Trump and Russia

[Logic]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

Just wanted to say thank you for a reasoned and well stated counterpoint to my stance.

 

As I said, I used to pop into the BBMB politics section and it was, well...less than civil, less than reasonable.

 

I can see from scrolling through several of the threads in section that the debate here is far superior in terms of content and decorum. Not surprising, given that the main football board here is ALSO superior to BBMB in this regard.

 

Anyway, I apologize again for any aggressive or dismissive tone that may have been evident in my initial few posts. I am passionate (and frightened) about this issue, but I came in too hot on this one. I admit that.

 

Again, thanks for the quality discussion. I look forward to seeing what March 20th, and the comings weeks and month in general, bring to light about this topic. It is my hope that if collusion is eventually proven conclusively, conservatives will put aside their party affiliation and recognize the seriousness and illegality of the situation and will react accordingly and hold those involved accountable.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just wanted to say thank you for a reasoned and well stated counterpoint to my stance.

 

As I said, I used to pop into the BBMB politics section and it was, well...less than civil, less than reasonable.

 

I can see from scrolling through several of the threads in section that the debate here is far superior in terms of content and decorum. Not surprising, given that the main football board here is ALSO superior to BBMB in this regard.

 

Anyway, I apologize again for any aggressive or dismissive tone that may have been evident in my initial few posts. I am passionate (and frightened) about this issue, but I came in too hot on this one. I admit that.

 

Again, thanks for the quality discussion. I look forward to seeing what March 20th, and the comings weeks and month in general, bring to light about this topic. It is my hope that if collusion is eventually proven conclusively, conservatives will put aside their party affiliation and recognize the seriousness and illegality of the situation and will react accordingly and hold those involved accountable.

 

No apology needed on my end. I like the influx of new posters we've had so far. And the dungeon here can get testy at times, happens to the best of us.

[IDBillzFan]

Anyway, I apologize again for any aggressive or dismissive tone that may have been evident in my initial few posts. I am passionate (and frightened) about this issue, but I came in too hot on this one. I admit that.

 

We get pissy here very quickly sometimes. You'll quickly see the difference between thoughtful discussion and nutbags.

[B-Man]

JOHN NOLTE: RussiaGate: Six Months. No Evidence — It’s Time for the Media to Put Up or Shut Up.

 

“The media has not only found less than nothing, what has been found is a Team Trump behaving responsibly and appropriately in their dealings with Russian officials. Best of all, the only real scandal that appears to have been uncovered involves highly-inappropriate Obama Administration surveillance of a political rival, felonious leaks from an out-of-control intelligence community, and an extra-legal federal bureaucracy.”

 

[Logic]

 

 

JOHN NOLTE: RussiaGate: Six Months. No Evidence — It’s Time for the Media to Put Up or Shut Up.

 

“The media has not only found less than nothing, what has been found is a Team Trump behaving responsibly and appropriately in their dealings with Russian officials. Best of all, the only real scandal that appears to have been uncovered involves highly-inappropriate Obama Administration surveillance of a political rival, felonious leaks from an out-of-control intelligence community, and an extra-legal federal bureaucracy.”

 

 

Thank you for posting the article. I vehemently disagree with the statement you highlighted.

from http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/7/14836238/trump-obama-tweet-wiretap-phone-illegal-watergate-fbi-accuse-comey :

"Under US law, presidents cannot direct the FBI or other intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on the calls, or read the emails, of an American citizen without a warrant authorized by a specialized surveillance court. That request would come from the FBI, not the White House, and would only be granted if the court had reason to suspect possible wrongdoing. Obama no more could have ordered the FBI to tap Trump’s phones than he could have ordered the FBI to search Trump’s home or office."

That's the real crux of the matter. The only way anyone was "involved in highly inappropriate surveillance" of Trump is if the court had reason to suspect possible wrongdoing.

And as far as Nolte's quote "Team Trump behaving responsibly and appropriately in their dealings with Russian officials", he left off "and then lying about it again and again":

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/

If their conduct was so lawful and pure, I'm truly curious: Why the constant lies and changing of stories and responses?

[grinreaper]

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.

Trump would be a fool to release his tax returns. That would give the left 4-8 years to keep misunderstanding them and creating false narratives. It wasn't that long ago that the left was all up in arms that his no travel list had 7 countries on it that their exclusion somehow benefited Trump financially. They were screaming and hollering until it was made clear that those countries were designated by Obama.

 

In this instance more and more smoke amounts to less and less fire. To include Sessions in your vast conspiracy is ludicrous. He met the Russian Ambassador at a reception and exchanged pleasantries. He also met with him in his capacity as a Senator. "It is my belief"? Sounds like you are just hoping a little too much that there are ethical problems within this administration. Like others have said, don't try to bs us and................................ welcome to the board.

[DC Tom]

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?

 

Why should he? There's no earthly reason for him to.

 

"Release your tax returns" is the second-stupidest demand to make of a political candidate, right after "release your college grades!"

