row_33 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 K-9, how much time do you spend EVERY NIGHT watching FoxNews talkshows? And if you aren't watching, how can you trust any media hi-lite when that organization despises Fox and will twist everything it says?
B-Man Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) ROGER KIMBALL: Nothing Burger With Wheeze. As Ted Cruz observed many months ago, the whole Russian collusion delusion is a “nothing burger.” Robert Mueller’s heavy-handed “let’s-squeeze-’em” pursuit of these two former players in Donald Trump’s campaign may make for dramatic headlines. And doubtless, it is a nuisance (and potentially more) for Messrs. Manafort and Gates, who, if they have incompetent lawyers, may face jail time and extensive fines. But really, at the end of the day, their alleged malfeasance, despite the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading in the indictment, amounts to concealing from Uncle Sam some $75 million they hoovered up as unregistered foreign agents for Ukraine and sending the proceeds through the rinse, suds, spin, and dry cycle back home in the United States. Naughty, yes; prosecutable, to be sure; but it has nothing to do with the assigned subject of Robert Mueller’s terrier-like activities as special counsel. As Andrew C. McCarthy put it in a characteristically incisive summary of the episode, Mueller’s case “seems shaky and overcharged” and will likely be a “boon to Trump,” who is not mentioned in the indictment, which focuses on activities that took place five and even 10 years ago, long before Donald Trump began disturbing the sleep of the NeverTrumpers. Edited October 31, 2017 by B-Man
row_33 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 Soviet agents have infiltrated US government and lobbying since FDR's days, he had to kick out his VP for being bought off by the USSR.
K-9 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 K-9, how much time do you spend EVERY NIGHT watching FoxNews talkshows? And if you aren't watching, how can you trust any media hi-lite when that organization despises Fox and will twist everything it says? I haven't watched Faux News in years. But I do enjoy a good hit piece on slant head Hannity. As for "trusting" news organization, there are a few I have complete faith in. But the WP link I posted was an opinion piece. If you care to refute the writer's pov, feel free. It's amusing to see the GOP media mouth pieces engaging in the "what about" defense with all the deflection towards Clinton and the sheer amount of complete crap they are compelled to spew. ROGER KIMBALL: Nothing Burger With Wheeze. As Ted Cruz observed many months ago, the whole Russian collusion delusion is a “nothing burger.” Robert Mueller’s heavy-handed “let’s-squeeze-’em” pursuit of these two former players in Donald Trump’s campaign may make for dramatic headlines. And doubtless, it is a nuisance (and potentially more) for Messrs. Manafort and Gates, who, if they have incompetent lawyers, may face jail time and extensive fines. But really, at the end of the day, their alleged malfeasance, despite the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading in the indictment, amounts to concealing from Uncle Sam some $75 million they hoovered up as unregistered foreign agents for Ukraine and sending the proceeds through the rinse, suds, spin, and dry cycle back home in the United States. Naughty, yes; prosecutable, to be sure; but it has nothing to do with the assigned subject of Robert Mueller’s terrier-like activities as special counsel. As Andrew C. McCarthy put it in a characteristically incisive summary of the episode, Mueller’s case “seems shaky and overcharged” and will likely be a “boon to Trump,” who is not mentioned in the indictment, which focuses on activities that took place five and even 10 years ago, long before Donald Trump began disturbing the sleep of the NeverTrumpers. Your media sources need to acquaint themselves with the scope of Mueller's mandate.
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 Your media sources need to acquaint themselves with the scope of Mueller's mandate. Same as the scope of Ken Starr's mandate: "Anything we can use to undermine the president." Only I expect this result to be even more insipid...lying on his golf scores or something.
row_33 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 I would gladly welcome the removal of all Russian lobbyists no matter what party they belong to. I'm sure Mueller will go after the GOP, and i'm 20% sure he'll do so with as much effort on the Dems, when both parties have been involved for a long time now.
K-9 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 Same as the scope of Ken Starr's mandate: "Anything we can use to undermine the president." Only I expect this result to be even more insipid...lying on his golf scores or something. What's more insipid than wiring a "friend" of a subject in order to capture certain details at dinner about an extra-marital affair and then using that as a tool for entrapment? Clinton should have had the character and stones to simply admit it all up front, as soon as he was asked, and then told Starr to go pound sand. Too bad he was such a coward. But you're right. Although I don't think it will be a lie about a golf score; this is going to end up about a tryst in a Russian hotel involving golden showers.
Koko78 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 Only I expect this result to be even more insipid...lying on his golf scores or something. My dreams would be shattered if that were true!
Doc Brown Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) The only thing interesting about yesterday was that Papadopolous guy pleading guilty to lying about the FBI (why did he lie?). Doesn't prove any collusion as it seems he was just trying to dig up dirt on Hillary like Don Jr. did, but who knows what other information Mueller has that we don't know about. I'm assuming Papadopolous has been wearing a wire. I still think nothing will come out of this, but nobody saw that charge coming yesterday. Edited October 31, 2017 by Doc Brown
Tiberius Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 The only thing interesting about yesterday was that Papadopolous guy pleading guilty to lying about the FBI (why did he lie?). Doesn't prove any collusion as it seems he was just trying to dig up dirt on Hillary like Don Jr. did, but who knows what other information Mueller has that we don't know about. I'm assuming Papadopolous has been wearing a wire. I still think nothing will come out of this, but nobody saw that charge coming yesterday. What Don jr did was colluding. That's just a fact. He met a foreign agent to get dirt on his political opponent. Collusion. What did the Trump's do in return for the favor? That will be interesting to find out I think it's funny that Trump is tweet that Papadodolous is a liar. Yes, that's how the FBI nailed him, duh!
