Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: doughishere on July 13, 2018, 09:36:50 AM

Title: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 13, 2018, 09:36:50 AM
12 Russian intelligence officers have been indicted in the U.S. election meddling investigation, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced.

https://twitter.com/globalnews/status/1017805595267747840

https://twitter.com/pattymo/status/1017807100158906368


Including at least 1 canidate for US. Congress and Senior US Official in the Trump Campaign Administration.


Docs: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 13, 2018, 10:08:47 AM
LOL. More of the same. They might as well indict some Somali pirates as well. Little use of anything and a waste of resources to throw out indictments for people you'll never bring to justice. Unless they think Putin will extradite these agents...

Basically just more noise to justify the massive waste of time and millions of dollars this shit show has been.

I wonder when we will appoint the second special counsel to investigate mainstream media meddling in the election? After that, maybe investigate U.S. meddling in foreign elections...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 13, 2018, 11:03:43 AM
LOL. More of the same. They might as well indict some Somali pirates as well. Little use of anything and a waste of resources to throw out indictments for people you'll never bring to justice. Unless they think Putin will extradite these agents...

Basically just more noise to justify the massive waste of time and millions of dollars this shit show has been.

I wonder when we will appoint the second special counsel to investigate mainstream media meddling in the election? After that, maybe investigate U.S. meddling in foreign elections...

Indictments. AYNTK. Forget your tribe, follow the facts. The indictment absolutely alleges involvement by Americans affiliated with the campaign.

I don't doubt there were. Many politicians are corrupt. This shouldn't be news to anyone. What's absurd is the extent to which this drags on and becomes an excuse for all the whining and protesting. It's completely blown out of proportion. ABC deliberately withholds, waits for the opportune moment, and then leaks a tape hoping to sabotage the Trump campaign. Russia leaks stolen emails. Any half intelligent person can think for themselves. So anyone who was "swayed" or "influenced" by any third party material(foreign or domestic), that's there own choice.

It's just kind of ludicrous that this "investigation" has dragged on for this long, cost in excess of $20 million, and the only highlights so far are basically indicting a bunch of people who likely have never, nor will ever step foot on US soil, getting Manafort for basically just being a scum bag(dating back to 1984 at that. I suppose this is when the Trump campaign started?), Michael Flynn lying(which doesn't happen if there is no investigation), and some huge deal about whether or not Trump screwed a porn star...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 13, 2018, 11:29:52 AM
This will go on forever my friend.

This is due to people like Doughishere who have not digested yet the loss of their own and more corrupt candidate: Hillary Clinton.

But, hang on Doughishere, you got 6 1/2 more years to endure!

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 13, 2018, 11:41:58 AM
Please don't play the victim. You love that shit and bring it forward here every time you have a chance.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 13, 2018, 03:40:15 PM
Appreciate the posts, doug. Ther is nothing wrong with bringing facts to the table, despite other people's uncouth responses.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 13, 2018, 07:04:14 PM
https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1017543754910224385
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: 20ppy on July 13, 2018, 08:43:10 PM
This will go on forever my friend.

This is due to people like Doughishere who have not digested yet the loss of their own and more corrupt candidate: Hillary Clinton.

But, hang on Doughishere, you got 6 1/2 more years to endure!

Cardboard


Cardboard, with due repect, not your "election loss" indigestion thingy again, I am afraid people like you will always remain who you were. For people who don't even know what's been lost by the election of Trump and what damages he has caused to the US & world, I suppose, they are the ones who should love to endure the years with King Trump when he finally reigns after 6 1/2 years.



Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Viking on July 14, 2018, 12:36:17 AM
I am still trying to understand a lot of things going on right now. I appreciate people taking the time to post on topics that are important to them. Do I read every topic? Nope. Only those that are of interest to me. Do I filter what I read? Of course. So much to learn. So please keep the posts and source material coming (from all perspectives) :-)

One question I am trying to answer is why Trump and his staff are coming after allies (Germany, Canada etc) so hard. And at the same time he appears very pro Russia. I still have no idea why this is the case. Germany is not perfect (or Canada). But to look at Russia more favourable than Germany makes no sense to me based on the facts as I understand them. I still remember the meeting Trump had with Russia shortly after he was elected; it was a complete shocker (it looked to me like a love in). Pretty much every encounter he has had with Germany has been the opposite (quite aggressive and confrontational). Like I said, there are things I clearly do not understand so I need to keep reading and learning... my past experience is at some point the picture will start to finally make some sense :-)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 14, 2018, 04:17:27 AM
Viking,

Politico Magazine [March/April 2017, [so a bit outdated, John]]: All of Trump's Russia Ties, in 7 Charts (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868).
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 14, 2018, 04:49:50 AM
"Oh, *now* I understand. It's a "-vich" hunt!"

https://twitter.com/jasonzweigwsj/status/1017810519275769857
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 14, 2018, 06:28:23 AM
Lawfare: https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment
"While the indictment does not charge any American with specific criminal conduct, it does describe conduct by Americans that, depending on further factual development, raises potentially serious questions."



Trump this Morning: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1018074723140427776

Trump Meeting with Putin: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44830065



Roger Stone tells CNN he does not believe he is the unnamed person in the indictment: “My contact with the campaign in 2016 was Donald Trump. I was not in regular contact with campaign officials.”
H/t Diogenes - https://twitter.com/WallStCynic/status/1017856027784597505


Roger Stone: I probably am the person in the indictment.
https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/1017939029143113729

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 14, 2018, 06:56:28 AM
I am still trying to understand a lot of things going on right now. I appreciate people taking the time to post on topics that are important to them. Do I read every topic? Nope. Only those that are of interest to me. Do I filter what I read? Of course. So much to learn. So please keep the posts and source material coming (from all perspectives) :-)

One question I am trying to answer is why Trump and his staff are coming after allies (Germany, Canada etc) so hard. And at the same time he appears very pro Russia. I still have no idea why this is the case. Germany is not perfect (or Canada). But to look at Russia more favourable than Germany makes no sense to me based on the facts as I understand them. I still remember the meeting Trump had with Russia shortly after he was elected; it was a complete shocker (it looked to me like a love in). Pretty much every encounter he has had with Germany has been the opposite (quite aggressive and confrontational). Like I said, there are things I clearly do not understand so I need to keep reading and learning... my past experience is at some point the picture will start to finally make some sense :-)

What I really want to know, why aren`t you connecting the russian dots in germany.   If germany wanted to stick it to russia they would be reducing their dependence on Russian energy.  Trump is directly calling them on that.  You can`t have this conversation without considering that.  You can literally bring russia to its knees if the EU would just shut that energy tap off.  Not to ignore mueller but lets put this in comparison.  At the end of the day trump got elected because clinton messed up and he grabbed the middle class vote with MAGA.  I dont know the influence of the Russian meddling there but I really dont think that moved the needle.  Meanwhile you have entire EU talking but yet doing nothing to actually hurt Putin.  If you really truly cared about Russia, that would be your focus.

ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS STOP BUYING ENERGY FROM RUSSIA



Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 14, 2018, 06:59:30 AM
US State databases may have been hacked. Illinois, Maryland

https://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/illinois-officials-russians-likely-hacked-illinois-voter-database/article_345696e7-cf74-52f4-b54a-94e2c673d298.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-election-russia-20180713-story.html
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 14, 2018, 07:10:45 AM
no_free_lunch,

As reply to your proposal, I refer to a post by Spekulatius in the tariffs topic:

Spekulatius has a good point about America's desire to extend and maintain its influence abroad.   Since we're hemorrhaging red ink perhaps it's time to reconsider our role in the world.  Here is a link to an article on why we should consider not protecting Europe any longer.  https://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-still-defending-europe-24957 (https://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-still-defending-europe-24957)

Europeans don’t feel threatened. Right or wrong, but that’s what it is. US is free to pull their troops back, which they have been doing anyways over time. As long as  the US remains in the NATO, they would be obligated to help any nation within NATO that gets attacked, based on the NATO contract. If the US leaves the NATO, then that obligation ceases to exist.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 14, 2018, 07:27:39 AM
Not to ignore mueller

You are ignoring Mueller by focusing on the fake problem of the day. Trump illegally conspired. It's plain as day. Some of the crimes happened on national TV.

The pipeline deal has already been brought up ad nauseam over the past 6-12 months by German politicans and NATO allies. Trump is not ballsy for bringing this up, he's just causing problems.

Why the hell do people keep listening to Trump when all he's done is lie to you? It's like an abused wife or stockholm syndrome. I don't say that lightly.

The day before the Trump Tower meeting (the first day after the meeting date was confirmed!!), DCLeaks is set up to distribute DNC/DCCC/Padesta emails. The Trump Tower meeting happens the next day and they claim nothing happened during the meeting!?!?

Exactly one week later Rep McCarthy and Rep Ryan talk about RU dividing Ukraine against itself (which Manafort was presented as the mastermind of in his 40+ count indictment). Ryan called is "maniacal". McCarthy, one week after DCLeaks, said he thought "Putin paid Trump".

Dutch intel watched in real time as the DNC servers were hacked. They sent this info to the CIA directly (I think we went there but whatever). It was included in an indictment!! Dutch intel was willing to burn an absolutely huge honeypot to help our country and because of politics, some folks are like "well, what about those data transfer speeds?" The math on the data transfer speeds were wrong. The guy who wrote the blog ended up removing himself from his original opinion. US IC received the feeds so they could watch the dang act as it happened! Trump knew this! He still misled you about it. Now we know he was lying all this time and people will still believe his next bullshit comment.

Why don't you want answers from McConnell about why he prevented Obama from doing anything about this? Why don't you want answers from your party about why they nominated a candidate that was so obviously breaking the law and conspiring with a foreign adversary?

Why the hell does anyone still trust and support Trump? It's maniacal that some news shows tell listeners to hate Democrats/liberals/leftys multiple times an hour. That they are the cause of everything. It's a sick feedback loop.


Edit: Finally we also get some reprieve on the 'polls' issue. From the indictment we know, on July 6th, Julian Assange estimated Trump's odds of winning at about 25%. 538/Nate Silver reported 22.4% that day. NYT was at ~10% (using only national polls - little did they know that RU had just released the detailed DNC voter analytics one month prior. This is how RU 'meddled' in a few key Rust Belt states.).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 14, 2018, 07:42:46 AM
John,

When I read your post, I am drawn to some sad conclusions.   Europe is not concerned by Russia so will not build adequate defense.  For the same reason the EU countries feel free to trade with Russia as they please.  If they are wrong, and Russia does violate their sovereignty they will just fall back on the US. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 14, 2018, 07:47:36 AM
John,

When I read your post, I am drawn to some sad conclusions.   Europe is not concerned by Russia so will not build adequate defense.  For the same reason the EU countries feel free to trade with Russia as they please.  If they are wrong, and Russia does violate their sovereignty they will just fall back on the US.

The US trades with Russia everyday. An example of that trade is the fact that folks here are talking about buying Sberbank stock. If we didn't trade with them, it would be illegal to own that stock.

The point of sanctions is we don't want to cut-off the entire country. It's to punish Putin and alter his behavior. Same with Europe.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 14, 2018, 07:49:37 AM
Schwab, I don`t think that Russia is a fake problem of the day. I only bring up Russia because this entire thread is about Russia and the US.

I think the dems made a strategic error by inflating the Russian threat.  It forces people to look in detail at how countries and parties respond to Russia.  What I see is that the EU really doesnt care.  Everything the Europeans do indicates this and apparently they will tell you this too if you just ask them.   The Democrats didn`t really care about Russia before the election, it always seemed to be the Republicans pushing for defense spending to Ukraine.

If the threat is Russia and Trump is colluding with Russia then I will believe you when I see evidence that he is helping them.  However, in reality the US stands up to Russia and is doing what it can to counter them.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 14, 2018, 07:56:08 AM
An oldie but a goodie.

Quote
With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.
..
So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.
..
Legislation to authorize lethal military aid for Ukraine has gone to the White House before, but Mr. Obama has not acted on it. And while this bill authorizes the weapons it cannot compel the administration to send them. The measure is largely meant to put renewed pressure on the White House.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has championed the effort to send arms to Ukraine for more than a year, dismissed the fears that it would worsen the conflict and unravel the international coalition.

I can see if you would agree with Obama on this, I dont want to debate the specifics.  However, it is madness to go from this stance to Republicans being pro Russian.   Before the election Dems were concerned the republicans would start ww3 and then suddenly they accuse them of being in bed with the enemy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 14, 2018, 08:03:54 AM
This was a huge issue during the election:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politics/harry-reid-russia-tampering-election-fbi.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/30/harry-reid-says-comey-may-have-broken-the-law-by-disclosing-new-clinton-emails/?utm_term=.2f61a679e3a3

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/24/wikileaks-clinton-campaign-manager-robby-mook-intv-tapper-sotu.cnn

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-warned-trump-2016-russians-would-try-infiltrate-his-campaign-n830596

https://themoscowproject.org/collusion/gang-12-receives-intel-briefings/

https://themoscowproject.org/collusion/trump-defends-putin-democrats-putting-emails/


From Clinton:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-russia.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-accuses-trump-campaign-of-helping-russia-2016-election-2017-9

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-debate-russia-idUSKCN12K0E7

It's worth noting that during this time, Dems were the minority party in Congress, partisan polarization was bad, and by 10/30, Trump had already started using the phrase 'the election is rigged' (which he had rigged). If Dems had provided evidence during the campaign then there would have been absolute hell.

Edit: Looking at the URL headlines, I forgot how much the media downplayed Trump/Russia at the time. It's weird looking back at this.



Your quote doesn't describe that WW3 assumption at all. Sounds like Dems worried arming Ukraine would incite further violence. Republicans (pre-Manafort/Trump) thought arming would prevent that violence. Both seem like reasonable opinions.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 14, 2018, 08:48:30 AM
An oldie but a goodie.

Quote
With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.
..
So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.
..
Legislation to authorize lethal military aid for Ukraine has gone to the White House before, but Mr. Obama has not acted on it. And while this bill authorizes the weapons it cannot compel the administration to send them. The measure is largely meant to put renewed pressure on the White House.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has championed the effort to send arms to Ukraine for more than a year, dismissed the fears that it would worsen the conflict and unravel the international coalition.

I can see if you would agree with Obama on this, I dont want to debate the specifics.  However, it is madness to go from this stance to Republicans being pro Russian.   Before the election Dems were concerned the republicans would start ww3 and then suddenly they accuse them of being in bed with the enemy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html

Good, were in agreement that its important to get to the bottom of the election rigging regardless of partisan differences.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 14, 2018, 10:04:16 AM
https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1017436924527677440

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018142185269719040

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018160992184913920

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018162581704454144
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 14, 2018, 11:25:34 AM
Schwab,

Ukraine is sitting there asking for military assistance.  They have Russian troops and equipment in their country fighting against them.  If anyone is hurt by the escalation it is them.  You then have Obama saying he knows better and actually they don`t need any weapons.  It only makes sense that he would make that call if he is worried about things escalating beyond ukraine, which without too much hyperbole could be called ww3.

I get it, it was a tough call to make and he did what he thought was in the US best interests.  However, the republicans saw US best interests as standing up to Russia.  To go from that to saying they collaborate, that`s quite a leap.

Then there is the fact that Trump is pushing EU to move away from Russian energy source.  Maybe you don`t agree, maybe it is too hard ON RUSSIA, but that isn`t something someone pro kremlin does.

There is also Trump pushing EU to bolster their military, again not something you do when you are owned by them.

It doesn`t add up.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 14, 2018, 11:49:37 AM
I think more so what is funny is that this really didn't effect anyone and yet everyone is so up in arms. Let's say Trump did work with Russia to expose dirt on his political opponent, does this really effect anyone? Does it mean that Hillary didn't do those things? That the DNC didn't write all those awful emails and rig the election for HRC?

I get it, what he may have done is against the law. So that's a no-no. Yet the same people(mostly liberals) so outraged blatantly justify breaking the law ALL THE TIME with regard to immigrant, anti-police, violence against people with different views, etc. Did any of you get physically hurt by Trump/Russia? Did it cost you money? Did you lose your home or have a family member harmed? I know I still get up in the morning and have the same day to day routine as I did under Obama. The false outrage is absurd and people can't seem to see that they are just being played by Democrats looking to create distractions and road blocks for the Trump administration. Nothing more to it.

Also as a side note, I find it funny that the FBI, led by idiots like Comey, Mccabe and Strzok, couldn't find all of the Clinton emails. But Russia could.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 14, 2018, 01:46:14 PM
No free lunch,

I think you are getting things confused. A lot has happened since Russia/Georgia 10 years ago. We had problems. Tried a failed *reset* (Romney ran against this policy with Russia/Iran). Then Russia/Crimea. New sanctions are placed on certain Russians.

Clinton pushed for arming Ukraine. Obama still didn't want a conflict at that time (2015 - in part due to Middle East). HRC views basically mirror GOP. Manafort/Trump change GOP policy towards Obama at the convention. Thats the fear. Why did he do it while publicly admonishing Obama?

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/hillary-clinton-ukraine-aid-military-financial-114462

https://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/488876597/how-the-trump-campaign-weakened-the-republican-platform-on-aid-to-ukraine

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-trump-directed-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support

Part of the Russia/Ukraine/US issue is Obama/Clinton didn't want to support Yanukovych (supported by Manafort) and Clinton was fine with Poroshenko. Trump is anti-Poroshenko because of Manafort.

Trump is not some outsider. The issue with Trump is the legality behind his rise to power (among many, many other issues).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/mikheil-saakashvili-petro-poroshenko-enemies-of-putin-but-no-longer-friends/amp/

Arguing Trump is anti-Russia makes zero sense, especially when it's only supported by Trump calling out Germany's pipeline from Russia 6-12 months after Merkel and most of the EU have cautioned about it. Trump was putting on a show for specific media outlets. The pipeline was approved during the reset. There is zero debate about Trump being pro-Russia.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 14, 2018, 02:17:46 PM
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-muellers-full-indictment-against-12-russian-officers-for-election-interference

I just finished reading the entire actual Mueller indictment.  It was readable, gripping, and convincing to a point.

The only problem is it's presenting a connected bunch of dots, and not showing us the actual raw evidence.  Therefore, it is not as credible as if Mueller had given us the actual evidence. 

For example, why should we believe anything that the government says about Guccifer when their presentation about "him" or "it" keeps changing with time?  Would a real hacker be so incompetent as not to cover his tracks?  Would the Russian government employ such incompetent amateurs to do what the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theorists believe they did?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 14, 2018, 02:21:31 PM
Appreciate the posts, doug. Ther is nothing wrong with bringing facts to the table, despite other people's uncouth responses.

Appreciate the posts, doug. Ther is nothing wrong with bringing facts to the table, despite other people's uncouth responses.

Just trying to stay humble on this one. See where the facts come to light. Im no lawyer so I cant really speak to law matters. But ummm.....feel free to add to them and that goes to anyone. Lets try to stick to the topic on this one and make it about the Muller/Russia Investigation.

I try to look for primary docs and things. Sometimes articles from reputable places like the WSJ.

LC, are you talking to yourself again?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 14, 2018, 02:47:49 PM
Appreciate the posts, doug. Ther is nothing wrong with bringing facts to the table, despite other people's uncouth responses.

Appreciate the posts, doug. Ther is nothing wrong with bringing facts to the table, despite other people's uncouth responses.

Just trying to stay humble on this one. See where the facts come to light. Im no lawyer so I cant really speak to law matters. But ummm.....feel free to add to them and that goes to anyone. Lets try to stick to the topic on this one and make it about the Muller/Russia Investigation.

I try to look for primary docs and things. Sometimes articles from reputable places like the WSJ.

LC, are you talking to yourself again?

Were just hoping for and honest open and truthful conversation. Nothing more. Nothing less. Thank you for participating.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 14, 2018, 03:19:53 PM
Appreciate the posts, doug. Ther is nothing wrong with bringing facts to the table, despite other people's uncouth responses.

Appreciate the posts, doug. Ther is nothing wrong with bringing facts to the table, despite other people's uncouth responses.

Just trying to stay humble on this one. See where the facts come to light. Im no lawyer so I cant really speak to law matters. But ummm.....feel free to add to them and that goes to anyone. Lets try to stick to the topic on this one and make it about the Muller/Russia Investigation.

I try to look for primary docs and things. Sometimes articles from reputable places like the WSJ.

LC, are you talking to yourself again?

Were just hoping for and honest open and truthful conversation. Nothing more. Nothing less. Thank you for participating.

Just as in the investing world, there are many layers of varying significance to "honest open and truthful". Many things can be true, and it doesn't justify the end result. You see it all the time with short pitches. Yes, many things are true. Then there are many that are really just opinion or can vary widely depending upon how the individual interprets them. They usually can neither be easily determined to be true or not, rather they must be looked at in % terms of probability and likelihood of them being true. Finally, there is the most important part, which is assessing all of the above and determine it's impact or significance in the grand scheme of things. All of a short report can be true, and the investment can be a failure. Bill Ackman had a very strong case about HLF. Much was true, much was "likely" true. And at the end of the day he got killed because it was determined that this just wasn't as big a deal as he thought it was. It wasn't worth 0, it was worth $75 even with all the "truths, about Herbalife.

What are the indisputable truths?
-There are links between Russia and American politics and the Trump campaign. Ok, so? Links by themselves aren't illegal and don't mean anything. Why does this matter. Cuz it's Trump
-There is likely, but not yet proven, corruption. Again, you're a fool if you don't think politicians are corrupt. Trump's opponent engaged in more corrupt activities than probably any politician who has ever lived. Again, what does this mean? Well the American people have more or less accepted this bad behavior from politicians. Why is it all of a sudden so outrageous? Cuz it's Trump
-Otherwise, what's left? Russia favored one candidate over another one for national interests? Ok. Well, don't we do the same? Why is it a big deal? Cuz it's Trump.
-Private info was stolen that revealed Clinton and DNC bad behavior... ok, hacking people's stuff is a crime and those that did it should face consequences. So is pay for play, not using a secure email in office, rigging primaries, leaking confidential information.

So with this witch hunt, how does this effect everyone? The answer is, not really at all. Why is this such a big deal? Because it's Trump and Democrats and main stream media are still butt hurt, and embarrassed, and can't accept that their candidate lost. And that's all there really is to it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 14, 2018, 03:34:15 PM
For example, why should we believe anything that the government says about Guccifer when their presentation about "him" or "it" keeps changing with time?  Would a real hacker be so incompetent as not to cover his tracks?  Would the Russian government employ such incompetent amateurs to do what the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theorists believe they did?

The fact that they didn't go to great lengths to hide their tracks does not make them incompetent amateurs. 

Russian state-sponsored hacking is not subtle, by all accounts. They could be more subtle if they wanted, but why bother?  This is hacking 101 stuff -- basic spearphishing campaign -- and there's no need to be fancy if you don't care about getting caught.  Have you not been reading about their intrusions into US infrastructure?   They've been caught. Repeatedly.   They don't fear the US.  In fact, apparently they've been fighting and re-entering when they've been caught and removed from various systems.  They are very big fans of implausible deniability, and they have the perfect adversary -- one that is always happy to entertain a deep-state conspiracy theory.

You could ask similar questions of Russia about the poisonings in Britain.  Or doping at the olympics.  Or missiles or soldiers in Ukraine.  You really have to like conspiracy theories to believe that all of these events are western fabrications, but that's Russia's position.  (Well I guess Putin did admit to the soldiers in Ukraine eventually.)

I think it's important to draw the line here between what was done and the effect thereof.  It should be a big deal to every US citizen that a foreign power was fairly aggressively meddling in your elections -- regardless of what effect (if any) their meddling had on the vote. Sure the US has done it to lots of countries over the years, but you should still be concerned when it happens to you.  Taking sides based on the  "what did Trump know? did it cause Hillary to lose?" debate and dismissing ongoing cyber-threats is really dangerous, IMO.

As for getting more evidence:  It's quite possible that they will not divulge all evidence because it would divulge too much info regarding their technical capabilities. I have no idea to what degree this is true in this case, but certainly a consideration.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 14, 2018, 03:36:48 PM
https://twitter.com/ReformedBroker/status/1018241797015957504

https://www.newyorker.com/news-desk/swamp-chronicles/where-did-donald-trump-get-200-million-dollars-to-buy-his-money-losing-scottish-golf-club
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 14, 2018, 04:05:41 PM
LC, are you talking to yourself again?

No but I should talk to your case worker. Looks like your thorazine script is running low again   :P
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 14, 2018, 04:35:41 PM
https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/1017907599608631297

DNI Dan Coats warns that Russia is the worst foreign power threatening U.S. with cyberattacks  and that warning lights are "blinking red" as terror threats were before 9/11
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 14, 2018, 07:18:53 PM
Schwab,

The thing is for you to argue that Trump is a russian agent you need to actually provide some evidence that he is acting in russia's benefit.  The way I see it, worst case he is comparable to, say Germany.  However, in reality he is actually going pretty hard against Russia.

The pipeline is not done and the US is now threatening sanctions.  This has real implication on US relations with the EU.  As does his demands they increase their defense.  Why would Russia want Germany and the other EU states to increase their military?

Quote
The U.S. State Department overnight repeated a warning to Western firms involved in the deal for the pipeline from Russia under the Baltic Sea, saying the project could divide Europe and they were at risk of sanctions.

“Threats of U.S. sanctions against European companies invested in Nord Stream 2 encroach on European energy policy,” the chairman of the German Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations (Ostausschuss), Wolfgang Buechele, told Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-gas-nordstream/german-business-group-enraged-by-trump-attacks-on-nord-stream-pipeline-idUSKBN1K224H

There is also his stance on Iran.  I am not sure how it benefits Russia for the Iranian nuclear deal to be thrown out.  That is their ally in the region.

There are still US troops in Syria, why I have no idea.  However, this is under a trump administration and given Syria's link to.. Russia, it is a bit odd.  Unconfirmed reports exist that 200 russian mercenaries will killed by US troops.  The US is alledgedly arming the rebels who are fighting against the Syrian government, how does any of this benefit Russia?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 14, 2018, 07:34:51 PM
Quote
The United States has rejected an appeal from Britain, France and Germany to grant broad exemptions to European firms doing business in Iran, saying it would press ahead with sanctions intended to exert “unprecedented” economic pressure on the Tehran regime, U.S. and Western officials told NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-refuses-european-requests-exemptions-its-new-sanctions-iran-n891371


Quote
What a difference a year—and a policy reversal—can make. The Trump Administration’s decision to challenge the 2015 Iran nuclear deal now carries a broad geostrategic price. The relationship between Moscow and Tehran—once tactical militarily, coldly calculating diplomatically, and practical economically—has been converted into a growing strategic partnership. Vladimir Putin’s relentless quest to make Russia a superpower again is part of it; Iran’s goal is just to be a player again. Since President Trump took office, in 2017, Moscow and Tehran have shared increasingly common bonds: growing tensions with Washington and a quest to expand spheres of influence in the Middle East.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/russia-and-iran-deepen-ties-to-challenge-trump-and-the-united-states

This is a blatant admission that Trump is working against Putin.  They just can't say it any clearer.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 14, 2018, 09:32:07 PM
This is a blatant admission that Trump is working against Putin.  They just can't say it any clearer.

Okay, that's just too funny. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/politics/trump-russia-putin.html
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 14, 2018, 09:47:10 PM
For example, why should we believe anything that the government says about Guccifer when their presentation about "him" or "it" keeps changing with time?  Would a real hacker be so incompetent as not to cover his tracks?  Would the Russian government employ such incompetent amateurs to do what the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theorists believe they did?

Russian state-sponsored hacking is not subtle, by all accounts. They could be more subtle if they wanted, but why bother?  This is hacking 101 stuff -- basic spearphishing campaign -- and there's no need to be fancy if you don't care about getting caught.  Have you not been reading about their intrusions into US infrastructure?   They've been caught. Repeatedly.   They don't fear the US.  In fact, apparently they've been fighting and re-entering when they've been caught and removed from various systems.  They are very big fans of implausible deniability, and they have the perfect adversary -- one that is always happy to entertain a deep-state conspiracy theory.

You could ask similar questions of Russia about the poisonings in Britain.  Or doping at the olympics.  Or missiles or soldiers in Ukraine.  You really have to like conspiracy theories to believe that all of these events are western fabrications, but that's Russia's position.  (Well I guess Putin did admit to the soldiers in Ukraine eventually.)

As for getting more evidence:  It's quite possible that they will not divulge all evidence because it would divulge too much info regarding their technical capabilities. I have no idea to what degree this is true in this case, but certainly a consideration.

We all probably do more reading than the average citizen, but are we more capable of knowing what's true or not?  When American or British or Russian spy agencies release information to the public, is it intelligence?  Or is it propaganda?  Intelligence and propaganda can look exactly the same. 

When the spy agencies of governments release press briefings to non-objective news media, I as a layman citizen have no reliable criteria for distinguishing intelligence from propaganda. 

How do you decide what to believe?  And how reliable are those criteria?  When it comes to clandestine political activities and agencies, we're all fooling ourselves if we think we can tell the difference.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cigarbutt on July 15, 2018, 03:41:44 AM
For example, why should we believe anything that the government says about Guccifer when their presentation about "him" or "it" keeps changing with time?  Would a real hacker be so incompetent as not to cover his tracks?  Would the Russian government employ such incompetent amateurs to do what the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theorists believe they did?

Russian state-sponsored hacking is not subtle, by all accounts. They could be more subtle if they wanted, but why bother?  This is hacking 101 stuff -- basic spearphishing campaign -- and there's no need to be fancy if you don't care about getting caught.  Have you not been reading about their intrusions into US infrastructure?   They've been caught. Repeatedly.   They don't fear the US.  In fact, apparently they've been fighting and re-entering when they've been caught and removed from various systems.  They are very big fans of implausible deniability, and they have the perfect adversary -- one that is always happy to entertain a deep-state conspiracy theory.

You could ask similar questions of Russia about the poisonings in Britain.  Or doping at the olympics.  Or missiles or soldiers in Ukraine.  You really have to like conspiracy theories to believe that all of these events are western fabrications, but that's Russia's position.  (Well I guess Putin did admit to the soldiers in Ukraine eventually.)

As for getting more evidence:  It's quite possible that they will not divulge all evidence because it would divulge too much info regarding their technical capabilities. I have no idea to what degree this is true in this case, but certainly a consideration.

We all probably do more reading than the average citizen, but are we more capable of knowing what's true or not? When American or British or Russian spy agencies release information to the public, is it intelligence?  Or is it propaganda?  Intelligence and propaganda can look exactly the same. 

When the spy agencies of governments release press briefings to non-objective news media, I as a layman citizen have no reliable criteria for distinguishing intelligence from propaganda. 

How do you decide what to believe?  And how reliable are those criteria?  When it comes to clandestine political activities and agencies, we're all fooling ourselves if we think we can tell the difference.

As an individual citizen, trying to make sense out of all this.
I would say that the "evidence" (data) and the level of mental sophistication (criteria and analytical grid) are key elements to consider.
Individually though, we tend to self rank highly on our own abilities.
Also, we seem to be particularly poor at evaluating our own internal biases (and "intelligence" does not help here).

https://www.globalcognition.org/intelligence-and-cognitive-bias/
http://keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reasoning_files/Stanovich_CDPS_2013.pdf

Wondering about the reasons for the prominence of political discussions, I will end this post with a quote from Mr. Buffett:

“What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.”

Integrating discomforting evidence is so hard but probably often worth it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Viking on July 15, 2018, 05:49:08 AM
Cigarbutt, great comment: “Integrating discomforting evidence is so hard but probably often worth it.“
 
With Trump it is very easy to focus on the man and the terrible things he says. 18 months later I find is interesting that on many important issues there is now a more robust debate:
1.) free trade: are agreements up to date (reflecting the realities of 2018)? Are there losers?
2.) immigration: what are the realities of 2018 (50 million refugees out there)? How many people can a country reasonably accept each year?
3.) women’s rights / me too movement: a spark has been lit
4.) Russia: evil empire or misunderstood

In the pre-Trump world it was not politically correct to be against free trade (in pretty much any way). Many issues were debated in a very narrow way. On some issues the pendulum is now swinging the other way. My hope is in future years the pendulum will end up in a better place on the key issues (than we were before Trump was elected). That could end up being his greatest legacy :-)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 15, 2018, 06:06:57 AM
I am still trying to understand a lot of things going on right now. I appreciate people taking the time to post on topics that are important to them. Do I read every topic? Nope. Only those that are of interest to me. Do I filter what I read? Of course. So much to learn. So please keep the posts and source material coming (from all perspectives) :-)

One question I am trying to answer is why Trump and his staff are coming after allies (Germany, Canada etc) so hard. And at the same time he appears very pro Russia. I still have no idea why this is the case. Germany is not perfect (or Canada). But to look at Russia more favourable than Germany makes no sense to me based on the facts as I understand them. I still remember the meeting Trump had with Russia shortly after he was elected; it was a complete shocker (it looked to me like a love in). Pretty much every encounter he has had with Germany has been the opposite (quite aggressive and confrontational). Like I said, there are things I clearly do not understand so I need to keep reading and learning... my past experience is at some point the picture will start to finally make some sense :-)

One more for you here, Viking, [ : - ) ]

Bloomberg Opinion - Editorial Board - Michael R. Bloomberg [July 15th 2018]: America's Values Must Guide White House Diplomacy (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-15/michael-bloomberg-trump-and-putin-s-risky-meeting?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=business).

