outsidethebox Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 15 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Good questions. I of course don't know but will speculate since you asked. The help given by the Russians to get him elected did not require a lot of day to day communication. If the campaign agreed to accept the help one time, perhaps in person, that may have been all that was needed to start the conspiracy moving. Perhaps the Don Jr Trump Tower meeting conveyed that agreement. After that, the Russians would have been doing whatever they could to help. They wouldn't need day to day guidance. After the election was won, more back and forth MIGHT have been necessary to do the Russians bidding. For instance, we don't want Mitt, how bout Rex from Exxon? Speculation to be sure but you asked. That is an awesome piece of fiction! When does the book come out?
Bob in Mich Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 Well, you guys are most welcome. I had no idea you all appreciated my writing so much. I will continue....just for all of my new friends here. I tried to answer the question of why some in the Trump administration wanted to establish secret communication lines with the Kremlin POST election. Given that the proposed conspiracy PRIOR TO THE ELECTION involved tweaking the ongoing social media to more favor Trump along with strategically timing the release of hacked emails, not a lot needed to be communicated day to day. ONCE ELECTED, if a conspiracy was in place, much more back and forth was likely to happen and the administration would want to shield those conversations from US intelligence agencies. You may not like that explanation but it is clearly possible and I would say plausible. I readily admit that I don't know how things transpired and that I am speculating. I would propose that most posting against me here do not know what transpired either. They just say with conviction that they do....which is clearly just horseshit.
Nanker Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 Well, DR has laid out original source documents for most of his case(s). I for one tend to believe those documents more than I do some radio/TV/Intarwebs talking heads who are actually just pulling it out of their ass. I'm looking at YOU MSNBC, and CNN.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: ONCE ELECTED, if a conspiracy was in place, much more back and forth was likely to happen and the administration would want to shield those conversations from US intelligence agencies. You may not like that explanation but it is clearly possible and I would say plausible. It's NOT plausible. It's fantasy. Unless your contention is that the Russians who ran this op were ignorant of tradecraft, OPSEC, and the capabilities of the USIC. And if THAT was true, then we would have MOUNTAINS of evidence for this conspiracy - rather than the sum total of ZERO EVIDENCE we've seen proffered so far from numerous committees and investigations. You can't have it both ways. The Russians can't be so sophisticated to have left no trace while simultaneously ignoring even basic OPSEC as they did in the Seychelles. If the Russians wanted to shield their conversations from the USIC, they have COUNTLESS ways to do so. Risking a face-to-face meeting, in a public hotel with dozens of cameras, witnesses, and recording devices in the area, and arriving to that meet on a charter flight whose flight logs were so easy to find the Intercept had them in November - is the last thing they would do. If there was a real operation in play, communications would have been established BEFORE the election, through any of the numerous encrypted means available to the FSB/GRU - and it would NEVER be direct contact between such famous faces like Prince. You're not speculating now, Bob. You're trying to make the facts fit the conclusion you've already made. And in so doing exposing how little you understand about how intelligence operations work and how little you paid attention to the investigation thus far. Edited March 14, 2018 by Deranged Rhino
B-Man Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 Long read.....................................for those who can. Robert Mueller’s Beltway Cover-Up Tablet Magazine, by Lee Smith Original Article News that special counselor Robert Mueller has turned his attention to Erik Prince’s January 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles with a Russian banker, a Lebanese-American political fixer, and officials from the United Arab Emirates, helps clarify the nature of Mueller’s work. It’s not an investigation that the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading—rather, it’s a cover-up. After all, Mueller took his job not at the behest of the man who by all accounts he is likely to professionally and personally disdain, Donald Trump, but of the blue-chip Beltway elite of which he is a charter member. This is long and riveting. Lee Smith does not spare Mueller. He reminds us that Mueller oversaw the anthrax attacks case and wrongly accused Stephen Hatfill, never admitting he was wrong, let alone be held accountable for his terrible error even though Hatfill was cleared and won a $5.8 million settlement from the government. And a lot more. .
