DC Tom Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Until everyone realizes you weren't competent enough as Secretary of Freaking State to find a single person capable of accurately translating to Russian the word "Reset." Why on earth would State have Russian specialists? Most Qualified Candidate Ever...couldn't even find a decent translator at the State Department. With qualifications like that, as president she'd likely accidentally send an Armand's Pizzeria menu to Congress instead of a budget.
IDBillzFan Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Why on earth would State have Russian specialists? Most Qualified Candidate Ever...couldn't even find a decent translator at the State Department. With qualifications like that, as president she'd likely accidentally send an Armand's Pizzeria menu to Congress instead of a budget. The funny thing to me is that people bust on Trump because he's just a loose canon. Shoot first, aim later. I get that. But that freaking button was, quite possibly, the single simplest thing you could possibly ask someone to do. She had time. She had people. She had resources. And she went full Leodis McKelvin on it.
Nanker Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Why on earth would State have Russian specialists? Most Qualified Candidate Ever...couldn't even find a decent translator at the State Department. With qualifications like that, as president she'd likely accidentally send an Armand's Pizzeria menu to Congress instead of a budget. In my best Bill Clinton voice, "Now, I'm an old red neck from way back, an' I know what that means... as does every other pederast in the world. It's dog whistle code for certain things that aren't normally talked about in public nor polite society. Behind closed doors, or on a jet to the Caribbean though... hey. Shoot a guy can have a heck of a lot of fun in places like that. I should know."
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Yup, nothing to see here.... http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/323477-top-trump-adviser-admits-to-contacting-dnc-hackers-report Trump was obviously working with the Russians. Only the most partisan don't see it.
Logic Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Just wanted to pop in to say that anyone who honestly thinks Trump did not collude with Russians to sway the election is either not paying attention, is blinded by partisan politics, or is being willfully ignorant.There is smoke, and more smoke, and more smoke.Follow Louise Mensch, John Schindler, or Malcolm Nance on Twitter. All well connected and intelligent people with connections (and/or former employment) in the intelligence community. And before you say "They're liberals with an axe to grind!"...no they're not. Schindler and Mensch in particular are conservatives. They're just honest, patriotic conservatives, unlike the multitudes of spineless jellyfish that call themselves congressmen. Read the Trump Dossier, spend even 10 minutes really looking at all of the confirmed instances of Trump's people meeting and working with Russia, and you'll see that the issue is cut and dry. Page, Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc, etc...is anyone REALLY still saying there's nothing there? C'mon! The Sudden Public Skepticism About Trump-Russian Collusion FTA: Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445666/sudden-public-skepticism-about-trump-russian-collusion The National Review? Wait, so you're telling me that conservative outlets like Fox News and the National Review are trying to push the idea that Trump is innocent? Get right out of town!Party before country. Shameful.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Just wanted to pop in to say that anyone who honestly thinks Trump did not collude with Russians to sway the election is either not paying attention, is blinded by partisan politics, or is being willfully ignorant. Do you believe the Russians were successful in swaying the election one way or the other?
Logic Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Do you believe the Russians were successful in swaying the election one way or the other? Irrelevant. Collusion with a foreign (and hostile) entity with the purpose of subverting democracy constitutes treason. The issue of whether or not it was "successful" doesn't matter, because treason.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Irrelevant. Collusion with a foreign (and hostile) entity with the purpose of subverting democracy constitutes treason. The issue of whether or not it was "successful" doesn't matter, because treason. Do you have evidence of collusion? ...That isn't from unnamed sources citing unnamed methods?
