitting in a building somewhere screwing with our computers?"

I think the overwhelming desire of most US citizens is to not have to think about government at all - to have it just be in the background chugging along relatively efficiently. But scandal after scandal and constant attacks by certain factions highlighting waste and arguing that zero-is-always-better in terms of government forces people to think about government, and they just get turned off by it.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 11, 2018, 09:50:32 AM
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/11/610206357/documents-reveal-how-russian-official-courted-conservatives-in-u-s-since-2009?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20180511&utm_campaign=breakingnews&utm_term=nprnews

Documents Reveal How Russian Official Courted Conservatives In U.S. Since 2009
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 11, 2018, 09:51:24 AM

"The senators found that the Russians targeted at least 18 states, and said that there is evidence that they also went after three others, scanning them for vulnerabilities. In six states, they went further, trying to gain access to voting websites, and in “a small number of states” actually breached election computer defenses.
In those instances the intruders had the ability to change registration data but appeared unable to change votes, the report stated. The senators cautioned that other Russian attacks and breaches could have gone undetected."

"The senators also sounded concerns on Tuesday about the shrinking number of voting-machine makers. The three largest vendors of voting equipment dominate the industry, and both the companies and their subcontractors that serve local election agencies are largely unregulated. That makes them and other vendors “an enticing target for malicious cyberactors,” the Intelligence Committee wrote.
A National Security Agency analysis leaked last June concluded that Russian military intelligence launched a cyberattack on at least one maker of electronic voting equipment during the 2016 campaign, and sent so-called spear-phishing emails days before the general election to 122 local government officials, apparently customers of the manufacturer. The emails concealed a computer script that, when clicked on, “very likely” downloaded a program from an external server that gave the intruders prolonged access to election computers or allowed them to search for valuable data."

"Russia Tried to Undermine Confidence in Voting Systems, Senators Say"
https://nyti.ms/2KMUn4U

I feel like as a country that we should be FREAKIN' THE HELL OUT over this stuff. I don't think most people realize how important it is that our elections are trustworthy and valid.

Well our country is full of hypocrites. Integrity is merely a catch phrase.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on May 11, 2018, 08:32:17 PM
"We read every one of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by Russians. Their dominant strategy: Sowing racial discord"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/11/what-we-found-facebook-ads-russians-accused-election-meddling/602319002/

Quote
The most prominent ad — with 1.3 million impressions and 73,000 clicks — illustrates how the influence campaign was executed.

A Facebook page called “Back the Badge,” landed on Oct. 19, 2016, following a summer that saw more than 100 Black Lives Matter protests, NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protests in August and protests over the police shootings of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Keith Lamont Scott in North Carolina.

The information analyzed by the USA TODAY Network shows the Internet Research Agency paid 110,058 rubles, or $1,785, for the Facebook spot. It targeted 20 to 65-year-olds interested in law enforcement who had already liked pages such as “The Thin Blue,” “Police Wives Unite” and the “Officer Down Memorial Page.”

The very next day, the influence operation paid for an ad depicting two black brothers handcuffed in Colorado for “driving while black.” That ad targeted people interested in Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X and black history. Within minutes, the Russian company targeted the same group with an ad that said “police brutality has been the most recurring issue over the last several years.”
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 16, 2018, 09:21:06 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-panel-releases-interview-transcripts-trump-jr-130629816--politics.html

Don Jr. is a lying sack of shit.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 16, 2018, 10:14:49 AM
Remember a simpler time when the Trump defense was, "No contact with Russia?"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2018, 10:31:26 AM
in "News that's only surprising to some Fox News bubble-dwellers": The US Senate Intelligence Committee publicly declared today that Russia favored DJT in the 2016 election, and actively interfered in the US election with the coordinated goal of supporting DJT and undermining HRC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/16/russia-favored-trump-in-2016-election-senate-intelligence-committee-says-breaking-with-house-gop/?utm_term=.a8380bdbcf00 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/16/russia-favored-trump-in-2016-election-senate-intelligence-committee-says-breaking-with-house-gop/?utm_term=.a8380bdbcf00)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 16, 2018, 10:53:31 AM
I know one person the news will be surprising to.

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.

Bold mine

But where is the logic? There is none. There would be only downside for Russia to engage in such risky behavior.
All the hoopla is inane hysteria; trying to create smoke.
Trump as Hitler meme has failed; now it's Trump as Putin. Whatever.
Russia as 'enemy #1' is 'tilting at windmills'. Russia is a convenient way to try to smear Trump.
Just more 'crying Wolf'

Obama+Clinton worked deals with Russia. Facts. If anything, if I was Putin, i'd be pulling for Clinton. A known, flexible candidate. Not the crazy Trump, no one knows what he's going to do.



Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere



So after a year of investigations: Who did what colluding?

Samp-creature establishment Dems+Repubs (they are not so different, it would seem) and national security agencies, with their 4th estate MSM buddies turning a blind eye.

- James Comey prepared to exonerate Hillary Clinton before interviewing her.
- Fusion GPS executives invoking the Fifth Amendment.
- The Podesta Group coming under the scrutiny of Mueller.
- New revelations about Uranium One.
- Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Trump dossier.
- O Administration possible knowledge/complicity in some of the above....

Dirty!!

At least one promise was kept: that of O. to the Russians, to 'be more flexible' following the 2012 re-election :)

And so the worm turns....



wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-we-can-be-certain-that-mueller-wont-prove-trump-russia-collusion-595db7f1401b

The only collusion we can factually verify are various swamp creatures colluding to 1) sink Bernie 2) smear Trump the candidate 3) smear Trump the president elect 4) smear Trump the president.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/



Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.

Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.



Life Happiness Tip: stop watching MSM, they teach the arts of bias, personal insults and snark, not things to be proud of. Learn how to read and determine facts from opinion - the two are so easily confused.

Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia

*crickets*

Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.
As far as I can see the 'rest' of Russiagate is easily-spun conjecture, largely spun by triggered, hateful MSM. You'll see what you want to see. "Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." That's what I'm trying to do here, and I'll probably fail, people seem pretty invested in their opinion.

In the meantime, this is rapidly turning into Obamagate. Who knew and did what when in the O admin? Why are the swamp creatures suddenly so worried about facts coming to light? The same swamp creatures who claimed there was 'no scenario' Trump could win, his chance of winning is 'the Easter Bunny, doesn't exist' etc etc. And then he won, and 'their world ended'. Seldom have they been more wrong and never has it felt so good.

I'm glad O is gone and richer too. May the trend continue!
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367972-the-link-between-obamas-departure-and-your-increasing-wealth
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2018, 11:00:07 AM
ah, the internet - where comments live on forever!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 16, 2018, 11:06:12 AM
ah, the internet - where comments live on forever!

I think you're both missing the point.  People like acroy live in such a bubble that your facts don't matter.  He'll call everything a lie if it doesn't align with his views.  Donald Trump himself could say "I colluded with Russia" on live television and 30 million Americans still wouldn't believe it.

The whole point of the Russian interference in the election was to further divide us.  Not just to support one candidate over another, but to make everyone ignore facts and retreat into the most extreme viewpoints possible.  They promoted gun rights AND gun control, with the most inflammatory language and imagery possible, to make sure there could be no compromise.  They want Americans to hate each other, because that's how you undermine our democracy.

With that in mind, maybe we shouldn't be making fun of acroy.  He's also a victim here.  Russian propaganda, often repeated on Fox News, has taught him to despise you and all of your supposedly pro-democracy ideas.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 16, 2018, 11:27:55 AM
what frustrates me is that in his defense, DJT has framed the entire issue about whether or not he colluded with Russia.  As long as people view the investigation only through that lens , any failure to convict or impeach DJT can be used to say the entire investigation was a 'witch hunt'.

Of course the problem with using DJT as the only measure is that it ignores everything else and at great peril to our democracy. Nevermind Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, Cohen or Manafort. Nevermind Pinedo and van der Zwann. Nevermind conclusions by the FBI, CIA & Senate Intelligence committee that Russia actively undermined our election. Comey, Sessions, McCabe and Rosenstein all get professional wounded in the maelstrom. 

In making this all about and only about what is prosecutable against DJT we do a disservice to everything else that has occurred, and turn a blind eye to how easily hostile nations can influence our democracy.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 16, 2018, 12:12:35 PM
^Don't worry, The Cheeto is on it for 2018!

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/15/white-house-eliminates-cyber-adviser-post-542916

Quote
The Trump administration has eliminated the White House’s top cyber policy role, jettisoning a key position created during the Obama presidency to harmonize the government's overall approach to cybersecurity policy and digital warfare.

Dammit.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 17, 2018, 05:59:41 AM
Happy Mueller Investigation Anniversary everyone...
what will year 2 bring?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 17, 2018, 07:12:29 AM
Happy Mueller Investigation Anniversary everyone...
what will year 2 bring?

More indictments.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 17, 2018, 08:25:02 AM

But no indictment against President Trump if you believe Giuliani

Mueller Won’t Indict Trump if He Finds Wrongdoing, Giuliani Says
https://nyti.ms/2GoLH0Y
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 17, 2018, 09:22:26 AM
Neato.  So, the president of the USA is above the law then.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 17, 2018, 10:06:25 AM
Neato.  So, the president of the USA is above the law then.

Only if you believe Giuliani, which....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 17, 2018, 10:15:10 AM
Neato.  So, the president of the USA is above the law then.

Only if you believe Giuliani, which....

Fair enough.  I'm always impressed when he manages to complete a whole sentence without saying 9/11.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 17, 2018, 10:41:43 AM
Neato.  So, the president of the USA is above the law then.

Only if you believe Giuliani, which....

Fair enough.  I'm always impressed when he manages to complete a whole sentence without saying 9/11.
Ah, Giuliana - rarely has a person been supported by so many, only to throw it all away to appeal to so very few.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 17, 2018, 06:07:41 PM


In making this all about and only about what is prosecutable against DJT we do a disservice to everything else that has occurred, and turn a blind eye to how easily hostile nations can influence our democracy.

We have a global information network in a society that values free choice in all its forms. People get to read what they want regardless who it is published by. The problem here is human nature, not the tools.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on May 17, 2018, 09:11:50 PM


In making this all about and only about what is prosecutable against DJT we do a disservice to everything else that has occurred, and turn a blind eye to how easily hostile nations can influence our democracy.

We have a global information network in a society that values free choice in all its forms. People get to read what they want regardless who it is published by. The problem here is human nature, not the tools.
So what's easier to effect, human nature or the tools. My guess is that it's impossible to change human nature so we go for the next best thing.

Also I don't understand how your comment is a response to the nereo quote.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 17, 2018, 10:07:44 PM


In making this all about and only about what is prosecutable against DJT we do a disservice to everything else that has occurred, and turn a blind eye to how easily hostile nations can influence our democracy.

We have a global information network in a society that values free choice in all its forms. People get to read what they want regardless who it is published by. The problem here is human nature, not the tools.
So what's easier to effect, human nature or the tools. My guess is that it's impossible to change human nature so we go for the next best thing.

Also I don't understand how your comment is a response to the nereo quote.

We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)

Social media just cuts out the middle man (newspaper editors, television editors.) Technology has disrupted every industry. Why wouldn't it disrupt our politics? If a foreign adversary decides to use social media as an attack vector, can we actually stop it? Can you effectively filter the "bad" news? Who gets to decide what is or isn't newsworthy?

If you say "power to the people!", You may have to accept the people won't agree with you.

Of course they will make it all about Trump. That way people don't have to analyze what actually led to Trump being elected. That once Trump is out of office, everything will return to normal.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 17, 2018, 10:19:40 PM
Of course they will make it all about Trump. That way people don't have to analyze what actually led to Trump being elected. That once Trump is out of office, everything will return to normal.

As a bare minimum, once Trump is out of office the government will be able to publicly acknowledge the threat posed by foreign interference and propose some countermeasures, instead of decrying the very idea as fake news.

It won't immediately fix the problem, but at least we can stop making it worse.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 18, 2018, 07:31:50 AM
Big picture - if the Trump campaign didn't collude (they did) why are all these top advisers and officials lying to the FBI about it?  Why did Hope Hicks/Trump/SHS lie not once, not twice, but three times to the American people about the Trump Tower meeting if they're innocent?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on May 18, 2018, 09:08:33 AM
In most situations like this in US politics, the lies and coverups are often worse than the original crimes or deeds. In the case of the Trumps, we have learned that it's the opposite. That is why so many people have lied so blatantly and repeatedly. Because being called out as a liar is better than being called out as a traitor.

Trump lies about his involvement in the Trump Tower meetings with Russians and his direct involvement in witness tampering with his dictation of Trump Jr's statement regarding said meeting, among many other actions, because if he doesn't lie about it, he's admitting publicly to being a direct participant in a conspiracy to use foreign agents and espionage against US citizens in order to benefit himself personally, politically, and benefit the Republican party more generally.

Quote
We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)

Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 18, 2018, 10:39:25 AM
What the Russians did on social media is blatantly illegal in traditional media.  The Russians are not legally allowed to buy campaign ads on tv or radio or billboards.

But the laws haven't caught up with social media, which reaches more people more efficiently at a lower cost.  Trump exploited this lack of legal protection.  Like so much of his life story, he found a way to cheat that is just barely, technically, not illegal.  Yet.

Which is not to say that the Russians and the trump campaign didn't break the law, as evidenced by the string of indictments and people currently in prison for their actions during the campaign.

It's fairly clear to me that this administration will go down in history as one of the most corrupt we've ever had.  This is arguably a bigger violation of ethical norms than Watergate or Teapot Dome, but we survived those presidents and I think we'll survive this one too.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 18, 2018, 11:28:19 AM


Quote
We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)

Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.

Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.

So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.

It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.

 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 19, 2018, 08:24:09 PM


Quote
We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)

Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.

Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.

So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.

It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it.  What about murder or tax fraud?  Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 20, 2018, 05:51:40 AM


Quote
We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)

Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.

Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.

So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.

It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it.  What about murder or tax fraud?  Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.

I believe I am being practical. If 100 spies attempt to sneak in and we catch 85, woo! We caught the bad guys! But those 15 will still do damage.

Our government may be the most powerful on Earth, but it is still run by humans and restrained by resources. Humans make mistakes. Time may not allow for the investigation of every tip. And imagination can be lacking at the higher levels of our intelligence services.

It isn't about the "morality" issue. It's accepting that there are limitations on what we can do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 20, 2018, 11:21:00 AM


Quote
We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)

Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.

Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.

So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.

It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it.  What about murder or tax fraud?  Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.

I believe I am being practical. If 100 spies attempt to sneak in and we catch 85, woo! We caught the bad guys! But those 15 will still do damage.

Our government may be the most powerful on Earth, but it is still run by humans and restrained by resources. Humans make mistakes. Time may not allow for the investigation of every tip. And imagination can be lacking at the higher levels of our intelligence services.

It isn't about the "morality" issue. It's accepting that there are limitations on what we can do.

I see your practicality, and it is reasonable to an extent. It is a different thing when the people running for office are either  complicit or so guileless that they do not understand when they are being played.

From the descriptions of the now infamous Trump Tower meeting, I can't help but think that they thought Trump Jr and Kushner were total fucking idiots. I think it was the worst combination of being both complicit and guileless for how these things work.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 20, 2018, 01:30:43 PM


Quote
We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)

Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.

Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.

So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.

It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it.  What about murder or tax fraud?  Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.

I believe I am being practical. If 100 spies attempt to sneak in and we catch 85, woo! We caught the bad guys! But those 15 will still do damage.

Our government may be the most powerful on Earth, but it is still run by humans and restrained by resources. Humans make mistakes. Time may not allow for the investigation of every tip. And imagination can be lacking at the higher levels of our intelligence services.

It isn't about the "morality" issue. It's accepting that there are limitations on what we can do.

I see your practicality, and it is reasonable to an extent. It is a different thing when the people running for office are either  complicit or so guileless that they do not understand when they are being played.

From the descriptions of the now infamous Trump Tower meeting, I can't help but think that they thought Trump Jr and Kushner were total fucking idiots. I think it was the worst combination of being both complicit and guileless for how these things work.

Yes. They handled it badly. Well, they handled it like business men who wanted credit of it worked out.

A true politician would have used a "cats paw" to gather then launder the intelligence into something usable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: BlueMR2 on May 20, 2018, 01:57:28 PM
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it.  What about murder or tax fraud?  Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.

I read that more in the context of being pragmatic.  A tremendous amount of energy can be wasted trying to track down all the offenses.  In the meantime they are getting ahead.  Don't ever forget that it's a competition for dominance.  We're nice and cozy and soft over here in our richie rich first world conditions.  It's so easy to fall into the "we're all friends" except for maybe a couple countries that are misbehaving.  The truth is that none of them are truly our friends.  Allies sometimes yes.  As long as we have the same cause.  Compatible causes come to a conclusion and the battle for dominance rises back up.  I respect Russia, they are a formidable competitor.  We can't focus all our efforts on them though.  Even though (for just one example) we're currently cozy with much of the EU, they don't have our best interests in mind either and must be at least somewhat examined as a subversive force as well.  PLUS, then we still need the resources to do what's right for our way of life.  Definitely not enough resources to go around, so the balancing act is critical.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 21, 2018, 06:57:28 AM
Constitutional crisis = engaged.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 21, 2018, 06:04:31 PM
Get out the pitchforks and torches gents! The israeli's offered assistance to Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/19/donald-trump-jr-meeting-saudi-arabia-united-arab-emirates-report
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 21, 2018, 06:36:39 PM
The story remains the same:
Quote
Under US law, the involvement of foreign governments or individuals in American elections is illegal.

It is not known if anything came of the alleged offer for assistance. The Times stated that Trump Jr responded “approvingly”.

I think that there is also a subtext of cynicism in which the assumed baseline of a  lot of people is that all politicians are corrupt/opportunistic shills and that none of this should surprise us. This is how Trump gets normalized. The level of absolutely blatant corruption throughout the administration is galling.

... or maybe I'm just not cynical enough yet.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 21, 2018, 08:26:19 PM
Merry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5

Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.

Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.

Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 22, 2018, 07:59:57 AM
Merry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5

Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.

Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.

Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.

The Clintons normalized it?  Reality:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdrhoriVwAA6-wm.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 22, 2018, 08:43:20 AM
Merry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5

Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.

Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.

Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.

The Clintons normalized it?  Reality:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdrhoriVwAA6-wm.jpg)

Some criminals are more skilled than others.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 22, 2018, 09:58:59 AM
It seems to me that independent and continual examination of our leaders is essential. In general more transparency and critical vetting could avoid many of the criminal problems we have encountered over the last several decades.

If one's opinion is that 'all upper-echelon politicians are criminals' then we ought to examine why i) criminals are drawn to politics and ii) how they obtain and retain higher office despite their criminality. Certainly power and personal enrichment drive the former, and both could be directly addressed by enforcing existing legislation and adding new requirements. The latter requires criminal acts to be detected, investigated and prosecuted regardless of the power of the individual or the position he or she holds.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on May 22, 2018, 10:19:04 AM
Get out the pitchforks and torches gents! The israeli's offered assistance to Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/19/donald-trump-jr-meeting-saudi-arabia-united-arab-emirates-report

Merry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5

Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.

Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.

Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.

I'm confused as to what your conclusions are from the Guardian article. Information that suggests further collusion of a candidate with a foreign government in exchange for favorable treatment towards that country once elected tells us...? Are you saying this is good news for Trump? For Russia? Bad news for the investigation?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 22, 2018, 11:20:44 AM
Get out the pitchforks and torches gents! The israeli's offered assistance to Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/19/donald-trump-jr-meeting-saudi-arabia-united-arab-emirates-report

Merry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5

Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.

Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.

Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.

I'm confused as to what your conclusions are from the Guardian article. Information that suggests further collusion of a candidate with a foreign government in exchange for favorable treatment towards that country once elected tells us...? Are you saying this is good news for Trump? For Russia? Bad news for the investigation?

Two movies, one screen.

If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.

If you believe Russia-gate is false, you will expect Democrats to make a token effort at investigation, but not demand sanctions or expel diplomats.

Democrats would appear to be "in the horns of a dilemma." They can be tough on interference and risk alienating an ally of 50 years (as well dredge up any other unsavory business). Or they can back down which undermines the Russia investigation.

Mueller is already investigating this meeting. But we also had a Senate investigation and a house investigation. To me it seems Democrats would have to do a full scale investigation again or risk looking "soft."

Of course we have to wait and see what happens.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 22, 2018, 11:58:06 AM
@gentmach - what do you mean when you say "if you believe the Russia-gate is real"?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 22, 2018, 12:05:07 PM
Ah, the tin foil hatters are back out, I see.

Let's remember it's the Trump administration that has refused to enact sanctions on Russia.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on May 22, 2018, 12:56:01 PM
It wouldn't be Israel that would be the target of investigation, at least based on this current Trump scandal, it would be Saudi Arabia and the UAE, these are the foreign governments that may have paid bribes and undeniably utilized their agents within and surrounding the Trump campaign in order to push for direct policy change (ending the Iran agreement, blockading former US-ally Qatar, Russian-linked nuclear technology to SA, all of the suspicious activity around the sale of Rosneft). The only Israeli link that I've seen is that SA and UAE really wanted Trump to use an Israeli social media marketing company called Zamel. I'm pretty sure Democrat are the only ones not afraid of where these investigations take us, I've yet to see any outcry with regards to Tony Podesta (brother of Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta) being caught up in the mess that is the Trump campaign/org/administration/family (hard to really separate these entities to be honest). All of this is not to say that Israel and Netanyahu didn't utilize similar tactics to support Trump during the campaign and then influence him and his administration in illegal ways; I'm just not aware that anyone has reported on it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on May 22, 2018, 01:04:18 PM
The assistance from Russia has been clearly linked to Russian State actors.  The reports of the offer of assistance from the Middle East implicate State actors from the UAE and Saudia, but the link to the Israeli State is not made, just to an Israeli company.  Also, the Russian offers of assistance have been shown to have turned into action, whereas that is not so clear in relation to the UAE and Saudia.

If it is shown that the Israeli State was offering assistance, rather than just an Israeli company, and that it put that assistance into place to try to influence the US Presidential election, it would be proper for the USA to take suitable retaliatory action.  Starting with the removal of military and economic assistance and moving on to sanctions as necessary.  Evidence for those two facts has not yet been put forward.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 22, 2018, 01:43:21 PM
If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.

I think this is hilarious.  Some people are so convinced that there was no foreign interference in the election ("witch hunt!") that they use the example of additional foreign interference to exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing.

"No officer, I couldn't possibly have been doing 75 in a 60.  It had to be at least a 90!"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 22, 2018, 02:41:25 PM
If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.

I think this is hilarious.  Some people are so convinced that there was no foreign interference in the election ("witch hunt!") that they use the example of additional foreign interference to exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing.

"No officer, I couldn't possibly have been doing 75 in a 60.  It had to be at least a 90!"

Actually I believe there was foreign interference, just no more than average. I don't believe that it was this "all out, blitzkrieg style, Putin behind every corner" attack.

This second meeting seems to flip the narrative around and raises more concerns that need to be investigated in uncomfortable places.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 22, 2018, 03:04:52 PM
If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.

I think this is hilarious.  Some people are so convinced that there was no foreign interference in the election ("witch hunt!") that they use the example of additional foreign interference to exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing.

"No officer, I couldn't possibly have been doing 75 in a 60.  It had to be at least a 90!"

Actually I believe there was foreign interference, just no more than average.
I don't believe that it was this "all out, blitzkrieg style, Putin behind every corner" attack.

This second meeting seems to flip the narrative around and raises more concerns that need to be investigated in uncomfortable places.

Well this raises the question - do you refute the conclusions of our own intelligence agencies and the Senate Intelligence committee, or do you think that they've correctly assessed the level of Russian interference but missed previous, state-sponsored coordinated attacks?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 22, 2018, 05:22:00 PM
Evgeny Freidman, a Russian immigrant and Michael Cohen's longtime business partner, has flipped and is cooperating with Mueller.  In exchange, he will plead guilty to a single count of evading $50,000 worth in taxes and 5 years probation with no jail time.  Freidman was looking at four separate charges of tax fraud totaling over $5MM, plus one charge of grand larceny. Each of those charges carries a maximum sentence of 25 years.

Such a remarkable reduction in the charges against him suggests that he's given some pretty valuable information to Mueller in return.

Cohen looks more and more screwed - unless he's got something even better to offer Mueller.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/nyregion/michael-cohen-trump-taxi-cooperation.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/nyregion/michael-cohen-trump-taxi-cooperation.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 22, 2018, 05:47:20 PM
If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.

I think this is hilarious.  Some people are so convinced that there was no foreign interference in the election ("witch hunt!") that they use the example of additional foreign interference to exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing.

"No officer, I couldn't possibly have been doing 75 in a 60.  It had to be at least a 90!"

Actually I believe there was foreign interference, just no more than average.
I don't believe that it was this "all out, blitzkrieg style, Putin behind every corner" attack.

This second meeting seems to flip the narrative around and raises more concerns that need to be investigated in uncomfortable places.

Well this raises the question - do you refute the conclusions of our own intelligence agencies and the Senate Intelligence committee, or do you think that they've correctly assessed the level of Russian interference but missed previous, state-sponsored coordinated attacks?

Between known and unknown interference attempts in every election, the result is statistically negligible. At least not enough to warrant making America a police state.

The answer is "I don't know." I am looking for context.

Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?

Also historical context. Who did the Russians pull for in the 2012 election? How much did the spend? Was 2016 above average or below average?

The problem is that most inquiries run into a page of redacted text.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 22, 2018, 06:01:14 PM
Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?

You're making this up as you go along, aren't you?

Foreign government spending on American elections is illegal.  It has been illegal since the advent of marketing.  When it happens, it's by covert counterintelligence officers working under the radar, and whether they cost a thousand or a million doesn't make much difference.  They're spies.

Facebook and twitter are, for some reason, exempt from the laws that make it illegal for foreign governments to sway elections.  That needs to change first, but we can't even do that as long as potus continues to deny that it even happened. 

The amount of spending on facebook and twitter ads in most previous elections was exactly zero, because they didn't exist.  To my ears, it just sounds like you're trying to confound the issue at hand.  Which is that Russia orchestrated a deliberate intervention in the US election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 22, 2018, 06:12:50 PM

Between known and unknown interference attempts in every election, the result is statistically negligible. At least not enough to warrant making America a police state.

The answer is "I don't know." I am looking for context.

Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?

Also historical context. Who did the Russians pull for in the 2012 election? How much did the spend? Was 2016 above average or below average?

The problem is that most inquiries run into a page of redacted text.

Police state?  Was the question even asked?  Seriously??  I'm quite certain that our numerous intelligence agencies spend an great deal of time and resources trying to detect and deter just these sorts of things, and not just in this last election.  The fact that the FBI, CIA and NSA and Senate intelligence committee have all said as much - Russia attempte to interfere in our 2016 election to a previously unprecedented level.

your argument here seems to be based on two assumptions; that this level of interference is common (only we've never learned of it before) and because it is common we ought not to care.
Even if both of those are true (and I strongly refute both conditions) - I'm not willing to accept that we shouldn't try to stop it from happening again.  Imagine if the police took that approach to a serial bank-robber.  "well, we don't really know if other banks have been robbed that we just haven't heard about, and it would be expensive and time consuming to catch him, so let's just go home"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 22, 2018, 06:54:12 PM

Between known and unknown interference attempts in every election, the result is statistically negligible. At least not enough to warrant making America a police state.

The answer is "I don't know." I am looking for context.

Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?

Also historical context. Who did the Russians pull for in the 2012 election? How much did the spend? Was 2016 above average or below average?

The problem is that most inquiries run into a page of redacted text.

Police state?  Was the question even asked?  Seriously??  I'm quite certain that our numerous intelligence agencies spend an great deal of time and resources trying to detect and deter just these sorts of things, and not just in this last election.  The fact that the FBI, CIA and NSA and Senate intelligence committee have all said as much - Russia attempte to interfere in our 2016 election to a previously unprecedented level.

your argument here seems to be based on two assumptions; that this level of interference is common (only we've never learned of it before) and because it is common we ought not to care.
Even if both of those are true (and I strongly refute both conditions) - I'm not willing to accept that we shouldn't try to stop it from happening again.  Imagine if the police took that approach to a serial bank-robber.  "well, we don't really know if other banks have been robbed that we just haven't heard about, and it would be expensive and time consuming to catch him, so let's just go home"


Quote
We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)

Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.

Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.

So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.

It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it.  What about murder or tax fraud?  Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.

Nereo, this is the second time you have launched into a logical fallacy in 5 days. I'm starting to worry about your mental state.

I am simply being pragmatic. Nothing is 100 percent. My point was that surveillance would hit a point where the principle of diminishing returns comes into effect.

Hey, you know James Clapper committed perjury? Several times? https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/

Makes me a bit skeptical. Different strokes for different folks though.

MOD NOTE: Please read the forum rules. Attack an argument, not a person.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 22, 2018, 07:08:39 PM
Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?

You're making this up as you go along, aren't you?

Foreign government spending on American elections is illegal.  It has been illegal since the advent of marketing.  When it happens, it's by covert counterintelligence officers working under the radar, and whether they cost a thousand or a million doesn't make much difference.  They're spies.

Facebook and twitter are, for some reason, exempt from the laws that make it illegal for foreign governments to sway elections.  That needs to change first, but we can't even do that as long as potus continues to deny that it even happened. 

The amount of spending on facebook and twitter ads in most previous elections was exactly zero, because they didn't exist.  To my ears, it just sounds like you're trying to confound the issue at hand.  Which is that Russia orchestrated a deliberate intervention in the US election.

September 26, 2006, Facebook was opened to everyone at least 13 years old with a valid email address.

2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections.

Facebook and Twitter are simply the latest tools. They do get more bang for the buck with them.

We live in a global economy. We have corporations within corporations within corporations. And as I explained earlier, our intelligence services cannot check every damn deal that is made.

We have only one point of data and the rest is on the faith of our intelligence services. Assuming that our side is infallible and omnipotent sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 22, 2018, 07:20:11 PM
No no you guys have it all wrong!

There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"

Come on, what don't you guys get?

It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 22, 2018, 08:02:27 PM
Then there's the change in US Policy that follows Donald Trump or Jared Kushner getting personal business benefits from foreign governments, China and Quatar come to mind.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: smoghat on May 22, 2018, 08:16:00 PM
I had been staying out if this discussion since, well, there are so many wing nuts on the Internet who believe Trump can do no wrong. Nice to see reasonable discussions here. Wait, what a surprise, this is a group of people setting out to retire early and doing it. Oh, I guess it’s self selecting for the smarter folks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 22, 2018, 09:29:24 PM
No no you guys have it all wrong!

There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"

Come on, what don't you guys get?

It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.

Every nation on Earth has something at stake in our elections. Our borders are unsecured and with the Advent of the internet, we have more open avenues for attack than ever. Some avenues of attack that are purposefully left open by our own intelligence services. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7)

If a nation has the capabilities, why not try? Using Tor and other programs makes it nearly impossible to trace. Larger nations have resources or capital that we cannot live without so have leverage on us even if they are caught.

Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 22, 2018, 11:20:57 PM
Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.

You're not acknowledging vulnerabilities, you're excusing deliberately malicious exploitation of vulnerabilities.  By elected officials entrusted with protecting the institutions they are instead subverting for personal profit.

Surely you can see the difference.

I acknowledge that banks are not secure, but I still want to prosecute bank robbers.  I acknowledge that children are too trusting of authority figures, but I still want to prosecute pedophiles.  I acknowledge that foreign governments can still bribe and blackmail elected officials in exchange for influence, but I still want to prosecute Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on May 23, 2018, 01:43:53 AM
Our borders are unsecured

No, they are not.  If they were truly unsecured the USA would have tens of millions of people coming into the States without formal permission, and it just doesn't.

In saying that they are unsecured you are denigrating the work of every person who works to keep the USA borders secure, and demonstrating that you are being willfully ignorant of the facts and being led down a policy blind alley by demagoguery.

The USA population is 325 million.  Between 11 and 12 million of those people are undocumented: that is less than 3%.  Perhaps about half of those may have come across the borders without documentation, the rest have entered legally and overstayed.  Undocumented people in the USA overall have higher levels of education, commit less crime and take fewer benefits than the rest of the population, despite the obstacles put in their way by being undocumented.  So while there are some issues regarding undocumented immigration across the borders, it is not at the level of "unsecured".  (Compare and contrast with Europe two years ago, when some borders were opened.)

Please don't devalue the good points you are making by including bad ones,
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 23, 2018, 04:14:24 AM
No no you guys have it all wrong!

There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"

Come on, what don't you guys get?

It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.

Every nation on Earth has something at stake in our elections. Our borders are unsecured and with the Advent of the internet, we have more open avenues for attack than ever. Some avenues of attack that are purposefully left open by our own intelligence services. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7)

If a nation has the capabilities, why not try? Using Tor and other programs makes it nearly impossible to trace. Larger nations have resources or capital that we cannot live without so have leverage on us even if they are caught.

Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.

Yeah, because that' exactly what I meant by mental gymnastics *eye roll*
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 23, 2018, 05:28:59 AM
Our borders are unsecured

No, they are not.  If they were truly unsecured the USA would have tens of millions of people coming into the States without formal permission, and it just doesn't.

In saying that they are unsecured you are denigrating the work of every person who works to keep the USA borders secure, and demonstrating that you are being willfully ignorant of the facts and being led down a policy blind alley by demagoguery.

The USA population is 325 million.  Between 11 and 12 million of those people are undocumented: that is less than 3%.  Perhaps about half of those may have come across the borders without documentation, the rest have entered legally and overstayed.  Undocumented people in the USA overall have higher levels of education, commit less crime and take fewer benefits than the rest of the population, despite the obstacles put in their way by being undocumented.  So while there are some issues regarding undocumented immigration across the borders, it is not at the level of "unsecured".  (Compare and contrast with Europe two years ago, when some borders were opened.)

Please don't devalue the good points you are making by including bad ones,

My apologies. I was not thinking of undocumented immigrants. I should have said "Our borders appear to be vulnerable to sophisticated organizations (I.E. Drug cartels) who would probably not ask questions if paid enough money."

No no you guys have it all wrong!

There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"

Come on, what don't you guys get?

It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.

Every nation on Earth has something at stake in our elections. Our borders are unsecured and with the Advent of the internet, we have more open avenues for attack than ever. Some avenues of attack that are purposefully left open by our own intelligence services. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7)

If a nation has the capabilities, why not try? Using Tor and other programs makes it nearly impossible to trace. Larger nations have resources or capital that we cannot live without so have leverage on us even if they are caught.

Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.

Yeah, because that' exactly what I meant by mental gymnastics *eye roll*

It doesn't take much to be a hacker. Programming knowledge, computer with internet, time, patience and imagination.

Our institutions are under attack everyday from hostile actors. Most of these attempts fail. A few succeed, (someone didn't install a patch, malware piggy backed in on legitimate software).

Generally the public won't be alerted to or think about such things. If you suddenly zoom in on it, have radio stations, news channels and newspapers reminding the public every day that we were attacked, then people start freaking out. Peer pressure will make anyone who has questions look like a traitor.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 23, 2018, 08:18:22 AM
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/

TRUMP’S RUSSIA COVER-UP BY THE NUMBERS – 75+ CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA-LINKED OPERATIVES

Quote
This brings the number of high-level campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts between the Trump team and Russia to 23. None of these 23 individuals ever revealed to federal law enforcement that the Russians were seeking to interfere with the election by aiding the campaign.

This is aiding and abetting.  Remember when Al Gore's campaign got sent an advanced copy of W's outline/plan for the debate and they IMMEDIATELY turned it over to the FBI without looking at the content?

Quote
Yet over the past year, we’ve learned about a series of meetings and contacts between individuals linked to the Russian government and Trump’s campaign and transition team. In total, we have learned of 75 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia linked operatives, including at least 22 meetings. And we know that at least 22 high-ranking campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts with Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition. None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them.

The Trump denial plan:
1) No contact with any Russians (lie)
2) No contact with any Russians that we're aware of (lie)
3) Ok, maybe there was contact but it wasn't about the campaign (lie)
4) Ok, it was about the campaign but everyone does that (lie)
5) NO COLLUSION (lie)
6) Look, guys, collusion isn't a crime (lie)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 23, 2018, 08:34:54 AM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 23, 2018, 09:40:26 AM
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority... 
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.

-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere

I also love Fox not acknowledging that they are a big slice of the MSM.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 23, 2018, 11:04:12 AM
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/

TRUMP’S RUSSIA COVER-UP BY THE NUMBERS – 75+ CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA-LINKED OPERATIVES

Quote
This brings the number of high-level campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts between the Trump team and Russia to 23. None of these 23 individuals ever revealed to federal law enforcement that the Russians were seeking to interfere with the election by aiding the campaign.

This is aiding and abetting.  Remember when Al Gore's campaign got sent an advanced copy of W's outline/plan for the debate and they IMMEDIATELY turned it over to the FBI without looking at the content?

Quote
Yet over the past year, we’ve learned about a series of meetings and contacts between individuals linked to the Russian government and Trump’s campaign and transition team. In total, we have learned of 75 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia linked operatives, including at least 22 meetings. And we know that at least 22 high-ranking campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts with Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition. None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them.

The Trump denial plan:
1) No contact with any Russians (lie)
2) No contact with any Russians that we're aware of (lie)
3) Ok, maybe there was contact but it wasn't about the campaign (lie)
4) Ok, it was about the campaign but everyone does that (lie)
5) NO COLLUSION (lie)
6) Look, guys, collusion isn't a crime (lie)

How many Saudi and UAE contacts?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 23, 2018, 11:05:29 AM
How many Saudi and UAE contacts?

How could that possibly make things better instead of worse?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on May 23, 2018, 11:14:37 AM
I see we are at the "I did it, but it wasn't that bad" and are transitioning to "I did it, but you made me do it" stage.

Gentmach: You have successfully argued that Spies Gonna Spy.  No one is disagreeing with you, and it's probably true that-despite best efforts-we ain't gonna catch 'em all.  It's easy to see why Russia spies on us, and we'd probably shake our heads if they didn't.

But we don't have to accept that U.S. political candidates got help from foreign governments in the form of various meddling.  Can we at least agree that we hold our politicians to have a higher level of concern for the well-being of the U.S. than a Russian spy?  "Thanks for these Hillary emails.  Especially late in the summer!" is not an inevitable and blameless outcome to Spies Gonna Spy.

Also, I'm not sure that evidence that Trump etc. met with more foreign governments and that we don't know it all is supportive of a lack of wrongdoing?  Like "well, little did you know that Trump was also casing a jewelry store, not just a bank!  Take that, libtards."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 23, 2018, 11:24:07 AM
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:
Quote

    We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:
Quote
The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton

To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections.  For any presidential election.

Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 23, 2018, 01:44:23 PM
No no you guys have it all wrong!

There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"

Come on, what don't you guys get?

It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.

Every nation on Earth has something at stake in our elections. Our borders are unsecured and with the Advent of the internet, we have more open avenues for attack than ever. Some avenues of attack that are purposefully left open by our own intelligence services. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7)

If a nation has the capabilities, why not try? Using Tor and other programs makes it nearly impossible to trace. Larger nations have resources or capital that we cannot live without so have leverage on us even if they are caught.

Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.

Yeah, because that' exactly what I meant by mental gymnastics *eye roll*

It doesn't take much to be a hacker. Programming knowledge, computer with internet, time, patience and imagination.

Our institutions are under attack everyday from hostile actors. Most of these attempts fail. A few succeed, (someone didn't install a patch, malware piggy backed in on legitimate software).

Generally the public won't be alerted to or think about such things. If you suddenly zoom in on it, have radio stations, news channels and newspapers reminding the public every day that we were attacked, then people start freaking out. Peer pressure will make anyone who has questions look like a traitor.

Feel free to ask for assistance since you still don't seem to understand what "defending the indefensible means." Or keep tossing out random fallacies. Your choice.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 23, 2018, 02:37:08 PM
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.

@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.

@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.

Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.

Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on May 23, 2018, 03:20:44 PM
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.

@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.

@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.

Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.

Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.

One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things.  In normal world.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 23, 2018, 03:46:31 PM
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.

@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.

@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.

Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.

Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.

One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things.  In normal world.

The world has always been mad. You just never noticed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 23, 2018, 03:54:30 PM
Well shit. I guess we should just throw in the towel.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on May 23, 2018, 06:14:14 PM
Well shit. I guess we should just throw in the towel.

That's the reasoning that got Trump elected.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 24, 2018, 04:50:16 AM
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.

@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.

@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.

Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.

Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.

One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things.  In normal world.

The world has always been mad. You just never noticed.

In other words, they get a free pass. They sure didn't hold back with Benghazi. On all 8 investigations. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 24, 2018, 05:54:01 AM
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.

@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.

@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.

Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.

Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.

One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things.  In normal world.

The world has always been mad. You just never noticed.

In other words, they get a free pass. They sure didn't hold back with Benghazi. On all 8 investigations.

Speaking of Benghazi, Pompeo's latest testimony - thi time in from of the House Foreign Affairs Committee over the security of diplomats abroad - got pretty testy. Pompeo argued that diplomatic security was a primary concern of his and that his 45% proposed cut in security did not undercut this in any way. Rep Meeks (D - NY) and Pompeo had a testy exchange when Meeks said that Pompeo did not bring up security once in his Senate confirmation hearing, despite grilling HRC about it in hours of testimony and despite him wanting to cut the security budget by 45%.  Pompeo countered that dollars spent don't matter.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 24, 2018, 06:41:03 AM
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.

@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.

@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.

Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.

Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.

One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things.  In normal world.

The world has always been mad. You just never noticed.

In other words, they get a free pass. They sure didn't hold back with Benghazi. On all 8 investigations.

Speaking of Benghazi, Pompeo's latest testimony - thi time in from of the House Foreign Affairs Committee over the security of diplomats abroad - got pretty testy. Pompeo argued that diplomatic security was a primary concern of his and that his 45% proposed cut in security did not undercut this in any way. Rep Meeks (D - NY) and Pompeo had a testy exchange when Meeks said that Pompeo did not bring up security once in his Senate confirmation hearing, despite grilling HRC about it in hours of testimony and despite him wanting to cut the security budget by 45%.  Pompeo countered that dollars spent don't matter.

This exchange alone should be enough to disqualify Pompeo
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 24, 2018, 07:14:38 AM
What gets me is the selective justification for budgetary increases and decreases.  This WH has argued that our Military needs $52B+, Homeland security needs another $3B, and Veterans affairs needs another $4.4B.  In these cases more money is urgently needed to improve function and fix problems 'neglected' by the previous administration.

At the same time they argue that we can diplomatic security (-$1.6B), education (-$9.8B) and others, and use vitually the same argument but with the opposite conclusion - namely that they are in bad shape because of neglect from the previous administration, but in this case less money is what is needed to solve these problems.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 24, 2018, 07:47:04 AM
With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on May 24, 2018, 08:05:24 AM
With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?
Unless he (and Trump) are being lulled.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on May 24, 2018, 08:17:41 AM
Possible, Kushner's attorney mentioned an additional 7 hour meeting with Mueller's team in April, and claims that Kushner's businesses were not a topic of discussion, but didn't elaborate on what the discussion was about. The attorney also failed to indicate what level of clearance Kushner now has. His temporary clearance was revoked in February, and is now being described as "restored".

Perhaps he's not a target of Mueller's probe, or perhaps Mueller isn't ready to share his findings with any part of the administration that made the security clearance determination. Remember Mueller's probe is mostly siloed away from the permanent investigative federal agencies. Presumably only Mueller and Rosenstein know the full extent of the investigation to date (Mueller's team and those interviewed and/or subpoenaed to the grand jury individually know only parts related to their work), and I honestly don't know if Rosenstein had to approve Kushner's clearance.

It certainly gives Trump a PR win, and it may very well be that Kushner is only guilty of repeatedly failing to disclose foreign contacts, requiring numerous revisions to his disclosures over the first year of this administration.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 24, 2018, 08:25:34 AM
With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?
Unless he (and Trump) are being lulled.
I'm skeptical the FBI would take this approach - giving someone very high security clearance and access to daily presidential briefings would be too risky if they thought that information could later be compromised. 
Unlike his FIL, Kushner did divest his holdings. This doesn't mean Mueller won't find some criminal activity in his past - just that in the FBI's view other nations can't leverage him now.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 24, 2018, 08:38:17 AM
With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?
Unless he (and Trump) are being lulled.
I'm skeptical the FBI would take this approach - giving someone very high security clearance and access to daily presidential briefings would be too risky if they thought that information could later be compromised. 

You're all thinking about security clearances in the wrong way.  A clearance is not a privilege, it is a burden.  It subjects you to all kinds of rules and regulations, limits your foreign travel options, requires reporting of your personal dealings, and gives the government a lifetime option of interviewing and possibly imprisoning you. 

In this case, I suspect that Trump basically voided the "access to information" part by just giving Kushner full access to classified documents, meetings, and systems.  Whether or not the FBI thinks this is prudent doesn't matter, because Trump was just going to ignore them anyway.  Since Kushner was going to be exposed to classified information whether or not he's actually a Russian spy (or whatever), it makes sense to then give him the clearance and make it official.  That way you can at least keep tabs on him forever.

A regular citizen without a clearance who discovers classified information (say in an improperly redacted government report) and then publishes that information so our enemies can find it has not technically committed a crime.  A person with a security clearance who does that HAS committed a crime, and will disappear into a deep dark hole.  If Kushner is going to have access to classified information by virtue of living/working in the west wing, then I want him to have a clearance.  Also an ankle bracelet.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 24, 2018, 08:53:01 AM
With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?
Unless he (and Trump) are being lulled.
I'm skeptical the FBI would take this approach - giving someone very high security clearance and access to daily presidential briefings would be too risky if they thought that information could later be compromised. 

You're all thinking about security clearances in the wrong way.  A clearance is not a privilege, it is a burden.  It subjects you to all kinds of rules and regulations, limits your foreign travel options, requires reporting of your personal dealings, and gives the government a lifetime option of interviewing and possibly imprisoning you. 