snafu Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Well, you guys are most welcome. I had no idea you all appreciated my writing so much. I will continue....just for all of my new friends here. I tried to answer the question of why some in the Trump administration wanted to establish secret communication lines with the Kremlin POST election. Given that the proposed conspiracy PRIOR TO THE ELECTION involved tweaking the ongoing social media to more favor Trump along with strategically timing the release of hacked emails, not a lot needed to be communicated day to day. ONCE ELECTED, if a conspiracy was in place, much more back and forth was likely to happen and the administration would want to shield those conversations from US intelligence agencies. You may not like that explanation but it is clearly possible and I would say plausible. I readily admit that I don't know how things transpired and that I am speculating. I would propose that most posting against me here do not know what transpired either. They just say with conviction that they do....which is clearly just horseshit. This is ass backwards. --They just needed a nod and a wink to set up the biggest "collusion" to throw an election in history. --Then afterward, they needed to take the giant risk of communicating more, in order to cover their tracks. 1
Taro T Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 4 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Well, you guys are most welcome. I had no idea you all appreciated my writing so much. I will continue....just for all of my new friends here. I tried to answer the question of why some in the Trump administration wanted to establish secret communication lines with the Kremlin POST election. Given that the proposed conspiracy PRIOR TO THE ELECTION involved tweaking the ongoing social media to more favor Trump along with strategically timing the release of hacked emails, not a lot needed to be communicated day to day. ONCE ELECTED, if a conspiracy was in place, much more back and forth was likely to happen and the administration would want to shield those conversations from US intelligence agencies. You may not like that explanation but it is clearly possible and I would say plausible. I readily admit that I don't know how things transpired and that I am speculating. I would propose that most posting against me here do not know what transpired either. They just say with conviction that they do....which is clearly just horseshit. Bob, thank you for the reply. You are earnest. But your speculation without ANY 1st hand corraboration doesn't come across as plausible. Again, that's due to the 2 narratives brought forth by those actively opposing 45 are directly contradicting themselves.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/us/politics/andrew-mccabe-fbi-firing-recommendation-justice-department.html?mtrref=t.co&gwh=2BF400EF5195D6601BA0479AEB90CF95&gwt=pay McCabe spotted on the right... trying to cross that retirement finish line for that sweet, sweet, pension. 1
Nanker Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 Bet Sessions doesn't do it. He should. But I bet he won't. If he doesn't Trump might tell Jeff... "You're fired!" JMO
row_33 Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, Nanker said: Bet Sessions doesn't do it. He should. But I bet he won't. If he doesn't Trump might tell Jeff... "You're fired!" JMO on Twitter?
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 5 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Well, you guys are most welcome. I had no idea you all appreciated my writing so much. I will continue....just for all of my new friends here. I tried to answer the question of why some in the Trump administration wanted to establish secret communication lines with the Kremlin POST election. Given that the proposed conspiracy PRIOR TO THE ELECTION involved tweaking the ongoing social media to more favor Trump along with strategically timing the release of hacked emails, not a lot needed to be communicated day to day. ONCE ELECTED, if a conspiracy was in place, much more back and forth was likely to happen and the administration would want to shield those conversations from US intelligence agencies. You may not like that explanation but it is clearly possible and I would say plausible. I readily admit that I don't know how things transpired and that I am speculating. I would propose that most posting against me here do not know what transpired either. They just say with conviction that they do....which is clearly just horseshit. Wait... You're under the impression that "US intelligence agencies", which as a stand-alone concept is nebulous enough on it's own merits to lead me to question question your understanding of their individual charters and purposes, have direct oversight of of the President and Executive prerogative on foreign policy? But, even setting that aside, you think it is the duty of our government to appoint Special Councils to investigate politically motivated conspiracy theories against a duly elected President, and the duty of those Special Councils to persist in those investigation even after lengthy and thorough completion has turned up absolutely no evidence of the charges made in the politically motivated conspiracy theories in order to satisfy the political agenda of those forwarding those same theories without evidence??? Do you see where this leads? 1