Logic Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Do you have evidence of collusion? ...That isn't from unnamed sources citing unnamed methods? I'd suggest starting with the Trump Dossier, much of which has since been corroborated. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
B-Man Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) The National Review? Wait, so you're telling me that conservative outlets like Fox News and the National Review are trying to push the idea that Trump is innocent? Get right out of town! Party before country. Shameful. Your ignorance regarding relationship of the National Review and Donald Trump is very telling. You appear to be just another "poorly named" poster who projects his own bias onto others. I am a Conservative............not a republican. You speak in bumpersticker cliches like "party before country". I will continue to post articles that I think many here did not see, you will continue to not open the links, jump to wrong conclusions, and embarrass yourself. Added..............The National Review is a questionable source.................and your go to source is a Buzzfeed reporter..............okay. . Edited March 11, 2017 by B-Man
Logic Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Your ignorance regarding relationship of the National Review and Donald Trump is very telling. You appear to be just another "poorly named" poster who projects his own bias onto others. I am a Conservative............not a republican. You speak in bumpersticker cliches like "party before country". I will continue to post articles that I think many here did not see, you will continue to not open the links, jump to wrong conclusions, and embarrass yourself. Cool. Have you checked the link above, the Trump Dossier? Interesting reading.
IDBillzFan Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Just wanted to pop in to say that anyone who honestly thinks Trump did not collude with Russians to sway the election is either not paying attention, is blinded by partisan politics, or is being willfully ignorant. There is smoke, and more smoke, and more smoke. Hey Logic...not sure if you're new around here or just using a new username, but most posters here are not your standard fare David Letterman man-on-the-street. Which is to say you need to come at us with something other than the always-predictable opening salvo of any left wing 101 argument: If you don't believe me, you are either not paying attention, are partisan, or stupid. Few here are stupid enough to fall for that level of mindless discussion.
Logic Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) Hey Logic...not sure if you're new around here or just using a new username, but most posters here are not your standard fare David Letterman man-on-the-street. Which is to say you need to come at us with something other than the always-predictable opening salvo of any left wing 101 argument: If you don't believe me, you are either not paying attention, are partisan, or stupid. Few here are stupid enough to fall for that level of mindless discussion. You're right. I shouldn't have used such dismissive language. That was poor form on my part. I apologize. I'm too used to life at the BBMB, which was much more combative. I will adjust my level of discourse going forward. I still suggest clicking and reading through the above linked Trump Dossier to get an idea of why I am so convinced of collusion. Your ignorance regarding relationship of the National Review and Donald Trump is very telling. You appear to be just another "poorly named" poster who projects his own bias onto others. I am a Conservative............not a republican. You speak in bumpersticker cliches like "party before country". I will continue to post articles that I think many here did not see, you will continue to not open the links, jump to wrong conclusions, and embarrass yourself. Added..............The National Review is a questionable source.................and your go to source is a Buzzfeed reporter..............okay. . Buzzfeed re-posted the Trump Dossier, yes. It was not compiled by Buzzfeed, however. http://observer.com/2017/03/kremlingate-donald-trump-russia-white-house-bugged/ Above article written by: John Schindler, a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee. Edited March 11, 2017 by Logic
Deranged Rhino Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 I'd suggest starting with the Trump Dossier, much of which has since been corroborated. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html Actually, nothing in the document has been corroborated other than who it was compiled by. I'm open to the idea that Russia interfered, but before I make such a leap, I'd like to see actual evidence that doesn't rely on unnamed sources citing unnamed methods. Especially when those unnamed sources and unnamed methods are being pushed by known liars and perjurers with a history of lying the country into war on falsified grounds.