[Logic]

 

Why should he? There's no earthly reason for him to.

 

"Release your tax returns" is the second-stupidest demand to make of a political candidate, right after "release your college grades!"

I mean...he's the first president in 40 years not to do so. Aren't you curious why?

 

No, of course you're not. Me? I just find it odd that one of the most boastful, braggadocios men in U.S. history -- one who largely made his name off of tooting his own horn with regard to his financial acumen -- absolutely refuses to do something that every president since Nixon has done.

 

I just want to be completely clear: If it comes out that there WAS collusion with Russia to sway the election, you'll readily go along with calls for impeachment, right? You'd be in full agreement that Trump had committed treason and there would be no other recourse? Is that fair to say?

[grinreaper]

 

 

Thank you for posting the article. I vehemently disagree with the statement you highlighted.

 

from http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/7/14836238/trump-obama-tweet-wiretap-phone-illegal-watergate-fbi-accuse-comey :

 

"Under US law, presidents cannot direct the FBI or other intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on the calls, or read the emails, of an American citizen without a warrant authorized by a specialized surveillance court. That request would come from the FBI, not the White House, and would only be granted if the court had reason to suspect possible wrongdoing. Obama no more could have ordered the FBI to tap Trump’s phones than he could have ordered the FBI to search Trump’s home or office."

 

That's the real crux of the matter. The only way anyone was "involved in highly inappropriate surveillance" of Trump is if the court had reason to suspect possible wrongdoing.

 

And as far as Nolte's quote "Team Trump behaving responsibly and appropriately in their dealings with Russian officials", he left off "and then lying about it again and again":

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/

 

If their conduct was so lawful and pure, I'm truly curious: Why the constant lies and changing of stories and responses?

 

Under U.S law it is probably illegal to sell guns knowing that they will end up in Mexican drug dealers hands too. I think it is also illegal for the IRS to target groups for political reasons. Or maybe hack into a journalist's computer? Pay to play? Lying to the American public for weeks about Benghazi? The AG meeting in secret with the husband of a person under investigation? Subverting the Constitution by failing to live up to your oath of office?

 

Only one man lied about meeting with the Russians. He got fired by Trump, not for meeting with the Russians but for lying to the V.P.

[Logic]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

That's quite a lot of connections!

More smoke = less fire? I disagree.

[grinreaper]

I mean...he's the first president in 40 years not to do so. Aren't you curious why?

 

No, of course you're not. Me? I just find it odd that one of the most boastful, braggadocios men in U.S. history -- one who largely made his name off of tooting his own horn with regard to his financial acumen -- absolutely refuses to do something that every president since Nixon has done.

 

I just want to be completely clear: If it comes out that there WAS collusion with Russia to sway the election, you'll readily go along with calls for impeachment, right? You'd be in full agreement that Trump had committed treason and there would be no other recourse? Is that fair to say?

Two things. Read post #166 of this thread. That's the answer why he won't release his tax returns. The other is he can't be impeached for something he did before he was in office. Hanged maybe, but not impeached.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

 

That's quite a lot of connections!

 

More smoke = less fire? I disagree.

Learn to use the quote function. He was probably just trying to sell uranium to them.

Edited March 12, 2017 by grinreaper

[Logic]

Two things. Read post #166 of this thread. That's the answer why he won't release his tax returns. The other is he can't be impeached for something he did before he was in office. Hanged maybe, but not impeached.

Learn to use the quote function. He was probably just trying to sell uranium to them.

Sorry I didn't format my post exactly as you'd have liked me to.

 

I suppose the offense was so great that there's no sense in commenting on the content of the link I posted?

 

All just coincidence, nothing to see here, right?

[grinreaper]

Sorry I didn't format my post exactly as you'd have liked me to.

 

I suppose the offense was so great that there's no sense in commenting on the content of the link I posted?

 

All just coincidence, nothing to see here, right?

Don't be a Tiberius. I knew you were responding to me, but others may not know that. Properly quoting just makes it a little easier for everyone to follow along. It also tends to prevent misunderstandings. When someone comes up with some proof then I'll sit up and take notice. Your charts are a flimsy attempt to make forced connections and I'll not take my time to refute each and every one of them because it's just speculation.

[DC Tom]

I mean...he's the first president in 40 years not to do so. Aren't you curious why?

 

No. Why should I be? It's a useless concern. The IRS already reviews them; releasing them to the public for review accomplishes jack ****.

 

 

No, of course you're not. Me? I just find it odd that one of the most boastful, braggadocios men in U.S. history -- one who largely made his name off of tooting his own horn with regard to his financial acumen -- absolutely refuses to do something that every president since Nixon has done.

 

So you prove he's a narcissist. We already know he's a narcissist. We don't need twelve years of tax returns to prove it. Really, your "logic" is nothing of the sort: you want validation of your opinion of Trump, and want him to provide support for you preconceived notions. I guarantee that if you did see his tax returns, and they showed nothing, you'd claim they were fraudulent. You don't want to "know" anything.

