Trump and Russia

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

This is an oversimplification.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/10/chris-christie/christie-us-worst-recovery-wwii/



And you want to know how I found this information? I googled three words - "slowest economic recovery." The first few sources were things like Free Beacon and Washington Times. I clicked on Politifact because I know them to be neutral and moderate.

You may fancy yourself smarter than everyone else, more principled or whatever. But you are just as susceptible to political biases as anyone you accuse.

I mean did you REALLY think there is exactly one measurement to look at when evaluating the economy?

It's an oversimplification to use economic growth data when talking about economic growth recovering from a recession?

 

Also, Politifact is a left leaning organization. Since it's split with Congressional Quarterly it's assessments of political truths have found fault with three times more conservative statements than liberal, and have found nine times more conservative statements to be egregiously untrue.

 

Don't look to members of the media or "fact checkers" to inform you. They're all reporting with a bias.

 

Look at the data.

[B-Man]

Meanwhile:

 

 

CHARLIE MARTIN: Five Questions to Ask About the Current Trump Kerfuffle.

 

Question One. Does agreeing to meet with any Russian constitute collusion? Does lobbying by a Russian constitute collusion?

 

Question Two. What criminal statute covers meeting with Russian private citizens? For that matter, what criminal statute covers accepting opposition research about a candidate?

Question Three What is the massive ethical breach involved here? Was it more unethical than these?

Question Four. Does this photograph indicate collusion with the Russians? Is it only collusion when your name is "Trump"?

 

Natalia seems to pop up in the strangest places!

 

Question Five. What the hell is is wrong with these people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information?

 

The correct answer , of course, is that is only a crime if a Republican does it.

 

 

 

The Hill: Obama DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she met with Trump team.

[grinreaper]

Tell me people, why would Russia (specifically Putin) want Trump instead of Clinton? What is Russia's largest source of revenue and influence? How would Trump's policies or Clinton's policies affect that revenue? Figure that out you dumbasses on the left who continue to preach collusion and you'll have to find a new talking point.

[Deranged Rhino]

Tell me people, why would Russia (specifically Putin) want Trump instead of Clinton? What is Russia's largest source of revenue and influence? How would Trump's policies or Clinton's policies affect that revenue? Figure that out you dumbasses on the left who continue to preach collusion and you'll have to find a new talking point.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that Clinton, being a more seasoned political operative, would have been viewed by Putin as a tougher foe than Trump during the campaign. Additionally, HRC was (and continues to be) backed by some of the most prominent neoconservative strategists who jumped ship when Bush's candidacy imploded - men and women who view Russia not as an adversary but as a hostile threat that can only be dealt with through regime change in Moscow. Clinton was campaigning on starting a shooting war with Russia in Syria with her no fly zones - for that reason alone I think you could make a strong case Putin preferred the candidate who wasn't advocating launching a war against his country to the one who was and continues to be.

 

HRC would have undoubtedly been more of a challenge for Putin both geopolitically and domestically - there'd be no hope of sanctions being eased, and an increased risk of a shooting war between US and Russian forces. Especially since Clinton has proven she has no qualms about launching ill conceived regime change wars that turn once functioning nations into nothing more than human trafficking hubs (see Libya). Clinton represented everything that Putin fears most.

 

Putin no doubt believed/believes he can negotiate with Trump more so than he could have with the neocons who undoubtedly would have comprised HRC's cabinet.

 

...That doesn't mean there was any sort of collusion though, or that any of the Russian "meddling" changed a single vote - which I realize was your larger point. Just that I can think of numerous reasons why Putin would prefer Trump to Clinton. The biggest one being Clinton was campaigning on starting a war with Russia while Trump was campaigning on working to find common ground with the world's largest nuclear threat.

 

Funny how working for peaceful resolutions rather than launching regime change wars was once lauded by the left... now it's proof of collusion.

[row_33]

There is no way that the media and Dem base and her supporters were pretending or expecting Hillary was running to the right of the GOP.

 

No way at all.

The fact that nobody really has a clue what she was proposing may not have helped her.

[Deranged Rhino]

More details on how the lie of "all 17 intelligence agencies agree" on the Russian issue coming to light. Funny. Some on here have been saying this for months and months now...