Outline article link (https://outline.com/vzCd2M).
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on July 15, 2018, 06:21:42 AM
I am not a big fan of thr russian EU gas pipeline, but I think it is important to look at this in a context.

1) Russian EU energy deals regarding NG actually predate the fall of the iron curtain
2) Some of this pipeline capacity is replacing capacity of an aged pipeline though the Ukraine. of course there is the aspect, that the Ukraine cannot shut off NG supplies to the EU any more.

The fact is as SD stated, that russian has the NG and Europe needs it. The alnterntive to laying pipes would be to go to LNG, but those supply prices tend to be volatile as well, there are problem to get the degasification facilities build. My guess is that Europe needs both.

I don’t know why Trump is concerned about Europe being dependent on Russia, when he cozies up with Putin that well. This is just another incidence of Trump trolling around with no inherent logical framework.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 15, 2018, 06:31:00 AM
I don’t know why Trump is concerned about Europe being dependent on Russia, when he cozies up with Putin that well. This is just another incidence of Trump trolling around with no inherent logical framework.

Go and read this sentence.  Read it several times.  The entire thing is based on your assumption that he cozies up to Putin.

Maybe, must maybe, the reason is Trump is an American pushing an American agenda.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 15, 2018, 06:33:01 AM
Schwab,

The thing is for you to argue that Trump is a russian agent you need to actually provide some evidence that he is acting in russia's benefit.

1. March to June 2016: Trump campaign reaches out and is approached about high level talks with RU govt/Putin

2. Trump Tower meeting set up June 7th for the 9th. Trump Jr expected to receive dirt from the RU govt.

3. DCLeaks released on June 8

4. June 9 Trump Tower meeting

5. June 15, the top 2 GOP leaders of the House of Reps claim Putin pays Trump and Paul Ryan says to keep it in the family/no leaks

I obviously don't have a confession from Trump or I'd be at the FBI. The evidence is voluminous. Pleaseder doing a little more research I guess. 1 year ago none of this was known. I can understand folks waiting for more evidence but don't pretend that none has been released.

I think your repetition of Trump/Germany/Russia/pipeline has to do with recency, not importance. The pipeline is a sideshow. Trump lied about the facts of the situation. You are ignoring the actual facts, that don't make Trump look as good. Same old story, same old tune.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 15, 2018, 06:51:26 AM
I don’t know why Trump is concerned about Europe being dependent on Russia, when he cozies up with Putin that well. This is just another incidence of Trump trolling around with no inherent logical framework.

Go and read this sentence.  Read it several times.  The entire thing is based on your assumption that he cozies up to Putin.

Maybe, must maybe, the reason is Trump is an American pushing an American agenda.

Trump's DOJ just indicted Russian spies and he continues to say the DOJ is biased. You should put some effort in to learning the supporting evidence behind the theory of Trump/Russia. Simple Google searches and a couple hours of reading. No one here is going to write the 10,000 words necessary to describe the last 2+ years and most wouldn't read it anyway. You should know the opposing argument if 50% of the country is this upset (like all the articles discussing Trump voters and why).

Most who feel strongly about Trump/RU are waiting for an investigation, not calling for impeachment, allowing him to appoint officials (including LT officials) despite being under investigation (probably worse than 1+ year from lame duck), and so on.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 15, 2018, 07:22:18 AM
I am not a big fan of thr russian EU gas pipeline, but I think it is important to look at this in a context.

1) Russian EU energy deals regarding NG actually predate the fall of the iron curtain
2) Some of this pipeline capacity is replacing capacity of an aged pipeline though thr Ukraine. of course there is the aspect, that the Ukraine cannot shoppt off NG supplies to the EU any more.

The fact is as SD stated, that russian has the NG and Europe needs it. The alnterntive to laying pipes would be to go to LNG, but those supply prices tend to be volatile as well, there are problem to get the degasification facilities build. My guess is that Europe needs both.

I don’t know why Trump is concerned about Europe being dependent on Russia, when he cozies up with Putin that well. This is just another incidence of Trump trolling around with no inherent logical framework.

To supplement the post by Spekulatius:

European Commision [May 24th 2018]: Statement by Commissioner Vestager on Commission decision imposing binding obligations on Gazprom to enable free flow of gas at competitive prices (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3928_en.htm).

Wikipedia: Russia–Ukraine gas disputes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes).

Ref. second link: A customer of Gazprom did not pay. An operational decision was made to cut supply. It works great in many situations. Then there goes political clutter into it here.

So North Stream 2 is just Gazprom's act to diversify and corner Ukraine to get the gas to Europe, to ensure BOTH stable delivery AND payment. Business decision.

- - - o 0 o - - -

The whole thing appears to bother Mr. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1018074723140427776) in his weekend off in Scotland.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: SharperDingaan on July 15, 2018, 07:59:58 AM
There's a difference between 'highly likely' and 'proof'. To impeach requires 'proof', so the investigation drags on.
The reality of course is that the 'stale-mate' is not stable, and neither are the political keys to power. One can stall, but utimately there will be a winner and a loser, and the fall-out that comes with it.

The US electorate voted for change, and they clearly got it.
That sweaty armpit, dysfunctional, aromatic, and blunt protest discussion is not a bad thing - but it's reaching the end of its course. Eventually the discussion has to give way to decision, if only because you can't fight the whole school-yard for any length of time. It simply sucks up too much energy.

NAFTA, WTO, NATO, UN, aid etc. are all 'last century' agreements/organizations well past their 'best before' dates. The evidence is that they have worked (no World Wars since 1942), but they need material overhauls. Cutting the money off to force blunt discussion and change - is not a bad thing, no matter how petulent the recipients are.

The skill-set to force change, is not the same one that implements it; the change-agent is a liability.
Ordinarily the change-agent just gets 'changed-out', but the investigation has made it much more difficult. Gracefull 'exits' are very limited, but there will be a solution.

Win the upcoming mid-terms and he can continue to play.
Fail, and Caesar needs to keep a sharp look-out for the knives.

SD


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on July 15, 2018, 08:23:10 AM
I don’t know why Trump is concerned about Europe being dependent on Russia, when he cozies up with Putin that well. This is just another incidence of Trump trolling around with no inherent logical framework.

Go and read this sentence.  Read it several times.  The entire thing is based on your assumption that he cozies up to Putin.

Maybe, must maybe, the reason is Trump is an American pushing an American agenda.

He may or may not be. However perception is important here. Trump has lost his creditability.  Nobody want to negotiate with him any more.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: whiterose on July 15, 2018, 10:37:08 AM
A good recap:
"Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart — Or His Handler?
A plausible theory of mind-boggling collusion."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 15, 2018, 11:08:39 AM
We all probably do more reading than the average citizen, but are we more capable of knowing what's true or not?  When American or British or Russian spy agencies release information to the public, is it intelligence?  Or is it propaganda?  Intelligence and propaganda can look exactly the same. 

When the spy agencies of governments release press briefings to non-objective news media, I as a layman citizen have no reliable criteria for distinguishing intelligence from propaganda. 

How do you decide what to believe?  And how reliable are those criteria?  When it comes to clandestine political activities and agencies, we're all fooling ourselves if we think we can tell the difference.

Certainly we are all subjected to propaganda.  It's important to be sceptical of what you read, consider the source carefully, look for both sides, etc.  I don't take statements from the US  spy agencies at 100% face value.   But in the absence of 100% certainty, you have to weigh the relative probabilities of truth, and I think it's foolish to play the part of the tobacco company -- claiming that strong evidence isn't "proof" so therefore can be dismissed with a shrug.

You questioned the credibility of some detailed indictments. Your criticism was based  at least partly on an argument about the hacking being amateurish. I'm pointing out that this is very flimsy logic.  The Russians (and others) know that cyber attacks / intrusions are very difficult to pin down.  Even if security experts can say with a very high degree of certainty that Country X is to blame, their technical reasoning is beyond the understanding (and possibly security clearance) of the lay public, and there is always at least some element of doubt.  I just think you are tripping over yourself to be sceptical in the face of pretty damning evidence.

FWIW:   It is not just US intelligence agencies ringing alarm bells about Russian hacking. Private security companies like Symantec and CrowdStrike have been tracking this for a long time and have reported on dramatic increases in infrastructure hacks over the past year or so.  Of course those security firms have ties to the US intelligence apparatus, so you can then go and question their credibility.  For that matter you can question everything you come across via Google, because they too have ties to the security establishment.  But you have to work pretty hard to build up a grand conspiracy, whereas the simple explanation is that Russia feels no threat from the US in the cyber arena and have been getting more aggressive.

Here's a site I just found today. I'm not ready to vouch for its integrity, but it has some interesting commentary on the Trump/Putin meeting and the reaction it is receiving in Russia:

http://www.russialies.com/   

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 15, 2018, 01:23:08 PM
I just think you are tripping over yourself to be sceptical in the face of pretty damning evidence.

What you and I wish for, or hope to happen (perhaps something like Trump ousted/impeached/convicted for Russia dealings, or the opposite), drives what you seek to read, find credible, conclude, and post.

So what are your wishes/hopes?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 15, 2018, 04:10:59 PM
I just think you are tripping over yourself to be sceptical in the face of pretty damning evidence.

What you and I wish for, or hope to happen (perhaps something like Trump ousted/impeached/convicted for Russia dealings, or the opposite), drives what you seek to read, find credible, conclude, and post.

So what are your wishes/hopes?

I'm not American.  I don't have any hopes/wishes for the investigation as far as Trump in particular is concerned.  I don't like Trump, for a number of reasons, and I"ll be happy to see Americans move on in 2 or 6 years.  But I don't fantasize about seeing him impeached or convicted. It seems far-fetched to say he's trying to undermine America or is acting as a Russian agent.  I think narcissism + ignorance is a much simpler explanation for most of his "unorthodox diplomacy".  Even if he had some sketchy business dealings in the past, which I think is reasonably likely given that he employed people like Felix Sater, I doubt the ghosts of his past are guiding his actions today.

I hope the investigation can continue to overturn stones, and that important findings (like in the recent indictment) are not lost in the noise.  Every American should be concerned about the integrity of their electoral system, IMO.  And ever increasing Russian aggression is concerning.  I don't think it should go unchecked.

My biggest fear from the investigation is that either Trump ends it prematurely,  or that some marginally seedy things are uncovered and the democrats crank the volume from 11 to 100 calling for impeachment.  Either outcome would just further divide people. 

Ideally it'd be great to see this somehow morph into a bipartisan conversation about how the electoral system can be made more transparent.  The crap with the DNC,  some of this peripheral Trump campaign nonsense, rampant manipulation via social media. These things should concern/disgust everybody.   Rather than trying to figure out who's worse it'd be great to see people get fed up together and try to force some change, set some boundaries etc. 

Back to reality...

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: shalab on July 15, 2018, 06:25:39 PM
+1.


...

Ideally it'd be great to see this somehow morph into a bipartisan conversation about how the electoral system can be made more transparent. 

...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 15, 2018, 06:57:08 PM
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1018643232262119425

Thread: https://twitter.com/BenSasse/status/1018676455469993984
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on July 15, 2018, 07:45:39 PM
I just think you are tripping over yourself to be sceptical in the face of pretty damning evidence.

What you and I wish for, or hope to happen (perhaps something like Trump ousted/impeached/convicted for Russia dealings, or the opposite), drives what you seek to read, find credible, conclude, and post.

So what are your wishes/hopes?
...
Even if he had some sketchy business dealings in the past, which I think is reasonably likely given that he employed people like Felix Sater, I doubt the ghosts of his past are guiding his actions today.
...
Why? If he's done something illegal, like use his company to help Russians launder money into the US, and the Russians held all of the evidence showing that he did this, don't you think that would be "guiding his actions today"? I certainly do, and it would explain his attitude toward Russia pretty damn well.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 15, 2018, 09:00:46 PM
Why? If he's done something illegal, like use his company to help Russians launder money into the US, and the Russians held all of the evidence showing that he did this, don't you think that would be "guiding his actions today"? I certainly do, and it would explain his attitude toward Russia pretty damn well.

Certainly a possibility,  I just doubt that's what's happening.  To me he is not behaving like someone who is being extorted.

I think it's reasonably likely some type of money laundering has gone on. That's basically what I meant by sketchy business dealings. However I don't imagine he was knowingly abetting Russian criminals.  I was thinking more of a "pragmatic morality" where he didn't ask too many questions about where some money came from. 

But what do I know?  I thought OJ was guilty.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: bookie71 on July 16, 2018, 09:46:35 AM
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck...............................
.
.
https://www.arcamax.com/politics/editorialcartoons/andymarlette/?ezine=641
.
.
IMHO  Hitler would have loved Fox and CNN
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 16, 2018, 10:20:41 AM
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1018882581335625729


Reporter: Do you hold Russia accountable for anything?

Trump: We’re all to blame


Imagine the trump fanboys if Obama said this. Sad.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 16, 2018, 12:01:49 PM
https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018882466134872064

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018883048115404801

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018884143583780864

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018885317355560962

https://twitter.com/ReformedBroker/status/1018886973388394496

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018889704085876738
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 16, 2018, 12:10:38 PM
So funny. They just can't stand it when he ignores things that are important to them; things they have turned into a big deal. Jim Acosta treatment
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 16, 2018, 06:19:53 PM
"Trump pushed his personal agenda, not the national interest, at Putin summit"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/trump-pushed-his-personal-agenda-not-the-national-interest-at-putin-.html

"Former CIA Director John Brennan condemned Trump’s words as “nothing short of treasonous.” Others, in less provocative terms, joined in harsh denunciations."

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1018893198058573824

"I'm ready to call this the darkest hour in the history of the American presidency. Let me know if you can think of any competition.

https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/1018891518654976000

"I never thought I would see the day when our American President would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression. This is shameful."

https://twitter.com/EdBorgato/status/1018895623074922496

"There is not a single conservative viewpoint on taxes, regulation, immigration, SCOTUS, abortion, 2nd amendment, etc, that would be invalidated by also acknowledging the pathological self-interest, dishonesty, and incompetence, of someone who shares your views."

https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1018883595463622662

"The President of the United States trusts the word of a former KGB agent over the consensus of the American intelligence community backed by a ton of facts. That is a shocking reality. Everyone who excuses Trump’s behavior must answer that now, and when history inevitably judges."

https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/status/1018886573306318849

"Putin, a former KGB spy chief, has a pretty good poker face. BUT even he looks like he can't believe his luck, as Trump stands next to him, on foreign soil, and trashes his own intelligence agencies, and repeatedly praises Russia."

https://twitter.com/firstadopter/status/1018926766461681665

"When asked specifically about having compromising material on Trump, does Putin explicitly deny it other than saying it is "nonsense"? https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/i-hold-both-countries-responsible-here-is-the-full-transcript-of-tr.html https://twitter.com/firstadopter/status/1018926766461681665/photo/1 "

https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1018921757493866497

"Let me tell you, if Barack Obama had said the crap Trump said today there would already be 10, 000 hypercaustic elected Republican press releases, Facebook posts, and tweets. There would be a hundred calls for impeachment by close of business today."

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1018928393428111360

"Wonderful statement by McCain. He concludes: “Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.”
But I’m afraid we will be waiting in vain. If so, what is to be done? https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1018928393428111360/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1018908769969934336

"As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am deeply troubled by President Trump’s defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies of the U.S. & his suggestion of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia. Russia poses a grave threat to our national security."

https://twitter.com/AshLeeStrong/status/1018911494778638340

Speaker Ryan’s statement on today’s press conference: https://twitter.com/AshLeeStrong/status/1018911494778638340/photo/1

https://twitter.com/OutFrontCNN/status/1019008001846497280

""Michael Anton was going to be here ... he canceled, and he knows I'm going to tell you this, because he said he could not defend the president on his actions today." - Erin Burnett explains the absence of Trump's fmr. National Security Council spokesman https://cnn.it/2L3D3wk https://twitter.com/OutFrontCNN/status/1019008001846497280/video/1

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1018893795696545792

"Neil Cavuto of Fox Business calls Trump's press conference "disgusting", "That sets us back a lot." https://twitter.com/axios/status/1018893795696545792/video/1

https://twitter.com/BryanDBender/status/1019021011428073472

"JUST IN: Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, not known to utter anything unambiguous: “I never saw or imagined so uneven a handover of American security interests and principles with nothing in return...It was like watching the destruction of a cathedral.”"

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1019037465913581568

"Trump to Sean Hannity: "[Putin] said there's absolutely no collusion, which you know, and everybody who watches this show knows... And I tell you, I thought it was a really amazing time ... I thought that President Putin was very, very strong." https://twitter.com/axios/status/1019037465913581568/video/1

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-summit/trump-backs-putin-on-election-meddling-at-summit-stirs-fierce-criticism-idUSKBN1K601D

"Although he faced pressure from critics, allied countries and even his own staff to take a tough line, Trump spoke not a single disparaging word in public about Moscow on any of the issues that have brought relations between the two powers to the lowest ebb since the Cold War.
Instead, he denounced the "stupidity" of his own country's policies, especially the decision to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election. ...

Bill Burns, a former U.S. deputy secretary of state and ambassador to Russia, said in a telephone interview: "I have ... seen a lot of performances by presidents on the world stage, but I cannot think of one that was more appalling than this one."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 16, 2018, 07:58:41 PM
Did any of you get physically hurt by Trump/Russia? Did it cost you money? Did you lose your home or have a family member harmed? I know I still get up in the morning and have the same day to day routine as I did under Obama. The false outrage is absurd and people can't seem to see that they are just being played by Democrats looking to create distractions and road blocks for the Trump administration. Nothing more to it.
When you look at the numbers, the attack on Pearl Harbour harmed virtually Americans. Yes, there were a few on that island that took it hard. But really everyone else was ok. Why the overreaction?

9/11 affected even less people than Pearl Harbour. Why didn't the US just move on?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on July 16, 2018, 09:32:38 PM
https://twitter.com/CarolLeonnig/status/1018933936817344514

Marina Butina appeared in federal court in DC today, charged with being a Russian spy. Her biggest platform for spying on US politicians and sidling up to  @realDonaldTrump campaign? The @NRA.

Butina tried to arrange get together between Trump and Putin during campaign, was a favored friend of the NRA @nationalrifle
https://twitter.com/CarolLeonnig/status/1018931130899292160

Wow. Maria Butina, a Russian gun advocate who once bragged about being involved in comms between the Trump campaign and Russia, has been charged with being an unregistered foreign agent and is being held until her hearing on Wednesday. 
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1018935272547987456

Looks like her prosecution is independent of Mueller's investigation, like Michael Cohen's, so it would survive Mueller's removal. There are a couple of American co-conspirators too, which will make things interesting. If/when they are charged, it'd be politically tough to pardon them seeing how directly involved they are with a Russian spy.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 16, 2018, 09:35:28 PM
The TDS thread will memorialize the above reactions, before the posters feel the embarrassment and take down their reactions.

Meanwhile, the sober opinion, from the husband of the editor of The Nation magazine:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/17/stephen_f_cohen_do_you_prefer_impeaching_trump_or_avoiding_nuclear_war_with_russia.html

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: meiroy on July 16, 2018, 09:43:46 PM
1. The daily shock arguments about Trump are absolutely ridiculous and useless. It's pretty clear what he is by now.  Same today, same tomorrow. He is president because there's a whole circle of GOP individuals that support him and they are supported by a substantial amount of the population.
The arguments should be directed at these GOP individuals. The shock and treason accusation should be directed at them.  Similar to the sanctions on the oligarch-circle around Putin.

2. Regarding that tough Trump supported camp.  All these "facts" and "logical" arguments are completely and utterly pointless and useless.  It's about religion and as we know people will distort reality to support their cognitive dissonance as necessary.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/




Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 16, 2018, 09:52:53 PM
1. The daily shock arguments about Trump are absolutely ridiculous and useless. It's pretty clear what he is by now.  Same today, same tomorrow. He is president because there's a whole circle of GOP individuals that support him and they are supported by a substantial amount of the population.
The arguments should be directed at these GOP individuals. The shock and treason accusation should be directed at them.  Similar to the sanctions on the oligarch-circle around Putin.

2. Regarding that tough Trump supported camp.  All these "facts" and "logical" arguments are completely and utterly pointless and useless.  It's about religion and as we know people will distort reality to support their cognitive dissonance as necessary.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/
I was thinking about that today. All these GOP people whom "disagreed" with the President today. But unlike you or me, these are people that have actually seen the raw intelligence and what do they do? Politely disagree and the continue on their merry way.

There is a case to be made that Trump is just Trump and reasonable people should have no expectations. But that these supposed statesmen should and do know better. Yet they do nothing. I think that history will not look kindly on these time and on these people.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Jurgis on July 16, 2018, 10:31:01 PM
There is a case to be made that Trump is just Trump and reasonable people should have no expectations. But that these supposed statesmen should and do know better. Yet they do nothing. I think that history will not look kindly on these time and on these people.

Unfortunately, unless something colossally bad happens, history mostly forgets these people. And even when something rather colossally bad happens, the enablers are still mostly forgotten. Does anyone remember names of the people who enabled Stalin? Or pick any US/Canadian/whatever screwed up president - anyone remembers who enabled them? Some history buff may know. There might be a movie. But overall, the history - the humankind - is forgetful. Not even talking about wonderful people (like some here on CoBF) who will continue to fully support both the wannabe dick-tator and his personal "party".
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 16, 2018, 10:39:22 PM
Agree with Jurgis.

What will be remember (I think) is how we managed to elect a laughingstock of a human being to President, and what that says about our nation as a whole.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: meiroy on July 16, 2018, 10:43:04 PM
There is a case to be made that Trump is just Trump and reasonable people should have no expectations. But that these supposed statesmen should and do know better. Yet they do nothing. I think that history will not look kindly on these time and on these people.

Unfortunately, unless something colossally bad happens, history mostly forgets these people. And even when something rather colossally bad happens, the enablers are still mostly forgotten. Does anyone remember names of the people who enabled Stalin? Or pick any US/Canadian/whatever screwed up president - anyone remembers who enabled them? Some history buff may know. There might be a movie. But overall, the history - the humankind - is forgetful. Not even talking about wonderful people (like some here on CoBF) who will continue to fully support both the wannabe dick-tator and his personal "party".

The Death of Stalin movie is absolutely hilarious (everyone I know thought it was boring, so one might question my judgment on this). It was the funniest movie I have seen in ages.  Seriously.

As someone mentioned, Trump can easily win again by staying quiet and letting the great economy do its thing. So far, he's failing with the staying quiet part but the economy is still doing well so who knows... GOP/Religious support + Great economy = a decent chance at winning.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 16, 2018, 11:55:41 PM
Agree with Jurgis.

What will be remember (I think) is how we managed to elect a laughingstock of a human being to President, and what that says about our nation as a whole.
Oh, I know the answer to this one. The reason why Donald Trump is president is because a bunch of people decided to drive through buildings instead of being realistic and doing the pragmatic thing.

That statement is harsh, true, but unfair at the same time. The fact is that it was just a matter of time until this happened. Some drove through buildings. But a huge portion (approaching half) of the country thought this was a great idea and that Donald Trump is all they ever wanted. Donald Trump did not take over the Republican Party. It set it free. That's the really scary part, not the fact that Donald Trump is President. And that's not gonna change, it doesn't really matter if Democrats win the next election or not.

God, I really wish that I am wrong.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 17, 2018, 04:27:30 AM
If you've never looked into the Magninsky act, this podcast with Browder is a must:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/death-sergei-magnitsky-bill-browder/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 17, 2018, 05:38:09 AM
https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1019197026695897090

https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1019020659991642117
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on July 17, 2018, 06:33:22 AM
Trump being Trump. He is getting played at the world stage by Kim and Putin like a middle schooler.

It’s time for some professionalism to return to the White House. I wouldn’t care about the party membership at this point.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 17, 2018, 07:24:06 AM
Did any of you get physically hurt by Trump/Russia? Did it cost you money? Did you lose your home or have a family member harmed? I know I still get up in the morning and have the same day to day routine as I did under Obama. The false outrage is absurd and people can't seem to see that they are just being played by Democrats looking to create distractions and road blocks for the Trump administration. Nothing more to it.
When you look at the numbers, the attack on Pearl Harbour harmed virtually Americans. Yes, there were a few on that island that took it hard. But really everyone else was ok. Why the overreaction?

9/11 affected even less people than Pearl Harbour. Why didn't the US just move on?

You can't be serious with this... These are two of the most horrific attacks in U.S. history. People died. Tons of innocent people. I know first hand how devastating 9/11 was not just in NYC but the entire surrounding area. I guess we can now add in Russia buying ads on Facebook and leaking Crooked Hilary's dirty emails to the list... Good lord
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 17, 2018, 08:18:23 AM
If you've never looked into the Magninsky act, this podcast with Browder is a must:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/death-sergei-magnitsky-bill-browder/

Yes this is an extremely important piece of legislation.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 17, 2018, 10:07:44 AM
Thread:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1018989033534382086

Also:

https://twitter.com/MollyMcKew/status/1019161624073199616

Pearl Harbor & 9/11 were surprise attacks on the American homeland that forced a fundamental transformation of American defense.
In 2016, Russia attacked. We've failed to transform to withstand this hybrid warfare

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/16/putin-russia-trump-2016-pearl-harbor-219015

Also:

https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1019241064102756352

Also:

There may be an obvious reason President Trump appears beholden to Putin: $$. Maybe it's time to follow the money and for the GOP and Congress to require Trump to release his tax returns. I've seen his returns, and here's my column on Helsinki: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-17/helsinki-2018-putin-and-trump-s-tax-returns
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 17, 2018, 11:20:47 AM
Of course it's money.

In related news:

The Trump administration will end a longstanding requirement that certain nonprofit organizations disclose the names of their large donors to the Internal Revenue Service

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/politics/irs-will-no-longer-force-kochs-and-other-groups-to-disclose-donors.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Makes it easier for "non-profits" to hide where their "donations" come from.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 17, 2018, 11:26:51 AM
But don't worry - even though campaign "donations" can now be made anonymously by undisclosed foreign entities, at least our voting system is totally un-compromised.

Oh wait:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mb4ezy/top-voting-machine-vendor-admits-it-installed-remote-access-software-on-systems-sold-to-states

"In 2006, the same period when ES&S says it was still installing pcAnywhere on election systems, hackers stole the source code for the pcAnyhere software, though the public didn’t learn of this until years later in 2012 when a hacker posted some of the source code online, forcing Symantec, the distributor of pcAnywhere, to admit that it had been stolen years earlier. Source code is invaluable to hackers because it allows them to examine the code to find security flaws they can exploit. When Symantec admitted to the theft in 2012, it took the unprecedented step of warning users to disable or uninstall the software until it could make sure that any security flaws in the software had been patched."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on July 17, 2018, 11:46:46 AM
I think this is all a big over-reaction.  Think about all of the wonderful Trump hotels that will sprout up in Russia after 2020!  Eastern Europe is going to be magnificient...first-class all the way.

Truth is, is it better that Trump is kissing Putin's ass, or threatening a nuclear war?  I'm in favour of Trump's lips smacking Putin's butt cheeks! 

The argument on how Russia has meddled around the world...the U.S. has done no less historically...anyone remember Iraq?  They stopped Saddam, but destabilized the middle-east.  Currently how many U.S. bases are around the world on foreign soil?  It's like the pot calling the kettle black.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 17, 2018, 12:00:27 PM
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1019291422325866496

"Remember the Charlottesville saga: Trump expressed his true views, there was an outcry, he dutifully read a staff-written walk-back statement, then soon after he abandoned the walk-back and even more forcefully expressed his true views."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on July 17, 2018, 12:06:15 PM
His response is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard from anyone.  After a great beginning of talking about how he wanted to engage Russia, instead of maintaining hostilities, he explains he meant to say "why wouldn't it be Russia" instead of "why would it be Russia". 

It was very clear what he was saying...that he didn't believe his intelligence reports and felt Putin was being honest.

You Trump supporters...as much as you hate Obama, you know you've got somebody in power who is barely treading water and is over his head!  The fact that he speaks out of both ends should have told you as much.  Just nuts!  Cheers!   
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 17, 2018, 12:09:51 PM

The argument on how Russia has meddled around the world...the U.S. has done no less historically...anyone remember Iraq?  They stopped Saddam, but destabilized the middle-east.  Currently how many U.S. bases are around the world on foreign soil?  It's like the pot calling the kettle black.  Cheers!
I know that the US has done many bad things in the past, including destabilizing the middle-east. That doesn't mean that I'm happy that Putin is destabilizing Europe and North America. I don't believe in such fair play and I don't think he does either.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 17, 2018, 12:26:53 PM
Also:

https://twitter.com/MollyMcKew/status/1019161624073199616

Pearl Harbor & 9/11 were surprise attacks on the American homeland that forced a fundamental transformation of American defense.
In 2016, Russia attacked. We've failed to transform to withstand this hybrid warfare

IMO, some of this is extremely dangerous rhetoric.  I hope it does not catch too much traction before cooler heads prevail. Running around yelling "war" isn't helpful.  You say "war" enough and you'll talk yourself into a real one.

There's a wide gap between pretending that nothing happened and scrambling the jets. 

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 17, 2018, 12:37:11 PM
Yes, here is a list to go beserk and haywire over: Wikipedia: List of attacks on U.S. territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territory).
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 17, 2018, 12:47:53 PM

The argument on how Russia has meddled around the world...the U.S. has done no less historically...anyone remember Iraq?  They stopped Saddam, but destabilized the middle-east.  Currently how many U.S. bases are around the world on foreign soil?  It's like the pot calling the kettle black.  Cheers!
I know that the US has done many bad things in the past, including destabilizing the middle-east. That doesn't mean that I'm happy that Putin is destabilizing Europe and North America. I don't believe in such fair play and I don't think he does either.

What evidence do you have to make the claim that Russia is "destabilizing" Europe and North America? Cuz last I checked mainstream media/America thinks Russia is a joke and Putin a maniac. Europe doesn't exactly feel threatened either from my understanding. The only thing anyone would need to do to cripple Russia would be to stop buying their natural resources. There certainly arent any signs of "destabilizing". I mean even the conspiracy folks admit meddling had zero influence on the outcome of the election. I guess we can go back to comparing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor to email hacking...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 17, 2018, 01:06:29 PM
Yes, here is a list to go beserk and haywire over: Wikipedia: List of attacks on U.S. territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territory).

*Needs to be updated to include June 2016 hacking of Hillary and DNC emails.

Also, something else no one has really touched on. How is it, that the biggest, badest, smartest US of A and their top intelligence units, FBI/CIA could not find Clintons emails despite months/years of "looking". Russia found them easily. Are we just not looking? or Incompetent?

Quite literally all of those agencies, plus the entire MSM, not to mention many top lawyers, celebrities, bankers have been desperately trying to dig up dirt on Trump to ruin him. They've come up with nothing. Yet everyone now likes to throw out this baseless "Putin's got dirt on Trump" claim. Are we just incompetent? Why haven't we found it? Cuz people have clearly been looking.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 17, 2018, 01:33:12 PM
Yes, here is a list to go beserk and haywire over: Wikipedia: List of attacks on U.S. territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territory).

*Needs to be updated to include June 2016 hacking of Hillary and DNC emails. ...

Most likely that was not the first time that way, Greg,

- - - o 0 o - - -

The meeting in Helsinki and following press conference yesterday was a business meeting between two <X> business men. [Please subsitute <X> with what ever you want of adjective(s).]

Liberty recently linked in this topic to a podcast interview with Mr. Browder [To me, a good one]. But even Mr. Browder brings in inaccurate information to the whole matter. He did in late 2017 compare the Russian economy to the Italian. If you look at data, it's a pretty far miss [overestimation]. The 2017 Russian GDP is about 3 times the GDP of Sweden, or 5 times the GDP of tiny Denmark.

- - - o 0 o  - - -

So much noise everywhere right now to an extent, that I can't really believe it! -Everywhere!: Netpapers that I read every day, Bloomberg really spamming my inbox, Twitter has gone beserk, FB going absolutely crazy also.

I have enjoyed a part of the day by reading 2018Q2 report for Investor AB, Sweden, though.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 17, 2018, 04:41:09 PM
What Mueller Knows About the DNC Hack - And Trump Doesn’t

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/17/dnc-server-hack-russia-trump-2016-219017
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on July 17, 2018, 04:44:32 PM
The argument on how Russia has meddled around the world...the U.S. has done no less historically...anyone remember Iraq?  They stopped Saddam, but destabilized the middle-east.  Currently how many U.S. bases are around the world on foreign soil?  It's like the pot calling the kettle black.  Cheers!

Call us hypocrites if you want, but if you mess with our elections there will be hell to pay! ...or at least there should be...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on July 17, 2018, 05:16:16 PM
The argument on how Russia has meddled around the world...the U.S. has done no less historically...anyone remember Iraq?  They stopped Saddam, but destabilized the middle-east.  Currently how many U.S. bases are around the world on foreign soil?  It's like the pot calling the kettle black.  Cheers!

Call us hypocrites if you want, but if you mess with our elections there will be hell to pay! ...or at least there should be...