Nanker Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 39 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Wait... You're under the impression that "US intelligence agencies", which as a stand-alone concept is nebulous enough on it's own merits to lead me to question question your understanding of their individual charters and purposes, have direct oversight of of the President and Executive prerogative on foreign policy? But, even setting that aside, you think it is the duty of our government to appoint Special Councils to investigate politically motivated conspiracy theories against a duly elected President, and the duty of those Special Councils to persist in those investigation even after lengthy and thorough completion has turned up absolutely no evidence of the charges made in the politically motivated conspiracy theories in order to satisfy the political agenda of those forwarding those same theories without evidence??? Do you see where this leads? Yes. Yes, of course. Because he hates Trump. Can't stand the guy. POTUS is a fool who isn't capable of understanding the complexities of dealing with large complex issues. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 Nothing to see here... it's all made up. No one at the FBI or DOJ was doing anything improper. This is just more FAKE NEWS to distract from the real Russian Collusion, right? Must be. Over 15 DOJ/FBI employees (high ranking) have been fired, reassigned, demoted, or resigned. Coincidence, right? Those who get their news from High Times and the Young Turks are CERTAIN that it's bull ****, so it must be. Facts, evidence, and new events be damned. They're sticking to the narrative which came to them from trusted "professionals" who would never work with the plotters inside the DOJ or FBI to misinform the public. Ever. Right? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 Those clinging to this narrative should read this Greenwald thread... (click for more)
Tiberius Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 More than a few eyebrows were raised when Trump fired Tillerson mere hours after the Sec State had denounced Russia for its chemical attack on UK soil. If this gets investigated also, Mueller might never get done.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 15, 2018 Posted March 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: The evidence is in plain sight. Putin speaks publicly. Trump capitulates publicly. It's been that way since before the election, which is why the Russian Federation interfered in our elections. Trump invited them publicly. Out of curiosity: How does a peace deal with the DPRK help Putin or Russia's interests? How does obliterating 200+ "Russian" troops in Syria help Putin or Russia's interests? How does openly supporting the overthrow of the Mullahs in Iran help Putin or Russia's interests? How does arming the Ukrainians help Putin or Russia's interests? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted March 15, 2018 Posted March 15, 2018 10 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: 1. What imaginary peace deal are you imagining? There is a legitimate difference between show teasers and what plays out. Hold your show ponies. Fair, we can wait to see what happens. But would you at least concede that Russia profits from having Kim in power and nuclearized - and removing him would be against Putin's geopolitical strategy? 11 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: 2. There's also a difference between "Russian" and "Rossiskaya" in the Russian language. Cossacks are "Rossiskaya." Cossacks fighters are not Russian, according to Putin (ethnically), nor are Ukrainians, Jews, or Tartars. Putin, for the most part will have non-ethnic Rossiskayas do the suicide missions chalk it up to experience when they are slaughtered. They weren't on a suicide mission. They weren't attacking a US base. The force was wiped out for simply amassing. That's a massive shift in the ROE in theater. It wasn't just a simple artillery or bombing run... it was three hours of sustained fire from B-52 and drones. B-52s versus infantry. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/13/russian-mercenaries-killed-us-airstrikes-syria That's a message to Putin, speaking in the only language he understands: force. The message wasn't designed to simply kill 200+ mercenaries - it was to tell Putin to stay out of what's to come in Iran. Leaving the nationality of the fighters aside, the forces wiped out were Putin proxies. Proxies who for the past several years had been allowed to amass where they wanted, when they wanted because the ROE prevented the US from engaging. Proxies whom Putin is depending on to maintain control in the proxy war in Syria. Wouldn't you agree losing those forces, and changing the ROE in Syria works directly against Putin and Russia's geopolitical strategy? If not, how? 17 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: 3. It would be in Russia's interests for Trump to create a power vacuum in Iran that the Russian Federation can exploit. I bet the Cossack special forces enter the vacuum Trump would stir