 

Throwing a Curveball at ‘Intelligence Community Consensus’ on Russia Definitive assessment was not what it proclaimed to be.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/

 

Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an “IC-coordinated” assessment—the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI—while analysts from all three agencies were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department.

 

This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia NIA casts a shadow over the viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and judgments contained within. This is especially so when considered in the larger framework of what a proper “IC-coordinated assessment” process should look like, and in the aftermath of the intelligence failures surrounding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the lessons learned from that experience, none of which were applied when it came to the Russia NIA.

 

(snip)

 

According to reporting from the Washington Post, sometime during this period, CIA Director John Brennan gained access to a sensitive intelligence report from a foreign intelligence service. This service claimed to have technically penetrated the inner circle of Russian leadership to the extent that it could give voice to the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin as he articulated Russia’s objectives regarding the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—to defeat Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump, her Republican opponent. This intelligence was briefed to President Barack Obama and a handful of his closest advisors in early August, with strict instructions that it not be further disseminated.

 

The explosive nature of this intelligence report, both in terms of its sourcing and content, served to drive the investigation of Russian meddling in the American electoral process by the U.S. intelligence community. The problem, however, was that it wasn’t the U.S. intelligence community, per se, undertaking this investigation, but rather (according to the Washington Post) a task force composed of “several dozen analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI,” hand-picked by the CIA director and set up at the CIA Headquarters who “functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the intelligence community.”

The result was a closed-circle of analysts who operated in complete isolation from the rest of the U.S. intelligence community. The premise of their work—that Vladimir Putin personally directed Russian meddling in the U.S. Presidential election to tip the balance in favor of Donald Trump—was never questioned in any meaningful fashion, despite its sourcing to a single intelligence report from a foreign service.

(snip)

The decision by Brennan early on in the process to create a special task force sequestered from the rest of the intelligence community ensured that whatever product it finally produced would neither draw upon the collection and analytical resources available to the totality of the national intelligence community, nor represent the considered judgment of the entire community—simply put, the Russia NIA lacked the kind of community cohesiveness that gives national estimates and assessments such gravitas.

The over reliance on a single foreign source of intelligence likewise put Brennan and his task force on the path of repeating the same mistake made in the run up to the Iraq War, where the intelligence community based so much of its assessment on a fundamentally flawed foreign intelligence source—“Curveball.” Not much is known about the nature of the sensitive source of information Brennan used to construct his case against Russia—informed speculation suggests the Estonian intelligence service, which has a history of technical penetration of Russian governmental organizations as well as a deep animosity toward Russia that should give pause to the kind of effort to manipulate American policy toward Russia in the same way Iraqi opposition figures (Ahmed Chalabi comes to mind) sought to do on Iraq.

President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of “analysis of alternatives” mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA’s vaunted “Red Cell” was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments of premises such as “What if President Putin is telling the truth?”

(snip)

The excuse that Brennan’s source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to them, is ludicrous—both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA’s mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process.

[grinreaper]

I don't think there's any doubt that Clinton, being a more seasoned political operative, would have been viewed by Putin as a tougher foe than Trump during the campaign. Additionally, HRC was (and continues to be) backed by some of the most prominent neoconservative strategists who jumped ship when Bush's candidacy imploded - men and women who view Russia not as an adversary but as a hostile threat that can only be dealt with through regime change in Moscow. Clinton was campaigning on starting a shooting war with Russia in Syria with her no fly zones - for that reason alone I think you could make a strong case Putin preferred the candidate who wasn't advocating launching a war against his country to the one who was and continues to be.

 

HRC would have undoubtedly been more of a challenge for Putin both geopolitically and domestically - there'd be no hope of sanctions being eased, and an increased risk of a shooting war between US and Russian forces. Especially since Clinton has proven she has no qualms about launching ill conceived regime change wars that turn once functioning nations into nothing more than human trafficking hubs (see Libya). Clinton represented everything that Putin fears most.

 

Putin no doubt believed/believes he can negotiate with Trump more so than he could have with the neocons who undoubtedly would have comprised HRC's cabinet.

 

...That doesn't mean there was any sort of collusion though, or that any of the Russian "meddling" changed a single vote - which I realize was your larger point. Just that I can think of numerous reasons why Putin would prefer Trump to Clinton. The biggest one being Clinton was campaigning on starting a war with Russia while Trump was campaigning on working to find common ground with the world's largest nuclear threat.