Welcome back investor-man. Ferengis should feel right at home in politics nowadays.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 17, 2018, 05:21:34 PM
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trump-still-distorting-nato-spending/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on July 17, 2018, 05:30:35 PM
Yes, here is a list to go beserk and haywire over: Wikipedia: List of attacks on U.S. territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territory).

*Needs to be updated to include June 2016 hacking of Hillary and DNC emails.

Also, something else no one has really touched on. How is it, that the biggest, badest, smartest US of A and their top intelligence units, FBI/CIA could not find Clintons emails despite months/years of "looking". Russia found them easily. Are we just not looking? or Incompetent?

Quite literally all of those agencies, plus the entire MSM, not to mention many top lawyers, celebrities, bankers have been desperately trying to dig up dirt on Trump to ruin him. They've come up with nothing. Yet everyone now likes to throw out this baseless "Putin's got dirt on Trump" claim. Are we just incompetent? Why haven't we found it? Cuz people have clearly been looking.

@Gregmal - The emails Russia found were on the DNC servers, not Clinton's personal email server. Clinton's personal server was never hacked.

@Gregmal - Russia is very much a destabilizing force. In 2014 it invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea after Ukraine's population rose up and tossed out Putin's puppet dictator, Viktor Yanukovych (you know the guy your buddy Manafort helped put in power - also the same guy who poisoned his opponent with Agent Orange, causing the Orange Revolution, a move Ukraine took further in the direction of a true democracy, which would grant them membership into NATO). If you look on a map you will see that Ukraine borders four NATO countries, so I think you can understand the concern NATO had with this invasion, and why we levied the heavy and *oligarch-targeted* sanctions against them. Funny enough, Russia retaliated with their own sanctions, including a (disgusting) ban on US adoptions of Russian children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dima_Yakovlev_Law) - you know, the thing Trump said they discussed that the infamous Trump Tower meeting (aka sanctions). Putin's power is threatened by these sanctions because they are targeted and he is threatened by NATO because democracy threatens his power. Putin is evil. He is not our ally, and there is very little "good" to be said of him. It is very difficult to understand Trump's position on Putin unless you believe he is under Putin's control.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 17, 2018, 05:38:05 PM
Also, something else no one has really touched on. How is it, that the biggest, badest, smartest US of A and their top intelligence units, FBI/CIA could not find Clintons emails despite months/years of "looking". Russia found them easily. Are we just not looking? or Incompetent?

The former.  I believe you misunderstand the situation.   In your defence, you were misled by none other than the leader of the free world.

I'm no expert, so may eat crow here, but my understanding is that there are two separate issues that Trump likes to conflate.

#1
- Clinton used a personal server while senator and continued to use while Sec. of State (total pro move)
- She turned over many thousand work-related emails to the FBI and she and her lawyers ordered a bunch of personal ones deleted (super pro)
- Trump likes to talk about 33000 "missing emails".  He's talking about the deleted ones.  The Russians didn't "find" them, and there's no evidence her system was hacked.  BUT it's very likely that it was owned, given that she was so careless and these things are highly nontrivial to set up properly.

#2
- A DNC email server was hacked by an allegedly Russia-linked group.
- More specifically, they spearfished certain DNC account credentials and copied emails to another cloud service.
- The FBI/CIA was never looking for these emails.
- This is the "missing server" that Trump talks about:   https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server

EDIT:  Oops, I see now this post is redundant.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on July 17, 2018, 05:47:49 PM
Also, something else no one has really touched on. How is it, that the biggest, badest, smartest US of A and their top intelligence units, FBI/CIA could not find Clintons emails despite months/years of "looking". Russia found them easily. Are we just not looking? or Incompetent?

The former.  I believe you misunderstand the situation.   In your defence, you were misled by none other than the leader of the free world.

I'm no expert, so may eat crow here, but my understanding is that there are two separate issues that Trump likes to conflate.

#1
- Clinton used a personal server while senator and continued to use while Sec. of State (total pro move)
- She turned over many thousand work-related emails to the FBI and she and her lawyers ordered a bunch of personal ones deleted (super pro)
- Trump likes to talk about 33000 "missing emails".  He's talking about the deleted ones.  The Russians didn't "find" them, and there's no evidence her system was hacked.  BUT it's very likely that it was owned, given that she was so careless and these things are highly nontrivial to set up properly.

#2
- A DNC email server was hacked by an allegedly Russia-linked group.
- More specifically, they spearfished certain DNC account credentials and copied emails to another cloud service.
- The FBI/CIA was never looking for these emails.
- This is the "missing server" that Trump talks about:   https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server

EDIT:  Oops, I see now this post is redundant.  Sorry.

Yeah - and as an aside and off topic - I think it's important for people to understand how unsophisticated the attack on Podesta's emails were in particular. Basically Yahoo Mail was hacked and a billion emails and passwords were stolen and are now public. Podesta had a Yahoo Mail account and he basically used the same password for all of his accounts everywhere so he wouldn't have to memorize a bunch of different passwords (I'll admit I used to be guilty of this too). So the Russians basically just logged in as him and stole a bunch of emails. There were a bunch of other things they hacked with far more sophistication, but I think it's very important that everyone as an individual recognize that you are vulnerable to this too! Since Yahoo was hacked I've been using 1password, and I think it's great. Apple is rolling it out to all of their employees and requiring that they use it. It's a good rule of thumb for you too. /END PSA
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 17, 2018, 05:57:33 PM
Yeah - and as an aside and off topic - I think it's important for people to understand how unsophisticated the attack on Podesta's emails were in particular. Basically Yahoo Mail was hacked and a billion emails and passwords were stolen and are now public. Podesta had a Yahoo Mail account and he basically used the same password for all of his accounts everywhere so he wouldn't have to memorize a bunch of different passwords (I'll admit I used to be guilty of this too). So the Russians basically just logged in as him and stole a bunch of emails. There were a bunch of other things they hacked with far more sophistication, but I think it's very important that everyone as an individual recognize that you are vulnerable to this too! Since Yahoo was hacked I've been using 1password, and I think it's great. Apple is rolling it out to all of their employees and requiring that they use it. It's a good rule of thumb for you too. /END PSA

Podesta's Gmail account was hacked through a fake security alert, aka sprear-fishing. It was unrelated to the Yahoo hack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 17, 2018, 06:02:35 PM
Also, something else no one has really touched on. How is it, that the biggest, badest, smartest US of A and their top intelligence units, FBI/CIA could not find Clintons emails despite months/years of "looking". Russia found them easily. Are we just not looking? or Incompetent?

The former.  I believe you misunderstand the situation.   In your defence, you were misled by none other than the leader of the free world.

I'm no expert, so may eat crow here, but my understanding is that there are two separate issues that Trump likes to conflate.

#1
- Clinton used a personal server while senator and continued to use while Sec. of State (total pro move)
- She turned over many thousand work-related emails to the FBI and she and her lawyers ordered a bunch of personal ones deleted (super pro)
- Trump likes to talk about 33000 "missing emails".  He's talking about the deleted ones.  The Russians didn't "find" them, and there's no evidence her system was hacked.  BUT it's very likely that it was owned, given that she was so careless and these things are highly nontrivial to set up properly.

#2
- A DNC email server was hacked by an allegedly Russia-linked group.
- More specifically, they spearfished certain DNC account credentials and copied emails to another cloud service.
- The FBI/CIA was never looking for these emails.
- This is the "missing server" that Trump talks about:   https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server

EDIT:  Oops, I see now this post is redundant.  Sorry.

Ah fake news strikes again! Not more than a couple days ago news headlines claiming "Russia led hackers target Clinton same day Trump asks them too" and "Trump asks Russia to get Clinton emails. Then they did." Nonetheless, it's amazing how much attention this is all getting. Especially as mentioned, how unsophisticated most of it was. Then add in the fact that any person with common sense, whether it be email, text, or old day snail mail, should know better then to ever put anything you wouldn't want the world to see in written communication. And yet, we can thank Russia for exposing the widespread corruption at the DNC primaries and the fact that the election really was rigged. You want to talk about attacking democracy? Thank Russia for showing the DNC was running a fraudulent process that more so resembled a Russian election than a US one.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 17, 2018, 06:10:12 PM
Yeah - and as an aside and off topic - I think it's important for people to understand how unsophisticated the attack on Podesta's emails were in particular. Basically Yahoo Mail was hacked and a billion emails and passwords were stolen and are now public. Podesta had a Yahoo Mail account and he basically used the same password for all of his accounts everywhere so he wouldn't have to memorize a bunch of different passwords (I'll admit I used to be guilty of this too). So the Russians basically just logged in as him and stole a bunch of emails. There were a bunch of other things they hacked with far more sophistication, but I think it's very important that everyone as an individual recognize that you are vulnerable to this too! Since Yahoo was hacked I've been using 1password, and I think it's great. Apple is rolling it out to all of their employees and requiring that they use it. It's a good rule of thumb for you too. /END PSA

I thought they actively spearphished him and he fell for it (Podesta, I mean). 

But regardless, your point is important.   If a well-funded state agency wants to own you, they can and will, and there's really nothing you can do about it.  But even being moderately careful can make you a difficult target for the more pedestrian hackers.

Your primary email account is likely your most important password, since you can reset most other passwords via this one.  So two-step verification is a no-brainer.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 17, 2018, 06:19:47 PM
"I think Putin pays 2 people" - GOP House Leader

If we assume selected leaks are the best view of someone, why do we ignore leaks related to Trump? The same logic says we should impeach Trump immediately.

We don't because it's more complicated than that. Just like the DNC hack.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 17, 2018, 06:45:42 PM
Ah fake news strikes again! Not more than a couple days ago news headlines claiming "Russia led hackers target Clinton same day Trump asks them too" and "Trump asks Russia to get Clinton emails. Then they did."

The headlines you mentioned referred to the specific events on July 27, 2016.

Trump at a press-conference:

Quote
“If it is Russia — which it’s probably not, nobody knows who it is — but if it is Russia, it’s really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything,” he said. “But it would be interesting to see — I will tell you this — Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing [from Clinton’s private server]. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That’ll be next.”

Mueller's indictment of the GRU officers ("the conspirators"):

Quote
The conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton campaign through the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton campaign.

Note the difference between Clinton's private server and DNC servers. DNC servers had been hacked in April. July 27 is the first attempt to hack her personal server. Which happens to be the day Trump made his public request.

No fake news here.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 17, 2018, 06:47:27 PM
Ah fake news strikes again! Not more than a couple days ago news headlines claiming "Russia led hackers target Clinton same day Trump asks them too" and "Trump asks Russia to get Clinton emails. Then they did." Nonetheless, it's amazing how much attention this is all getting. Especially as mentioned, how unsophisticated most of it was. Then add in the fact that any person with common sense, whether it be email, text, or old day snail mail, should know better then to ever put anything you wouldn't want the world to see in written communication. And yet, we can thank Russia for exposing the widespread corruption at the DNC primaries and the fact that the election really was rigged. You want to talk about attacking democracy? Thank Russia for showing the DNC was running a fraudulent process that more so resembled a Russian election than a US one.

Way to own your mistake.

You should read the indictment.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 17, 2018, 06:58:16 PM
Ah fake news strikes again! Not more than a couple days ago news headlines claiming "Russia led hackers target Clinton same day Trump asks them too" and "Trump asks Russia to get Clinton emails. Then they did." Nonetheless, it's amazing how much attention this is all getting. Especially as mentioned, how unsophisticated most of it was. Then add in the fact that any person with common sense, whether it be email, text, or old day snail mail, should know better then to ever put anything you wouldn't want the world to see in written communication. And yet, we can thank Russia for exposing the widespread corruption at the DNC primaries and the fact that the election really was rigged. You want to talk about attacking democracy? Thank Russia for showing the DNC was running a fraudulent process that more so resembled a Russian election than a US one.

Way to own your mistake.

You should read the indictment.

I'd rather spend my time doing something useful. Such as reading SEC filings. This is only really a big deal to people who can't get over the fact that Trump won and don't want to let go. It's like your neighbor having a nail in his car tire and claiming it came from your house. And today comes over to your house and wants talk. And then again later this evening. And then tomorrow 3x. And then later he's got signs put up saying as much. When it's like, just STFU and move on. It's not that big of a deal to anyone but you and even if the specific item in question is true, you're most likely not even going to be definitely able to prove it, so stop whining and get on with your life.

Russia did something the US does all the time. It revealed that politicians are corrupt. Trump is a scummy human being. FBI is incompetent. The election results were not effected. I get it. Time to move on now people.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 17, 2018, 07:03:18 PM
Now's a good time to watch episode 6 of Dirty Money on Netflix if you haven't:

https://www.netflix.com/title/80118100?s=i&trkid=13752289

Also, even Kelly:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/the-west-wing-revolts-after-trump-embraces-putin
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 17, 2018, 07:13:20 PM
Time to move on now people.

Mueller's investigation vs. previous investigations by a special/independent counsel:

(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/atd-indictments-0514.png?w=575)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 17, 2018, 07:16:37 PM
Ah fake news strikes again! Not more than a couple days ago news headlines claiming "Russia led hackers target Clinton same day Trump asks them too" and "Trump asks Russia to get Clinton emails. Then they did." Nonetheless, it's amazing how much attention this is all getting. Especially as mentioned, how unsophisticated most of it was. Then add in the fact that any person with common sense, whether it be email, text, or old day snail mail, should know better then to ever put anything you wouldn't want the world to see in written communication. And yet, we can thank Russia for exposing the widespread corruption at the DNC primaries and the fact that the election really was rigged. You want to talk about attacking democracy? Thank Russia for showing the DNC was running a fraudulent process that more so resembled a Russian election than a US one.

Way to own your mistake.

You should read the indictment.

I'd rather spend my time doing something useful. Such as reading SEC filings. This is only really a big deal to people who can't get over the fact that Trump won and don't want to let go. It's like your neighbor having a nail in his car tire and claiming it came from your house. And today comes over to your house and wants talk. And then again later this evening. And then tomorrow 3x. And then later he's got signs put up saying as much. When it's like, just STFU and move on. It's not that big of a deal to anyone but you and even if the specific item in question is true, you're most likely not even going to be definitely able to prove it, so stop whining and get on with your life.

Russia did something the US does all the time. It revealed that politicians are corrupt. Trump is a scummy human being. FBI is incompetent. The election results were not effected. I get it. Time to move on now people.

Illegally taking power is a big deal. It's the whole point of this experiment called America.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 17, 2018, 07:43:28 PM
I'd rather spend my time doing something useful.

Clearly.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 18, 2018, 06:00:13 AM
"Illegally taking power is a big deal. It's the whole point of this experiment called America."

LOL!

Trump did not need the help from the Court to win unlike Bush and I am sure that you were still whining.

I can't believe this echo-chamber of leftist losers. Pathetic!

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 18, 2018, 06:28:59 AM
http://time.com/5340545/bill-browder-vladimir-putin-magnitsky-act-donald-trump/

"I'm Bill Browder. Here's the Biggest Mistake Putin Made When Trying to Get Access to Me Through Trump"

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1019195252161335296
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 18, 2018, 06:36:39 AM
Mueller asks for immunity for five potential witnesses in Paul Manafort trial.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/17/mueller-asks-for-immunity-for-five-witnesses-in-manafort-case.html
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 18, 2018, 06:51:15 AM
"I really just continue to post because of you and a few others. I know it tilts you. lol.  Missed ya Cardboard. "

Oh yeah?

And then you were the one complaining about personal attacks earlier in this thread?

6 1/2 more years Doughishere that is what is ahead of you. By the end of it, psychiatric hospitals will be full of leftist turned totally bizurk! LOL!

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 18, 2018, 06:59:19 AM
Where is the push for germany to kill its pipeline deal w germany.  Its tough to be this critical of trump while you ignore that.

Where were all the posts about russia before the election?

I am 100pct on board that russia is evil.  What i would like to seeis some objectivity. If we really are going after russia then lets do it. Trump sure but also anyone who provides them support.

I still see usa under trump still being most against them.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 18, 2018, 07:04:08 AM
Tromp has amply been proven to be human garbage and a con man with little business abilities, if the sexual predation wasn't enough, and those who defend him just because they support some pet policy objective that he might support are selling their integrity quite cheaply.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 18, 2018, 07:06:27 AM
"Illegally taking power is a big deal. It's the whole point of this experiment called America."

LOL!

Trump did not need the help from the Court to win unlike Bush and I am sure that you were still whining.

I can't believe this echo-chamber of leftist losers. Pathetic!

Cardboard

Remember when Clinton was investigated for illegally taking money from Chinese nationals? That was a big deal. There was an accused Russian spy with a back-channel to US gov't officials. That's a big deal.

At the end of the day, if Trump is removed then Pence is in. GOP still controls every part of the US gov't. Nothing material will change for liberal folks. Still doesn't change the fact that illegally taking power is a big deal.

The Mueller investigation is ultimately an extension of post-9/11 warfare. Asymmetric Warfare against the US led to the US looking bad (when usually, everyone does terrible things in war). This led to Chelsea (Bradley) Manning and the flood of leakers. If you read this sentence and focus on Manning's first name, get over it. The issue is America is behind the times and losing in modern warfare. We spend a lot more for similar results because we haven't decided on a direction forward. Along with Manning brought Julian Assange. Julian Assange was likely flipped to Russia at some point around 2010/2011 and Snowden fell in to his lap. There have been dozens of major leakers of military secrets this decade but Snowden was the jackpot. What I'm saying is part of the Mueller investigation (the counter intelligence part that the GOP commentators can't stand to clarify for their listeners) is likely related to "how do we put a lid on this situation?"

So have we dealt with the changes in warfare? We just charged Russian military hackers. We've been selectively charging military hackers of China and Russia since 2014 when Obama/Holder first did it. It's a huge shift for the US. Who knows where this takes us. I've read opinions from a few folks who think it's a really bad idea. At least it converts warfare back to semi-regular, which is where the US shines.

Honestly, the only thing pathetic is how often you resort to name calling instead of communicating an actual opinion whenever the topic turns to politics. You communicate well in investing topics. You should do that here.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 18, 2018, 07:31:03 AM
It's working.  Trump is playing Putin, and you guys, expertly.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1019544304853966853
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 18, 2018, 07:53:39 AM
"You communicate well in investing topics. You should do that here."

It is obvious where he is out of his depth.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 18, 2018, 07:57:44 AM
Where is the investigation on Hillary and Bill selling out U.S. uranium deposits to Russia in return for huge kick-backs? Where is your depth on this one LC?

Now, finally! Someone has awaken and doing the right thing:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/18/trump-administration-opens-uranium-import-probe-new-tariffs-possible.html

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 18, 2018, 08:06:06 AM
The article you linked is about taxing Uranium imports, you silly goose  ::)

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 18, 2018, 08:07:05 AM
The article you linked is about taxing Uranium imports, you silly goose  ::)

Womp womp.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 18, 2018, 08:10:01 AM
Where is the investigation on Hillary and Bill selling out U.S. uranium deposits to Russia in return for huge kick-backs? Where is your depth on this one LC?

Now, finally! Someone has awaken and doing the right thing:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/18/trump-administration-opens-uranium-import-probe-new-tariffs-possible.html

Cardboard

Cardboard, I ask that you stick to the Russia/Mueller Investigation on this thread please. If you feel a Uranium post should be started up please do so.

It just makes logical sense to keep subjects separated. SO much going on its exhausting. Thanks!

Edit: Please! Where are my manners?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 18, 2018, 08:14:59 AM
This material is a little dated but still interesting.  It seems that historically the USA interferes with elections about twice the rate as Russia.   https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 18, 2018, 08:27:53 AM
This material is a little dated but still interesting.  It seems that historically the USA interferes with elections about twice the rate as Russia.   https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

Yes.  The US should still be pissed that Russia was interfering, and it's amazing Trump handled things the way he did, but definitely important to keep perspective here.  Very scary to see the hawks circling IMO.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: hyten1 on July 18, 2018, 08:36:06 AM
of course country meddle with other countries (that is standard operating procedure, of course you deny, fight etc.), that is not the important part. people can't be that naive can it?

the important part is how trump openly side with russia against the entire US intelligence community. it almost like he wants to discredit US intelligence (to instill fear and distrust, you can't trust the bias intelligence community so he says/imply, you can only trust him, for his support base) for his own personal purpose, he is afraid the day the US intelligence finds/share something about the donald that is either illegal or make him look really bad.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 18, 2018, 08:37:48 AM
Doc
I agree.  We should be pissed over alleged Russian interference.  But how pissed? Is open for debate.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 18, 2018, 08:43:09 AM
Hyten1

The U.S. investigative community seems to be doing a good job of discrediting themselves. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: hyten1 on July 18, 2018, 08:50:33 AM
MarkS,

at the end of the day who do you trust KGB or our own CIA/FBI, trump seem to think/imply the KGB.

or maybe Trump has some super "secret force" that he deploys to find/discover the truth that is beyond everyone's comprehension and access.



Hyten1

The U.S. investigative community seems to be doing a good job of discrediting themselves.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 18, 2018, 09:03:03 AM
Hyten1

Do I trust them more than the Russians?  Yes. But these days that's a very low hurdle.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 18, 2018, 09:14:07 AM
Hyten1

The U.S. investigative community seems to be doing a good job of discrediting themselves.

I'm not sure on what basis you're making this claim, but unfortunately I agree.   And having Brennan, Clapper, Comey etc on cable news asserting strong anti-Trump opinions and making very serious allegations (eg. "treason") is ultimately not helping their cause.  These guys should know to be more circumspect in their commentary

They are paraded out by CNN as voices of moral authority, but the reality is that they worked in a morally murky and politically tainted business and most of what they say is saddled with hypocrisy, no matter how well meaning they may now be.   They're coming across as partisan hacks, which just entrenches the deep state theories. 

It was refreshing to read Coats' firm but businesslike redress of Trump's Helsinki blunders.  Of course he's in a very different position, being currently employed...

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 18, 2018, 10:35:32 AM
Doc
I agree.  We should be pissed over alleged Russian interference.  But how pissed? Is open for debate.

Exactly. As I've long maintained, this Russia thing is just a not so thinly veiled channel for people to continue whining about the fact that their candidate lost and that they hate Trump. The incident itself had minimal tangible impact and isn't anything new in politics.

It's surprising people would rather our President be unreasonably hostile towards countries we don't agree with. This isn't exactly exclusive to Russia either. There's again, actually people mad that we have made progress and have dialogue with North Korea!

End of the day, as I've said before, if people applied the same level of analytical skills in their investment process, well the results would definitely trail the markets(to say the least, I'm trying to be nice). A blatant bleeding heart liberal with a Twitter feed posts a predictably anti Trump piece, and you guys jump all over it. MSM continues with it's long running narrative, and you guys take it hook line and sinker at face value! It's as though they don't even need to put bait on the hook anymore. Just throw an empty hook in the water, and not only are you guys swallowing it hook, line, and sinker, but in many cases jumping out of the water to get it before it even lands! Do you also take every portfolio company management statement, press release, or investor deck at face value? This displayed reasoning would seem to indicate the affirmative.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 18, 2018, 11:03:10 AM
Exactly. As I've long maintained, this Russia thing is just a not so thinly veiled channel for people to continue whining about the fact that their candidate lost and that they hate Trump. The incident itself had minimal tangible impact and isn't anything new in politics.

This is dismissive in exactly the same way that so many liberals were dismissive of the legitimate concerns of more conservative voters.   

Yes the hyperbole on both sides is damn tiring.  "The liberals want MS-13 to gang rape your daughter."   "Trump is a Russian agent and should be hanged for treason."  Pure craziness.  But you really have to look through pinhole glasses to not see the legitimate concerns here, and it's insulting to dismiss them as whining when they are raised.

Hence my suggestion to read the indictment.  If it's worth your time to weigh in on its merit, it should be worth your time to read it.  I don't think that's a debatable premise.

As for this being standard political theatre: I'm generally inclined to agree with this type of assessment, though I have some serious reservations in this case.  The intensity of the meddling appears to be new, indeed.  This has been reiterated by Trump's current intelligence chief, a man who is not known for grabbing the spotlight.  Of course he could be exaggerating to protect his people, or could himself be manipulated by his people.  We can't tell from the outside, as some others have pointed out here.   But worthy of discussion / consideration maybe?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 18, 2018, 11:18:14 AM
Exactly. As I've long maintained, this Russia thing is just a not so thinly veiled channel for people to continue whining about the fact that their candidate lost and that they hate Trump. The incident itself had minimal tangible impact and isn't anything new in politics.

This is dismissive in exactly the same way that so many liberals were dismissive of the legitimate concerns of more conservative voters.   

Yes the hyperbole on both sides is damn tiring.  "The liberals want MS-13 to gang rape your daughter."   "Trump is a Russian agent and should be hanged for treason."  Pure craziness.  But you really have to look through pinhole glasses to not see the legitimate concerns here, and it's insulting to dismiss them as whining when they are raised.

Hence my suggestion to read the indictment.  If it's worth your time to weigh in on its merit, it should be worth your time to read it.  I don't think that's a debatable premise.

As for this being standard political theatre: I'm generally inclined to agree with this type of assessment, though I have some serious reservations in this case.  The intensity of the meddling appears to be new, indeed.  This has been reiterated by Trump's current intelligence chief, a man who is not known for grabbing the spotlight.  Of course he could be exaggerating to protect his people, or could himself be manipulated by his people.  We can't tell from the outside, as some others have pointed out here.   But worthy of discussion / consideration maybe?

What I'm saying is that I have a general idea of what the ranges of implications are, with the exclusion of the media noise. Meaning, I am aware of what would be the case if this was entirely made up, while also aware of what the case may be if the allegations are true. And my belief is that it just isn't really that important, let alone worth all the time and resources spent on it. Flynn, Manafort etc are not really indictments related to the campaign or meddling. We've essentially paid $20m to indict 12 foreign individuals who likely will never set foot in this country, for an activity not shocking or new and something we do all the time. Remember us spying on fellow EU allies? What did we do? Deflect attention onto, and blame Snowden. They American left's consistent sleight of hand tricks are becoming more and more infantile.  They never take responsibility and are outrageously hypocritical.

While I would agree, that to a degree, if Trump colluded in breaking the law, that should be looked at. Although now, even the biggest anti-Trumpers, are starting to admit this isn't really about collusion, and that the issue is "meddling". And yet, despite holding to the anti-Trump rhetoric, the thread by which they hang on to it is thinner than ever, and yet their noise is louder than ever. And after recklessly clamoring about how Trump colluded for the past year, now all they have is "Russia meddled" and they are outraged because THEY are demanding Trump do something about an issue that is only a big deal to THEM, because they falsely blew it up so big in the first place. Frankly, I think Trump has significantly more important things to be doing than chasing 12 people in Russia for hacking emails.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 18, 2018, 05:05:35 PM
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/factchecking-russian-president-putin/

Quote
Putin falsely claimed that business associates of William Browder, who had lobbied for a 2012 U.S. law sanctioning Russians, had given $400 million to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Those affiliated with the firm in question gave just $17,700 to Clinton.
Discussing the case of a Russian firm indicted for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, Putin said, “So far, American court has not discovered any trace of interference whatsoever.” That’s misleading. There’s an ongoing legal dispute over pretrial evidence. There is, however, plenty of evidence in the indictments.
Putin denied that a video played during his annual state of the nation address showed an animated depiction of nuclear warheads raining down on Florida — not far from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago private resort and golf club. But it did.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 18, 2018, 05:12:56 PM
A retired senior career CIA officer:

https://twitter.com/StevenLHall1/status/1019721999768346632

"From a counterintelligence perspective, something is going on behind the scenes. Before Helsinki I was less sure; post Helsinki, I feel sick."


*** Steven L. Hall retired from the Central Intelligence Agency in 2015 after 30 years of running and managing intelligence operations in Eurasia and Latin America.  Mr. Hall finished his career as a member of the Senior Intelligence Service, the small cadre of officers who are the senior-most leaders of the CIA’s Clandestine Service.  Most of Mr. Hall’s career was spent abroad, overseeing intelligence operations in the countries of the former Soviet Union and the former Warsaw Pact.  As an executive at CIA headquarters, Mr. Hall also focused on cyber threats, security and counterintelligence, and counterterrorism.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 18, 2018, 06:01:22 PM
Obama was informed in august 2016. Warned putin in sept. Otherwise did nothing.  Probably because his advisors informed him usa interferes w elections all over the world. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.f1e9718df06c
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 18, 2018, 07:16:23 PM
Obama was informed in august 2016. Warned putin in sept. Otherwise did nothing.  Probably because his advisors informed him usa interferes w elections all over the world. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.f1e9718df06c

Did you read the article? It literally said they wanted to react but Republican leadership threatened to claim it was politically motivated. If you recall the political fever at the time, Trump was saying the election was rigged and everyone was at each other's throat.

This article makes the case for why Republican behavior is so weird. They knew it was happening and blocked leadership from reacting...

Also, Butina was just charged with espionage, which connects the NRA to the GOP, which might be playing a factor in this all.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 18, 2018, 07:27:10 PM
Obama was informed in august 2016. Warned putin in sept. Otherwise did nothing.  Probably because his advisors informed him usa interferes w elections all over the world. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.f1e9718df06c

Did you read the article? It literally said they wanted to react but Republican leadership threatened to claim it was politically motivated. If you recall the political fever at the time, Trump was saying the election was rigged and everyone was at each other's throat.

This article makes the case for why Republican behavior is so weird. They knew it was happening and blocked leadership from reacting...

Also, Butina was just charged with espionage, which connects the NRA to the GOP, which might be playing a factor in this all.

Good article.  But yeah I also thought  "did he read much of this?"

No Free Lunch:  What in the article led you to your statement?

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cigarbutt on July 18, 2018, 07:40:07 PM
...
No Free Lunch:  What in the article led you to your statement?
...
Electoral "interventions" by foreign powers are common.
http://gleasonreport.com/documents/sqv016.pdf
The interesting question is how to deal with them.
Please elaborate.
Is this some kind or reverse Manifest Destiny?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 18, 2018, 07:48:06 PM
Schwab

I did read it.  It was very clear that obama had auth to act. Schiff says so quite clearly.  Yes thwre are statements in the article that republicans were also against action but that isnt relevant to the argument. Left is calling trump a traitor but the truth is obama could have acted back in aug or sept but did not. Cyber attacks, sanctions, deployment of forces near russia.  All he did was send a warning.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 18, 2018, 08:35:34 PM
Schwab

I did read it.  It was very clear that obama had auth to act. Schiff says so quite clearly.  Yes thwre are statements in the article that republicans were also against action but that isnt relevant to the argument. Left is calling trump a traitor but the truth is obama could have acted back in aug or sept but did not. Cyber attacks, sanctions, deployment of forces near russia.  All he did was send a warning.

What could Obama do specifically with a hostile Congress? McConnell also had this info, why didn't he offer to help? Why did Trump deny the facts despite being briefed during the election?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

What do you think Trump would have said in late-August in to September 2016?

What would you have said? People on this board didn't believe the hack occurred in recent weeks.

How do you think this all would have played out in 2016, nearly 2 years before the government was prepared to present evidence to a grand jury?

Finally, it is not at all true that Obama's only act was a "warning". We closed the 2 compounds. We closed the San Francisco compound. He expelled a large number of "diplomats" (code for protected spies). That's about all Obama could do without Congressional support and the ridiculous rhetoric from Trump. When I was yelling about the rhetoric being too damn high in 2015/2016, this was one of the consequences. Government was paralyzed at the exact moment it needed to react.

The goalposts have been constantly moved. The "Left's" story about Trump/Russia is unchanged.

Why are normal folks fighting about this instead of all of us angry at Trump?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 18, 2018, 09:12:48 PM
The intervention in libya happened without congress approval and under obama. You have use of military force against a sovereign nation. So surely he could have put on some sanctions or launched some type of cyber attack.

That republicans sat on it too is understandable. The dems were working them pretty hard as was the press.
Going forward this is a lesson for all this "resisting" against trump that is going on.

I am still not sure there was any hacking and if there was i dont think thats what cost the election. My perception is it was the smug derisive dem attitude towards blue collar and trump flipping convention on trade that pushed him over.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 18, 2018, 09:45:57 PM
The intervention in libya happened without congress approval and under obama. You have use of military force against a sovereign nation. So surely he could have put on some sanctions or launched some type of cyber attack.

That republicans sat on it too is understandable. The dems were working them pretty hard as was the press.
Going forward this is a lesson for all this "resisting" against trump that is going on.

I am still not sure there was any hacking and if there was i dont think thats what cost the election. My perception is it was the smug derisive dem attitude towards blue collar and trump flipping convention on trade that pushed him over.


A few weeks/months ago, the message was that no one was concerned about Trump/Russia or hacking before the election because they expected Hillary to win. Now the message is Obama didn't act when he could.

I'm not trying to point fingers. The questions weren't rhetorical. What do you think Obama could or should have done? What do you think would have happened if the "deep state" and/or Obama had done this act or acted in general in September 2016, with 2 months left before the election?

Libya is a separate fight and not an election that directly affects the opposite party. How would it look if Obama started a physical war with Russia, 2 months before an election, in a lame duck year. He wasn't exactly popular with right-leaning folks then. Not to mention Trump's constant (and baseless - as shown in court when that commission was challenged) allegations that the election was "rigged" (or would be rigged).