In this case, I suspect that Trump basically voided the "access to information" part by just giving Kushner full access to classified documents, meetings, and systems.  Whether or not the FBI thinks this is prudent doesn't matter, because Trump was just going to ignore them anyway.  Since Kushner was going to be exposed to classified information whether or not he's actually a Russian spy (or whatever), it makes sense to then give him the clearance and make it official. That way you can at least keep tabs on him forever.

A regular citizen without a clearance who discovers classified information (say in an improperly redacted government report) and then publishes that information so our enemies can find it has not technically committed a crime.  A person with a security clearance who does that HAS committed a crime, and will disappear into a deep dark hole.  If Kushner is going to have access to classified information by virtue of living/working in the west wing, then I want him to have a clearance.  Also an ankle bracelet.
As usual Sol - you've brought up a thoughtful counterpoint.
I guess time will tell whether Kushner ever winds up in jail for divulging classified material or enriching himself or his family with this information.

ETA:  If Trump had given Kushner access to classified material, would he - as President and Commander in Chief - broken any laws? IDK...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 24, 2018, 09:30:30 AM
Kushner lied on his SF-86 more than 40 times.  That's a felony.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 24, 2018, 09:38:01 AM
Kushner lied on his SF-86 more than 40 times.  That's a felony.
Perhaps, but not the question I was asking...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 25, 2018, 08:45:47 AM
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:
Quote

    We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:
Quote
The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton

To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections.  For any presidential election.

Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))

That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?

We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on May 25, 2018, 08:50:31 AM
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:
Quote

    We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:
Quote
The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton

To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections.  For any presidential election.

Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))

That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?

We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.

Source?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/389274-dems-after-briefing-no-evidence-spy-placed-in-trump-campaign
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 25, 2018, 08:54:25 AM
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:
Quote

    We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:
Quote
The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton

To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections.  For any presidential election.

Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))

That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?

We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.
The words I would use to describe it are precise and unequivocal.

Our own agencies - those with missions and budgets specifically allocated to detecting such things - are releasing public statements that an unprecedented and coordinated effort by the Russian State to interfere and influence our federal election in 2016.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 25, 2018, 09:30:23 AM
The tin-foil hatters are smarter than our Intelligence Agencies.  LOL.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 25, 2018, 10:19:22 AM
let's keep the discussion civil and not resort to name calling (whether intentionally directed at specific people or a broader group)
(forum rule #4)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 25, 2018, 11:21:22 AM
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:
Quote

    We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:
Quote
The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton

To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections.  For any presidential election.

Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))

That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?

We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.

Source?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/389274-dems-after-briefing-no-evidence-spy-placed-in-trump-campaign

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/

Also links to the Washington Post and New York Times in that article.

@nereo

Yes. They keep releasing information on Russia. Supposedly Putin is the only one with a means, motive and opportunity to pull this off.

However,

"Collusion or Not, Saudi Arabia and the UAE Are Getting Everything They Want From Trump
The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are longtime U.S. allies, but neither was happy with the Obama administration’s foreign policy. President Obama not only set up the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, their enemy, but supported the Arab Spring — a groundswell movement which targeted the region’s dictatorships — and opted against intervening more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. During the first year plus of the Trump administration, however, the two countries have gotten virtually everything they wanted.


President Trump has closely aligned himself with both countries, making Saudi Arabia the bizarre first stop of his first foreign trip as president. Almost right after he left, the U.S. shockingly abandoned another key ally in the Gulf, Qatar, as Saudi Arabia and the UAE led an effort to isolate, punish, and contain the rival country, cutting off all economic and diplomatic ties, and even hacking into Qatari state media and planting fake news to spur the crisis. Trump supported the blockade, despite well-reasoned pushback from State Department and Defense Department officials, and despite the fact that Qatar is probably America’s most important military ally in the Gulf, as the U.S. Central Command maintains its forward headquarters there. While officials scrambled to contain the damage, Trump nonchalantly tweeted that Qatar was funding terrorism, echoing the Saudi and Emirati line. Instead of bringing Qatar back into the fold and easing tensions, the blockade drove Qatar deeper into the open arms of Iran."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/understanding-the-new-trump-campaign-collusion-story.html

So using the same metrics that are used for Russia, (secret meeting, getting what they want, Trump never criticizing them) Saudi Arabia appears in the same boat.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 25, 2018, 12:14:31 PM
@gentmach
I don't dispute that all countries try to curry favors with the United States, nor that multiple countries have had apparent success by personally appealing to DJT.

I do strongly disagree that 'using the same metrics' this is 'in the same boat'.  It is NOT the same boat.  We're not even comparing mega-yacht to a kayak. Russia has been revealed to have systematically broken both US laws and international treaties in a coordinated effort to disrupt and influence our democratic elections.  By all evidence these other countries sucked up to Trump and got favorable policy responses. The former is nefarious cyber attacks; the latter is the diplomacy of kissing ass. It's entirely possible that Trump (the US president) violated the emoluments clause (we will have to see), which is very different from Russia's actions.

As I read your posts and the article you linked it becomes clear that you are, at least in part, talking about whether DJT colluded with other nations, and if so that he may have done as much with more than just Russia.  Its possible and we shall see.  But this focus on whether DJT specifically - not just his campaign - colluded entirely misses the hostile actions of Russia. Perhaps when you said "Russia-gate" upthread you were specifically talking about collusion; that's why I asked for clarification.  Regardless, Russia's involvement  been established by criminal indictments and by four major intelligence entities  - so 'Russia-gate' resulted in some 1st-class news.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MDM on May 25, 2018, 12:48:10 PM
But this focus on whether DJT specifically - not just his campaign - colluded entirely misses the hostile actions of Russia.
Good point.

It's equally wrong to say "Russia broke some laws therefore Trump broke some laws" as it is to say "Trump didn't break any laws (concerning Russian activities) therefore Russia didn't break any laws."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 25, 2018, 01:37:06 PM
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:
Quote

    We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:
Quote
The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton

To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections.  For any presidential election.

Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))

That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?

We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.

As there should have been. You have Russia trying to recruit Carter page as an intelligence asset (Halper knew Page from a conference on US foreign policy). Then you have Papadopoulos drunkenly bragging to an Australian diplomat about Russia offering him “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, which he later lied about. I would say the FBI had every reason to suspect members of the Trump campaign and possibly Trump himself were "in bed" with Russia. The informant wasn't there to destroy or undermine his campaign as Trump would like you to believe. He is doing everything he can to discredit this investigation. As many folks have been saying for quite some time, he is not acting like an innocent person.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 25, 2018, 04:45:10 PM
@gentmach
I don't dispute that all countries try to curry favors with the United States, nor that multiple countries have had apparent success by personally appealing to DJT.

I do strongly disagree that 'using the same metrics' this is 'in the same boat'.  It is NOT the same boat.  We're not even comparing mega-yacht to a kayak. Russia has been revealed to have systematically broken both US laws and international treaties in a coordinated effort to disrupt and influence our democratic elections.  By all evidence these other countries sucked up to Trump and got favorable policy responses. The former is nefarious cyber attacks; the latter is the diplomacy of kissing ass. It's entirely possible that Trump (the US president) violated the emoluments clause (we will have to see), which is very different from Russia's actions.

As I read your posts and the article you linked it becomes clear that you are, at least in part, talking about whether DJT colluded with other nations, and if so that he may have done as much with more than just Russia.  Its possible and we shall see.  But this focus on whether DJT specifically - not just his campaign - colluded entirely misses the hostile actions of Russia. Perhaps when you said "Russia-gate" upthread you were specifically talking about collusion; that's why I asked for clarification.  Regardless, Russia's involvement  been established by criminal indictments and by four major intelligence entities  - so 'Russia-gate' resulted in some 1st-class news.

It seemed straight forward when it was only Russia who interfered. But now we have two other foreign groups that have interfered. Groups with possible connections and resources. It doesn't even need to be state actors to interfere  because the tools are available online.

The guilty pleas appear to be more in response to the crippling cost of defense more than anything.

The FBI, NSA and CIA are three agencies. You're saying four. NPR still says seventeen. It's getting confusing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 25, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Quote
We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign.

As there should have been.

Just to be clear, we do NOT know that there was an "informant" in the Trump campaign.  We do know that many campaign staffers and associates were blatantly violating campaign laws, including in some cases in ways so criminal they are currently in prison, and that the FBI has been investigating these crimes since roughly the time he won the primary.  Others have agreed to testify against the campaign in exchange for reduced sentences (e.g. Flynn, Papadopolous, Gates, Pinedo, Zwaan).  All of those people provided "information" to the FBI about ongoing criminal activities.  That does not make them "informants".

Other people have released supposedly confidential information about the campaign but have not been charged with crimes (Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, etc.) and they are not informants either.  They are all staunch Trump supporters to this day. 

Trump's conspiracy seems to suggest that the FBI or other federal law enforcement agency planted a law enforcement officer within the Trump campaign for the purpose of discerning criminal activity, but this is a somewhat nebulous charge when you're talking about a campaign that willingly and gleefully accepted FBI security details for multiple persons (because it is flattering).  ALL of those FBI agents were looking for criminal activity, that's their job.  That doesn't make them spies, that makes the FBI agents.  Invited FBI agents.  If a presidential candidate who is under FBI protection commits a crime in front of an FBI agent, that agent is of course going to report the crime he saw.  He would be negligent not to.  That still doesn't make him an informant.

And in the current "campaign spy" conspiracy theory, classified briefings on what really happened caused Democrats to say "Yep, the FBI sent agents to interview Trump campaign staffers involved in criminal activity" and Republicans to say "Uhhhhh, nothing to see here, move along..."  If that isn't definitive resolution for you, what is?

So I don't know what Trump is really trying to say, and I suspect that he doesn't either.  This whole thing reminds me of the time he said Ted Cruz's father assassinated Kennedy, or the nine year period when he insisted Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim, or that Clinton was so sick she was weeks away from death, or that he actually won the popular vote if you discount illegal immigrants, or the Muslims danced on rooftops on 9-11, or that Obama wire tapped Trump tower.  It's just wanton just lies, free of consequence.  He requires no evidence, and he only says these things because they play to the fears of his most rabid supporters.  I suspect that the "informant" conspiracy theory is the same game all over again, completely fabricated but it pushes all the right buttons for Billy Bob in the MAGA hat who still believes the evil Obummer took away all our freedoms.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 25, 2018, 05:33:55 PM

It seemed straight forward when it was only Russia who interfered. But now we have two other foreign groups that have interfered. Groups with possible connections and resources. It doesn't even need to be state actors to interfere  because the tools are available online.

Russia is the State where we have conclusive statements and mounds of evidence that they interfered, breaking US laws, international treaties and diplomatic norms. There is nothing even comparable for the other nations mentioned. 
If you are trying to say we must be vigilant of other entities, then I agree with you.  If you are saying equivalent illegal acts have already been committed, what evidence can you provide?

The guilty pleas appear to be more in response to the crippling cost of defense more than anything.
I disagree.  The guilty pleas are almost certainly the result of mounds of evidence and collaborating testimony that these individuals broke the law. Flynn & Papadopoulos lied under oath. Pinedo set up bank accounts under stolen identities, which were then used by Russians (in violation of US banking laws). Gates laundered tens of millions from Ukraine through several different countries while not registering as a foreign but working as a lobbyist abroad.
You can read each of their plea deals online and get a sense of what they did and what evidence was against them.
Generally speaking, people who are on the up-and-up do not go bankrupt defending themselves, because the charges can be tossed out. The insinuation that these individuals pleaded guilty because they could not afford competent defense counsil is aburd; Papadopoulos & Gates are worth tens of milions and could certainly have afforded the best legal council for years.  Flynn is similarily worth several million and has a lucrative military pension. By pleading guilty they face jail time and (particularly Gates & Pinedo) massive fines; guilty pleas will actually cost them far more than if they had paid for top-tier legal teams and beaten the charges.


The FBI, NSA and CIA are three agencies. You're saying four. NPR still says seventeen. It's getting confusing.
I provided the statements released earlier.  The 'fourth' in my statement is the US Senate Intelligence Committee, an entity which has the power to investigate, subpoena and has access to classified material.  The 17 agencies that NPR is referencing are are the 16 federal agencies that form the US Intelligence community plus the Senate intelligence committee, led by Dan Coats who has also released numerous statements consolidated from the IC detailing Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 25, 2018, 06:29:20 PM

It seemed straight forward when it was only Russia who interfered. But now we have two other foreign groups that have interfered. Groups with possible connections and resources. It doesn't even need to be state actors to interfere  because the tools are available online.

Russia is the State where we have conclusive statements and mounds of evidence that they interfered, breaking US laws, international treaties and diplomatic norms. There is nothing even comparable for the other nations mentioned. 
If you are trying to say we must be vigilant of other entities, then I agree with you.  If you are saying equivalent illegal acts have already been committed, what evidence can you provide?

The guilty pleas appear to be more in response to the crippling cost of defense more than anything.
I disagree.  The guilty pleas are almost certainly the result of mounds of evidence and collaborating testimony that these individuals broke the law. Flynn & Papadopoulos lied under oath. Pinedo set up bank accounts under stolen identities, which were then used by Russians (in violation of US banking laws). Gates laundered tens of millions from Ukraine through several different countries while not registering as a foreign but working as a lobbyist abroad.
You can read each of their plea deals online and get a sense of what they did and what evidence was against them.
Generally speaking, people who are on the up-and-up do not go bankrupt defending themselves, because the charges can be tossed out. The insinuation that these individuals pleaded guilty because they could not afford competent defense counsil is aburd; Papadopoulos & Gates are worth tens of milions and could certainly have afforded the best legal council for years.  Flynn is similarily worth several million and has a lucrative military pension. By pleading guilty they face jail time and (particularly Gates & Pinedo) massive fines; guilty pleas will actually cost them far more than if they had paid for top-tier legal teams and beaten the charges.


The FBI, NSA and CIA are three agencies. You're saying four. NPR still says seventeen. It's getting confusing.
I provided the statements released earlier.  The 'fourth' in my statement is the US Senate Intelligence Committee, an entity which has the power to investigate, subpoena and has access to classified material.  The 17 agencies that NPR is referencing are are the 16 federal agencies that form the US Intelligence community plus the Senate intelligence committee, led by Dan Coats who has also released numerous statements consolidated from the IC detailing Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

"It is unclear, however, whether a proposal was ever executed, and details on who commissioned it remain in dispute, the Times reported.

On Sunday, Warner also said he would like to understand whether the reported meeting was indicative of a pattern that should be investigated.

"There's this pattern that other countries were offering, and clearly the Trump campaign was receptive to these kinds of offers -- how that is not the beginnings of evidence of stuff that needs to be investigated," he said.

The House Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, California Rep. Adam Schiff, also said Sunday that the specifics of the meeting with the Gulf emissary, as they were described by The New York Times, "were certainly new" to his committee"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/politics/mark-warner-trump-tweets-russia-investigation-cnntv/index.html


We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on May 25, 2018, 06:36:20 PM
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?
You are not being logical.  You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started."  Do you see the problem with that?

You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.

Although I'd bet that Mueller has a pretty good idea by now.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 25, 2018, 06:48:35 PM
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?
You are not being logical.  You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started."  Do you see the problem with that?

You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.

^This... Plus... I'm also reading this very differently from you, @gentmach. The insinuation above is that TRUMP gave favorable treatment to specific countries after meeting privately with their diplomatic teams. Perhaps this is because he was persuaded by some convincing diplomacy, perhaps this was because he (Trump) was offered certain quid-pro-quos (e.g. fast-tracking permits for his hotels), perhaps it was because they had compromising material on him.  Whichever it may be - and it could be more than one - this was diplomats meeting with Trump & his team to influence policy.  That is very different from hundreds of state-sponsored individuals interfacing directly and under false pretenses with US citizens in a coordinated attempt to sow discord and spread false information about the candidates.
Yes, the former *should* be investigated, and it is entirely possible that only Trump - or even no one at all - actually broke any laws.  But we are certain that Russia did break laws.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 25, 2018, 07:19:14 PM
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?
You are not being logical.  You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started."  Do you see the problem with that?

You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.

Although I'd bet that Mueller has a pretty good idea by now.

I'm not denying there was interference. There was lots of interference. We just went over this.

The way I see it, Democrats have attempted to set themselves up as "Defenders of the American Republic." That where ever foreign interference showed up, Democrats would investigate, sanction and stop it dead.

Now if they sincerely believe that our elections need protection, we know their next move. Investigate. Sanction. Expel diplomats. And beat the drum til we have 5 investigations going on at once.

If the Democrats are covering for the 2016 loss while setting up for midterms, we might get a token investigation, no sanctions, no expelling of diplomats. Nothing as dramatic as what we got with Russia.

Now the ball is in the Democrats court to see what they will do. And considering Trump can't go anywhere without corrupting everything around him, those investigations should be gold mines.

Yes. Trump is corrupt. I understand that Russia interfered. This is more of a litmus test to see how corrupt our whole government is. (Russia being a relatively safe target while Saudi Arabia is probably a potential political minefield.)

Also a quote,  “If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.” former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/24/the-clinton-campaign-warned-you-about-russia-but-nobody-listened-to-us/?utm_term=.f833841021f2&tid=a_inl
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 26, 2018, 05:21:22 AM
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?
You are not being logical.  You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started."  Do you see the problem with that?

You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.

Although I'd bet that Mueller has a pretty good idea by now.

I'm not denying there was interference. There was lots of interference. We just went over this.

The way I see it, Democrats have attempted to set themselves up as "Defenders of the American Republic." That where ever foreign interference showed up, Democrats would investigate, sanction and stop it dead.

Now if they sincerely believe that our elections need protection, we know their next move. Investigate. Sanction. Expel diplomats. And beat the drum til we have 5 investigations going on at once.

If the Democrats are covering for the 2016 loss while setting up for midterms, we might get a token investigation, no sanctions, no expelling of diplomats. Nothing as dramatic as what we got with Russia.

Now the ball is in the Democrats court to see what they will do. And considering Trump can't go anywhere without corrupting everything around him, those investigations should be gold mines.

Yes. Trump is corrupt. I understand that Russia interfered. This is more of a litmus test to see how corrupt our whole government is. (Russia being a relatively safe target while Saudi Arabia is probably a potential political minefield.)

Also a quote,  “If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.” former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/24/the-clinton-campaign-warned-you-about-russia-but-nobody-listened-to-us/?utm_term=.f833841021f2&tid=a_inl

If you truly believed that then there isn't any further discussion. Let the investigation play out. Stop trying to make excuses and label Dems. Stop trying to downplay everything and muddy the waters. You are playing the politics game. Not everybody plays that game. There are Republicans supporting this investigation as well. Remember over 30% of Americans still support this President in spite of the lies and corruption. That's scary! 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on May 26, 2018, 07:25:11 AM
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?
You are not being logical.  You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started."  Do you see the problem with that?

You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.

Although I'd bet that Mueller has a pretty good idea by now.

I'm not denying there was interference. There was lots of interference. We just went over this.

The way I see it, Democrats have attempted to set themselves up as "Defenders of the American Republic." That where ever foreign interference showed up, Democrats would investigate, sanction and stop it dead.

Now if they sincerely believe that our elections need protection, we know their next move. Investigate. Sanction. Expel diplomats. And beat the drum til we have 5 investigations going on at once.

If the Democrats are covering for the 2016 loss while setting up for midterms, we might get a token investigation, no sanctions, no expelling of diplomats. Nothing as dramatic as what we got with Russia.

Now the ball is in the Democrats court to see what they will do. And considering Trump can't go anywhere without corrupting everything around him, those investigations should be gold mines.

Yes. Trump is corrupt. I understand that Russia interfered. This is more of a litmus test to see how corrupt our whole government is. (Russia being a relatively safe target while Saudi Arabia is probably a potential political minefield.)

Also a quote,  “If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.” former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/24/the-clinton-campaign-warned-you-about-russia-but-nobody-listened-to-us/?utm_term=.f833841021f2&tid=a_inl

If you truly believed that then there isn't any further discussion. Let the investigation play out. Stop trying to make excuses and label Dems. Stop trying to downplay everything and muddy the waters. You are playing the politics game. Not everybody plays that game. There are Republicans supporting this investigation as well. Remember over 30% of Americans still support this President in spite of the lies and corruption. That's scary!

Yes. We have to let the investigation play out. Thank you all for helping me work on how to frame this.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 26, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Remember over 30% of Americans still support this President in spite of the lies and corruption. That's scary!

It's not nearly as scary as you think it is.  That's about the same percentage as pass basic high school math numeracy, and about the same percentage as believe in evolution.  So when you think about, there's this ~40% chunk in the middle of the American spectrum that doesn't believe in evolution, yet still recognizes that Trump is a liar and a crook.  That's pretty good, right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 26, 2018, 12:24:54 PM
Remember over 30% of Americans still support this President in spite of the lies and corruption. That's scary!

It's not nearly as scary as you think it is.  That's about the same percentage as pass basic high school math numeracy, and about the same percentage as believe in evolution.  So when you think about, there's this ~40% chunk in the middle of the American spectrum that doesn't believe in evolution, yet still recognizes that Trump is a liar and a crook.  That's pretty good, right?

I guess. I mean 40% don't believe in evolution doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But I get what you are saying.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 26, 2018, 01:52:58 PM
I guess. I mean 40% don't believe in evolution doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But I get what you are saying.

Last I checked, it was 70% of people who don't believe in evolution, and 30% who do.  And yet some of that 70% necessarily doesn't support Trump.  That's the only silver lining I can see here.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on May 26, 2018, 05:30:07 PM
I guess. I mean 40% don't believe in evolution doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But I get what you are saying.

Last I checked, it was 70% of people who don't believe in evolution, and 30% who do.  And yet some of that 70% necessarily doesn't support Trump.  That's the only silver lining I can see here.

I believe that has changed. When I looked at several polls conducted lately it looks like only roughly 30% believe purely in Creationism and roughly the same number believe purely in natural evolution. A larger percentage believe in God-guided evolution. Belief in pure evolution (non god-guided) has more than double since 1982. So there is hope.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 27, 2018, 06:28:42 PM
A video overview of the Trump Russia connection

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/23/trump-russia-ties-in-plain-sight.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on May 28, 2018, 05:05:18 PM
I guess. I mean 40% don't believe in evolution doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But I get what you are saying.

Last I checked, it was 70% of people who don't believe in evolution, and 30% who do.  And yet some of that 70% necessarily doesn't support Trump.  That's the only silver lining I can see here.

I believe that has changed. When I looked at several polls conducted lately it looks like only roughly 30% believe purely in Creationism and roughly the same number believe purely in natural evolution. A larger percentage believe in God-guided evolution. Belief in pure evolution (non god-guided) has more than double since 1982. So there is hope.

Still shockingly high, but here are numbers as of last year: http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 30, 2018, 05:53:24 AM
More bad news for Micheal Cohen - ~300,000 of his files have already been given to the DA of the southern Distrtict of NY as potential evidence in crimes after clearing review of the 'taint team'. Another million digital documents are set to be released this week from three of Cohen's cell phones.

If nothing else we ought to give Cohen a facepunch for having three cellphones.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 30, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
More bad news for Micheal Cohen - ~300,000 of his files have already been given to the DA of the southern Distrtict of NY as potential evidence in crimes after clearing review of the 'taint team'. Another million digital documents are set to be released this week from three of Cohen's cell phones.

If nothing else we ought to give Cohen a facepunch for having three cellphones.

Well, to be fair at least one of them probably has to have a keyboard in Cyrillic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 05, 2018, 08:42:49 AM
Paul Manafort has now been accused of witness tampering while under house arrest.

Inexplicably he allegedly encouraged several people to lie in their testimony, and communicated with them electronically. Somehow Manafort thought that his communications would not be detected, despite the fact that he's indicted on electronic bank fraud, tax fraud and money launderying (among 15 other charges).  Worse, it was the people whom he contacted who contacted the FBI.

I'm trying to decide whether this was an act of sheer bravado, hubris or stupidity. 
Reminded once again of the saying; It's not the crime that gets you, it's the attempted coverup.

Will this latest failed attempt (and a potential revokeation of his cushy home confinement) cause Manafort to finally give up and cut a plea? Will he try something even more stupid/desperate and dig his hole deeper? Will DJT pardon an indicted conspirator against the US and throw even more gasoline onto this dumpster fire?  stay tuned...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on June 05, 2018, 09:50:56 AM
Paul Manafort has now been accused of witness tampering while under house arrest.

Inexplicably he allegedly encouraged several people to lie in their testimony, and communicated with them electronically. Somehow Manafort thought that his communications would not be detected, despite the fact that he's indicted on electronic bank fraud, tax fraud and money launderying (among 15 other charges).  Worse, it was the people whom he contacted who contacted the FBI.

I'm trying to decide whether this was an act of sheer bravado, hubris or stupidity. 
Reminded once again of the saying; It's not the crime that gets you, it's the attempted coverup.

Will this latest failed attempt (and a potential revokeation of his cushy home confinement) cause Manafort to finally give up and cut a plea? Will he try something even more stupid/desperate and dig his hole deeper? Will DJT pardon an indicted conspirator against the US and throw even more gasoline onto this dumpster fire?  stay tuned...

Honestly, the common thread amongs all of these players is that there is an attitude that the law simply doesn't apply to them; laws are guidelines for rubes.  This week Trump made that point of view absolutely explicit in stating that he has the absolute power to pardon anyone including himself. The deck is generally stacked against law enforcement due to the constraints of due process, so for those who intentionally skirt the law it has been easier to skirt and avoid consequence so long as you don't make yourself too big a target. This may have bred some overconfidence in self for Manafort and company, and made them have too little regard for those on the other side of the law.

Manafort's recent tampering actions are thus entirely consistent with prior, and likely future, actions. Why would expect him to suddenly start obeying the law now?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 08, 2018, 05:40:47 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure how much more evidence we need that Russians are dominating certain parts of Washington

(https://assets1.sportsnet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/OvechkinStanleyCup-640x360.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on June 08, 2018, 12:11:48 PM
It's *another* Grand Jury Friday.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1070306/download
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 08, 2018, 12:35:51 PM
Donald Trump wants to include Russia in the G-7

Manafort Associate Konstantin Kilimnik Indicted In Mueller Probe
Robert Mueller’s team also added charges against Paul Manafort.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/manafort-indictment-konstantin-kilmnik_us_5b1ac1afe4b0adfb8268db07
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 08, 2018, 01:02:58 PM
Donald Trump wants to include Russia in the G-7

Manafort Associate Konstantin Kilimnik Indicted In Mueller Probe
Robert Mueller’s team also added charges against Paul Manafort.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/manafort-indictment-konstantin-kilmnik_us_5b1ac1afe4b0adfb8268db07
Does this mean we finally have confirmation that Kilimnik is "Person A"?

Mueller continues to throw the book at Manafort.  If he only gets the minimum on half these charges its still life for him. He's got to pray for either a pardon or a full acquittal... wonder which is more likely?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on June 11, 2018, 06:31:45 PM
Donald Trump wants to include Russia in the G-7

Manafort Associate Konstantin Kilimnik Indicted In Mueller Probe
Robert Mueller’s team also added charges against Paul Manafort.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/manafort-indictment-konstantin-kilmnik_us_5b1ac1afe4b0adfb8268db07
Does this mean we finally have confirmation that Kilimnik is "Person A"?

Mueller continues to throw the book at Manafort.  If he only gets the minimum on half these charges its still life for him. He's got to pray for either a pardon or a full acquittal... wonder which is more likely?

It's really important that New York flips the state senate this November.  Then we will be able to close the presidential pardon loophole in double indemnity.  Once that happens, Trump's minions will turn on him.  Tell all your New Yorker friends!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy on June 11, 2018, 07:37:13 PM
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 12, 2018, 08:11:25 PM
There's also potentially 7 congressional districts in California that can turn Democrat, and at least 2 in Michigan.
Hopefully this will all add up to a party change in the House.
The Senate is a different story, a few Democrats are vulnerable there.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach 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?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo 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. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DarkandStormy 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Penn42 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache 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.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach 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.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 20, 2018, 05:57:31 PM
Well, that's disturbing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on June 20, 2018, 08:23:35 PM
Well, that's disturbing.

Yep.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: cerat0n1a on July 09, 2018, 12:48:25 PM
Interesting article:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on September 25, 2018, 06:07:43 AM
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 21, 2018, 08:52:03 PM
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 22, 2018, 01:12:56 AM
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Shhh... You're making too much sense.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 22, 2018, 02:05:15 AM
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Shhh... You're making too much sense.

Yes, but also grossly understating the power of propaganda.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on October 22, 2018, 03:33:49 AM
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Shhh... You're making too much sense.

Yes, but also grossly understating the power of propaganda.

We propaganda. They propaganda. Everybody propagandas. It balances out.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 22, 2018, 06:10:10 AM
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Perhaps (in reference to the bolded section) you were using hyperbole, but if not I do not think you are appreciating the role that identity politics has on our federal elections. A lead of 30MM votes is a victory so staggeringly beyond what any president has accomplished. Total votes is not directly comparable without correcting for changes in the total population and the number who cast ballots.
 Trump got just 46.1% of the popular vote, which puts him 3rd to last in the last 100 years.  As a percentage of votes cast, Bill Clinton got fewer votes with a fairly sizable showing from independent R Perot (he got 19% of the popular vote) and Nixon ('68) got fewer votes with G. Wallace taking 13.5% of the vote and carrying 5 states.  If we accept conventional wisdom that both Wallace and Perot siphoned even a moderate (25%) of votes away from the winning candidate, than Trump had the fewest votes by percentage in the last 100 years.

Bottom line is that a candidate from either party appears to be able to count on a floor of somewhere around 35%-40% regardless of who they nominate. Trump got only 46% of the vote despite running against a candiddate with historically high unfavorable numbers and without a sizable drag from the 3rd party candidates (only 5% of the total vote).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 22, 2018, 10:15:43 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia

Even Gorbachev thinks this is dumb.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45931231 


Trump wants to pull out of the INF supposedly because Russia has been breaking it and China is not a party to the treaty. Clearly there is no other solution to this than scrapping the one restraint we have on intermediate range missiles. Clearly this isn't the easiest way for Russia to just put missiles along its western border and threaten our allies even more. /s

FFS.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 23, 2018, 11:48:29 AM
Looks like Rudy is headlining a pro-Russia conference in Armenia.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-lawyer-rudy-giuliani-headlines-pro-russian-conference-in-armenia

Should be a good networking opportunity, eh?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 23, 2018, 08:45:48 PM
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
I think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.

Perhaps (in reference to the bolded section) you were using hyperbole, but if not I do not think you are appreciating the role that identity politics has on our federal elections. A lead of 30MM votes is a victory so staggeringly beyond what any president has accomplished. Total votes is not directly comparable without correcting for changes in the total population and the number who cast ballots.
 Trump got just 46.1% of the popular vote, which puts him 3rd to last in the last 100 years.  As a percentage of votes cast, Bill Clinton got fewer votes with a fairly sizable showing from independent R Perot (he got 19% of the popular vote) and Nixon ('68) got fewer votes with G. Wallace taking 13.5% of the vote and carrying 5 states.  If we accept conventional wisdom that both Wallace and Perot siphoned even a moderate (25%) of votes away from the winning candidate, than Trump had the fewest votes by percentage in the last 100 years.

Bottom line is that a candidate from either party appears to be able to count on a floor of somewhere around 35%-40% regardless of who they nominate. Trump got only 46% of the vote despite running against a candiddate with historically high unfavorable numbers and without a sizable drag from the 3rd party candidates (only 5% of the total vote).
That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference. However, note the following (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html):
Quote
...it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump. Over all, almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016, either supporting Mr. Trump or voting for a third-party candidate.
If any ads swung the election, I think it's more likely to be the $330M (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/) spent by the Trump campaign (plus all of the free wall-to-wall coverage of his various rallies kindly brought to us by CNN & Fox News...) rather than $100K in Facebook ads.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 23, 2018, 09:18:20 PM
...it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump.

Why would you think that is clear? 

As we have previously highlighted in this very thread, Trump did not convince anyone at all to switch, he only convinced democrats to stay home rather than vote for Clinton.  He got approximately the same number and percentage of votes that McCain and Romney both got, those regular die-hard republican voters who vote for every old white guy republican that runs.  The reason why Trump won the electoral college and those guys lost it is just because there were fewer democrats showing up, probably due to all of the Pizzagate and Benghazi style bullshit conspiracy stories that Trump and the Russians both perpetuated.

So don't pretend that Trump convinced a bunch of liberal working class whites to jump on his bandwagon.  He only convinced them to jump off of hers, and part of that convincing was the barrage of ridiculous facebook ads that convinced my father that Clinton was an Illuminati lizard-person.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 23, 2018, 09:46:37 PM
^^I was quoting NYTimes/Upshot and it is presumably clear to them for reasons given in the linked article
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 23, 2018, 10:19:23 PM
^^I was quoting NYTimes/Upshot and it is presumably clear to them for reasons given in the linked article

Great, would you like to reiterate any of that evidence here?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 24, 2018, 06:07:16 AM

That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference.
As we've been discussing, the Russians exploited this partisan divide to influence the election. Our own intelligence agencies have said so, repeatedly. Separating out the degree of their influence is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, but we know that i) it was illegal and ii) DJT won the election on the narrowest of margins

FWIW I'm less concerned with the Russian's actions (after all they've been our antagonists for the last century) than I am with the degree to which DJT and his team have worked with Russia and for their national interests, often for personal greed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 24, 2018, 07:38:56 PM

That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference.
As we've been discussing, the Russians exploited this partisan divide to influence the election. Our own intelligence agencies have said so, repeatedly. Separating out the degree of their influence is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, but we know that i) it was illegal and ii) DJT won the election on the narrowest of margins

FWIW I'm less concerned with the Russian's actions (after all they've been our antagonists for the last century) than I am with the degree to which DJT and his team have worked with Russia and for their national interests, often for personal greed.
Sure, I agree there are two separate questions involved here: 1) did the Russians interfere? 2) did the interference make a material difference. I think it's crazy to deny (1) in the affirmative; what I'm suggesting is the tendency to assume (2) was significant in the outcome rather than facing up to the signal buried with the noise of the Trump campaign. Come to the Midwest and tell the yokels here--as the New Yorker would like to--that they were merely fooled by Russians and see how many hearts and minds you win.

Regarding the comment about Trump & Russia in particular, well, of course. Trump is an amoral maximizing narcissist who (at best) will escape the worst of the allegations through a defense predicated on plausible deniability.

^^I was quoting NYTimes/Upshot and it is presumably clear to them for reasons given in the linked article

Great, would you like to reiterate any of that evidence here?

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel so take this, for instance:
Quote
The postelection survey data tells a similar story: Mrs. Clinton won Mr. Obama’s white-working class supporters by a margin of only 78 percent to 18 percent against Mr. Trump, according to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

In the Midwestern battleground states and Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton had an advantage of 76 percent to 20 percent among white working-class Obama voters.

The survey data isn’t perfect. It relies on voters’ accurate recall of their 2012 vote, and that type of recall is often biased toward the winner. Indeed, the C.C.E.S. found that Mr. Obama had 54 percent of support among 2012 voters, compared with his actual 51 percent finish.

But the data all points in the same direction: Shifts in turnout were not the dominant factor in Mr. Trump’s success among white working-class voters.

One specific impact in terms of turnout was that among black voters, down significantly from Obama's elections (though that is more the case of mean-reversion than something new in the 2016 election). Where Trump tipped the scales was (in particular) with white Midwestern voters, which included the key battleground Electoral College states.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 24, 2018, 08:28:54 PM
why is there zo much anamosity towards new york fromm the midwest?  particularly with a new yorker in the wh...?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 24, 2018, 11:11:35 PM
why is there zo much anamosity towards new york fromm the midwest?  particularly with a new yorker in the wh...?
That's a good question. It's less about origin location and more about attitude. Since attitude is correlated with geographic location in the US, it's easy to conflate the two (I seem to recall WhiteTrashCash had some insight on this distinction maybe in his journal). I'm from California but lived in Trumpland long enough that (after a long period of adjustment, especially around the 2016 election) I was able to re-calibrate my thinking to incorporate the meaningful components of Trump's electoral success. It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on October 24, 2018, 11:22:39 PM
It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).

Trump can't even pass an ideological Turing test for Trump voters. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 24, 2018, 11:47:42 PM
It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).

Trump can't even pass an ideological Turing test for Trump voters.
Haha, yup!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on October 25, 2018, 09:00:03 AM
why is there zo much anamosity towards new york fromm the midwest?  particularly with a new yorker in the wh...?
That's a good question. It's less about origin location and more about attitude. Since attitude is correlated with geographic location in the US, it's easy to conflate the two (I seem to recall WhiteTrashCash had some insight on this distinction maybe in his journal). I'm from California but lived in Trumpland long enough that (after a long period of adjustment, especially around the 2016 election) I was able to re-calibrate my thinking to incorporate the meaningful components of Trump's electoral success. It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).

That was an interesting link - thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 07, 2018, 01:35:21 PM
well it's happened - AG sessions has been shown the door by Trump.  Matthew Whitaker will be the interim AG, a man who has publicly mused on CNN that an interim appointment could allow the acting AG to defund Mueller to the point where the "investigation grinds to almost a halt"

It's like saying - We are determined NOT to get to the bottom of this!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on November 07, 2018, 06:24:32 PM
That's terrifying. Let's hope that Mueller has enough now to bring the investigation to the House.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 08, 2018, 07:34:42 AM
It's like saying - We are determined NOT to get to the bottom of this!

Well, it worked for Republicans with Kavenaugh.  Why not with Trump as well?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Zamboni on November 11, 2018, 11:34:02 AM
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day. They clearly love each other.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 11, 2018, 11:37:41 AM
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 12, 2018, 03:54:06 PM
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI.  And II.
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 12, 2018, 04:01:29 PM
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI.  And II.
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /s

Add skipping visiting Arlington to the list of disrespects.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 12, 2018, 06:19:35 PM
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI.  And II.
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /s

Add skipping visiting Arlington to the list of disrespects.

Trump has worked so hard at subverting the rights that people fought and died for, wouldn't it have been more disrespectful for him to show up?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on November 13, 2018, 01:33:02 AM
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.

Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency?  Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies.  Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute.  What has become of the republican party?
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI.  And II.
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /s

Add skipping visiting Arlington to the list of disrespects.

Trump has worked so hard at subverting the rights that people fought and died for, wouldn't it have been more disrespectful for him to show up?

The weather would have messed with his hair, how could he stand possibly stand hatless in the rain?

Personally, I suspect that those constant campaign rallies have messed with his head: he now can't cope with any public event that isn't several thousand people screaming and chanting because of him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cassie on November 13, 2018, 09:47:49 AM
Really hope that people open their eyes before the next presidential election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2018, 09:54:43 AM
Really hope that people open their eyes before the next presidential election.
Which people are you referring to?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Samuel on November 13, 2018, 10:07:50 AM
well it's happened - AG sessions has been shown the door by Trump.  Matthew Whitaker will be the interim AG, a man who has publicly mused on CNN that an interim appointment could allow the acting AG to defund Mueller to the point where the "investigation grinds to almost a halt"

It's like saying - We are determined NOT to get to the bottom of this!

Interesting twist... The state of Maryland, who is suing about Sessions's directive to stop enforcing parts of the ACA, has added a challenge to Whitaker's appointment to the lawsuit.

The state contends that under the Attorney General Succession Act, the deputy attorney general, or other confirmed Justice Department officers in a designated order of succession, must serve as acting attorney general until a new person is confirmed for that position by the U.S. Senate.

Maryland also argues that Whitaker's appointment violates the Constitution, which requires that principal officers of the United States be appointed "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Whitaker was not serving in a Senate-confirmed position when he was appointed.

Two former attorneys general from the George W. Bush administration — Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey — have criticized the appointment of Whitaker.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/667180873/maryland-says-matthew-whitaker-appointment-as-acting-attorney-general-is-unlawfu (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/667180873/maryland-says-matthew-whitaker-appointment-as-acting-attorney-general-is-unlawfu)

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Samuel on November 13, 2018, 10:25:01 AM
The weather would have messed with his hair, how could he stand possibly stand hatless in the rain?

I've blown multiple well coiffed people's minds by pointing out this is the reason the dumb MAGA hats exist at all. As a formerly insecure balding man I know the special dread of facing inclement weather in a situation where a hat is not acceptable. But at least I got over it after a year or two. To be that insecure at 72 years old is pretty pathetic.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on November 13, 2018, 10:31:45 AM
The weather would have messed with his hair, how could he stand possibly stand hatless in the rain?

I've blown multiple well coiffed people's minds by pointing out this is the reason the dumb MAGA hats exist at all. As a formerly insecure balding man I know the special dread of facing inclement weather in a situation where a hat is not acceptable. But at least I got over it after a year or two. To be that insecure at 72 years old is pretty pathetic.

Well, yeah. As is the level of insecurity that allegedly moved him to get scalp reduction surgery.

Insecurity seems to drive a large percentage of his actions.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on November 15, 2018, 02:18:06 PM
Trump is back to punching out some batshit crazy Tweets about the Russia meddling probe.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 15, 2018, 02:57:44 PM
Trump is back to punching out some batshit crazy Tweets about the Russia meddling probe.

Seems he had another 'Lester Hiolt' moment, this time with the Daily Caller.  When asked about who he might select to be the next AG, Trump pivoted - without being prompted - to talking about the Russia Investigation and how it never should have happened.

He's practically shouting to the world "I'll do whatever I can do shut down the investigation focused on me and my campaign!"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on November 15, 2018, 03:21:03 PM
Trump is back to punching out some batshit crazy Tweets about the Russia meddling probe.

Seems he had another 'Lester Hiolt' moment, this time with the Daily Caller.  When asked about who he might select to be the next AG, Trump pivoted - without being prompted - to talking about the Russia Investigation and how it never should have happened.

He's practically shouting to the world "I'll do whatever I can do shut down the investigation focused on me and my campaign!"

Well so far it's been the most productive political "witch hunt" in history with all the indictments. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Crease on November 16, 2018, 06:30:39 AM
A common refrain is "he's just punching back." I hate that. Even giving President Trump the benefit of doubt here, "punching back" against key institutions like the intelligence agencies, the Justice Department, courts, and the free press is in my opinion damaging and selfish use of power.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 29, 2018, 07:44:29 AM
Well chalk up another 'guilty' plea:
Michael Cohen pled guilty today to lying under oath to congress about Trump's real-estate dealings in Russia.

Well the cover-up is certainly bad (and incredibly poorly executed).  Now about the underlying crimes...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 29, 2018, 11:15:45 AM
Well chalk up another 'guilty' plea:
Michael Cohen pled guilty today to lying under oath to congress about Trump's real-estate dealings in Russia.

Well the cover-up is certainly bad (and incredibly poorly executed).  Now about the underlying crimes...

The timing of this week's Special Counsel movements is very important. First, we have confirmation that Trump has turned in answers to the SC's questions. Then the SC's office turns right around and ends the cooperation agreement that Manafort was supposedly involved with, indicating that he had been lying. Now Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress about Russian deal(s) that Trump was making during and after the campaign (note, Cohen's main public-until-now charges had been handed off to SDNY, and many thought Mueller was essentially done with him; now we know that's not the case). There are many more actors and transaction involved that just Trump, Manafort, Cohen, and the Trump Moscow deal, but is starting to look like the beginning of the end. There is a virtually 0% chance that Manafort's and Trump's statements to the SC match what Cohen (and Felix Sater) have told; presumably there are documents, phone records, etc. to back up one story or the other.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 29, 2018, 05:27:50 PM
The timing of this week's Special Counsel movements is very important.

Did you see the news about Trump cancelling his meeting with Putin this week, immediately after Cohen reported that Trump was actively pursuing a Moscow hotel deal during the campaign while claiming "absolutely no business in Russia"?  Of course, he blamed the cancellation on the Ukraine conflict instead of the terrible terrible optics of repeating a Helsinki-style Putin love-fest immediately after his conflicts of interest with Russia hit the news, but it's hard not to connect the dots on this one.  Trump may be an idiot, but he's keenly aware of public perceptions of his performances.  He is, first and foremost, a showman.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on November 29, 2018, 06:49:45 PM
I'm very interested to see whether today's raids on Deutsche Bank in Germany on money laundering charges turn out to be linked to Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 29, 2018, 06:52:31 PM
I'm very interested to see whether today's raids on Deutsche Bank in Germany on money laundering charges turn out to be linked to Trump.

I think it's probably inevitable.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 29, 2018, 07:47:06 PM
The timing of this week's Special Counsel movements is very important.

Did you see the news about Trump cancelling his meeting with Putin this week, immediately after Cohen reported that Trump was actively pursuing a Moscow hotel deal during the campaign while claiming "absolutely no business in Russia"?  Of course, he blamed the cancellation on the Ukraine conflict instead of the terrible terrible optics of repeating a Helsinki-style Putin love-fest immediately after his conflicts of interest with Russia hit the news, but it's hard not to connect the dots on this one.  Trump may be an idiot, but he's keenly aware of public perceptions of his performances.  He is, first and foremost, a showman.

According to NPR, after defiantly saying the meeting with Putin was still on before boarding Air Force 1 for the G-20, Trump’s aids talked him out of it citing how incredibly bad the optics would be (“..remember Helskinki sir?”)
The kicker is that Trump then announced there would be no meeting on Twitter - without notifying the Kremlin first, who were doing their own PR blitz about how great it was that Putin would have yet another private meeting with the leader of the US.

So he was pressured into reversing course (which he hates) and he pissed off Putin at the same time.  I’m left wondering what Putin’s response might be, how dour Trump’s mood will be at the G-20 and what else he’ll say about Cohen (besides “he’s a liar” - his latest insult).

Oh - and meanwhile he’s supposed to be searching for a trade ‘win’ with China?  Wonder how that’s going to play out.  /S
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 30, 2018, 07:48:51 AM
I'm very interested to see whether today's raids on Deutsche Bank in Germany on money laundering charges turn out to be linked to Trump.