Logic Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Actually, nothing in the document has been corroborated other than who it was compiled by. I'm open to the idea that Russia interfered, but before I make such a leap, I'd like to see actual evidence that doesn't rely on unnamed sources citing unnamed methods. Especially when those unnamed sources and unnamed methods are being pushed by known liars and perjurers with a history of lying the country into war on falsified grounds. Much of the dossier HAS been corroborated as fact by various US media outlets. The Dossier, by the way, was compiled by Christopher Steele, a former british spy. Not, as claimed by another poster, a Buzzfeed reporter. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-dossier-us-news-media-corroborate-christopher-steele-allegations-cia-a7617856.html
Deranged Rhino Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) Much of the dossier HAS been corroborated as fact by various US media outlets. The Dossier, by the way, was compiled by Christopher Steele, a former british spy. Not, as claimed by another poster, a Buzzfeed reporter. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-dossier-us-news-media-corroborate-christopher-steele-allegations-cia-a7617856.html You are incorrect that "much" of the dossier has been corroborated as fact -- and the media is not an arbiter of truth on their own. From your own source (of which the Independent is... not the most reliable of rags): "Some of the claims appear to have been verified..." -- if that's your threshold for "proof" then that explains your rush to judgment on this issue. Steele was a former MI6 officer who was hired to do opposition research on Trump. That immediately not only brings into question his motive (making stuff up to justify his paycheck) but his also methods and sources. Big claims require hard proof. Did we learn nothing from WMD? Edited March 11, 2017 by Deranged Rhino
Logic Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Fair enough, Rhino.The reason I feel confident in asserting Russian interference is simply the staggering amount of connections, meetings, etc, between Russia and so many Trump aides. Sessions, Flynn, Manafort, Page, Cohen, Tillerson...at some point, it became difficult for me to dismiss so many instances as "coincidence". The efforts the Trump administration themselves have gone through to divert attention from this issue and duck any real investigation is also quite concerning to me. If Trump has nothing to hide and is as clean as he says he is, why is he so adamantly against an independent investigative committee? Why won't he release his tax returns?I fully understand that this does not, in and of itself, constitute proof. But you have to admit that there is more and more smoke as the days turn to weeks, and that Trump and co are going to great lengths to avoid any real, independent investigation into their ties and activities. I understand also that the burden of proof is on the accuser. It is my belief that the "hard proof" necessary to back up the accusations so far leveled will be coming sooner than later. More and more info -- in the form of leaks, investigative journalism -- is coming out every day, like a steady drip. To hear Trump tell it, these are both "illegal leaks!!!" AND "Fake news". How this info can be BOTH, I have no idea. Anyway, the upcoming March 20th hearings will prove very interesting in this regard.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Fair enough, Rhino. Because you're new, I'll just reiterate this point... I'm all for discussion, so don't misread my tone or my stance as anything but conversational even on matters where we disagree. The reason I feel confident in asserting Russian interference is simply the staggering amount of connections, meetings, etc, between Russia and so many Trump aides. Sessions, Flynn, Manafort, Page, Cohen, Tillerson...at some point, it became difficult for me to dismiss so many instances as "coincidence". The efforts the Trump administration themselves have gone through to divert attention from this issue and duck any real investigation is also quite concerning to me. If Trump has nothing to hide and is as clean as he says he is, why is he so adamantly against an independent investigative committee? Why won't he release his tax returns? I agree there's plenty of smoke. No question about that. Where we begin do differ is my interpretation of that smoke. While CIA, the DNC, and various other factions of the US IC are pushing the smoke as proof of a Russia interfered with the election/Trump is a Putin puppet -- what those folks ignore is the fact this anti-Russian hysteria predates Trump's campaign by several years. If you look back at recent history, from 2011 to now, you will see an ever increasing escalation of that anti-Russian narrative coming out of the same people's mouths who are now pushing the Trump connection. There's a reason why the neocon establishment, the neoliberal establishment, and many lifers within State and CIA flocked to Clinton's campaign -- and it wasn't her politics. It was her promise of escalating the war in Syria to include no-fly zones -- which could only be accomplished by US pilots dropping bombs on Russian troops. This was her central campaign plank in regards to her Syrian policy... and it was applauded by all the same figure heads at Langley and Foggy Bottom who are now pushing the Trump is compromised narrative. Had (or if/when) these claims come with hard evidence, I'm more than open to believing them. But right now they seem to be nothing more than a new phase in an agenda that predates Trump's campaign by years: Regime change in Moscow. I fully understand that this does not, in and of itself, constitute proof. But you have to admit that there is more and more smoke as the days turn to weeks, and that Trump and co are going to great lengths to avoid any real, independent investigation into their ties and activities. I understand also that the burden of proof is on the accuser. It is my belief that the "hard proof" necessary to back up the accusations so far leveled will be coming sooner than later. More and more info -- in the form of leaks, investigative journalism -- is coming out every day, like a steady drip. To hear Trump tell it, these are both "illegal leaks!!!" AND "Fake news". How this info can be BOTH, I have no idea. Anyway, the upcoming March 20th hearings will prove very interesting in this regard. It can be both if what we're seeing isn't straight forward scandal but instead a turf war going on behind the scenes between power players of the deep state.
Recommended Posts