I don't really know what you mean by a lesson for all this "resisting".

I'm guessing your view is not uncommon at all. There was obviously hacking. Did those 12 do it? I don't know but it certainly looks like it. The indictment of the 12 GRU hackers specifically lists names, ranks, searches, dates, ect. Those accusations will be tied with other individuals in future indictments. There is zero doubt of that.

I really hope you read all the indictments and other important court docs, keep an open mind going forward, and review the old comments on this board to get an idea of the lies, goalpost shifting, ect.

Either way, I've appreciated being able to have a normal conversation about all this. It's a really nice change of pace.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 18, 2018, 10:51:01 PM
As a country, you find out another country is waging cyber warfare during elections.

First thing you do is send a warning shot and gauge their response. If they back off, fine. If they don't, then you need to escalate your response.

This is how you deal with any bully. Someone fvcks with you, you tell em to back off. If they don't, then you go after them.

Obama told them to back off. Trump did not back that up.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on July 19, 2018, 04:24:02 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/18/politics/white-house-proposal-putin-mcfaul/index.html

LOL. I think Putin will offer to buy back Alaska for $100M. Trump will agree and announce it as a great deal, because the US bought it for $7M from Russia.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 19, 2018, 05:04:03 AM
https://twitter.com/IanShepherdson/status/1019901835749003264

"To sum up, over the past three days Trump has said, re the Russians and election interference:

It wasn't them.

It was. (But there might have been others.)

It wasn't them. (But he was answering a different question.)

It was. (And he told them super-firmly not to do it again.)"

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 19, 2018, 05:10:17 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.

The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.

Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 19, 2018, 05:38:21 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.

The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.

Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."

About one month prior, at least 3 individuals were arrested for treason in Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/world/europe/russia-hacking-us-election.html
https://gosint.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/russia-fsb-colonel-sergey-mikhailov-the-spy-without-a-past/

Then in the succeeding months, 9 different high-ranking Russian officials died. Including a few that died from a heart attack after falling from a window.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html

Trump yelled "fake news" so that enough people would ignore the stories and the pattern forming.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 19, 2018, 05:47:02 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.

The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.

Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."


https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1019765606957113349

"This sensitive intelligence didn’t leak in this kind of detail through all the sturm and drang of the last year and a half. Trump’s fawning behavior in Helsinki shook this loose and into public view."


https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1019766003188846593

"I’d speculate the intel sources here reasonably concluded that Trump has already burned their sources and methods to Putin."


https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1019781793887776768

"No one in a position to be the source for the NYT’s reporting tonight would have burned a sourced close to Putin. The only reason that detail would be included is because Trump, who was briefed in Jan 2017, burned the source to Russia just like he burned Israeli intelligence."


They are referring to this part of the NYT story:

Quote
According to nearly a dozen people who either attended the meeting with the president-elect or were later briefed on it, the four primary intelligence officials described the streams of intelligence that convinced them of Mr. Putin’s role in the election interference.

They included stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee that had been seen in Russian military intelligence networks by the British, Dutch and American intelligence services. Officers of the Russian intelligence agency formerly known as the G.R.U. had plotted with groups like WikiLeaks on how to release the email stash.

And ultimately, several human sources had confirmed Mr. Putin’s own role.

That included one particularly valuable source, who was considered so sensitive that Mr. Brennan had declined to refer to it in any way in the Presidential Daily Brief during the final months of the Obama administration, as the Russia investigation intensified.


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 19, 2018, 05:49:26 AM
This isn't the first time a foreign entity has hacked into our political organizations. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chinese-government-hacked-2008-obama-mccain-campaigns-report-article-1.1365982
It also seems to happen elsewhere.  https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-progressive-conservative-party-database-hacked-sources-1.3779326
also
https://www.cybersecurityintelligence.com/blog/cyber-attacks-on-uk-political-parties--soon-2489.html
also
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-cyber-attack-on-mexico-campaign-site-triggers-election-nerves-2018-6

Cyber attacks go on all of the time.  In fact we were hit 77,000 times in 2015 alone.
https://www.newsweek.com/government-cyber-attacks-increase-2015-439206
What I don't understand is what makes this interference so different?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 19, 2018, 06:53:05 AM
This isn't the first time a foreign entity has hacked into our political organizations. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chinese-government-hacked-2008-obama-mccain-campaigns-report-article-1.1365982
It also seems to happen elsewhere.  https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-progressive-conservative-party-database-hacked-sources-1.3779326
also
https://www.cybersecurityintelligence.com/blog/cyber-attacks-on-uk-political-parties--soon-2489.html
also
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-cyber-attack-on-mexico-campaign-site-triggers-election-nerves-2018-6

Cyber attacks go on all of the time.  In fact we were hit 77,000 times in 2015 alone.
https://www.newsweek.com/government-cyber-attacks-increase-2015-439206
What I don't understand is what makes this interference so different?

1. What has happened in other countries has nothing to do with us, in this specific situation. I don't know where this argument came from but it makes no sense.

2. Both Obama and McCain had quite the different reaction as opposed to Trump.

Quote
We told them we knew what they were up to — and that this had gone too far," said a former U.S. official who was connected to the investigation.

That's the thing with this whole situation. It's Trump's fault this blew up in to a whole ordeal. If he had reported his encounters to the FBI in July 2016 when they first warned him, everything would be fine. If he had trusted the thousands of career federal workers involved in gathering and organizing the intelligence that supported the claim re:Russia, everything would be fine. But Trump lied. Trump covered up. Trump distorted the truth. Trump caused a large spike of distrust in the media, government, and elections. It was all so he wouldn't have to deal with this 'Russia problem'.

The cause of all of Trump's problems are his actions. If I did anything like he does at work, I'd be fired and potentially sued. Why do you sell your soul to defend this behavior from any criticism?


Why did Trump cover-up and lie about his relations with Russia? That's why this hack is such a big deal right now. He looks guilty and there's a metric ton of evidence that makes those actions look suspicious. This all could have been a single news article...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 19, 2018, 07:09:55 AM
https://overcast.fm/+LHyc-_0qs

https://overcast.fm/+LHydlg9mc
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 19, 2018, 07:32:57 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.

The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.

Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."


https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1019765606957113349

"This sensitive intelligence didn’t leak in this kind of detail through all the sturm and drang of the last year and a half. Trump’s fawning behavior in Helsinki shook this loose and into public view."


https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1019766003188846593

"I’d speculate the intel sources here reasonably concluded that Trump has already burned their sources and methods to Putin."


https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1019781793887776768

"No one in a position to be the source for the NYT’s reporting tonight would have burned a sourced close to Putin. The only reason that detail would be included is because Trump, who was briefed in Jan 2017, burned the source to Russia just like he burned Israeli intelligence."


They are referring to this part of the NYT story:

Quote
According to nearly a dozen people who either attended the meeting with the president-elect or were later briefed on it, the four primary intelligence officials described the streams of intelligence that convinced them of Mr. Putin’s role in the election interference.

They included stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee that had been seen in Russian military intelligence networks by the British, Dutch and American intelligence services. Officers of the Russian intelligence agency formerly known as the G.R.U. had plotted with groups like WikiLeaks on how to release the email stash.

And ultimately, several human sources had confirmed Mr. Putin’s own role.

That included one particularly valuable source, who was considered so sensitive that Mr. Brennan had declined to refer to it in any way in the Presidential Daily Brief during the final months of the Obama administration, as the Russia investigation intensified.


Thanks Eli. Twitter and the NYT! That definitely clears things up!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 19, 2018, 08:41:44 AM
This isn't the first time a foreign entity has hacked into our political organizations. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chinese-government-hacked-2008-obama-mccain-campaigns-report-article-1.1365982
It also seems to happen elsewhere.  https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-progressive-conservative-party-database-hacked-sources-1.3779326
also
https://www.cybersecurityintelligence.com/blog/cyber-attacks-on-uk-political-parties--soon-2489.html
also
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-cyber-attack-on-mexico-campaign-site-triggers-election-nerves-2018-6

Cyber attacks go on all of the time.  In fact we were hit 77,000 times in 2015 alone.
https://www.newsweek.com/government-cyber-attacks-increase-2015-439206
What I don't understand is what makes this interference so different?

One substantial difference is that there was no suggestion at all in the McCain/Obama hack that the Chinese were actively working to directly manipulate the electorate.  They were gathering information, with the probable aim of trying to get a jump on policy or even nudge it in their favour.  I see that as quite different than running disinformation campaigns, selectively releasing hacked documents, etc., to shape public opinion in favour of one candidate.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 19, 2018, 10:19:05 AM
Hi Doc,

I will concede that it is a distinction - though I'm not convinced that it makes a lot of difference.  Nevertheless, here are other examples taken from Wikipedia where there was an attempt to influence the election:

   2016 (Russia, Ukraine, Gulf states)   Edit
Interference in the 2016 election by entities connected to the Russian government was a scandal that dominated the news during the first half of the Presidency of Donald Trump.

2016 election (Russia)   Edit
Main articles: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
See also: Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)
In October 2016, the U.S. government accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 United States elections using a number of strategies including the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaking its documents to WikiLeaks, which then leaked them to the media.[51][52] Russia has denied any involvement.[53]

In response, on 29 December 2016, President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and broadened sanctions on Russian entities and individuals.[54]

In January 2017, following a British intelligence tip-off,[55][56] the U.S. intelligence community expressed "high confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign designed to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections, undermine confidence in the U.S. democratic process, harm Secretary Hillary Clinton's chances, and help Donald Trump win.[57]

2016 election (Ukraine)   Edit

Putin's Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for U.S. National Security
According to a January 2017 investigation by Politico, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and Ukrainian legislator Serhiy Leshchenko sought to interfere in the American presidential election by seeking the August 2016 resignation of Paul Manafort as Donald Trump's campaign manager by publicizing unverified ledgers purporting to reveal that Manafort had received $12.7 million in illicit payments from Ukraine's pro-Russia Party of Regions.

That interference occurred amid a broader influence campaign orchestrated by several high-ranking Ukrainian officials (particularly Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States Valeriy Chaly) to damage Trump's chances of winning the presidency.[58]

2016 election (Saudi Arabia, UAE)   Edit
Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary for two Gulf monarchies. In August 2016, Trump Jr. had a meeting with envoy representing Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince and de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman and Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates. The envoy offered help to the Trump presidential campaign,[59] although it is unclear what form of help they provided to the Trump campaign if any.[60] The meeting included Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, Joel Zamel, an Israeli specialist in social media manipulation, and Blackwater founder Erik Prince.[61][59] Donald Trump also registered eight new businesses in Saudi Arabia during the election campaign.[62]

2012 election (Israel)   Edit
In 2012, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert claimed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to undermine President Barack Obama in favor of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.[63] Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak said that the interference cost Israel aid.[64] Netanyahu has denied that.[65] The accusations included claims that Obama had deliberately snubbed Netanyahu, and another implied that an appearance in a television advertisement was designed by Netanyahu to give support to Romney.[66]

1996 election (China)   Edit
Main article: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy
In February 1997, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced they had uncovered evidence that the government of China had sought to make illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee.[67] Both the presidential administration and the Chinese government denied any wrongdoing.[68][69]

1984 election (U.S.S.R.)   Edit
When Ronald Reagan was running for reelection as president, the Soviet Union very much opposed his candidacy and took active measures against it.[70] Soviet intelligence reportedly attempted to infiltrate both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee.[70]

1980 election (Iran)   Edit
Main articles: Iran hostage crisis and October Surprise conspiracy theory
Throughout the 1980 presidential election, negotiations were ongoing between the administration of Jimmy Carter and the government of Iran regarding 52 American citizens who had been taken hostage in November 1979.[71] Although it was recognized that negotiations were nearing a successful conclusion, the government of Iran delayed their release until after the election, potentially in retaliation for the decision of Carter to admit the deposed Iranian leader Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to the United States for cancer treatment.[71][72]

Opinions differ as to the intentional nature of the delay with regard to the outcome of the election. A ten-month investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives concluded that there was "virtually no credible evidence to support the accusations."[73] However, former Iranian President Abolhassan Banisadr claimed there was a deal between Reagan and Iran to delay the release in exchange for arms.[74]

1968 election (South Vietnam)   Edit
In the last months of the presidential election between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, President Lyndon Johnson announced an October surprise, intended to aid Humphrey, by declaring a cessation to bombing in the ongoing Vietnam War and a new round of peace negotiations. In response, Humphrey's popularity grew, eventually leading Nixon by three percentage points.

However, the South Vietnamese government, in consultation with the Nixon campaign, announced three days prior to the election that they would not be participating in the talks, and Nixon went on to win the vote by less than a percentage point.[71]

1960 election (U.S.S.R.)   Edit
Adlai Stevenson II had been the Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, and the Soviets offered him propaganda support if he would run again for president in 1960, but Stevenson declined to run again.[75] Instead, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev backed John F. Kennedy in that very close election, against Richard Nixon with whom Krushchev had clashed in the 1959 Kitchen Debate.[76] On July 1, 1960 a Soviet MiG-19 shot down an American RB-47H reconnaissance aircraft in the international airspace over the Barents Sea with four of the crew being killed and two captured by the Soviets: John R. McKone and Freeman B. Olmstead.[77] The Soviets held on to those two prisoners, in order to avoid giving Nixon (who was the incumbent Vice-President of the United States) an opportunity to boast about his ability to work with the Soviets, and the two Air Force officers were released just days after Kennedy's inauguration, on January 25, 1961. Krushchev later bragged that Kennedy acknowledged the Soviet help: "You're right. I admit you played a role in the election and cast your vote for me...."[76] Former Soviet ambassador to the United States Oleg Troyanovsky confirms Kennedy’s acknowledgment, but also quotes Kennedy doubting whether the Soviet support made a difference: "I don't think it affected the elections in any way."[76][78]

1940 election (Nazi Germany)   Edit
In October 1940, seeking to derail the reelection of incumbent U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Nazis bribed a U.S. newspaper to publish a document that Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop hoped would convince American voters that Roosevelt was a "warmonger" and "criminal hypocrite". Leaking the captured Polish government document failed to have its intended effect, and Republican presidential nominee Wendell Willkie lost the election.[4][79]

1940 elections (U.K.)   Edit
From 1940 until "at least 1944," the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) orchestrated what Politico's Steve Usdin described as an influence campaign "without parallel in the history of relations between allied democracies" to undermine U.S. politicians opposed to American participation in World War II—much of which was documented in a declassified history by William Stephenson, the head of the SIS front organization British Security Co-ordination (BSC). Usdin stated that "SIS ... flooded American newspapers with fake stories, leaked the results of illegal electronic surveillance and deployed October surprises against political candidates."[80]

See also
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 19, 2018, 10:35:40 AM
 Schwab,

We are about two years into an investigation on Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.  So far I have seen no evidence of criminal conduct that sticks to Trump.  Show me a crime that Trump committed or that someone near him committed that Trump either knew about or should have known about and you will get my attention.  Allegations that Trump is engaged in lying and obfuscation to cover up his activities doesn't prove the underlying crime.  If we got rid of every politician that lied and whitewashed the truth, Washington would be a ghost town.  Come to think of it that might not be a bad idea...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 19, 2018, 10:42:57 AM
Thanks MarkS for trying to bring rationality into an irrational thread.

And what about dear old Obama going on You Tube to push for Macron? He was no longer president but, still "respected". In quotes since I don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l5HLdPMuDs

One could say that he did all he could to undermine French democracy. While Russians hacking DNC looks more like an attempt to victimize Democrats and in turn helping Hillary. But, it failed?

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 19, 2018, 12:18:09 PM
Thanks MarkS for trying to bring rationality into an irrational thread.

And what about dear old Obama going on You Tube to push for Macron? He was no longer president but, still "respected". In quotes since I don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l5HLdPMuDs

One could say that he did all he could to undermine French democracy. While Russians hacking DNC looks more like an attempt to victimize Democrats and in turn helping Hillary. But, it failed?

Cardboard

Really now.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 19, 2018, 12:32:57 PM
Hi Doc,

I will concede that it is a distinction - though I'm not convinced that it makes a lot of difference.  Nevertheless, here are other examples taken from Wikipedia where there was an attempt to influence the election:


No argument from me that various states have attempted to meddle in various elections to varying degrees. My eastern European colleagues  tell me it's generally accepted that Russia in particular has been mucking about in recent elections.  This was the first time they were using the same techniques (social media, widespread internet propaganda) so broadly against a major power player.   And as you point out, it's certainly not just Russia.  The US has done their share of meddling.  This is not really the point, IMO.

I think if this was happening under less volatile domestic circumstances, there would be widespread bipartisan concern about the president's behaviour. (There already is, to some degree.)  And I am not saying this from the viewpoint of Trump being an agent, traitor, etc.  I don't personally believe those scenarios.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 19, 2018, 12:46:27 PM
This isn't the first time a foreign entity has hacked into our political organizations. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chinese-government-hacked-2008-obama-mccain-campaigns-report-article-1.1365982
It also seems to happen elsewhere.  https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-progressive-conservative-party-database-hacked-sources-1.3779326
also
https://www.cybersecurityintelligence.com/blog/cyber-attacks-on-uk-political-parties--soon-2489.html
also
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-cyber-attack-on-mexico-campaign-site-triggers-election-nerves-2018-6

Cyber attacks go on all of the time.  In fact we were hit 77,000 times in 2015 alone.
https://www.newsweek.com/government-cyber-attacks-increase-2015-439206
What I don't understand is what makes this interference so different?

One substantial difference is that there was no suggestion at all in the McCain/Obama hack that the Chinese were actively working to directly manipulate the electorate.  They were gathering information, with the probable aim of trying to get a jump on policy or even nudge it in their favour.  I see that as quite different than running disinformation campaigns, selectively releasing hacked documents, etc., to shape public opinion in favour of one candidate.

This sounds a lot like what mainstream media/Hollywood/professional athletes were doing. Especially with the media, just substitute leaking information for hacking although if you recall, there were bounties put out by many prominent Democrats encouraging people to break the law in order to bring down Trump. Only difference here I suppose is that like with many others things, Americans weren't as good at it as the Russians.

If nothing else what Russia did just balanced out a small fraction of the disgraceful conduct of MSM
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: tede02 on July 19, 2018, 01:07:24 PM
Schwab,

We are about two years into an investigation on Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.  So far I have seen no evidence of criminal conduct that sticks to Trump.  Show me a crime that Trump committed or that someone near him committed that Trump either knew about or should have known about and you will get my attention.  Allegations that Trump is engaged in lying and obfuscation to cover up his activities doesn't prove the underlying crime.  If we got rid of every politician that lied and whitewashed the truth, Washington would be a ghost town.  Come to think of it that might not be a bad idea...

This is interesting and I would agree. Yet, Trump's love-fest with Putin and Russia is just perplexing especially in contrast to the hostility toward virtually all of the US's traditional allies. Additionally you have members of his cabinet almost explicitly stating opposite positions (from Trump) regarding all-things related to Russia. These things just feed the suspician that there is in-fact something there. The situation is bizarre which makes one naturally wonder if there is some missing context.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 19, 2018, 01:40:29 PM
Hi Tede02,

I must admit thinking that he was acting like a bully with our allies and meek with Russia - and China for that matter. So I understand your concerns. I am concerned as well.  I would even concur with Schwab that most of Trumps problems are of his own making -  super salesman hyperbole and not knowing when to shut up.  I would suggest to my friends on the left that they be careful what they ask for as far as impeachment goes.  Trump has a wide pragmatic streak.  I think Mike Pence is far more of an ideologue. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 19, 2018, 04:44:02 PM
Trump has a wide pragmatic streak.  I think Mike Pence is far more of an ideologue.

I'll take an ideologue who isn't a narcissistic pathological shady liar con man rapist authoritarian racist incurious incoherent easy-to-influence petty lazy vainglory snowflake the-buck-stops-elsewhere bad judge of character fully-conflicted indebted bad businessman like Trump any day.

Any Republican with control of both houses would've given us tax cuts. Wouldn't even have had to sell out your integrity for it, too.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 19, 2018, 04:44:16 PM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 19, 2018, 08:45:23 PM

This sounds a lot like what mainstream media/Hollywood/professional athletes were doing. Especially with the media, just substitute leaking information for hacking although if you recall, there were bounties put out by many prominent Democrats encouraging people to break the law in order to bring down Trump. Only difference here I suppose is that like with many others things, Americans weren't as good at it as the Russians.

If nothing else what Russia did just balanced out a small fraction of the disgraceful conduct of MSM

Your posts fascinate me. 


You're equating a foreign government acting to sway political opinion with your own citizens acting to sway political opinion.  I don't get it.  The latter people actually get to vote and are expressing an opinion in their own persona -- no secret identities or hidden agendas.  I understand your concerns with the MSM, but pro athletes and Hollywood? 

And who were the "many prominent democrats" putting out bounties?  I wouldn't put it past them,  but this is the only story of that sort that I recall:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3791049/Super-PAC-run-Clinton-backer-offers-cash-bounties-leaks-embarrass-Trump.html

And I'm really curious about the "many other things" Americans aren't as good at as Russians.  Math?  Ballet?  Doping?   I'm neither American nor Russian so this is for pure interest.


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 19, 2018, 09:59:06 PM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
I agree with john here. Random twitter dude doesn't mean jack.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 19, 2018, 11:00:14 PM
I feel like we're going in circles here.

There's a lot of justification going around. But I thought that being a super power means that nobody fucks around with you. Yes, when you're small the big boys play around with you. The mouse doesn't tell the cat what it can and cannot do. That's just how the world works. But it would be foolish for the mouse to play around with the cat.

The weird stuff on top of all bs is how the President of the US is so sheepish when it comes to Russia. This is not a guy that's shy. He has no problem insulting and undermining his closest allies. But the next day he meets with the Russian guy that perpetrated an attack on his country and it's all sunshine and lollypops. Everyone with half a brain can smell something rotten.

Here's how the patriotic thing goes: Yes, you've interfered in our elections. Yes, maybe your intention was to help me. Though I don't know what effect that may have had, I was selling out stadiums before that. So I don't see why I should care about your help. If you don't back off and get back into your lane you'll find out why we've invested so much money into our cyber weapons arsenal.

Oh and for the people that are complaining about the time of the Mueller probe I quote Samuel L. Jackson: " Shit doesn't just happen! Shit takes time!". In the case of SAC Capital it was about 3 years until indictments started to roll in. I'd say that this is sightly more complicated than that. Oh, and if you think that the CIA will burn "sources and methods" on national TV so that a guy from Kansas can see the evidence, keep dreaming.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 20, 2018, 04:18:28 AM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
I agree with john here. Random twitter dude doesn't mean jack.

I posted a video of Dan Coates learning about Putin being invited to the white House, but was on phone so just posted the link without commentary. I deleted it. Things mean something or not based on their intrinsic value, not based on their source. We're all "random forum people" here, not any more prestigious than "random Twitter people".
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 20, 2018, 05:08:38 AM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
I agree with john here. Random twitter dude doesn't mean jack.

I posted a video of Dan Coates learning about Putin being invited to the white House, but was on phone so just posted the link without commentary. I deleted it. Things mean something or not based on their intrinsic value, not based on their source. We're all "random forum people" here, not any more prestigious than "random Twitter people".

Agreed. Info is either correct or it's not. Opinions are either reasonably supported or they aren't.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: augustabound on July 20, 2018, 06:43:12 AM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.

Twitter links with no commentary are fine.  Can people not come to their own conclusion about something without someone's commentary?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 20, 2018, 06:57:52 AM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.

Twitter links with no commentary are fine.  Can people not come to their own conclusion about something without someone's commentary?

I agree. How ironic.

That said, I just don't think there is much value to posting a link, to a predictable liberal blowhard, saying things one would expect from a typical liberal blowhard.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 20, 2018, 07:03:24 AM

This sounds a lot like what mainstream media/Hollywood/professional athletes were doing. Especially with the media, just substitute leaking information for hacking although if you recall, there were bounties put out by many prominent Democrats encouraging people to break the law in order to bring down Trump. Only difference here I suppose is that like with many others things, Americans weren't as good at it as the Russians.

If nothing else what Russia did just balanced out a small fraction of the disgraceful conduct of MSM

Your posts fascinate me. 


You're equating a foreign government acting to sway political opinion with your own citizens acting to sway political opinion.  I don't get it.  The latter people actually get to vote and are expressing an opinion in their own persona -- no secret identities or hidden agendas.  I understand your concerns with the MSM, but pro athletes and Hollywood? 

And who were the "many prominent democrats" putting out bounties?  I wouldn't put it past them,  but this is the only story of that sort that I recall:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3791049/Super-PAC-run-Clinton-backer-offers-cash-bounties-leaks-embarrass-Trump.html

And I'm really curious about the "many other things" Americans aren't as good at as Russians.  Math?  Ballet?  Doping?   I'm neither American nor Russian so this is for pure interest.

So let me get this straight... Your kind, lobby up the wazoo for people illegally entering the country. But you are against freedom of information? Information to me, is an incredibly valuable resource and I value it right up there with constitutional freedoms because without accurate information, one has no freedom. I don't care where info comes from, as long as it's accurate enough one can make their own determinations. So when the score is 19-0 MSM vs Republicans, and the blatant favoritism for one candidate has gotten to such an extreme, yes I applaud anyone who is willing to bring forth the truth. When Robert De Niro, or Stephen Colbert, or Lebron is on Twitter saying "Trump is a bum" and his opinion is influencing the masses, yes, I applaud anyone or any country coming forth with something to balance things out(has anything Russia released ever really been contested? Was Clinton not set up to win the DNC primary? Was Wasserman Shultz not a world class POS?).
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 20, 2018, 07:07:52 AM
That said, I just don't think there is much value to posting a link, to a predictable liberal blowhard, saying things one would expect from a typical liberal blowhard.

"Daniel Ray Coats (born May 16, 1943) is an American politician and former diplomat serving as the fifth and current Director of National Intelligence since 2017 under the Trump Administration. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a United States Senator from Indiana from 1989 to 1999 and again from 2011 to 2017. He was the United States Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005, and was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1981 to 1989. Coats served on the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence while in the U.S. Senate."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 20, 2018, 07:12:56 AM
That said, I just don't think there is much value to posting a link, to a predictable liberal blowhard, saying things one would expect from a typical liberal blowhard.

"Daniel Ray Coats (born May 16, 1943) is an American politician and former diplomat serving as the fifth and current Director of National Intelligence since 2017 under the Trump Administration. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a United States Senator from Indiana from 1989 to 1999 and again from 2011 to 2017. He was the United States Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005, and was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1981 to 1989. Coats served on the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence while in the U.S. Senate."

There have been plenty of postings that fall into the above category. This thread has already kind of become a cesspool, lets not turn it into a "I'm going to find the exception to the rule-fest". I'm sure you were capable of getting my point.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 20, 2018, 07:27:12 AM
It seems like you guys could use some of my famous Dumb Jokes:


Q: why did the stadium get so hot after the game ended?

A: all the fans left!

Q:  what kind of bees give milk?

A:  Boobees!

Q:  what do you call a row of rabbits who take all take a step backward.

A:  a receding Hareline!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 20, 2018, 08:58:57 AM
Jay Nordlinger of the National Review on the importance of NATO vs Russia:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/tiny-faraway-countries-and-us/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 20, 2018, 09:04:03 AM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
I agree with john here. Random twitter dude doesn't mean jack.

I posted a video of Dan Coates learning about Putin being invited to the white House, but was on phone so just posted the link without commentary. I deleted it. Things mean something or not based on their intrinsic value, not based on their source. We're all "random forum people" here, not any more prestigious than "random Twitter people".

Deleting it is admitting and conceding it has no intrinsic value.  Hairtrigger Liberty's System 2 rebooting him back to Liberty, briefly.

Twitter links with no commentary are fine.  Can people not come to their own conclusion about something without someone's commentary?

True, but such isolated links must be labeled lo-grade skill level at Conspiracy Theory building.  If it's not the hi-grade Schwab711 stuff, it's not even wrong.

Agreed. Info is either correct or it's not. Opinions are either reasonably supported or they aren't.

This is disappointing.  LC:  Re-boot Schwab711!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rkbabang on July 20, 2018, 09:18:06 AM
I feel like we're going in circles here.

LOL, you have discussed politics before?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 20, 2018, 09:23:17 AM
Deleting it is admitting and conceding it has no intrinsic value.  Hairtrigger Liberty's System 2 rebooting him back to Liberty, briefly.

No, I was on my phone and in between doing other things when I saw a message from John, who I think is a forum admin (I'm not 100% sure, but I think that's right) saying it wasn't ok, hitting the delete button was my option at the time.

But thanks for playing.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 20, 2018, 09:58:56 AM
If the mid-term election is affected by the Russia Collusion Delusion, it may be as a backlash against the MSM hysteria and therefore positive for Trump.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

Especially take note of the line near the bottom:

"Situation with Russia   *   *   1   1   1   *   *

* Less than 0.5%"

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Jurgis on July 20, 2018, 10:11:48 AM
Deleting it is admitting and conceding it has no intrinsic value.  Hairtrigger Liberty's System 2 rebooting him back to Liberty, briefly.

No, I was on my phone and in between doing other things when I saw a message from John, who I think is a forum admin (I'm not 100% sure, but I think that's right) saying it wasn't ok, hitting the delete button was my option at the time.

But thanks for playing.

John is not a forum admin and nobody actually appointed him to be a forum police though he sometimes acts as if he is.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 20, 2018, 01:44:54 PM
We are about two years into an investigation on Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.  So far I have seen no evidence of criminal conduct that sticks to Trump.  Show me a crime that Trump committed or that someone near him committed that Trump either knew about or should have known about and you will get my attention.  Allegations that Trump is engaged in lying and obfuscation to cover up his activities doesn't prove the underlying crime.

I was thinking about this more. I will definitely concede there's no meaningful evidence of Trump being involved in any type of Russian-related crime at the moment. Without knowing the law very well, I don't think that's all that surprising because of the situation at hand.

Either way, one thing we do know (with a very high likelihood, though not 100%) is that the crimes alleged or pleaded to for Manafort, Flynn, Gates, and Papadopoulos do pertain to the investigation between Russia and the Trump Campaign. That is, it's not that they were coincidentally in or involved with the campaign but that their involvement is related to the allegations or guilty pleas. Will it reach Trump? I don't know. But, we almost certainly know it's related because Mueller's team handled each of their cases and because of Judge Ellis's review of the unredacted memo outlining the boundaries of Mueller's review. Watching Cohen's case get referred to SDNY gives further evidence that Mueller is sticking to strictly Trump Campaign/Russia. Just something to consider moving forward.

Anyway, same as No Free Lunch, I appreciate you being civil in discussing this stuff. We don't have to agree but it's nice to have more civility back on the board.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/manafort-trial-motion-judge-ellis.html
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 20, 2018, 09:11:06 PM
So let me get this straight... Your kind, lobby up the wazoo for people illegally entering the country. But you are against freedom of information? Information to me, is an incredibly valuable resource and I value it right up there with constitutional freedoms because without accurate information, one has no freedom. I don't care where info comes from, as long as it's accurate enough one can make their own determinations. So when the score is 19-0 MSM vs Republicans, and the blatant favoritism for one candidate has gotten to such an extreme, yes I applaud anyone who is willing to bring forth the truth. When Robert De Niro, or Stephen Colbert, or Lebron is on Twitter saying "Trump is a bum" and his opinion is influencing the masses, yes, I applaud anyone or any country coming forth with something to balance things out(has anything Russia released ever really been contested? Was Clinton not set up to win the DNC primary? Was Wasserman Shultz not a world class POS?).

No, you haven't got it straight.  Your presumptions are ridiculous and I think you're repeatedly missing my point because of them.  "My kind" has a working interest in infosec and is concerned in general terms about foreign entities ever more brazenly attempting to undermine a horridly opaque election process and sow discord, distrust, animosity  and instability in the bedrock of the world's democratic system.  I'm not interested so much in what was hacked, but rather who was doing the hacking, and why... and how it is related to large scale disinformation campaigns via social media.

Nothing I've said runs counter to freedom of information.   Neither of us believes it to be absolute:  You don't think I should be legally allowed to hack and publish your emails, or steal the IP from your company, or other such things.  But more latitude is granted when it comes to political wrangling, and generally I think this serves the wider interest. 

My main point here is that I think this is a moment where the country could find some common ground reflecting on the integrity and transparency of the electoral system.  Thoroughly investigating who is trying to undermine it is a great place to start, IMO.  Having your president shrug his shoulders, particularly amidst speculation that he's doing so out of his own self interest, just poisons the well.  I think it has been a wasted moment. 

I would still appreciate knowing some of the many democrats who were offering money for leaks.  You threw this out as if it was obvious but I had only heard of the one case I mentioned.  So, in the interest of free information, please share.  Google did not quickly come to my aid.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 21, 2018, 05:32:10 AM
Hi Schwab

Here is the indictment filed in Northern Virginia against Manafort.  I just skimmed it.  But it looks like a lot of bank fraud and money laundering unrelated to Trump.  The comments made by the Judge could just be a recognition that Mueller's powers are pretty broad.  Remember: Ken Star started out looking at Whitewater, an Arkansas real estate deal, but ended up investigating a blow-job by an intern. These things do have a life of their own.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-files-tax-bank-fraud-charges-against-paul-manafort-and-rick-gates-2018-2
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 21, 2018, 06:22:04 AM
https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020484409173184512

"France has its own version of Maria Butina, a young Russian woman named Maria Katasonova, who happens to be an ardent supporter of Marine Le Pen. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020484409173184512/photo/1"

https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020485334088527872

"On June 1, 2017, she posted this photo to her Instagram account.