Don't forget one of Trump's former tax attorneys also had the feds show up, show everyone the door, and cover up the glass with brown paper to conceal their activities. These two raids are most certainly not a coincidence, and the Mueller investigation has very clearly crossed Trump's "red line" regarding his personal finances.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418928-federal-agents-raid-office-of-tax-firm-that-previously-worked-for (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418928-federal-agents-raid-office-of-tax-firm-that-previously-worked-for)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on November 30, 2018, 08:07:59 AM
I'm very interested to see whether today's raids on Deutsche Bank in Germany on money laundering charges turn out to be linked to Trump.

Don't forget one of Trump's former tax attorneys also had the feds show up, show everyone the door, and cover up the glass with brown paper to conceal their activities. These two raids are most certainly not a coincidence, and the Mueller investigation has very clearly crossed Trump's "red line" regarding his personal finances.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418928-federal-agents-raid-office-of-tax-firm-that-previously-worked-for (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418928-federal-agents-raid-office-of-tax-firm-that-previously-worked-for)

Was just coming here to add this.  As far as I can tell, this one is pretty far under the radar, given the avalanche of Russia news in the last 24 hours.  But two simultaneous, unannounced federal raids on two entities connected to Trump's finances? That would be one hell of a coincidence. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 30, 2018, 08:48:49 AM
the Mueller investigation has very clearly crossed Trump's "red line" regarding his personal finances.

This whole "red line" argument just cracks up. 

He's like a serial killer covered in blood when the cops ring the doorbell, and he says "Come on in, officers, you can look anywhere except in the freshly dug holes in my back yard."  Did he really think that naming the location of the evidence was going to be an effective defense mechanism?  Does he think he can just stop law enforcement from doing their jobs by telling them they can't investigate what he's done wrong?

At this point, I think Trump has abandoned all pretense of being exonerated by the investigation.  He knows he broke the law in ten different impeachable ways, so his only defense is to try to convince the public that the entire FBI is just another liberal plot.  I expect the Mueller investigation to publish a report with the full cooperation and backing of every US law enforcement agency, along with a bunch of foreign law enforcement agencies that also cite the evidence against him, just so that he can't claim it's a single rogue prosecutor making stuff up.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on November 30, 2018, 09:11:47 AM
the Mueller investigation has very clearly crossed Trump's "red line" regarding his personal finances.


He's like a serial killer covered in blood when the cops ring the doorbell, and he says "Come on in, officers, you can look anywhere except in the freshly dug holes in my back yard."  Did he really think that naming the location of the evidence was going to be an effective defense mechanism?  Does he think he can just stop law enforcement from doing their jobs by telling them they can't investigate what he's done wrong?


Um, yes.  That's exactly what he thinks.  That's what he assumed the Presidency was all about -- the power to force anyone and everyone to do your will, especially people in the government.  He thinks the federal government belongs to him personally and should serve him personally.  The idea that entities within the American government might have higher loyalties--to the Constitution or the nation as whole--is inconceivable.  I don't think he's actually capable of imagining the interests of the nation as separate from his own.  And he doesn't give a single well-formed shit about the Constitution.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 30, 2018, 09:23:25 AM
This whole "red line" argument just cracks up. 
[1]Did he really think that naming the location of the evidence was going to be an effective defense mechanism? 
[2]Does he think he can just stop law enforcement from doing their jobs by telling them they can't investigate what he's done wrong?
1. Yes.
2. Yes.


At this point, I think Trump has abandoned all pretense of being exonerated by the investigation.  He knows he broke the law in ten different impeachable ways, so his only defense is to try to convince the public that the entire FBI is just another liberal plot.  I expect the Mueller investigation to publish a report with the full cooperation and backing of every US law enforcement agency, along with a bunch of foreign law enforcement agencies that also cite the evidence against him, just so that he can't claim it's a single rogue prosecutor making stuff up.

I think you are half right. He certainly means to cast doubt on any findings presented by any government agency which don't exonerate him; he's been laying that groundwork since Day 1 ("a hoax!", "Witch hunt!", "led by Angry Democrats", "in Chaos!", "Clinton supporter", "Hired by Obama", "prosecutor gone rogue"...).  He's even repeatedly rebuked the findings of our own federal agencies, snubbing them on their findings about Russian meddling, Khashoggi, Climate change,  Monetary policy and more.

But I think his defense is much more basal now; the laws are unfair to him, so of course he hasn't followed them. He straight-up admitted to pursuing a real estate deal with Russia while simultaneously campaigning: "When I’m running for president, that doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to do business". At no time does he actually stop and contemplate whether one should do these things, only whether it would burden him not to do them.

ETA:  This nugget, reported today by the WSJ, just smacks me with the level of absurdity:
the proposed plans for the 2016 project included giving Russian President Vladimir Putin a $50 million penthouse, long-time Trump associate Felix Sater said in an interview. Mr. Cohen loved the idea, Mr. Sater said
So: The GOP nominated a real-estate mogul with direct ties to sketchy oligarchs, who continued to do pursue business deals in Russia even after becoming the presumptive party nominee and was trying to gift Putin a $50MM penthouse to make it happen, and Trump has (recently and repeatedly) said he sees absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Let them eat cake?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 30, 2018, 09:45:19 AM
ETA:  This nugget, reported today by the WSJ, just smacks me with the level of absurdity: the proposed plans for the 2016 project included giving Russian President Vladimir Putin a $50 million penthouse, long-time Trump associate Felix Sater said in an interview. Mr. Cohen loved the idea, Mr. Sater said
So: The GOP nominated a real-estate mogul with direct ties to sketchy oligarchs, who continued to do pursue business deals in Russia after becoming the presumptive party nominee and was trying to gift Putin a $50 penthouse to make it happen, and Trump has (recently and repeatedly) said he sees absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Let them eat cake?

Don't forget that it is also a clear violation of the foreign corrupt practices act. The penthouse would be an obvious bribe, and therefore is corrupt.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on November 30, 2018, 10:34:38 AM
The Putin penthouse bit is . . . just so naïve. It's like a child buying a toy they would want as a gift for an adult. Trump thinks big fancy apartments are the be all and end all, so he assumes offering one to Putin would seal the deal.  Putin, obviously, has bigger fish to fry and would want other, bigger concessions from Trump.  Like, say, softening the Republican party platform toward Russia's presence in the Ukraine.  Or getting rid of the Magnitsky Act. Just as a for instance.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 30, 2018, 10:57:27 AM
I think that Trump's thinking was a little different, he would give Putin the penthouse, and then could jack up the prices of the remaining units and just sit back and wait while all the Putin oligarchs and lackey climbed over each other bidding to get an apartment in the same building as their Dear Leader. I also want to point out that Ivanka is knee deep in all of this, for whatever reason she always seems to get a pass in the media.

Also, I want to point out that while this thread and the other Trump/Russia thread have been a little more quiet, I have noticed almost complete radio silence from the few Trump defenders and apologists around these parts. I am not naive enough to believe that any minds have changed, I'm just enjoying the signs that the Trump movement, at least here at the MMM forums, appears to be suffering from severely low morale.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on November 30, 2018, 12:36:22 PM
After Trump has progressed from "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA" to "eh, maybe a little light treason" the Trump base is just waiting to get its talking points on why this is OK.  I'm guessing it will be something about how he's a businessman and how anyone who objects to him brokering real estate deals in exchange for policy deference or giving Ivankas' husband a loan in exchange for a list of the Crown Prince's enemies hates capitalism and is a dirty commie.  Also, Hillary once sent some emails, so checkmate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on November 30, 2018, 02:11:24 PM
After Trump has progressed from "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA" to "eh, maybe a little light treason" the Trump base is just waiting to get its talking points on why this is OK.  I'm guessing it will be something about how he's a businessman and how anyone who objects to him brokering real estate deals in exchange for policy deference or giving Ivankas' husband a loan in exchange for a list of the Crown Prince's enemies hates capitalism and is a dirty commie.  Also, Hillary once sent some emails, so checkmate.

I suspect his defense in this case will be the same one that Sarah Huck-Sands has repeatedly offered up at the white house press briefings: "The American people voted for him anyway."  In essence, her arguments has been that all of these illegal activities were things Trump was well known for before the election, and by voting for him anyway the populace declared that they don't mind if he breaks these laws, so clearly the laws don't apply to him.

She used it with the DC hotel deal.  She used it with the Saudi bribes and the Russian money laundering.  She used it with the pussy grabbing and the adultery NDAs.  It's like the entire administration thinks that the law doesn't matter as long as you win the election, because electoral victory somehow means the people support you no matter what.  I suspect Trump is going to be outraged when he finds out that we're nation of laws after all.

Good TV ratings do not exonerate you for you crimes, Donnie. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 30, 2018, 02:27:51 PM
After Trump has progressed from "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA" to "eh, maybe a little light treason" the Trump base is just waiting to get its talking points on why this is OK.  I'm guessing it will be something about how he's a businessman and how anyone who objects to him brokering real estate deals in exchange for policy deference or giving Ivankas' husband a loan in exchange for a list of the Crown Prince's enemies hates capitalism and is a dirty commie.  Also, Hillary once sent some emails, so checkmate.

I suspect his defense in this case will be the same one that Sarah Huck-Sands has repeatedly offered up at the white house press briefings: "The American people voted for him anyway."  In essence, her arguments has been that all of these illegal activities were things Trump was well known for before the election, and by voting for him anyway the populace declared that they don't mind if he breaks these laws, so clearly the laws don't apply to him.

She used it with the DC hotel deal.  She used it with the Saudi bribes and the Russian money laundering.  She used it with the pussy grabbing and the adultery NDAs.  It's like the entire administration thinks that the law doesn't matter as long as you win the election, because electoral victory somehow means the people support you no matter what.  I suspect Trump is going to be outraged when he finds out that we're nation of laws after all.

Good TV ratings do not exonerate you for you crimes, Donnie.

... or we will be disappointed to find out that we are selective in our application of laws. We already know this is true, but this would be a particularly brazen example.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on November 30, 2018, 06:23:20 PM
Twice now, immediately before the summits in Helsinki and Argentina, Mueller has dropped bombshells about Russia.  This timing isn't coincidence, so it appears Mueller has chosen to highlight the Russia issues when Trump is going into high profile meetings with Putin.

Everyone says that Mueller is a straight by the book guy.  So why would he do something so deliberately disruptive? So calculated to weaken Trump's position, to the point this time of stopping him even meeting Putin?

The answer I think has to be that Mueller is stone cold certain that Trump is guilty of conspiracy with the Russians and that he is a traitor to the USA.  He is using this timing to point out how big a security risk Trump is, in advance of being able to complete all the work necessary to get it all proven in court or in his report to Congress.  There can be no doubt now that Trump is going down hard, with no escape.  It's just a matter of time.  And all the Trump businesses will be going down with him.  That will highly likely take down Don Jr and Ivanka too.

I was brought up to believe that gloating over someone else's downfall was not a good character trait.  In this case, I don't care.
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Freedom2016 on December 01, 2018, 07:15:01 AM
Twice now, immediately before the summits in Helsinki and Argentina, Mueller has dropped bombshells about Russia.  This timing isn't coincidence, so it appears Mueller has chosen to highlight the Russia issues when Trump is going into high profile meetings with Putin.

Everyone says that Mueller is a straight by the book guy.  So why would he do something so deliberately disruptive? So calculated to weaken Trump's position, to the point this time of stopping him even meeting Putin?

The answer I think has to be that Mueller is stone cold certain that Trump is guilty of conspiracy with the Russians and that he is a traitor to the USA.  He is using this timing to point out how big a security risk Trump is, in advance of being able to complete all the work necessary to get it all proven in court or in his report to Congress.  There can be no doubt now that Trump is going down hard, with no escape.  It's just a matter of time.  And all the Trump businesses will be going down with him.  That will highly likely take down Don Jr and Ivanka too.

I was brought up to believe that gloating over someone else's downfall was not a good character trait.  In this case, I don't care.
 

please please please please please please please please let this be true
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on December 02, 2018, 12:24:28 PM
Interesting take, that Mueller is willing to lose evidence that proves Trump's guilt (Trump making deals with Putin), because he'd rather prevent further damage at this point.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 05, 2018, 09:39:38 AM
This is interesting...

Mueller is recommending no jail time for Michael Flynn, because of his 'substantial assistance' with several ongoing investigations in a heavily redacted court filing released yesterday.  In it, Mueller wrote that Flynn had provided “firsthand information about the content and context of interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials"

According to the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-seeks-no-prison-time-for-former-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-citing-his-substantial-assistance/2018/12/04/a5c56a5a-f72a-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.37a9f167a41c), Flynn met with the special council 19 times after his guilty plea to discuss the investigations as a cooperative witness.
 
Flynn joined the Trump campaign in 2016 and was later appointed Trump's National Security advisor in 2017. This strikes at the heart of Trump's claim that the transgressions revealed so far were from events that happened "long ago" (Manafort, Gates, Cohen) and with people that had 'no part' in his campaign (the 13 Russian nationals, Pinedo). If true, this is yet another link between team Trump and Russia, and suggests that there is a great deal more to come from the special council's office in the months to come.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 05, 2018, 09:43:57 AM
No jail time for Flynn should make it even easier for Mueller to get Trump's long list of indicted buddies to talk . . . I wonder how they will balance that offer against Trump's offer of a pardon.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 05, 2018, 10:04:27 AM
Meanwhile at the FCC...
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/fcc-chair-says-russian-email-addresses-submitted-public-net-neutrality-comments
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on December 05, 2018, 10:29:12 AM
The only real reason I can think that Trump is so beholden to Putin is that they have dirt on him.  Not some salacious sex tape, which he could probably bluff his way out of.  More like decades of corrupt money laundering and flagrant law breaking, which is so comprehensive, detailed and true that Trump knows one leak from the Russians will mean he, his family and most of his friends will go to prison for the rest of their lives.

In a situation like that a patriot would confess, approach the FBI or whoever and take the punishment while looking for leniency by cooperating.  Trump on the other hand is going the other way, and getting deeper every day.

All the work Mueller is doing is really important.  Whenever Putin decides Trump has moved from an asset to a liability, we can expect a massive dump of evidence from the Russian side that fully implicates him in a wide array of corrupt and (probably) treasonous behaviours.

Trump's only hope is that he dies before it all comes apart, so he can become a martyr to the wingnuts.  Alternatively he can become so obviously addled/senile that he is 'unfit' for any legal action (in time honored mob boss tradition). 

I'd be very conscious of the 2 year anniversary of his inauguration, beyond which it becomes technically possible for Pence to take over and run in the 2020 and 2024.  It won't be long after that point that the GOP thinks about jettisoning Trump and family, cleaning house and getting Pence into office. 

After Pence gets in we will all be so relieved that someone with at least the competence of an adult has taken over many of us will stop paying attention.  The Democrats will continue their time honored tradition of rolling over and playing dead for money, and Pence will get to work on making a live action version of the Handmaid's tale.  Those of us who are white/male/straight and can pass for Christian will get to pretend it is still a democracy.

I hope I'm wrong.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 05, 2018, 03:16:37 PM
No jail time for Flynn should make it even easier for Mueller to get Trump's long list of indicted buddies to talk . . . I wonder how they will balance that offer against Trump's offer of a pardon.

Anyone with any sense would know that Trump's loyalty can change with the wind. I'm surprised Manafort trusts him. Manafort must really like his ostrich jacket.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 05, 2018, 03:50:44 PM
No jail time for Flynn should make it even easier for Mueller to get Trump's long list of indicted buddies to talk . . . I wonder how they will balance that offer against Trump's offer of a pardon.

Anyone with any sense would know that Trump's loyalty can change with the wind. I'm surprised Manafort trusts him. Manafort must really like his ostrich jacket.

I doubt either trusts the other - instead its more of a "mutually assured destruction" kind of 'friendship'.  Manafort is facing life in prison on 18 counts, including conspiracy and fraud.  if he loses Trump and (by extension) the DOJ he's out of options (eg a pardon or clemency).  Trump is his last hope.  Likewise, if DJT's own campaign manager went on record saying "yeah, we colluded with the Russians, then conspired to cover it up" - well there goes the last shred of legitimacy for #45.
Either that or they are both truly innocent. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 05, 2018, 09:07:23 PM
Either that or they are both truly innocent.

Ummmm, Manafort has already pled guilty.

He also has a long and complicated history working for the Russians before and during the time he worked for Trump.  I expect that his eventual convictions will directly implicate not only Trump, but a variety of Russian oligarchs as well.  This is going to be one of those disappointing stories where the big murder-mystery whodunnit reveal turns out to be the obvious suspect from chapter 1.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on December 05, 2018, 10:15:14 PM
Either that or they are both truly innocent.

Ummmm, Manafort has already pled guilty.

He also has a long and complicated history working for the Russians before and during the time he worked for Trump.  I expect that his eventual convictions will directly implicate not only Trump, but a variety of Russian oligarchs as well.  This is going to be one of those disappointing stories where the big murder-mystery whodunnit reveal turns out to be the obvious suspect from chapter 1.

The disappointing part will be when the detective makes the big reveal, and then everyone tut-tuts, then goes back to business as usual and the deeply criminal and treasonous behaviour gets barely punished, if at all.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on December 07, 2018, 08:12:43 AM
What RocketPJ said.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 07, 2018, 03:35:00 PM
In today's news, Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen is going to receive "substantial" prison time for the crimes he committed at the request of Donald Trump.  Those crimes include campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and bank fraud, all three of which were basically Trump's bread and butter before he became President.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 10, 2018, 07:38:57 PM
Something I've been thinking about is that there were so many different Russian attempts to get to the Trump campaign.  It's been suggested that this was because Putin sent out a general wish "see if you can get to Trump" and got unco-ordinated efforts to that effect from lots of different parts of the Russian secret State.  Which was self-defeating - they got in each other's way, and confused the message being received.

The stupid thing from Putin's part is that he didn't need to contact Trump at all.  Trump was already more in the Russian/Putin pocket than he could possibly have guessed.  All those years of Trump laundering Russian money, and wanting to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, plus his utter lack of loyalty to the USA, meant that Trump was already primed to do anything Putin wanted without any further covert action on Putin's part.  If Putin had limited his interference to behind the scenes influencing stuff without trying to get to Trump himself, and just suggested after Trump was elected that a Trump Tower Moscow was waiting for him at the end of his term as President he would now be sitting back and reaping all the rewards he could ever have wanted.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on December 12, 2018, 10:22:48 AM
In today's news, Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen is going to receive "substantial" prison time for the crimes he committed at the request of Donald Trump.  Those crimes include campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and bank fraud, all three of which were basically Trump's bread and butter before he became President.
Trump Twitter -did he cover all the bases here (no collusion, cohen's fault, Obama, witch hunt". Only new twist is admitting it and saying it is only a private transaction...

"Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun...No Collusion.” @FoxNews  That’s because there was NO COLLUSION. So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution,..."

 "....which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama’s - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me). Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2018, 11:09:28 AM
Also in today's news, the president has finally shifted from claiming "no collusion" to saying that his business with Russia is "peanut stuff".  You know, like just a little bit of collusion, not like anything big. 

This is right on script with his denials of other crimes.  Just like with Stormy Daniels, first he had never heard of her, then he knew her but didn't sleep with her, then yes she was paid to keep quiet about the affair but he didn't know about it, then okay he knew about it but didn't direct it, then yes he directed it but it wasn't illegal, then yes it was illegal but only a little bit illegal.

Now the Russia investigation is following the same pattern.  First he had no contact with anyone from Russia and no business in Russia, then some of his secondary campaign staff might have talked to some Russian citizens without his consent, then most of his senior staff was talking to Russia because he asked them to, then his staff was taking payments from Russia to advance Russian interests but that's totally legal, then his staff secretly met with Russian spies to trade information about Clinton but he didn't know about it, then he knew about it but it was probably legal, and yes I was engaged in quid pro quo real estate deal for a Moscow hotel well into the campaign but it's not explicitly illegal to do business with hostile foreign powers while running for office, and now finally fine we colluded with Russia but it was only a little bit of collusion.  Peanut stuff!

He's like a mobster that denies everything including his own name, until the cop slaps down the photographs of the crime scene with his fingerprints all over it.  I'll give him one thing, he's at least making sure that the federal case against him is absolutely air tight, forcing prosecutors to document every tiny little step along the way, challenging every piece of evidence on every grounds.  He has to lie to the American public every day to do it, but it's probably his best defense legally because he might be able to get some of that evidence overlooked or discarded.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 13, 2018, 03:41:24 PM
News reports that Trump's inaugural committee is under criminal investigation:  https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/trump-inauguration-spending-investigation/index.html?adkey=bn

Why is this in the Russia thread?  Because if you remember all the way back to 2016, one of the myriad of corruption stories published in the media and then quickly forgotten was that at least one Russian oligarch made a "donation" to the inauguration committee in exchange for front row seating (and thus access to his candidate).  It is, of course, illegal to give someone money in exchange for political favors, and it is illegal to accept money in exchange for political favors.  It's colloquially known as bribery.

This is one of the stories that was outrageous when it was first published, but then two days later Trump says he wants to french kiss Kim Jong Un, or he calls a wounded veteran a dirty slut, or some such other assault on common decency, and the press quickly moved on from literal crimes to something with more moral outrage but less legal consequence.  I'm glad to see that the FBI didn't forget like the rest of us did.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: turketron on December 14, 2018, 07:55:18 AM
ProPublica's "Trump, Inc." podcast did an episode about the Inauguration back in March and I remember listening to it at the time and wondering why no one else had been talking about it or looking into it. That episode (and the podcast as a whole) is worth a listen if you haven't heard it, and might still be worth listening to given what more we know now: https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/trumpinc

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on December 14, 2018, 09:09:05 AM
Lock him up!!

(-:
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Crease on December 18, 2018, 10:33:21 AM
Meanwhile, at his sentencing hearing, Michael Flynn and his lawyers are getting reamed out by Judge Sullivan (Reagan appointee). Sullivan is clearly pissed that Flynn's sentencing memorandum implied prosecutorial misconduct when the 302s about his interview do not bear this out. "How is raising those contentions about the circumstances under which Mr. Flynn lied consistent with acceptance of responsibility?"

Sullivan gave Flynn one final shot to withdraw his guilty plea, but Flynn declined and admitted guilt. Sullivan also led Flynn's attorney through a colloquy asking if it was the defense's contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime or that Flynn was entrapped by the FBI. "No, your honor." Flynn also admitted he "was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime when he did so over interactions with Russians.

The proceeding escalated from there.

Sullivan asked the government whether Flynn could have been charged in the unsealed indictment in Virginia yesterday, could have been charged under the Logan Act, or even "treason." "This is a very serious offense -- a high-ranking senior official of the government, making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while on the physical premises of the White House." Also, "so all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States."

The court is now in recess because Sullivan has asked Flynn to consider whether he still wants to be sentenced today, or whether he wants to wait until his cooperation is complete in hopes of getting more credit.

UPDATE: Sullivan granted Flynn's request for a delay in sentencing to get additional cooperation benefit from the ongoing Virginia case.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 18, 2018, 10:35:49 AM
@acroy - still arguing that there's no evidence of collusion?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2018, 10:39:03 AM
@acroy - still arguing that there's no evidence of collusion?
He was banned a few months ago for repeatedly violating the forum rules, including trolling posters & threads
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 18, 2018, 10:41:16 AM
@acroy - still arguing that there's no evidence of collusion?
He was banned a few months ago for repeatedly violating the forum rules, including trolling posters & threads

Oh.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2018, 10:48:43 AM
@acroy - still arguing that there's no evidence of collusion?
He was banned a few months ago for repeatedly violating the forum rules, including trolling posters & threads

Oh.
A bit of a shame, as his posts on other topics were often incredibly useful.  But for some reason he couldn't resist popping in on threads he didn't agree with only to call the posters 'sheeple' and other insults without actually participating in the discussion.
I've never understood why some people find enjoyment in trolling.   

Maybe we need to start a trolling hall of shame....
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 18, 2018, 11:00:08 AM
Meanwhile, at his sentencing hearing, Michael Flynn and his lawyers are getting reamed out by Judge Sullivan (Reagan appointee). Sullivan is clearly pissed that Flynn's sentencing memorandum implied prosecutorial misconduct when the 302s about his interview do not bear this out. "How is raising those contentions about the circumstances under which Mr. Flynn lied consistent with acceptance of responsibility?"

Sullivan gave Flynn one final shot to withdraw his guilty plea, but Flynn declined and admitted guilt. Sullivan also led Flynn's attorney through a colloquy asking if it was the defense's contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime or that Flynn was entrapped by the FBI. "No, your honor." Flynn also admitted he "was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime when he did so over interactions with Russians.

The proceeding escalated from there.

Sullivan asked the government whether Flynn could have been charged in the unsealed indictment in Virginia yesterday, could have been charged under the Logan Act, or even "treason." "This is a very serious offense -- a high-ranking senior official of the government, making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while on the physical premises of the White House." Also, "so all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States."

The court is now in recess because Sullivan has asked Flynn to consider whether he still wants to be sentenced today, or whether he wants to wait until his cooperation is complete in hopes of getting more credit.

UPDATE: Sullivan granted Flynn's request for a delay in sentencing for the last modicum of cooperation benefit in the Virginia case.

Thanks for this.
Here is some reporting on the sentencing from WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/michael-flynn-trumps-former-national-security-adviser-scheduled-to-be-sentenced/2018/12/17/19ce1bb4-0247-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.386b3f958f08
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on December 18, 2018, 11:08:59 AM
Can anyone remind us of why Russia preferred the Trump team in the White House?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2018, 11:23:26 AM
Can anyone remind us of why Russia preferred the Trump team in the White House?
because under the Obama administration, SoS HRC denounced Russia's annexation of Ukraine.  Also, DJT had all sorts of COI with Russia (starting with his ongoing efforts to build Trump Tower Russia), which still makes him easier to manipulate.  The GOP had spent the last two decades airing out HRC's dirty laundry, so is/was little additioanl leverage on her.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 18, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
Can anyone remind us of why Russia preferred the Trump team in the White House?

If you're in competition with another sports team, do you want your competitors to:

- Have a competent and observant coach with years of experience
- Have a coach with a history of making failing calls, no experience in your sport, who owes you some money

?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2018, 12:52:43 PM
Meanwhile, at his sentencing hearing, Michael Flynn and his lawyers are getting reamed out by Judge Sullivan (Reagan appointee). Sullivan is clearly pissed that Flynn's sentencing memorandum implied prosecutorial misconduct when the 302s about his interview do not bear this out. "How is raising those contentions about the circumstances under which Mr. Flynn lied consistent with acceptance of responsibility?"

Sullivan gave Flynn one final shot to withdraw his guilty plea, but Flynn declined and admitted guilt. Sullivan also led Flynn's attorney through a colloquy asking if it was the defense's contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime or that Flynn was entrapped by the FBI. "No, your honor." Flynn also admitted he "was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime when he did so over interactions with Russians.

The proceeding escalated from there.

Sullivan asked the government whether Flynn could have been charged in the unsealed indictment in Virginia yesterday, could have been charged under the Logan Act, or even "treason." "This is a very serious offense -- a high-ranking senior official of the government, making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while on the physical premises of the White House." Also, "so all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States."

The court is now in recess because Sullivan has asked Flynn to consider whether he still wants to be sentenced today, or whether he wants to wait until his cooperation is complete in hopes of getting more credit.

UPDATE: Sullivan granted Flynn's request for a delay in sentencing to get additional cooperation benefit from the ongoing Virginia case.

Two things stood out to be during Flynn's court appearance:
 
1) the judge at one point asked the prosecution whether Flynn could be charged "for treason"
2) In response to Flynn Acknowledging that he worked to further Turkey's national interests while serving as the National Security Advisor to Trump, Judge Sullivan* pointed to an American flag behind him and said: "Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out.
"

Talk about a bad day in court...

*District court judge Emmet G. Sullivan is a republican first appointed by Reagan in '84, then by Bush Sr in 1992.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Crease on December 18, 2018, 01:48:33 PM
Meanwhile, at his sentencing hearing, Michael Flynn and his lawyers are getting reamed out by Judge Sullivan (Reagan appointee). Sullivan is clearly pissed that Flynn's sentencing memorandum implied prosecutorial misconduct when the 302s about his interview do not bear this out. "How is raising those contentions about the circumstances under which Mr. Flynn lied consistent with acceptance of responsibility?"

Sullivan gave Flynn one final shot to withdraw his guilty plea, but Flynn declined and admitted guilt. Sullivan also led Flynn's attorney through a colloquy asking if it was the defense's contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime or that Flynn was entrapped by the FBI. "No, your honor." Flynn also admitted he "was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime when he did so over interactions with Russians.

The proceeding escalated from there.

Sullivan asked the government whether Flynn could have been charged in the unsealed indictment in Virginia yesterday, could have been charged under the Logan Act, or even "treason." "This is a very serious offense -- a high-ranking senior official of the government, making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while on the physical premises of the White House." Also, "so all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States."

The court is now in recess because Sullivan has asked Flynn to consider whether he still wants to be sentenced today, or whether he wants to wait until his cooperation is complete in hopes of getting more credit.

UPDATE: Sullivan granted Flynn's request for a delay in sentencing to get additional cooperation benefit from the ongoing Virginia case.

Two things stood out to be during Flynn's court appearance:
 
1) the judge at one point asked the prosecution whether Flynn could be charged "for treason"
2) In response to Flynn Acknowledging that he worked to further Turkey's national interests while serving as the National Security Advisor to Trump, Judge Sullivan* pointed to an American flag behind him and said: "Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out.
"

Talk about a bad day in court...

*District court judge Emmet G. Sullivan is a republican first appointed by Reagan in '84, then by Bush Sr in 1992.

Not great! That said, federal sentencing hearings are often theater. For a variety of reasons, the judges' comments are meanest when they're about to go light on you.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 18, 2018, 02:05:02 PM
Not great! That said, federal sentencing hearings are often theater. For a variety of reasons, the judges' comments are meanest when they're about to go light on you.

Except for the part where the judge effectively asked: are you sure you want me to sentence you today?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 20, 2018, 06:20:21 AM
The Kremlin, who has been backing Syrian president President Bashar al-Assad at at odds with the US position, must be thrilled that DJT has decided to abruptly pull all troops out of Syria, against the advice of his own Sec of Defense.

Vladdy must be tickled pink.  Merry Christmas Russia!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on December 20, 2018, 08:13:58 AM
The Kremlin, who has been backing Syrian president President Bashar al-Assad at at odds with the US position, must be thrilled that DJT has decided to abruptly pull all troops out of Syria, against the advice of his own Sec of Defense.

Vladdy must be tickled pink.  Merry Christmas Russia!

Russia has already released a public statement praising Trump's decision to abandon Syria.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on December 20, 2018, 08:18:14 AM
"'Donald’s right, and I agree with him,' Mr. Putin said."

There's something about just using his first name in that context that is so dismissive.  And I'm absolutely sure it was intended to be so.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 20, 2018, 08:25:04 AM
"'Donald’s right, and I agree with him,' Mr. Putin said."

There's something about just using his first name in that context that is so dismissive.  And I'm absolutely sure it was intended to be so.
Putin began his adult life as a KGB agent specializing in counter-intelligence for 25 years.  Since then he's been in politics.  I'm certain his every word in such a statement is intentional.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 20, 2018, 09:12:35 PM
The Kremlin, who has been backing Syrian president President Bashar al-Assad at at odds with the US position, must be thrilled that DJT has decided to abruptly pull all troops out of Syria, against the advice of his own Sec of Defense.

Vladdy must be tickled pink.  Merry Christmas Russia!

Russia has already released a public statement praising Trump's decision to abandon Syria.
But was that drafted before the formal announcement? Asking for a friend.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on December 21, 2018, 06:48:17 AM
"If the decision to withdraw was made, then it is a correct one," Putin said. Donnie gets a pat on the head!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 08, 2019, 02:30:50 PM
The slow Russian drips continue.

1) Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was charged with obstruction of justice.  If you need a refresher, Veselnitskaya was present at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting and is tied to the Kremlin.

2) SCOTUS ruled against the attempt by "Country A" to fight Mueller's subpoena, where 'the grand jury seeks information by the company owned by 'Country A''.  Any guesses where 'Country A' falls on the map?  Hint, it has state-owned companies currently under Mueller's investigation.

3) Manafort admits that he shared polling data with a Russian firm the FBI says had ties to Russian Intelligence during the election, and lied about it to investigators.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on January 09, 2019, 07:40:01 AM
I assume country A is Russia


But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2019, 08:03:27 AM
I assume country A is Russia


But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
Certainly possible, but I too suspect it's Russia.  But suppose it isn't - holy crap that could be a new can of worms for this WH.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 09, 2019, 08:29:27 AM
I assume country A is Russia


But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
Certainly possible, but I too suspect it's Russia.  But suppose it isn't - holy crap that could be a new can of worms for this WH.

Well it's definitely not Costa Rica.

Other leading possibilities are that it's...

1. Germany and Deutsche Bank, and is related to the loans they gave Trump as part of their ongoing money laundering investigation.  Money they laundered for Russian organized crime, in part by giving it to Donald Trump as loans for properties he then sold back to those same Russians.  It's a classic scheme, familiar to white collar criminals all over the world.

2.  Saudi Arabia and one of the Saudi technology firms that partnered with Cambridge Analytica to influence the election.  Manafort is being indicted for illegally coordinating campaign activities and cooperating with the Saudis (which is sort of like colluding, but according to Trump there is still "no collusion").  Russia paid for much of this cooperation, in ways that have only just come to light in the past week or two.

3.  Russia and Rosneft.  This has been the leading suspicion for some time now, because this deal was described in the Steele Dossier.  Rosneft is a state-owned Russian oil company that transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to a variety of Trump associates concurrently with the campaign and election.  You can read all about it on the internet, for example here (https://thesternfacts.com/trump-russia-dossier-decoded-yes-there-really-was-a-massive-oil-deal-e33370349b67).

Israel is also higher on the suspect list than is China.  There are a few Russian technology and hacking firms that I've seen mentioned as suspects, too.  My guess is that the real story is some combination of all of the above, though the current court battle over Country A is just a part of it.  Mueller appears to be piecing together a complex web of connections in which Russian assets were used to fund coordination between a variety of international partners to hack and then release DNC emails and then use that information on social media in coordination with the campaign's public messaging.  Trump's family and several of his top aides were paid handsomely for their cooperation, though some of them were merely promised payments that then never materialized. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2019, 08:57:30 AM
I assume country A is Russia


But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
Certainly possible, but I too suspect it's Russia.  But suppose it isn't - holy crap that could be a new can of worms for this WH.

Well it's definitely not Costa Rica.

Other leading possibilities are that it's...
...
Israel is also higher on the suspect list than is China.  There are a few Russian technology and hacking firms that I've seen mentioned as suspects, too.  My guess is that the real story is some combination of all of the above, though the current court battle over Country A is just a part of it.  Mueller appears to be piecing together a complex web of connections in which Russian assets were used to fund coordination between a variety of international partners to hack and then release DNC emails and then use that information on social media in coordination with the campaign's public messaging.  Trump's family and several of his top aides were paid handsomely for their cooperation, though some of them were merely promised payments that then never materialized.

Good input Sol. 
You've touched on one of my fears from this whole investigation.  Based on the sheer number of indictments, the longstanding (and busy!) grand jury and the size and complexity of Mueller's team I'm pretty confident that he's going to uncover an absolute hoard of illicit and illegal behavior by multiple persons.
My fear is simply that the web he reveals will be too big, too complex and too disjointed for most people to do anything but bury their heads and ignore it.  Like a layperson being given the unfiltered code for a computer operating system the public will be like a blind person encountering an elephant for the first time (sorry if that mixes too many metaphors). Several countreis, dozens of individuals, hundreds of meetings, thousands of emails.

I suspect that that - while the DJT campaign was breaking rules and laws left and right - it was all poorly coordinated and lacked any real focus, at least from their end (Russia was likely highly coordinated and intently focused). Manafort, Gates and Flynn were busy making themselves rich with a minor side effect of selling out their country.  Cohen was off semi-autonomously putting out any fires using any methods that came to mind.  Eric and Jr. were trying to expand the Trump empire (even if meant making deals with dictators). etc.  Tons of illegality but lacking a cohesive thread. In which case it'll get brushed off - because 100 unfocused crimes is somehow not as damning as a a dozen highly coordinated ones.

Maybe that won't be the case - time will tell.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 09, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
Based on the sheer number of indictments, the longstanding (and busy!) grand jury and the size and complexity of Mueller's team I'm pretty confident that he's going to uncover an absolute hoard of illicit and illegal behavior by multiple persons.

Some of the allegations contained in the Steele Dossier have already been verified by the Paradise Papers, the Panama Papers, and the Bahamas Leaks.  They revealed that there is definitely a coordinated international white collar crime system in which state-assets from countries controlled by dictators (Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc) have been funneled to US citizens in violation of US banking sanctions, tax laws, and elections laws.  Manafort has already pled guilty to being part of this system, accepting foreign government funds to sway US policy and influence the election, and folks like Carter Page seem not far behind.  Some of them, like Roger Stone and wikileaks, appear to have facilitated this effort without being paid directly for it.

The internet has finally laid bare the types of global corruption that have probably been common since the 1800s, and we're only now getting a glimpse into how the world's richest and most powerful people pull the strings from behind the scenes.  This is Dan Brown style conspiracy, except instead of the Catholic Church it's run-of-the-mill autocrats and their plutocrat friends that are swaying entire nations into things like Brexit and Donald Trump.  The "Illuminati" of popular mythology are sort of kind of a real thing, and we got to see them high five (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/opinions/the-astounding-putin-mbs-high-five-zelizer/index.html) in Argentina last month.  Donald Trump desperately wants to be part of this club, so he's letting himself be a pawn in their game in hopes of joining their ranks in the future.

I don't think the Mueller report is going to be an easy read.  It's definitely going to include some version of  "Donald Trump's campaign coordinated illegal activities with foreign governments" but it's also going to back that up with an entire laundry list of specific instances of money changing hands in exchange for illegal activity, tax fraud and bank fraud and money laundering efforts to facilitate those payments, and the paper trails of people like Don Jr. and Jared Kushner explicitly trying to break the law by appealing to the existing global elite with promises of favorable treatment by the US government. 

The problem with upsetting the existing global power structure is that I don't think the US Justice Department is really prepared to handle the prosecutions of people like Putin and MbS.  Whether or not these people have broken US laws, there is an issue of jurisdiction when it comes to guys so powerful that they routinely murder their enemies (https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/haspel-briefing-khashoggi/index.html) and get away with it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko).  I think the best we can hope for is that Mueller puts a bunch of US citizens behind bars for their role, and then publicly exposes the crimes of people like the Saudis and the Russians who directed those crimes in the hopes of educating the American public about the importance of electing ethical leaders in the future.

What happens to Donald Trump after that is kind of a footnote.  America has already lost this game, for now.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Paul der Krake on January 09, 2019, 10:14:13 AM
What happens to Donald Trump after that is kind of a footnote.  America has already lost this game, for now.
He's a 72 year old fat bastard with a terrible diet and lifestyle. I doubt he will be around by the time the wheels of justice are done turning, if ever.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2019, 10:39:28 AM
What happens to Donald Trump after that is kind of a footnote.  America has already lost this game, for now.
He's a 72 year old fat bastard with a terrible diet and lifestyle. I doubt he will be around by the time the wheels of justice are done turning, if ever.

We've never sent a US president to jail - not even Nixon.  The framers made it clear that they preferred a special public trail ('impeachment') and removal from office but were less enthusiastic about the possibility of former leaders getting locked up after they left office - no doubt because they were weary of the then-British tradition of locking up political rivals to secure power.

The part of me that wants to see illegal deeds go punished would love to see jail time.  however, when it comes to the office of the president I worry that this could establish an uncomfortable precedent.  Thus, I think a far more fitting punishment would be censure and dissolution of the entities involved.  If the Trump Organization used its properties to host illegal meetings (Trump Tower) and funnel money from dictators for favors (Trump Hotel in DC) and push a pro-Russian agenda (the Trump Moscow projects) then sever them from the Trump Family and fine the businesses accordingly.  If we've decided that corporations have rights just like citizens, then they have responsibilities as well.

In a way it would seem more just, as Trump was advised to put all of his assets into a blind trust, but didn't (because he wanted to continue to make money and leverage his presidental bid)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 09, 2019, 11:10:28 AM
A more fitting punishment would be to sentence Donald Trump to personally build the wall between the US and Mexico with his own hands and money.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2019, 11:16:14 AM
A more fitting punishment would be to sentence Donald Trump to personally build the wall between the US and Mexico with his own hands and money.

that would still be a waste of money for at least 1,000 miles of border.
It would also be an environmental catastrophy, fragmenting the habitat of a whole suite of wild and often endangered creatures.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 09, 2019, 11:19:38 AM
A more fitting punishment would be to sentence Donald Trump to personally build the wall between the US and Mexico with his own hands and money.

that would still be a waste of money for at least 1,000 miles of border.
It would also be an environmental catastrophy, fragmenting the habitat of a whole suite of wild and often endangered creatures.

I think you are vastly overestimating the productivity and work ethic of Mr. Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2019, 11:25:06 AM
A more fitting punishment would be to sentence Donald Trump to personally build the wall between the US and Mexico with his own hands and money.

that would still be a waste of money for at least 1,000 miles of border.
It would also be an environmental catastrophy, fragmenting the habitat of a whole suite of wild and often endangered creatures.

I think you are vastly overestimating the productivity and work ethic of Mr. Trump.
I'm pretty certain if left to Trump there would be a big gawdy ribbon cutting ceremony around a guilded concrete barrier of enormous proportions, and only later would we learn that most of it was cardboard and that it tapered into nothingness only a few miles away.  Like the Disney Theme-park (or Trump Casino) version of a wall - all show , little substance and no function.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on January 09, 2019, 12:22:42 PM
So the big takeaway from all of this insanity is that there exists a tremendous amount of white collar corruption and crime in the world.  I suspect Trump is just a wee fraction of the overall mess.

I am also pretty sure he and his associates could have carried on blithely breaking laws and barely covering them up for the rest of their lives if they hadn't gotten overconfident and decided that the next smart thing to steal would be the White House. One by one all of these crooked thieves are 'looking astonished' that the FBI and others are actually paying attention to their shenanigans instead of ignoring them to focus on simpler crimes (i.e. murder, bank robbery etc) that are easier to prosecute.

The best possible outcome for this process is a wholesale cleaning house and a massive daylight process of cleaning up international finance.  If we need to toss a significant percentage of Wall Street and K Street into jail to do it then more the better.

The more likely outcome is a fizzling out of Trump's presidency, a few token convictions (likely including some Trumps) and a 'looking forward not back' sellout of justice by whoever is elected next.  The white collar crime world will be a bit more careful until the heat dies down, then they will get back to their old shenanigans and we will all carry on as if it never happened (until the next time, at which point we will be shocked and astonished all over again).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2019, 01:56:30 PM
So the big takeaway from all of this insanity is that there exists a tremendous amount of white collar corruption and crime in the world.  I suspect Trump is just a wee fraction of the overall mess.

I am also pretty sure he and his associates could have carried on blithely breaking laws and barely covering them up for the rest of their lives if they hadn't gotten overconfident and decided that the next smart thing to steal would be the White House. One by one all of these crooked thieves are 'looking astonished' that the FBI and others are actually paying attention to their shenanigans instead of ignoring them to focus on simpler crimes (i.e. murder, bank robbery etc) that are easier to prosecute.
...

One of the more notable defense strategies coming out of the Manafort papers is how his lawyers are actually arguing that "most" of the things he has done didn't break any laws, and that should be considered when assigning him guilt for the times he did break the law.

Really?  WTF?!  His position is so bad that he's resorted to the defense of 'most of what I did wasn't illegal'!
That's like saying: "I have a constitutional right to have a gun, there's no laws against wearing a ski mask, and anyone can go into a bank, so most of what i did all day was legal, except for about 60 seconds when I told the teller "give me all your money or I'll blow your head off'.  other than that I technically didn't break any laws, so the judges should consider that and just give me a warning or something"

ETA: The other 'defense' strategy Manafort is using is to say that he 'probably' shared campaign information with his Russian counterpart, Kilimnik, but that he couldn't be sure because sitting in jail for violating his plea deal has been extremely stressful on him and is affecting his memory. Gee, turns out prison is not a fun place to be.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: aspiringnomad on January 09, 2019, 09:01:10 PM
I assume country A is Russia


But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
Certainly possible, but I too suspect it's Russia.  But suppose it isn't - holy crap that could be a new can of worms for this WH.

Well it's definitely not Costa Rica.

Other leading possibilities are that it's...

1. Germany and Deutsche Bank, and is related to the loans they gave Trump as part of their ongoing money laundering investigation.  Money they laundered for Russian organized crime, in part by giving it to Donald Trump as loans for properties he then sold back to those same Russians.  It's a classic scheme, familiar to white collar criminals all over the world.


Deutsche Bank has a history of laundering with Trump, but it's not owned by Germany and the ruling refers a "corporation owned by Country A." So that would rule out DB. But other countries mentioned are definite possibilities - notably VEB in Russia - or it could be from a small tax haven island somewhere in Europe or the Caribbean. That the corporation cares about compliance with a US ruling enough to appeal to our Supreme Court suggests that it might be a pawn in all this rather than directly backed by Putin.

Alfa Bank would be another intriguing Russian possibility given the research in this article, but it's supposedly privately owned (I'm guessing there are blurry ownership lines in Russia): https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/was-there-a-connection-between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on January 11, 2019, 09:02:54 AM
So the big takeaway from all of this insanity is that there exists a tremendous amount of white collar corruption and crime in the world.  I suspect Trump is just a wee fraction of the overall mess.

I am also pretty sure he and his associates could have carried on blithely breaking laws and barely covering them up for the rest of their lives if they hadn't gotten overconfident and decided that the next smart thing to steal would be the White House. One by one all of these crooked thieves are 'looking astonished' that the FBI and others are actually paying attention to their shenanigans instead of ignoring them to focus on simpler crimes (i.e. murder, bank robbery etc) that are easier to prosecute.

The best possible outcome for this process is a wholesale cleaning house and a massive daylight process of cleaning up international finance.  If we need to toss a significant percentage of Wall Street and K Street into jail to do it then more the better.