up for Russia first. Respectfully, this is inaccurate. Russia would not benefit from a power vacuum in Iran. Any vacuum in Iran would immediately be filled by western interests who thrive in the educated, and wealthy, middle class of Iran. If the Mullahs were thrown out tomorrow, Iran would still have a functioning government - one who aligns almost immediately with western interests and ideals. The Mullahs and Putin are allies. They have major influence in Iran as things stand. Any changes to the status quo in Iran would be devastating to Russia's geopolitical interests. This isn't opinion, this is fact. The last administration went out of it's away to avoid angering or disrupting the Mullah's grip on Iran. That's why the media went nuts when Trump tweeted this - a simple statement which most Americans would agree with. Most Americans agree we should support brave people working to overthrow dictators... 22 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: 4. Arming the Ukrainians gives the Russian Federation an excuse to fire back and be offensive. What weapons we are giving the Ukrainians is just appeasing the military industrial complex and adding fuel to Russia's fire. (similar to arming teachers here is the US. NRA, and Russia are like, cha-ching - arms race) We are in more agreement than you probably think about the MiC - but that's a secondary issue to this question. Your first statement, that arming the Ukrainians gives Russia the excuse to go on the offensive, is - imo - inaccurate. If Putin wanted to take the rest of the Ukraine in '14 he could have. There was nothing to stop him, 44 went out of his way to make that clear. The only way NATO could have stopped Putin from taking the entire country was to go nuclear - and there's no way that would happen to save the Ukraine. Putin knew this. He could have taken the country. But he stopped. Arming the Ukrainians isn't going to give Putin an excuse to push forward, it's giving the Ukrainians the means to push back. It's a decisively bad deal for Putin. Which is why many in the press clamored for Trump to do this, going as far as to say him not doing it was proof he was in Putin's pocket. It wasn't until after he sent arms that the narrative changed to it's polar opposite. To sum up - each one of these issues is a much bigger blow to Putin's plans for empire than you're giving them credit for. Wouldn't you agree? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted March 15, 2018 Posted March 15, 2018 18 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: That's well argued. I'm only shortening it for the folks with small phones, not out of disrespect. Appreciate the conversation. 19 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: I think you're underestimating Russia's influence in Iran, vs. our own capabilities. The incentive for making our Iran nuclear deal was to leverage them away from Russia and towards the West. If Trump blows up the deal, that leaves Iran butt-hurt toward us. You'd be counting on a pro-Western revolution in Iran in order to swing influence in America's favor, whereas Russia's already their buddy. The Iran deal is a much longer conversation (for me), but my thoughts on it aside, you're correct that was how the deal was sold to the public and the logic given at the time. Trump tearing up the agreement would piss off the Mullahs. No question. But per the bolded: What I'm suggesting though is that the Mullahs are on the verge of being thrown out of power by the Iranian people. The people who, as we know now, did not get any of the promised economic benefit from the over $150 billion in cash the US gave to the Mullahs as part of the deal. That's part of the reason why they have been protesting for months - the Mullahs kept most of it for themselves/Hezbollah and gave the rest to their puppet masters in Moscow and Beijing, now the people are mad and there's been a run on the banks. If the Mullahs fall - without requiring the traditional US intervention (boots on the ground, bombing campaigns and long term occupation), the government which stands will not be friendly to Moscow (imo). It would almost immediately look to the GCC and the west for support and economic aid. Russia couldn't afford to put the kind of money into the economy that the west could. 27 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: We'll have to see where the line is drawn in the Ukraine. I think your point is valid, but it will require some major follow through and teeth to not serve as a convenient excuse for Putin to extend his empire. Western "aggression" is his justification at home, in the Russian media, for these advances. I don't see the actual deterrent in what Trump has done at all. You're right, without question Putin will always use the Ukraine as propaganda at home. It's what he does. Another thing to consider, by arming the Ukrainians - even if it's not going to get the Russians out of Crimea (which it won't) - it forces Putin to maintain/increase the resources he has to dump into Crimea to keep it secure. By not arming them, we would be helping Putin keep costs low. 30 minutes ago, E. Side Bulldog said: Big McMaster fan, though. I'm more skeptical of McMaster personally, though a fan of Mattis and Kelly.
Recommended Posts