It's of her and Alexander Torshin at an event at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020485334088527872/photo/1"

https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020487390656417792

"Maria Katasonova's Instagram feed also includes photos of her and someone who appears to be Anna Chapman, the young woman famous for being part of a Russian spy ring in the US that the FBI rolled up in 2010. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020487390656417792/photo/1"

Nice how spies can now be found and linked to each other via social media...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 21, 2018, 08:17:41 AM
Is there any actual evidence of collusion between Donal Trump and Russia?

I read the most recent Mueller indictment.  If anyone is interested here is the 30 second overview of the allegations:

- Russian agents hacked into DNC and other democratic computer systems, stole information and actively monitored computer activity.
- Emails taken were released via wikileaks and were credited by a public account (administered secretly by the Russians) called Gucifer 2.0.
- As background to the next point, Clinton previously turned over a server to FBI? and admitted to having deleted ~30k emails. 
- Attempts were made to spearphis HRCs closest personnel hours after Trump suggested the Russians find Clinton's missing emails.

None of this proves collusion.  It doesn't even attempt to prove collusion.  It's been a year and a half and this is all there is?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 21, 2018, 09:45:18 AM
So let me get this straight... Your kind, lobby up the wazoo for people illegally entering the country. But you are against freedom of information? Information to me, is an incredibly valuable resource and I value it right up there with constitutional freedoms because without accurate information, one has no freedom. I don't care where info comes from, as long as it's accurate enough one can make their own determinations. So when the score is 19-0 MSM vs Republicans, and the blatant favoritism for one candidate has gotten to such an extreme, yes I applaud anyone who is willing to bring forth the truth. When Robert De Niro, or Stephen Colbert, or Lebron is on Twitter saying "Trump is a bum" and his opinion is influencing the masses, yes, I applaud anyone or any country coming forth with something to balance things out(has anything Russia released ever really been contested? Was Clinton not set up to win the DNC primary? Was Wasserman Shultz not a world class POS?).

No, you haven't got it straight.  Your presumptions are ridiculous and I think you're repeatedly missing my point because of them.  "My kind" has a working interest in infosec and is concerned in general terms about foreign entities ever more brazenly attempting to undermine a horridly opaque election process and sow discord, distrust, animosity  and instability in the bedrock of the world's democratic system.  I'm not interested so much in what was hacked, but rather who was doing the hacking, and why... and how it is related to large scale disinformation campaigns via social media.

Nothing I've said runs counter to freedom of information.   Neither of us believes it to be absolute:  You don't think I should be legally allowed to hack and publish your emails, or steal the IP from your company, or other such things.  But more latitude is granted when it comes to political wrangling, and generally I think this serves the wider interest. 

My main point here is that I think this is a moment where the country could find some common ground reflecting on the integrity and transparency of the electoral system.  Thoroughly investigating who is trying to undermine it is a great place to start, IMO.  Having your president shrug his shoulders, particularly amidst speculation that he's doing so out of his own self interest, just poisons the well.  I think it has been a wasted moment. 

I would still appreciate knowing some of the many democrats who were offering money for leaks.  You threw this out as if it was obvious but I had only heard of the one case I mentioned.  So, in the interest of free information, please share.  Google did not quickly come to my aid.

Hacking my personal stuff as I do nothing but mind my own business and act as a private citizen is completely different than information being exposed about people running for public office. Releasing information regarding wrong doing by a candidate I guess is only OK if you are CNN or the Huffington Post? All of whom regularly obtain information in ways that either skirt or break laws. Russia obtaining and releasing evidence of widespread corruption with Clinton and the DNC I could argue was in the public's interest. Especially given all the hatred and anti Trump stuff going out, isn't it only fair both sides have light shed on them? Russia's hacking didn't effect the election results;  there really wasn't even any victims outside of Clinton and Schultz(who both by the way, had it easier than Trump did). 

I mean basically what you are saying is that there are circumstances where we can have a candidate running for the highest office in the land, and if for whatever reason(such as engaging in pay for play, being a symbol of the liberal movement, bribing or threatening people, or just plain being really likable or popular) substantial and material information is hidden or buried from the public- that this is ok? This is one of the main reasons I do think Trump should release his tax returns. However given the voracity with which these scumbags go after anything Trump related like piranhas, I don't blame him for not doing it, especially if he is currently being audited.

Which leads to the main point. Everyone KNOWS what Trump is. He is a narcissistic, self aggrandizing, pompous dbag who very likely made a lot of money in ways that are probably borderline, if not outright illegal. He isn't the perfect candidate however desperate times call for desperate measures and after 16 years of disaster between Bush and then Obama both parties brought this on themselves. Say what you want about how he conducts himself, or whether or not you agree with his policies, but he's the first candidate I can remember, who is doing EXACTLY what he said he'd do on the campaign trail. And while not ideal, I'd also say doing the types of things I think he probably did, but in the private sector is far different than behaving like a Clinton or Deblasio and doing it while acting as a public servant. 

For all the "OMG HE S HIDING SOMETHING" talk, there really is nothing left to hide. Every stone has been moved looking for ways to bury this guy since 2015. Your "show proof liberals where offering to pay for dirt on Trump but you can't count the massive democrat super PAC" is laughable. Here's another example https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/people-offer-to-pay-stormy-daniels-nda-fee-155832.

Everything relating to the campaign I'm sure has been looked at. The Trump colluded case is gone. Now effectively, the liberal issue is Russia exposing them, and how big or small of a deal this is to Trump. And since it's obviously not his top priority, nor should it be, its just adds fuel to their already off the charts hatred of the man, and they are throwing one loud, massive temper tantrum.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 21, 2018, 09:48:46 AM
https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020484409173184512

"France has its own version of Maria Butina, a young Russian woman named Maria Katasonova, who happens to be an ardent supporter of Marine Le Pen. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020484409173184512/photo/1"

https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020485334088527872

"On June 1, 2017, she posted this photo to her Instagram account.

It's of her and Alexander Torshin at an event at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020485334088527872/photo/1"

https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020487390656417792

"Maria Katasonova's Instagram feed also includes photos of her and someone who appears to be Anna Chapman, the young woman famous for being part of a Russian spy ring in the US that the FBI rolled up in 2010. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020487390656417792/photo/1"

Nice how spies can now be found and linked to each other via social media...

This kind of stuff might be legit, but this is starting to smell a little like the Salem Witch Hunts or McCarthyism. It's already at the point where Russians are fair game for widespread discrimination.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 21, 2018, 10:59:55 AM
Liberty, care to tie your argument to the investigation into collusion between trump and russia?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: SharperDingaan on July 21, 2018, 11:07:48 AM
Politics is a very dirty business, your boy knew that going in.
Your boy will also know that he stays where he is, only so long as it remains in the interests of the keys to power.

He's costing a lot of people a lot of money, and so far - hasn't delivered.
Lots of fluff - but few results yet, and the size of the bet on Trump (cummulative campaign donations) has to have limits.

Going into the midterms, a shrewd key to power would be splitting their donations over both sides. Should the republican vote collapse, most would expect that the Russia investigation might suddenly come accross all kinds of 'new' information.

So expect the investigation to continue, and Trump to do everything he can to kill it before the midterms take place.
A nice investable straddle; win or lose, an essentially 'costless' gain to fund the 'post midterm' donation - we just don't know yet who receives it.

SD

 


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 21, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
A lot of people have been using collusion as if it were a crime.  Collusion is like conspiracy where two of more people engage in conspiracy to commit an underlying crime - as in conspiracy to commit murder.  Collusion may or may not be a crime.  Trump and Putin could collude to cheat on their significant others with strippers.  This would be immoral but not criminal.  I'm stating the obvious here but collusion must be tied to an evil or criminal act.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 21, 2018, 11:26:16 AM
Liberty, care to tie your argument to the investigation into collusion between trump and russia?

Not my job. I just know there's a crapload of smoke and tons of people around him are already gone or tied to very shady individuals, and time will show if there's fire.

But even if it was just repeated incompetence rather than collusion with a foreign power to swing a democratic election, there are still plenty of other reasons to oppose this despicable person. Even if he wasn't president.

A lot of what I'm saying was being said by republicans a couple years ago before they closed ranks. Funny how cheaply people are ready to sell their integrity and values in exchange of some power or money...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 21, 2018, 11:32:25 AM
I just thought this thread was to discuss the investigation.  Doug started by asking us to stay on point and keep an open mind. Im not sure i have an open mind but i am trying to stay on the issue.  I have come all the way over and read the indictment so lets talk about it. What is there against trump specifically in there?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 21, 2018, 11:36:15 AM
I just thought this thread was to discuss the investigation.  Doug started by asking us to stay on point and keep an open mind. Im not sure i have an open mind but i am trying to stay on the issue.  I have come all the way over and read the indictment so lets talk about it. What is there against trump specifically in there?

I shows a pattern of acting like this by Russia.

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1020729750854291456

"As for why Putin is aggressive abroad, it's a way to generate credibility as the permanent leader of Russia. After two decades of total power he's out of domestic scapegoats. Needs foreign enemies & spectacles like the Helsinki summit."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 21, 2018, 11:56:01 AM
O K

So you have nothing on trump specifically?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 21, 2018, 12:13:40 PM
https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020484409173184512

"France has its own version of Maria Butina, a young Russian woman named Maria Katasonova, who happens to be an ardent supporter of Marine Le Pen. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020484409173184512/photo/1"

https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020485334088527872

"On June 1, 2017, she posted this photo to her Instagram account.

It's of her and Alexander Torshin at an event at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020485334088527872/photo/1"

https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020487390656417792

"Maria Katasonova's Instagram feed also includes photos of her and someone who appears to be Anna Chapman, the young woman famous for being part of a Russian spy ring in the US that the FBI rolled up in 2010. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020487390656417792/photo/1"

Nice how spies can now be found and linked to each other via social media...

This kind of stuff might be legit, but this is starting to smell a little like the Salem Witch Hunts or McCarthyism. It's already at the point where Russians are fair game for widespread discrimination.

I'm sure it's all just total coincidence, her hanging out with Putin lieutenants, known spies, and being a supporter of the french far right, which russian state tv supports, and she's just a random Russian getting looked at for no reason.

Oh, and she's also pushing for Trump, article from over a year ago:

https://qz.com/941383/maria-katasonova-the-glamorous-young-russian-nationalist-leading-her-countrys-love-affair-with-trump-and-le-pen/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 21, 2018, 12:26:56 PM
O K

So you have nothing on trump specifically?

I'm not Mueller, y'know. I'll look at the investigation when it's done. These things are complex and take time because they (hopefully) cross all the Ts and dot the i's. They investigated Benghazi for what, 4-5 years? We're just getting started, but it's going to be good at the end, I think.

But so far we have a large part of his entourage (Papadopoulos, Gates, Manafort, Flynn, his sons, Kushner, etc) getting caught meeting with russian agents and/or spies, lying about those meetings, which were gotten by promising to help for the election, some are getting indicted and charged for it, Trump firing a FBI director who was starting to look into this and attacking publicly his AG for recusing himself and not blindly defending him and then repeatedly attacking the FBI, constantly implying he might fire the guy who's investigating him and attacking his integrity (look who's talking) when Mueller is actually a spotless Republican ex-marine, and Trump acting pretty much exactly like someone getting blackmailed by Russia for a couple years, constantly defending Putin even at the slightest attack ("He's a killer" "Well, America is pretty bad too!"), breaking tradition and meeting him in secret with no observers or records, his campaign trying to set up back-channels to him, constantly praising him and treating him as an equal rather than a murderous dictator, being submissive to Putin on live TV so much so that even many within his party talked of treason, trusting the word of a despot over multiple US intelligence agencies, attacking NATO and bringing up random Kremlin talking points (Montenegro, really?), multiple times trying to remove sanctions on Russia without anything in return, we know he did business deals with shady people over there (the Netflix Dirty Money episode on Trump has some of that), etc. It's definitely super weird and hard to dismiss all as just a coincidence, but time will tell, history will reveal things, conspiracies and crimes don't stay hidden forever.

But even if none of that was there, he'd still be quite a piece of garbage. Everything Buffett and Munger have warned against when it comes to integrity, vainglory, business ability, laziness, surrounding yourself with good people, rationality, personal responsibility, facing facts as they are and not as you wish them to be, treating others with respects, bullying, giving back, etc. Oh, and don't sexually assault women.

OR, the other way to answer your question is: Obviously I don't have anything incontrovertible on Trump. If there was hard proof of this out at this point, we wouldn't be talking about it, we'd be watching his impeachment on C-Span. It's kind of the anthropic principle. So of course so far it's all people around him and circumstantial evidence. Doesn't mean that this isn't evidence that should make you update your priors in the direction of something being seriously weird here.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on July 21, 2018, 01:37:11 PM
Thank you liberty.

I don`t know the details of all his entourage but Flynn established connection after the election, and the only issue was he lied, from what I have read.  Manafort, it even says on wikipedia he was fired due to his suspected  russian connections.  I dont know that he implicates Trump.   I have read on Trump jr and it`s all smoke, he was contacted with information and said if it was official he was interested.  It`s a gray area but then he hasn`t been charged.  It was 2 years ago so there was ample time to go after him if there was something to it.  Read the exchange between trump jr and wikileaks, he doesnt seem to have any idea what is going on there.  If he was working with the russians, and the russians are working with wikileaks, why is wikileaks contacting trump jr.  I dont know what Kushner did, please link it.  Every time I go down one of these rabbit holes, there is just smoke and it turns out to be a waste of time.   

Everything else is subjective. 

Is he attacking NATO, by asking them to increase their military.  By telling Germany not to use Russian energy.  It seems he is backhandedly strengthening NATO.

I dont care that you don`t like Trump, not relevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 21, 2018, 02:24:30 PM
Thank you liberty.

I don`t know the details of all his entourage but Flynn established connection after the election, and the only issue was he lied, from what I have read.  Manafort, it even says on wikipedia he was fired due to his suspected  russian connections.  I dont know that he implicates Trump.   I have read on Trump jr and it`s all smoke, he was contacted with information and said if it was official he was interested.  It`s a gray area but then he hasn`t been charged.  It was 2 years ago so there was ample time to go after him if there was something to it.  Read the exchange between trump jr and wikileaks, he doesnt seem to have any idea what is going on there.  If he was working with the russians, and the russians are working with wikileaks, why is wikileaks contacting trump jr.  I dont know what Kushner did, please link it.  Every time I go down one of these rabbit holes, there is just smoke and it turns out to be a waste of time.   

Everything else is subjective. 

Is he attacking NATO, by asking them to increase their military.  By telling Germany not to use Russian energy.  It seems he is backhandedly strengthening NATO.

I dont care that you don`t like Trump, not relevant to the discussion.

LOL of course it's relevant. It's the motivating factor behind pretty much every post we see from not only the usual suspects on this forum, but everywhere else too. It's too self evident that I think they just don't see it. I mean they are complaining about him doing things that every politician/every country does. That's the give away. You have that big of an issue with the action, then complain about the action across the board(ie corruption in politics) and let's discuss fixing it. Nope. Not them. Just use it as an excuse to complain about Trump. Like I said, the root of everything here is that they can't get over the fact that their candidate lost. And they're bitter. End of story.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 21, 2018, 03:56:39 PM
Thank you liberty.

I don`t know the details of all his entourage but Flynn established connection after the election, and the only issue was he lied, from what I have read.  Manafort, it even says on wikipedia he was fired due to his suspected  russian connections.  I dont know that he implicates Trump.   I have read on Trump jr and it`s all smoke, he was contacted with information and said if it was official he was interested.  It`s a gray area but then he hasn`t been charged.  It was 2 years ago so there was ample time to go after him if there was something to it.  Read the exchange between trump jr and wikileaks, he doesnt seem to have any idea what is going on there.  If he was working with the russians, and the russians are working with wikileaks, why is wikileaks contacting trump jr.  I dont know what Kushner did, please link it.  Every time I go down one of these rabbit holes, there is just smoke and it turns out to be a waste of time.   

Everything else is subjective. 

Is he attacking NATO, by asking them to increase their military.  By telling Germany not to use Russian energy.  It seems he is backhandedly strengthening NATO.

I dont care that you don`t like Trump, not relevant to the discussion.

So basically you believe the official Trump line on every thing that happened so far, despite knowing that they lie and change their stories multiple times on basically anything and everything. Ok. Do you also believe they were talking about international adoption with that lawyer, or maybe the parts of the magnitsky act that put sanctions on Putin's cronies?

Weird how the same thing doesn't happen to every other president if all this is so benign and normal...

And he's not strengthening NATO at all. He's putting into question the mutual assistance clause, asking if NATO is even necessary anymore, saying the US might pull out or not come to the aid of someone for reasons that they decide unilaterally, putting in doubt that smaller members of NATO are as protected as big ones, etc. He also looks like someone who's setting things up for failure -- he's using bad statistics (factcheck.org had something on this) to say that the US is paying for 90% of NATO or whatever and then asking these countries to increase their defense spending by like 50-100% immediately, and when they of course won't/can't do that, he'll be able to further weaken NATO or pull out and blame it on others. Of course he's also couching this in other kind of language about being taken advantage of, but that's what he does for everything. Dislike china or mexicans or blacks? Talk about how they're taking advantage and then attack them. He's basically attacked every US ally (including Canada!), and praised many of the world's despots (Putin, Ergodan, Xi, Kim, Duterte, el-Sisi), which is really strange from a US president.

And the fact that he's otherwise a piece of garbage is very relevant. If he was otherwise a fine person with strong qualities, all this would seem a lot less likely. But in the context of who he is, it makes foul play all the more likely.

I also think that you're creating goalposts to make sure they aren't reached. I'm not necessarily saying he was working with them like a double-agent all along and that every body around him was on it to the same extent, but I think it would be surprising if there wasn't something with all that smoke and super-mega-weird behavior toward russia (he's attacking every ally and the U.S. ITSELF, yet can't seem to find a fault with Russia..). Maybe he did a shady deal with some shady people a while ago (indirectly with the oligarchs), and both side did it just to make money at the time, but then when he got elected they had this over him (maybe some other blackmail stuff... we know he slept around a lot and the FSB is all about blackmail) so they could use it to put some pressure, etc. Who knows. We'll find out someday, there are too many people who know something, records somewhere, etc.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 21, 2018, 07:13:11 PM
, but I think it would be surprising if there wasn't something with all that smoke and super-mega-weird behavior toward russia (he's attacking every ally and the U.S. ITSELF, yet can't seem to find a fault with Russia..).

Remember that he has also had super-mega-weird behaviour toward Kim, and nobody thinks he has colluded with NK.

I truly believe much of his super-weird behaviour is just him.  Not sure to what degree.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 22, 2018, 07:22:18 AM
A heavily redacted version of the Page FISA warrant has been released.   Apparently, the Steele Dossier was "Source No. 1" and heavily relied on by the FBI in obtaining the warrant.   With respect to admitting to the political bias - that the dossier was prepared mostly by an opposing political party - the writer of the application in a footnote states:

"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign,”

I love the way that the one sentence admission is peppered with words that actually undermine the admission - particularly "speculates" and "likely" and "could." I particularly love the use of "speculate."

The writer goes on to strongly suggests that the dossier should be relied on because of the reliability of previous information provided by the source.


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 22, 2018, 08:13:36 AM
A heavily redacted version of the Page FISA warrant has been released.   Apparently, the Steele Dossier was "Source No. 1" and heavily relied on by the FBI in obtaining the warrant.   With respect to admitting to the political bias - that the dossier was prepared mostly by an opposing political party - the writer of the application in a footnote states:

"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign,”

I love the way that the one sentence admission is peppered with words that actually undermine the admission - particularly "speculates" and "likely" and "could." I particularly love the use of "speculate."

The writer goes on to strongly suggests that the dossier should be relied on because of the reliability of previous information provided by the source.

Republicans and Democrats on the congressional committee saw the unredacted version of the FISA application. Democrats noted that the Steele dossier wasn't the only source of evidence against Page; the application contained other evidence unrelated to the dossier. The version released yesterday is heavily redacted. It's impossible to tell what other evidence was presented to the FISA judges.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/carter-page-fisa.html

Quote
The fight over the surveillance of Mr. Page centered on the fact that the F.B.I., in making the case to judges that he might be a Russian agent, had used some claims drawn from a notorious Democratic-funded dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent.

The application cited claims from the dossier that Mr. Page, while on a trip to Moscow in July 2016, had met with two senior Russian representatives and discussed matters like lifting sanctions imposed on Russia for its intervention in Ukraine and a purported file of compromising information about Mr. Trump that the Russian government had. (Mr. Page has denied those allegations, although he later contradicted his claims that he had not met any Russian government officials on that trip.)

Republicans portrayed the Steele dossier — which also contained salacious claims about Mr. Trump apparently not included in the wiretap application — as dubious, and blasted the F.B.I. for using material from it while not telling the court that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded the research.

But Democrats noted that the application also contained evidence against Mr. Page unrelated to the dossier, and an unredacted portion of the application discussed efforts by Russian agents in 2013 to recruit Americans as assets. It has previously been reported that Mr. Page was one of their targets, although any discussion of Mr. Page’s interactions with them in the application is still censored.

BTW, yesterday's release revealed which Federal District Court judges approved the FISA warrant. All four were appointed by Republican presidents.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 22, 2018, 08:42:44 AM
I love the way that the one sentence admission is peppered with words that actually undermine the admission - particularly "speculates" and "likely" and "could." I particularly love the use of "speculate."

The writer goes on to strongly suggests that the dossier should be relied on because of the reliability of previous information provided by the source.

These words have specific meanings that correspond to probability ranges. Before Trump, superfluous adjectives had no place in government docs. I've already posted the table in this thread.

I also suspect you didn't read the doc if you think they "heavily relied" on the dossier. I don't know what heavily means but I disagree.

Either way, why were so many individuals on Trump's campaign officially or unofficially working for foreign governments? The America First platform.

I also wonder why folks worried about due process now seemed unconcerned when one candidate yelled lock her up at rallies. The media that has called aspects of Page's FISA concerning AND Trump's lock her up concerning is fake news. When do these folks take inventory of their opinions?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 22, 2018, 09:20:23 AM
, but I think it would be surprising if there wasn't something with all that smoke and super-mega-weird behavior toward russia (he's attacking every ally and the U.S. ITSELF, yet can't seem to find a fault with Russia..).

Remember that he has also had super-mega-weird behaviour toward Kim, and nobody thinks he has colluded with NK.

I truly believe much of his super-weird behaviour is just him.  Not sure to what degree.

I don't see how it's comparable.

I think it's fairly easy to understand what happened with NK, and it's explainable, though still kind of reckless.

He basically played a game of nuclear war chicken with NK (and the lives of SK population and part of China), and when Kim appeared to blink first, then he switched from the stick to the carrot and went kind of overboard with the reinforcement to the positive behavior. But as usual with Trump, there doesn't seem to be a long-term plan or follow through, so NK basically got to get out of the situation with its usual vague promises and no real verifications, Kim gets a huge prestige boost from meeting with the US president and being treated with respect on the world stage, and Trump immediately declared victory, and this can has been kicked down the road when no doubt NK does something that shows it's not suddenly a benign power, and then Trump will feel even more pressure to actually do something because now he's losing face after his "Mission Accomplished" tour.

His behavior toward Russia from way back in the campaign to now is not explainable similarly.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 22, 2018, 09:31:37 AM
I agree with you Elig. The FBI clearly used other sources including news reports - specifically a report from Yahoo news discussing the Steel Dossier. But that really wasn't the point of my post.
The document is over 400 pages long.  Using 250 words per page as an average we're looking at 100,000 words. You have about 22 words devoted to the fact the the dossier was opposition research - of which 3 of the words actually undermined the other 19.

Schwab,

You wrote: "Before Trump, superfluous adjectives had no place in government docs." Seriously??? You really want a response to this?

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on July 22, 2018, 09:35:04 AM
I love the way that the one sentence admission is peppered with words that actually undermine the admission - particularly "speculates" and "likely" and "could." I particularly love the use of "speculate."


Understandable, given our president now speaks with 100% authority on all matters. Until of course he later admits he misspoke via twitter. Or whatever his excuse is, these days
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 22, 2018, 09:44:00 AM
I agree with you Elig. The FBI clearly used other sources including news reports - specifically a report from Yahoo news discussing the Steel Dossier. But that really wasn't the point of my post.
The document is over 400 pages long.  Using 250 words per page as an average we're looking at 100,000 words. You have about 22 words devoted to the fact the the dossier was opposition research - of which 3 of the words actually undermined the other 19.

Schwab,

You wrote: "Before Trump, superfluous adjectives had no place in government docs." Seriously??? You really want a response to this?

Compare the Nunes memo and recent docs to past docs.

I think you are trying to make a point about Yahoo news, (because pundits are pushing it) but I bet it's a bad take that will be walked back.

Also, how did you expect the disclosure to look? Should it be bolded in 24 size font? You were told it was not there. Now you see it's there and still the FBI's fault because it's not long enough? Remember when originally everyone was mad about unmasking? Now you hear Fox news and others yelling the FISA app didn't name folks specifically.

When do you get mad at Nunes/GOP House for lying to you for 18 months?

Why didn't you address your feelings about the number of spies and foreign lobbyists (declared or not) around Trump? Why do you just pick one comment to rebuttal that doesn't make you reevaluate your opinions?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 22, 2018, 09:54:55 AM
I agree with you Elig. The FBI clearly used other sources including news reports - specifically a report from Yahoo news discussing the Steel Dossier. But that really wasn't the point of my post.

Here's the paragraph that talks about Yahoo News article:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiqmR7FV4AEtqIC.jpg:small)

Note the title of the section:

Page's Denial of Cooperation with the Russian Government.

FBI used Yahoo article as the source of Page's denials. Contrary to Nunes' claims, the FBI was not using Yahoo article as an independent confirmation of Steele’s reporting.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 22, 2018, 10:10:35 AM
Gary Kasparov op-ed:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-congress-contain-trump-20180720-story.html

Quote
The investigation into the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election continues to heat up, with a dozen new indictments of Russian military intelligence operatives by special counsel Robert Mueller. An alleged Russian undercover agent has been charged with attempting to influence U.S. politics, including extensive connections with the National Rifle Association.
These are acts of foreign aggression, direct attacks on the integrity of the American political system. Call it hybrid war or whatever you like, but a war is what it is. Putin understood this many years ago and has been investing heavily in the weapons with which this new type of war is fought: propaganda, cyberwarfare, supporting extremists on all sides, and dividing allies.
That his targets are still arguing about what to call it instead of fighting back is why Putin has had such success.
So it’s an odd time for the U.S. to be rolling out the red carpet for Putin, who directs these actions and is surely plotting more ...

As has already been written in the annals of ignominy, Monday, Trump had a private meeting with Putin and then joined him in the most disturbing press conference spectacle most of us have ever seen. Trump’s subservient display has been well-described already, so I won’t waste time detailing how the American President presented the Kremlin line better than Putin himself.
I’ve spent many years countering Kremlin propaganda that tries to put America and other free world nations on the same ethical plane as Putin’s murderous and repressive mafia state. “There is no good or evil,” it goes. “We all do bad things, so don’t judge. Let’s do business and forget about democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.”
Listening to the U.S. President make such moral equivalence arguments — standing next to a KGB-trained dictator, no less — was infuriating and heartbreaking.
...
First there’s the old strawman argument that anyone who isn’t in favor of capitulating to Putin’s aggression is a warmonger eager for World War III. As his track record demonstrates, standing up to Putin is far less likely to lead to further conflict than giving him what he wants. As with Trump and any bully, conceding to Putin only convinces him you are weak and that he can push further.
Then there is Trump’s refrain, “shouldn’t we want better relations with Russia?” Certainly, but not at any cost. It’s easy to make deals and have good relations with dictators if you concede everything they want and ask nothing of them. Better relations with Russia should depend on the national interests of the United States, not the personal interests of Donald Trump. ...

Constitutionally, the President has no business starting trade wars or radically changing immigration policy.
But Congress has abdicated its role as co-equal branch of government over decades, steadily conceding power to the executive. This has been done in the name of expediency, to fight partisan gridlock, and has been pushed along by each side in tit-for-tat battles. Clinton did it, so Bush had to do it. Bush did it, so Obama had to do it.
With each turn, the balance of powers became more unbalanced. If the ship of state is to be righted before the Trumpian iceberg finishes the job, Congress must take back the power given to it by the Founders. Stop tweeting and start legislating. ...

President Obama spent many hopeless years trying to make friends with Russia — all while Putin was liquidating his political opposition, preparing to invade Ukraine, and building the disinformation Death Star he eventually unleashed on Europe and the United States.
From Obama’s naive appeasement, we arrived at Trump’s open collaboration. Putin isn’t just emboldened, he’s coming to Washington to take a victory lap.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 22, 2018, 10:25:28 AM
Schwab
You wrote:  "When do you get mad at Nunes/GOP House for lying to you for 18 months?"
 
Here is the relevant portion of the Nunez memo:

"Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.


b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information."

P!ease point out the lies that you claim in your post.
 
You also wrote:

"Before Trump, superfluous adjectives had no place in government docs."

 Since the FISA warrant was prepared under the Obama administration, I have no idea what you're talking about. P!ease explain.
 
Elig,

Even though heavily redacted it's still clear that the FBI  used news reports as  support for their warrant application.
Besides you're still ignoring and obfuscating my point.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 22, 2018, 10:59:00 AM
What to Make of the Carter Page FISA Applications, by David Kris***

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications

Quote
The Carter Page FISAs are out via the Freedom of Information Act. Here are a few observations, relatively brief but still just a bit too long for Twitter.

...

Second, for those who don’t remember, the controversy about these FISA applications first arose in February when House intelligence committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes released a memo claiming that the FBI misled the FISA Court about Christopher Steele, the former British secret agent who compiled the “dossier” on Trump-Russia ties and who was a source of information in the FISA applications on Page. The main complaint in the Nunes memo was that FBI whitewashed Steele—that the FISA applications did not “disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.”

In response to the Nunes memo, the Democrats on the committee released their own memo. That memo quoted from parts of the FISA applications, including a footnote in which the FBI explained that Steele was hired to “conduct research regarding Candidate #1,” Donald Trump, and Trump’s “ties to Russia,” and that the man who hired him was “likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump’s] campaign.”

Based on this back and forth between the HPSCI partisans, I wrote on Lawfare at the time that the FBI’s disclosures on Steele “amply satisfie[d] the requirements” for FISA applications, and that the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed. I said then, and I still believe, that the “Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.”

Now we have some additional information in the form of the redacted FISA applications themselves, and the Nunes memo looks even worse. In my earlier post, I observed that the FBI’s disclosures about Steele were contained in a footnote, but argued that this did not detract from their sufficiency: “As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes.” Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it. The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.

...

But it is worth noting that—and as the Democrats previously pointed out—the judges who signed off on these four FISA applications were all appointed by Republican presidents, including one George H.W. Bush appointee (Anne Conway), two George W. Bush appointees (Rosemary Collyer and Michael Mosman) and one Reagan appointee (Raymond Dearie). I know some of those judges, and they certainly are not the types to let partisan politics affect their legal judgments.

*** Author's bio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._Kris
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 22, 2018, 12:46:32 PM
Elig,

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Schwab. Where are the lies?   The Nunez memo accused the FBI  of not clear!y explaining to the court that the dossier was opposition research.  The redacted warrant studiously avoids explaining to the court that the Democratic administration seeking the warrant was using opposition research paid for by the same Democrat party to investigate/spy on a member of the other political party during an election year.  I don't see the lies.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 22, 2018, 03:25:23 PM
Elig,

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Schwab. Where are the lies?   The Nunez memo accused the FBI  of not clear!y explaining to the court that the dossier was opposition research.  The redacted warrant studiously avoids explaining to the court that the Democratic administration seeking the warrant was using opposition research paid for by the same Democrat party to investigate/spy on a member of the other political party during an election year.  I don't see the lies.

Let me refer you to another Lawfare post from back in March, written by the same David Kris. He is a former DOJ attorney who specialized in FISA program. He served under both Bush and Obama.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/irony-nunesac-memo

Quote
1. The Nunes memo’s fundamental claim was that the FBI misled the court about Christopher Steele, the former British agent who was a source of information in the FISA applications on Carter Page. It accused the Bureau of failing to “disclose or reference the role of the [Democratic National Committee], Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding” Steele’s research. The government, it argued, portrayed Steele as unbiased, when in fact “the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.” This was strong stuff, certainly troubling if true.

Today we know that it was not true. Almost four weeks ago, based on my experience with the FISA program and those who administer it, I expressed confidence that the government “provided the court with enough information to meaningfully assess Steele’s credibility.” It took a while, but with the benefit of the minority memo—even in redacted form—this has now been confirmed. In other words, Nunes’s claim that the FBI misled the court was itself misleading. There are other ways in which the memo was misleading—discussed in the back and forth between Nunes and his critics on the House Intelligence Committee, and in Charlie Savage’s characteristically excellent summary in the New York Times—but the FBI’s alleged effort to deceive the court about Steele has always been the heart of the matter, and I am trying in this post to stick to the core.