The more likely outcome is a fizzling out of Trump's presidency, a few token convictions (likely including some Trumps) and a 'looking forward not back' sellout of justice by whoever is elected next.  The white collar crime world will be a bit more careful until the heat dies down, then they will get back to their old shenanigans and we will all carry on as if it never happened (until the next time, at which point we will be shocked and astonished all over again).

I'm so proud that DJTrump has worked so diligently to "drain the swamp" and to "lock her up".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 11, 2019, 10:43:36 AM
That the corporation cares about compliance with a US ruling enough to appeal to our Supreme Court suggests that it might be a pawn in all this rather than directly backed by Putin.

Or that the corporation has assets in the US that it doesn't want to risk.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: aspiringnomad on January 13, 2019, 06:03:38 PM
That the corporation cares about compliance with a US ruling enough to appeal to our Supreme Court suggests that it might be a pawn in all this rather than directly backed by Putin.

Or that the corporation has assets in the US that it doesn't want to risk.

Fair point. Also a possibility.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2019, 05:44:39 AM
More shoes dropping...
According to Buzzfeed, President Trump (yes, while serving as President) directed his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, “to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.”   Mueller allegedly learned about this directive through internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents”, which Cohen later verified under questioning by the special council.

If this reporting is accurate this a the textbook definition of obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.

Most intriguing is that Cohen's testimony seems to be backstopped by a cache of communications now in the special council's hands.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 18, 2019, 09:57:28 AM
More shoes dropping...
According to Buzzfeed, President Trump (yes, while serving as President) directed his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, “to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.”   Mueller allegedly learned about this directive through internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents”, which Cohen later verified under questioning by the special council.

If this reporting is accurate this a the textbook definition of obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.

Most intriguing is that Cohen's testimony seems to be backstopped by a cache of communications now in the special council's hands.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash)

This is my shocked face. /s

I think this is the thing with Mueller. He understands how large distributed criminal organizations work and how to back things up and corroborate them. I mentioned this over in the 'speculate' thread, but I see a real possibility that Mueller could build a RICO case against Trump/Kusher/et al assets if there is significant money laundering and fraud. That would not require an indictment against the person who is president. In itself, that would be satisfying, but could also provide an exceptionally long lever on Trump towards resignation.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: StarBright on January 18, 2019, 10:06:38 AM

This is my shocked face. /s

I think this is the thing with Mueller. He understands how large distributed criminal organizations work and how to back things up and corroborate them. I mentioned this over in the 'speculate' thread, but I see a real possibility that Mueller could build a RICO case against Trump/Kusher/et al assets if there is significant money laundering and fraud. That would not require an indictment against the person who is president. In itself, that would be satisfying, but could also provide an exceptionally long lever on Trump towards resignation.

I believe the theory going around on Twitter for quite a while is that there is already a RICO case against Trump in NY (specifically so that it can't be pardoned). I used to call the accounts reporting this/similar things, "Russia Conspiracy Theory Twitter" -but at this point some of these folks have been right more often than not so now I just say Twitter :)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 18, 2019, 10:36:47 AM

This is my shocked face. /s

I think this is the thing with Mueller. He understands how large distributed criminal organizations work and how to back things up and corroborate them. I mentioned this over in the 'speculate' thread, but I see a real possibility that Mueller could build a RICO case against Trump/Kusher/et al assets if there is significant money laundering and fraud. That would not require an indictment against the person who is president. In itself, that would be satisfying, but could also provide an exceptionally long lever on Trump towards resignation.

I believe the theory going around on Twitter for quite a while is that there is already a RICO case against Trump in NY (specifically so that it can't be pardoned). I used to call the accounts reporting this/similar things, "Russia Conspiracy Theory Twitter" -but at this point some of these folks have been right more often than not so now I just say Twitter :)

Fivethirtyeight has a blog about it. It's far easier to go after Trump's businesses than Trump himself, at least while he's a sitting President.

Look at the Trump Foundation. The court told it to shut down but only with court supervision. It had almost $2M in assets at the end, which was considered at risk of being spent on more Trump portraits.

Trump thought he was going to catapult himself into the realms of the plutocrats. Instead, he may end up bankrupting himself -- permanently.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on January 18, 2019, 10:51:25 AM

This is my shocked face. /s

I think this is the thing with Mueller. He understands how large distributed criminal organizations work and how to back things up and corroborate them. I mentioned this over in the 'speculate' thread, but I see a real possibility that Mueller could build a RICO case against Trump/Kusher/et al assets if there is significant money laundering and fraud. That would not require an indictment against the person who is president. In itself, that would be satisfying, but could also provide an exceptionally long lever on Trump towards resignation.

I believe the theory going around on Twitter for quite a while is that there is already a RICO case against Trump in NY (specifically so that it can't be pardoned). I used to call the accounts reporting this/similar things, "Russia Conspiracy Theory Twitter" -but at this point some of these folks have been right more often than not so now I just say Twitter :)

Fivethirtyeight has a blog about it. It's far easier to go after Trump's businesses than Trump himself, at least while he's a sitting President.

Look at the Trump Foundation. The court told it to shut down but only with court supervision. It had almost $2M in assets at the end, which was considered at risk of being spent on more Trump portraits.

Trump thought he was going to catapult himself into the realms of the plutocrats. Instead, he may end up bankrupting himself -- permanently.




That would "Make America GREAT Again"!!!



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2019, 12:31:15 PM
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7.  It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.

That's less than three weeks away.

The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on January 18, 2019, 01:27:00 PM
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7.  It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.

That's less than three weeks away.

The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?




I wonder who is more nervous, Trump or Cohen?   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 18, 2019, 01:33:02 PM
I wonder who is more nervous, Trump or Cohen?

Cohen already knows how he is cooked. Trump or Melania is the better question. Think she'd stay with him if he became damaged goods?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on January 18, 2019, 01:41:56 PM
I wonder who is more nervous, Trump or Cohen?

Cohen already knows how he is cooked. Trump or Melania is the better question. Think she'd stay with him if he became damaged goods?

She's in it for the money. I'm sure her strategy is to outlive him. And hell, if he's in prison, then she doesn't have to live with him. Win-win.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2019, 02:55:06 PM
Melania is a US citizen and (for better or worse) now a political celebrity.  As long as she wasn't involved with any illegal activity she's going to have no problem living a gilded lifestyle until she dies, regardless of what happens to the rest of the Trumps. Certain groups will pay her 5 and 6 figures to attend their functions, and she could have an instant best-seller ghost-written for her (provided that's allowed under her prenup, which I kinda doubt).

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 18, 2019, 03:03:02 PM
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7.  It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.

That's less than three weeks away.

The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?

Well, he could try to have him killed.

He could do what he's doing, which is to threaten MC's family members via Twitter. Stochastic terrorism.

 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 18, 2019, 03:08:35 PM
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7.  It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.

That's less than three weeks away.

The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?

Well, he could try to have him killed.

He could do what he's doing, which is to threaten MC's family members via Twitter. Stochastic terrorism.

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 18, 2019, 03:09:07 PM
I wonder who is more nervous, Trump or Cohen?

Cohen already knows how he is cooked. Trump or Melania is the better question. Think she'd stay with him if he became damaged goods?

What else would she do? Return to Russia? =-) (Yes, I know she's not Russian.)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 18, 2019, 03:10:13 PM
How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now?

I don't think they can openly block him from testifying, but I'm expecting lots of character assassination.  You know, the "Michael Cohen is a liar" stuff that we've been getting for the past year, only ramped up quite a bit.  Funny how easy it is for crooks to turn on each other when they've wallowed in the same dirt.

But it also wouldn't surprise me if Michael Cohen dies in mysterious car accident before then, either.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2019, 03:11:26 PM
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7.  It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.

That's less than three weeks away.

The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?

Well, he could try to have him killed.

He could do what he's doing, which is to threaten MC's family members via Twitter. Stochastic terrorism.

Actually, I'm guessing he'll drum up some 'crisis' to try to suck up all of the media attention: on Feb 7th Trump will be in front of the cameras proclaiming... something.  Maybe he'll finally order the arrest of HRC.  Anything to draw attention away from what will be some enlightening-yet-stodgy congressional hearings.

That and the usual discrediting of Cohen.  Cohen went rogue, he barely knew him, he's a liar and a leaker, he's secretly a democrat.  Oh, and watch him try to claim 'executive privilege to prevent Cohen from testifying at all, and possibly try to bar any congressional hearings at all (we're in a shut down!!).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 18, 2019, 03:17:00 PM
I figure Trump will take him out with a drone.  Bush and Obama both executed people extra-judicially at whim via drone strike, so I don't see why Trump would be barred from doing the same.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 18, 2019, 03:41:53 PM
I figure Trump will take him out with a drone.  Bush and Obama both executed people extra-judicially at whim via drone strike, so I don't see why Trump would be barred from doing the same.

Enemy of the (Russian) State!


Seriously, Cohen might "commit suicide" in the next few weeks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 18, 2019, 03:56:58 PM
I think Trump is more likely to drum up another distraction. Perhaps tripling the number of federal employees not getting paid? Perhaps we'll find out that a bunch of children died in captivity at the border and it will get blamed on the Dems.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on January 18, 2019, 04:13:12 PM
There are so many White House crises it's hard to put any one of them in perspective.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 25, 2019, 04:37:40 AM
Another indictment - long time advisor Roger Stone. Stone was in contact with 'Guccifer 2.0', a Twitter persona that U.S. intelligence officials say was a front operated by Russian military officers who conspired to hack Democratic emails.

This ought to make for an interesting Friday in Trumpworld.

ETA:  Stone is being indicted on 7 counts.  Count one is obstruction, counts 2-6 is providing false statements, count 7 is witness tampering.

Full indictment is here (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/roger-stone-indictment/3410/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_pdf-indictment-642am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans). (sorry, paywall)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on January 25, 2019, 05:08:23 AM
Yep, another day another indictment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on January 25, 2019, 05:41:36 AM
Another indictment - long time advisor Roger Stone. Stone was in contact with 'Guccifer 2.0', a Twitter persona that U.S. intelligence officials say was a front operated by Russian military officers who conspired to hack Democratic emails.

This ought to make for an interesting Friday in Trumpworld.

ETA:  Stone is being indicted on 7 counts.  Count one is obstruction, counts 2-6 is providing false statements, count 7 is witness tampering.

Full indictment is here (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/roger-stone-indictment/3410/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_pdf-indictment-642am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans). (sorry, paywall)

One interesting point is that Stone was not part of the official Trump campaign at the time of the Wikileaks disclosures, which means that the nexus between the Russian contacts in the Trump campaign and the Wikileaks disclosures was probably Trump himself.  It will be interesting to see what phone calls Stone made to "Blocked telephone number no.1" at the time of the Wikileaks disclosures.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 25, 2019, 06:07:59 AM
Another indictment - long time advisor Roger Stone. Stone was in contact with 'Guccifer 2.0', a Twitter persona that U.S. intelligence officials say was a front operated by Russian military officers who conspired to hack Democratic emails.

This ought to make for an interesting Friday in Trumpworld.

ETA:  Stone is being indicted on 7 counts.  Count one is obstruction, counts 2-6 is providing false statements, count 7 is witness tampering.

Full indictment is here (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/roger-stone-indictment/3410/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_pdf-indictment-642am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans). (sorry, paywall)

One interesting point is that Stone was not part of the official Trump campaign at the time of the Wikileaks disclosures, which means that the nexus between the Russian contacts in the Trump campaign and the Wikileaks disclosures was probably Trump himself.  It will be interesting to see what phone calls Stone made to "Blocked telephone number no.1" at the time of the Wikileaks disclosures.
Maybe he was ordering a pizza from Dominos.

The same day as the indictment we also have Manafort due in court.  Manafort got himself further into trouble by allegedly lying after reaching a plea-deal with the special council and "intentionally provided false information" in five different areas of the investigation.  The judge's ruling today has the potential to add years to Manafort's ultimate sentence.  Manafort (age 69) has remained in prison since June after violating his plea deal.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 25, 2019, 07:46:23 AM
Damned witch hunt.  Where's the collusion????!!!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on January 25, 2019, 08:29:02 AM
Damned witch hunt.  Where's the collusion????!!!

This is like shouting "where are the animals????!!!" when visiting a zoo.  Motherfucker, this whole place exists for the sole purpose of the thing you're suggesting doesn't exist. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 25, 2019, 08:38:55 AM
Damned witch hunt.  Where's the collusion????!!!

This is like shouting "where are the animals????!!!" when visiting a zoo.  Motherfucker, this whole place exists for the sole purpose of the thing you're suggesting doesn't exist.

Next you're going to tell me that Trump is racist.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 25, 2019, 10:29:25 AM
Adding this update on Kushner's security clearance lest it fall through the cracks of this shitstorm of an administration:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/jared-kushner-security-clearance

Apparently the only reason Kushner got his clearances approved was because a political appointee overruled career security clearance personnel.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on January 25, 2019, 10:34:00 AM
Adding this update on Kushner's security clearance lest it fall through the cracks of this shitstorm of an administration:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/jared-kushner-security-clearance

Apparently the only reason Kushner got his clearances approved was because a political appointee overruled career security clearance personnel.

Eh. When POTUS potentially shouldn't have security clearance, it doesn't matter much that his son-in-law and senior advisor has it as well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on January 31, 2019, 12:47:10 PM
Let's hope the NSA is applying their attention to all these Trump administration folks...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cool Friend on February 01, 2019, 02:09:14 PM
cool cool cool cool https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 01, 2019, 02:15:57 PM
cool cool cool cool https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html

I wonder why Putin commanded Trump to do this?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on February 03, 2019, 08:50:27 PM
"At a televised meeting with his foreign and defense ministers, Putin ordered his military to begin developing new ground-launched hypersonic missiles with an intermediate range, and to also begin converting previously sea-based cruise missiles for ground launch -- the deployment of which was banned under the treaty."
https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/International/putin-orders-russia-develop-missiles-leaving-treaty-deploy/story?id=60798394

Doesn't anybody else find this alarming?????
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 04, 2019, 01:23:45 AM
That's eastern Ukraine gone for certain, then.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 05, 2019, 10:18:43 AM
Another big development:
the US attorney's office of the  Southern District of NY (SDNY) issued a widespread subpoena for documents on Trump's inaugural committee, with a focus on donations and spending.  According to the subpoena they are investigating crimes related to 'conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, false statements, wire fraud and money laundering'.  The focus on donor roles and their country of origin suggests that the campaign may have accepted money from foreign entities (which is also a crime). Curiously, the subpoena specifically requests ''all communications' from one specific donor, a venture capitalist from Los Angeles, which donated $900,000 to the inaugural committee.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 05, 2019, 01:38:37 PM
Another big development:
the US attorney's office of the  Southern District of NY (SDNY) issued a widespread subpoena for documents on Trump's inaugural committee, with a focus on donations and spending.  According to the subpoena they are investigating crimes related to 'conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, false statements, wire fraud and money laundering'.  The focus on donor roles and their country of origin suggests that the campaign may have accepted money from foreign entities (which is also a crime). Curiously, the subpoena specifically requests ''all communications' from one specific donor, a venture capitalist from Los Angeles, which donated $900,000 to the inaugural committee.

Like Capone, Trump's empire will get taken down by financial crimes. Like OJ, he'll retreat to Florida to hide his assets.

Which brings up his taxes. The IRS knows so presumably a 3-letter agency also knows what's in them.

Why the reluctance to release them?

1) The empire has no clothes. His income has been declining for years. Maybe a trust fund is funding his lifestyle instead of his business acumen.
2) Someone with a Slavic name holds his mortgage and other liens.
3) It's a huge troll to waste Dem's time and political capital.

This is assuming that not only will personal returns be subpoenaed but also entity returns related to him. (It wasn't just Enron Inc. involved in the scandal; it was also Raptor and 1000 other LLCs/SPEs.)

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 05, 2019, 02:08:59 PM
Like Capone, Trump's empire will get taken down by financial crimes. Like OJ, he'll retreat to Florida to hide his assets.

Which brings up his taxes. The IRS knows so presumably a 3-letter agency also knows what's in them.

Why the reluctance to release them?

1) The empire has no clothes. His income has been declining for years. Maybe a trust fund is funding his lifestyle instead of his business acumen.
2) Someone with a Slavic name holds his mortgage and other liens.
3) It's a huge troll to waste Dem's time and political capital.

You left out:
4) both DJT and his company have violated so many laws that releasing them would reveal his 'success' was being a crook. 

Reporting by the NYTimes (and subsequently partially substantiated by the SDNY) showed how Trump and his family ran an illegal tax dodge to avoid paying hundreds of millions. The latest purge of undocumented workers by Trump properties suggests his businesses may have benefited by the intensional exploitation of a frequent scape-goat of his. 

And of course there's
5) he has all sorts of undisclosed interests in foreign investments which might shed light onto why he's favored a particular company or brow-beaten another.  Do any of his holdings benefit from the trade his trade tariffs (e.g. US Steel)?  How many of his properties are being propped up by special interest groups and foreign governments?

My personal bet is that it's a combination of 1, 4 and 5. He's not as rich as he claims he is (TEN BILLION DOLLARS!!) and much of what he has he's failed to pay taxes on and has broken many laws to get it.  And he's not above using his position as President to earn money for himself.

An irony completely lost on DJT is that many of these laws are there to protect the individual as well as the country..  But he's so arrogant I think he only sees them as a barrier which he should sidestep as long as he thinks no one will find out.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 05, 2019, 02:39:16 PM
Why the reluctance to release them?

1) The empire has no clothes. His income has been declining for years. Maybe a trust fund is funding his lifestyle instead of his business acumen.
2) Someone with a Slavic name holds his mortgage and other liens.
3) It's a huge troll to waste Dem's time and political capital.

You left out:
4) both DJT and his company have violated so many laws that releasing them would reveal his 'success' was being a crook. 

Reporting by the NYTimes (and subsequently partially substantiated by the SDNY) showed how Trump and his family ran an illegal tax dodge to avoid paying hundreds of millions. The latest purge of undocumented workers by Trump properties suggests his businesses may have benefited by the intensional exploitation of a frequent scape-goat of his. 

Perhaps his returns would wilt under external investigation but obviously the IRS auditors weren't up to the job.

Quote
And of course there's
5) he has all sorts of undisclosed interests in foreign investments which might shed light onto why he's favored a particular company or brow-beaten another.  Do any of his holdings benefit from the trade his trade tariffs (e.g. US Steel)?  How many of his properties are being propped up by special interest groups and foreign governments?

Is that even a crime for a sitting President? It would be embarrassing but Trump's base has been whittled down to a core, he-can-put-on-blackface-and-they-won't-care, group.

Quote
My personal bet is that it's a combination of 1, 4 and 5. He's not as rich as he claims he is (TEN BILLION DOLLARS!!) and much of what he has he's failed to pay taxes on and has broken many laws to get it.  And he's not above using his position as President to earn money for himself.

An irony completely lost on DJT is that many of these laws are there to protect the individual as well as the country..  But he's so arrogant I think he only sees them as a barrier which he should sidestep as long as he thinks no one will find out.

1, 4, and 5 seem most likely. There might be some Russians in the closet, too, related to 5. That, or he's trying to earn thanks from his plutocrat idols.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 05, 2019, 02:50:25 PM

Perhaps his returns would wilt under external investigation but obviously the IRS auditors weren't up to the job.

To my knowledge, the only people who have claimed Trump was under an audit have been Trump and his spokespeople.  The IRS doesn't comment and he hasn't provided any evidence that he has been under audit.  The Trump Organization is also a sprawling mass of LLCs and authorized licensees.  Perhaps intentionally the actions of one part is hidden from another (and the IRS)


Is that even a crime for a sitting President? It would be embarrassing but Trump's base has been whittled down to a core, he-can-put-on-blackface-and-they-won't-care, group.
Seems that using your elected position to intentionally enrich your personal business is textbook corruption. No idea what specific laws might be broken but defrauding the United STates (18 U.S.C. § 371) seems one of my potential crimes.  You are probably right that a large chunk of his base won't care - but that's immaterial when dealing with legal matters


Ultimately the only surefire way of knowing is for his tax records and business dealings to be investigated by a reputable party and/or the details made public and transparent. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 05, 2019, 02:58:03 PM

Perhaps his returns would wilt under external investigation but obviously the IRS auditors weren't up to the job.

To my knowledge, the only people who have claimed Trump was under an audit have been Trump and his spokespeople.  The IRS doesn't comment and he hasn't provided any evidence that he has been under audit.  The Trump Organization is also a sprawling mass of LLCs and authorized licensees.  Perhaps intentionally the actions of one part is hidden from another (and the IRS)
It is also likely that a routine IRS audit and an FBI forensic audit might be different and focus on different metrics. There is zero benefit to Trump disclosing returns and the attention used on asking for them is useful to him so I expect no willing offers to give them up.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 05, 2019, 03:56:59 PM

Perhaps his returns would wilt under external investigation but obviously the IRS auditors weren't up to the job.

To my knowledge, the only people who have claimed Trump was under an audit have been Trump and his spokespeople.  The IRS doesn't comment and he hasn't provided any evidence that he has been under audit.  The Trump Organization is also a sprawling mass of LLCs and authorized licensees.  Perhaps intentionally the actions of one part is hidden from another (and the IRS)

It is also likely that a routine IRS audit and an FBI forensic audit might be different and focus on different metrics. There is zero benefit to Trump disclosing returns and the attention used on asking for them is useful to him so I expect no willing offers to give them up.
Probably true that there's no benefit to Trump in voluntarily releasing them.  However the House Ways and Means committee has the power to request review any citizen's tax records from the IRS and need not inform the individual that they have been obtained.  THe committee can then release those records to all members of congress with a majority vote - and Dems hold both the chair (Neal) and the majority (25/42).  There's a very big difference between refusing to release and telling a co-equal branch "you'd better not look there, even though you can and I can't stop you!"

The only question I have is how the Dems will play this and whether they'll get any GOP on board. Will they try to time it to inflict maximum political damage, or will they try to at least make it look like they are doing their constitutional oversight.  Guess we'll find out in the next ~22 months.  I think there's an almost zero chance it doesn't get leaked before the next election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Cool Friend on February 07, 2019, 08:54:07 AM
Interesting if deeply depressing article about Russian kleptocracy and modern American indifference to corruption.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 07, 2019, 08:56:25 PM
Interesting if deeply depressing article about Russian kleptocracy and modern American indifference to corruption.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/


disturbing
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 07, 2019, 11:10:43 PM
Interesting if deeply depressing article about Russian kleptocracy and modern American indifference to corruption.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/


disturbing
Indeed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 08, 2019, 07:02:33 AM
Paul Manafort continued working on Ukrainian political matters in 2018, well after he had been indicted by the special council - according to transcripts released late on Thursday.

Also, at his invitation a former business associate of Manafort's attended the inaugeration - and was assessed by the FBI to have connections with Russian intelligence.

Can't tell whether that's  chutzpah or just extreme stupidity.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on February 11, 2019, 08:16:06 PM

Can't tell whether that's  chutzpah or just extreme stupidity.

I'm going to go with both.  The fact is these guys have been pulling this shit for decades with so little risk of consequence that they quite reasonably expected no problems.  It's only now that they took the presidency that it is coming to light.  Mobsters are allergic to sunlight.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 14, 2019, 07:30:35 AM
The special counsel’s office “has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally made multiple false statements to the FBI, [Mueller’s office] and the grand jury concerning matters that were material to the investigation: his interactions and communications with [Russian citizen and suspected intelligence officer Konstantin] Kilimnik,” U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote on Wednesday.  The judge's findings voided Manafort's previous plea deal with the government.  Legal experts concluded that this could add 'years' to Manafort's ultimate prison sentence, which will be determined on March 13th.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 14, 2019, 08:12:48 PM
It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 14, 2019, 10:13:21 PM
It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.

It looks like Manafort betrayed his country.  He was literally working for a foreign adversary.  A life sentence would be a mercy.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 14, 2019, 10:55:36 PM
It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.

It looks like Manafort betrayed his country.  He was literally working for a foreign adversary.  A life sentence would be a mercy.
Yeah, not losing much sleep over Manafort rotting in a cell.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Malloy on February 15, 2019, 11:12:42 AM
So Trump apparently believed Putin on NK missile capabilities over US intelligence reports.   Jesus Christ, I will never stop being pissed off at how stupid way too many voters and nonvoters in this country are. 

(I know, I know-calling them stupid just makes them vote harder for Trump)

I can only hope that one reason for his confusion is that our intelligence community is actively preventing sensitive material from reaching Trump's desk in bullet point form so that Trump can't blurt it out to Putin in their private meetings or so that Jared can't sell it to Saudi Arabia in exchange for help on his debts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 15, 2019, 11:27:24 AM
It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.

It looks like Manafort betrayed his country.  He was literally working for a foreign adversary.  A life sentence would be a mercy.

I don't think there's any "looks like' (ie doubt) about it.  He entered a plea-deal where he pled guilty to two counts: one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice for tampering with witnesses.

Even after that a US district judge has ruled by a preponderance of the evidence that he continued to engage in activity which violated his plea agreement.

He is guilty.  He betrayed his country.  Then he was told not to do it anymore in exchange for cooperation and leniency at sentencing (a cap of 10 years) - and yet he kept doing it.
. Anything less than the minimum 10 year sentence at this point would be shocking, and my guess is it will be considerably longer given these latest revelations.  At age 69 Manaforts best chance of not dying in prison lies with a presidential pardon, but I think even Donny wouldn't issue one until he was on his way out the door, given the baggage Manafort now carries.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2019, 11:43:42 AM
It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.

It looks like Manafort betrayed his country.  He was literally working for a foreign adversary.  A life sentence would be a mercy.

I don't think there's any "looks like' (ie doubt) about it.  He entered a plea-deal where he pled guilty to two counts: one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice for tampering with witnesses.

Even after that a US district judge has ruled by a preponderance of the evidence that he continued to engage in activity which violated his plea agreement.

He is guilty.  He betrayed his country.  Then he was told not to do it anymore in exchange for cooperation and leniency at sentencing (a cap of 10 years) - and yet he kept doing it.
. Anything less than the minimum 10 year sentence at this point would be shocking, and my guess is it will be considerably longer given these latest revelations.  At age 69 Manaforts best chance of not dying in prison lies with a presidential pardon, but I think even Donny wouldn't issue one until he was on his way out the door, given the baggage Manafort now carries.

Yeah, but . . .

(http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/collusion.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 15, 2019, 11:53:05 AM
Lol -

As has been pointed out (but let's review anyway), collusion is a colloquial term.  It has no strict legal definition, so one can claim "NO COLLUSION" to just about anything and from a legal standpoint not be incorrect.  You can substitute the words "shenanigans" or "tomfoolery" and it makes about as much sense.

"There's NO SHENANIGANS!  Dems are running wild, Where's the TOMFOOLERY?!!"

but of course most of us equate collusion with conspiracy or any coordinated effort to break the law, and we've had quite a bit of that already.  Gates and Manafort pled guilty to conspiracy. Stone's been charged as such.    Cohen has pled guilty to breaking federal laws and claims he lied at the instruction of DJT and the campaign.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 15, 2019, 11:56:25 AM
Lol -

As has been pointed out (but let's review anyway), collusion is a colloquial term.  It has no strict legal definition, so one can claim "NO COLLUSION" to just about anything and from a legal standpoint not be incorrect.  You can substitute the words "shenanigans" or "tomfoolery" and it makes about as much sense.

"There's NO SHENANIGANS!  Dems are running wild, Where's the TOMFOOLERY?!!"

but of course most of us equate collusion with conspiracy or any coordinated effort to break the law, and we've had quite a bit of that already.  Gates and Manafort pled guilty to conspiracy. Stone's been charged as such.    Cohen has pled guilty to breaking federal laws and claims he lied at the instruction of DJT and the campaign.
I prefer the phase, "Where are the high crimes and misdemeanors?!" Just has such a nice constitutional ring to it, eh?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on February 15, 2019, 11:58:10 AM
Lol -

As has been pointed out (but let's review anyway), collusion is a colloquial term.  It has no strict legal definition, so one can claim "NO COLLUSION" to just about anything and from a legal standpoint not be incorrect.  You can substitute the words "shenanigans" or "tomfoolery" and it makes about as much sense.

"There's NO SHENANIGANS!  Dems are running wild, Where's the TOMFOOLERY?!!"

but of course most of us equate collusion with conspiracy or any coordinated effort to break the law, and we've had quite a bit of that already.  Gates and Manafort pled guilty to conspiracy. Stone's been charged as such.    Cohen has pled guilty to breaking federal laws and claims he lied at the instruction of DJT and the campaign.

And conveniently, if circumstances were to plainly indicate that the colloquial use of collusion did fit what actually happened, there's the easy transition to "collusion isn't illegal!" because there's no law that says so..
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2019, 01:17:16 PM
I have it on great authority (the best really) that this is just a witch hunt with no collusion.


:P
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on February 15, 2019, 01:48:36 PM
I have it on great authority (the best really) that this is just a witch hunt with no collusiontomfoolery.


:P

I'm replacing all "collusions" with tomfoolery now because it makes me laugh. Hahaha.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 15, 2019, 01:54:08 PM
I have it on great authority (the best really) that this is just a witch hunt with no collusiontomfoolery.


:P

I'm replacing all "collusions" with tomfoolery now because it makes me laugh. Hahaha.
my work here is done.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on February 15, 2019, 06:14:43 PM
"Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/roger-stone-wikileaks/index.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sherr on February 15, 2019, 07:28:13 PM
I don't think there's any "looks like' (ie doubt) about it.  He entered a plea-deal where he pled guilty to two counts: one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice for tampering with witnesses.

Even after that a US district judge has ruled by a preponderance of the evidence that he continued to engage in activity which violated his plea agreement.

He is guilty.  He betrayed his country.  Then he was told not to do it anymore in exchange for cooperation and leniency at sentencing (a cap of 10 years) - and yet he kept doing it.
. Anything less than the minimum 10 year sentence at this point would be shocking, and my guess is it will be considerably longer given these latest revelations.  At age 69 Manaforts best chance of not dying in prison lies with a presidential pardon, but I think even Donny wouldn't issue one until he was on his way out the door, given the baggage Manafort now carries.

You have much more faith in the Republicans than I do. Why wouldn't Trump or Pence pardon him? What could they possibly have to lose? If they don't pardon him it's an admission that Trump was a traitor (or at least incompetent) all along. If they do pardon him then they can keep on repeating their "Democratic witch hunt" lies on Fox News, and a significant portion of the population will believe them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: OtherJen on February 15, 2019, 08:35:10 PM
I have it on great authority (the best really) that this is just a witch hunt with no collusion.


:P

Tremendous. Covfefe.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on February 16, 2019, 01:26:15 AM
I don't think there's any "looks like' (ie doubt) about it.  He entered a plea-deal where he pled guilty to two counts: one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice for tampering with witnesses.

Even after that a US district judge has ruled by a preponderance of the evidence that he continued to engage in activity which violated his plea agreement.

He is guilty.  He betrayed his country.  Then he was told not to do it anymore in exchange for cooperation and leniency at sentencing (a cap of 10 years) - and yet he kept doing it.
. Anything less than the minimum 10 year sentence at this point would be shocking, and my guess is it will be considerably longer given these latest revelations.  At age 69 Manaforts best chance of not dying in prison lies with a presidential pardon, but I think even Donny wouldn't issue one until he was on his way out the door, given the baggage Manafort now carries.

You have much more faith in the Republicans than I do. Why wouldn't Trump or Pence pardon him? What could they possibly have to lose? If they don't pardon him it's an admission that Trump was a traitor (or at least incompetent) all along. If they do pardon him then they can keep on repeating their "Democratic witch hunt" lies on Fox News, and a significant portion of the population will believe them.

Quite.   Trump has just appointed a new Attorney General whose speciality is sneaking out pardons for the guilty co-conspirators of the President who gave him the job, and everything points to his having been appointed to do the same again.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 21, 2019, 09:19:00 AM
Roger Stone is back in court today: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/politics/roger-stone-hearing-instagram-amy-berman-jackson/index.html

Under the gag order, he instagrammed an image of Federal Judge Jackson with crosshairs over her face. I assume he's prepping for a pardon from Trump.

Judge Jackson is the same judge that revoked Manafort's bail so Stone is likely to end up in a cell.



PS. I would also link to a Foxnews article but they're not covering this, at least on their front page.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on February 22, 2019, 09:01:03 AM
Hey Bengahzi! Lock her up! (here is your pardon Stone and Manfort...)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2019, 08:53:06 AM
Testifying under oath-
Michael Cohen:  People want to know whether I have evidence of Mr Trump colluding with Russia.  I do not.  But I have my suspicions.

So we have no new evidence, but more accusations linking the two.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on February 27, 2019, 09:06:35 AM
I can't help but wonder how much Trump is shitting himself today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/politics/cohen-live-testimony.html
Quote
“Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it,” Mr. Cohen said in his opening statement.

Quote
Mr. Cohen provided several documents to the committee, including a copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal bank account after he became president that he says was to finance hush payments to Ms. Daniels. He also offered what he said were financial statements that Mr. Trump gave to institutions such as Deutsche Bank from 2011 to 2013.

He also gave a copy of an article with Mr. Trump’s handwriting on it reporting about an auction of a portrait of himself that he said the president rigged. Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump arranged for a bidder to buy the portrait at the auction, then reimbursed the bidder from Mr. Trump’s charitable foundation. The picture now hangs in one of Mr. Trump’s country clubs, Mr. Cohen said.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2019, 09:14:45 AM
I can't help but wonder how much Trump is shitting himself today.

So far it seems like what Cohen has confirmed is that payments were made to Stephanie Cliffords (Stormy Daniels), complete with reimbursement cheques from Trump's private account to Cohen. 

I'm not sure many doubt that account anymore (though notable that reimbursement cheques continued into the Trump presidency).

There's lots of mental accounts of other meetings, but not documents to confirm, so it continues to be a he-said/he-said unlikely to change many minds.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on February 27, 2019, 09:15:52 AM
Testifying under oath-
Michael Cohen:  People want to know whether I have evidence of Mr Trump colluding with Russia.  I do not.  But I have my suspicions.

So we have no new evidence, but more accusations linking the two.

Cohen has already talked at length with the special counsel, so it would be pretty shocking if he were to drop any new revelations on congress first.  We already knew that Trump was a liar and a con man, there's nothing new there.

The pattern that I see emerging from all of this is that Russia colluded with the Trumps, but the Trumps were basically too stupid to recognize they were colluding in return.  They thought they were just trying to get rich from the whole process, and didn't really consider the legal implications of what they were doing.  Russia cultivated them as assets to advance Russian interests, and the Trumps merely played along for personal profit with limited awareness of how they were undermining American interests.  It doesn't look like it was a deliberate attempt to disassemble American institutions or weaken western democracy, those were merely the side effects the Russians wanted to see when they chose to intervene in the election on Trump's behalf.

If that emerging picture holds true for the next ten or twenty years, then Trump will be remembered as one of the worst president's in history, a foolish old man who got in way over his head, but more of an American embarrassment than an American traitor. 

He's still a criminal and a sexual predator, who should probably face consequences for a whole host of other crimes only tangentially related to Russia, like the obstruction and the campaign finance violations and the tax fraud, but his Russian collusion, while very real, is starting to look accidental.  I'm not sure we send people to prison for accidentally betraying their country.

We'll have to see what the Mueller report says, eventually.  Trump definitely sought financial gain from Putin, and offered financial gain to Putin, in exchange for changing US policy on Russia, and he actively sought out Russian interference in our election to help him win.  That sure looks like textbook collusion but I think Trump just thought it was business as usual.  He wasn't prepared to carry the obligations and responsibilities of the office, and he failed miserably to live to up to the expectations we have for presidents.  It's kind of what you might expect to happen when you put a grifter from Queens in the oval office, honestly.  It's just general fuckery all around.

The saddest part, to me, is how the republican party chose to support this fuckery in order to gain political power.  I suspect that will be the greatest lasting consequence of the Trump presidency, how the GOP abandoned all pretense of representing American interests.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on February 27, 2019, 09:18:29 AM
I can't help but wonder how much Trump is shitting himself today.

So far it seems like what Cohen has confirmed is that payments were made to Gabriel Giffords (Stormy Daniels), complete with reimbursement cheques from Trump's private account to Cohen. 

I'm not sure many doubt that account anymore (though notable that reimbursement cheques continued into the Trump presidency).

There's lots of mental accounts of other meetings, but not documents to confirm, so it continues to be a he-said/he-said unlikely to change many minds.
Minor nitpick: Stephanie Cliffords, as opposed to the congresswoman from AZ that was shot by a crazy person. They alliterate well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on February 27, 2019, 09:19:55 AM


The saddest part, to me, is how the republican party chose to support this fuckery in order to gain political power.  I suspect that will be the greatest lasting consequence of the Trump presidency, how the GOP abandoned all pretense of representing American interests.

This. And I thought they had abandoned all morals when they openly began opposing everything Obama did and blatantly admitted it was simply out of partisan obstructionism.

I really thought we had reached the bottom then. Oh, how naive I was.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2019, 09:23:18 AM
I can't help but wonder how much Trump is shitting himself today.

So far it seems like what Cohen has confirmed is that payments were made to Stephanie Cliffords (Stormy Daniels), complete with reimbursement cheques from Trump's private account to Cohen. 

I'm not sure many doubt that account anymore (though notable that reimbursement cheques continued into the Trump presidency).

There's lots of mental accounts of other meetings, but not documents to confirm, so it continues to be a he-said/he-said unlikely to change many minds.
Rep Green (R) is spending most of his time criticizing chairman Cummings, and not asking any Cohen any questions. 

edit:  Fixed name (thanks Glenstache)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on February 27, 2019, 11:38:50 AM
Cohen's explanation of how Trump gets people to do his dirty work may be why there won't be any direct evidence.

DJT: "It'd sure be nice to get those emails"

Manafort/Stone/staff: [...]

DJT: "Ahem. I said that it'd be REALLY NICE to get those emails."

Don Jr doesn't appear to be as clever about it, given his Trump Tower talks.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on February 27, 2019, 02:17:54 PM
Cohen's explanation of how Trump gets people to do his dirty work may be why there won't be any direct evidence.

DJT: "It'd sure be nice to get those emails"

Manafort/Stone/staff: [...]

DJT: "Ahem. I said that it'd be REALLY NICE to get those emails."

Don Jr doesn't appear to be as clever about it, given his Trump Tower talks.

Yeah apparently even pops criticized his sons intelligence. Doh!! 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: HPstache on March 24, 2019, 02:26:56 PM
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 24, 2019, 02:44:14 PM
Quote
‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’
Attorney general Barr said.

So... we've got a null verdict?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on March 24, 2019, 02:53:44 PM
Quote
‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’
Attorney general Barr said.

So... we've got a null verdict?

I believe that is in the "obstruction of justice" section. So the collusion is a "No". The obstruction of Justice is "shrug, I'll leave that to the DOJ."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: HPstache on March 24, 2019, 02:54:12 PM
Quote
‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’
Attorney general Barr said.

So... we've got a null verdict?

There were two parts to the investigation.  You are confusing them.  I am pointing out that Barr literally says, "The Special Councel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election".  That's what this thread is generally about.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on March 24, 2019, 03:00:09 PM
Quote
‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’
Attorney general Barr said.

So... we've got a null verdict?

There were two parts to the investigation.  You are confusing them.  I am pointing out that Barr literally says, "The Special Councel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election".  That's what this thread is generally about.

I have the feeling that people are going to latch onto that bit about "not exonerating him" and keep this thing going.

I'm relatively young. I will have to hear about this for decades.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 24, 2019, 04:14:05 PM
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference."

Technically, it said they couldn't assemble enough evidence to prove it, not that it didn't happen.  It may be a distinction without a difference to some people, but it bothers me how many folks are jumping to "innocent" when that is definitely not what it says.  It says guilty of a whole laundry list of crimes, and not enough evidence to prove the criminal intent required to charge with conspiracy.  At this point, I'm just assuming that it also says there's not enough evidence to prove criminal intent because Trump's entire team was too incompetent to actually coordinate deliberate criminal activities, and just sort of blundered into them instead.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on March 25, 2019, 04:34:30 AM
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference."

Technically, it said they couldn't assemble enough evidence to prove it, not that it didn't happen.  It may be a distinction without a difference to some people, but it bothers me how many folks are jumping to "innocent" when that is definitely not what it says.  It says guilty of a whole laundry list of crimes, and not enough evidence to prove the criminal intent required to charge with conspiracy.  At this point, I'm just assuming that it also says there's not enough evidence to prove criminal intent because Trump's entire team was too incompetent to actually coordinate deliberate criminal activities, and just sort of blundered into them instead.

Also, the report appears to stop short of considering whether there has been collaboration between Trump/Trump officials and Russia since the election.  There have been some funny goings on - Kuchner trying to set up a secret backchannel to Russia without the State Department's involvement, Trump destroying notes of his meetings with Putin - which do not inspire confidence that Trump and his people have the USA's best interests at heart.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on March 25, 2019, 09:25:28 AM
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice? I mean lifetime career people had their lives destroyed over this because they were considered in the way or did not stop the probe for Trump. Why did Trump drop sanctions for Russia, refuse to critique Putin for ANYTHING, including illegal acts of Russia like assasination. Why meet with Putin outside normal diplomatic channels? Why was Kushner trying to create a back channel to Russia. These are all highly unusual. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on March 25, 2019, 09:40:05 AM
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice? I mean lifetime career people had their lives destroyed over this because they were considered in the way or did not stop the probe for Trump. Why did Trump drop sanctions for Russia, refuse to critique Putin for ANYTHING, including illegal acts of Russia like assasination. Why meet with Putin outside normal diplomatic channels? Why was Kushner trying to create a back channel to Russia. These are all highly unusual.

It's possible that Trump is simply a dumbass and he was played. He was played by his staffers (Flynn and Manafort, etc.) and he was played by the Russians. Sure, he knew about the business deals with Russia but he didn't intend to do damage to the US. He was doing his usual business thing.

As far as not criticizing Putin, Trump loves dictators. It's probably related to narcissism, in that dictators can ensure that everyone "loves" them and dictators don't have to take flak from the media.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 25, 2019, 09:50:47 AM
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?

I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.

And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion".  The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies.  They shared internal polling data with the Russians.  They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies.  They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television.  They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton.  Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton.  All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.

But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen.  According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an unwitting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power.  Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election.  In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it.  He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.

And obstruction has the same criteria.  If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal.  So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear.  Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal.  Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ncornilsen on March 25, 2019, 10:28:30 AM
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?

I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.

And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion".  The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies.  They shared internal polling data with the Russians.  They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies.  They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television.  They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton.  Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton.  All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.

But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen.  According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an witting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power.  Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election.  In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it.  He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.

And obstruction has the same criteria.  If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal.  So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear.  Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal.  Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.

Like Clinton and the Email server thing.

(Not whataboutism - just trying to remind my right wing cohort that when Clinton was not prosecuted for the email thing, it was because they couldn't prove she was mishandling the emails with criminal intent. Different scale of misconduct, but the same kind of thing where the intent can't be proven and that's the crime.)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on March 25, 2019, 10:41:59 AM
At this point, if we are ever going to move past this, they need to release the full report and, to the extent possible, the underlying evidentiary record.  Barr's previous writing on Mueller probe has put him in the category of "trust, but verify."  If the report is not released, we as a country will descend further into an endless spiral of conspiracy theory that is bad for everyone and very bad for faith in democracy.  What I am hoping to learn from the full report:

1) On what basis did the Special Counsel find that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."  Did the evidence of contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russian government and non-government actors not demonstrate the requisite plan or agreement to meet the standard of conspiracy or coordination? Is it an evidentiary threshold issue?  Did the Campaign accept help but not participate?

2) Are there key pieces of the record as publicly reported that are just flat out wrong?

3) What did the President know and when did he know it? It's clear enough that there was not evidence sufficient to prove conspiracy or coordination beyond a reasonable doubt.  But if he knew that the Russians were committing these crimes to help his campaign, and not only did not report it to the FBI, but cheered it on and then denied it publicly and embraced a foreign policy platform that was significantly more pro-Russia than the rest of the GOP?  That's a problem. Or was he simply ignorant of the whole thing?

4) What are the facts suggesting for and against obstruction of justice? And why was the Special Counsel unable or unwilling to reach a legal conclusion on the question of obstruction?  Why was this determination delegated to the AG?

The last question, and I'm not sure it's one the Special Counsel can answer, was if there was no collusion or coordination, WHY ALL THE LYING?  By so many people, at the highest levels, at every turn -- weird, secretive behavior and LYING.  WHY?

Honestly, we should all be very happy that a thorough, impartial investigation found that the President did not commit a criminal offense by conpsiring or coordinating with a hostile foreign power to subvert our democracy.  Seems crazy that that would be something to celebrate, but here we are.  But if we're truly going to close the door on this, we need to see what was found and what wasn't.  In other words -- release the report.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on March 25, 2019, 10:56:50 AM
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

Quote
(THREAD) The Barr Summary—a very different document from the Mueller Report—is being woefully misread by media. It doesn't import what media is suggesting it does. Lawyers are welcome to comment on this thread as I report the Summary accurately. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ Mueller was supposed to decide if Donald Trump could be charged with Obstruction of Justice—or, if not chargeable, whether he should be referred to Congress for impeachment for Obstruction of Justice. But AG Barr usurped Mueller's job and decided to make that decision himself.

2/ Barr was selected by Donald Trump upon Trump's reading of documents written by Barr and sent to Trump allies arguing Trump *couldn't* be charged with Obstruction of Justice. So in not forcing Mueller to make the decision his appointment obligated him to make, Barr saved Trump.

3/ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, a witness in the Obstruction of Justice investigation against Trump, appears to have assisted Barr—who had already put his position on Obstruction in writing prior to his nomination—in usurping Mueller's obligation to make a decision on that question.

4/ Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense, and therefore we now have a *witness* in a case and a man who made his views known on the case *before he had any evidence on it*—and who *got his job* because of his view on the question—saving Trump from impeachment for that.

