Trump and Russia

[DC Tom]

 

 

...Unless (a) is actually the Russians capitalizing on the overblown reaction to the election results, which would be pretty deft on their part.

 

No less deft than manipulating the election to begin with, which is kind-of my point. Presuming the Russians "hacked" the election and then just ceased meddling and became passive observers is patently ridiculous.

[fridge]

 

In other words: the hobbling of an incoming administration (before day one in the office) by a group of unelected folks within the DNC, media, the USIC, and the MiC who didn't agree with the choice the American people made (for differing reasons).

 

That's the real threat to the country. Not this Russian collusion narrative.

 

I love that you're still using narrative to somehow dismiss this, despite actual evidence and the DOJ telling you there's something there.

 

The DNC is a joke, not necessarily for the reasons you listed, but certainly the two party system has created a monster... that being said, I'm still going to go with foreign influence over national elections as a much higher threat to our country. I mean, isn't that the very first conservative value? Protect our nation, etc!

[snafu]

No less deft than manipulating the election to begin with, which is kind-of my point. Presuming the Russians "hacked" the election and then just ceased meddling and became passive observers is patently ridiculous.

I think I remember Putin saying that he gave up on Trumps chances near the end of the campaign. Elections are regularly scheduled and you don't have to be so quick as when there is a shocking upset that you use to your advantage. I'm not saying you're exactly right, but I do believe that to some extent the Russians are playing along and trying to gain an advantage from our internal divisions.

 

I think it is why Trump is so bad at handling this whole matter. He usually likes to create the distraction himself to his advantage. He's got no control over this distraction and it keeps him off balance.

 

I have no love for the Russians and Putin, but I expect them to do this. It is the domestic actors who are trying to undermine the functioning of the administration (because they have a different goal) that really pisses me off.

[aristocrat]

 

So he got baited by someone claiming Hillary had Russian connections. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

If he just reported it and went on his way, that would be a valid argument.

 

Conspiracy to commit election fraud by working with a foreign entity is a crime. It's actually pretty interesting to see all of the backtracking here as if it's still a non-story.

 

What if the lady had info that Hillary was in bed with the Russians as she said?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I love that you're still using narrative to somehow dismiss this, despite actual evidence and the DOJ telling you there's something there.

 

The DNC is a joke, not necessarily for the reasons you listed, but certainly the two party system has created a monster... that being said, I'm still going to go with foreign influence over national elections as a much higher threat to our country. I mean, isn't that the very first conservative value? Protect our nation, etc!

 

I'm not a conservative.

 

What actual evidence has been presented that isn't unnamed sources citing unnamed methods? It's been a year and I'm still waiting for anything that rises above the level of hearsay or speculation. The very people you say are telling us there's something there told us there was something there in the deserts of Iraq and that the NSA was in no way collecting US citizen's digital communications. Not the same agencies, the same people. I think it's only prudent to question proven perjurers and known liars when presented with nothing but their word. You may disagree.

 

Where was this outrage when Russia meddled in the 2000 elections, or 2004, or 2008, or 2012? Where was your outrage when the US meddled in the Israeli elections or the French elections in just this past decade? Or does your outrage only engage when political partisans and media talking heads tell you this time it's more outrageous than ever before?

 

My argument has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with who is best served by this narrative. It's not the country, and certainly not the people. In fact, it works directly against your interests if you don't advocate for endless war, bloated defense budgets, and regime change in principle -- all of which were left leaning principles...

 

What's changed?

[fridge]

What if the lady had info that Hillary was in bed with the Russians as she said? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah, so I imagine there's more to this, as Jr.'s first instinct wasn't to just report this thing. For some reason he wasn't alarmed at all that a Russian would be attempting to help him, and instead welcomed that chance (which is where the conspiracy to commit treason comes in).

[fridge]

 

I'm not a conservative.

 

What actual evidence has been presented that isn't unnamed sources citing unnamed methods? It's been a year and I'm still waiting for anything that rises above the level of hearsay or speculation. The very people you say are telling us there's something there told us there was something there in the deserts of Iraq and that the NSA was in no way collecting US citizen's digital communications. Not the same agencies, the same people. I think it's only prudent to question proven perjurers and known liars when presented with nothing but their word. You may disagree.

 

Where was this outrage when Russia meddled in the 2000 elections, or 2004, or 2008, or 2012? Where was your outrage when the US meddled in the Israeli elections or the French elections in just this past decade? Or does your outrage only engage when political partisans and media talking heads tell you this time it's more outrageous than ever before?

 

My argument has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with who is best served by this narrative. It's not the country, and certainly not the people. In fact, it works directly against your interests if you don't advocate for endless war, bloated defense budgets, and regime change in principle -- all of which were left leaning principles...

 

What's changed?

 

First of all, I'm no expert, so nothing I say should be taken that seriously. I also don't have a single partisan bone in my body so the left-leaning principles mean nothing to me.

 

I think this campaign will go down as one of the great blemishes in our nation's history. The DNC rigged their nomination, the GOP went with an aging failed business man/realty TV star/internet troll, a man that has truly defied the term "presidential" to it's very core since his inauguration. For people that don't typically watch the MSM, this election was gross. All talking points were boiled down to he-said-she-said and there was even less political debate than normal.