The FISA applications did not mention the “DNC” or the “Clinton campaign” by name, but they did recount how Steele was approached and then hired by “an identified U.S. Person,” Glen Simpson, who explained to Steele that he in turn had been hired by a “U.S.-based law firm,” Perkins Coie, “to conduct research regarding Candidate #1,” Donald Trump, and Trump’s “ties to Russia.” (The use of generic identifiers in the FISA applications is consistent with standard practice, as Nunes is well aware; the minority memo provides the names for each identifier.) The FISA applications also advised the court: “The FBI speculates that [Simpson] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump’s] campaign.”

That amply satisfies the requirements. As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications, and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes. The government’s disclosures enabled the court to take Steele’s information with a grain of salt. They allowed the court to decide, based on all of the information presented, whether there was “probable cause” that Carter Page “knowingly” engaged in “clandestine intelligence activities” for Russia that involve, may involve, or are about to involve “a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.”
It’s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to conclude he was a Russian agent.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 22, 2018, 06:53:36 PM
First thing this morning I wrote in pertinent part:

"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign,”

I love the way that the one sentence admission is peppered with words that actually undermine the admission - particularly "speculates" and "likely" and "could." I particularly love the use of "speculate."

Many hours and many posts later you cite an opinion piece where the author claims that the same 22 words are enough to support the warrant application.   Okay!

So should opposition research paid for by the DNC  be used to support an application for a warrant by the  FBI  under the Obama administration to spy on a member of the Trump election team without full and complete disclosure to the court?  I don't think that this is a settled question.  At the very least it creates the appearance of impropriety which damages the FBI, the DOJ and the FISA Court.  Until we know everything contained within the redacted portions, I believe that half of America will have a difficult time accepting the results.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 22, 2018, 07:23:57 PM
So should opposition research paid for by the DNC  be used to support an application for a warrant by the  FBI  under the Obama administration to spy on a member of the Trump election team without full and complete disclosure to the court?  I don't think that this is a settled question.  At the very least it creates the appearance of impropriety which damages the FBI, the DOJ and the FISA Court.  Until we know everything contained within the redacted portions, I believe that half of America will have a difficult time accepting the results.
I'm not a legal scholar, but of course it would. In regular life if I bring the police credible information about your engagement in illegal activities, then the police will look into that. The fact that I don't like you will not matter much. In real life, a lot of the information used in prosecuting crimes is supplied by an adversary of the party under investigation. Welcome to the Justice system.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 22, 2018, 08:01:58 PM
First thing this morning I wrote in pertinent part:

"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign,”

I love the way that the one sentence admission is peppered with words that actually undermine the admission - particularly "speculates" and "likely" and "could." I particularly love the use of "speculate."

Many hours and many posts later you cite an opinion piece where the author claims that the same 22 words are enough to support the warrant application.   Okay!

You took one sentence out of context. You based your reasoning on that one sentence, without considering the context. You claimed that one sentence (that you yourself took out of context) didn't provide enough disclosure. Okay!

Here's the context again, per David Kris, who happens to be a top FISA expert, unlike you and me:

=====

"The FISA applications did not mention the “DNC” or the “Clinton campaign” by name, but they did recount how Steele was approached and then hired by “an identified U.S. Person,” Glen Simpson, who explained to Steele that he in turn had been hired by a “U.S.-based law firm,” Perkins Coie, “to conduct research regarding Candidate #1,” Donald Trump, and Trump’s “ties to Russia.” (The use of generic identifiers in the FISA applications is consistent with standard practice, as Nunes is well aware; the minority memo provides the names for each identifier.) The FISA applications also advised the court: “The FBI speculates that [Simpson] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump’s] campaign.”

That amply satisfies the requirements.  ... The government’s disclosures enabled the court to take Steele’s information with a grain of salt. They allowed the court to decide, based on all of the information presented, whether there was “probable cause” that Carter Page “knowingly” engaged in “clandestine intelligence activities” for Russia that involve, may involve, or are about to involve “a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.”

=====


Until we know everything contained within the redacted portions, I believe that half of America will have a difficult time accepting the results.

The same half of America pushed for warrantless FISA surveillance back in the Bush years.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 22, 2018, 08:46:39 PM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
I agree with john here. Random twitter dude doesn't mean jack.

I posted a video of Dan Coates learning about Putin being invited to the white House, but was on phone so just posted the link without commentary. I deleted it. Things mean something or not based on their intrinsic value, not based on their source. We're all "random forum people" here, not any more prestigious than "random Twitter people".
Off topic here. While I stand by the premise of my post, I want to apologize to Liberty because I think the post came across way more dickish than I intended.

Liberty, by the time I posted my comment the Dan Cotes post, nothing wrong with that, was gone. But you do have an affinity for tweets. I'll probably stick my foot in my moth again, but I'll give an explanation a try. We may be random forum people here, but we kinda, sorta know each other. For exmple, I know that Scottie's a troll, that you're an optimist, that rkbabang is an honest libertarian, and that Cardboard is well... Cardboard. This knowledge allows to interpret comments in some context to some extent.

I fully expect that a post i make here on CoBF to be completely dismissed as the thought of random internet dude if quoted outside of CoBF. Moreover, I would appreciate it if it was so. In my opinion, one reason why we're in the predicament we find ourselves in today is because of too much reliance and faith in social media. Fake stories planted on random no-name sites, being shared left and right on social media help a twitter troll become president.

Twitter is a particularly egregious platform. Is someone really going to properly articulate and support an opinion in 140 characters, or more recently 280 (which makes no difference)?

If I crossed some sort of line with my explanation/opinion, I apologize again.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on July 22, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020484409173184512

"France has its own version of Maria Butina, a young Russian woman named Maria Katasonova, who happens to be an ardent supporter of Marine Le Pen. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020484409173184512/photo/1"

https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020485334088527872

"On June 1, 2017, she posted this photo to her Instagram account.

It's of her and Alexander Torshin at an event at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020485334088527872/photo/1"

https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020487390656417792

"Maria Katasonova's Instagram feed also includes photos of her and someone who appears to be Anna Chapman, the young woman famous for being part of a Russian spy ring in the US that the FBI rolled up in 2010. https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1020487390656417792/photo/1"

Nice how spies can now be found and linked to each other via social media...
Seriously, why does France get the hotter spy? If I were an American I'd be seriously offended by that.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 23, 2018, 04:51:18 AM
Hi Elig,

You obviously don't want to read any more of my opinion - hell - I'm not sure I want to bother to write any more.

So please see.attached:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 23, 2018, 04:57:54 AM
Hi RB,

I actually agree with everything you wrote - including why the French got the hotter spy.  But I just have one question. Do you believe that the FBI  and the DOJ  need to be extraordinarily carefully during an election year to avoid creating the appearance that they are engaging in politically biased investigations?

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 23, 2018, 06:21:41 AM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
I agree with john here. Random twitter dude doesn't mean jack.

I posted a video of Dan Coates learning about Putin being invited to the white House, but was on phone so just posted the link without commentary. I deleted it. Things mean something or not based on their intrinsic value, not based on their source. We're all "random forum people" here, not any more prestigious than "random Twitter people".
Off topic here. While I stand by the premise of my post, I want to apologize to Liberty because I think the post came across way more dickish than I intended.

Liberty, by the time I posted my comment the Dan Cotes post, nothing wrong with that, was gone. But you do have an affinity for tweets. I'll probably stick my foot in my moth again, but I'll give an explanation a try. We may be random forum people here, but we kinda, sorta know each other. For exmple, I know that Scottie's a troll, that you're an optimist, that rkbabang is an honest libertarian, and that Cardboard is well... Cardboard. This knowledge allows to interpret comments in some context to some extent.

I fully expect that a post i make here on CoBF to be completely dismissed as the thought of random internet dude if quoted outside of CoBF. Moreover, I would appreciate it if it was so. In my opinion, one reason why we're in the predicament we find ourselves in today is because of too much reliance and faith in social media. Fake stories planted on random no-name sites, being shared left and right on social media help a twitter troll become president.

Twitter is a particularly egregious platform. Is someone really going to properly articulate and support an opinion in 140 characters, or more recently 280 (which makes no difference)?

If I crossed some sort of line with my explanation/opinion, I apologize again.

No worries. But the links that I post aren't random. They're filtered by me. You don't have to click them if you don't want to, but if you do, I hope you'll judge them on their content like anything else that isn't from twitter, and not just on their source. Maybe years ago there was a huge presumption against online sources, but today, a lot of totally legit people are on Twitter, journalists, experts. Even politicians and con men... So linking there should be pretty neutral in your priors.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on July 23, 2018, 07:16:23 AM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
I agree with john here. Random twitter dude doesn't mean jack.

I posted a video of Dan Coates learning about Putin being invited to the white House, but was on phone so just posted the link without commentary. I deleted it. Things mean something or not based on their intrinsic value, not based on their source. We're all "random forum people" here, not any more prestigious than "random Twitter people".
Off topic here. While I stand by the premise of my post, I want to apologize to Liberty because I think the post came across way more dickish than I intended.

Liberty, by the time I posted my comment the Dan Cotes post, nothing wrong with that, was gone. But you do have an affinity for tweets. I'll probably stick my foot in my moth again, but I'll give an explanation a try. We may be random forum people here, but we kinda, sorta know each other. For exmple, I know that Scottie's a troll, that you're an optimist, that rkbabang is an honest libertarian, and that Cardboard is well... Cardboard. This knowledge allows to interpret comments in some context to some extent.

I fully expect that a post i make here on CoBF to be completely dismissed as the thought of random internet dude if quoted outside of CoBF. Moreover, I would appreciate it if it was so. In my opinion, one reason why we're in the predicament we find ourselves in today is because of too much reliance and faith in social media. Fake stories planted on random no-name sites, being shared left and right on social media help a twitter troll become president.

Twitter is a particularly egregious platform. Is someone really going to properly articulate and support an opinion in 140 characters, or more recently 280 (which makes no difference)?

If I crossed some sort of line with my explanation/opinion, I apologize again.

No worries. But the links that I post aren't random. They're filtered by me. You don't have to click them if you don't want to, but if you do, I hope you'll judge them on their content like anything else that isn't from twitter, and not just on their source. Maybe years ago there was a huge presumption against online sources, but today, a lot of totally legit people are on Twitter, journalists, experts. Even politicians and con men... So linking there should be pretty neutral in your priors.

These messages are an open forum to those that join. No reason your posts should be limited. And they arnt spammy so I dont have a problem.

Twitter posts are just links and commentary on the internet. No different than anything else. All is free speech so its good. If people dont like them they can simply go elsewhere...no one is forcing people to click on the links.

 I also see a lot of tweets have links to source material or are pics of choice excerpts from source material so its good. Even news articles are good. The substantive ones stand on their own and the bad ones dont so its all good.


tldr: Im in favor. Keep it up, Liberty. Thanks!


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 23, 2018, 07:47:43 AM
Twitter links with no personal supplementary comments does not do it here, Liberty.
I agree with john here. Random twitter dude doesn't mean jack.

I posted a video of Dan Coates learning about Putin being invited to the white House, but was on phone so just posted the link without commentary. I deleted it. Things mean something or not based on their intrinsic value, not based on their source. We're all "random forum people" here, not any more prestigious than "random Twitter people".
Off topic here. While I stand by the premise of my post, I want to apologize to Liberty because I think the post came across way more dickish than I intended.

Liberty, by the time I posted my comment the Dan Cotes post, nothing wrong with that, was gone. But you do have an affinity for tweets. I'll probably stick my foot in my moth again, but I'll give an explanation a try. We may be random forum people here, but we kinda, sorta know each other. For exmple, I know that Scottie's a troll, that you're an optimist, that rkbabang is an honest libertarian, and that Cardboard is well... Cardboard. This knowledge allows to interpret comments in some context to some extent.

I fully expect that a post i make here on CoBF to be completely dismissed as the thought of random internet dude if quoted outside of CoBF. Moreover, I would appreciate it if it was so. In my opinion, one reason why we're in the predicament we find ourselves in today is because of too much reliance and faith in social media. Fake stories planted on random no-name sites, being shared left and right on social media help a twitter troll become president.

Twitter is a particularly egregious platform. Is someone really going to properly articulate and support an opinion in 140 characters, or more recently 280 (which makes no difference)?

If I crossed some sort of line with my explanation/opinion, I apologize again.

No worries. But the links that I post aren't random. They're filtered by me. You don't have to click them if you don't want to, but if you do, I hope you'll judge them on their content like anything else that isn't from twitter, and not just on their source. Maybe years ago there was a huge presumption against online sources, but today, a lot of totally legit people are on Twitter, journalists, experts. Even politicians and con men... So linking there should be pretty neutral in your priors.

These messages are an open forum to those that join. No reason your posts should be limited. And they arnt spammy so I dont have a problem.

Twitter posts are just links and commentary on the internet. No different than anything else. All is free speech so its good. If people dont like them they can simply go elsewhere...no one is forcing people to click on the links.

 I also see a lot of tweets have links to source material or are pics of choice excerpts from source material so its good. Even news articles are good. The substantive ones stand on their own and the bad ones dont so its all good.


tldr: Im in favor. Keep it up, Liberty. Thanks!

Oh how ironic! Would your opinion change if it was found out that one or more of the posts/articles came from a non-U.S. citizen? Perhaps even Russian?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 23, 2018, 08:32:00 AM
Oh how ironic! Would your opinion change if it was found out that one or more of the posts/articles came from a non-U.S. citizen? Perhaps even Russian?

im already well aware of several posters on here that are non-u.s. citizens, tard.  check this out, some of them even post on this topic.

I think the joke went over your head...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 23, 2018, 08:34:04 AM
I'm offering this material not to claim that any individual committed an ethics violation but instead to show that the DOJ is clearly aware of the dangers inherent in creating the appearance of impropriety in an election.  This is taken from the DOJ  ethics handbook:
-----------------------------------------
All federal employees may vote, express opinions and make political contributions.  Under the Hatch Act, active participation in partisan political activities by federal employees is restricted, and employees serving in certain positions are more restricted than others.  All federal employees are barred from using their official authority or influence to interfere with an election, from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a government office, wearing an official uniform or using a government vehicle, and from soliciting or discouraging the political activity of anyone who does business with the Department.  The rules are specific and may be complex.  Any employee seeking to actively engage in partisan political activity should consult the guidance available on the Department’s website, and the guidance issued by his or her component.

5 USC §§ 7321-21
5 CFR 733 & 734

 Employees May Not:

-  Use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election.

-  Participate in political activities (to include wearing political buttons) while on duty;

   while wearing a uniform, badge or insignia of office; while in a government occupied

   office or building; or while using a government owned or leased vehicle.

-  Solicit, accept or receive a political contribution from a member of the public.

-  Solicit political contributions in a speech given at a fundraiser.

-  Sponsor a fundraiser.

-  Allow official title to be used in fundraising or other political activities.

-  Solicit, accept or receive uncompensated volunteer services from a subordinate.

-  Be a candidate for partisan political office except as an independent candidate in certain

   communities.

-  Solicit or discourage the political activity of anyone who is a participant in any

   matter before the Department.

 

Most Employees May:*

-  Express opinions on political subjects and candidates.

-  Campaign for or against a referendum, constitutional amendment or ordinance. 

-  Participate in civic, professional and other similar activities.

-  Sign a political petition.

-  Display signs, stickers, badges or buttons for candidates for partisan political office

   except when on duty.

-  Register and vote.

-  Run as a candidate or support a candidate in a non-partisan election.

-  Contribute to a political party, or a candidate in a partisan election.

-  Join, organize and serve as an officer of a political party or group.

-  Address a convention, caucus, rally or similar gathering of a political party for or

   against a partisan political candidate.

-  Participate in a nominating caucus, convention, rally or other political gathering.

-  Initiate and circulate a nominating petition for a partisan candidate.

-  Canvass for votes for or against a candidate for partisan political office.

-  Endorse or oppose a partisan political candidate.

-  Participate in and manage the campaign of a partisan political candidate.

-  Serve as a poll watcher, election judge or clerk for a partisan candidate or party.

-  Drive voters to polls on behalf of a partisan political candidate or party.

-  Attend, address, but not solicit funds, at a political fundraiser.

-  Solicit, accept or receive volunteer services except from a subordinate.

-  Solicit, accept or receive certain contributions from a fellow member of a federal

   labor organization or other employee organization who is not a subordinate.

-  Run as an independent candidate in a partisan election in certain communities and

   accept and receive but not solicit contributions from the public.

            *In DOJ, political appointees, career SES, ALJs, explosives enforcement officers in the ATF, and employees of the Criminal Division, the FBI, and the National Security Division are further restricted with regard to political activities, and may NOT engage in many of these actions. These employees should seek specific guidance from their ethics official before engaging in any partisan political activity. 

An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.

5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 23, 2018, 10:04:43 AM
Oh how ironic! Would your opinion change if it was found out that one or more of the posts/articles came from a non-U.S. citizen? Perhaps even Russian?

Garry Kasparov is Russian and I've posted his stuff numerous times. It's not about the nationality of the source, it's about what they're doing. Foreign despots trying to manipulate elections, with both cherry-picked facts molded to create innuendos and copious lies, isn't the same at all as a journalist - from whatever country - investigating facts in the typical standards of the profession. Even though journalists often get things wrong, trying to equate the two is being extremely naive, and probably just willful blindness, especially when one side is getting attacked by the largest mafia-state in the world and the other isn't.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 23, 2018, 11:23:04 AM
Oh how ironic! Would your opinion change if it was found out that one or more of the posts/articles came from a non-U.S. citizen? Perhaps even Russian?

Garry Kasparov is Russian and I've posted his stuff numerous times. It's not about the nationality of the source, it's about what they're doing. Foreign despots trying to manipulate elections, with both cherry-picked facts molded to create innuendos and copious lies, isn't the same at all as a journalist - from whatever country - investigating facts in the typical standards of the profession. Even though journalists often get things wrong, trying to equate the two is being extremely naive, and probably just willful blindness, especially when one side is getting attacked by the largest mafia-state in the world and the other isn't.

I was somewhat being sarcastic although found it ironic you guys saying that it's up to the reader to determine the usefulness of the material(ironically when it is you posting things you agree with). Something I've been saying all along. Glad we could find common ground.

Imagine going into a business deal, making your pitch, and the counter party saying "ok, you're points are persuasive, we've got a deal!". Hell no(at least not on any mid level and above type of deal). They go back, run thorough due diligence, remove your bias, and make a decision on that. So should any half competent voter. Which is why it doesn't matter whether it's a biased Russia, MSM, or unknown dark-pool of degenerates posting information. The voter has their own responsibility to make an informed decision and if they don't they're the ones who deserve the blame. Thankfully, this seems to have been the case as it has become all but a forgone conclusion that the election results were not impacted but any of the contents of the witch hunt.

Also just to clarify, the last part about a candidate being attacked; Would you say that Trump was treated the same as Hillary was from the American mainstream media and news outlets? Just curious...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 23, 2018, 11:55:18 AM
I was somewhat being sarcastic although found it ironic you guys saying that it's up to the reader to determine the usefulness of the material(ironically when it is you posting things you agree with). Something I've been saying all along. Glad we could find common ground.

Imagine going into a business deal, making your pitch, and the counter party saying "ok, you're points are persuasive, we've got a deal!". Hell no(at least not on any mid level and above type of deal). They go back, run thorough due diligence, remove your bias, and make a decision on that. So should any half competent voter. Which is why it doesn't matter whether it's a biased Russia, MSM, or unknown dark-pool of degenerates posting information. The voter has their own responsibility to make an informed decision and if they don't they're the ones who deserve the blame. Thankfully, this seems to have been the case as it has become all but a forgone conclusion that the election results were not impacted but any of the contents of the witch hunt.

Also just to clarify, the last part about a candidate being attacked; Would you say that Trump was treated the same as Hillary was from the American mainstream media and news outlets? Just curious...

Do you really believe what you're saying? That no such thing as psyops and foreign interference and propaganda or building lies around grains of truth exists, just let anyone write that the Pope supports Trump and that a warehouse full of Clinton ballots was discovered and that democrats are running pedophile rings and such and let voters decide? Do you think this is good for democracy? This isn't a one-on-one business deal, this is an election. The goal of the russians was quite clearly to make people so confused and disgusted with both sides that they'd go "well, Trump's corrupt, but Hillary seems pretty corrupt too based on all these rumors and confusing stories, so I guess they're all the same." Trump won by a few tens of thousands of voters in a few states and lost the popular vote by millions... The russia psyops/hacking campaign + Trump being willing to say/insinuate just anything about anyone to attack them + Comey at the last minute quite easily accounts for way more than that margin.

Ever considered that maybe Trump gets attacked more by some because he's more worthy of attack by being human garbage who constantly lies, cheats, steals, rapes, is a bigot, etc? That if you put two people side by side, one might be dirtier than the other, and then it's actually fair if they get attacked more?

But Trump actually got a huge free ride from the media because nobody believed he'd win AND they were getting huge ratings out of him, so he was plastered wall-to-wall on every channel and got billions in free exposure that nobody else got. Hillary, as the likely winner at the time, got tons of scrutiny on every little thing (did she use the right word there? Was her voice the right tone when she said that? Do you like her smile when she made that speech? Let's keep the email thing in the headlines for months while every Trump scandal rolls over after a week or two, etc), in good part because she had detailed proposals that were scrutinized based on policy rather than slogans and vague promises of making America great again and being the only one who could bring it out of the carnage that it was going through (whatever else the doom & gloom part of Trump's campaign was at the time to make people afraid and emotional) and that soon we'd be tired of winning because he's such a great businessman who knows how to get things done (ha!), etc.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 23, 2018, 12:06:36 PM
I was somewhat being sarcastic although found it ironic you guys saying that it's up to the reader to determine the usefulness of the material(ironically when it is you posting things you agree with). Something I've been saying all along. Glad we could find common ground.

Imagine going into a business deal, making your pitch, and the counter party saying "ok, you're points are persuasive, we've got a deal!". Hell no(at least not on any mid level and above type of deal). They go back, run thorough due diligence, remove your bias, and make a decision on that. So should any half competent voter. Which is why it doesn't matter whether it's a biased Russia, MSM, or unknown dark-pool of degenerates posting information. The voter has their own responsibility to make an informed decision and if they don't they're the ones who deserve the blame. Thankfully, this seems to have been the case as it has become all but a forgone conclusion that the election results were not impacted but any of the contents of the witch hunt.

Also just to clarify, the last part about a candidate being attacked; Would you say that Trump was treated the same as Hillary was from the American mainstream media and news outlets? Just curious...

Do you really believe what you're saying? That no such thing as psyops and foreign interference and propaganda or building lies around grains of truth exists, just let anyone write that the Pope supports Trump and that a warehouse full of Clinton ballots was discovered and that democrats are running pedophile rings and such and let voters decide? Do you think this is good for democracy? This isn't a one-on-one business deal, this is an election. The goal of the russians was quite clearly to make people so confused and disgusted with both sides that they'd go "well, Trump's corrupt, but Hillary seems pretty corrupt too based on all these rumors and confusing stories, so I guess they're all the same." Trump won by a few tens of thousands of voters in a few states and lost the popular vote by millions... The russia psyops/hacking campaign + Trump being willing to say/insinuate just anything about anyone to attack them + Comey at the last minute quite easily accounts for way more than that margin.

Ever considered that maybe Trump gets attacked more by some because he's more worthy of attack by being human garbage who constantly lies, cheats, steals, rapes, is a bigot, etc? That if you put two people side by side, one might be dirtier than the other, and then it's actually fair if they get attacked more?

But Trump actually got a huge free ride from the media because nobody believed he'd win AND they were getting huge ratings out of him, so he was plastered wall-to-wall on every channel and got billions in free exposure that nobody else got. Hillary, as the likely winner at the time, got tons of scrutiny on every little thing (did she use the right word there? Was her voice the right tone when she said that? Do you like her smile when she made that speech? Let's keep the email thing in the headlines for months while every Trump scandal rolls over after a week or two, etc), in good part because she had detailed proposals that were scrutinized based on policy rather than slogans and vague promises of making America great again and being the only one who could bring it out of the carnage that it was going through (whatever else the doom & gloom part of Trump's campaign was at the time to make people afraid and emotional) and that soon we'd be tired of winning because he's such a great businessman who knows how to get things done (ha!), etc.

I did not say "no such thing". I said it was equally as bad if not worse on the pro Clinton side. There was a ton of false information put out there BY BOTH SIDES. You and the bunch are sitting here giving the MSM a free pass, while assailing the same type of behaviors they have become known for!

I do also like how your post flows from railing on the dangers of dishonest propaganda, straight into a hook, line and sinker rendition of the "why we hate Trump" leftist propaganda.

And you never answered my question, Would you say that Trump was treated the same as Hillary was from the American mainstream media and news outlets? Nobody asked who was "more corrupt", which by the way is at best a matter of opinion. There's no shortage of Clinton corruption material out there, however that was not the subject matter of discussion.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 23, 2018, 12:14:42 PM
"just let anyone write that the Pope supports Trump"

Even the Pope tried to rally Catholics and Christians against Trump by saying that someone who is building walls is not a Christian.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/06/europe/pope-walls-us-election-trump/index.html

The Vatican is actually a State and has a strong following. So it is an agent from another state that did interfere in American politics. LOL!

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 23, 2018, 12:51:45 PM
- And we could to this topic add what the Catholic Church has done to Europe in the past, or talk about that LVMH is not investable, because of what Napoleon Bonaparte did "a few years ago".
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 23, 2018, 01:02:02 PM
This is an article written by a conservative, but also a former federal prosecutor.  He walks through the verification process that the FBI  should have used to verify the Steele dossier.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 23, 2018, 01:17:02 PM
Quote
[ quote author=Liberty link=topic=16252.msg339408#msg339408 date=1532372118]
I was somewhat being sarcastic although found it ironic you guys saying that it's up to the reader to determine the usefulness of the material(ironically when it is you posting things you agree with). Something I've been saying all along. Glad we could find common ground.

Imagine going into a business deal, making your pitch, and the counter party saying "ok, you're points are persuasive, we've got a deal!". Hell no(at least not on any mid level and above type of deal). They go back, run thorough due diligence, remove your bias, and make a decision on that. So should any half competent voter. Which is why it doesn't matter whether it's a biased Russia, MSM, or unknown dark-pool of degenerates posting information. The voter has their own responsibility to make an informed decision and if they don't they're the ones who deserve the blame. Thankfully, this seems to have been the case as it has become all but a forgone conclusion that the election results were not impacted but any of the contents of the witch hunt.

Also just to clarify, the last part about a candidate being attacked; Would you say that Trump was treated the same as Hillary was from the American mainstream media and news outlets? Just curious...

Do you really believe what you're saying? That no such thing as psyops and foreign interference and propaganda or building lies around grains of truth exists, just let anyone write that the Pope supports Trump and that a warehouse full of Clinton ballots was discovered and that democrats are running pedophile rings and such and let voters decide? Do you think this is good for democracy? This isn't a one-on-one business deal, this is an election. The goal of the russians was quite clearly to make people so confused and disgusted with both sides that they'd go "well, Trump's corrupt, but Hillary seems pretty corrupt too based on all these rumors and confusing stories, so I guess they're all the same." Trump won by a few tens of thousands of voters in a few states and lost the popular vote by millions... The russia psyops/hacking campaign + Trump being willing to say/insinuate just anything about anyone to attack them + Comey at the last minute quite easily accounts for way more than that margin.

Ever considered that maybe Trump gets attacked more by some because he's more worthy of attack by being human garbage who constantly lies, cheats, steals, rapes, is a bigot, etc? That if you put two people side by side, one might be dirtier than the other, and then it's actually fair if they get attacked more?

But Trump actually got a huge free ride from the media because nobody believed he'd win AND they were getting huge ratings out of him, so he was plastered wall-to-wall on every channel and got billions in free exposure that nobody else got. Hillary, as the likely winner at the time, got tons of scrutiny on every little thing (did she use the right word there? Was her voice the right tone when she said that? Do you like her smile when she made that speech? Let's keep the email thing in the headlines for months while every Trump scandal rolls over after a week or two, etc), in good part because she had detailed proposals that were scrutinized based on policy rather than slogans and vague promises of making America great again and being the only one who could bring it out of the carnage that it was going through (whatever else the doom & gloom part of Trump's campaign was at the time to make people afraid and emotional) and that soon we'd be tired of winning because he's such a great businessman who knows how to get things done (ha!), etc.

I did not say "no such thing". I said it was equally as bad if not worse on the pro Clinton side. There was a ton of false information put out there BY BOTH SIDES. You and the bunch are sitting here giving the MSM a free pass, while assailing the same type of behaviors they have become known for!

I do also like how your post flows from railing on the dangers of dishonest propaganda, straight into a hook, line and sinker rendition of the "why we hate Trump" leftist propaganda.

And you never answered my question, Would you say that Trump was treated the same as Hillary was from the American mainstream media and news outlets? Nobody asked who was "more corrupt", which by the way is at best a matter of opinion. There's no shortage of Clinton corruption material out there, however that was not the subject matter of discussion.

Trump was treated better by the media than Hillary if she had done or said what Trump did and said. 100%. A single one of the key of first tier Trump gaffes/scandals would've been career-ending for most people endowed with normal capacity for shame and moral reasoning. And as I said, he was helped tremendously by the media, for free.

As for reasons to oppose Trump, they are quite bi-partisan and the right agreed with me in large part before the nomination, and a large part still does (is Bill Kristol a leftist? Kasparov was quite critical of Obama too on Russia, but thinks Trump has taken it to a new universe..). Others have just toed the line to follow power. Who would want Trump to run their company or marry their sister, yet they rationalize it all now that he has power...

And does it even have to be said that at least groups within a country tend to have interests that are at least aligned with the country at a high level, while a country like Russia (a mafia-state by all accounts) can have interests that are opposed to the US, and so their meddling is a priori very suspicious.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doc75 on July 23, 2018, 01:23:47 PM
This is an article written by a conservative, but also a former federal prosecutor.  He walks through the verification process that the FBI  should have used to verify the Steele dossier.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/

Interesting read.  Seems opinions vary even among experts:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 23, 2018, 02:38:36 PM
This is an article written by a conservative, but also a former federal prosecutor.  He walks through the verification process that the FBI  should have used to verify the Steele dossier.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/

In the section "What "Verify" means", why didn't he provide the actual meaning of "verify", in context of FISC? McCarthy only provided a hypothetical example based on what the phrase "verified application" sounds like it should mean. I still read McCarthy but I've been disappointed that his work seems to be less precise/more biased lately.

Reading the below (and understanding I'm no specialized legal beagle), it looks like the FBI acted properly.

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/woods.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41
https://twitter.com/normative/status/1021442623599456256

This guy works at the Cato Institute, by the way.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 23, 2018, 03:20:57 PM
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trumps-mixed-messages-on-russian-meddling/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 23, 2018, 03:31:32 PM
Hi Schwab,

Here is another article published earlier this year in the Hill that expands on what McCarthy wrote.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 23, 2018, 03:48:21 PM
Hi Schwab,

Here is another article published earlier this year in the Hill that expands on what McCarthy wrote.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

I missed this write up, thanks. It's hard for me to interpret, but if past terrorist write-ups are any gauge I'm guessing the FBI has a lot of leeway to use credible hearsay. FBI was well-aware of the scrutiny they'd face so I'm guessing they were careful. I doubt they expected a FISA application to be released but I maintain my guess. I'm guessing we're in the same boat on what we'd like privacy to be but I highly doubt that is law. If the warrant isn't valid then Carter Page is safe. Stopping an investigation without a judge's opinion on the matter is also wrong, though.

To add, this is why I've mentioned the high stakes of this investigation. If there's issues with the process then Trump may be empowered to go after critics. If Trump is guilty, a lot of the country will feel lied to. This is oversimplified but we have big days ahead in many possible outcomes. I hope we become a less pessimistic nation no matter how it goes.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 23, 2018, 04:04:13 PM
April Doss, former head of intelligence law at NSA, former Senior Minority Counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation.

A thread:

https://twitter.com/AprilFDoss/status/1021205398349598722

Unrolled version:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1021205398349598722.html

Quote
So in an effort to help demystify things, here's a really high-level explainer that attempts to be both accurate and simple - not always easy with a law as complicated as FISA is. I'm not trying to address all the details, just offering a few hopefully-helpful thoughts. 3/

First, Title I only permits surveillance of a U.S. person when there's probable cause to believe that the person is an agent of a foreign power. What the FBI put together in its submission was proof of PC. Remember, PC is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 4/

It's not supposed to be. A FISA app doesn't have to meet the standard for criminal conviction. The app is just supposed to let an independent arbiter - a federal judge - decide whether there's enough evidence for a court order to allow the government to investigate further. 5/

And that's exactly what the 412 pages of these applications (initial and 3 renewals) did. They laid out a detailed case before a judge explaining why there was preliminary and ongoing cause to believe there was enough evidence for the government to continue investigating. 6/

The 4 FISA apps explained the sources of info & potential bias. And oh btw, anytime there's a witness, source, or CI in any kind of case, there's always a chance of bias. Because human nature. Judges, DoJ, FBI, IC are all well-versed in assessing whether bias affects reliability.