5/ On "collusion," investigative reporters and independent journalists just spent years gathering evidence on a very specific allegation of collusion: that for his own enrichment, Trump traded away our foreign policy on Russian sanctions at a time he knew Russia was attacking us.

6/ We are now being told that *Mueller never investigated* the collusion allegation Trump was facing—on a money-for-sanctions-relief quid pro quo—and *instead* investigated the allegation *as Trump saw it*, which was whether he struck an agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers.

7/ For two years, as Trump's team defined the collusion allegation against him *falsely*—saying he'd been accused of striking a secret accord with the Internet Research Agency and/or Russian hackers before-the-fact—his critics shrugged and said, "Yeah, we're not looking at that."

8/ On this collusion allegation no one was even making against Trump, the Special Counsel *didn't* find "no evidence"—which I would've been fine with, as I've never accused Trump of that type of collusion—he actually just found he didn't have 90%+ proof of that form of collusion.

9/ This isn't backpedaling: *anyone* who reads this feed—or anyone else researching and reporting on collusion—will *know* that we did *not* accuse Trump of striking a *secret deal with the IRA or Russian hackers before-the-fact*, and that "collusion" has *never* been about that.

10/ So we alleged Obstruction—and people *ineligible to make a decision on that issue* made the decision. We alleged collusive activity—and it appears the activity we alleged was *never investigated*. *That* is how critics of Trump should be seeing what has just happened. *That*.

11/ What will happen now is that Trump will say that Mueller found no Obstruction—false, because Mueller made no conclusion on that (though he was supposed to). Trump will then say that Mueller found no *collusion*, and *that* will be wrong on *two* separate and distinct grounds.

12/ The *first* way in which Trump's coming statement will be wrong on collusion is that the collusion he was actually *accused* of wasn't fully investigated—or perhaps not investigated at all. The *second* issue is, Mueller said he "didn't exonerate" Trump as to *any* collusion.

13/ American discourse surrounding Mueller's investigation is at this moment in *dire* danger—because most in the media don't understand either point I've made here: that a proper Obstruction finding *was never made*, and that a full collusion investigation *was never conducted*.

14/ So what does it all mean? Well, as the Obstruction determination was *not* made by Mueller—and was improperly made by Barr and Rosenstein—it now falls to Congress to review the underlying evidence and, if House Judiciary finds it appropriate, initiate impeachment proceedings.

15/ As to collusion, 1) it continues to be *properly* investigated—not in the narrow way Trump demanded and apparently Mueller's team acceded to—in *multiple other federal jurisdictions*; 2) the inability to indict on the *investigated* collusion is *not* an inability to impeach.

16/ So what's my reaction to today's news? Well, I thought there was *no* evidence Trump colluded *via secret agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers*—I always said that—so *now* I want to know why Mueller said he wasn't able to "exonerate" Trump on that allegation. I mean—wow.

17/ As to the collusion allegations never investigated—as opposed to the ones Trump self-servingly *himself* raised only because he knew he wasn't guilty of *those*—my feeling is that there are now *19 federal jurisdictions* working on Trump probes that could resolve that issue.

18/ Moreover, some of those jurisdictions being Congressional, and many working on cases involving people never interviewed by the SCO face-to-face—Trump, Trump Jr., Prince, Ivanka, and so many others—I feel like we're only at the *beginning* of the real collusion investigation.

19/ On Obstruction, once Congress gets all Mueller's hard evidence, they should proceed with impeachment (or at worst, wait for other federal prosecutors to finish their collusion investigations). Why? Because if the *public evidence* made a prima face case—it did—so did Mueller.

20/ I ask people to retweet this thread. Misinformation spreads fast—the nation already misunderstands what happened today, as media wrongly uses terms like "exoneration," "vindication," and "collusion." As for fellow lawyers? Come at me if you disagree with anything I said. /end

PS/ As ever, my concern about the media *isn't* an accusation of bad faith: I think people are rushing—and don't understand certain things they *need* to understand to do their jobs well tonight, like *what the collusion allegation actually was*—so threads like this are critical.

PS2/ That the first "defense" to the Mueller Report from Team Trump is Giuliani saying you can't commit Obstruction of Justice if there's no (beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-proof-level) crime—a *flatly false legal statement no attorney agrees with*—tells you that they have *concerns*.

PS3/ The *second* defense—a Trump tweet, "No obstruction. No collusion. Total and complete exoneration!"—is also completely false, which *again* should communicate to everyone that Team Trump is terrified about not just the truth of the Report but even the truth of Barr's letter.

PS4/ For two years, I said we needed a *clear* definition of "collusion" or we would pay the price down the line, and now here we are—with Mueller narrowly defining collusion not just as "conspiracy" but only *one narrow breed* of conspiracy (with the IRA and/or Russian hackers).

PS5/ Mueller wasn't even *consulted* on Barr's letter, as we'd been promised he would. Folks, Trump is now on TV saying "no collusion with Russia"—again, a far broader issue than Mueller conducted—and if people of sense don't talk back publicly *now*, we will all regret it later.

NOTE/ The answer to sensible questions like the one below is simple: the accusation of collusion Trump faced, and was terrified of, is *not* the one that the Mueller Report appears to have looked at. Instead, Mueller focused on the IRA and Russian hackers.Seth Abramson added,

NOTE2/ No fellow attorneys are questioning this thread thus far—either on the law or the facts of the collusion investigation as we know it to exist. On Obstruction, what I've expressed here is already becoming key legal analysts' view; on collusion, I hear no contradictions yet.

NOTE3/ Some folks add, rightly, that Mueller only found no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of collusion with the Russian "government"—the IRA, GRU officials, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—none of whom Trump was ever accused of colluding with. Rep. Heck just said this on CNN.

NOTE4/ Barr appears to have *avoided* any reference to Team Trump collusion with Russian foreign nationals and Kremlin cutouts like Agalarov, Rozov, Vekselberg, Deripaska, Firtash, Sater, Kilimnik, Boyarkin, Akhmetshin, and *so many others* who are *not* "the Russian government."

NOTE5/ We have an *indication* from today's "Barr Summary"—but we'll need to see the Mueller Report—that the Barr Summary mentioned the "Russian government" only because Mueller's focus was on the IRA and GRU alone, which again is *not* what Trump stood accused of collusion-wise.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 25, 2019, 11:25:16 AM
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?

I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.

And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion".  The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies.  They shared internal polling data with the Russians.  They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies.  They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television.  They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton.  Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton.  All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.

But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen.  According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an witting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power.  Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election.  In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it.  He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.

And obstruction has the same criteria.  If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal.  So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear.  Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal.  Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.
Saying that he did not think the investigation was damaging to him personally would be a bit of a stretch given how much Twitter-ink has been dedicated to how poorly he has been treated, etc, etc.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Pooplips on March 25, 2019, 11:27:38 AM
My gut tells me this will go in for all of eternity.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: shenlong55 on March 25, 2019, 11:39:35 AM
Happy No Collusion Day! (https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1109832102910910465?s=21&fbclid=IwAR2VwEX1zlrFecnl1KBWZ8D32-6UEPXTCU89_uhcxjCNaeZXLvOE-EXT-Xo)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on March 25, 2019, 11:43:45 AM
My gut tells me this will go in for all of eternity.

At least until the "Lock her up!" chants stop. And the "But, but, Benghazi!" cries.

It does have some legitimate legs, though. There are multiple (19, apparently) federal investigations going on right now concerning Trump. Some are looking at his financial misdeeds, both past and relatively present, and at least one is looking at the $500k Cohen received from a Russian plutocrat.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on March 25, 2019, 03:21:15 PM
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?

I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.

And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion".  The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies.  They shared internal polling data with the Russians.  They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies.  They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television.  They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton.  Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton.  All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.

But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen.  According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an unwitting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power.  Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election.  In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it.  He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.

And obstruction has the same criteria.  If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal.  So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear.  Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal.  Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.

Glen Greenwald has a response for this.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1110143590842421248?s=20

As for those trying the angle that collusion existed but poor little Mueller just couldn't find it: please. That may be the most embarrassing & insulting excuse of all. For 20 months, all we heard was he had assembled the most aggressive & skilled team ever. This is what they did

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2gFqFUWsAE0Idi?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on March 25, 2019, 04:07:07 PM
Glen Greenwald has a response for this.

You seem to have misunderstood.  When I said the Mueller investigation was unable to prosecute for conspiracy, I did not mean because they did a shoddy job or were incompetent.  I meant that there was legitimately insufficient evidence to build a solid case proving criminal intent rather than general profiteering and thuggery.  Despite eight different corners of Trump's organization colluding with Russia, all of which are being prosecuted, the defense of Trump himself is that he did so while apparently thinking it was legal.

This defense is belied by the million times Trump lied about it, though. 

And as pointed out above, the Mueller investigation appears to have been severely handicapped into only investigation specific kinds of collusion with Russia, instead of all of it.  The people Trump appointed to oversee it, Barr and Rosenstein, were both severely compromised from the outset and promised to undermine the findings before even seeing the evidence.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that they have now done so. 

The only way America gets out of this alive is if the entire Mueller report is made public, rather than the summary written by a Trump toady.  If it genuinely does say "Trump is innocent" in it, then let America read it for themselves and then we can all move on to other things.  Unfortunately, I fear that this report going to be just like Trump's tax returns, shrouded in secrecy and obstruction even as he insists it would totally exonerate him if released, while he refuses to release it. 

If you really have nothing to hide, why are you hiding so much?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on March 25, 2019, 04:10:49 PM
Glen Greenwald has a response for this.

You seem to have misunderstood.  When I said the Mueller investigation was unable to prosecute for conspiracy, I did not mean because they did a shoddy job or were incompetent.  I meant that there was legitimately insufficient evidence to build a solid case proving criminal intent rather than general profiteering and thuggery.  Despite eight different corners of Trump's organization colluding with Russia, all of which are being prosecuted, the defense of Trump himself is that he did so while apparently thinking it was legal.

This defense is belied by the million times Trump lied about it, though. 

And as pointed out above, the Mueller investigation appears to have been severely handicapped into only investigation specific kinds of collusion with Russia, instead of all of it.  The people Trump appointed to oversee it, Barr and Rosenstein, were both severely compromised from the outset and promised to undermine the findings before even seeing the evidence.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that they have now done so. 

The only way America gets out of this alive is if the entire Mueller report is made public, rather than the summary written by a Trump toady.  If it genuinely does say "Trump is innocent" in it, then let America read it for themselves and then we can all move on to other things.  Unfortunately, I fear that this report going to be just like Trump's tax returns, shrouded in secrecy and obstruction even as he insists it would totally exonerate him if released, while he refuses to release it. 

If you really have nothing to hide, why are you hiding so much?

From the twitter link/analysis above:
Quote
NOTE3/ Some folks add, rightly, that Mueller only found no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of collusion with the Russian "government"—the IRA, GRU officials, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—none of whom Trump was ever accused of colluding with. Rep. Heck just said this on CNN.

NOTE4/ Barr appears to have *avoided* any reference to Team Trump collusion with Russian foreign nationals and Kremlin cutouts like Agalarov, Rozov, Vekselberg, Deripaska, Firtash, Sater, Kilimnik, Boyarkin, Akhmetshin, and *so many others* who are *not* "the Russian government."

NOTE5/ We have an *indication* from today's "Barr Summary"—but we'll need to see the Mueller Report—that the Barr Summary mentioned the "Russian government" only because Mueller's focus was on the IRA and GRU alone, which again is *not* what Trump stood accused of collusion-wise.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 25, 2019, 06:04:05 PM
Well, at least some things are constant. Mitch McConnell is using the Mueller Report to place blame for Russian meddling on Obama.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-uses-mueller-report-to-place-blame-on-obama

McConnell knows no shame.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: jrhampt on April 04, 2019, 01:50:11 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/04/plot-just-thickened-mueller-report/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Pooplips on April 10, 2019, 12:04:45 PM
 
If you really have nothing to hide, why are you hiding so much?

Haha. This line is amazing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on April 18, 2019, 10:08:48 AM
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 18, 2019, 10:16:24 AM
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551

The unredacted version will no doubt be available in another few months as well. I think that the Republicans have been very smart about this though.  They hired a guy who lied about the content of the report to Americans, then grudgingly released the redacted report (after first holding a full on press conference to put their spin on it), and will eventually release the full report . . . but by that time they will have stamped so much of their interpretation and message onto it that I think the public will have lost much of the outrage that it would otherwise have generated.

The Republicans certainly know how to manipulate Americans to further their own ends.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 18, 2019, 10:33:41 AM
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551

The unredacted version will no doubt be available in another few months as well. I think that the Republicans have been very smart about this though.  They hired a guy who lied about the content of the report to Americans, then grudgingly released the redacted report (after first holding a full on press conference to put their spin on it), and will eventually release the full report . . . but by that time they will have stamped so much of their interpretation and message onto it that I think the public will have lost much of the outrage that it would otherwise have generated.

The Republicans certainly know how to manipulate Americans to further their own ends.

Yep.

Turns out that when all you care about is winning, and you don't care who or what you take a flaming shit on in the process, you can really make some headway over the competition.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on April 18, 2019, 11:19:11 AM
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551

The unredacted version will no doubt be available in another few months as well. I think that the Republicans have been very smart about this though.  They hired a guy who lied about the content of the report to Americans, then grudgingly released the redacted report (after first holding a full on press conference to put their spin on it), and will eventually release the full report . . . but by that time they will have stamped so much of their interpretation and message onto it that I think the public will have lost much of the outrage that it would otherwise have generated.

The Republicans certainly know how to manipulate Americans to further their own ends.

If cable news ratings are any indication, the Bar summary a few weeks ago already crippled the outrage.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on April 18, 2019, 11:20:10 AM
MAGA!!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: By the River on April 18, 2019, 11:27:32 AM
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 18, 2019, 11:46:15 AM
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

Um.... yep.

With Trump at the helm, the GOP has basically backed away from bothering to investigate any Russian interference in our elections, our government, and probably even cyberespionage.

The Transatlantic alliance has been seriously weakened because of Trump, which is awesome for Putin.

America's position of dominance in the global order is decreasing, which is also awesome for Putin.

Trump is destabilizing the US from within, which Putin loves.

The EU has been weakened, which Putin loves.

That's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: HPstache on April 18, 2019, 12:19:48 PM
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Pooplips on April 18, 2019, 12:47:46 PM
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

#ContextMatters
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on April 18, 2019, 01:17:59 PM
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

#ContextMatters

In this case, the context appears to be that the investigation DID establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired and coordinated with individual Russians in their election interference activities.  The distinction matters, because apparently working with employees of the Russian government is not the same as working with the Russian government? 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on April 18, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
Just started reading the report.  One quote from the introduction is   "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."

Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?

Um.... yep.

With Trump at the helm, the GOP has basically backed away from bothering to investigate any Russian interference in our elections, our government, and probably even cyberespionage.

The Transatlantic alliance has been seriously weakened because of Trump, which is awesome for Putin.

America's position of dominance in the global order is decreasing, which is also awesome for Putin.

Trump is destabilizing the US from within, which Putin loves.

The EU has been weakened, which Putin loves.

That's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.

Ending the sanctions Obama put in place when Russian assets invaded Crimea.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on April 18, 2019, 11:32:13 PM
Today's new from the Mueller report looks pretty damning.  It says Trump's team wanted and accepted Russia's help swinging the election.  It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice.  Then it refuses to bring charges for either of those crimes, basically citing DOJ precedent that says they can't indict a sitting president.

This is a very different conclusion than William Barr gave in his "summary" memo, and it is a very different conclusion than what Trump is saying to tv cameras and on twitter.  Far from being an exoneration or a vindication, it says he is guilty but they can't touch him until he leaves office.  Basically, Mueller says only Congress has the power to do anything about it, but he laid out all of the evidence for them to use.

Even the Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Jared and the Russians is punted.  Mueller agrees that it's a crime, but apparently chose not to press charges because the Trump team was so inept they didn't know they were breaking the law.  I'm not sure that feigned ignorance is a good legal defense, but it does seem to have worked in this case.

I'm still unclear on why the Stormy Daniels payments aren't a campaign finance violation.  Maybe that case is still being prosecuted separately?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on April 19, 2019, 01:51:37 AM
Today's new from the Mueller report looks pretty damning.  It says Trump's team wanted and accepted Russia's help swinging the election.  It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice.  Then it refuses to bring charges for either of those crimes, basically citing DOJ precedent that says they can't indict a sitting president.

This is a very different conclusion than William Barr gave in his "summary" memo, and it is a very different conclusion than what Trump is saying to tv cameras and on twitter.  Far from being an exoneration or a vindication, it says he is guilty but they can't touch him until he leaves office.  Basically, Mueller says only Congress has the power to do anything about it, but he laid out all of the evidence for them to use.

Even the Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Jared and the Russians is punted.  Mueller agrees that it's a crime, but apparently chose not to press charges because the Trump team was so inept they didn't know they were breaking the law.  I'm not sure that feigned ignorance is a good legal defense, but it does seem to have worked in this case.

I'm still unclear on why the Stormy Daniels payments aren't a campaign finance violation.  Maybe that case is still being prosecuted separately?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4fG0SUU8AUpf-C?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4fG2QLUEAIYOPH?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4fHC1AU4AIWEoK?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4fHKbzUcAccvG3?format=png&name=small)

Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.

The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no." Whether through craft or cunning the evidence simply wasn't there. And feigning ignorance works if they can't prove that you are feigning ignorance.

The Mueller Investigation spun off 14 other investigations. Stormy Daniels case is most likely one of those.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on April 19, 2019, 08:26:02 AM
jfc, chill with the giant images. I'm on a 4k display and it still takes half of the entire screen.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on April 19, 2019, 08:34:39 AM
jfc, chill with the giant images. I'm on a 4k display and it still takes half of the entire screen.

Borrowed the link from Glenn Greenwald, who got them from PBS.
Wasn't sure how to fix them without possibly nullifying the link.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on April 19, 2019, 09:02:37 AM
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.

No.  It says the Russians wanted to help, and DID help, in many different ways, because they thought Trump would support Russian interests better than Clinton would.  It also says that Trump's team knew about the Russian efforts, and expected to benefit from Russian interference.  Then it lays out in excruciating detail all of the different ways the Russians worked to help Trump, and the ways that Trump's team worked to help the Russians help Trump.  Then it concludes that they can't prove both sides didn't just independently want to work towards the same goals, and without criminal intent they can't prosecute for conspiracy.  It was just coincidental collusion.  Like Manafort sharing internal polling data with the Russians was just because he thought they would be interested in it, not because he told them to use it to help Trump.

But I didn't say that he was guilty of conspiracy, I said "It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice."  And it does go into great detail on that charge, explicitly stating that they have more than enough evidence to bring a criminal case, but chose not to just because he's the President.  The Mueller report even clearly says that only Congress can do anything about these crimes, and the DoJ cannot.

Quote
The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."

On the obstruction charge, the answer is very definitely "yes."

For reference, both Nixon and Clinton were nailed for obstruction.  Of course, they had more independent legislative branches that actually cared about little things like the law.  I think Trump is teflon as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate.  He's totally protected and can do pretty much whatever he wants, because Congress has refused to check his power in any way.  Conspiracy and obstruction are fine.  Pussy grabbing and rawdogging porn stars are fine.  Lying to the public is fine.  Grovelling before Russia is fine.  None of it matters until republicans lose the majority.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on April 19, 2019, 09:42:54 AM
On the whole, I don't see how this report can be anything but a net-negative for DJT and this administration

The most favorable read for the president seems to be that - because it did not result in additional indictments (beyond those already levied) and because the president has escaped prosecution it could have been much worse.

The report does confirm and provide substantial context for several issues


In sum, the report confirms Russian interference and describes numerous incidents where the now-president lied and encouraged others to lie. Beyond the aforementioned previous indictments most of this conduct either didn't rise to level of criminal activity or was deemed to be difficult to prove (e.g. a person's intent).  However, "it was not technically illegal" is a much lower standard than "it was appropriate and above-board".

About the most beneficial aspect of this report is that it was released in April 2019 - and will likely be a distant memory by the time the primaries are wrapped up.  I'm betting its unlikely that any of his biggest supporters or critics will change their mind over this report.  Ironically, Trump's saving grace from prosecution seems to be that -repeatedly - his advisors refused to break the law when asked to by Trump.

Regarding whether this amounted to obstruction, Mueller was careful to point out that his investigation did not exonerate him:
If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 19, 2019, 09:47:31 AM
On the whole, I don't see how this report can be anything but a net-negative for DJT and this administration



Clearly, Trump thinks so, too -- since the report he was saying yesterday "totally exonerates" him is the same report he's calling "total bullshit" today. LMAO
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on April 19, 2019, 09:53:49 AM
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.

No.  It says the Russians wanted to help, and DID help, in many different ways, because they thought Trump would support Russian interests better than Clinton would.  It also says that Trump's team knew about the Russian efforts, and expected to benefit from Russian interference.  Then it lays out in excruciating detail all of the different ways the Russians worked to help Trump, and the ways that Trump's team worked to help the Russians help Trump.  Then it concludes that they can't prove both sides didn't just independently want to work towards the same goals, and without criminal intent they can't prosecute for conspiracy.  It was just coincidental collusion.  Like Manafort sharing internal polling data with the Russians was just because he thought they would be interested in it, not because he told them to use it to help Trump.

But I didn't say that he was guilty of conspiracy, I said "It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice."  And it does go into great detail on that charge, explicitly stating that they have more than enough evidence to bring a criminal case, but chose not to just because he's the President.  The Mueller report even clearly says that only Congress can do anything about these crimes, and the DoJ cannot.

Quote
The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."

On the obstruction charge, the answer is very definitely "yes."

For reference, both Nixon and Clinton were nailed for obstruction.  Of course, they had more independent legislative branches that actually cared about little things like the law.  I think Trump is teflon as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate.  He's totally protected and can do pretty much whatever he wants, because Congress has refused to check his power in any way.  Conspiracy and obstruction are fine.  Pussy grabbing and rawdogging porn stars are fine.  Lying to the public is fine.  Grovelling before Russia is fine.  None of it matters until republicans lose the majority.

Taking the assumption that in lieu of being president there would be enough to indict, this raises the interesting question of what happens to DJT on January 21, 2021 (or 2025, god forbid). Will we see a bunch of pardons fly out the window on the morning of Jan 20? I don't see a path in which this does not get a lot uglier, either through erosion of law or just ugly politics, unless Mitch decides it is more politically expedient to turn on Caesar.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on April 19, 2019, 11:28:05 AM
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.

No.  It says the Russians wanted to help, and DID help, in many different ways, because they thought Trump would support Russian interests better than Clinton would.  It also says that Trump's team knew about the Russian efforts, and expected to benefit from Russian interference.  Then it lays out in excruciating detail all of the different ways the Russians worked to help Trump, and the ways that Trump's team worked to help the Russians help Trump.  Then it concludes that they can't prove both sides didn't just independently want to work towards the same goals, and without criminal intent they can't prosecute for conspiracy.  It was just coincidental collusion.  Like Manafort sharing internal polling data with the Russians was just because he thought they would be interested in it, not because he told them to use it to help Trump.

But I didn't say that he was guilty of conspiracy, I said "It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice."  And it does go into great detail on that charge, explicitly stating that they have more than enough evidence to bring a criminal case, but chose not to just because he's the President.  The Mueller report even clearly says that only Congress can do anything about these crimes, and the DoJ cannot.

Quote
The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."

On the obstruction charge, the answer is very definitely "yes."

For reference, both Nixon and Clinton were nailed for obstruction.  Of course, they had more independent legislative branches that actually cared about little things like the law.  I think Trump is teflon as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate.  He's totally protected and can do pretty much whatever he wants, because Congress has refused to check his power in any way.  Conspiracy and obstruction are fine.  Pussy grabbing and rawdogging porn stars are fine.  Lying to the public is fine.  Grovelling before Russia is fine.  None of it matters until republicans lose the majority.

As long as the collusion angle is done. Obstruction of Justice is just as you said. No practical way forward for the time being.

On the whole, I don't see how this report can be anything but a net-negative for DJT and this administration

The most favorable read for the president seems to be that - because it did not result in additional indictments (beyond those already levied) and because the president has escaped prosecution it could have been much worse.

The report does confirm and provide substantial context for several issues

  • Russia actively interfered in the 2016 election to support DJT and undermine HRC
  • The Trump Campaign knew about, welcomed and encouraged such interference by Russia
  • The Trump Campaign had "numerous" contacts and "substantial" interaction with Russian operatives
  • Trump himself repeatedly asked subordinates to lie and break the law on his behalf
  • Five individuals close to Trump and his campaign are guilty of criminal conduct, and a sixth (Stone) is on trial.
  • There are no fewer than 12 ongoing additional investigations into Trump, his campaign and his businesses

In sum, the report confirms Russian interference and describes numerous incidents where the now-president lied and encouraged others to lie. Beyond the aforementioned previous indictments most of this conduct either didn't rise to level of criminal activity or was deemed to be difficult to prove (e.g. a person's intent).  However, "it was not technically illegal" is a much lower standard than "it was appropriate and above-board".

About the most beneficial aspect of this report is that it was released in April 2019 - and will likely be a distant memory by the time the primaries are wrapped up.  I'm betting its unlikely that any of his biggest supporters or critics will change their mind over this report.  Ironically, Trump's saving grace from prosecution seems to be that -repeatedly - his advisors refused to break the law when asked to by Trump.

Regarding whether this amounted to obstruction, Mueller was careful to point out that his investigation did not exonerate him:
If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.


The Russia situation seems to never been a big problem for people, at least according to Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) it never got more than 1% on the list. The release of the Mueller report just tying up loose ends.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on April 19, 2019, 11:42:05 AM

The Russia situation seems to never been a big problem for people, at least according to Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) it never got more than 1% on the list. The release of the Mueller report just tying up loose ends.

I'm not sure that poll supports your statement above - just because almost no one lists Russian interference as "the most important problem" doesn't mean that people don't find it to be a 'big' problem.
I'm certainly one who thinks Russian interference in our elections is a serious issue, but not the biggest one we face.

By your standards foreign trade, abortion, gun control, terrorism, social security and income inequality are also issues that aren't a big problem for people.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on April 19, 2019, 01:30:31 PM
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***

Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."

The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.

***

Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.

Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on April 19, 2019, 01:45:08 PM
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***

Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."

The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.

***

Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.

Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).

If your credentials can compete, I'd welcome your analysis as well.

Quote
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.

Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).

A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.

If your rebuttal is simply "he's a total tinfoil hat loon" with no relevant corroboration, I trust you'll understand why I disregard your opinion.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on April 19, 2019, 04:06:47 PM

The Russia situation seems to never been a big problem for people, at least according to Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) it never got more than 1% on the list. The release of the Mueller report just tying up loose ends.

I'm not sure that poll supports your statement above - just because almost no one lists Russian interference as "the most important problem" doesn't mean that people don't find it to be a 'big' problem.
I'm certainly one who thinks Russian interference in our elections is a serious issue, but not the biggest one we face.

By your standards foreign trade, abortion, gun control, terrorism, social security and income inequality are also issues that aren't a big problem for people.

Is it the issue that would make or break you voting for someone? Also would you consider yourself to be an "average" American or something else?

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***

Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."

The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.

***

Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.

Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).

If your credentials can compete, I'd welcome your analysis as well.

Quote
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.

Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).

A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.

If your rebuttal is simply "he's a total tinfoil hat loon" with no relevant corroboration, I trust you'll understand why I disregard your opinion.


Seth Abramson has a book called "Proof of Conspiracy" as well as a donatation page on his website. He has a monetary motivation to keep talking.

There are aslo questions about how valuable his analysis is.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/sharing-seth-abramson-not-once-not-ever.html

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/201704/stop-listening-to-seth-abramson-on-donald-trumps-r.html
https://thinkprogress.org/blue-detectives-collapse-trump-russia-a42a94537bdf/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on April 19, 2019, 07:53:13 PM
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

To save you a click:

***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***

Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."

The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.

***

Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.

Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).

If your credentials can compete, I'd welcome your analysis as well.

Quote
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.

Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).

A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.

If your rebuttal is simply "he's a total tinfoil hat loon" with no relevant corroboration, I trust you'll understand why I disregard your opinion.

My opinion is based on Chris Hayes (the MSNBC host and one of my favorite Twitter follows), and most NYT and WaPo writers, who also think he fell of a cliff a long time ago, and is clearly using Twitter hysteria to sell his book. Even Maddow and Hayes and O’Donnell don’t have him on their show — he is way left of them and he’s not credible.

He basically rode Twitter to extreme popularity by profiting off the Resistance folks’ collective hysteria. Then turned that into a book. Most of his reporting is absolute trash.

I specifically remember that Slate article from 2017 posted by gentmach. Slate — Slate! — concluded his analysis was garbage.

Also, his biggest theories (the Mayflower Hotel and RNC platform change in Ukraine) were two of the *very* few things the Mueller Report squarely repudiated. 

He is just shy of being the left’s version of Alex Jones.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on April 20, 2019, 09:59:09 AM

Taking the assumption that in lieu of being president there would be enough to indict, this raises the interesting question of what happens to DJT on January 21, 2021 (or 2025, god forbid). Will we see a bunch of pardons fly out the window on the morning of Jan 20? I don't see a path in which this does not get a lot uglier, either through erosion of law or just ugly politics, unless Mitch decides it is more politically expedient to turn on Caesar.

No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

I am going nowhere near the US until he is out of office.  Shit could get very dangerous, very quickly. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 20, 2019, 10:12:34 AM

Taking the assumption that in lieu of being president there would be enough to indict, this raises the interesting question of what happens to DJT on January 21, 2021 (or 2025, god forbid). Will we see a bunch of pardons fly out the window on the morning of Jan 20? I don't see a path in which this does not get a lot uglier, either through erosion of law or just ugly politics, unless Mitch decides it is more politically expedient to turn on Caesar.

No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

I am going nowhere near the US until he is out of office.  Shit could get very dangerous, very quickly.

He was floating inciting violence if Hillary won the election in 2016. I see no reason he wouldn’t do the same in 2020. In fact, I expect it.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sherr on April 20, 2019, 11:04:57 AM
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

You should always take this claim with a large grain of salt. People always say this about the other side's president. In 2016 mother-in-law was claiming Obama was going to somehow subvert the constitution and install himself as king.

However, given this time we're talking about Trump, I'm pretty worried about this possibility too.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on April 20, 2019, 01:07:28 PM
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

You should always take this claim with a large grain of salt. People always say this about the other side's president. In 2016 mother-in-law was claiming Obama was going to somehow subvert the constitution and install himself as king.

However, given this time we're talking about Trump, I'm pretty worried about this possibility too.

It was said about Bush too.

However, neither Bush nor Obama were warning their supporters ahead of the election that there was a good chance that the election would be stolen. Neither Bush nor Obama declared after the election that there was massive voter fraud.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 20, 2019, 02:14:23 PM
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss.  He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down.  Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.

In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote.  No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment.  He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office.  And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.

You should always take this claim with a large grain of salt. People always say this about the other side's president. In 2016 mother-in-law was claiming Obama was going to somehow subvert the constitution and install himself as king.

However, given this time we're talking about Trump, I'm pretty worried about this possibility too.

It was said about Bush too.

However, neither Bush nor Obama were warning their supporters ahead of the election that there was a good chance that the election would be stolen. Neither Bush nor Obama declared after the election that there was massive voter fraud.

Neither of them suggested publicly that their supporters would not accept it if the election went for Their opponent. Neither of them refused to say, when asked, whether they would accept the election results if their opponent were elected.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on April 22, 2019, 09:33:41 AM
So, I'm currently only about 40 pages into the Mueller Report. Mueller has definitely gone out of his way to give Trump Co. the benefit of the doubt. However, the picture clearly emerges of a campaign that absolutely knew that Russia was conducting an operation to influence the US election and made the choice to just let that happen because it benefited them rather than report to the FBI. This is consistent with reporting I've seen about Trump that he believes that everyone else is cheating so he should just so also at baseline.

At least one defense of the Trump Org has been that they simply didn't understand the law well enough to know that they were breaking it. This seems a very generous read by Mueller. However, when it comes to the counterintelligence elements of this, I think there is a pretty clear line that the Trump Org was made aware of and willingly crossed. To the point, the FBI specifically told them that there was a potential for foreign influence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-warned-trump-2016-russians-would-try-infiltrate-his-campaign-n830596

Not a slam dunk, but sure as hell does seem like "aid an comfort".
Quote
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 22, 2019, 09:41:40 AM
So, I'm currently only about 40 pages into the Mueller Report. Mueller has definitely gone out of his way to give Trump Co. the benefit of the doubt. However, the picture clearly emerges of a campaign that absolutely knew that Russia was conducting an operation to influence the US election and made the choice to just let that happen because it benefited them rather than report to the FBI. This is consistent with reporting I've seen about Trump that he believes that everyone else is cheating so he should just so also at baseline.

At least one defense of the Trump Org has been that they simply didn't understand the law well enough to know that they were breaking it. This seems a very generous read by Mueller. However, when it comes to the counterintelligence elements of this, I think there is a pretty clear line that the Trump Org was made aware of and willingly crossed. To the point, the FBI specifically told them that there was a potential for foreign influence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-warned-trump-2016-russians-would-try-infiltrate-his-campaign-n830596

Not a slam dunk, but sure as hell does seem like "aid an comfort".
Quote
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    Article III, Section 3, Clause 1


Is Russia officially an enemy of the US?

I think that the argument can be made that they're not (although they often work in opposition to American interests, the same can be said of many countries).  If that's the case, then I don't see how you could convict for treason.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on April 22, 2019, 09:43:41 AM
Would appreciate some honest reaction to this take on the Mueller report (note: author formerly worked for McConnell, so I am aware it's an "opinion" piece with a capital 'O'):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 22, 2019, 09:49:35 AM
Would appreciate some honest reaction to this take on the Mueller report (note: author formerly worked for McConnell, so I am aware it's an "opinion" piece with a capital 'O'):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)

Hmmm... Mitch McConnell's former employee tries to point the finger at Obama and conveniently buries/tries to discredit that Obama wanted to go public with this information but Mitch McConnell wouldn't go along with it.

Shocking.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on April 22, 2019, 09:52:29 AM
Would appreciate some honest reaction to this take on the Mueller report (note: author formerly worked for McConnell, so I am aware it's an "opinion" piece with a capital 'O'):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)

Seems right out of the GOP playbook.

Blame Obama, check.
Say other people are doing X (that your party is guilty of), check.
Say we should investigate someone else, check.

Really the only thing it's missing is blaming Hillary for something.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on April 23, 2019, 09:47:59 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)

The whole Mueller investigation is a farce.   We live in a republic and not a democracy.  With that both the Dems and the Reps showed how much vile stuff they could make up against each other within the two party system.  I have begun to loath CNN when that was the first website I ever went to.

The Mueller’s report doesn’t just look back for Obama it looks bad for all politicians including Hillary.  If wikileaks has taught us nothing…  It has shown the US, Russia, and China are meddling in more democracies than comprehendible.

What is demonstrably incorrect about the contents of the report?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on April 23, 2019, 10:09:55 AM
"A unique aspect of the Mueller Report story is that the primary source of it is available to everyone, and because of its written report format, fairly constitutes both “the center” and the highest standard for “original fact reporting.” That is, you could actually place the report itself at the top middle of the chart. This is not the case with all stories. The most neutral, fact reporting journalism about this would be a news source providing a copy of the report, which many of these sources, to their credit, have done today.

From there, the degree to which outlets select facts to report, and what context to provide about them, indicates various levels of quality and bias."

Here's a really interesting website that shows how this issue has been portrayed in headlines across the media. And do take a look at their media bias chart.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-mueller-report-headlines-across-the-spectrum-illustrating-how-junk-news-keeps-us-in-parallel-universes/

Here is the direct link to the actual report, with redactions. I haven't had a chance to peruse it yet or even follow the news closely (Easter week busy) but am determined to start today. Skimming the table of contents suggests quite the fascinating read.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on April 23, 2019, 10:38:12 AM


I stated the whole Mueller investigation is a farce...  The 25-40 million dollars paid due to the investigation. \

Frarce: a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.

I'm not sure how I understand your assertion that it has been a farce. To date it has resulted in the criminal conviction of no less than 5 high-ranking individuals, including a retired Army General, the head of the Trump Campaign and the president's personal lawyer.  I'm not sure how this is comical.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on April 23, 2019, 10:38:37 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)
The whole Mueller investigation is a farce.
What is demonstrably incorrect about the contents of the report?

I stated the whole Mueller investigation is a farce...  The 25-40 million dollars paid due to the investigation.  The countless news media reports speculating on the outcome of the investigation.  The lies and ruffling of feathers.  Fear mongering by politicians.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/

Hillary could have won the election and the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place.


Quote
farce
/färs/
noun
a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.

You're claiming the investigation was a farce, and your reasons behind that are because:

1) It was expensive
2) News media speculation
3) Lies
4) Ruffling of feathers
5) Fear mongering by politicians
6) Parties "making stuff up" re: each other

Out of that list, only 1) is actually the report itself and that is arguably incorrect because the Mueller investigation has effectively paid for itself with seizures (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/12/mueller-russia-investigation-costs/2736507002/).

Using your criteria, it seems more appropriate to label the Trump presidency as a farce. His Twitter account basically knocks the definition of "farce" out of the park.  Mueller report? Not so much.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 23, 2019, 10:39:19 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)
The whole Mueller investigation is a farce.
What is demonstrably incorrect about the contents of the report?

I stated the whole Mueller investigation is a farce...  The 25-40 million dollars paid due to the investigation.  The countless news media reports speculating on the outcome of the investigation.  The lies and ruffling of feathers.  Fear mongering by politicians.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/

Hillary could have won the election and the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place.

1) The cost of an investigation, when an investigation has to be done, is irrelevant if the cost is appropriate.

2) The media's reaction to the investigation, and the politicians' attempts to skew public opinion about the investigation, are not the investigation itself.

3) I honestly don't know what you mean about "the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place." Are you saying Hillary's campaign was colluding? Are you saying the Republicans would have sought to conduct an investigation on her regardless of whether there was any evidence of wrongdoing? Quite honestly, that last statement seems like utter nonsense.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on April 24, 2019, 04:17:04 PM
Clinton has weighed in on the Mueller Report in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on April 25, 2019, 01:57:25 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)
The whole Mueller investigation is a farce.
What is demonstrably incorrect about the contents of the report?

I stated the whole Mueller investigation is a farce...  The 25-40 million dollars paid due to the investigation.  The countless news media reports speculating on the outcome of the investigation.  The lies and ruffling of feathers.  Fear mongering by politicians.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/

Hillary could have won the election and the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place.

1) The cost of an investigation, when an investigation has to be done, is irrelevant if the cost is appropriate.

2) The media's reaction to the investigation, and the politicians' attempts to skew public opinion about the investigation, are not the investigation itself.

3) I honestly don't know what you mean about "the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place." Are you saying Hillary's campaign was colluding? Are you saying the Republicans would have sought to conduct an investigation on her regardless of whether there was any evidence of wrongdoing? Quite honestly, that last statement seems like utter nonsense.

The line of thinking is "If you investigate any high ranking politician intenesly enough you will find foreign contacts. The media will create a framework can make such meetings sound normal or insidious."

Then the people will have to interpret it. The word "Collusion" is perfect for this. It sounds ominous. It is also vague. It will be left up to individual interpretation. The Mueller Report was never going to be the end. Everyone was going to pick out the evidence that supported their worldview and keep rolling along. Even if Mueller testified before Congress, there will still be wiggle room for people to keep believing.

That is more a human failing than an investigative failing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on April 25, 2019, 03:25:16 AM
It appears that one of the reasons that Trump may have assumed he was being blackmailed by Comey when he was told after his election about the salacious allegations in the Steele dossier is that just before the election a Russian contact of Michael Cohens emailed to say "don't worry about the photos from your Miss Universe trip to Moscow, I've stopped them coming out of Russia".  As detailed in Mueller (Vol. II, footnote 112), and further in Bloomberg News.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on April 25, 2019, 09:08:35 AM
It appears that one of the reasons that Trump may have assumed he was being blackmailed by Comey when he was told after his election about the salacious allegations in the Steele dossier is that just before the election a Russian contact of Michael Cohens emailed to say "don't worry about the photos from your Miss Universe trip to Moscow, I've stopped them coming out of Russia".  As detailed in Mueller (Vol. II, footnote 112), and further in Bloomberg News.

Yes, this has been widely reported.  Such photos were supposedly in the possession of a Russian real estate mogul that Trump interacted with while in Russia.  Remember the peepee tape?  The President's lawyers was in communication with Russians about it, and gladly accepted Russian help on this topic.  But accepting Russian help and paying for Russian help are two different things, and as long as Trump maintains that his pro-Russia policy stances and the easing of sanctions were coincidental, and not "payment" for Russia's help in getting him elected, then he's off the hook for criminal conspiracy.  That's basically the root of his conspiracy defense, that he conspired with Russia because he honestly loves Russia and not because he was trying to break the law.  The fact that Russia has spent decades cultivating Donald Trump's love with financial support for his failing businesses is apparently not relevant, though I would call that a classic KGB tactic.

So despite Trump and his campaign being aware of the Russian efforts to help him, seeking out that help, and expecting to benefit from that help, Mueller decided it wasn't criminal because he was ignorant of the laws making it a crime.  If you can't prove criminal intent, you can't successfully prosecute a conspiracy case.  Not that Mueller thought he could prosecute a president anyway, for anything at all.

The peepee tape stuff is just another example of the ways the Russians tried to help him, just like the promised dirt on Hillary at the Trump Tower meeting.  Also just like the Trump Tower meeting, the specific offer in that case (stopping the release the hotel photos with the peepee hookers) turned out to be a farce, an effort by the Russians to gain influence over Trump without actually doing anything.  It looks like they didn't actually have the pictures, just like they didn't actually have new dirt on Clinton.  But they told Trump that they did, to cultivate his support, and for that purpose whether or not you can actually deliver on your promises is irrelevant.

Cultivating a foreign asset is all about building loyalty and support.  It's about managing people's expectations, currying their favor, and building on their allegiances by appealing to their motivating desires and guiding principles.  For Trump, that means a) money, and b) insulting and denigrating his perceived enemies.  Russia squarely nailed both of those.

Sadly, republicans seem to think that Russian interference in the American election is fine, but that investigating that interference is a crime against the country.  Giuliani has repeatedly gone on TV (https://www.apnews.com/309d46cd45ee4318a5226079f07f4085) to say there's nothing wrong with accepting help from the Russians, and Kushner says that the investigation into that interference is "way more harmful" (http://time.com/5574144/jared-kushner-russia-mueller-time-100-summit/) than the interference itself.  You know your country has lost when a foreign power convinces part of the country to hate the other part more than their shared enemies.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on April 26, 2019, 02:08:03 PM
Indeed a basic problem with Trump is that he simply does not vet the people around him as rigorously as most other politicians would; in addition, many fewer people would like to work for him because--frankly--he seems like a bad boss. This resulted in him accepting grifters and people with little moral compass into his orbit, many of whom (Papadapolous, Cohen, Manafort) are paying the price in jail.

We knew this before the Mueller report was released.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 26, 2019, 02:30:56 PM
Indeed a basic problem with Trump is that he simply does not vet the people around him as rigorously as most other politicians would; in addition, many fewer people would like to work for him because--frankly--he seems like a bad boss. This resulted in him accepting grifters and people with little moral compass into his orbit, many of whom (Papadapolous, Cohen, Manafort) are paying the price in jail.

We knew this before the Mueller report was released.

The Mueller report kinda proved the opposite though.  By ignoring the crazier direct orders of their commander in chief, several of the people that Trump hired ended up saving him from committing obstruction of justice despite how badly he wanted to.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on April 26, 2019, 02:39:54 PM
Indeed a basic problem with Trump is that he simply does not vet the people around him as rigorously as most other politicians would; in addition, many fewer people would like to work for him because--frankly--he seems like a bad boss. This resulted in him accepting grifters and people with little moral compass into his orbit, many of whom (Papadapolous, Cohen, Manafort) are paying the price in jail.

We knew this before the Mueller report was released.

The Mueller report kinda proved the opposite though.  By ignoring the crazier direct orders of their commander in chief, several of the people that Trump hired ended up saving him from committing obstruction of justice despite how badly he wanted to.

That’s true... except most of those people are gone now. So going forward, there are fewer people around him who might actually know enough to refuse him... and more yes men/women who are there because they are more willing than the last people to just agree with whatever he wants.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on April 26, 2019, 02:47:09 PM
Indeed a basic problem with Trump is that he simply does not vet the people around him as rigorously as most other politicians would; in addition, many fewer people would like to work for him because--frankly--he seems like a bad boss. This resulted in him accepting grifters and people with little moral compass into his orbit, many of whom (Papadapolous, Cohen, Manafort) are paying the price in jail.

We knew this before the Mueller report was released.

The Mueller report kinda proved the opposite though.  By ignoring the crazier direct orders of their commander in chief, several of the people that Trump hired ended up saving him from committing obstruction of justice despite how badly he wanted to.

Correction: Trump's commissino of obstruction is independent of whether his underlings complied with his request. Some of them may have saved themselves indictments/convictions, true.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on May 10, 2019, 04:11:59 AM
Senator Richard Burr (R) has subpoenaed Trump Junior to testify again before the senate intelligence committee about his dealings with Russia.  Burr - who has said he will not run for re-election in 2022 - issued the subpoena the day after McConnell said he considered the Russia investigation closed. Several other Republicans who sit on the committee have expressed support for the subpoena, including Collins (R-ME).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 10, 2019, 08:13:47 AM
Also, Giuliani is literally off to Ukraine to ask them to investigate conspiracy theories related to 2016 (aka support a Trump pet political project).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sol on May 10, 2019, 08:55:01 AM
Also, Giuliani is literally off to Ukraine to ask them to investigate conspiracy theories related to 2016 (aka support a Trump pet political project).