 

 

I just want to be completely clear: If it comes out that there WAS collusion with Russia to sway the election, you'll readily go along with calls for impeachment, right? You'd be in full agreement that Trump had committed treason and there would be no other recourse? Is that fair to say?

 

That's not treason. Treason has a very specific definition. "Election fraud" isn't it.

 

Please change your screen name from "Logic" to "Making **** Up As You Go Along."

[DC Tom]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

 

That's quite a lot of connections!

 

More smoke = less fire? I disagree.

 

#3 is cute, with a connection going through a "mystery man." And Flynn visiting the GRU in an official capacity as director of the DIA - really, the DIA director who argued for closer cooperation with Russia on Syrian chemical weapons, appointed by the president who pursued Russian cooperation with Syrian on chemical weapons, meets with the GRU in that capacity, and it's evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia?

 

You consider nonsense like that "smoke?" You really are pretty !@#$ing stupid, aren't you?

[Rob's House]

I have a theory that people don't really give a **** about 90% of the things they argue over in politics. Case in point, Four years ago the left treated Mitt Romney like the village idiot because he said Russia was a threat. Obama is caught on a hot mic telling a Russian official he'll have more flexibility after his election, advances unilateral disarmament, and sells Russia a shitload of uranium, and no one cares.

 

All of a sudden, and without evidence, the Russians are scapegoated for Hillary's loss and now they're the greatest threat to world stability. To those on the left, forgive me if I doubt your sincerity.

[PastaJoe]

Just like a Democrat to complain about money being spent on something other than making Americans more dependent on the government.

 

"IIlegal immigrants don't have enough to eat, and you want to spend millions of dollars to find out why we left three American soldiers and a US Ambassador for dead after blaming a Youtube video in order to make it to a fund raiser in Vegas?"

Hey nutbag (the phrase you used to describe your type), I was responding to someone who was complaining about how much the investigations into the Trump-Russia scandal were going to cost taxpayers as a reason they shouldn't go forward. It's called pointing out the irony.

[Deranged Rhino]

Hey nutbag (the phrase you used to describe your type), I was responding to someone who was complaining about how much the investigations into the Trump-Russia scandal were going to cost taxpayers as a reason they shouldn't go forward. It's called pointing out the irony.

 

You mean kind of like this?

 

So PastaPot, what's your take on George W Bush now?

You hated him during B. O.'s regime and remember - everything was W's fault. Everything.

 

 

 

I don't hate people, I disagreed with most of his policies. I supported his decision to invade Afghanistan and still do, and his outreach to Africa to reduce diseases like AIDS. His biggest flaw was letting those around him convince him to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and gave us the situation we're still in. ...

 

 

 

 

And yet, you're letting the SAME PEOPLE who convinced W to invade Iraq, based on lies and confirmation bias, convince YOU that the Russians compromised Trump and/or influenced the election. Literally, it's the same people.

 

Holy lord that's the funniest post of the year.

[B-Man]

FWIW...........

 

Vladimir Putin’s spokesman told CNN on Sunday that Hillary Clinton advisers had several meetings with the Russian ambassador during the election.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ky2HJSaPBY

 

 

The Washington Examiner reported:

People associated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign also met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman.

“Well, if you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that [the Russian ambassador] had lots of meetings of that kind,”

Dmitry Peskov told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in an interview that aired Sunday.

[Nanker]

I mean...he's the first president in 40 years not to do so. Aren't you curious why?

 

No, of course you're not. Me? I just find it odd that one of the most boastful, braggadocios men in U.S. history -- one who largely made his name off of tooting his own horn with regard to his financial acumen -- absolutely refuses to do something that every president since Nixon has done.

 

I just want to be completely clear: If it comes out that there WAS collusion with Russia to sway the election, you'll readily go along with calls for impeachment, right? You'd be in full agreement that Trump had committed treason and there would be no other recourse? Is that fair to say?

You know the first politician to run for POTUS who did that, don't you? It was the gentleman businessman, former CEO of American Motor George Romney - Mitt's father. The hubbub back then was "he's so rich, why is he running and what scams has he run to evade paying his taxes?" The "standard" of the day was to release about 5 years of tax returns to the public for the media to pick apart like seagulls at a strip mall dumpster, looking for any scrap of **** they could write a story about. Romney was so taken aback by the criticism, he released all of his tax records, IIRC.

 

Well, this time we didn't have a gentleman businessman running for POTUS. The last businessman was a gentleman like his father and he took it in the azz from the media and the Dems. Trump doesn't give two loose shi ts about the media or his critics. He's no gentleman in that respect. He lines up against his adversaries and defeats them, then he goes about doing just what the hell he wants to do which is generally what he said (somewhere along the line) he was going to do.

 

Things like this make his fans go wild:

And no. I'm stoic.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Nanker