 

All of this has triggered a new wave of "not my president" nonsense and there are millions of people on the internet that are praying daily that there's some magic button that removes Trump from office. It's comparable to the birther movement. One party simply not coming to grips with or welcoming their new President.

 

BUT... the Comey stuff perked my ears up. I know the Republicans were riding the Comey train during the Clinton email scandal, so it seemed like it was not a partisan issue. Trump firing him is way more interesting than of the previous "not my president" nonsense.

 

Donald Trump Jr.'s emails, which he himself released absolutely is evidence. When the NYT was teasing that sort of information, people like you were jumping on them saying there's no actual 'unnamed sources", but this definitely relieves that concern to me. I mean, the primary source publicly released the information, so... that's as clear cut as it gets.

 

At this point, we should wait for the investigation to conclude. It's been months and should be comprehensive enough that if they determined no collusion occurred, I would accept it.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

First of all, I'm no expert, so nothing I say should be taken that seriously. I also don't have a single partisan bone in my body so the left-leaning principles mean nothing to me.

 

 

It's all a discussion/opinion.

 

 

BUT... the Comey stuff perked my ears up. I know the Republicans were riding the Comey train during the Clinton email scandal, so it seemed like it was not a partisan issue. Trump firing him is way more interesting than of the previous "not my president" nonsense.

 

Donald Trump Jr.'s emails, which he himself released absolutely is evidence. When the NYT was teasing that sort of information, people like you were jumping on them saying there's no actual 'unnamed sources", but this definitely relieves that concern to me. I mean, the primary source publicly released the information, so... that's as clear cut as it gets.

 

At this point, we should wait for the investigation to conclude. It's been months and should be comprehensive enough that if they determined no collusion occurred, I would accept it.

 

Evidence of what though? It's not evidence of a crime of any sort. It's not evidence of collusion. DTJr is full of shite, that's not surprising to anyone I'm sure. It's also not (necessarily) a crime unless he perjured himself. But unless you're going to argue that the content of the discussions at that meeting - which no one disputes - is a lie, then the email is not proof of anything close to what those with skin in this narrative are claiming.

 

That said, I still remain open to evidence because if there truly was vote tampering or collusion, I agree it's a big deal.

 

I'll also say this, merely for your own investigative purposes: if you really didn't pay much attention to the Russian story until the Comey stuff happened, go back and see when the narrative actually started. It began back in 2012, long before Trump's presidency or 2016 campaign was even a thing. It's design is to re-start a cold war, justifying big budgets for the pentagon, MiC, and IC who aren't getting the traction from the "war on terror" they had been enjoying for the past decade and a change.

 

Russia is not a friend. They're just not a hostile foe. This narrative is trying to make you believe that the later is true to justify their agendas which include regime change in Syria, Iran, and Moscow. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

[B-Man]

 

GOALPOSTS MOVED: From “hacking” to “collusion” to “willingness to collude.”

 

the dems/media keep lowering their story (and themselves)

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: “Obviously if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime – such as hacking the DNC – that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning.”

 

 

.

Edited July 12, 2017 by B-Man

[Azalin]

 

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: “Obviously if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime – such as hacking the DNC – that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning.”

 

 

I wonder how much longer it will take before people start calling Dershowitz a right wing partisan hack.

[Prickly Pete]

 

 

It's all a discussion/opinion.

 

 

Evidence of what though? It's not evidence of a crime of any sort. It's not evidence of collusion. DTJr is full of shite, that's not surprising to anyone I'm sure. It's also not (necessarily) a crime unless he perjured himself. But unless you're going to argue that the content of the discussions at that meeting - which no one disputes - is a lie, then the email is not proof of anything close to what those with skin in this narrative are claiming.

 

That said, I still remain open to evidence because if there truly was vote tampering or collusion, I agree it's a big deal.

 

I'll also say this, merely for your own investigative purposes: if you really didn't pay much attention to the Russian story until the Comey stuff happened, go back and see when the narrative actually started. It began back in 2012, long before Trump's presidency or 2016 campaign was even a thing. It's design is to re-start a cold war, justifying big budgets for the pentagon, MiC, and IC who aren't getting the traction from the "war on terror" they had been enjoying for the past decade and a change.

 

Russia is not a friend. They're just not a hostile foe. This narrative is trying to make you believe that the later is true to justify their agendas which include regime change in Syria, Iran, and Moscow. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

 

I have stayed away from this forum basically since the inauguration. But when I do come back to check in, I always see that there is no need to jump in, Greggy is here, and taking care of it.

 

 

Greggy, I'm glad you have the strength to bicker with these poor lost souls. They are brainwashed partisans, I know loads of them, and they will always grasp for a new straw.

 

Carry on....

Edited July 12, 2017 by HoF Watkins

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

You're missing the point. You have to ask yourself how did Trump (and Bernie) on the other side got such support this election running populist campaigns despite being unconventional candidates? The reason is the US is turning into an oligarchy and people are waking up to that fact. Most politicians give the illusion of fighting for you when they're only enriching themselves on behests of their donors representing large coorporations. Like George Carlin said years ago, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

I am well aware that politicians give the illusion of fighting for us. They also switch sides if they feel they have a better chance of being elected. That is why I don't subscribe to one party or the other.