No collusion, though.  We're just sending the President's personal lawyer to go ask the Ukrainian government to publicly interfere in the 2020 election.  Maybe hack some emails, maybe push some conspiracy theories against his opponents, maybe get a more favorable US diplomatic treatment in return.  That's totally legit, right?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on May 10, 2019, 09:43:25 AM
Also, Giuliani is literally off to Ukraine to ask them to investigate conspiracy theories related to 2016 (aka support a Trump pet political project).

No collusion, though.  We're just sending the President's personal lawyer to go ask the Ukrainian government to publicly interfere in the 2020 election.  Maybe hack some emails, maybe push some conspiracy theories against his opponents, maybe get a more favorable US diplomatic treatment in return.  That's totally legit, right?
Clearly, this is the only logical explanation:
https://politics.theonion.com/white-house-says-mueller-report-must-be-kept-private-be-1833813865
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on July 31, 2019, 05:42:22 PM
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27259438/oleg-deripaska-kentucky-aluminum-mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on July 31, 2019, 06:26:35 PM
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.


It's beyond bizarre that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on July 31, 2019, 06:44:49 PM
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.


It's beyond bizarre treason that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.

FTFY
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on July 31, 2019, 07:51:57 PM
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.


It's beyond bizarre that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.

I suspect he is compromised.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on August 01, 2019, 02:22:22 PM
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.


It's beyond bizarre that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.

I suspect he is compromised.
I think McConnell has shown that he is first and foremost interested in accumulating power for the GOP (and himself), fairness or ethics be damned. I have never seen him waver from this. In this framework,  to reveal or actively fight the Russian interference does nothing but harm the GOP. From a strictly partisan viewpoint, there is no upside to cracking down on the Russian support.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on August 01, 2019, 05:15:33 PM
Pro-GOP treason isn't real treason you bunch of socialists.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on August 01, 2019, 09:13:08 PM
Pro-GOP treason isn't real treason you bunch of socialists.

I find it interesting that a good friend of Putin is paying for an aluminum factory to be built in Kentucky.

I'm sure this is all just a coincidence.

I'm sure the Russian money flowing through the NRA is another coincidence.

And I bet you that the "gun rights activist" arrested for spying--and who is/was dating a well-known Republican--was another coincidence. She sure had a lot of money to spend for a grad student...

And, of course, the six Republican congressman visiting Moscow during the July 4th recess? Probably meant nothing at all. I'm sure they just wanted to sample some vodka.


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: oldtoyota on August 01, 2019, 09:17:04 PM
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.


It's beyond bizarre that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.

I suspect he is compromised.
I think McConnell has shown that he is first and foremost interested in accumulating power for the GOP (and himself), fairness or ethics be damned. I have never seen him waver from this. In this framework,  to reveal or actively fight the Russian interference does nothing but harm the GOP. From a strictly partisan viewpoint, there is no upside to cracking down on the Russian support.

True that there is no upside to cracking down on Russian support. It would not surprise me if Mitch M is getting money from Russia somehow.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/11/nra-russia-money-guns-516804
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on August 09, 2019, 07:56:09 AM
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/foxconn-pulls-back-on-its-10-billion-dollar-factory-commitment/ (https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/foxconn-pulls-back-on-its-10-billion-dollar-factory-commitment/)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on August 09, 2019, 08:05:14 AM
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/foxconn-pulls-back-on-its-10-billion-dollar-factory-commitment/ (https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/foxconn-pulls-back-on-its-10-billion-dollar-factory-commitment/)

That's unfortunate, particularly for the state of Wisconsin which already gave so much in tax breaks to try to land those jobs.  I'm really struggling to find examples where manufacturing has successfully moved back to the US in the last 2.5 years (please share if you have it).  It seems that in many cases promises were made to great fanfare, and then a year or so later they quietly evaporated before anyone was employed.  Apple, Foxconn, GM, Carrier...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on August 12, 2019, 02:55:11 PM
Just long enough to get much good PR?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on August 12, 2019, 09:48:23 PM
Sounds about right

(https://fox11online.com/resources/media/f55f54da-4a6a-4de8-ae3d-a2304499a4f6-large16x9_FOXCONNGROUNDBREAKING_frame_44796.jpg?1530210626779)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: aspiringnomad on August 12, 2019, 10:22:34 PM
Sounds about right

(https://fox11online.com/resources/media/f55f54da-4a6a-4de8-ae3d-a2304499a4f6-large16x9_FOXCONNGROUNDBREAKING_frame_44796.jpg?1530210626779)

"Congratulations on truly one of the Eighth Wonder — I think we can say this is — we can say the Eighth Wonder of the World.  This is the Eighth Wonder of the World.  But this is something so special.  So I want to just congratulate you all."

-A very stable genius announcing the Foxconn deal

source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-foxconn-facility/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on August 13, 2019, 04:13:34 AM
Which do you think voters will remember more in 2020 - the huge Foxconn plant that was promised in 2017, or the fact that it never materalized and was roundly criticized in the press for sacrificing too much tax revenue?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on August 13, 2019, 07:26:56 AM
Which do you think voters will remember more in 2020 - the huge Foxconn plant that was promised in 2017, or the fact that it never materalized and was roundly criticized in the press for sacrificing too much tax revenue?

Well, Trump voters will only remember the first part, because Fox will never tell them about the second part.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on August 13, 2019, 07:36:43 AM
Which do you think voters will remember more in 2020 - the huge Foxconn plant that was promised in 2017, or the fact that it never materalized and was roundly criticized in the press for sacrificing too much tax revenue?

Well, Trump voters will only remember the first part, because Fox will never tell them about the second part.

You're absolutely right about that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on August 13, 2019, 08:24:18 AM
Fox news - We've always been at war with eurasia.
Fox viewers - We've always been at war with eurasia!
Donald Trump - I'm hearing . . . from a lot of people (a lot of good people, the best really) that we've always been at war with euro-star!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on October 09, 2019, 07:38:27 AM
"The Trump administration is pulling out of the Open Skies Treaty, which allows the United States and our allies and partners in Europe to monitor Russian military deployments. Withdrawal risks dividing the transatlantic alliance. "
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/6/46136e03-1d92-431b-aa31-7d20d2f266f9/5B01C6DD219BB03F508CB4377B03183E.ele-letter-to-o-brien-open-skies-treaty-final.pdf

https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1181322726843265026
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on October 09, 2019, 07:43:00 AM
How easily can all these treaties b/c repaired once Trump is gone?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 09, 2019, 07:46:08 AM
"The Trump administration is pulling out of the Open Skies Treaty, which allows the United States and our allies and partners in Europe to monitor Russian military deployments. Withdrawal risks dividing the transatlantic alliance. "
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/6/46136e03-1d92-431b-aa31-7d20d2f266f9/5B01C6DD219BB03F508CB4377B03183E.ele-letter-to-o-brien-open-skies-treaty-final.pdf

https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1181322726843265026

Honestly, with this impeachment inquiry swirling around I get the feeling that the WH can pretty push forward anything it wants and there's only so much bandwidth left to cover it.  Even a month ago pulling out of Syria would have been a monumental deal - now that story is being starved of oxygen as Dems posture and the WH refuses to comply with... well... anything.

Wouldn't surprise me if they used eminent domain to gobble up thousands of properties for a border wall and diverted medicaid funds to pay for it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on October 09, 2019, 08:03:30 AM
How easily can all these treaties b/c repaired once Trump is gone?

Once we've elected someone like Trump, we've shown that it's possible and can happen again.

We've established that policy from the WH careens between right and left extremes.

We've established that each President undoes what was built by his predecessor.

How could you possible strike a deal with a government in that case? I think the things that Trump breaks are mostly going to stay that way.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 09, 2019, 08:21:36 AM
We've established that policy from the WH careens between right and left extremes.

There isn't really a political left in the United States.  The Democrats range between center right and center left.  The Republicans from right  to extreme right wing.  The other political parties don't matter.



How could you possible strike a deal with a government in that case? I think the things that Trump breaks are mostly going to stay that way.

Why would you bother to negotiate with people who break their word?  Seems like an exercise in futility.



It's nice to see Trump finally openly and unequivocally toadying up to Putin.  Maybe his supporters will stop jumping through hoops to deny the control that the President of Russia has over him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: rocketpj on October 09, 2019, 10:23:42 PM
I am astonished.

Quote
Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/trump-syria-kurds-normandy) defended his decision to withdraw US troops from Syria and enable a Turkish offensive against US-backed Kurdish fighters in the region by noting the Kurds didn’t fight alongside the US in the second world war.

The US president told reporters that the Kurds “didn’t help us in the second world war, they didn’t help us with Normandy as an example – they mention the names of different battles, they weren’t there”, in a staggering comment following the signing of executive orders on the federal regulation at the White House on Wednesday.

Normandy?  Seriously?  Is that the prerequisite for the US to keep it's commitments now?  How the hell would the Kurds...  Sigh, nevermind.

This is the leader of the free world?  We are all fucked.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 10, 2019, 05:34:19 AM
More on topic with this thread:

While our hasty withdraw has prompted Turkey to launch an offensive against our allies, the Kurds, the country which may benefit the most is.... Russia!

Syria and Russia... sound familiar?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2019, 08:03:57 AM
More on topic with this thread:

While our hasty withdraw has prompted Turkey to launch an offensive against our allies, the Kurds, the country which may benefit the most is.... Russia!

Syria and Russia... sound familiar?

Like I mentioned, Trump is not even being subtle about toadying up to Putin now.  He's doing multiple overtly beneficial to Russia and bad for the US things right out in the open.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2019, 08:51:05 AM
More on topic with this thread:

While our hasty withdraw has prompted Turkey to launch an offensive against our allies, the Kurds, the country which may benefit the most is.... Russia!

Syria and Russia... sound familiar?

Like I mentioned, Trump is not even being subtle about toadying up to Putin now.  He's doing multiple overtly beneficial to Russia and bad for the US things right out in the open.

And his supporters are still managing to twist themselves into pretzels trying to convince themselves this is all a totally good thing, yeah, take that libs!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on October 10, 2019, 09:34:34 AM
So would Congress need to impeach Trump first to go against his wishes and send help to defend the Kurds?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 10, 2019, 09:59:27 AM
So would Congress need to impeach Trump first to go against his wishes and send help to defend the Kurds?

Basically. The President is commander in chief. Congress alone can declare war (last time was 1941) as well as authorize military expenses, but if the President says “military: leave now” they must obey.

Ironically this is a scenario few have envisioned. I remember from government that the President can, for 40 days, order military action before consulting Congress. Clinton famously did this in The Balkan’s. It’s frankly bizarre to have a commander in chief that wants to do the opposite including against his own party.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2019, 10:04:06 AM
We've never had a very stable genius as the president of the United States before.  Lots of firsts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 10, 2019, 11:10:23 AM
The more I think about it, the less I think our founders were prepared for such a scenario.

The framers were very concerned about a commander in chief who might go to war against the wishes of The People (represented by Congress).  So they gave congress the ultimate power to declare war and authorize all spedning (including on the military).  The President, as Commander in Chief, can order military intervention for 40 days before s/he must get the authorization of congress.

But there appears to be few guardrails to a Commander in Chief who wants to NOT have military intervention AGAINST the wishes of Congress. 
Congress alone can declare war, but here again there's a problem; who would we declare war on?  We don't want to go to war against Turkey, we just want to defend the Kurds. It's backwards from 'traditional war'.  Congress can do little to defend an ally (particularly one that is not a soverign state) - it can only declare war on a hostile, foreign nation.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on October 10, 2019, 12:06:43 PM
The more I think about it, the less I think our founders were prepared for such a scenario.

The framers were very concerned about a commander in chief who might go to war against the wishes of The People (represented by Congress).  So they gave congress the ultimate power to declare war and authorize all spedning (including on the military).  The President, as Commander in Chief, can order military intervention for 40 days before s/he must get the authorization of congress.

But there appears to be few guardrails to a Commander in Chief who wants to NOT have military intervention AGAINST the wishes of Congress. 
Congress alone can declare war, but here again there's a problem; who would we declare war on?  We don't want to go to war against Turkey, we just want to defend the Kurds. It's backwards from 'traditional war'.  Congress can do little to defend an ally (particularly one that is not a soverign state) - it can only declare war on a hostile, foreign nation.

You are right this is an unusual situation. At the very least presidents confer with their generals to make these kind of decisions, but even that is not happening.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2019, 12:09:47 PM
The more I think about it, the less I think our founders were prepared for such a scenario.

The framers were very concerned about a commander in chief who might go to war against the wishes of The People (represented by Congress).  So they gave congress the ultimate power to declare war and authorize all spedning (including on the military).  The President, as Commander in Chief, can order military intervention for 40 days before s/he must get the authorization of congress.

But there appears to be few guardrails to a Commander in Chief who wants to NOT have military intervention AGAINST the wishes of Congress. 
Congress alone can declare war, but here again there's a problem; who would we declare war on?  We don't want to go to war against Turkey, we just want to defend the Kurds. It's backwards from 'traditional war'.  Congress can do little to defend an ally (particularly one that is not a soverign state) - it can only declare war on a hostile, foreign nation.

You are right this is an unusual situation. At the very least presidents confer with their generals to make these kind of decisions, but even that is not happening.

Sure, he's not conferring with the American generals. But the general Trump is beholden to is Putin . . . and I'd be shocked to find out that a consultation was not made prior to this decision.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on October 11, 2019, 05:14:25 AM
Didn't Trump once say he knew more than the generals? And of course there was that time he admitted he believed Putin over our own intelligence community. Now some prominent Trump supporters are indeed calling him out for this. However, when you enable a guy like Trump for so long, this is what you can expect. A little late to try and show you have a backbone.   
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 11, 2019, 10:59:03 AM
The Kurdish controlled portions of Syria and Iraq are geographically very important for natural gas pipelines from Russia to Europe via Syria and Turkey. Turkey and Russia have become much closer under the Erdogan administration in Turkey (administration may be a generous term for it). Russia has the rights to petroleum development in Syria and the rights to pipelines through that area as part of that. The agreements between Syria and Russia in this regard are part of why Russia has pretty aggressively supported Assad since the revolt began. Natural gas pipelines are also part of Russia's interest in Ukraine, which is less politically friendly lately. Russia provides about 30% of Europe's natural gas, which is a big part of their economy and also a cudgel to exert influence/power over Europe. Anything that presents a risk to natural gas pipelines has a disproportionate risk to Russia's influence on the western hemisphere and Russia's economy. Allowing Turkey to wipe out the Kurds leaves Syria and Turkey in control of those regions and provides a lower risk profile for Russian natural gas infrastructure. With ISIS gone (which also presented a risk to that infrastructure) The US withdrawal leaves a vacuum for Russia to happily fill. The US has much to lose by leaving now and Russia has much to gain. Moral issues with genocide (which Erdogan, and Turkey in general, have been pretty ok with against the Kurds for a long time) the sudden departure from Syria is a strategic blunder for US interests.

How long do we think it will be before the rest of the middle east sees Russia as a more stable (or at least more predictable) partner than the US?

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on October 11, 2019, 11:04:53 AM
The Kurdish controlled portions of Syria and Iraq are geographically very important for natural gas pipelines from Russia to Europe via Syria and Turkey. Turkey and Russia have become much closer under the Erdogan administration in Turkey (administration may be a generous term for it). Russia has the rights to petroleum development in Syria and the rights to pipelines through that area as part of that. The agreements between Syria and Russia in this regard are part of why Russia has pretty aggressively supported Assad since the revolt began. Natural gas pipelines are also part of Russia's interest in Ukraine, which is less politically friendly lately. Russia provides about 30% of Europe's natural gas, which is a big part of their economy and also a cudgel to exert influence/power over Europe. Anything that presents a risk to natural gas pipelines has a disproportionate risk to Russia's influence on the western hemisphere and Russia's economy. Allowing Turkey to wipe out the Kurds leaves Syria and Turkey in control of those regions and provides a lower risk profile for Russian natural gas infrastructure. With ISIS gone (which also presented a risk to that infrastructure) The US withdrawal leaves a vacuum for Russia to happily fill. The US has much to lose by leaving now and Russia has much to gain. Moral issues with genocide (which Erdogan, and Turkey in general, have been pretty ok with against the Kurds for a long time) the sudden departure from Syria is a strategic blunder for US interests.

How long do we think it will be before the rest of the middle east sees Russia as a more stable (or at least more predictable) partner than the US?

But - the Kurds didn't help us during WW II, so none of that matters.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: vern on October 11, 2019, 03:31:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj-wNuKmBrY
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 13, 2019, 02:31:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj-wNuKmBrY

Hillary lost in 2016. She's not the President. Get over it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 13, 2019, 06:34:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj-wNuKmBrY

Hillary lost in 2016. She's not the President. Get over it.

And if you could stop making posts with nothing but a link to a youtube video that'd be great. If you had some input for the conversation I might actually check out some of your links.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: six-car-habit on October 15, 2019, 02:23:33 AM
 ohhh, Guiliani [ presidents personal lawyer]  have you been naughty ?   'Fraud Guarantee' - classic business name for dubious owners...I chuckled at the pun / irony / play on words ?

 from Reuters, Oct 14th --
 "The New York Times reported last week that Parnas had told associates he paid Giuliani hundreds of thousands of dollars for what Giuliani said was business and legal advice. Giuliani said for the first time on Monday that the total amount was $500,000.

Giuliani told Reuters the money came in two payments made within weeks of each other. He said he could not recall the dates of the payments. He said most of the work he did for Fraud Guarantee was completed in 2018 but that he had been doing follow-up for over a year.

Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles Airport outside Washington last week on charges they funneled foreign money to unnamed U.S. politicians in a bid to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations in violation of U.S. campaign finance laws. The men were preparing to board a plane to Europe.

According to an indictment unsealed by U.S. prosecutors, an unidentified Russian businessman arranged for two $500,000 wires to be sent from foreign bank accounts to a U.S. account controlled by Fruman in September and October 2018. The money was used, in part, by Fruman, Parnas and two other men charged in the indictment to gain influence with  U.S. politicians and candidates, the indictment said.

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions and other expenditures in connection with U.S. elections, and from making contributions in someone else’s name.

Giuliani said he was confident that the money he received was from “a domestic source,” but he would not say where it came from.

“I know beyond any doubt the source of the money is not any questionable source,” he told Reuters in an interview. “The money did not come from foreigners. I can rule that out 100%,” he said. "

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on October 15, 2019, 05:05:46 AM
Trump: "Giuliani! I barely knew the guy. Probably had a picture taken with him once."
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 15, 2019, 05:39:40 AM
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment.  Can't think why.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 15, 2019, 05:55:57 AM
Reports from Fiona Hill’s testimony under the impeachment inquiry.  Hill was Trump’s former top Russia Advisor before she left voluntarily last summer.  Apparently Hill described Giuliani as running a shadow foreign US policy in Ukraine who’s goals were specifically to benefit Trump.  When Bolton found out about Giuliani’s plans he apparently went ballistic, and said “that idiot... is a hand grenade that’s going to blow everything up.”  Giuliani also told Hill that they were going to re-open the investigation into Hunter Biden.

Hmm... an unelected, un-appointed individual circumventing US foreign policy for the explicit purpose of enriching POTUS.

New questions:  Will Bolton testify? Will Giuliani spontaneously verify this account on national tv while insisting it’s all kosher? Will Trump insist Rudy was just “some low-level assistant, one I barely talked to, part of my great legal counsel (the greatest ever!) but not one I knew terribly well...”?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 15, 2019, 07:49:51 AM
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment.  Can't think why.

Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview?  Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Aelias on October 15, 2019, 08:09:28 AM
Well, to be fair, "a hand grenade that’s going to blow everything up" is probably the first line in Bolton's CV.  ;)

In all seriousness, if you've lost John Bolton because you're too reckless, you're pretty far off the reservation.  I hope he does testify.  It sounds like he was privy to what was going on and would have valuable information.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 15, 2019, 09:30:21 AM
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment.  Can't think why.

Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview?  Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.

Nah.

It just takes time to construct ridiculous, illogical, pretzel-twisted excuses for the fire hose of inexcusable things coming from this administration.

They'll be back to denying, what-abouting, and blaming Hillary or Obama in a day or two.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 15, 2019, 10:04:02 AM
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment.  Can't think why.

Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview?  Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.

Nah.

It just takes time to construct ridiculous, illogical, pretzel-twisted excuses for the fire hose of inexcusable things coming from this administration.

They'll be back to denying, what-abouting, and blaming Hillary or Obama in a day or two.

Yeah. I thought Ken Starr saying that the current impeachment inquiry was baseless and bad for the country was pretty rich. Anyone else remember that Kavanaugh was helping write the really graphic questions for the questioning of Clinton during the last impeachment?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 15, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment.  Can't think why.

Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview?  Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.

Nah.

It just takes time to construct ridiculous, illogical, pretzel-twisted excuses for the fire hose of inexcusable things coming from this administration.

They'll be back to denying, what-abouting, and blaming Hillary or Obama in a day or two.

Yeah. I thought Ken Starr saying that the current impeachment inquiry was baseless and bad for the country was pretty rich. Anyone else remember that Kavanaugh was helping write the really graphic questions for the questioning of Clinton during the last impeachment?

To be fair to Kavanaugh . . . he was probably blackout drunk at the time.  And if he wasn't, the FBI will be prevented from investigating it fairly anyway.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Freedom2016 on October 15, 2019, 05:34:20 PM
Unlike me, my progressive/liberal sister is not feeling any optimism about the impeachment. She says no one she knows who voted for Trump in 2016 (however reluctantly) are at all changing their minds about him. In fact, they seem to be doubling down. She worries that impeachment will backfire spectacularly and cause 45's re-election next year.

My sister is a very, very smart woman, and her comments have sent me into quite a depression.

I *want* to believe that even if every 2016 Trump voter votes for him again in 2020, there are enough independents who are disgusted, and enough Democrats eager to cast their vote, that it will be a blue tsunami (*even* taking foreign interference into account).

But is this wrong? Am I overly (wrongly) optimistic?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 16, 2019, 07:19:54 AM
Unlike me, my progressive/liberal sister is not feeling any optimism about the impeachment. She says no one she knows who voted for Trump in 2016 (however reluctantly) are at all changing their minds about him. In fact, they seem to be doubling down. She worries that impeachment will backfire spectacularly and cause 45's re-election next year.

My sister is a very, very smart woman, and her comments have sent me into quite a depression.

I *want* to believe that even if every 2016 Trump voter votes for him again in 2020, there are enough independents who are disgusted, and enough Democrats eager to cast their vote, that it will be a blue tsunami (*even* taking foreign interference into account).

But is this wrong? Am I overly (wrongly) optimistic?

The bottom line here is that in order to win re-election Trump will need MORE voters than he had in 2016. 
The reasons are threefold:

Bottom line: His core supporters may never leave him, but they are woefully insufficient to win re-election by themselves. Either DJT needs to attract a lot of new voters, or they need to get groups to be even less enthusiastic about voting than they were when HRC was the Democrat on the ticket.

Which brings me to the obvious conclusion that whomever is selected as the Dem's standard-bearer in 2020 will be attacked on a level unseen in recent politics.  Hunter Biden is a rather weak example of what's to come.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on October 16, 2019, 08:02:13 AM
Unlike me, my progressive/liberal sister is not feeling any optimism about the impeachment. She says no one she knows who voted for Trump in 2016 (however reluctantly) are at all changing their minds about him. In fact, they seem to be doubling down. She worries that impeachment will backfire spectacularly and cause 45's re-election next year.

My sister is a very, very smart woman, and her comments have sent me into quite a depression.

I *want* to believe that even if every 2016 Trump voter votes for him again in 2020, there are enough independents who are disgusted, and enough Democrats eager to cast their vote, that it will be a blue tsunami (*even* taking foreign interference into account).

But is this wrong? Am I overly (wrongly) optimistic?

It depends on exactly what you are expecting. There's a good chance of impeachment but virtually zero chance that it will result in Trump being removed from office. 

Historically, impeachment has not been supported by the majority of the public; there was only an uptick in support for impeachment/removal of Nixon near the very end of a multi-year scandal, and Clinton's support went up during impeachment.  In Clinton's case, there was also a midterm swing against the GOP, which many attribute to anger over the impeachment.  So a backlash against Dems for pursuing it isn't out of the question, though Trump's numbers are already looking worse than the other two.

Independents do appear to have shifted somewhat against Trump, but I'm not sure there has been enough of a shift to move swing states like OH, PN, FL, and IA (though WI is looking more promising this time out).  There are more registered voters in the country that are inclined to vote Dem, but that's been true for decades now...the problem is that Dem voters don't reliably turn out b/c they are younger, poorer, feel more disenfranchised etc.  So as has been mentioned, it's more a question of who the Dems nominate, and how high enthusiasm for that candidate is.  None of the Dems look to have the combo of qualities needed to inspire that broad turnout (at least at this point). Because of that factor, and that factor alone, I'm not super optimistic right now. Still a long way to go yet, though.

ETA: I should point out that I am attributing lack of enthusiasm to the general left-leaner that I share, but I should also point out that even though I don't much care for most of these Dem candidates, I'll crawl over broken glass to vote for anyone running against Trump.  So it's possible anti-Trump enthusiasm will overcome lack of enthusiasm for whomever the Dems nominate.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 16, 2019, 08:36:59 AM
I guess I don't share your sentiment that the Dems lack anyone that people will be enthusiastic about.  13 monhts before a general election and the majority of voters simply aren't giving it much thought.  At this stage both Obama and WJC were considered outsiders and few paid beyond the truly politically wonkish knew or cared about them.

Even once we get to the primaries the majority of people haven't formed much of an opinion  - only 10-15% of eligible voters show up to vote on primary day during most years for either party.  4x that number will vote in the general election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: wenchsenior on October 16, 2019, 09:47:31 AM
I guess I don't share your sentiment that the Dems lack anyone that people will be enthusiastic about.  13 monhts before a general election and the majority of voters simply aren't giving it much thought.  At this stage both Obama and WJC were considered outsiders and few paid beyond the truly politically wonkish knew or cared about them.

Even once we get to the primaries the majority of people haven't formed much of an opinion  - only 10-15% of eligible voters show up to vote on primary day during most years for either party.  4x that number will vote in the general election.

Fair point. That's why I noted there's a long way to go yet. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 16, 2019, 09:56:22 AM
it is worth impeaching Trump on moral grounds regardless of electoral outcomes. It is a way to show the rest of the world that we get rid of leaders who turn away from our allies, and act in an outrageously corrupt manner. Leaving him in place sends a bad message of complacency and acceptance.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 16, 2019, 10:11:57 AM
it is worth impeaching Trump on moral grounds regardless of electoral outcomes. It is a way to show the rest of the world that we get rid of leaders who turn away from our allies, and act in an outrageously corrupt manner. Leaving him in place sends a bad message of complacency and acceptance.

I'm not sure that letting an outrageously corrupt person become president - where he continuously acts in a corrupt manner with impunity (and the  the full backing of one of the two political parties in the country), then impeach him as he's heading out the door anyway is much of a reprimand.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on October 16, 2019, 10:56:45 AM
PredictIt.org right now shows 69cents for impeachment (versus 31c against), and 25cents for Trump not finishing his first term versus 75cents for completing. So I wouldn't say it's a zero percent chance he's removed from office (obviously those betting for not finishing would be a mix that think he'll be removed by Congress, resign, or fall ill, etc.). And I think it should also be made really clear that Congress has not yet really made the case for removal. Those of us who consume way to much political moves have seen the (many) flashes of evidence, heard various statements from committee chairs, etc., but that's not how most Americans go about their day. That's one reason that I worry it's a mistake to do this "6 committee" impeachment inquiry, rather than just appointing one special committee to hold televised hearings specifically focused on impeachment.

I also agree that Trump's only real strategy (besides cheating) is to suppress oppositional votes, and he and his team have been clearly laying the groundwork for that since 2016, and I'm worried that once again the media will fall for the bait. Trump and his administration will have hundreds of discreet episodes of wrongdoing, but the media will "strive for balance" and devote equal time to the one or two things dug up about his opponent, we'll get reactions from voters in diners of the American heartland lamenting that both sides are corrupt, and large numbers of voters will feel powerless and just stay home, or will give up when they are turned away the first time for lack of ID, or long lines as polling stations are closed or no longer provide early voting, etc.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 16, 2019, 11:37:11 AM
And I think it should also be made really clear that Congress has not yet really made the case for removal. Those of us who consume way to much political moves have seen the (many) flashes of evidence, heard various statements from committee chairs, etc., but that's not how most Americans go about their day. That's one reason that I worry it's a mistake to do this "6 committee" impeachment inquiry, rather than just appointing one special committee to hold televised hearings specifically focused on impeachment.
They are just gathering evidence at the moment.  I'm hoping that they are using this phase to put together the evidence, and that they will then lay it all out in a nice, comprehensive, comprehensible story over a short period of time, with witnesses giving their most pertinent bits of evidence to build the case, and then hold the impeachment vote in the House.  It's at that point that the public will hopefully be able to see a watertight and overwhelmingly convincing case laid out before them, and that the case will go to the Senate with the public baying for (metaphorical) blood.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 16, 2019, 11:41:27 AM
To me, Trump isn't even acting like someone who wants to be president anymore.  He seems like the dog that finally caught the car, only to realize he can't drive, and now has to pay for the car loan.

it is worth impeaching Trump on moral grounds regardless of electoral outcomes. It is a way to show the rest of the world that we get rid of leaders who turn away from our allies, and act in an outrageously corrupt manner. Leaving him in place sends a bad message of complacency and acceptance.

I'm not sure that letting an outrageously corrupt person become president - where he continuously acts in a corrupt manner with impunity (and the  the full backing of one of the two political parties in the country), then impeach him as he's heading out the door anyway is much of a reprimand.

Yeah, to me what's amazing is that people are all surprised that Trump's basically been acting the exact same way he has over the previous four decades... threatening legal action at every turn, kissing up to dictators, firing anyone who doesn't kiss his ring, race-baiting, etc.  The NY Tabloids covered his life for decades, and the only difference was his title.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 16, 2019, 11:43:29 AM
And I think it should also be made really clear that Congress has not yet really made the case for removal. Those of us who consume way to much political moves have seen the (many) flashes of evidence, heard various statements from committee chairs, etc., but that's not how most Americans go about their day. That's one reason that I worry it's a mistake to do this "6 committee" impeachment inquiry, rather than just appointing one special committee to hold televised hearings specifically focused on impeachment.
They are just gathering evidence at the moment.  I'm hoping that they are using this phase to put together the evidence, and that they will then lay it all out in a nice, comprehensive, comprehensible story over a short period of time, with witnesses giving their most pertinent bits of evidence to build the case, and then hold the impeachment vote in the House.  It's at that point that the public will hopefully be able to see a watertight and overwhelmingly convincing case laid out before them, and that the case will go to the Senate with the public baying for (metaphorical) blood.

There's probably a timing aspect to it too. Take too long and people lose interest but let it simmer for a while and Trump spends time and energy making more mistakes and less time and energy on the reelection campaign. It's also better for the Dems for corruption charges to be recent rather than something that happened a year ago.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 16, 2019, 12:04:36 PM
Completely hypothetical (and unlikely to happen I'll add), but which would be more difficult for Dems - going up against Trump in 2020 or going against someone like Romney who doesn't evoke such intense feelings?  Before you say "Trump" consider that ~90% of the GOP will vote GOP regardless of who it is.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 16, 2019, 12:15:49 PM
Completely hypothetical (and unlikely to happen I'll add), but which would be more difficult for Dems - going up against Trump in 2020 or going against someone like Romney who doesn't evoke such intense feelings?  Before you say "Trump" consider that ~90% of the GOP will vote GOP regardless of who it is.

I have absolutely no idea, but I'll throw out a couple of speculations anyway. I think another Republican would lose a lot of conspiracy theorist/Trump lover votes and whoever the Democrat candidate is would lose some anti-Trump enthusiasm votes. This works out to less votes for both sides and I wouldn't know where to begin in estimating the numbers each would lose.

Then there's those who didn't show up last time around because they were frustrated with both sides. Would they come back for more reasonable candidates? Has their faith in the system been lost entirely?

There's probably another hundred factors at play that I also wouldn't be able to put a number on. So again, I have no idea, but it would be interesting if any polls have been done with a similar question.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 16, 2019, 12:18:14 PM
I don't think a reasonable Republican candidate would be selected by the party.  Trump embodies exactly what the average Republican voter wants . . . hence his popularity among them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 16, 2019, 08:17:48 PM
Here is your daily reminder that Trump is unfit for office.

How can any thinking person still support him?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/trump-erdogan-letter/index.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 16, 2019, 08:58:47 PM
Here is your daily reminder that Trump is unfit for office.

How can any thinking person still support him?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/trump-erdogan-letter/index.html

What's really crazy is that I didn't question whether or not this was actually written by the president. Any other president and I would have assumed it was a joke. It sounds like a 4th grade mobster.

Do you think other world leaders get these letters and pass them around the office to laugh at them? I mean, this would be pretty funny if he wasn't causing so much damage.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 17, 2019, 05:24:36 AM
His syntax to Erdogan aside, I’m more angry at how he’s defended his decision to pull troops out of the region.
“Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine.  It’s a lot of sand.  They’ve got a lot of sand over there to play with.”

So he doesn’t care (and seems to support) about Russia’s involvement in Syria, and characterizes armed conflict as “playing in sand”.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 17, 2019, 05:42:45 AM
His syntax to Erdogan aside, I’m more angry at how he’s defended his decision to pull troops out of the region.
“Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine.  It’s a lot of sand.  They’ve got a lot of sand over there to play with.”

So he doesn’t care (and seems to support) about Russia’s involvement in Syria, and characterizes armed conflict as “playing in sand”.

Yep.

And also that, per the letter, he is totally fine with sharing confidential communications from one ally leader with another leader without their knowledge. And now the world knows this, if they didn’t suspect it before.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2019, 08:13:31 AM
His syntax to Erdogan aside, I’m more angry at how he’s defended his decision to pull troops out of the region.
“Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine.  It’s a lot of sand.  They’ve got a lot of sand over there to play with.”

So he doesn’t care (and seems to support) about Russia’s involvement in Syria, and characterizes armed conflict as “playing in sand”.

Yep.

And also that, per the letter, he is totally fine with sharing confidential communications from one ally leader with another leader without their knowledge. And now the world knows this, if they didn’t suspect it before.

At this point it would be pretty negligent of any world leader to treat the head of America as a grown man, let alone an equal.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 17, 2019, 08:39:52 AM
His syntax to Erdogan aside, I’m more angry at how he’s defended his decision to pull troops out of the region.
“Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine.  It’s a lot of sand.  They’ve got a lot of sand over there to play with.”

So he doesn’t care (and seems to support) about Russia’s involvement in Syria, and characterizes armed conflict as “playing in sand”.

Yep.

And also that, per the letter, he is totally fine with sharing confidential communications from one ally leader with another leader without their knowledge. And now the world knows this, if they didn’t suspect it before.

At this point it would be pretty negligent of any world leader to treat the head of America as a grown man, let alone an equal.

Agreed. That leader would have to be as stupid as Trump.

And off-hand, I can't think of any of those.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 17, 2019, 09:21:07 AM
Trump has made his career by promising others luxury and riches.  The underlying premise of The Apprentice was one lucky contestant would win an executive job.  His various hotels promise his version of luxury.  Trump casinos was obviously about winning the jackpot.

His correspondences with foreign leaders shows he's still trying to sell that, to ill effect.  In his letter to Erdogan he started by saying "let's make a deal" and then threatened to destroy the Turkish economy.  He stressed to Kim Jong Un how great a location it would be for high-rise resorts.  Whenever he meets a foreign head of state he stresses the wealth that could be made or the economic destruction wrought if they don't do his bidding. 

Problem is he completely misses the driving issues for most countries.  Erdogan isn't attacking the Kurds for economic prosperity.  The Palestinians won't give a hoot about being richer than Solomon if Israel remains in control of the holy land. Kim Jong Un is already living in the lab of luxury as his country is mired in poverty.
...anyway, just an observation about how he frames every issue.  It seems to extend into domestic issues as well.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 17, 2019, 01:57:22 PM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 17, 2019, 02:13:24 PM
As Pelosi put it in yesterday's disaster of a meeting:" All roads seem to lead back to Putin with you."

https://www.apnews.com/4b4052672c994d9198bb445bd913b06b
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 17, 2019, 06:41:41 PM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated.  So Trump withheld aid.  And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden.  At the same time.  But there's no link.  Or something.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 17, 2019, 07:46:37 PM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated.  So Trump withheld aid.  And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden.  At the same time.  But there's no link.  Or something.

It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?

Sound bite dream for the Dems.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 17, 2019, 07:54:45 PM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated.  So Trump withheld aid.  And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden.  At the same time.  But there's no link.  Or something.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/mulvaney-says-trump-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine-aid-not-tied-to-biden.html

Quote
Instead, Mulvaney told reporters that the withholding of almost $400 million in aid this summer was due in part because Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the possibility that elements in that country somehow had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Trump’s detriment.

Make's perfect sense. Interesting that this never came up in the phone call though. Also the fact that we're just now hearing about it is a little odd...

Seriously though, did it take them that long to come up with an alternative excuse as to why they withheld the money? Any good corrupt politician would have that lie ready to go.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 18, 2019, 04:44:30 AM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated.  So Trump withheld aid.  And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden.  At the same time.  But there's no link.  Or something.

It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?

Sound bite dream for the Dems.

In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."

So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on October 18, 2019, 05:17:07 AM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated.  So Trump withheld aid.  And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden.  At the same time.  But there's no link.  Or something.

It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?

Sound bite dream for the Dems.

In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."

So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...

This utter shit show is hilarious. Everything follows the same path. Starts out as Trump doing nothing wrong and it's all a witch hunt. And ends with, so what it happens all the time and besides, it's not illegal.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 18, 2019, 05:52:21 AM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated.  So Trump withheld aid.  And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden.  At the same time.  But there's no link.  Or something.

It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?

Sound bite dream for the Dems.

In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."

So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...

This utter shit show is hilarious. Everything follows the same path. Starts out as Trump doing nothing wrong and it's all a witch hunt. And ends with, so what it happens all the time and besides, it's not illegal.
I've been following The Trump show as light relief from Brexit.  With Trump's betrayal of the Kurds, leading to their murder and likely genocide, the hilarity has ended.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 18, 2019, 06:58:19 AM
I've been following The Trump show as light relief from Brexit.  With Trump's betrayal of the Kurds, leading to their murder and likely genocide, the hilarity has ended.

That's ironic - I've been using Brexit and the British Parliament to make myself feel a teeny-bit better about what's been going on with our federal politics.

But I understand your sentiment... this would all be funny if real people weren't literally dying and suffering for all the ineptitude going on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on October 18, 2019, 06:58:53 AM
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment.  Can't think why.

Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview?  Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.

I don't see this. I see a lot of "Republicans" claiming that Biden's corruption is the real problem.

Now that Mulvaney has admitted the Quid-pro-quo, it'll be interesting to see how they modify their defenses of the President.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 18, 2019, 07:07:19 AM
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment.  Can't think why.

Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview?  Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.

I don't see this. I see a lot of "Republicans" claiming that Biden's corruption is the real problem.


This just blows my mind.  It's not the conduct of the actual, current president that we should be concerned about, it's the conduct of a potential future president's son.

Well, Elizabeth Warren is leading according to many polls.  Which means pretty soon we'll be treated to all sorts of half-cocked stories claiming Warren's involved in some illegal activity.  Hopefully even the GOP can admit 'Pocahantas' is a dead horse, and one that doesn't make them look particularly tolerant.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on October 18, 2019, 07:09:18 AM
Day 1000 of the Trump Presidency started with Trump's classy tweet honoring Congressman Elijah Cummings. I read that tweet, and my first thought was "Maybe I've been wrong about this Trump guy all along." That perhaps he'd just had a bad week*

In the next twelve hours, we had

I don't think this is even a complete list. The scandals pile up so quickly, yet here in NC everyone I talk to insists that people are just out to keep Trump from magnanimously fixing every thing.

*yes, many bad things already happened this week, including the Pelosi confrontation and making the British parents come face-to-face with the American who'd killed their son in an auto accident and the NYT report coming out that he'd committed tax fraud with reporting rental income on his properties while Deutsche Bank basically admitted they'd thrown out his tax returns because snitches get stitches.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 18, 2019, 07:19:52 AM
  • The announcement that Trump's Doral Resort would host the G7

If whoever is the then current UK Prime Minister rocks up at Trump Doral for the G7 next year they will be committing a criminal offence under the UK Bribery Act 2010.  See section 6 -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/6

Potential penalties are an unlimited fine and up to 10 years in prison.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/11
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 18, 2019, 07:29:42 AM
  • The announcement that Trump's Doral Resort would host the G7

If whoever is the then current UK Prime Minister rocks up at Trump Doral for the G7 next year they will be committing a criminal offence under the UK Bribery Act 2010.  See section 6 -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/6

Potential penalties are an unlimited fine and up to 10 years in prison.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/11

I'm sure that Trump would be fine with Putin filling in for any missing party from the UK.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: EvenSteven on October 18, 2019, 07:51:15 AM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated.  So Trump withheld aid.  And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden.  At the same time.  But there's no link.  Or something.

It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?

Sound bite dream for the Dems.

In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."

So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...

The presidents personal lawyers are different people and have very different roles that the white house counsel. I think it is more like the WH's chief of staff conduct is being disavowed by the presidents personal lawyers.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on October 18, 2019, 09:55:24 AM
This whole sh*tshow that is the Trump presidency is getting to absurdist levels. I keep thinking, so who went back in time and stepped on a butterfly for us to have gotten to this reality?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Davnasty on October 18, 2019, 10:02:44 AM
This whole sh*tshow that is the Trump presidency is getting to absurdist levels. I keep thinking, so who went back in time and stepped on a butterfly for us to have gotten to this reality?

I don't believe time travel is possible but I can definitely see young Trump stomping on butterflies. Especially if they were getting more attention than him.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on October 18, 2019, 11:02:20 AM
Not my ideas, but I've heard laments that the past 3 years proves how much norms and propriety really did play in keeping politicians and those adjacent to politics in line somewhat, and thought yeah, that seems to partially explain why it feels so different today than it did back in 2012 or even 2004 and 2000.

Then yesterday I was listening to Ezra Klein's podcast with Peter Pomerantsev, which is a very good but also not very optimistic view on how media and politics changed in Russia in the 90s, and has spread to Europe, USA, and other countries more recently. But Ezra makes a point that it seems the actual real difference between before and now comes down purely to shame. Most politicians or other public figures, when confronted with evidence of wrongdoing, either feel enough shame to step down, or those around them feel it and the person loses power. But Trump appears to be purely shameless, as is most nearly everyone around him or who profits from him (politically as well as monetarily, I'm looking at you Mark Zuckerberg and other media owners).

The question is, has a Pandora's box been opened, or is this just a once in a lifetime alignment of several low probability events and types of people, and we shouldn't expect to see this continue to play out in future elections and time periods?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on October 18, 2019, 11:06:15 AM
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated.  So Trump withheld aid.  And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden.  At the same time.  But there's no link.  Or something.

It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?

Sound bite dream for the Dems.

In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."

So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...

This utter shit show is hilarious. Everything follows the same path. Starts out as Trump doing nothing wrong and it's all a witch hunt. And ends with, so what it happens all the time and besides, it's not illegal.
I've been following The Trump show as light relief from Brexit.  With Trump's betrayal of the Kurds, leading to their murder and likely genocide, the hilarity has ended.

Absolutely, it's appalling. I was referring more specifically to his own administration contradicting him and then claiming it's perfectly ok. Pulling out of Syria and letting our allies die is an entirely other level of horrendous and inhumane.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 18, 2019, 07:58:02 PM
The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 19, 2019, 07:06:28 AM
The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
SAW it coming, or actively worked to get Trump to pull US troops out of Syria?

Russia wins the match here.  US forfeited.  Kurds get slaughtered and oppressed for god knows how much longer. Erdogan stays in power. Like it or not that’s the net result of this fiasco.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: MasterStache on October 19, 2019, 10:42:04 AM
Russia is enjoying so much winning.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 19, 2019, 12:08:14 PM
Vote Trump 2020 - Make America A Puppet Again
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on October 19, 2019, 04:10:16 PM
Vote Trump 2020 - Make America A Puppet Again

I like that.

How about a hammer and sickle watermark and a picture of Putin leering in the background.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 21, 2019, 05:52:05 PM
The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
SAW it coming, or actively worked to get Trump to pull US troops out of Syria?

Russia wins the match here.  US forfeited.  Kurds get slaughtered and oppressed for god knows how much longer. Erdogan stays in power. Like it or not that’s the net result of this fiasco.
All of those items are downsides for the US only if you believe it should continue being the de facto global cop; it's also interesting to note how much criticism the US garnered historically in carrying out its enforcement of the post-WW2 global order.

I'm not sure how much of a long-term win any of this is for Russia. Assuming they are still pursuing their Neo-Eurasianism geopolitical objectives (e.g. Alexander Dugin), they can have their turn screwing around in the ME at great cost.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 21, 2019, 06:24:51 PM
The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
SAW it coming, or actively worked to get Trump to pull US troops out of Syria?

Russia wins the match here.  US forfeited.  Kurds get slaughtered and oppressed for god knows how much longer. Erdogan stays in power. Like it or not that’s the net result of this fiasco.
All of those items are downsides for the US only if you believe it should continue being the de facto global cop; it's also interesting to note how much criticism the US garnered historically in carrying out its enforcement of the post-WW2 global order.

I'm not sure how much of a long-term win any of this is for Russia. Assuming they are still pursuing their Neo-Eurasianism geopolitical objectives (e.g. Alexander Dugin), they can have their turn screwing around in the ME at great cost.
Except that Russia's southern borders along the Black and Caspian seas pretty much put them in the ME neighborhood as a function of geography, even if just a country outside of what is formally considered ME. Russia is interested in influence in the area in part due to nostalgia for former superpower status, but also because of the geopolitical and economic benefits of pipelines to the EU. This serves the oligarchy's pocketbooks and Putin's political ambitions. This is bad for the EU (acknowledging that they would also have to agree to buy the gas, but...), bad for our alliances, and the current situation is especially bad for NATO. The current situation shows both the weaknesses and the need for a continued strong NATO. That Turkey is increasingly aligning with Russia and making loud noises about wanting to join the nuclear arms club does not help; Russia is likely to help Turkey with this given their prior support to Iran, etc. Nuclear proliferation in the ME is strategically bad for not only the US, but the whole world.