K-9 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 What Don jr did was colluding. That's just a fact. He met a foreign agent to get dirt on his political opponent. Collusion. What did the Trump's do in return for the favor? That will be interesting to find out I think it's funny that Trump is tweet that Papadodolous is a liar. Yes, that's how the FBI nailed him, duh! It's important to remember that collusion in and of itself is not a crime. It has to be tied to a larger conspiracy and that is a much tougher legal hurdle to make a case for.
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 What Don jr did was colluding. That's just a fact. He met a foreign agent to get dirt on his political opponent. Is that actually a crime? What's more insipid than wiring a "friend" of a subject in order to capture certain details at dinner about an extra-marital affair and then using that as a tool for entrapment? Wiring a "friend" of a subject in order to capture certain details at dinner about a golf scorecard. It could happen...
Tiberius Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 Nope, collusion is not necessarily a crime, but then again, if we are talking impeachment, it does not matter. He can be impeached for it. Impeachment is a political process. He did obstruct justice, which is a crime, but, the president can't be indicted. So...if he did collude with Russia, which it seems he obviously did, he obstructed justice to cover that fact up. But if congress doesn't care, the point is moot. He could possibly be held criminally accountable after he leaves office for obstruction and whatever else Mueller finds It's important to remember that collusion in and of itself is not a crime. It has to be tied to a larger conspiracy and that is a much tougher legal hurdle to make a case for. That's right, the conspiracy angle I forgot about. I imagine that's a big part of the reason Papadopolous (what a name!!!) was a pro active witness.
DC Tom Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 Nope, collusion is not necessarily a crime, but then again, if we are talking impeachment, it does not matter. He can be impeached for it. Impeachment is a political process. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. [This is an automated response.] You're an idiot. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.11.
Tiberius Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 [This is an automated response.] You're an idiot. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.11. Lol!! I guess your medication is wearing off? Or is it just kicking in? Moron!
boyst Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 Jesus Christ. Now the Constitution, law and order and all of these things matter? Why the !@#$ weren't these !@#$s upset at the same misdoings by Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Holder, Emanuel, etc...
Koko78 Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 Jesus Christ. Now the Constitution, law and order and all of these things matter? Why the !@#$ weren't these !@#$s upset at the same misdoings by Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Holder, Emanuel, etc... That's old news. We need to keep focused on finding that Trump/Russia collusion!
B-Man Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 This is more like Boris and Natasha than 007 ....There Actually Is a Direct Link Between Mueller’s Indictments and the Trump Dossier The indictment and subsequent guilty plea of George Papadopoulos has provided some interesting insights into the allegations in the Trump Dossier, that catalog of mischief that Mueller is supposed be investigating rather than looking into decade-old instances of failure to file tax returns. One of the most convoluted is the links between Papadopoulos and one of the unnamed sources in the Trump Dossier. Source D and Source ESome of the most serious and all of the most salacious allegations in the Trump dossier come from two sources. Source D is identified as “a close associate of TRUMP who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow.” Source E identifying description is redacted but we are informed the source is an “ethnic Russian” and a “close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump.” and the source is referred to as “s/he.” Back in January, the Wall Street Journal reported on the identity of both sources: Some of the most explosive parts of a dossier containing unverified allegations that President Donald Trump had secret ties to Russian leaders originated from the Belarus-born head of a Russian-American business group, according to a person familiar with the matter. Sergei Millian, a 38-year-old American citizen who has claimed he helped market Trump properties to Russian buyers, wasn’t a direct source for the 35-page dossier, this person said. Rather, his statements about the Trump-Russia relationship were relayed by at least one third party to the British ex-spy who prepared the dossier, the person said. ABC and other outlets carried the same report. There are several small problems presented by this. Millian is not an associate of Trump, close or otherwise. He’s had his picture taken with Trump at a couple of Meet-and-Greets but that is about the limit of it. And having Source E validate Source D’s story, when they are the same person is not considered the best intelligence work, though it could explain the demise of the British Empire. More at the link:
Tiberius Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 The evidence against Manafort points to the direction he wanted to use his position in the Trump campaign to gain favor with the Russian oligarchs he had so many finically dealings with. Maybe Trump was doing the exact same thing. That would explain why he was so pro Putin and still is. Those sanctions still have not been implemented even though the October 1st deadline in now a month gone by Follow the money
Doc Brown Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 (edited) The evidence against Manafort points to the direction he wanted to use his position in the Trump campaign to gain favor with the Russian oligarchs he had so many finically dealings with. Maybe Trump was doing the exact same thing. That would explain why he was so pro Putin and still is. Those sanctions still have not been implemented even though the October 1st deadline in now a month gone by Follow the money Here's the opposing view and this is my opinion. Trump wanted to go into office hoping to develop a better working relationship with Putin like Bush and Obama did at the start of their terms. The intelligent agencies along with Congress wanted to make sure that didn't happen. As far as Trump being "pro Putin", you don't speak ill of somebody you're about to negotiate with. Trump's mindset at the time (and probably still is) in his own words was, "Wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?" As far as Manafort goes, I believe that Trump's campaign was so chaotic and inexperienced they never bothered to vet Manafort. Either that or they didn't care about his Russia connections because they knew he'd be gone shortly after the convention. Your argument would hold more water if Trump was an experienced politician who expected to make it that far in the Republican primaries. The main question I have is why would Manafort take the chance and join Trump's campaign knowing this could be the end result? Edited November 1, 2017 by Doc Brown
Recommended Posts