 

A complete outsider thinking he could fix Washington... Silly. People thinking he could do it. Even sillier imo.

 

Bernie got support because of shrill Hillary.

 

And by doing so, you're playing into the partisan game, which only furthers the decline of the political discourse in this country and distracts the majority of people who aren't paying attention to the news outside the headlines.

 

I've said since last year that if there is real evidence presented, I'll happily listen. And I mean it. Despite my out-of-the-box thinking in the Deep State thread, I have said repeatedly in that thread I'm open to new ideas and evidence and willing to admit I'm wrong. But so far, over a year into this investigation/narrative, there hasn't been any evidence of collusion or that the election "meddling" changed a single vote. (Conversely, there's been voluminous evidence proving the thesis of that thread that we are indeed in the middle of a deep state war since January... but I digress.)

 

So if it's not stopping collusion, and if it's not about protecting the integrity of our elections -- what is it really about?

 

Politics. Partisan politics. Mixed with an information war ongoing between oligarchs who are using their political parties and media outlets as their proxies to not just score points on their opponents, but to confuse and mislead the public in general.

 

I'm arguing that by focusing on the noise, you're missing the signal. As Doc said, the signal is that our republic has fallen into an oligarchy. Until we fix that, everything connected to this Russia/Trump story is merely re-arranging the furniture in a burning house and pretending that'll put out the fire.

 

This Russian narrative actively undermines an incoming administration and has undermined the confidence in our election process while those pushing the narrative claim they are trying to protect that very process. It's backwards.

 

Who does that kind of narrative really serve? The oligarchs and industries who see Trump's nationalistic policies as a threat to exposing the whole ballgame. That doesn't mean I believe Trump is a chess master, that doesn't mean I even support the guy. It just means that this narrative stinks to high heaven and under the surface serves several different groups simultaneously - groups that very openly do not give a rat's ass about restoring our republic, protecting our country, or the peoples' interests.

 

So why are you carrying the water for these groups?

 

The only good thing to come out of this election cycle is that people are energized for real change. Now we just have to get people focused on the right issues. And the right issue has nothing - and I mean nothing - to do with Russian election meddling.

 

imo of course.

I was never been a fan of Donald. He's always been a pompous azz. Why should I suddenly like him?

 

The US has been involved in promoting democracy across the globe for a long long time. How is that partisan?

 

Did we have a right to go into Afghanistan. Yes. Check GWB.

Did we have a right to go into Iraq. imo No. Strike GWB.

 

Should have Obama said or tried to do anything about the Soviets involvement in the election? Yes. Strike BHO.

Why are people carrying the water for Frump?

 

I'll leave it at that.

 

 

It's all a discussion/opinion.

For some. Others I'm not so sure about.

[ALF]

You're missing the point. You have to ask yourself how did Trump (and Bernie) on the other side got such support this election running populist campaigns despite being unconventional candidates? The reason is the US is turning into an oligarchy and people are waking up to that fact. Most politicians give the illusion of fighting for you when they're only enriching themselves on behests of their donors representing large corporations. Like George Carlin said years ago, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

 

Very well put, I agree.

[B-Man]

The media’s mass hysteria over ‘collusion’ is out of control

Washington Post, by Ed Rogers

 

Original Article

[Tiberius]

I'd have to say this is an interesting sub plot here:

 

 

"Inside a White House in which infighting often seems like a core cultural value, three straight days of revelations in the New York Times about Trump Jr. have inspired a new round of accusations and recriminations, with advisers privately speculating about who inside the Trump orbit may be leaking damaging information about the presidents son."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/category-5-hurricane-white-house-under-siege-by-trump-jrs-russia-revelations/2017/07/11/1e091478-664d-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_whitehouse-910pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e52e7b07fe62

 

 

There were three members of the administrion that leaked this story.

[Tiberius]

Well, seeing how they have been saying for months the whole Russia story was fake, I think we will reserve judgement

 

'The White House rejected the criticism. Asked about the use of the term treason, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the principal deputy White House press secretary, said, I think those new words are ridiculous.'

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Rockpile233]

I enjoyed all this Russia BS at the beginning, strictly due to my distaste for Trump and his family.

 

At this point it's a marginal show that has ran too many seasons. Wake me up when something real happens.

[B-Man]

I enjoyed all this Russia BS at the beginning, strictly due to my distaste for Trump and his family.

 

At this point it's a marginal show that has ran too many seasons.

 

Wake me up when something real happens.

 

 

You're going to be sleeping a Loooooonnnng time

[Koko78]

 

If he just reported it and went on his way, that would be a valid argument.

 

Conspiracy to commit election fraud by working with a foreign entity is a crime. It's actually pretty interesting to see all of the backtracking here as if it's still a non-story.

 

Report it to whom? Junior does not work for the government, and was/is under no obligation to report anything.

[row_33]

 

Report it to whom? Junior does not work for the government, and was/is under no obligation to report anything.

 

Yup.