Saying that we are there only to be the world's cops is an easy way to write off our valid strategic interests in the area. Those interests are super complicated and internally contradictory at times. But yeah, I think Russia is pretty pleased about all aspects of this right now and will be plenty happy to be screwing around in the ME with less constraint for a while. The US has not been a beacon of morality in our military actions in the area (ahem, Iraq invasion), but we are a hell of a lot better than Russia is and has been. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 21, 2019, 06:49:51 PM
The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
SAW it coming, or actively worked to get Trump to pull US troops out of Syria?

Russia wins the match here.  US forfeited.  Kurds get slaughtered and oppressed for god knows how much longer. Erdogan stays in power. Like it or not that’s the net result of this fiasco.
All of those items are downsides for the US only if you believe it should continue being the de facto global cop; it's also interesting to note how much criticism the US garnered historically in carrying out its enforcement of the post-WW2 global order.

I'm not sure how much of a long-term win any of this is for Russia. Assuming they are still pursuing their Neo-Eurasianism geopolitical objectives (e.g. Alexander Dugin), they can have their turn screwing around in the ME at great cost.
Except that Russia's southern borders along the Black and Caspian seas pretty much put them in the ME neighborhood as a function of geography, even if just a country outside of what is formally considered ME. Russia is interested in influence in the area in part due to nostalgia for former superpower status, but also because of the geopolitical and economic benefits of pipelines to the EU. This serves the oligarchy's pocketbooks and Putin's political ambitions. This is bad for the EU (acknowledging that they would also have to agree to buy the gas, but...), bad for our alliances, and the current situation is especially bad for NATO. The current situation shows both the weaknesses and the need for a continued strong NATO. That Turkey is increasingly aligning with Russia and making loud noises about wanting to join the nuclear arms club does not help; Russia is likely to help Turkey with this given their prior support to Iran, etc. Nuclear proliferation in the ME is strategically bad for not only the US, but the whole world.

Saying that we are there only to be the world's cops is an easy way to write off our valid strategic interests in the area. Those interests are super complicated and internally contradictory at times. But yeah, I think Russia is pretty pleased about all aspects of this right now and will be plenty happy to be screwing around in the ME with less constraint for a while. The US has not been a beacon of morality in our military actions in the area (ahem, Iraq invasion), but we are a hell of a lot better than Russia is and has been.
Quite likely, the dominance of the US within NATO has disincentivized Europe from forming a more coherent European-based opposition to Russian threats (both military and economic via natural gas supplies). I quoted Maçães elsewhere where he states that the current EU has had the privilege of growing up "in a controlled environment" -- a reference to how the US security umbrella has fostered the one-dimensional bureaucratic rules-based manner in which the EU flexes its muscle internationally. Eurocrats have international power only inasmuch as access to their markets are desirable to other countries and their security backstopped by NATO (i.e. the US). People who were born when WW2 ended in Europe are now 74 years old and Europe evidently still doesn't have the hard- or soft-power clout to counter a much-diminished Russian empire to its east. Why should the US assume most of this burden and then be saddled with all of the blame when things go inevitably wrong*?

*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on October 22, 2019, 08:50:24 AM
I was thinking that NATO was pretty much what allowed Germany not to go full-on communist bloc, but maybe I assumed too much?

Keeping the world's most dynamic developed export economy as a market system seems like a win.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 22, 2019, 09:35:29 AM
I’m sure a marketing director would say NATO suffers from poor branding.  NATO isn’t a “European Organization” that the US ‘happens’ to belong to, nor was WWII a ‘European War’ that the US came in out of benevolence to win.  The net benefits that we’ve gotten from NATO have been immense, and a fraction of what another war would cost in blood and treasure.  The contributions which other NATO states have made are largely (and often intentionally) underrepresented for the size of their economies.
Likewise, Russia isn’t ‘Europe’s problem’ simply based on a rather incomplete view of geography (Russia is largely an Asian nation, and geographically is closer to the US than France or Italy or the UK).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 22, 2019, 10:30:29 AM
*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.

Your point on political Rorschach test is well taken, and is seen in many facets of political discourse. Objectively, I think there is little to defend in Trump's actions on Syria over the last weeks. Getting out of Syria is a fine position to have. The manner in which it was done, apparently without substantive consult with the military or our allies, is strategically stupid and a terrible example to set in terms of abandoning allies. Why should the rest of NATO trust the US after the last years of Trump's actions? The adverse response to Trump's actions has been bipartisan. There is no easy button in geopolitics. Sure would be nice if Trump knew that.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 22, 2019, 08:30:07 PM
I was thinking that NATO was pretty much what allowed Germany not to go full-on communist bloc, but maybe I assumed too much?

Keeping the world's most dynamic developed export economy as a market system seems like a win.
I'm not doubting the historic importance of NATO in that regard--just its current relevance and the set of incentives it provides to its European members.

I’m sure a marketing director would say NATO suffers from poor branding.  NATO isn’t a “European Organization” that the US ‘happens’ to belong to, nor was WWII a ‘European War’ that the US came in out of benevolence to win.  The net benefits that we’ve gotten from NATO have been immense, and a fraction of what another war would cost in blood and treasure.  The contributions which other NATO states have made are largely (and often intentionally) underrepresented for the size of their economies.
Likewise, Russia isn’t ‘Europe’s problem’ simply based on a rather incomplete view of geography (Russia is largely an Asian nation, and geographically is closer to the US than France or Italy or the UK).
Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population&params=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.

*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.

Your point on political Rorschach test is well taken, and is seen in many facets of political discourse. Objectively, I think there is little to defend in Trump's actions on Syria over the last weeks. Getting out of Syria is a fine position to have. The manner in which it was done, apparently without substantive consult with the military or our allies, is strategically stupid and a terrible example to set in terms of abandoning allies. Why should the rest of NATO trust the US after the last years of Trump's actions? The adverse response to Trump's actions has been bipartisan. There is no easy button in geopolitics. Sure would be nice if Trump knew that.
I would never defend Trump's tactics--and thinking that he has any sort of coherent strategy is even more deluded. However, sometimes he might grasp onto an interesting idea by pure accident. I don't know that he is here but I am trying to argue in favor of a different way to conceptualize US foreign policy. No single sundae makes a person fat, but to stop getting fatter, eventually you have decide to stop having them all the time. Defending the Kurds again this one time might feel righteous but that same line of thinking leads to the various examples of US overreach and resulting blowback that litter the pages of history.

Having NATO distrust the US is precisely the idea (to quote President Muffley). Europe is too complacent and probably would benefit in the long run from being unshielded from the outside world.

Regarding the Rorschach test, yes everything is one in the polarized environment we live in but I think it's easiest of all in foreign policy to make unfalsifiable claims. As difficult domestic policy is to craft within the context of a rules-based state, the anarchy of global foreign affairs is much more poorly constrained and poorly understood.


{{finally, I hope everyone realizes I don't necessarily believe any of this but it is a compelling argument I have been considering recently. I believe this viewpoint needs to be more broadly considered because maybe we are too complacent with the world order of the last 3/4 century and not ready for what may come next}}
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: six-car-habit on October 23, 2019, 01:53:33 AM
****quote " Defending the Kurds again this one time might feel righteous but that same line of thinking leads to the various examples of US overreach and resulting blowback that litter the pages of history. "***

 Yes , but pulling out of Syria, than in the same week, announcing we are sending 2000-3000 troops and equiptment to Saudi Arabia , does not convincingly promote a strategy of withdrawal from Middle East.  I'm not sure what they will even do there, make a human daisy chain holding hands around the oil fields ? does that stop drones....?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 23, 2019, 04:47:11 AM
Well the goalposts certainly have been moved very quickly.  In the span of a week we've gone from: 1) The conversation between Trump and Ukraine was "Perfect" to 2) well we held up aid, but there was no quid-pro-quo, to 3) well aid eventually flowed and it was just Trump trying to assert pressure - there was no quid-pro-quo if you look beyond that one phone call to 4) there's nothing wrong with quid-pro-quos - it only matters who the quo is.

This is literally the line that's being pushed out by the WH defenders this morning.  Up is down and black is white, and all these tepid defenses about "waiting for all the facts" and how the allegatons "if true are concerning" can all be brushed aside, because what matters is who Trump was cutting a quid-pro-quo with.  Trump was making a deal with an ally, see?  And anything done between friends can't be wrong.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 23, 2019, 07:25:00 AM
Well the goalposts certainly have been moved very quickly.  In the span of a week we've gone from: 1) The conversation between Trump and Ukraine was "Perfect" to 2) well we held up aid, but there was no quid-pro-quo, to 3) well aid eventually flowed and it was just Trump trying to assert pressure - there was no quid-pro-quo if you look beyond that one phone call to 4) there's nothing wrong with quid-pro-quos - it only matters who the quo is.

This is literally the line that's being pushed out by the WH defenders this morning.  Up is down and black is white, and all these tepid defenses about "waiting for all the facts" and how the allegatons "if true are concerning" can all be brushed aside, because what matters is who Trump was cutting a quid-pro-quo with.  Trump was making a deal with an ally, see?  And anything done between friends can't be wrong.




You probably believe that vaccines prevent disease, that the holocaust happened, and that climate change is real.  Next you'll be telling me smoking causes cancer.  Wake up and smell the deep state conspiracy.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on October 23, 2019, 07:36:07 AM
I was thinking that NATO was pretty much what allowed Germany not to go full-on communist bloc, but maybe I assumed too much?

Keeping the world's most dynamic developed export economy as a market system seems like a win.
I'm not doubting the historic importance of NATO in that regard--just its current relevance and the set of incentives it provides to its European members.

I’m sure a marketing director would say NATO suffers from poor branding.  NATO isn’t a “European Organization” that the US ‘happens’ to belong to, nor was WWII a ‘European War’ that the US came in out of benevolence to win.  The net benefits that we’ve gotten from NATO have been immense, and a fraction of what another war would cost in blood and treasure.  The contributions which other NATO states have made are largely (and often intentionally) underrepresented for the size of their economies.
Likewise, Russia isn’t ‘Europe’s problem’ simply based on a rather incomplete view of geography (Russia is largely an Asian nation, and geographically is closer to the US than France or Italy or the UK).
Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population&params=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.

*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.

Your point on political Rorschach test is well taken, and is seen in many facets of political discourse. Objectively, I think there is little to defend in Trump's actions on Syria over the last weeks. Getting out of Syria is a fine position to have. The manner in which it was done, apparently without substantive consult with the military or our allies, is strategically stupid and a terrible example to set in terms of abandoning allies. Why should the rest of NATO trust the US after the last years of Trump's actions? The adverse response to Trump's actions has been bipartisan. There is no easy button in geopolitics. Sure would be nice if Trump knew that.
I would never defend Trump's tactics--and thinking that he has any sort of coherent strategy is even more deluded. However, sometimes he might grasp onto an interesting idea by pure accident. I don't know that he is here but I am trying to argue in favor of a different way to conceptualize US foreign policy. No single sundae makes a person fat, but to stop getting fatter, eventually you have decide to stop having them all the time. Defending the Kurds again this one time might feel righteous but that same line of thinking leads to the various examples of US overreach and resulting blowback that litter the pages of history.

Having NATO distrust the US is precisely the idea (to quote President Muffley). Europe is too complacent and probably would benefit in the long run from being unshielded from the outside world.

Regarding the Rorschach test, yes everything is one in the polarized environment we live in but I think it's easiest of all in foreign policy to make unfalsifiable claims. As difficult domestic policy is to craft within the context of a rules-based state, the anarchy of global foreign affairs is much more poorly constrained and poorly understood.


{{finally, I hope everyone realizes I don't necessarily believe any of this but it is a compelling argument I have been considering recently. I believe this viewpoint needs to be more broadly considered because maybe we are too complacent with the world order of the last 3/4 century and not ready for what may come next}}

I don't follow world politics that closely, I am not an expert but from what I understand Europe and European countries are allies to the US and vice versa; we have a shared history, democratic political systems and goals. Russia is NOT an ally to the US. It is a country that is ok injuring our diplomats (see Cuba), killing journalists (including US journalists), assasinating political enemies.
In turn, the Kurds are/were allies to the US, in that we had shared goals. To decide by talking to Turkey, to suddenly withdraw from that area, both abandoning Kurds, and giving Turkey and Russia and advantage in that area, is not only ethically wrong but strategically stupid for both Europe and ourselves. Having an oligargic/toltalitarian country like Russia stronger and taking over more trade from politically aligned European countries, can only hurt us. While I don't believe in the domino effect, I feel that Trump's favoring and being soft to toltalitarian governments is making the world a worse, less democratic place with increased human rights abuse, huge economic disparities. If you just want to look at money, closed borders means less consumers for anything the US might sell. A hotel in Turkey is not worth all that (I guess, unless you are Trump). 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 23, 2019, 07:54:36 AM
Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population&params=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.


You've got me scratching my head on this one to understand your response.  From what I understand, you seem to be saying that becasue Russia is a Eurasian nation, it should be a Eurasian problem.  But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense - we have a vested interest in what Russia does, just as we do with China.  Economically Russia is a petroleum exporter - which is a globally traded commodity and we buy a crap ton of.  The EU is also our biggest trading partner.  In terms of national security Russia's military is second only to China's, not to mention they have the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads outside of the US.  NORAD was designed to deter a Russian offensive because (guess what!) in this day and age even conventional Russian warplanes are within range of major US cities.

The whole point of our international involvement since WWII is that it's allowed the US to set favorable terms for international trade.  Our prosperity is precisely because we have been involved; not in spite of it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 23, 2019, 06:30:27 PM
I was thinking that NATO was pretty much what allowed Germany not to go full-on communist bloc, but maybe I assumed too much?

Keeping the world's most dynamic developed export economy as a market system seems like a win.
I'm not doubting the historic importance of NATO in that regard--just its current relevance and the set of incentives it provides to its European members.

I’m sure a marketing director would say NATO suffers from poor branding.  NATO isn’t a “European Organization” that the US ‘happens’ to belong to, nor was WWII a ‘European War’ that the US came in out of benevolence to win.  The net benefits that we’ve gotten from NATO have been immense, and a fraction of what another war would cost in blood and treasure.  The contributions which other NATO states have made are largely (and often intentionally) underrepresented for the size of their economies.
Likewise, Russia isn’t ‘Europe’s problem’ simply based on a rather incomplete view of geography (Russia is largely an Asian nation, and geographically is closer to the US than France or Italy or the UK).
Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population&params=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.

*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.

Your point on political Rorschach test is well taken, and is seen in many facets of political discourse. Objectively, I think there is little to defend in Trump's actions on Syria over the last weeks. Getting out of Syria is a fine position to have. The manner in which it was done, apparently without substantive consult with the military or our allies, is strategically stupid and a terrible example to set in terms of abandoning allies. Why should the rest of NATO trust the US after the last years of Trump's actions? The adverse response to Trump's actions has been bipartisan. There is no easy button in geopolitics. Sure would be nice if Trump knew that.
I would never defend Trump's tactics--and thinking that he has any sort of coherent strategy is even more deluded. However, sometimes he might grasp onto an interesting idea by pure accident. I don't know that he is here but I am trying to argue in favor of a different way to conceptualize US foreign policy. No single sundae makes a person fat, but to stop getting fatter, eventually you have decide to stop having them all the time. Defending the Kurds again this one time might feel righteous but that same line of thinking leads to the various examples of US overreach and resulting blowback that litter the pages of history.

Having NATO distrust the US is precisely the idea (to quote President Muffley). Europe is too complacent and probably would benefit in the long run from being unshielded from the outside world.

Regarding the Rorschach test, yes everything is one in the polarized environment we live in but I think it's easiest of all in foreign policy to make unfalsifiable claims. As difficult domestic policy is to craft within the context of a rules-based state, the anarchy of global foreign affairs is much more poorly constrained and poorly understood.


{{finally, I hope everyone realizes I don't necessarily believe any of this but it is a compelling argument I have been considering recently. I believe this viewpoint needs to be more broadly considered because maybe we are too complacent with the world order of the last 3/4 century and not ready for what may come next}}

I don't follow world politics that closely, I am not an expert but from what I understand Europe and European countries are allies to the US and vice versa; we have a shared history, democratic political systems and goals. Russia is NOT an ally to the US. It is a country that is ok injuring our diplomats (see Cuba), killing journalists (including US journalists), assasinating political enemies.
In turn, the Kurds are/were allies to the US, in that we had shared goals. To decide by talking to Turkey, to suddenly withdraw from that area, both abandoning Kurds, and giving Turkey and Russia and advantage in that area, is not only ethically wrong but strategically stupid for both Europe and ourselves. Having an oligargic/toltalitarian country like Russia stronger and taking over more trade from politically aligned European countries, can only hurt us. While I don't believe in the domino effect, I feel that Trump's favoring and being soft to toltalitarian governments is making the world a worse, less democratic place with increased human rights abuse, huge economic disparities. If you just want to look at money, closed borders means less consumers for anything the US might sell. A hotel in Turkey is not worth all that (I guess, unless you are Trump). 
I think it's possible to both disagree with the way that decision was carried out but consider from a long-term strategy perspective that it was the right thing to do. Russia wants to strangle Europe via its natural gas supply? Well maybe Europe will import more LNG from the US, or reverse direction (in Germany) on the desirability of nuclear power, or tap their own reserves via fracking...

And again, I will admit that the US absolutely has moral and strategic objectives in the ME. It's also simply the case that the US may not feel any existential imperative to act on those motivations because the US needs its allies far less than they need it militarily and economically (see below on the question of trade).

Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population&params=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.


You've got me scratching my head on this one to understand your response.  From what I understand, you seem to be saying that becasue Russia is a Eurasian nation, it should be a Eurasian problem.  But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense - we have a vested interest in what Russia does, just as we do with China.  Economically Russia is a petroleum exporter - which is a globally traded commodity and we buy a crap ton of.  The EU is also our biggest trading partner.  In terms of national security Russia's military is second only to China's, not to mention they have the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads outside of the US.  NORAD was designed to deter a Russian offensive because (guess what!) in this day and age even conventional Russian warplanes are within range of major US cities.

The whole point of our international involvement since WWII is that it's allowed the US to set favorable terms for international trade.  Our prosperity is precisely because we have been involved; not in spite of it.
I was refuting the idea that Russia was in any meaningful way proximal to the US. Notwithstanding Sarah Palin's excellent eyesight, the parts of Russia that are near the US are virtually unpopulated.

I'll revert back to Peter Zeihan on the question of trade (this is quoting data from a few years ago; "relative terms" is relative to total GDP):
"...[The United States'] total trade exposure in absolute terms may be the world's largest, but in relative terms, it is below that of everyone but Brazil and South Sudan. Even Afghanistan is more internationally integrated. Additionally, what exposure the Americans have is remarkably local: The United States' top two trading partners for decades have been Canada and Mexico, accounting for one-third...of the total US trade portfolio....Bilateral American-Canadian trade on the Ambassador Bridge, which links Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, is by itself of greater volume than all but four of America's other trading partners."

On the specific question of oil, US domestic production + some Canada exports is all that's needed to supply the US. The US is estimated to have the largest economically recoverable oil reserves in the world (https://www.rystadenergy.com/newsevents/news/press-releases/United-States-cements-its-position-as-world-leader-in-oil-reserves/) which will last another 40 years at current usage rates. The Green River formation likely contains another 3-4 trillion barrels, though the amount of that recoverable is currently unknown and not included in any reserve estimates; however, if just 10% of that is recoverable, that would account for another 40 years of supply.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on October 24, 2019, 08:22:00 AM
So...what have we concluded?

Is remaining the sole guarantor of global security a valid objective of US military might?

And, if not, by how much should we cut the Pentagon's budget?

Is Russia a reliable partner or an adversary?

Is Turkey a reliable partner or an adversary?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 24, 2019, 08:42:29 AM
So...what have we concluded?

Is remaining the sole guarantor of global security a valid objective of US military might?

And, if not, by how much should we cut the Pentagon's budget?

It does seem contradictory that some of the loudest voices promoting an end to military involvement in many global hot-spots are also the ones who are actively trying to increase military spending.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: waltworks on October 24, 2019, 11:50:57 AM
I'm basically ok with both of these options:

1. We have a huge military budget to enforce Pax Americana as we have since the 50s.

2. We let the world sort out most of it's own problems, configure our military purely for national defense, and cut it's budget by, say 75%.

The increasing military spending and withdrawing from the world option seems pretty stupid.

-W
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 24, 2019, 11:57:41 AM
I'm basically ok with both of these options:

1. We have a huge military budget to enforce Pax Americana as we have since the 50s.

2. We let the world sort out most of it's own problems, configure our military purely for national defense, and cut it's budget by, say 75%.

The increasing military spending and withdrawing from the world option seems pretty stupid.

-W

Just curious - if we hypothetically went with option #2 - what would you do with the $500B-a-year savings from curtailing the instrio-military complex by 75%?  Cut taxes?  Boost domestic spending?  Curtail the national debt?  Buy Greenland?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: waltworks on October 24, 2019, 06:24:55 PM
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding. The rest I'd put toward deficit reduction.

There would be some significant economic damage from a 75% cut in military spending (including, yes, lots of basic research...) so you'd have to put some thought into how to reintegrate an awful lot of career military folks and civilian military-industrial-complex employees.

-W
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 24, 2019, 06:52:49 PM
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding. The rest I'd put toward deficit reduction.

There would be some significant economic damage from a 75% cut in military spending (including, yes, lots of basic research...) so you'd have to put some thought into how to reintegrate an awful lot of career military folks and civilian military-industrial-complex employees.

-W
The military has never been great about reintegrating its soldiers into civilian life - why start now?
In all seriousness, while largely a thought exercise and about as likely to happen as Pete becoming president some quick math indicates that a 75% cut would put our military spending slightly below China’s and would be the 2nd biggest in the world, and we’d still be spending about 3x what Russia does annually.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 24, 2019, 06:56:16 PM
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding.
The most recent version for 2018 reports that, in 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 24, 2019, 07:20:08 PM
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding.
The most recent version for 2018 reports that, in 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp)

Maybe you didn’t read past the first paragraph you linked...?
Quote
The U.S. spending estimate includes money spent by public sources, such as federally guaranteed student loans and direct loans from the Department of Education, and private funds. Private funds include fees and expenses paid by parents and students and private student loans, which are not federally guaranteed.

Several countries outspent the United States for elementary and secondary education, including Austria, Norway, and Luxembourg, which spent $13.931, $14,353, and $20,900, respectively, in 2015.

So much of our “funding” comes from public and private student loans, and things paid for by parents and by the students themselves.  That’s explains the disconnect between Walt’s comment that we need more direct public investment for R&D and education and the US spending more that some other OECD countries.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 24, 2019, 07:57:09 PM
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding.
The most recent version for 2018 reports that, in 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp)

Maybe you didn’t read past the first paragraph you linked...?
Quote
The U.S. spending estimate includes money spent by public sources, such as federally guaranteed student loans and direct loans from the Department of Education, and private funds. Private funds include fees and expenses paid by parents and students and private student loans, which are not federally guaranteed.

Several countries outspent the United States for elementary and secondary education, including Austria, Norway, and Luxembourg, which spent $13.931, $14,353, and $20,900, respectively, in 2015.

So much of our “funding” comes from public and private student loans, and things paid for by parents and by the students themselves.  That’s explains the disconnect between Walt’s comment that we need more direct public investment for R&D and education and the US spending more that some other OECD countries.
So the US is 4th out of 34 OECD countries for primary + secondary education. As a % of GDP, the US is a median spender. Student loans are not much of a factor outside of tertiary education, right?

I totally agree on increased spending on basic research, however.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: waltworks on October 24, 2019, 08:56:21 PM
"The United States spent close to the average percentage of GDP on elementary/secondary education for OECD countries at 3.5%"

As someone who works (volunteers) closely with the local school district, I can tell you that we can certainly spend more money in ways that will improve outcomes.

Hell, in some cases just straight up paying parents if their kids attend and get good grades and get their immunizations would work pretty well. But we could also go ahead and double the teacher's salaries and see if we attract some more awesome teachers.

Better than spending money on even more aircraft carriers and such, if we're not going to use them to make the world a better place.

-W
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 25, 2019, 04:27:13 AM
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding.
The most recent version for 2018 reports that, in 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp)

Maybe you didn’t read past the first paragraph you linked...?
Quote
The U.S. spending estimate includes money spent by public sources, such as federally guaranteed student loans and direct loans from the Department of Education, and private funds. Private funds include fees and expenses paid by parents and students and private student loans, which are not federally guaranteed.

Several countries outspent the United States for elementary and secondary education, including Austria, Norway, and Luxembourg, which spent $13.931, $14,353, and $20,900, respectively, in 2015.

So much of our “funding” comes from public and private student loans, and things paid for by parents and by the students themselves.  That’s explains the disconnect between Walt’s comment that we need more direct public investment for R&D and education and the US spending more that some other OECD countries.
So the US is 4th out of 34 OECD countries for primary + secondary education. As a % of GDP, the US is a median spender. Student loans are not much of a factor outside of tertiary education, right?

I totally agree on increased spending on basic research, however.

1) I’m not sure why you think median spending on a category such as education is a ‘good’ level (hey, we’re average!) and
2) a not insubstantial number of K-12 students attend private school - something like 6 million every year, and
3) the spending in your article includes all sources, including donations and booster drives for local schools, which can be substantial. In my district (public) a bit over 10% of annual operating revenue comes from these sources, and occasionally entire large-ticket projects get funded through philanthropy.

Tl;dr - total spending per capital from all sources is a good metric for how much we contribute en mass to education, but it’s not a great indicator of how much public support we give to our education system.

I’ll echo Walt (again) - as an educator I can attest that there are many ways in which we could spend more money in education to improve outcomes.  There are also ways that we could improve outcomes with the money we have, though changes are often complicated by societal, political and regulatory challenges.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 25, 2019, 09:52:06 AM
Some thoughts on the Gabbard as Russian darling.
1) I'm not going to weigh in on if she is a willing participant.
2) Russia has a lot of reasons to support her via troll farms: 3rd party spoiler, random support of a candidate just to reduce American trust in the democratic system and encourage voters to just stay home, she advocates for US policy that would be good for Russia.

Voter apathy/disgust is a real problem and something that Russia will actively encourage. Firehose-levels of disinformation is a classic Russian state tactic. Aggressive pushback on foreign interference should help with this, provided the GOP would get on board along with media outlets of all stripes.

As to the 3rd party spoiler issue, once again ranked choice voting would provide a MUCH better outcome if the metric is electing a candidate most closely aligned with what the electorate wants. While no system is perfect, it would have significantly reduced the need for voters to gamify their voting decisions and allow third parties to grow (which also probably says a bit about why it is a pipe dream).

Imagine how the electoral results would have looked if people could have put Johnson as their first choice and clinton as a second as a bulwark against Trump? Or Sanders first with Clinton as a second choice? Their votes would have shown support for their preferred candidate, but if that preferred candidate was not going to have a significant voting block (a la Johnson), then their final vote would have been allocated to Cinton, whom many 3rd party voters would have preferred to Trump. Even if only implemented at the primary level, it would have shunted Trump out quickly as a broadly disliked candidate relative to pretty much anyone else running.

I think ranked choice is a good structural bulwark against election influence.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on October 25, 2019, 11:02:39 AM
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers of citizens shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 25, 2019, 04:58:38 PM
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers of citizens shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.
Yep. This makes me sad.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on October 30, 2019, 09:07:00 AM
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers of citizens illegal aliens and felons shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.

Did I make it more accurate?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on October 30, 2019, 09:16:14 AM
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers of citizens illegal aliens and felons shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.

Did I make it more accurate?
How much evidence do you have evidence of illegal aliens voting?  By what mechanisms are illegal aliens managing to vote?  Have any elections been verified to have had a different result because of illegal aliens voting?  Or, just possibly, is this fear a Russian disinformation tactic that helps to divide American society and move a more gullible section of the population away from rational views of the world?

Also, what's the problem with felons voting?  Why shouldn't they vote?  Could there be benefits to their voting, in terms of reintegrating them into society?  Is a felon who votes more or less likely to go on to commit further felonies?   Is the problem that felons tend, disproportionally, to be male and black?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2019, 09:24:02 AM
I've never understood why we don't allow felons who have served out their sentences to vote.  At that point they are otherwise free men and women who have (to use the popular phrasing) paid for their crimes.  Instead we disenfranchise them further.

Agreed that illegal alien voting has been a red herring used to get people all riled up.  By most honest accounts the number of ineligible people who manage to cast a vote illegally is miniscule, and is far, far smaller than the number of eligible voters who get incorrectly turned away.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on October 30, 2019, 09:53:14 AM
The party also has a problem with Black people voting, as well as poor and elderly. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/
Republicans in NC are also trying to suppress the college student vote, by changing the voter ID laws
https://thevotingnews.com/north-carolina-voter-id-law-targets-college-students/

And in NC if you are a black college student, they REALLY don't want your vote to count.
https://www.commoncause.org/north-carolina/press-release/nc/


When voter names are improperly purged from voter rolls there are often racial biases
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/19/georgia-governor-race-voter-suppression-brian-kemp

There is nothing in the constitution that says that felons or ex felons cannot vote, but many states have restrictions, with Florida used to being one of the most restrictive. By popular vote the state decided to give ex felons the vote back. But there are many restrictions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/us/florida-felon-voting-amendment-4.html



Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: EvenSteven on October 30, 2019, 10:16:44 AM
I've never understood why we don't allow felons who have served out their sentences to vote.  At that point they are otherwise free men and women who have (to use the popular phrasing) paid for their crimes.  Instead we disenfranchise them further.

Agreed that illegal alien voting has been a red herring used to get people all riled up.  By most honest accounts the number of ineligible people who manage to cast a vote illegally is miniscule, and is far, far smaller than the number of eligible voters who get incorrectly turned away.

"Better to turn away a thousand eligible voters, than to allow one ineligible voter to vote"

-Benjamin Franklin (as quoted from his instagram feed)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2019, 10:28:23 AM

"Better to turn away a thousand eligible voters, than to allow one ineligible voter to vote"

-Benjamin Franklin (as quoted from his instagram feed)

That's why I stopped following BF's feeds and why I 'unfriended' him on Facebook.  White privilege indeed... /s
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on October 30, 2019, 12:46:45 PM
I thought party gypsy gave a very nice summary of various GOP efforts to reduce the number of votes in elections.

What should be equally frustrating to progressives is how little resources are being directed to Stacey Abrams' efforts to increase turnout.

But when you talk to conservatives, they truly believe that these voter ID requirements are necessary. Even here in NC, in which we just got done re-doing an election because the Republican candidate hired a conman to basically fill out peoples' absentee ballots for them, many people seem to think it's these people without ID's that are the problem.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 30, 2019, 12:58:26 PM
I thought party gypsy gave a very nice summary of various GOP efforts to reduce the number of votes in elections.

What should be equally frustrating to progressives is how little resources are being directed to Stacey Abrams' efforts to increase turnout.

But when you talk to conservatives, they truly believe that these voter ID requirements are necessary. Even here in NC, in which we just got done re-doing an election because the Republican candidate hired a conman to basically fill out peoples' absentee ballots for them, many people seem to think it's these people without ID's that are the problem.

I have two close relatives that are firm believers that hoards of illegal immigrants try to illegally vote every election, and that certain people (always left-leaning minorities) spend voting day hopping from one polling place tot he next casting dozens of votes.  Of course it's just a boogyman.
Ironically they won't support any of a range of voter reform ideas which would make this less likely, from universal registration and expanded voting days (you've got to want to vote!) to more money to protect our elections (that's my taxpayer dollars!).  Instead they want the burden placed on the individual by requiring things like drivers licenses or state ID cards.

They clearly state that people who don't have such documents must not care enough about voting to be allowed to vote. Meanwhile, I teach college students and roughly 1/4 of them don't have licenses or state IDs for the state we live in.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 30, 2019, 01:03:32 PM
Meanwhile, I teach college students and roughly 1/4 of them don't have licenses or state IDs for the state we live in.


By design of the GOP, of course. Because they have to stop everyone but old white people from voting since that's the only voting bloc that still supports them.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sherr on October 30, 2019, 02:56:32 PM
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers of citizens illegal aliens and felons shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.

Did I make it more accurate?

How can you even say that, and then in your next post admit you live in NC? No that's not at all more accurate. The actions of the Republican representatives show without a shadow of a doubt that it's not about illegal aliens or felons, its about racial and religious minorities. Or, if I'm being as generous as humanly possible, at least about winning-at-any-cost (regardless of betraying democracy), and the only way they can do that "just happens to be" discriminating against racial and religious minorities.

And it's not like NC is unique in this regard, although it's especially blatant here. You can find the same stories and the same trends and the same tactics in practically every GOP-controlled state. The race element is particularly strong in the south, but it's not unique.

I thought party gypsy gave a very nice summary of various GOP efforts to reduce the number of votes in elections.

What should be equally frustrating to progressives is how little resources are being directed to Stacey Abrams' efforts to increase turnout.

This sounds an awful lot like you're trying to "both sides" the situation. "Hey instead of just blaming Republicans for consistently demonstrating their true colors by intentionally suppressing the black vote, we should be equally mad at Democrats for not having successfully stopped them!" No thanks, my rage is reserved for those trying to destroy democracy, not those trying to preserve it.

But when you talk to conservatives, they truly believe that these voter ID requirements are necessary. Even here in NC, in which we just got done re-doing an election because the Republican candidate hired a conman to basically fill out peoples' absentee ballots for them, many people seem to think it's these people without ID's that are the problem.

Right, and they believe that because their partisan propaganda has consistently lied to them and told them it's true, and they would rather believe their own blatant propaganda rather than the mountain of actual evidence on the topic. What's your point again? Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean it's correct or evidence-based or worth listening to or acting on.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on October 31, 2019, 09:36:11 AM
Welp, it looks like it's time to get out the popcorn for the hearings (and the anti-nausea meds). Given the Russia-interference sbutext, I thought this poster by Scalise (R) was pretty funny, and perhaps unintentionally ironic.
(https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/10/31/scalise-rep-steve-700x420.jpg)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2019, 09:46:53 AM
I'm listening to it on the radio.

I really wonder at Republicans' abilities to stand up and lie so vehemently and flamboyantly. It's quite shocking.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 31, 2019, 09:55:26 AM
I'm listening to it on the radio.

I really wonder at Republicans' abilities to stand up and lie so vehemently and flamboyantly. It's quite shocking.

Daven Nunes' comments were particularly sickening.  In 2-3 minutes he managed to denigrate journalists ("fake media!"), the constitution ("congress, not the voters, should decide if the president broke the law"), and career civil servants ("they are never-trumpers who would rather see their country fail than have Trump as president).  He still had time to tout "the president's historic win in 2016" and get in a few shots at Biden ("corruption") while declaring that there is "nothing wrong" with a president pressuring a foreign government to open an investigation on his rivals.

I think he wins the GOP Impeachment-Bingo card.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 31, 2019, 10:22:44 AM
Welp, it looks like it's time to get out the popcorn for the hearings (and the anti-nausea meds). Given the Russia-interference sbutext, I thought this poster by Scalise (R) was pretty funny, and perhaps unintentionally ironic.
(https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/10/31/scalise-rep-steve-700x420.jpg)

Lol.  Not sure I'd bring up the soviets if I was on Trump's side.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on October 31, 2019, 10:45:21 AM
Every time I see something like this it makes me wonder if the person understands the difference between the Soviet Union and present-day Russia. Granted there are similarities, but they are not one and the same.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2019, 10:58:41 AM
Every time I see something like this it makes me wonder if the person understands the difference between the Soviet Union and present-day Russia. Granted there are similarities, but they are not one and the same.

The point isn’t to be accurate. The point is to create an dramatic alarmist performance for the audience of one, and to include enough fear-mongering dog whistles to provide sound bites for the right-wing propaganda machine that feeds his base.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on November 07, 2019, 07:13:28 AM
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers of citizens illegal aliens and felons shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.

Did I make it more accurate?

How can you even say that, and then in your next post admit you live in NC? No that's not at all more accurate. The actions of the Republican representatives show without a shadow of a doubt that it's not about illegal aliens or felons, its about racial and religious minorities. Or, if I'm being as generous as humanly possible, at least about winning-at-any-cost (regardless of betraying democracy), and the only way they can do that "just happens to be" discriminating against racial and religious minorities.

And it's not like NC is unique in this regard, although it's especially blatant here. You can find the same stories and the same trends and the same tactics in practically every GOP-controlled state. The race element is particularly strong in the south, but it's not unique.

I thought party gypsy gave a very nice summary of various GOP efforts to reduce the number of votes in elections.

What should be equally frustrating to progressives is how little resources are being directed to Stacey Abrams' efforts to increase turnout.

This sounds an awful lot like you're trying to "both sides" the situation. "Hey instead of just blaming Republicans for consistently demonstrating their true colors by intentionally suppressing the black vote, we should be equally mad at Democrats for not having successfully stopped them!" No thanks, my rage is reserved for those trying to destroy democracy, not those trying to preserve it.

But when you talk to conservatives, they truly believe that these voter ID requirements are necessary. Even here in NC, in which we just got done re-doing an election because the Republican candidate hired a conman to basically fill out peoples' absentee ballots for them, many people seem to think it's these people without ID's that are the problem.

Right, and they believe that because their partisan propaganda has consistently lied to them and told them it's true, and they would rather believe their own blatant propaganda rather than the mountain of actual evidence on the topic. What's your point again? Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean it's correct or evidence-based or worth listening to or acting on.

I gave this post a few days to sit, but I have to say that I think you're basically correct.

Two years ago I read this article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/north-carolina-republicans-are-attacking-the-courts-the-environment-and-voting-rights.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/north-carolina-republicans-are-attacking-the-courts-the-environment-and-voting-rights.html)

That was before the outrages with the Dowless election fraud and Republicans holding votes while Democrats are outside at 9/11 commemorations. There is no question that something is deeply broken in our state.

And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble. But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sherr on November 07, 2019, 10:01:38 AM
And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble.

"Partisan media bubbles" are also not a "both sides" issue, one side is obviously drastically worse in this regard than the other.

But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.

My opinion? You cannot. Republicans are not open to fact or evidence or logic-based convincing and they never will be. You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing you can do is continuously point out how openly awful and anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equal-treatment, and anti-fact-and-evidence-and-science all their actions are and wait for the next few generations to solidly oppose them and shift electoral numbers.

Some Republicans may have the self-awareness to reconsider things if it starts to become socially acceptable to despise them for the despicable things they do. I think most others will simply double down and refuse to admit wrongdoing. But my hope for the future of this country does not rest on convincing Republicans, it rests on the fact that they've now irreversibly shown their true colors in the Internet Age and then next three generations mostly despise them for it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 07, 2019, 10:17:07 AM
And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble.

"Partisan media bubbles" are also not a "both sides" issue, one side is obviously drastically worse in this regard than the other.

It's possible to get pretty partisan left wing news.  People could certainly live in a bubble in that regard.  I think that the part that's disturbing with the right leaning news sources is the disregard for provable fact.  They are often straight up lying.  I don't see this problem (at least to nowhere near the same extent) from left leaning news sources.  This radically changes how being in a partisan right wing media bubble will impact you vs being in a partisan left wing media bubble.


But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.

My opinion? You cannot. Republicans are not open to fact or evidence or logic-based convincing and they never will be. You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing you can do is continuously point out how openly awful and anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equal-treatment, and anti-fact-and-evidence-and-science all their actions are and wait for the next few generations to solidly oppose them and shift electoral numbers.

Some Republicans may have the self-awareness to reconsider things if it starts to become socially acceptable to despise them for the despicable things they do. I think most others will simply double down and refuse to admit wrongdoing. But my hope for the future of this country does not rest on convincing Republicans, it rests on the fact that they've now irreversibly shown their true colors in the Internet Age and then next three generations mostly despise them for it.

Yes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on November 07, 2019, 10:22:35 AM

It's possible to get pretty partisan left wing news.  People could certainly live in a bubble in that regard.  I think that the part that's disturbing with the right leaning news sources is the disregard for provable fact.  They are often straight up lying.  I don't see this problem (at least to nowhere near the same extent) from left leaning news sources.  This radically changes how being in a partisan right wing media bubble will impact you vs being in a partisan left wing media bubble.


I would agree with this. I have definitely seen left-wingers share stuff that's not true, and when it is pointed out to them, they generally say, "Oh, my bad," and take it down.

When the right-wingers I see on social media are shown that the thing they are sharing is not true, they dig in further, declare that the source saying it's a lie is the fake thing, and if pressed, will say something like, "I don't care," or "Who cares?"

It's not the same on both sides.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 07, 2019, 10:42:31 AM
On the topic above, I highly recommend reading Kevin Phillips "American Theocracy". I was published in 2006, but is still highly relevant. It does an excellent job of tying demographic migrations, religion, money and political threads together. Among other notable points, it correctly called the  2008 financial crisis (which, of course, nobody saw coming, right?). Phillips was a Republican strategist and was part of the Southern Strategy. He has been in a pretty unique position to see the change in the GOP and it's entanglement with religion and degradation of discourse via personalities like Gingrich and Norquist. It is pretty easy to argue that Trump, as a figure that totally discounts anything left of himself or power, is a natural outgrowth of the trends Phillips describes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Theocracy

https://www.npr.org/2006/03/21/5290373/a-political-warning-shot-american-theocracy
 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on November 11, 2019, 12:19:33 PM
And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble.

"Partisan media bubbles" are also not a "both sides" issue, one side is obviously drastically worse in this regard than the other.

But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.

My opinion? You cannot. Republicans are not open to fact or evidence or logic-based convincing and they never will be. You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing you can do is continuously point out how openly awful and anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equal-treatment, and anti-fact-and-evidence-and-science all their actions are and wait for the next few generations to solidly oppose them and shift electoral numbers.

Some Republicans may have the self-awareness to reconsider things if it starts to become socially acceptable to despise them for the despicable things they do. I think most others will simply double down and refuse to admit wrongdoing. But my hope for the future of this country does not rest on convincing Republicans, it rests on the fact that they've now irreversibly shown their true colors in the Internet Age and then next three generations mostly despise them for it.

I'm actually considering more of a "lull them to sleep" approach, based on the idea that:

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on November 11, 2019, 01:01:42 PM
And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble.

"Partisan media bubbles" are also not a "both sides" issue, one side is obviously drastically worse in this regard than the other.

But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.

My opinion? You cannot. Republicans are not open to fact or evidence or logic-based convincing and they never will be. You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing you can do is continuously point out how openly awful and anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equal-treatment, and anti-fact-and-evidence-and-science all their actions are and wait for the next few generations to solidly oppose them and shift electoral numbers.

Some Republicans may have the self-awareness to reconsider things if it starts to become socially acceptable to despise them for the despicable things they do. I think most others will simply double down and refuse to admit wrongdoing. But my hope for the future of this country does not rest on convincing Republicans, it rests on the fact that they've now irreversibly shown their true colors in the Internet Age and then next three generations mostly despise them for it.

I'm actually considering more of a "lull them to sleep" approach, based on the idea that:

  • The economy is really good right now,
  • so Trump probably isn't really in danger,
  • and a Republican Senate would keep anything from Warren or Sanders happening anyway,
  • The backlog of judges is pretty much completely worked-through,
  • And--wow--I'm actually pretty tired and going to go home and take a nap

On #3, if one of those candidates some how won, I wouldn't assume they wont get any major legislation through. They are likely to implement at least one major promise. So if that makes you uneasy I wouldn't completely ignore that possibility.

Its feels like a stretch that a demo candidate can win back the necessary swing states in this climate. But that really depends who wins and what kind of enthusiasm they can generate. I really think Bernie sways a lot of union type workers who don't fully by into the 100% anti socialist view points. Both him and Warren can pull off uncharacteristically high youth votes. But I don't think we have ever seen the youth vote swing a presidential election.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 12, 2019, 07:16:12 AM

On #3, if one of those candidates some how won, I wouldn't assume they wont get any major legislation through. They are likely to implement at least one major promise. So if that makes you uneasy I wouldn't completely ignore that possibility.


Kind of like how Trump has gotten very little of his signature promises accomplished, despite having both the House and Senate under GOP control ofr the first two years.  Remember all his talk of being 'a builder' and our 'crumbling infrastructure' which he would solve with $1T in spedning (which could have had massive bipartisan support?  That went nowhere.

His rally cry of "Build the wall" across the entire southern border and get Mexico to pay for it?  Three years in all that's been done is some reinforcement of some 100 miles of previously existing fencing with... slightly tougher fencing.  Which has been paid for by shuffling congressionally appointed funds from one entity to another.

What about 'Trumpcare' - so easy and so much better than the ACA.... nope.  Couldn't even get the ACA repealed, mostly because there was no replacement offered.

A rapid end to our troops deployed in combat zone?  They are still there (and perhaps with good reasons)

.... bottom line - even under the most favorable circumstances (control of congress and the WH) few presidents manage to get more than one or two big initiatives through.  If they don't control both houses it's a fight to get just incremental change.  I'm not just picking on DJT here - similar arguments could be made for Obama or Bush or Clinton or any former Prez.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: six-car-habit on November 13, 2019, 12:25:16 AM


Kind of like how Trump has gotten very little of his signature promises accomplished, despite having both the House and Senate under GOP control ofr the first two years.  Remember all his talk of being 'a builder' and our 'crumbling infrastructure' which he would solve with $1T in spedning (which could have had massive bipartisan support?  That went nowhere.


 You may remember, i believe it was Pelosi and Schumer had plans drawn up to spend the $1T on infrastructure projects. And they had a meeting set up with the white house to discuss and/or finalize.  However this was a week when Trump was feeling sorry for himself, and announced " I will not do any infrastructure bills until the democrats quit investigating me " -  I believe this was just prior the the Mueller report coming out, at any rate it was months before this Ukraine boondogle was in the news.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2019, 05:39:51 AM
It's mind-boggling to me that we haven't had a truly huge infrastructure bill pass since the great recession recovery act. 