 

Funny how working for peaceful resolutions rather than launching regime change wars was once lauded by the left... now it's proof of collusion.

All of that is nice in theory but gas and oil prices are the single most important issue with Russia. Putin had some hope of stifling our production under Hillary while he had absolutely no hope of that with Trump. I've been preaching this for years, but if we want real leverage with Russia, the Middle East, hell, even Europe then we need to become the world's supplier of energy. When that happens, we call the shots.

[Tiberius]

Tell me people, why would Russia (specifically Putin) want Trump instead of Clinton? What is Russia's largest source of revenue and influence? How would Trump's policies or Clinton's policies affect that revenue? Figure that out you dumbasses on the left who continue to preach collusion and you'll have to find a new talking point.

Why would Putin want a guy he can blackmail in the WH?

 

Here's a good story on the money laundering angle

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate

[row_33]

All of that is nice in theory but gas and oil prices are the single most important issue with Russia. Putin had some hope of stifling our production under Hillary while he had absolutely no hope of that with Trump. I've been preaching this for years, but if we want real leverage with Russia, the Middle East, hell, even Europe then we need to become the world's supplier of energy. When that happens, we call the shots.

 

handling a potentially explosive "population" in its territory is another major concern as well.

[grinreaper]

Why would Putin want a guy he can blackmail in the WH?

 

Here's a good story on the money laundering angle

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate

As much as it repulses me to respond to you, this is from your link:

 

To date, no one has documented that Trump was even aware of any suspicious entanglements in his far-flung businesses, let alone that he was directly compromised by the Russian mafia or the corrupt oligarchs who are closely allied with the Kremlin. So far, when it comes to Trump’s ties to Russia, there is no smoking gun.

[B-Man]

You gotta love democrats...................

 

 

 

 

... .

[#34fan]

Meanwhile:

 

 

CHARLIE MARTIN: Five Questions to Ask About the Current Trump Kerfuffle.

 

Question One. Does agreeing to meet with any Russian constitute collusion? Does lobbying by a Russian constitute collusion?

 

Question Two. What criminal statute covers meeting with Russian private citizens? For that matter, what criminal statute covers accepting opposition research about a candidate?

 

Question Three What is the massive ethical breach involved here? Was it more unethical than these?

 

Question Four. Does this photograph indicate collusion with the Russians? Is it only collusion when your name is "Trump"?

 

Natalia seems to pop up in the strangest places!

 

Question Five. What the hell is is wrong with these people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information?

 

The correct answer , of course, is that is only a crime if a Republican does it.

 

 

 

The Hill: Obama DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she met with Trump team.

 

Obama let her in the country, set up the meeting, then drove DT Jr. to the meeting..(Miss Daisy Style) DT Junior was forthcoming about the meeting, giving FULL disclosure at once... All the while Trump Sr. NEVER knew a thing.

 

-Does that sound about right?

 

 

Great write-up on the Trump Kids by someone who gets paid to do it.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-sub-master-universe-090031185.html

[row_33]

As much as it repulses me to respond to you, this is from your link:

 

To date, no one has documented that Trump was even aware of any suspicious entanglements in his far-flung businesses, let alone that he was directly compromised by the Russian mafia or the corrupt oligarchs who are closely allied with the Kremlin. So far, when it comes to Trump’s ties to Russia, there is no smoking gun.

 

Russians exist, they spent money, therefore Trump is guilty without a shred of evidence that he was even aware of this.

 

The Dems are setting up such an impossible standard on themselves.... it is gonna fall so hard on them....

[B-Man]

 

Obama let her in the country, set up the meeting, then drove DT Jr. to the meeting..(Miss Daisy Style) DT Junior was forthcoming about the meeting, giving FULL disclosure at once... All the while Trump Sr. NEVER knew a thing.

 

-Does that sound about right?

 

 

 

 

It's not surprising that weak 'over the top" sarcasm is the only response.

 

Deflection doesn't really work well here.

[DC Tom]

 

Obama let her in the country, set up the meeting, then drove DT Jr. to the meeting..(Miss Daisy Style)

 

Not just an !@#$, but a racist !@#$. !@#$ off.