So the idea that DoJ, FBI, or FISC didn't know there could be bias in the info is factually inaccurate. And the idea they wouldn't've been able to assess the reliability of the info is: a) not true, and b) a red herring to detract from important facts showing probable cause. 8/

...

Anyone who's spinning this FISA story for partisan purposes is doing a disservice to our nation. The reason 4 judges signed off on the FISA apps? Because each one established a strong, detailed factual predicate that met the standard for probable cause.13/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 23, 2018, 04:08:59 PM
I'm offering this material not to claim that any individual committed an ethics violation but instead to show that the DOJ is clearly aware of the dangers inherent in creating the appearance of impropriety in an election.  This is taken from the DOJ  ethics handbook:

<snip>

MarkS,

How is this relevant?

As far as I know, FBI's Russia investigation wasn't publicly disclosed until after the election. The investigation didn't impact the election results. Perhaps I'm missing your point.


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 23, 2018, 04:59:30 PM
Hi Elig,

The purpose of the Page investigation, at least in part, was to protect our elections from alleged foreign interference and influence.  Ironically it also exposed our elections to claims that the FBI and DOJ engaged in political skullduggery on behalf of the Democrats.  Perceptions rightly or wrongly are extremely critical.  Historically it seems to me that our institutions have placed an emphasis on being extremely careful when placed in circumstances where allegations of political bias can be levied against them.  In an ordinary investigation i would agree with much of what you and others have said.  But this isn't an ordinary circumstance.  Nassim Tallib once wrote that the rules that apply for the majority of the bell curve don't apply to the fat tails.  I think this is a fat tail set of circumstances.  The FBI and DOJ  needed to be as pure as the driven snow in this case to avoid hurting - perhaps permanently - their reputations. I'm afraid that they did not act virginally.

I just realized that I never answered your question.   I  had the impression that people on this thread didn't believe that the "appearance of impropriety" was an actual thing. Hence the cite.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 23, 2018, 06:47:16 PM
Hi Elig,

The purpose of the Page investigation, at least in part, was to protect our elections from alleged foreign interference and influence.  Ironically it also exposed our elections to claims that the FBI and DOJ engaged in political skullduggery on behalf of the Democrats.  Perceptions rightly or wrongly are extremely critical.  Historically it seems to me that our institutions have placed an emphasis on being extremely careful when placed in circumstances where allegations of political bias can be levied against them.  In an ordinary investigation i would agree with much of what you and others have said.  But this isn't an ordinary circumstance.  Nassim Tallib once wrote that the rules that apply for the majority of the bell curve don't apply to the fat tails.  I think this is a fat tail set of circumstances.  The FBI and DOJ  needed to be as pure as the driven snow in this case to avoid hurting - perhaps permanently - their reputations. I'm afraid that they did not act virginally.

MarkS, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Re the bolded part: I am sorry, I don't buy these claims. They fail basic logic.

The claims appear to be that the FBI and DOJ started an unfair, politically motivated Russia investigation to benefit the Democrats. Yet, incredibly, they kept the investigation confidential until well after the election. How does this make any sense? If their goal was to tip the election, why didn't they explode the Russia bombshell before the Election day? You know, the same way they exploded the Weiner laptop bombshell three weeks before Nov 8. What kind of political bias is that?

For the record, I believe that Comey's refusal to prosecute Clinton for her email handling was politically motivated and wrong. In contrast, Russia investigation looks totally kosher to me.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 23, 2018, 06:53:02 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-hackers-reach-u-s-utility-control-rooms-homeland-security-officials-say-1532388110

Quote
Hackers working for Russia claimed “hundreds of victims” last year in a giant and long-running campaign that put them inside the control rooms of U.S. electric utilities where they could have caused blackouts, federal officials said. They said the campaign likely is continuing.

The Russian hackers, who worked for a shadowy state-sponsored group previously identified as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear, broke into supposedly secure, “air-gapped” or isolated networks owned by utilities with relative ease by first penetrating the networks of key vendors who had trusted relationships with the power companies, said officials at the Department of Homeland Security.

“They got to the point where they could have thrown switches” and disrupted power flows, said Jonathan Homer, chief of industrial-control-system analysis for DHS.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 23, 2018, 07:09:39 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/23/gregg-jarrett-comey-and-strzok-two-key-players-in-scheme-to-clear-clinton-and-frame-trump.html

"Just as Comey, Strzok, Page and company conspired to clear Hillary Clinton, they likewise concocted their “insurance policy,” a scam investigation of then-candidate Donald Trump.

Comey may not have remembered writing the words that should have indicted Clinton, but he had complete recall of his inability to read the law. He told the IG he thought “Congress intended for there to be some level of willfulness present even to prove a ‘gross negligence’ violation.” If Comey had ever read the legislative history, he would have known that in 1948, Congress amended the original Espionage Act of 1917 to add a “gross negligence” provision that did not require intent or willfulness.

Amnesia must be contagious at the FBI. Testifying before Congress, Strzok feigned no recollection of using his computer to make the critical alteration that cleared Clinton. He did, however, directly implicate the FBI director.

“Ultimately, he (Comey) made the decision to change that wording,” said Strzok.

But wait, how could Comey order a change in the words he doesn’t remember writing?  Their stories don’t jibe. At least one of them is lying."


Look, I can find articles that fit my agenda and post them too!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 23, 2018, 07:18:51 PM
Metadata shows that on June 6, the FBI’s lead investigator on the case, Peter Strzok, sat down at his office computer to cleanse his boss’s statement of the vexing term, “gross negligence.”  With the help of his paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the words “extremely careless” were substituted to make Clinton appear less criminally culpable. Page told the IG that “to use a term that actually has a legal definition would be confusing.”
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on July 23, 2018, 10:31:29 PM
In 2013 the FBI caught wind of a Russian spy ring attempting to recruit Carter Page. He had been on a watch list of thiers well before Trump even announced his candidacy. The FISA warrant is 400 pages of evidence justifying surveillance against him and most of it's redacted.

Many of you are focusing on whether or not some technicality in a warrant none of you (us) are qualified to understand really justified survailling Carter Page, while ignoring the fact that four Republican appointed judges who are completely qualified to make that call signed off on it.

How about focusing on the fact that our president chose a man to be a foreign policy advisor who the FBI suspected as acting as a hostile foreign agent?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 24, 2018, 05:08:24 AM
Hi Elig,

Again I agree with most of what you said.  But here is the argument that can now be leveled at the FBI and the DOJ

That they engaged in pure old fashioned political espionage for the Dems; and that the purpose was to dig up dirt on the opposition; and that the Obama administration for 8 years "weaponized" the agencies for political purposes; and that since the warrant was  granted by a secret court and full of classified material, and since Clinton was expected to win the election the spying would never be exposed.

I don't want to get into an argument over any of all of the particulars.  All I'm saying is that arguments can and will be made in one form or another for some time to come.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 24, 2018, 03:31:03 PM
MarkS,

Was reading this today and thought you might be interested. She details some problems around Carter Page that you were interested in.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/24/denial-and-deception-did-trump-really-hire-and-fire-the-russian-assets-on-his-campaign/


To add to you/EliG:
I'm completely speculating here but potentially one other issue with charging Clinton is that the government would have been forced to reevaluate decisions to prosecute/not-prosecute many high-ranking military officials for similar miscues. This would make Comey's comment "no reasonable prosecutor" make more sense. We are a common law legal system. Many "reasonable prosecutors" (from both parties, going back decades) have not prosecuted military officials for this type of offense. Again, just guessing and I haven't seen anyone write about this idea so maybe it's nonsense.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 24, 2018, 04:36:07 PM
Did she commit something criminal? Server + sale of Uranium One. If so prosecute her!

That is one thing that I don't like about Trump or this kind of "gentleman" agreement not to prosecute her to "help" democracy or the election process.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 24, 2018, 04:56:45 PM
Did she commit something criminal? Server + sale of Uranium One. If so prosecute her!

That is one thing that I don't like about Trump or this kind of "gentleman" agreement not to prosecute her to "help" democracy or the election process.

Cardboard

If there was cause, she would be/have been.

The Clinton Foundation is presently under investigation (allegedly) primarily due to Clinton Cash. No uproar about Injustice. Give up the full political tribe shtick. You're too smart for it. You know darn well from life experience that seemingly odd decisions to outsiders are often more complicated then they seem. Just like most of finance.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on July 24, 2018, 08:18:56 PM
Lol!

Can't be serious? Being a registered Democrat got to your head this bad?

A president goes from nearly broke to centi-millionaire in the span of 10 to 15 years giving conferences? Even Obama can't pull this off.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 25, 2018, 05:02:34 AM
Apparently the government won't be able to mention Russia or collusion in the Manafort trial.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-manaforts-virginia-trial-asks-prosecutors-avoid-mentioning/story?id=56793406

Btw  - thanks for the link Schwab
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 25, 2018, 11:55:24 AM
Richard Hurowitz in the Weekly Standard about NATO and Russia:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/richard-hurowitz/what-is-the-purpose-of-nato-keep-the-russians-out-the-americans-in-and-the-germans-down

Quote
Trump fails to see that a military alliance in which our former adversaries (and potential rivals) allowed the United States to become a hyperpower is a priceless strategic dream. [...] And now we have a president cheerfully invokes the isolationist slogan “America First” as he assaults the most important and effective military alliance in modern history.

NATO has served us well. It is, by any reckoning, a bargain: By any reasonable measure, the cost of war dwarfs all else. We gain far more than we spend on NATO by deterring potential adversaries and by not having to stand alone. The allies Trump derides serve side-by-side with our troops. Indeed, the only time in its history that NATO’s Article 5—the clause mandating mutual defense for members—has been invoked was for the defense of the United States after September 11. Statesmen from Churchill to Truman to Reagan have seen the wisdom and strategic value of the organization. Indeed, Churchill advised his protégé Ismay, “NATO provided the best, if not the only, hope of peace in our time.”

That is as true now as it was then. But now we have no Churchill. Only a pennywise and pound-foolish president who wants to undermine that best hope by rewarding our adversaries, punishing our allies and undermining our defenses.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 05:08:55 AM
Yeah!  NATO is a lean mean war making machine.  Here is a quote taken from the attached article:

Munich's Merkur newspaper joked grimly Monday that "the only threat that NATO poses to Russia right now is that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin might die laughing."


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/30/germany-unable-to-meet-nato-readiness-target.html
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 07:58:06 AM
Yeah!  NATO is a lean mean war making machine.  Here is a quote taken from the attached article:

Munich's Merkur newspaper joked grimly Monday that "the only threat that NATO poses to Russia right now is that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin might die laughing."


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/30/germany-unable-to-meet-nato-readiness-target.html

The US has the most powerful Army in the world by far, way better than Russia. The US army + NATO allies is even stronger, it's simple math. Russia hates NATO and has been trying to undermine it in every possible way forever, as has been obvious recently. NATO is very effective containment to an aggressive and corrupt regime and makes all these countries safer than they would be each alone.

Pretending that Putin isn't afraid of stepping on NATO's toes is just posturing, either to try to get more budget on one side, or to keep the strongman image on the other.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 08:21:27 AM
Liberty,

Your statement that the U.S. is stronger with NATO is factually correct but potentially misleading.  I've posted previously articles showing that EU NATO countries after decades of failing to support their militaries financially are poorly prepared to fight. Moreover if memory serves according to polls less than 20% of Germans would actually fight for their country.  So the question becomes - is extra strength worth the money we spend.  I saw the argument you posted earlier.  That argument reminds me of the left styling wanton social spending as "investments." The argument that you posted seemed like it would approve of any amount of U.S. Spending on NATO for even the most minimal return.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 08:47:22 AM
Liberty,

Your statement that the U.S. is stronger with NATO is factually correct but potentially misleading.  I've posted previously articles showing that EU NATO countries after decades of failing to support their militaries financially are poorly prepared to fight. Moreover if memory serves according to polls less than 20% of Germans would actually fight for their country.  So the question becomes - is extra strength worth the money we spend.  I saw the argument you posted earlier.  That argument reminds me of the left styling wanton social spending as "investments." The argument that you posted seemed like it would approve of any amount of U.S. Spending on NATO for even the most minimal return.

The only time that the NATO collective defense clause was invoked (article 5) was by the US, and the other countries sent soldiers to die alongside US soldiers, and by the accounts that I've seen they did well there.

The US military has lots of problems too, and you could paint a certain portrait if you wanted to focus on those. I was recently reading a biography of John Boyd that showed just how dysfunctional the pentagon weapon procurement and design process is and how much incredible waste there is on high tech crap that doesn't work (F35 anyone?), etc. You can find these stories about every army in the world, I bet. But in the end, the NATO armies are still a lot of the most powerful armies in the world backed by the strongest economies and in a real war situation where Europe or the US is threatened, whatever surveys you're doing in peacetime won't matter, as history has shown.

I'm not the one that's in favor of throwing money at the problems, btw, that's Trump's approach with his "we won't defend you if we don't feel you've paid enough" spiel.. And yes, the US investments in NATO (which aren't as high as Trump pretends) seem to have been incredibly successful, since it's highly pro-stability and war is a lot more costly than peace (how much has been spent on Afghanistan and Iraq?). If there are problems, they should be identified and fixed, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 09:04:26 AM
I agree that identifying the problem and fixing it is a fine solution.  The EU military needs to devote a lot more of their budgets to increase their defense capabilities. They haven't been spending enough for decades and it shows.  It seems to me that Trump is trying to fix this decades old problem and not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 09:30:32 AM
I agree that identifying the problem and fixing it is a fine solution.  The EU military needs to devote a lot more of their budgets to increase their defense capabilities. They haven't been spending enough for decades and it shows.  It seems to me that Trump is trying to fix this decades old problem and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

If that's what he's trying to do, he's doing it incredibly badly, and is instead weakening NATO, rather than strengthening it, by putting its very existence in question and raising doubts that the US would honor its treaty commitments if push came to shove, as well as by defending Russia after Russia attacked the US. I'd give a normal US president the benefit of the doubt, but he's been acting so weird with everything Russia-related that it's hard not to see it as part of a pattern.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 09:43:11 AM
How is he doing it badly?  I realize that he has publicly trashed them.  But in all fairness numerous President have diplomatically engage with them over the decades with little to nothing to show for it. If you have a great idea concerning how to get them to pay more toward defense, I would love to hear it. I would also love to know why it hasn't been used by previous administrations. I'm really not trying to give you a hard time. I really would love to have answers that I could wrap my head around.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 09:54:47 AM
How is he doing it badly?  I realize that he has publicly trashed them.  But in all fairness numerous President have diplomatically engage with them over the decades with little to nothing to show for it. If you have a great idea concerning how to get them to pay more toward defense, I would love to hear it. I would also love to know why it hasn't been used by previous administrations. I'm really not trying to give you a hard time. I really would love to have answers that I could wrap my head around.

That's like saying "sure he set the house on fire, but others haven't made much progress before". I don't see how it helps.

NATO had already agreed to increase spending significantly by 2024 (from memory), and the recent headlines were just talk, I don't think anything much has come of it, and knowing Trump, there won't be much follow through (the headlines is all he cares about, then on to the next thing).

And weren't you the one who was saying that throwing money at a problem not being enough? NATO having more tanks and planes isn't really going to change much, what matters is that the alliance seems credible and unified to Russia as a deterrent. If Russia thinks NATO won't come to the help of smaller countries in the periphery and that the member countries are in-fighting, it'll feel emboldened to keep being aggressive, and new countries that considered joining might think twice and fall to Russian pressure to keep them out (they use a lot of dirty tricks, including assassinations and psyops/election-meddling)... If it gets to al all-out war against russia, it'll be about nukes, not about tanks.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 10:01:00 AM
If I understand you correctly, you are a proponent of not making waves.  I disagree but that's okay.
Thanks
Mark
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 10:14:27 AM
If I understand you correctly, you are a proponent of not making waves.  I disagree but that's okay.
Thanks
Mark

You don't. It's not my job to make recommendations to NATO, so I don't have a fat dossier to slap on your desk and say "here's my plan".

But for the same reason that I can tell if a movie sucks even though I've never directed a movie, I can know that Trump's actions have weakened NATO (some in his party even called his Helsinki subordination to Putin treasonous, so I'm not exactly an outlier here) without being in the business of telling you exactly what should be done instead. NATO has been the most successful military alliance in history so far, so it's not exactly like the house was on fire and needed to be put out before Trump generated a crisis, though.

But let me invert: What's your plan? What do you think should be done with NATO? If you claim that I should have a plan, shouldn't you have one too? I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 10:29:17 AM
Mike Pompeo squirming before Congress to explain what US policy is on Russia when Trump says the opposite or both things in alternance, and whether allies should listen to what Trump says and take it as policy or not...

https://overcast.fm/+LHyfFtyCU
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 11:07:33 AM
I stand corrected. Your job apparently is to resist Trunp.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 11:09:50 AM
I'll take that back willingly.  It added nothing to the conversation. Sorry.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 26, 2018, 11:10:47 AM
I stand corrected. Your job apparently is to resist Trunp.

LOL valiant effort trying to being rational with these guys. You hung in there for quite a while. Nevertheless you hit the same wall everyone else does eventually. All this sort of behavior comes down to is that they hate Trump. The "issues" are just the veil they hide behind.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 11:15:13 AM
I stand corrected. Your job apparently is to resist Trunp.

You should get my invoice in 2 to 4 business days.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 11:22:07 AM
I stand corrected. Your job apparently is to resist Trunp.

LOL valiant effort trying to being rational with these guys. You hung in there for quite a while. Nevertheless you hit the same wall everyone else does eventually. All this sort of behavior comes down to is that they hate Trump. The "issues" are just the veil they hide behind.

Is your definition of "rational" like Trump's? In that case, yes, you are very rational.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 26, 2018, 11:29:07 AM
I stand corrected. Your job apparently is to resist Trunp.

LOL valiant effort trying to being rational with these guys. You hung in there for quite a while. Nevertheless you hit the same wall everyone else does eventually. All this sort of behavior comes down to is that they hate Trump. The "issues" are just the veil they hide behind.

Is your definition of "rational" like Trump's? In that case, yes, you are very rational.

So I commend Mark for engaging "rationally", which for the most part he has, and your response is a backhanded insult to him? Sheesh, this must really be personal for you. I'm not really quite sure why though.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 11:29:38 AM
Well at least Canada is acting "rational."  They're going to house illegal immigrants in hotel rooms. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4350166/asylum-border-crossers-immigration-meeting-tempers-hotels/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 12:01:33 PM
So I commend Mark for engaging "rationally", which for the most part he has, and your response is a backhanded insult to him? Sheesh, this must really be personal for you. I'm not really quite sure why though.

No, I was talking about you. Your post was very Trumpian, just declaring victory despite not really having made convincing arguments. I mean, Marks is basically arguing that Trump strengthened NATO, and I haven't really heard how he did that other than "he might have pushed them to spend a bit more" (which remains to be seen) while the whole point of the alliance is to show a united all-for-one front to russia, and Trump created disunity and publicly questioned the very existence of the alliance and put into doubt whether the US would respond to an article 5 request and attacked allies in public while right after that praised Russia and didn't even confront it about any of its recent aggressions...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 12:02:27 PM
Well at least Canada is acting "rational."  They're going to house illegal immigrants in hotel rooms. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4350166/asylum-border-crossers-immigration-meeting-tempers-hotels/

What does this have to do with the situation with Russia?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 12:03:47 PM
Nothing. Just trying to add a touch of levity.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 26, 2018, 12:11:46 PM
So I commend Mark for engaging "rationally", which for the most part he has, and your response is a backhanded insult to him? Sheesh, this must really be personal for you. I'm not really quite sure why though.

No, I was talking about you. Your post was very Trumpian, just declaring victory despite not really having made convincing arguments. I mean, Marks is basically arguing that Trump strengthened NATO, and I haven't really heard how he did that other than "he might have pushed them to spend a bit more" (which remains to be seen) while the whole point of the alliance is to show a united all-for-one front to russia, and Trump created disunity and publicly questioned the very existence of the alliance and put into doubt whether the US would respond to an article 5 request and attacked allies in public while right after that praised Russia and didn't even confront it about any of its recent aggressions...

I said "valiant effort being rational" in regards to Mark's effort. You in turn say something along the lines of "your definition of rational must be Trump's". Rational again, being used to describe Mark's behavior and Trump, obviously in context coming from someone with your hostilities, having a negative connotation. So I'm not sure I see how this isn't taking a backhanded shot at Mark, as you are essentially saying his behavior is rational if one is using a negative definition of the word rational. At least own up!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 12:37:58 PM
So I commend Mark for engaging "rationally", which for the most part he has, and your response is a backhanded insult to him? Sheesh, this must really be personal for you. I'm not really quite sure why though.

No, I was talking about you. Your post was very Trumpian, just declaring victory despite not really having made convincing arguments. I mean, Marks is basically arguing that Trump strengthened NATO, and I haven't really heard how he did that other than "he might have pushed them to spend a bit more" (which remains to be seen) while the whole point of the alliance is to show a united all-for-one front to russia, and Trump created disunity and publicly questioned the very existence of the alliance and put into doubt whether the US would respond to an article 5 request and attacked allies in public while right after that praised Russia and didn't even confront it about any of its recent aggressions...

I said "valiant effort being rational" in regards to Mark's effort. You in turn say something along the lines of "your definition of rational must be Trump's". Rational again, being used to describe Mark's behavior and Trump, obviously in context coming from someone with your hostilities, having a negative connotation. So I'm not sure I see how this isn't taking a backhanded shot at Mark, as you are essentially saying his behavior is rational if one is using a negative definition of the word rational. At least own up!

Everything has to be explained to the last detail with you, eh?

You conveniently forgot to mention this part of your post in the recap above, which is what I was alluding to:

"Nevertheless you hit the same wall everyone else does eventually. All this sort of behavior comes down to is that they hate Trump. The "issues" are just the veil they hide behind."

Saying that he's being rational but I'm not because I'm just totally blinded by hate and pretend to care about issues as a vehicle to just be some totally irrational hateful angry hothead or whatever you implied...

Hence my reference to Trump's definition of rational, which is basically just a disregard for fact and for just trying to sell whatever version of reality that he'd like to see, regardless of what actually happened.

You do know that it can be rational to dislike someone, right? They can be doing things that are worthy of scorn, that are against values you hold dear, hurting others, etc? It's irrational if you start with a dislike based on nothing and then rationalize it regardless of facts, but it's rational if you look at the facts and then decide that you really don't like this person because of the facts. I wasn't pre-disposed to dislike Trump not that long ago, I knew very little about him. In fact, for a while I kind of believed the Scott Adams theory that he was just playing a role and he was a salesman but he would pivot or listen to experts or go so far in one direction just to be able to change the whole narrative back to the center without being attacked from his right, etc. But that was all just speculative at the time, and now the facts have shown that it turned out to be BS.

Another example: the more I learn about Putin, the more I dislike him. Is what I'm saying about Putin now invalid because I really dislike him? You're trying to create a Catch 22, but it's just a rhetorical trick, it doesn't make sense.

Here's Condi Rice on Putin:

https://twitter.com/wandaransom/status/1022580256014651392
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 26, 2018, 12:50:32 PM
I do have one thing to push the NATO issue along.  I've seen various forms of Liberty's comment:


"NATO had already agreed to increase spending significantly by 2024 (from memory), and the recent headlines were just talk, I don't think anything much has come of it, and knowing Trump, there won't be much follow through (the headlines is all he cares about, then on to the next thing)."

 (I know you're writing from memory. And I assure you that this is not a pot shot.  I'm just too lazy to dig up other examples.)

Although some EU countries have "agreed" to increase the amount they spend to 2% by 2024 (after Trump is gone from office) 13 of the 28 countries in NATO haven't even given lip service to an increase. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/14/whats-the-united-states-biggest-priority-for-the-nato-summit/


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on July 26, 2018, 03:28:05 PM
Yeah!  NATO is a lean mean war making machine.  Here is a quote taken from the attached article:

Munich's Merkur newspaper joked grimly Monday that "the only threat that NATO poses to Russia right now is that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin might die laughing."


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/30/germany-unable-to-meet-nato-readiness-target.html

There is some truth in it tand has been reported by other German media outlets (Deutsche Welle) that Part of the German army can’t operate. This is as much a leadership problem than a financial problem, the German defense minister has failed at anything else but avoid getting fired (like the two individuals who help the office before here). Sur there is a funding issue, but I th8ink it’s as much of a leadership issue and it is something that Merkel has ignored so far. FWIW, ther are funding increases for the Bundeswehr in the works (10%), but the leadership issue cannot besolved with money alone.

I don’t think the French or British army has the same issue though and as far as I know, thr German army has been able to manage all their agreed upon task (like with this ugly covert war in Mali) so far.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 03:53:47 PM
I do have one thing to push the NATO issue along.  I've seen various forms of Liberty's comment:


"NATO had already agreed to increase spending significantly by 2024 (from memory), and the recent headlines were just talk, I don't think anything much has come of it, and knowing Trump, there won't be much follow through (the headlines is all he cares about, then on to the next thing)."

 (I know you're writing from memory. And I assure you that this is not a pot shot.  I'm just too lazy to dig up other examples.)

Although some EU countries have "agreed" to increase the amount they spend to 2% by 2024 (after Trump is gone from office) 13 of the 28 countries in NATO haven't even given lip service to an increase. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/14/whats-the-united-states-biggest-priority-for-the-nato-summit/

That's still better than actively undermining the alliance and cozying up to the despot that just attacked your country and others.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 26, 2018, 07:02:37 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/cohen-claims-trump-knew-of-meeting-with-russia-before-it-happened.html

Quote
U.S. President Donald Trump's former attorney asserts that the president knew about a 2016 meeting between Russians and his campaign staffers in Trump Tower before it happened, according to NBC News.

Citing a knowledgeable source, NBC reported that the attorney, Michael Cohen, says that President Trump was told in advance of the meeting by his son, Don Jr.

Cohen is willing to make that assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller, NBC said.

The news that Cohen is willing to cooperate with Trump's most significant current threat — the Mueller investigation — underscores the fact that the president and his former personal lawyer and longtime fixer are now in open warfare.

Followed by this classic Guliani (aka Lionel Hutz) line:

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1022662984676597762

"“He has lied all his life… a person who is found to be an incredible liar, he’s got a tremendous motive to lie now… I don’t think anyone believes that.” Rudy Giuliani dismisses report Michael Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting"

Who was he lying for, I wonder? And who would hire such a person..?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on July 26, 2018, 07:55:47 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/cohen-claims-trump-knew-of-meeting-with-russia-before-it-happened.html

Quote
U.S. President Donald Trump's former attorney asserts that the president knew about a 2016 meeting between Russians and his campaign staffers in Trump Tower before it happened, according to NBC News.

Citing a knowledgeable source, NBC reported that the attorney, Michael Cohen, says that President Trump was told in advance of the meeting by his son, Don Jr.

Cohen is willing to make that assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller, NBC said.

The news that Cohen is willing to cooperate with Trump's most significant current threat — the Mueller investigation — underscores the fact that the president and his former personal lawyer and longtime fixer are now in open warfare.

Followed by this classic Guliani (aka Lionel Hutz) line:

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1022662984676597762

"“He has lied all his life… a person who is found to be an incredible liar, he’s got a tremendous motive to lie now… I don’t think anyone believes that.” Rudy Giuliani dismisses report Michael Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting"

Who was he lying for, I wonder? And who would hire such a person..?

His people skills are amazing - Sam Nunberg , John McEntee, Scaramuchi etc.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on July 26, 2018, 08:25:04 PM
...
I wasn't pre-disposed to dislike Trump not that long ago, I knew very little about him. In fact, for a while I kind of believed the Scott Adams theory that he was just playing a role and he was a salesman but he would pivot or listen to experts or go so far in one direction just to be able to change the whole narrative back to the center without being attacked from his right, etc. But that was all just speculative at the time, and now the facts have shown that it turned out to be BS.
...

This describes me as well. After the election I remember reading Trump's "Contract with America" and I was intrigued and in favor of much of it, and I also thought Scott Adams' theory had the possibility of being true. I didn't really think the Russian rumors were anything more than just rumors. But... where there's smoke, there's fire - there is smoke BILLOWING out of the White House. We may now be around the corner from a "smoking gun" but regardless -- his own son tweeted out evidence of collusion. Trump says he didn't know? He lies about everything. Why in God's name would you believe him? That's just willfully pulling the wool over your eyes...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 27, 2018, 05:05:40 AM
Quote from attached article:

 "The FBI based a substantial part of its warrant application on Steele's work. Steele had a strong and clear anti-Trump bias. The FBI knew about it. The bureau should have informed the court. And it did not."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/why-didnt-fbi-tell-court-about-christopher-steele-bias
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 27, 2018, 05:24:14 AM
...
I wasn't pre-disposed to dislike Trump not that long ago, I knew very little about him. In fact, for a while I kind of believed the Scott Adams theory that he was just playing a role and he was a salesman but he would pivot or listen to experts or go so far in one direction just to be able to change the whole narrative back to the center without being attacked from his right, etc. But that was all just speculative at the time, and now the facts have shown that it turned out to be BS.
...

This describes me as well. After the election I remember reading Trump's "Contract with America" and I was intrigued and in favor of much of it, and I also thought Scott Adams' theory had the possibility of being true. I didn't really think the Russian rumors were anything more than just rumors. But... where there's smoke, there's fire - there is smoke BILLOWING out of the White House. We may now be around the corner from a "smoking gun" but regardless -- his own son tweeted out evidence of collusion. Trump says he didn't know? He lies about everything. Why in God's name would you believe him? That's just willfully pulling the wool over your eyes...

Josh Wolfe mentioned that he'd guess there's a good chance that what Russia has is something on one or both of Trump's sons. Wouldn't surprise me, they seem to be dumb as bricks. There could easily have been a recording of their meeting with the Russia agents, and if they offered them things they shouldn't have and they reacted positively (or maybe said things for their father or what their father knew or thought of certain things) it could be pretty damaging. Time will likely reveal all..
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 27, 2018, 05:39:57 AM
Quote from attached article:

 "The FBI based a substantial part of its warrant application on Steele's work. Steele had a strong and clear anti-Trump bias. The FBI knew about it. The bureau should have informed the court. And it did not."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/why-didnt-fbi-tell-court-about-christopher-steele-bias

MarkS,

You are quoting Byron York. He is not an independent FISA expert. York is a conservative opinion writer and a reliable GOP partisan. Quoting him is like quoting Nunes. He doesn't provide an independent validation of Nunes' claim.

Every FISA expert I read said that Page application was fine. Republican Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee concurs:

Burr breaks with Nunes: 'Sound reasons' for judges to approve FISA warrant
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/richard-burr-devin-nunes-sound-reasons-for-judges-to-approve-fisa-warrant/index.html

Quote:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R) told CNN Tuesday he believed there were "sound reasons" for judges to approve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, in yet another break between the Republican leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

"I don't think I ever expressed that I thought the FISA application came up short," Burr said when asked about House Republican memo alleging FBI and Justice Department abuses of the FISA process. "There (were) sound reasons as to why judges issued the FISA."

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 27, 2018, 06:33:30 AM
Hi Elig,

Just because he is a conservative doesn't mean that he doesn't have valid point. From his artic!e:

"The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele's credibility," former Justice Department official David Kris wrote on Lawfare. "The footnote disclosing Steele's possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA court could have missed it."

But the footnote did not, in fact, disclose Steele's possible bias. It disclosed Simpson's possible bias. The FBI's disclosure of bias — "The FBI speculates" — referred specifically to the "identified U.S. person" who might have wanted to discredit the Trump campaign. That was Simpson, not Steele. ..........

It is generally accepted that evidence of a source's bias, including the source's own acknowledgment of it, should be disclosed in warrant applications that are predicated on that source. The FBI simply did not do that in Steele's case.


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 27, 2018, 06:57:14 AM
4.1 GDP growth sure gives Trump a lot to talk about besides answering questions about Russia, porn stars......
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 27, 2018, 07:00:49 AM
4.1 GDP growth sure gives Trump a lot to talk about besides answering questions about Russia, porn stars......

Eli and Liberty will surely have a negative spin for this. Count on it
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 27, 2018, 09:35:56 AM
4.1 GDP growth sure gives Trump a lot to talk about besides answering questions about Russia, porn stars......

Eli and Liberty will surely have a negative spin for this. Count on it

You guys are funny. What does one have to do with the other? Is it the goldfish syndrome, can't hold more than one thing in your head at once?

Oh, Harvey Weinstein raped women, but hey, he made some pretty good movies that made lots of money, so who cares about the raping, right? Bill Cosby was just so funny and made a good show! Have you no morals or common sense, or are you so wrapped up in rigid ideology that everything you see has to be twisted in some way to support your tribe?

The economy got better for the 8 years of Obama's presidency and the stock market went way up, but you were probably too busy during that time saying that presidents don't control the economy to notice. Know the last time GDP did 4.1%? Back when Obama was president, 4 years ago. So what?