Sending money back home to your district for improvement projects is one thing that >90% of congressional members can get behind.  We've reached the point now where almost eveyrone from each side will cut off their nose to spite their face (i.e. they will torpedo a spending bill proposed by the opposite side even if it would help them and their constituents both politically and economically).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on November 13, 2019, 08:21:18 AM
I believe the lack of progress on infrastructure reflects the general movement of the country right-ward over the last four decades.

I did attend a presentation by Mulvaney about two years ago: he mentioned infrastructure specifically, saying that the "Republican" way of doing infrastructure was different than the "Democrat" way of doing it, relying much more on using limited public money as a catalyst to spur public/private partnerships. He wasn't specific about an example of a success in this category.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 13, 2019, 10:42:57 AM
It has been stated that the elimination of earmarks has contributed to the increased polarization in national politics. The elimination was relatively recent, and the polarization trend seems to have started a few decades prior, although anti-earmark rhetoric had been common in the period prior to elimination. The argument was basically that earmarks provided individual Congresspeople with ways to benefit their district directly and gain support they needed for reelection, and that successfully passing earmarks encouraged cooperation between Congresspeople, including across the political aisle. Elimination of earmarks may allow for more ideological purity, which could contribute to polarization. And earmarks tended to be directed towards infrastructure and other large projects. It's not an entirely satisfactory explanation to me, but maybe the infrastructure crisis and the political crisis are being exacerbated by the lack of earmarks, or more generally a Congress that is geared towards a little more horse-trading to get things done, rather than purity tests.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 13, 2019, 11:54:43 AM
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:

1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.

Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 13, 2019, 12:32:14 PM
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:

1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.

Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.

There's little coordination among the Repub House members.

New defense: Trump did hold back the aid for an investigation but he had the right to do so to fight corruption.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on November 13, 2019, 12:36:36 PM
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:

1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.

Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.

There's little coordination among the Repub House members.

New defense: Trump did hold back the aid for an investigation but he had the right to do so to fight corruption.

Also, the US gave Ukraine Javelins during the Trump administration so there was no qpq.

Also, there was no qpq because the money eventually got to Ukraine. (Jumping over completely why Trump released the money, viz, the whistleblower.)

It’s like Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue and the GOP arguing it didn’t happen because he missed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 13, 2019, 12:49:09 PM
Rudy is going to see the underside of a bus pretty soon.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on November 13, 2019, 12:51:01 PM
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:

1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.

Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.

So, you try to hire someone to kill someone, and your hitman was actually fbi informant, means there is no case because the deal wasn't consumated? Um, try that for any other crime (trying to buy a prostitute, drugs, hitman, blackmail etc).
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 13, 2019, 01:29:25 PM
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:

1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.

Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.

So, you try to hire someone to kill someone, and your hitman was actually fbi informant, means there is no case because the deal wasn't consumated? Um, try that for any other crime (trying to buy a prostitute, drugs, hitman, blackmail etc).

J. Castro finally got to that point: "Is attempted murder a crime?"

There's a Republican putting op-ed articles in the record. "Obama! Obama! Obama!" Lol

Jordan has made some good speeches for the Republican side. He's presented the strongest defense and probably the one that'll stick. It's the headliner on foxnews.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 13, 2019, 01:30:00 PM
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:

1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.

Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.

So, you try to hire someone to kill someone, and your hitman was actually fbi informant, means there is no case because the deal wasn't consumated? Um, try that for any other crime (trying to buy a prostitute, drugs, hitman, blackmail etc).

the underlying argument makes zero sense.  One does not need to be successful in an attempt to subvert the rules

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 13, 2019, 01:46:36 PM
Jordan has made some good speeches for the Republican side. He's presented the strongest defense and probably the one that'll stick. It's the headliner on foxnews.

Gym Jordan? Strong pass from that master of looking the other way.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: six-car-habit on November 13, 2019, 01:49:28 PM
 Jim Jordan , good at questioning, but not when he's involved ?   

Quote from CBS sports article July 3rd 2018 [ fake news i suppose ? ]

"Three months after Ohio State University announced it would investigate allegations of sexual misconduct by the late Richard Strauss, the doctor for the school's wrestling team, three former Buckeyes have suggested Rep. Jim Jordan knew about -- but failed to end -- abuse within the program.

Jordan, who has represented Ohio's 4th congressional district since 2007, served as an assistant wrestling coach for Ohio State from 1986 to 1994. And as NBC News' Corky Siemaszko reported Tuesday, a trio of Jordan's former wrestlers have come forward to say "it was common knowledge that Strauss showered regularly with the students and inappropriately touched them during appointments," not to mention that it "would have been impossible for Jordan to be unaware."

Strauss, who died in 2005, was told by former Jordan mentor and Ohio State wrestling head coach Russ Hellickson that he was being "too hands on" with students, per Siemazsko. And the three former wrestlers -- Mike DiSabato, Dunyasha Yetts and one who wished to remain anonymous -- said Jordan either knew of Strauss's misconduct from locker-room gossip or direct reports from wrestlers.

"I considered Jim Jordan a friend," DiSabato said, per NBC News. "But at the end of the day, he is absolutely lying if he says he doesn't know what was going on."

Yetts called Jordan "a great guy" but, as Siemazsko reported, believes the former coach is "in on it" or outright lying.

    "I remember I had a thumb injury and went into Strauss' office and he started pulling down my wrestling shorts," he said. "I'm like, what the (explicit) are you doing? And I went out and told Russ and Jim what happened. I was not having it. They went in and talked to Strauss."

    Yetts said he and his teammates talked to Jordan numerous times about Strauss.

    "For God's sake, Strauss's locker was right next to Jordan's and Jordan even said he'd kill him if he tried anything with him," Yetts said.

Jordan, meanwhile, has repeatedly denied knowing of any abuse by Strauss while working for Ohio State. A speculated successor to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and, per NBC, a "staunch ally of President Donald Trump," his spokesperson issued the following statement to NBC News regarding the Strauss investigation:

    Congressman Jordan never saw any abuse, never heard about any abuse, and never had any abuse reported to him during his time as a coach at Ohio State ... He has not been contacted by investigators about the matter but will assist them in any way they ask, because if what is alleged is true, the victims deserve a full investigation and justice.


Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 13, 2019, 02:02:57 PM
Jordan has made some good speeches for the Republican side. He's presented the strongest defense and probably the one that'll stick. It's the headliner on foxnews.

Gym Jordan? Strong pass from that master of looking the other way.

His arguments were weak but he presented them loudly and with force. It was an appeal to the Fox audience.

Going after the whistleblower makes sense if you forget that the whistleblower has been corroborated (Taylor and Kent can't be besmirched directly). Going after Obama's aid package to Ukraine makes sense if Obama (and Clinton) still chap your hide.

Ratcliffe also hammered home that Taylor and Kent never spoke with Trump directly. That's a dangerous argument to make, though, when other witnesses have.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 13, 2019, 02:18:31 PM
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:

1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.

Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.
Aren't these two versions of "nobody is stupid enough to try and be that bad at crime." despite the large numbers of people getting caught in various crimes because they are just not very good at it. Being bad at corruption does not mean it is not illegal or impeachable, just that you are not that effective at it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 15, 2019, 10:46:14 AM
Damn, those State Dept. employees are solid witnesses.

Steve Castor, the R counsel, is trying to work around to Hunter Biden.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on November 15, 2019, 10:57:48 AM
Is this one of those things where a whole generation or two of people had some environmental, social, or otherwise, exposure that crippled some human capacity in some way? And now they get so easily distracted by these so transparently ridiculous conspiracy theories and lies and distortions, especially by the anti-liberal democracy media? You know, something like lead explaining in some significant way the spike and then subsequent drop in violent crime in recent history? Maybe some combination of corn flakes, ready access to cars, and the drumbeat of anticommunist rhetoric as a starting hypothesis for the witches brew that gives us modern America today?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 15, 2019, 11:04:52 AM
Is this one of those things where a whole generation or two of people had some environmental, social, or otherwise, exposure that crippled some human capacity in some way? And now they get so easily distracted by these so transparently ridiculous conspiracy theories and lies and distortions, especially by the anti-liberal democracy media? You know, something like lead explaining in some significant way the spike and then subsequent drop in violent crime in recent history? Maybe some combination of corn flakes, ready access to cars, and the drumbeat of anticommunist rhetoric as a starting hypothesis for the witches brew that gives us modern America today?

Are you implying it's not a coincidence that education is worse in pretty much all the Republican controlled states . . . but rather a concerted effort to continue to develop a large base of poorly educated, highly religious people?

As far as conspiracy theories go, that doesn't sound too far fetched actually.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 15, 2019, 12:14:25 PM
Is this one of those things where a whole generation or two of people had some environmental, social, or otherwise, exposure that crippled some human capacity in some way? And now they get so easily distracted by these so transparently ridiculous conspiracy theories and lies and distortions, especially by the anti-liberal democracy media? You know, something like lead explaining in some significant way the spike and then subsequent drop in violent crime in recent history? Maybe some combination of corn flakes, ready access to cars, and the drumbeat of anticommunist rhetoric as a starting hypothesis for the witches brew that gives us modern America today?

"Need For Chaos."

https://kislingjeff.wordpress.com/2019/10/15/need-for-chaos/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327382989_A_Need_for_Chaos_and_the_Sharing_of_Hostile_Political_Rumors_in_Advanced_Democracies

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Sanitary Stache on November 15, 2019, 12:51:39 PM
I believe the lack of progress on infrastructure reflects the general movement of the country right-ward over the last four decades.

I did attend a presentation by Mulvaney about two years ago: he mentioned infrastructure specifically, saying that the "Republican" way of doing infrastructure was different than the "Democrat" way of doing it, relying much more on using limited public money as a catalyst to spur public/private partnerships. He wasn't specific about an example of a success in this category.

I am actually happy about the fact the there are no big infrastructure spending bills.  Enough money is already spent propping up the transportation status quo and adding to local maintenance needs.  The majority of infrastructure spending (roads) is not based on economic reality, is not what we can consider an investment in productivity, because more roads means more traffic. So I am not rooting for a massive infrastructure package that relies on funding the type of projects we are currently funding, only more and larger.  I think a slowly increasing drip, tightly bound to productivity gains is needed.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on November 15, 2019, 01:27:39 PM
I believe the lack of progress on infrastructure reflects the general movement of the country right-ward over the last four decades.

I did attend a presentation by Mulvaney about two years ago: he mentioned infrastructure specifically, saying that the "Republican" way of doing infrastructure was different than the "Democrat" way of doing it, relying much more on using limited public money as a catalyst to spur public/private partnerships. He wasn't specific about an example of a success in this category.

I am actually happy about the fact the there are no big infrastructure spending bills.  Enough money is already spent propping up the transportation status quo and adding to local maintenance needs.  The majority of infrastructure spending (roads) is not based on economic reality, is not what we can consider an investment in productivity, because more roads means more traffic. So I am not rooting for a massive infrastructure package that relies on funding the type of projects we are currently funding, only more and larger.  I think a slowly increasing drip, tightly bound to productivity gains is needed.

well you've made the jump/assumption that an infrastructure bill would be primarily about roads, and that it would necessarily *increase* maintenance needs.  That isn't necessarily the case.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 15, 2019, 02:02:41 PM
I believe the lack of progress on infrastructure reflects the general movement of the country right-ward over the last four decades.

I did attend a presentation by Mulvaney about two years ago: he mentioned infrastructure specifically, saying that the "Republican" way of doing infrastructure was different than the "Democrat" way of doing it, relying much more on using limited public money as a catalyst to spur public/private partnerships. He wasn't specific about an example of a success in this category.

I am actually happy about the fact the there are no big infrastructure spending bills.  Enough money is already spent propping up the transportation status quo and adding to local maintenance needs.  The majority of infrastructure spending (roads) is not based on economic reality, is not what we can consider an investment in productivity, because more roads means more traffic. So I am not rooting for a massive infrastructure package that relies on funding the type of projects we are currently funding, only more and larger.  I think a slowly increasing drip, tightly bound to productivity gains is needed.

well you've made the jump/assumption that an infrastructure bill would be primarily about roads, and that it would necessarily *increase* maintenance needs.  That isn't necessarily the case.

With our current Congress? It would definitely be business as usual. That is, adding lanes, building new highways, and maybe repairing some bridges. Would $50B go to modernizing our rail system? Hahahaha. What about redesigning neighborhoods/cities to be more walkable? Or billions for covered bike lanes?

As a nation, we're not yet at the point where climate change is affecting our decisions.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 19, 2019, 02:57:06 PM
Volker and Morrison, both Republican witnesses, aren't working out as well as they hoped.

There are texts with them fixing the public statement that Ze was supposed to make -- it had to include a mention of Burisma and Biden.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 20, 2019, 10:15:00 AM
Wow. Sondland isn't the most reliable witness but he's directly pulled in Perry, Mulvaney, Rudy, and even Trump* in this "drug deal." Even Fox News analyst Ken Starr has admitted defeat. The Foxnews headliner is "Whose Orders?"

Getting Bolton or Mulvaney to testify would probably get Trump removed from office but impeachment is a sure thing at this point.


* Trump's intelligence was mentioned in another thread. This is what Trump is good at -- he doesn't actually tell anyone to commit illegal activities on his behalf. He implies.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on November 20, 2019, 11:10:14 AM
Mulvaney will not testify. I can assure you.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 20, 2019, 08:27:08 PM
Wow. Sondland isn't the most reliable witness but he's directly pulled in Perry, Mulvaney, Rudy, and even Trump* in this "drug deal." Even Fox News analyst Ken Starr has admitted defeat. The Foxnews headliner is "Whose Orders?"

Getting Bolton or Mulvaney to testify would probably get Trump removed from office but impeachment is a sure thing at this point.


* Trump's intelligence was mentioned in another thread. This is what Trump is good at -- he doesn't actually tell anyone to commit illegal activities on his behalf. He implies.

I listened to a bit of Sondland's testimony this morning before I drove out of NPR-range. Sweet Jesus is that dude in over his head. The absolute poster child for Dunning Kruger plus a healthy dose of drunk on proximity to power. He will have many regrets in the future. What a fucking embarrassment it is to have had him representing the United States as ambassador to the EU.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 20, 2019, 09:40:25 PM
I listened to a bit of Sondland's testimony this morning before I drove out of NPR-range. Sweet Jesus is that dude in over his head. The absolute poster child for Dunning Kruger plus a healthy dose of drunk on proximity to power. He will have many regrets in the future. What a fucking embarrassment it is to have had him representing the United States as ambassador to the EU.

It's what a $1 million contribution gets you.

There's definitely a world of difference between his testimony and the career FSOs. Sondland was winging it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: partgypsy on November 21, 2019, 04:42:59 PM
FYI I'm on another forum, and the Trump supporters are still firmly behind them. One says that it's nothing unless they prove "intent" that Trump intended to get quid pro quo. So... no impeachment is not a sure thing. In a normal universe, yes. Because the grounds for impeachment is less than grounds for criminal trial. But from what I can tell, (and one Trump supporter was asked, what would be suffiicient grounds for impeachment, with the sound of crickets) that basically none of this matters to Republicans.

I'm a middle aged lady on the boring side. I'm not a marcher. But, if the senate does not remove Trump it might be time for people to get back to marching in the streets. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 21, 2019, 05:03:08 PM
FYI I'm on another forum, and the Trump supporters are still firmly behind them. One says that it's nothing unless they prove "intent" that Trump intended to get quid pro quo. So... no impeachment is not a sure thing. In a normal universe, yes. Because the grounds for impeachment is less than grounds for criminal trial. But from what I can tell, (and one Trump supporter was asked, what would be suffiicient grounds for impeachment, with the sound of crickets) that basically none of this matters to Republicans.

I'm a middle aged lady on the boring side. I'm not a marcher. But, if the senate does not remove Trump it might be time for people to get back to marching in the streets.

Remember that impeachment and the trial/conviction for impeachment are different things. The Articles for Impeachment will pass the House; it's a simple majority vote. Trump will be impeached unless a bunch of House Democrats wimp out.

It's true that there's an out for Trump -- Rudy, Mulvaney, Sondland, and Perry were all working by themselves without any input from Trump. He didn't know what they were doing!
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 21, 2019, 07:08:54 PM
FYI I'm on another forum, and the Trump supporters are still firmly behind them. One says that it's nothing unless they prove "intent" that Trump intended to get quid pro quo. So... no impeachment is not a sure thing. In a normal universe, yes. Because the grounds for impeachment is less than grounds for criminal trial. But from what I can tell, (and one Trump supporter was asked, what would be suffiicient grounds for impeachment, with the sound of crickets) that basically none of this matters to Republicans.

I'm a middle aged lady on the boring side. I'm not a marcher. But, if the senate does not remove Trump it might be time for people to get back to marching in the streets.

Remember that impeachment and the trial/conviction for impeachment are different things. The Articles for Impeachment will pass the House; it's a simple majority vote. Trump will be impeached unless a bunch of House Democrats wimp out.

It's true that there's an out for Trump -- Rudy, Mulvaney, Sondland, and Perry were all working by themselves without any input from Trump. He didn't know what they were doing!

Is gross incompetence/negligence an impeachable offense?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 21, 2019, 10:07:06 PM
FYI I'm on another forum, and the Trump supporters are still firmly behind them. One says that it's nothing unless they prove "intent" that Trump intended to get quid pro quo. So... no impeachment is not a sure thing. In a normal universe, yes. Because the grounds for impeachment is less than grounds for criminal trial. But from what I can tell, (and one Trump supporter was asked, what would be suffiicient grounds for impeachment, with the sound of crickets) that basically none of this matters to Republicans.

I'm a middle aged lady on the boring side. I'm not a marcher. But, if the senate does not remove Trump it might be time for people to get back to marching in the streets.
It actually is. The first impeachment in US history was a judge who was incompetent and a bit crazy.
Remember that impeachment and the trial/conviction for impeachment are different things. The Articles for Impeachment will pass the House; it's a simple majority vote. Trump will be impeached unless a bunch of House Democrats wimp out.

It's true that there's an out for Trump -- Rudy, Mulvaney, Sondland, and Perry were all working by themselves without any input from Trump. He didn't know what they were doing!

Is gross incompetence/negligence an impeachable offense?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dang1 on November 22, 2019, 12:04:26 PM
Trump is a Russian agent
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia/index.html
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on November 22, 2019, 02:38:19 PM
Update opinion piece in NYT from Susan Rice:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/opinion/trump-impeachment-hearings.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Quote
And last, as Fiona Hill ably testified on Thursday, the primary beneficiary of our domestic dysfunction and divisions is President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Republicans in Congress are spouting Russian-sponsored conspiracy theories that disparage Ukraine and obscure Russian interference in our democracy. President Trump consistently takes actions with respect to NATO, Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere that accrue to Russian rather than American interests.

While Americans spew venom at one another, Russia is working overtime to pour salt into our wounds. Using social media every day to inflame distrust, fear and hate, Russia is pitting Americans against one another by fueling extremes on both sides of every divisive issue, whether race, immigration or guns.

Mr. Putin seeks to dismantle democracy and destroy America’s standing as a global leader. The only question is whether we will allow him to succeed.
[/i]
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on November 22, 2019, 09:34:11 PM
Nunes! Can't say I'm surprised but is Trump worth all this? Indicted individuals never come off sounding honest but if Parnas has any evidence, he'll be testifying on the 2nd.

https://fox43.com/2019/11/22/giuliani-associate-willing-to-tell-congress-nunes-met-with-ex-ukrainian-official-to-get-dirt-on-biden/

Bolton is back on Twitter and he sounds pissed. It could be just building anticipation for his book, though.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on November 26, 2019, 07:24:27 PM
Shouldn't Nunes be required to step down as chairperson of the intelligence committee if he played a role in trying to get Ukraine to falsely claim that Biden was involved in corruption?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: six-car-habit on November 26, 2019, 11:03:48 PM
Shouldn't Nunes be required to step down as chairperson of the intelligence committee if he played a role in trying to get Ukraine to falsely claim that Biden was involved in corruption?

  Hopefully Schiff calls Nunes out on his naughtiness in a public hearing.  Makes me wonder what is neccessary to have a person pulled off of a commitee. Can it be done within the commitee itself ?,  or would there need to be an ethics investigation 1st [ in which case i won't hold my breath, given the amount and # of appeals all things not agreeable to this administration go thru ] 

  Nunes hasn't answered the question of what he was doing in Europe , in Nov-Dec.2018 when directly asked by news outlets....Federal records show he was there with 3 other staff members.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on December 11, 2019, 08:53:17 AM
I'm surprised at how much the GOP members can lie without getting absolutely roasted by the Dems and the media.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on December 11, 2019, 12:41:45 PM
I'm surprised at how much the GOP members can lie without getting absolutely roasted by the Dems and the media.




It does make you wonder whether we actually have a government or a bunch of actors playing their parts (poorly).   







Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 17, 2019, 04:26:31 PM
Lot's of Kremlin propaganda in here, but interesting to see how Trump is covered on Russian state media:
https://news.yahoo.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-151254712.html

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on December 17, 2019, 07:26:00 PM
Lot's of Kremlin propaganda in here, but interesting to see how Trump is covered on Russian state media:
https://news.yahoo.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-151254712.html

Trump really is a stooge for Putin. It's shocking how the Republicans have completely turned 180 degrees with respect to Russia and the US is less safe as a result if democracies in Europe are undermined, and our own democracy is at stake too.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: dang1 on December 17, 2019, 08:57:03 PM
Trump The Traitor is a Russian agent
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: HPstache on December 18, 2019, 08:26:36 PM
Edit: reaseached my dumb question
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on December 19, 2019, 10:24:37 AM
Makes a person wonder how much of the GOP activities have Russian donors...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: JLee on December 19, 2019, 10:26:54 AM
Makes a person wonder how much of the GOP activities have Russian donors...

Never fear! https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/05/08/how-putin-s-oligarchs-funneled-millions-into-gop-campaigns/
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 19, 2019, 10:30:53 AM
Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 19, 2019, 10:34:21 AM
Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.
Well, it *is* about 8,000km from DC to Ukraine.  So... that's definitely far.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on December 19, 2019, 11:39:30 AM
Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.

He also is confident that our Senate will acquit Trump. Wonder (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a-mcconnell-backed-effort-to-lift-russian-sanctions-boosted-a-kentucky-project/2019/08/13/72b26e00-b97c-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html) why (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia/senator-paul-delivers-letter-from-trump-to-putin-idUSKBN1KT1RV=) he's (https://www.vox.com/2019/11/25/20981661/john-kennedy-roger-wicker-ukrainian-interference-russia) so (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395719-gop-senators-visited-moscow-on-july-4) confident? (https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-fails-to-block-administration-from-easing-russia-sanctions-11547664204)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 19, 2019, 11:42:16 AM
Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.

He also is confident that our Senate will acquit Trump. Wonder (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a-mcconnell-backed-effort-to-lift-russian-sanctions-boosted-a-kentucky-project/2019/08/13/72b26e00-b97c-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html) why (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia/senator-paul-delivers-letter-from-trump-to-putin-idUSKBN1KT1RV=) he's (https://www.vox.com/2019/11/25/20981661/john-kennedy-roger-wicker-ukrainian-interference-russia) so (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395719-gop-senators-visited-moscow-on-july-4) confident? (https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-fails-to-block-administration-from-easing-russia-sanctions-11547664204)
#MoscowMitch
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: bacchi on December 19, 2019, 03:01:56 PM
Trump and his team strongly oppose the DASKA Russian sanction bill and think it's "unnecessary." The bill would also require a 2/3 Senate vote to leave NATO.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/475173-senate-committee-approves-legislation-to-sanction-russia

And for the Russian point-of-view:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201912191077623132-trump-administration-opposes-daska-bill-targeting-russia-warns-of-harm-to-us-allies-in-europe/

Here's hoping it gets a veto-proof vote.


(It is hard not to think of Trump as a Russian asset.)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on January 24, 2020, 08:32:06 AM
Did you folks discuss the FISA report anywhere? I would like to see your takes on it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on January 24, 2020, 11:37:30 AM
Are you referring to the Inspector-General's report about whether the FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page were proper?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on January 27, 2020, 11:14:05 AM
Are you referring to the Inspector-General's report about whether the FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page were proper?

Yes.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on January 27, 2020, 01:49:49 PM
When I heard it come out in Mid-December, I heard that it found now apparent political motivation, but it did document several instances in which bad decisions were made. The most important conclusion was that--in the absence of information from the Fusion GPS dossier--there was still enough evidence of Page's activities that surveillance was warranted. In particular, the work of Peter Strzok was adequate and unbiased (even if Strzok himself had obvious personal bias).

I believe Christopher Wray's statements about it, and I think Bill Barr's statements were (generously) "spin".
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on January 27, 2020, 01:53:29 PM
I asked the office Trump apologist, and he told me that the investigation is being continued by a guy named John Durham, who has indictment power, and he's really going to make the corruption clear to everyone in a way the IG wasn't able to.

My co-worker generously provided a list of all the people Durham will be indicting:

McCabe, already under referral
Strock (sic)
Page
Comey
Rosenstein
Ohr, Bruce and Nellie
Anyone who signed or had direct knowledge of FISA Warrant

Possibly….
Brennen
Clapper
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: RangerOne on January 27, 2020, 02:09:09 PM
I am not surprised at all at the level of lying and ass kissing that the GOP is engaging in right now.

I would caveat that by saying, while I think Trump did something very wrong. I think it would be appropriate if there was some way of putting a president in their place that did not require removal. Because its possible impeachment too extreme and or difficult.

With regard to party behavior it, seems like we are witnessing the reality that the major parties are powerless in choosing their leaders. The GOP would have never put someone like Trump at the head of their ticket. He is too ill tempered and volatile. While the part may appropriate the victories Trump gets them at home, he is killing our reliability as an ally to our international neighbors.

The GOP congress is fully at the mercy of their voter base if any of them want to keep their jobs. So they are all pretty much stuck sticking their necks out for the President or losing their seat when they go up fore reelection... Most life long politicians will do and say what is necessary to keep their jobs.

NPR actually had some pretty interesting podcasts about how the erosion of party power in choosing their presidential candidates has effectively lead to a president like Trump being possible. I think there are also cases where a corrupt party would make very bad choices, but in this instance we are really seeing the effects of getting fucked by voters and current make up of the electoral college. Not the GOP and its members specifically. Career politicians in general cant be expected to sacrifice their careers for idealism.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on January 27, 2020, 03:41:09 PM
I am not surprised at all at the level of lying and ass kissing that the GOP is engaging in right now.

I would caveat that by saying, while I think Trump did something very wrong. I think it would be appropriate if there was some way of putting a president in their place that did not require removal. Because its possible impeachment too extreme and or difficult.

With regard to party behavior it, seems like we are witnessing the reality that the major parties are powerless in choosing their leaders. The GOP would have never put someone like Trump at the head of their ticket. He is too ill tempered and volatile. While the part may appropriate the victories Trump gets them at home, he is killing our reliability as an ally to our international neighbors.

The GOP congress is fully at the mercy of their voter base if any of them want to keep their jobs. So they are all pretty much stuck sticking their necks out for the President or losing their seat when they go up fore reelection... Most life long politicians will do and say what is necessary to keep their jobs.

NPR actually had some pretty interesting podcasts about how the erosion of party power in choosing their presidential candidates has effectively lead to a president like Trump being possible. I think there are also cases where a corrupt party would make very bad choices, but in this instance we are really seeing the effects of getting fucked by voters and current make up of the electoral college. Not the GOP and its members specifically. Career politicians in general cant be expected to sacrifice their careers for idealism.
I Trump is a strong argument for ranked choice voting, especially in primaries where the fields are large. Trump consistently came in very low relative to most of the other candidates, but because the votes were split among the others, Trump managed to get high overall standing. He would have been decimated by ranked choice voting because he was viewed by most primary voters as a terrible choice relative to pretty much all of the other options.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2020, 04:36:45 PM
I am not surprised at all at the level of lying and ass kissing that the GOP is engaging in right now.

I would caveat that by saying, while I think Trump did something very wrong. I think it would be appropriate if there was some way of putting a president in their place that did not require removal. Because its possible impeachment too extreme and or difficult.

With regard to party behavior it, seems like we are witnessing the reality that the major parties are powerless in choosing their leaders. The GOP would have never put someone like Trump at the head of their ticket. He is too ill tempered and volatile. While the part may appropriate the victories Trump gets them at home, he is killing our reliability as an ally to our international neighbors.

The GOP congress is fully at the mercy of their voter base if any of them want to keep their jobs. So they are all pretty much stuck sticking their necks out for the President or losing their seat when they go up fore reelection... Most life long politicians will do and say what is necessary to keep their jobs.

NPR actually had some pretty interesting podcasts about how the erosion of party power in choosing their presidential candidates has effectively lead to a president like Trump being possible. I think there are also cases where a corrupt party would make very bad choices, but in this instance we are really seeing the effects of getting fucked by voters and current make up of the electoral college. Not the GOP and its members specifically. Career politicians in general cant be expected to sacrifice their careers for idealism.
I Trump is a strong argument for ranked choice voting, especially in primaries where the fields are large. Trump consistently came in very low relative to most of the other candidates, but because the votes were split among the others, Trump managed to get high overall standing. He would have been decimated by ranked choice voting because he was viewed by most primary voters as a terrible choice relative to pretty much all of the other options.
+1.
Ranked choice voting is best at preventing the most extreme or divisive candidate from winning via a plurality (but not a majority) of votes.  If centrist candidates are what we seek, ranked-choice voting is one easily implemented means of getting there.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on January 27, 2020, 09:31:49 PM
When I heard it come out in Mid-December, I heard that it found now apparent political motivation, but it did document several instances in which bad decisions were made. The most important conclusion was that--in the absence of information from the Fusion GPS dossier--there was still enough evidence of Page's activities that surveillance was warranted. In particular, the work of Peter Strzok was adequate and unbiased (even if Strzok himself had obvious personal bias).

I believe Christopher Wray's statements about it, and I think Bill Barr's statements were (generously) "spin".

The reason that the surveillance was warranted was because Page was working for the CIA.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474570-an-apology-to-carter-page

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ex-trump-campaign-aide-carter-page-notches-victory-after-inspector-general-hammers-fbi-for-surveillance-missteps/2019/12/14/6daac5f2-1dda-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

So, that shady behavior was state sanctioned.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 09, 2020, 05:00:43 PM
Yes ranked choice voting is the way to go, and I believe is how California does voting.

I believe Maine now used rank choice voting for the governorship.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on February 10, 2020, 12:47:18 PM
I'm gently trying to train my children toward ranked-choice voting.

"Is Carcasonne the only game you're willing to play, or are there others, such as Pick-me-Pop Chase, which your sister wants to play? "
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sui generis on February 10, 2020, 01:36:02 PM
Yes ranked choice voting is the way to go, and I believe is how California does voting.

I believe Maine now used rank choice voting for the governorship.

CA doesn't, unfortunately, do ranked choice voting, although some cities within the state do.  Most famously, you may be familiar with San Francisco doing it.  This last November they had an election for DA that was dramatic and the results were quite close...and iirc correctly, the outcome was different than the straight vote.

Interestingly, to @nereo's point, the candidate that won in the SF DA race was definitely not the more moderate one.

CA has a jungle primary (if we're talking about statewide things that are done slightly differently here).  So you can definitely end up with two Dems or two Reps on a ballot in the general election, depending on the composition of the primary field and how blue or red the district is where it's being held.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 30, 2020, 12:14:54 PM
Somehow this administration can't seem to get away from scandals involving Russia

This time it's about Russia paying bounties to Taliban militants for killing US soldiers.  The official line from the WH is that Trump was never briefed on the matter, though reports refute this notion, detailing briefings going back to at least Feb 2020. 

So either our own intelligence agencies did not brief the President, or they did and Trump has done nothing and denies knowing anything about it before this week.

take your pick of news outlets, none of them are particularly kind to Trump in this matter...
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/885033809/dems-fault-trump-over-russia-bounty-allegations-ask-for-more-information (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/885033809/dems-fault-trump-over-russia-bounty-allegations-ask-for-more-information)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wasnt-briefed-on-russian-bounty-intelligence-because-it-wasnt-verified-white-house-says-11593455761 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wasnt-briefed-on-russian-bounty-intelligence-because-it-wasnt-verified-white-house-says-11593455761)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html)
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/505153-cnn-russian-bounty-intel-was-included-in-trumps-daily-briefing (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/505153-cnn-russian-bounty-intel-was-included-in-trumps-daily-briefing)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/multiple-intelligence-streams-russian-bounties-for-us-troops-trump-not-briefed (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/multiple-intelligence-streams-russian-bounties-for-us-troops-trump-not-briefed)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/29/timeline-russia-bounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-response/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/29/timeline-russia-bounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-response/)
https://fox59.com/news/politics/white-house-trump-not-briefed-on-unverified-bounties/ (https://fox59.com/news/politics/white-house-trump-not-briefed-on-unverified-bounties/)
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on June 30, 2020, 12:18:51 PM
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 30, 2020, 12:32:33 PM
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Yes, I believe it should be treated as an act of war.  When a country pays soliders to attack the troops from another country, they are effectively sending mercenaries.
You can't pay someone to do the killing and then claim you aren't committing a hostile act.

To be fair Trump's response of 'I know nothing about this / I wasn't briefed" is small potatoes.  The real outrage is that Russia feels it can attack US soldiers with impunity. So far they seem to be correct.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: DoubleDown on June 30, 2020, 12:32:47 PM
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

I'll take a stab at an answer from my perspective:

The issue (to me at least) is not whether Russia would do such a thing (they definitely would). It's what our alleged commander-in-chief does about it (or doesn't, in this case).

Russia, as far as I know, is not a declared combatant in the Afghanistan theater. So, "going to war" with U.S. troops or backing those at war with the U.S. is a pretty serious, albeit completely expected, action for Russia to take. And the taliban is certainly not a righteous regime or cause in most civilized nations' eyes. Russia is supporting a proxy war for a murderous regime that would impose a society with perhaps the worst kinds of human rights abuses. It was not that many years ago when the taliban was hosting mass public hangings and beheading in soccer stadiums for those who would dare not follow their warped views of instituting Sharia laws. Of course, Russia backs all kinds of unrighteous regimes (see: Syria).

So sure, Russia is a very bad actor. Question is, why is our President seemingly so comfortable with that? In case after case, Trump bends over backwards not to offend Putin, even when they are paying bounties to having U.S. soldiers killed in a conflict which Russia is not a party to. Why? What does Russia have on Trump?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 30, 2020, 12:38:09 PM
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Agreed.  These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian soldiers.  Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Kris on June 30, 2020, 12:41:47 PM
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Agreed.  These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian Soviet soldiers during the Cold War.  Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.

Except, it was a different circumstance.

You can argue (and I probably would) that that was wrong, but it's not "the same". Inexact analogies are inexact.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on June 30, 2020, 12:46:37 PM
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Agreed.  These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian soldiers.  Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.

That's making two unverified assumptions
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Poundwise on June 30, 2020, 02:55:33 PM
"Suspicions of Russian Bounties Were Bolstered by Data on Financial Transfers

Analysts have used other evidence to conclude that the transfers were likely part of an effort to offer payments to Taliban-linked militants to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/russian-bounties-afghanistan-intelligence.html

Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 30, 2020, 08:52:46 PM
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Agreed.  These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian soldiers.  Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.

That's making two unverified assumptions
  • It was 'just' for the US to arm and train troops in our proxy-war with Russia (aka the Cold War) - something you've argued against multiple times
  • that directing/rewarding kills is ethically the same as selling arms but not instructing the recipient to kill your advicary.  /li]

- I don't believe either Russia's or the US's action was just.  They are very similar though.

- I don't see much difference ethically.  Giving the Mujahadeen Stinger missiles (and training to use them) was directly responsible for an awful lot of Russian deaths, which was the reason that the CIA wanted to do it to begin with.  There was no question that the weapons would be used against the Soviets.  It was actually a big risk on the part of the US because there was a chance that the (then) new weaponry would fall into Soviet hands and be reverse engineered . . . and when Russia pulled out of Afghanistan the CIA created a 65 million dollar program to try and buy back the remaining Stinger missiles from the Afghanis.  So it was never about arming Afghanis for defense . . . it was always about killing Russians.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on August 18, 2020, 10:14:57 AM
Just in time for the election, the Senate has released its report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html

direct link to the 900ish page PDF of the report:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/senate-intelligence-committee-russian-interference/8cf58e574d235164/full.pdf

I've only skimmed the first few dozen pages of the PDF report, but Manafort is very clearly corrupt and it is difficult to come to any conclusion except that he was leveraging his relationships with Ukraine, Russian, and the Trump campaign in both directions as much as he possibly could. I have a hard time to read that as anything but collusion.

There is also a section on how the Trump campaign chose to hire Manafort that I would like to go back to. It seemed like a plant. If, for the sake of argument, Trump was actually unaware of what was going on, then at a minimum the whole crew was a bunch of novices that were played by many actors (not just Russia) and exploited. It feels like they were so enamored of being at the grown up tables that they were eager to wheel and deal, but were in woefully over their head. See also, pretty much anything that Kushner has touched.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on August 18, 2020, 10:24:49 AM
...
If, for the sake of argument, Trump was actually unaware of what was going on, then at a minimum the whole crew was a bunch of novices that were played by many actors (not just Russia) and exploited. It feels like they were so enamored of being at the grown up tables that they were eager to wheel and deal, but were in woefully over their head. See also, pretty much anything that Kushner has touched.

Putin was a counter-intellegence KGB officer for 16 years before becoming a politician for the next 25 years.  Four+ decades sparring with the United States over the span of six different administrations.

Why anyone would expect Trump - with zero political, military or policy experience - to be equipped to handle Putin is beyond me. 

But I guess he held a beauty pageant in Moscow and tried unsuccessfully to built another hotel there, so that was supposed to mean he could handle a cutthroat authoritarian?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on August 19, 2020, 03:39:16 PM


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-newly-released-russia-probe-transcripts-from-the-house-intelligence-committee

House Intelligence Committee transcripts were declassified. Fascinating stuff. Great reads. Mind blowing stuff in here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-court-1st-durham-case-russia/3393941001/

Clinesmith plead guilty to falsifying evidence. Whatever your politics I think we can all agree that the FBI falsifying evidence and lying to the court is a grevious abuse of trust.

Also Michael Flynn's court case went en banc to the appeals court because the judge decided to ignore the separation between the executive and the judicial. (He decided to prosecute the case himself.)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSwm32hsWAtRdktdmBtZCy406tBLdwqoZ
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on August 19, 2020, 05:43:35 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-court-1st-durham-case-russia/3393941001/

Clinesmith plead guilty to falsifying evidence. Whatever your politics I think we can all agree that the FBI falsifying evidence and lying to the court is a grevious abuse of trust.

Agreed.  I hope that his abuse of trust is dealt with very seriously.  It doesn't change all the evidence that was later found proving Trump's inappropriate actions, but certainly was an inexcusable thing to do.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2020, 08:35:57 AM
By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.

Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 18, 2020, 10:20:09 AM
By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.

Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.
Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s

The silence is indeed deafening. That it took an opinion piece in the NYT to surface this is a bit disturbing.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 18, 2020, 11:03:23 AM
By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.

Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.
Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s

The silence is indeed deafening. That it took an opinion piece in the NYT to surface this is a bit disturbing.

To be fair to Trump . . . he worked really hard at firing, or pissing off the competent people in government for four years.  Maybe he doesn't know that it happened?  It's not like he reads newspapers like the 'failing New York times'.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on December 18, 2020, 11:23:21 AM
By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.

Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.
Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s

The silence is indeed deafening. That it took an opinion piece in the NYT to surface this is a bit disturbing.

To be fair to Trump . . . he worked really hard at firing, or pissing off the competent people in government for four years.  Maybe he doesn't know that it happened?  It's not like he reads newspapers like the 'failing New York times'.

FOr someone who claims not to pay any attention to newspapers like the NYT, he certainly comments on articles written therein an awful lot...
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Just Joe on December 18, 2020, 02:47:32 PM
Trump probably has someone do his homework for him and then tell him about it.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Zamboni on December 19, 2020, 04:27:45 PM
There has clearly been Russian hacking of American computer systems this entire Presidency, but it was kept quiet bc Trump. Only the prior outgoing and new incoming administrations brought these things to light.

I don't see how there can be doubt any longer: Trump is a Russian asset.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: talltexan on December 21, 2020, 08:40:52 AM
Confused. I thought the Mueller Report failed to find sufficient evidence of Trump coordinated directly with Russian Cyber-intelligence.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: former player on December 21, 2020, 08:47:55 AM
Confused. I thought the Mueller Report failed to find sufficient evidence of Trump coordinated directly with Russian Cyber-intelligence.
Mueller was looking in a very limited way (didn't look at financials for instance) at whether specific actions amounted to criminal offences - for which he in any case followed the line that a President in office could not be subject to prosecution.  And even then he came up with several convincing instances of criminal obstruction surrounding Russia matters.  Not the same thing at all.  If you look at Trump's actions overall, not limited to specific criminal offences and taking into account all the available evidence, then the conclusion that Trump is a Russian asset becomes overwhelming.  And I expect a lot more evidence to emerge during future administrations.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on December 21, 2020, 10:18:06 AM
Confused. I thought the Mueller Report failed to find sufficient evidence of Trump coordinated directly with Russian Cyber-intelligence.
Mueller was looking in a very limited way (didn't look at financials for instance) at whether specific actions amounted to criminal offences - for which he in any case followed the line that a President in office could not be subject to prosecution.  And even then he came up with several convincing instances of criminal obstruction surrounding Russia matters.  Not the same thing at all.  If you look at Trump's actions overall, not limited to specific criminal offences and taking into account all the available evidence, then the conclusion that Trump is a Russian asset becomes overwhelming.  And I expect a lot more evidence to emerge during future administrations.
Broadly speaking, I expect future administrations will find that the Trump administration deleted or destroyed an unprecedented number of documents, which will make reconstruction of what actually occurred difficult. Even if Trump is not a knowing asset, Russia must certainly be pleased at Trump's actions over the last 4 years. 
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: sherr on December 21, 2020, 10:32:53 AM
Broadly speaking, I expect future administrations will find that the Trump administration deleted or destroyed an unprecedented number of documents, which will make reconstruction of what actually occurred difficult. Even if Trump is not a knowing asset, Russia must certainly be pleased at Trump's actions over the last 4 years.

We already know today that they destroyed evidence and used apps designed to leave no trace. From the Mueller report:

Quote
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: Glenstache on March 16, 2021, 04:24:11 PM
Shocked!
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/16/us/biden-news-today#putin-authorized-extensive-election-influence-campaign-intelligence-report-says

Quote
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia authorized extensive efforts to interfere in the American presidential election to denigrate the candidacy of Joseph R. Biden Jr., including intelligence operations to influence people close to former President Donald J. Trump, according to a declassified intelligence report released Tuesday.

The report did not name those people but seemed to be a reference to the work of Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who relentlessly pushed allegations of corruption about Mr. Biden and his family involving Ukraine.

“Russian state and proxy actors who all serve the Kremlin’s interests worked to affect U.S. public perceptions in a consistent manner,” the report said.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: nereo on March 16, 2021, 06:05:50 PM
I just imagine someone inside the Kremlin saying “I can’t believe we can do the same thing to the same people after getting publicly called out on it by a half dozen different agencies”
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on March 17, 2021, 10:28:36 AM
New US intel report shows Russia, Trump and GOP acolytes have same goals (https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/trump-russia-elections/index.html)

Um, yikes!  One of our two political parties could be considered to be doing Russia's work for them!  The efforts at voter suppression in Texas (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Texas-Republicans-preparing-another-voter-purge-16027865.php) are remarkable...

Quote
For all of the stale US debate about whether Trump and his aides "colluded" with Russia, there are now multiple reports, intelligence assessments and other known details to expose a damning reality: Moscow with its election meddling, Trump acolytes pushing false claims of voter fraud and his GOP supporters in the states now passing voter suppression laws share the same goal -- the denigration of the US democratic system.
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: scottish on March 17, 2021, 03:35:34 PM
You mean there's more to "Moscow Mitch" then just a trope?
Title: Re: United States of Russia?
Post by: gentmach on April 18, 2021, 09:46:57 AM
Somehow this administration can't seem to get away from scandals involving Russia

This time it's about Russia paying bounties to Taliban militants for killing US soldiers.  The official line from the WH is that Trump was never briefed on the matter, though reports refute this notion, detailing briefings going back to at least Feb 2020. 

So either our own intelligence agencies did not brief the President, or they did and Trump has done nothing and denies knowing anything about it before this week.

take your pick of news outlets, none of them are particularly kind to Trump in this matter...
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/885033809/dems-fault-trump-over-russia-bounty-allegations-ask-for-more-information (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/885033809/dems-fault-trump-over-russia-bounty-allegations-ask-for-more-information)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wasnt-briefed-on-russian-bounty-intelligence-because-it-wasnt-verified-white-house-says-11593455761 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wasnt-briefed-on-russian-bounty-intelligence-because-it-wasnt-verified-white-house-says-11593455761)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html)
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/505153-cnn-russian-bounty-intel-was-included-in-trumps-daily-briefing (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/505153-cnn-russian-bounty-intel-was-included-in-trumps-daily-briefing)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/multiple-intelligence-streams-russian-bounties-for-us-troops-trump-not-briefed (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/multiple-intelligence-streams-russian-bounties-for-us-troops-trump-not-briefed)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/29/timeline-russia-bounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-response/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/29/timeline-russia-bounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-response/)
https://fox59.com/news/politics/white-house-trump-not-briefed-on-unverified-bounties/ (https://fox59.com/news/politics/white-house-trump-not-briefed-on-unverified-bounties/)

Debunked.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bounties-on-american-troops
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-those-russian-bounties-dead-u-s-troops-biden-admin-n1264215
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/15/russia-afghanistan-bounties-psaki-481990
https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-intel-russian-bounties-212217973.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56775660