[Tiberius]

As much as it repulses me to respond to you, this is from your link:To date, no one has documented that Trump was even aware of any suspicious entanglements in his far-flung businesses, let alone that he was directly compromised by the Russian mafia or the corrupt oligarchs who are closely allied with the Kremlin. So far, when it comes to Trump’s ties to Russia, there is no smoking gun.

No, just smoke coming from everywhere!

 

http://fortune.com/2015/02/11/trump-taj-mahal-casino-settles-u-s-money-laundering-claims/

 

Trump's casinos were fined for money laundering issues. When this house of cards falls, and it will, look out!

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Obama let her in the country, set up the meeting, then drove DT Jr. to the meeting..(Miss Daisy Style) DT Junior was forthcoming about the meeting, giving FULL disclosure at once... All the while Trump Sr. NEVER knew a thing.

 

-Does that sound about right?

 

 

Great write-up on the Trump Kids by someone who gets paid to do it.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-sub-master-universe-090031185.html

Right. We should take the OpEd of an agenda driven, paid progressive mouth piece as the definitive accounting.

 

Brilliant.

[grinreaper]

No, just smoke coming from everywhere!

 

http://fortune.com/2015/02/11/trump-taj-mahal-casino-settles-u-s-money-laundering-claims/

 

Trump's casinos were fined for money laundering issues. When this house of cards falls, and it will, look out!

Check your facts, dumbass.

[Doc Brown]

All of that is nice in theory but gas and oil prices are the single most important issue with Russia. Putin had some hope of stifling our production under Hillary while he had absolutely no hope of that with Trump. I've been preaching this for years, but if we want real leverage with Russia, the Middle East, hell, even Europe then we need to become the world's supplier of energy. When that happens, we call the shots.

 

Rhino is spot on that Hillary would fill her cabinet with neocons who would do anything in their power to gain leverage with Russia. Threatening to export our vast and increasing supply of natural gas to neighboring countries of Russia is an effective way of gaining leverage on Russia and knowing Hillary she wouldn't hesitate using this strategy for a second. Hillary combated fracking complaints by saying that production of natural gas will drive out the coal industry so she had no real interest in reducing fracking. That was a complaint of Sanders during the campaign as Hillary refused to support a ban on new oil and gas leases on public land. Putin knows what he's getting with Hillary who Putin blamed personally as the catalyst for the December 2011 mass Russian protests as she questioned whether the 2011 parliamentary elections were rigged. Although Hillary may have more regulations on drilling and fracking (my guess is she'll reduce the regulations Obama imposed because she loves to lie), she'll make sure that enough natural gas and oil is produced to threaten the monopoly Russia holds on many European countries. Trump was more of a wild card who campaigned on being energy independent, but whether he would use that as a leveraging chip against Russia was unclear. Putin probably miscalculated though given Trump's speech at the G20 in Poland.

[grinreaper]

 

Rhino is spot on that Hillary would fill her cabinet with neocons who would do anything in their power to gain leverage with Russia. Threatening to export our vast and increasing supply of natural gas to neighboring countries of Russia is an effective way of gaining leverage on Russia and knowing Hillary she wouldn't hesitate using this strategy for a second. Hillary combated fracking complaints by saying that production of natural gas will drive out the coal industry so she had no real interest in reducing fracking. That was a complaint of Sanders during the campaign as Hillary refused to support a ban on new oil and gas leases on public land. Putin knows what he's getting with Hillary who Putin blamed personally as the catalyst for the December 2011 mass Russian protests as she questioned whether the 2011 parliamentary elections were rigged. Although Hillary may have more regulations on drilling and fracking (my guess is she'll reduce the regulations Obama imposed because she loves to lie), she'll make sure that enough natural gas and oil is produced to threaten the monopoly Russia holds on many European countries. Trump was more of a wild card who campaigned on being energy independent, but whether he would use that as a leveraging chip against Russia was unclear. Putin probably miscalculated though given Trump's speech at the G20 in Poland.

You have some good points but it is all speculation regarding what Hillary might have done. She would have had to pivot far from the far left to let us gain the upper hand as it pertains to energy. As I see it our issues with supplying Europe with natural gas is obviously the transportation challenge. If/when we get that figured out we'll either be calling the shots or face war with Russia.