If Trump and his entourage did bad things, a strong economy doesn't make them not guilty, just like if the economy was going in the tank, that wouldn't make them more guilty.  ::)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on July 27, 2018, 01:08:50 PM
4.1 GDP growth sure gives Trump a lot to talk about besides answering questions about Russia, porn stars......

Eli and Liberty will surely have a negative spin for this. Count on it

You guys are funny. What does one have to do with the other? Is it the goldfish syndrome, can't hold more than one thing in your head at once?

Oh, Harvey Weinstein raped women, but hey, he made some pretty good movies that made lots of money, so who cares about the raping, right? Bill Cosby was just so funny and made a good show! Have you no morals or common sense, or are you so wrapped up in rigid ideology that everything you see has to be twisted in some way to support your tribe?

The economy got better for the 8 years of Obama's presidency and the stock market went way up, but you were probably too busy during that time saying that presidents don't control the economy to notice. Know the last time GDP did 4.1%? Back when Obama was president, 4 years ago. So what?

If Trump and his entourage did bad things, a strong economy doesn't make them not guilty, just like if the economy was going in the tank, that wouldn't make them more guilty.  ::)

You're the only one who seems to keep whining about his character. No one else is even talking about it or debating that he's probably not the most morally put together dude in the US. It's just quite funny how you and a few others use whatever personal feelings you have for the guy to continuously whine about even the positive things that are getting done while he is president. It seems to be an unhealthy obsession for you.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 27, 2018, 04:04:20 PM
You're the only one who seems to keep whining about his character. No one else is even talking about it or debating that he's probably not the most morally put together dude in the US. It's just quite funny how you and a few others use whatever personal feelings you have for the guy to continuously whine about even the positive things that are getting done while he is president. It seems to be an unhealthy obsession for you.

First let me point out that as usual you don't address any of my points but just reboot the conversation on a new tangent.

1) Whether I'm the only one or there's a billion people, what does it change on the validity of the points made? Unless you outsource all your thinking to others and just follow the herd, it shouldn't matter how many people agree with you. In this case though, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one ( :P ).

2) Are you saying that things like moral character, integrity, honesty, empathy, competence, following the law, ethics, curiosity, avoiding conflicts of interest, standing up to tyrants, not cheating on your wives, not raping women etc, don't matter? It says more about you than it says about Trump or me, frankly.

3) It matters in the Russia investigation what he did, and what he did or didn't do (and is still doing, like in Helsinki) is all coming from who he is as a person, so it's very relevant.

I mean, if you're going to be a blind supporter of the guy like you are, I understand why you'd want to sweep these things under the rug and pretend they don't matter, but come on. They do. Nothing's more important. If you don't take it from me, take it from Buffett and Munger who rank integrity as the #1 thing they look for without which all other qualities are meaningless (and actually get you into more trouble).
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 28, 2018, 10:02:49 AM
Doughishere

Yes. The same trial that the government apparently can't mention Russia or collusion.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-manaforts-virginia-trial-asks-prosecutors-avoid-mentioning/story?id=56793406
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on July 28, 2018, 10:37:57 AM
4.1 GDP growth sure gives Trump a lot to talk about besides answering questions about Russia, porn stars......

Eli and Liberty will surely have a negative spin for this. Count on it

You called?

4.1% is a good quarter. No spin.

Just for perspective, here are Obama's four best quarters:

5.1% Q2 2014
4.9% Q3 2014
4.7% Q4 2011
4.5% Q4 2009

Trump's 4.1% ranks as Obama's 5th best quarter. Why would you want to gloat about that?

BTW, Q2 GDP got a one-time boost from soybean exports. Soybean exports surged in Q2 because Chinese buyers rushed their orders to front-run retaliatory import tariffs. Soybean exports boosted Q2 GDP by about 0.5%. That performance won't repeat in Q3. Soybean exports are coming back to earth in Q3, now that Chinese tariffs are in place. Again, this is not a negative spin. Just some color on the headline number that you won't hear on Fox News.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 28, 2018, 11:00:47 AM
How many weird things wrt Russia can these guys line up in a row?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/mnuchin-russia-sanctions-rusal/index.html

Quote
The Trump administration is looking into lifting sanctions against a major Russian aluminum company founded by one of Vladimir Putin's closest allies.

The Treasury Department is considering relieving Rusal of penalties even though its former owner, oligarch Oleg Deripaska, was sanctioned this year by the US in an attempt to punish the Kremlin for interfering in the 2016 US presidential election. [...]

The Treasury said Deripaska had been accused of bribery, extortion, racketeering, ordering the murder of a rival businessman and having links to organized crime.

Meawhile:

Quote
This is an aluminum company founded by one of Putin's closest allies. For some reason we are trying to keep out aluminum from our friends in Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. for “national security” reasons, but contemplating reversing sanctions on aluminum from a Putin-linked company

https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1023181015542583296

Quote
“Tough on Russia”. Trump and his admin keep subverting the deterrent goal of sanctions by hinting at lifting them and by elevating Putin instead of isolating him.

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1023220192892137472

Clearly the only reason why Trump hasn't lifted the sanctions or weakened the magnitsky  act is because congress voted to prevent it...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 28, 2018, 03:19:45 PM
By the way, there's something that I want to point out that to me almost goes without saying, but I want to spell it out just in case: When I'm talking about "Russia", in context I usually mean the government and/or the oligarchs, basically the mafia-like structure in charge.

Whatever they do outside the borders, their biggest victims are, as usual with tyrants, the citizens of the country themselves.

I don't hold all Russian people responsible for what Putin does anymore than most North Koreans for their regime. It's them that have to live in a corrupt system without rule of law, with fewer liberties and opportunities, with relatives being tortured or rotting in prison for no good reason, and with an economy that isn't designed for them to benefit anymore than they have to to keep relative stability, with oligarchs and Putin stealing hundreds of billions from the country and keeping an iron grip on all the levers of power for as long as they can... Being against Putin and his thugs is being pro-Russian people.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 29, 2018, 04:52:13 AM
How many weird things wrt Russia can these guys line up in a row? ...

... Clearly the only reason why Trump hasn't lifted the sanctions or weakened the magnitsky  act is because congress voted to prevent it...

By the way, there's something that I want to point out that to me almost goes without saying, but I want to spell it out just in case: When I'm talking about "Russia", in context I usually mean the government and/or the oligarchs, basically the mafia-like structure in charge.

Whatever they do outside the borders, their biggest victims are, as usual with tyrants, the citizens of the country themselves.

I don't hold all Russian people responsible for what Putin does anymore than most North Koreans for their regime. It's them that have to live in a corrupt system without rule of law, with fewer liberties and opportunities, with relatives being tortured or rotting in prison for no good reason, and with an economy that isn't designed for them to benefit anymore than they have to to keep relative stability, with oligarchs and Putin stealing hundreds of billions from the country and keeping an iron grip on all the levers of power for as long as they can... Being against Putin and his thugs is being pro-Russian people.

Somehow, you delivered the answer to your question yourself, Liberty,

UC Rusal is today an aluminium producer & supplier with international activities and footprint, world's second largest aluminium producer, actually, based out of Jersey. It's listed in Moscow, Hong Kong and Paris. Glencore owns 8.75 percent of it.

Messing around with it and trying to take it hostage by imposing sanctions on it because you don't like its major and controlling shareholder for whatever reason actually is incredibly stupid, because what you are doing by this is that you indeed try to tamper with the global aluminium market for political reasons. It gets even more stupid, if you on top of that add the US aluminium tariffs. Another effect from trying to take down the whole company by imposing sanctions on it is also that a lot of Russian aluminium workers might end in unemployment & dire straits related to that.

Please take a look at UC Rusal 2018Q1 Financials (https://rusal.ru/upload/iblock/d0a/UC%20RUSAL_1Q2018_FINAL_signed.pdf), p. 11 - 12 [organisation and description of OFAC sanctions] and p. 22, lower part [geographical distribution of total turnover].

Furthermore, this is actually  kind of old news (https://meduza.io/en/news/2018/06/15/oleg-deripaska-s-basic-element-conglomerate-now-has-a-former-spook-as-ceo) [please see lower part in linked article].

So the US knew that this most likely was a no-go for the above stated reasons, and despite that proceeded with it, which just makes it even more head shaking.

It's like what has been discussed about Russian oil and Russian NLG to Europe earlier in this forum. Everything gets screwed up, when hypocrisy and geopolitics enters the business stage.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 29, 2018, 05:13:49 AM
How many weird things wrt Russia can these guys line up in a row? ...

... Clearly the only reason why Trump hasn't lifted the sanctions or weakened the magnitsky  act is because congress voted to prevent it...

By the way, there's something that I want to point out that to me almost goes without saying, but I want to spell it out just in case: When I'm talking about "Russia", in context I usually mean the government and/or the oligarchs, basically the mafia-like structure in charge.

Whatever they do outside the borders, their biggest victims are, as usual with tyrants, the citizens of the country themselves.

I don't hold all Russian people responsible for what Putin does anymore than most North Koreans for their regime. It's them that have to live in a corrupt system without rule of law, with fewer liberties and opportunities, with relatives being tortured or rotting in prison for no good reason, and with an economy that isn't designed for them to benefit anymore than they have to to keep relative stability, with oligarchs and Putin stealing hundreds of billions from the country and keeping an iron grip on all the levers of power for as long as they can... Being against Putin and his thugs is being pro-Russian people.

Somehow, you delivered the answer to your question yourself, Liberty,

UC Rusal is today an aluminium producer & supplier with international activities and footprint, world's second largest aluminium producer, actually, based out of Jersey. It's listed in Moscow, Hong Kong and Paris. Glencore owns 8.75 percent of it.

Messing around with it and trying to take it hostage by imposing sanctions on it because you don't like its major and controlling shareholder for whatever reason actually is incredibly stupid, because what you are doing by this is that you indeed try to tamper with the global aluminium market for political reasons. It gets even more stupid, if you on top of that add the US aluminium tariffs. Another effect from trying to take down the whole company by imposing sanctions on it is also that a lot of Russian aluminium workers might end in unemployment & dire straits related to that.

Please take a look at UC Rusal 2018Q1 Financials (https://rusal.ru/upload/iblock/d0a/UC%20RUSAL_1Q2018_FINAL_signed.pdf), p. 11 - 12 [organisation and description of OFAC sanctions] and p. 22, lower part [geographical distribution of total turnover].

Furthermore, this is actually  kind of old news (https://meduza.io/en/news/2018/06/15/oleg-deripaska-s-basic-element-conglomerate-now-has-a-former-spook-as-ceo) [please see lower part in linked article].

So the US knew that this most likely was a no-go for the above stated reasons, and despite that proceeded with it, which just makes it even more head shaking.

It's like what has been discussed about Russian oil and Russian NLG to Europe earlier in this forum. Everything gets screwed up, when hypocrisy and geopolitics enters the business stage.

So you think they're lifting sanctions on this one company for humanitarian reasons - nothing to do with the oligarch - and keeping tariffs on similar companies in allied countries as well as adding billions more in tariffs elsewhere for national security reasons.

Your argument could be used to justify never imposing any sanctions on anyone regardless of what they've done. Of course all these billionaire thugs employ countless people in their large companies, with international links, and sanctioning them will hurt some regular people and affect interconnected markets. Same for sanctions against Iran or North Korea, they affect lots of other people there too. That's what these thugs do, they hold their countries hostage by controlling everything and having gigantic amount of wealth flow through them.

Personally I'm more in favor of the Magnintsky approach of freezing their assets and keeping them from spending, but since we can't do the same targeted approach inside russia, blunter approaches are all that's left, like targeting companies they control. Ideally they'd get fair trials for their crimes (corruption, murder, theft -- it's not like that stuff is legal), but that doesn't look to be happening as long as Putin's in power.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on July 29, 2018, 05:21:22 AM
Here is a relevant comment actually made by Mnuchin:

"We were going to enforce the Russia sanctions," said Mnuchin not put Rusal out of business. "The objective was to impact the oligarchs, not to impact the hardworking people of Rusal as a result of the sanctions."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on July 29, 2018, 05:50:57 AM
Here is a relevant comment actually made by Mnuchin:

"We were going to enforce the Russia sanctions," said Mnuchin not put Rusal out of business. "The objective was to impact the oligarchs, not to impact the hardworking people of Rusal as a result of the sanctions."

How about replacing this sanction with an equal sanction on another holding of this same oligarch, then?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 30, 2018, 06:12:27 PM
Giuliani gonna Giuliani. Source: Fox News

https://twitter.com/aidnmclaughlin/status/1023974964200914944

You're way behind in class!  Try to keep up!  From November 2017:
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/shame-on-you-dershowitz-fights-back-after-being-attacked-for-saying-collusion-not-a-crime/

You're jeopardizing your grade and credit in my class!  Keep up with your homework!  Identify your thinking fallacy (from your own Border Patrol Detention Centers topic) in order to be readmitted to school:

. . . just giving you another chance to check your and Hairtrigger Liberty's understanding of the Wikipedia article you cited in my Poll about Trade/Tariffs!  You were bluffing then!  See if you can identify which fallacy you guys are using:

Quote
It's BS-detecting time

No it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on July 30, 2018, 09:30:15 PM
You're way behind in class!  Try to keep up!  From November 2017:
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/shame-on-you-dershowitz-fights-back-after-being-attacked-for-saying-collusion-not-a-crime/

QUIGLEY: And can you explain and elaborate how this sort of -- problems with defining what collusion is -- the differences that might be involved with explicit or implicit collusion?

COMEY: Collusion is not a term, a legal term of art and it's one I haven't used here today, as we're investigating to see whether there was any coordination between people associated with the campaign...

A collusion investigation only exists in Trump's head. MSM is biased towards Trump and repeats it. This has always been a coordination investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/?noredirect=on
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: John Hjorth on July 31, 2018, 03:41:26 PM
How many weird things wrt Russia can these guys line up in a row? ...

... Clearly the only reason why Trump hasn't lifted the sanctions or weakened the magnitsky  act is because congress voted to prevent it...

By the way, there's something that I want to point out that to me almost goes without saying, but I want to spell it out just in case: When I'm talking about "Russia", in context I usually mean the government and/or the oligarchs, basically the mafia-like structure in charge.

Whatever they do outside the borders, their biggest victims are, as usual with tyrants, the citizens of the country themselves.

I don't hold all Russian people responsible for what Putin does anymore than most North Koreans for their regime. It's them that have to live in a corrupt system without rule of law, with fewer liberties and opportunities, with relatives being tortured or rotting in prison for no good reason, and with an economy that isn't designed for them to benefit anymore than they have to to keep relative stability, with oligarchs and Putin stealing hundreds of billions from the country and keeping an iron grip on all the levers of power for as long as they can... Being against Putin and his thugs is being pro-Russian people.

Somehow, you delivered the answer to your question yourself, Liberty,

UC Rusal is today an aluminium producer & supplier with international activities and footprint, world's second largest aluminium producer, actually, based out of Jersey. It's listed in Moscow, Hong Kong and Paris. Glencore owns 8.75 percent of it.

Messing around with it and trying to take it hostage by imposing sanctions on it because you don't like its major and controlling shareholder for whatever reason actually is incredibly stupid, because what you are doing by this is that you indeed try to tamper with the global aluminium market for political reasons. It gets even more stupid, if you on top of that add the US aluminium tariffs. Another effect from trying to take down the whole company by imposing sanctions on it is also that a lot of Russian aluminium workers might end in unemployment & dire straits related to that.

Please take a look at UC Rusal 2018Q1 Financials (https://rusal.ru/upload/iblock/d0a/UC%20RUSAL_1Q2018_FINAL_signed.pdf), p. 11 - 12 [organisation and description of OFAC sanctions] and p. 22, lower part [geographical distribution of total turnover].

Furthermore, this is actually  kind of old news (https://meduza.io/en/news/2018/06/15/oleg-deripaska-s-basic-element-conglomerate-now-has-a-former-spook-as-ceo) [please see lower part in linked article].

So the US knew that this most likely was a no-go for the above stated reasons, and despite that proceeded with it, which just makes it even more head shaking.

It's like what has been discussed about Russian oil and Russian NLG to Europe earlier in this forum. Everything gets screwed up, when hypocrisy and geopolitics enters the business stage.

So you think they're lifting sanctions on this one company for humanitarian reasons - nothing to do with the oligarch - and keeping tariffs on similar companies in allied countries as well as adding billions more in tariffs elsewhere for national security reasons.

Your argument could be used to justify never imposing any sanctions on anyone regardless of what they've done. Of course all these billionaire thugs employ countless people in their large companies, with international links, and sanctioning them will hurt some regular people and affect interconnected markets. Same for sanctions against Iran or North Korea, they affect lots of other people there too. That's what these thugs do, they hold their countries hostage by controlling everything and having gigantic amount of wealth flow through them.

Personally I'm more in favor of the Magnintsky approach of freezing their assets and keeping them from spending, but since we can't do the same targeted approach inside russia, blunter approaches are all that's left, like targeting companies they control. Ideally they'd get fair trials for their crimes (corruption, murder, theft -- it's not like that stuff is legal), but that doesn't look to be happening as long as Putin's in power.

Liberty, what's your long/short Russian exposure? - [To me , your actual stance here matters a lot.]
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on July 31, 2018, 05:33:11 PM
You're way behind in class!  Try to keep up!  From November 2017:
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/shame-on-you-dershowitz-fights-back-after-being-attacked-for-saying-collusion-not-a-crime/

QUIGLEY: And can you explain and elaborate how this sort of -- problems with defining what collusion is -- the differences that might be involved with explicit or implicit collusion?

COMEY: Collusion is not a term, a legal term of art and it's one I haven't used here today, as we're investigating to see whether there was any coordination between people associated with the campaign...

A collusion investigation only exists in Trump's head. MSM is biased towards Trump and repeats it. This has always been a coordination investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/?noredirect=on

1. Poor Jim Comey.  Now even Schwab711 is piling on, further diminishing Comey's credibility.  "Collusion" is in Black's Law Dictionary.  "Coordination" is not.  Did Comey even go to law school?  Did you intend to impugn Comey's legal credentials?

2. "Coordination" feels like "Collusion" feels like "Conspiracy," depending on your mood and anti-Trumpism.  Did Comey clarify anything?  Let's rephrase the question:  Is coordination a crime?  This is a good example of word-thinking.

3. You're falling behind in your homework.  Your Fallacy #1 was in the Border Patrol Detention Centers thread.  Fallacy #2 was earlier in this Russia Investigation thread.  This is your Fallacy #3.  Can you identify them?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 02, 2018, 10:20:49 AM
1. Poor Jim Comey.  Now even Schwab711 is piling on, further diminishing Comey's credibility.  "Collusion" is in Black's Law Dictionary.  "Coordination" is not.  Did Comey even go to law school?  Did you intend to impugn Comey's legal credentials?

2. "Coordination" feels like "Collusion" feels like "Conspiracy," depending on your mood and anti-Trumpism.  Did Comey clarify anything?  Let's rephrase the question:  Is coordination a crime?  This is a good example of word-thinking.

3. You're falling behind in your homework.  Your Fallacy #1 was in the Border Patrol Detention Centers thread.  Fallacy #2 was earlier in this Russia Investigation thread.  This is your Fallacy #3.  Can you identify them?

You keep trying to 'gotcha' me as if that will alter the future for anyone. I hope you know my opinions (and yours) have no effect on any of this.

You seem too proud to concede any mistake or misunderstanding despite there being no consequences for it so you continue to only look for articles that support your pre-conceived view. This isn't a game to see who can create the best conspiracy theory evidence. It's just a thread about events occurring or that will occur. Calling a direct quote, under oath, word-thinking and then claiming I'm committing a [logical] fallacy by doing so is quite ironic. I hope you can find a way to be less emotionally attached to future legal events. They are coming regardless of how many 'libs you own'. I'm being serious though. It's not worth getting emotionally attached for anyone, left or right.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on August 04, 2018, 11:31:13 AM
Paul Manafort, human garbage: https://overcast.fm/+LHyeOgDf0
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: doughishere on August 04, 2018, 12:45:05 PM
https://twitter.com/McDeereUSA/status/1025471508737474560

Well, at least we now know why one of the Manafort witnesses needed immunity.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 04, 2018, 02:27:46 PM
Hi doughishere,

I've watch the Coons video twice.  In all honestly I think it's a load of political twaddle.  I agree with him that a violation of Title 52, sec 30121 would in fact be a crime. But the statue is very specific about what actions would be criminal. I've previously posted that collusion is like conspiracy. It is a crime when two or more people conspire to commit an actual crime like conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit a violation  of Title 52, sec 30121. By themselves neither conspiracy nor collusion are crimes.  Coons suggests that the Trump administration received something of value from the Russians - a trove of hacked DNC emails.  Good luck proving that - as I understand the facts, Russians gave the trove of emails not to the Trump campaign but instead they gave them to Julian Assange - who has on more than one occasion stated that he didn't receive them from the Russians. 

Additionally Mueller was appointed to conduct a counter intelligence investigation, which really isn't even a criminal investigation. Admittedly he can investigate any crimes that he stumbles across but that's true in any FBI investigation.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 05, 2018, 07:35:16 PM
Well he's admitted it now. It's only going to get worse for him from here.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 06, 2018, 05:12:42 AM
Here is the actual statute that Coons mentioned.  Please tell me what evidence exists that establishes Trump solicited the Russians to hack the DNC and to give the info to Assange? This is the difference between vague accusations of collusion and a discussion of a specific crime - when you discuss a specific crime you have to discuss specific proof.

Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8 and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 06, 2018, 06:28:56 AM
Here is the actual statute that Coons mentioned.  Please tell me what evidence exists that establishes Trump solicited the Russians to hack the DNC and to give the info to Assange? This is the difference between vague accusations of collusion and a discussion of a specific crime - when you discuss a specific crime you have to discuss specific proof.

Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8 and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

For this specific statute, foreign principal is defined as:

"government of a foreign country"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/611

DJT Jr's email chain between June 3 - June 9:

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html


Michael Cohen states there was a meeting around one week prior to the Trump Tower meeting. Supposedly Rick Gates was there and two other people that weren't well-known senior Trump Campaign officials.

Thus, we have a direct offer from the Russian government, for illegally stolen oppo material, that was accepted by DJT Jr and confirmed by Trump. Is there irrefutable proof? Honestly how are any of us supposed to know. But we have names, dates, specific offers made and accepted, that all were documented and provided to prosecutors (and the public) by the individual in question (DJT Jr). Trump himself just admitted that the meeting was indeed about oppo research, which is in direct contradiction to previous lies about the purpose (which will lead to lying to the FBI charges for anyone that previously provided a false response, knowingly).


Campaign finance laws were certainly broken and that is the least of DJT and Jrs problems right now. I'm guessing Coons choose this because it was obvious and with him being on the committee investigating, is very limited in what he can say publicly.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 06, 2018, 07:24:43 AM
Hi Schwab,

Interesting points.  I certainly understand your concerns.  However, I have some issues with your evidence.  Here is what you're mostly relying on:

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

 it seems to me that "official" modifies "documents and information" .  In other words the sentence could fairly be written: "official documents and official information." This cuts against your argument that the information being offered was "illegally stolen oppo material." The use of the word "official" strongly suggests that these alleged documents were Russian documents not documents hacked from the DNC.  Moreover the statement goes on to say "that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia." I don't recall any hacked email from the DNC trove that was about Clinton's work with the Russians. From where I sit - the cheap seats - this actually supports DJT jr. assertions that the meeting was a nothing burger.

It also strikes me that your claim that about "acceptance" by the Trump campaign is a little off.  You have a point that they accepted a meeting to hear what the offer was about.  But that's a long way from establishing that the Trump campaign accepted stolen hacked emails from the DNC.  In fact the only person who accepted the hacked documents was Assange. I'm not being picky.  The statue clearly requires actually accepting something of value from a foreign entity by the campaign. 


Finally if accepting opposition research by itself is a crime under the statute, Clinton is far more likely to have violated the statute.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 06, 2018, 03:12:50 PM
Here is a blog post by a Law Professor at Fordham.  He discusses the likelihood of information alone meeting the thing of value requirement under the statute.

 https://shugerblog.com/2017/07/11/update-on-don-jr-emails-and-criminal-case-what-is-a-thing-of-value-what-is-collusion/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 06, 2018, 11:55:51 PM
Here is a picture of Rinat Akhmetshin and Natalia Veselnitskaya at an inauguration party - Trump's inauguration. They both attended the Trump Tower meeting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/rMHYTZuonS4NvzAC2srrrFWr6p0=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/OUKOCYH32YI6PG25XPYNUMJBJU.jpg

It's from this Washington Post article that highlights other high ranking Russian officials who attended the inauguration: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-trumps-inaugural-festivities-members-of-russias-elite-anticipated-a-thaw-between-moscow-and-washington/2018/01/20/0d767f46-fb9f-11e7-ad8c-ecbb62019393_story.html

The timeline after the meeting gives a pretty clear indication that a deal was struck between the Trump campaign and Russia (emails release, GOP changes platform on Ukraine, high ranking Russian officials attend inauguration, etc.)

What we know keeps getting worse for Trump with each passing day. One can make a pretty solid guess that Cohen and Gates, who are both in a lot of trouble (Gates still faces 5 to 10 years of prison even after his deal to testify against Manafort), have the information necessary to make the case against Trump truly criminal.

At this point Trump has lied and been caught so many times that I don't know how you could trust anything that comes out of his mouth.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 07, 2018, 12:02:01 AM
also everything I mentioned above is evidence toward Trump conspiring with Russia. The case for obstruction of justice just seems like a slam dunk at this point.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 07, 2018, 05:38:35 AM
Investor-man

Sounds more like wishing thinking than evidence.  But who am I?

As to the obstruction of justice slam dunk, I'm not so sure that Trump as a sitting President could face criminal charges.  He could face impeachment. It would have to get through the house and then get through the senate with a two thirds vote. Besides the slam dunk obstruction case isn't so slam dunk.  It looks like he had plenty of legitimate reasons to fire Comey.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cameronfen on August 07, 2018, 06:19:25 AM
Here is a blog post by a Law Professor at Fordham.  He discusses the likelihood of information alone meeting the thing of value requirement under the statute.

 https://shugerblog.com/2017/07/11/update-on-don-jr-emails-and-criminal-case-what-is-a-thing-of-value-what-is-collusion/

Even if what this professor says is right and I'm not a lawyer so I have no reason to disagree, the case against Trump for obstructing justice is still quite strong.  He lied to the public (we don't know if he lied to the FBI) about those meetings, and then as Comey was very visibly investigating Trump for those Russian meetings, he fired him and then tweeted (or said in some official way) that firing coming lifted a cloud from over him.  Combine that with his tweets fuming about replacing sessions for recusal or about Mueller.  Whether what he did was illegal at the meeting or not, he was certainly trying to obstruct an official investigation. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 07, 2018, 07:57:47 AM
The obstruction case is complicated by the fact that Trump had legitimate reasons to fire Comey.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39866767
See also the IG  report.

Comey isn't particularly pure either. Many think that he lied to Congress under oath and also violated the same statues that Hillary Clinton allegedly violated.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/law-prof-mccabe-firing-suggests-comey-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/

If you get passed the above hurdles, you then face the question of whether you can actually bring criminal charges against a sitting President.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/can_a_sitting_president_be_indicted_the_constitution_doesnt_give_a_definiti

So that leaves impeachment as the most likely possibility.  It would have to get passed the house and a two thirds vote in the Senate.  if successful that means Mike Pence is President - who would most likely pardon Trump like Ford pardoned Nixon.  (Also Mike Pence will not eat a meal with a woman other than his wife without a chaperone.  So be very careful what you ask for.)

I don't hold myself out as an expect on all of this.  If anyone else has a better handle please wade into the conversation.  My main point:  This is a very complex area and the odds of any slam dunks are slim.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 07, 2018, 07:22:54 PM
So that leaves impeachment as the most likely possibility.  It would have to get passed the house and a two thirds vote in the Senate.  if successful that means Mike Pence is President - who would most likely pardon Trump like Ford pardoned Nixon.  (Also Mike Pence will not eat a meal with a woman other than his wife without a chaperone.  So be very careful what you ask for.)

I think (hope) Trump will be a lame duck after November. We may have to settle for just that, but this investigation needs to continue and he and his cronies need to be charged. We can't have future presidents behaving like this.

As an aside - I'd take Pence any day over Trump, and I think people are being a bit harsh with his meal/chaperone thing. I'm not religious, but I also feel weird having a meal alone with a woman who is not my wife. I've done it, but it's certainly something I make sure my wife knows about, and I make sure to stick to a schedule I've related to her.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on August 17, 2018, 10:23:48 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/politics/paul-manafort-trial-friday/index.html

"Before leaving for the day Thursday, the jury sent Ellis four questions, including one asking whether he could 'redefine' the meaning of 'reasonable doubt,' the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant."

This is too funny.  If you're on the jury and you've concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort is guilty, would you ask this question?

This is not conclusive, but hung juries probably start like this.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 17, 2018, 11:06:33 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/politics/paul-manafort-trial-friday/index.html

"Before leaving for the day Thursday, the jury sent Ellis four questions, including one asking whether he could 'redefine' the meaning of 'reasonable doubt,' the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant."

This is too funny.  If you're on the jury and you've concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort is guilty, would you ask this question?

This is not conclusive, but hung juries probably start like this.

LOL if they can't even win a slam dunk case like this, that pretty much confirms what most of us already knew about this investigation. Mind you, the Manafort case didn't even really have anything to do with the 2016 election meddling, and only after some desperate straw grasping were they even able to put this case together. If they can't get a guilty here, I think that gives Congress all it needs to put an end to this investigation.

Personally, I'm hoping for a guilty verdict. Mainly so Trump can then immediately pardon him and we can watch the Libs lose their minds and foam at the mouth for the next couple weeks.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Otsog on August 17, 2018, 01:37:59 PM
As an aside - I'd take Pence any day over Trump, and I think people are being a bit harsh with his meal/chaperone thing. I'm not religious, but I also feel weird having a meal alone with a woman who is not my wife. I've done it, but it's certainly something I make sure my wife knows about, and I make sure to stick to a schedule I've related to her.

That sucks for women trying to work in male dominated industries.  I'm glad you remedy it by open communication w/ your wife, rather than Pence's strategy.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 17, 2018, 07:38:05 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/politics/paul-manafort-trial-friday/index.html

"Before leaving for the day Thursday, the jury sent Ellis four questions, including one asking whether he could 'redefine' the meaning of 'reasonable doubt,' the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant."

This is too funny.  If you're on the jury and you've concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort is guilty, would you ask this question?

This is not conclusive, but hung juries probably start like this.

LOL if they can't even win a slam dunk case like this, that pretty much confirms what most of us already knew about this investigation. Mind you, the Manafort case didn't even really have anything to do with the 2016 election meddling, and only after some desperate straw grasping were they even able to put this case together. If they can't get a guilty here, I think that gives Congress all it needs to put an end to this investigation.

Personally, I'm hoping for a guilty verdict. Mainly so Trump can then immediately pardon him and we can watch the Libs lose their minds and foam at the mouth for the next couple weeks.

You need to expand the range of places where you get your news. He bribed the CEO of a bank with a cabinet position in exchange for $16mm. Guess you missed that.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 17, 2018, 07:42:19 PM
As an aside - I'd take Pence any day over Trump, and I think people are being a bit harsh with his meal/chaperone thing. I'm not religious, but I also feel weird having a meal alone with a woman who is not my wife. I've done it, but it's certainly something I make sure my wife knows about, and I make sure to stick to a schedule I've related to her.

That sucks for women trying to work in male dominated industries.  I'm glad you remedy it by open communication w/ your wife, rather than Pence's strategy.

I'm sure Pence has one on one meetings with women.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 17, 2018, 07:44:23 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/politics/paul-manafort-trial-friday/index.html

"Before leaving for the day Thursday, the jury sent Ellis four questions, including one asking whether he could 'redefine' the meaning of 'reasonable doubt,' the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant."

This is too funny.  If you're on the jury and you've concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort is guilty, would you ask this question?

This is not conclusive, but hung juries probably start like this.

LOL if they can't even win a slam dunk case like this, that pretty much confirms what most of us already knew about this investigation. Mind you, the Manafort case didn't even really have anything to do with the 2016 election meddling, and only after some desperate straw grasping were they even able to put this case together. If they can't get a guilty here, I think that gives Congress all it needs to put an end to this investigation.

Personally, I'm hoping for a guilty verdict. Mainly so Trump can then immediately pardon him and we can watch the Libs lose their minds and foam at the mouth for the next couple weeks.

You need to expand the range of places where you get your news. He bribed the CEO of a bank with a cabinet position in exchange for $16mm. Guess you missed that.

Then a guilty verdict should be a cinch
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: no_free_lunch on August 19, 2018, 06:07:42 AM
Your nyt link says point blank trump never went past his legal authority.

The more i read on this, the more convinced i am this really is just a witch hunt.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 19, 2018, 06:16:05 AM
Trump said the election was rigged and is now upset we are investigating the election.

I hope Mueller has evidence of a communication telling Trump team how to signal so we can remove all doubt.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 19, 2018, 06:20:34 AM
How about some fake news with your coffee?

Newsweek Headline:

"ICE AGENTS, PART OF TRUMP CRACKDOWN, DETAIN HUSBAND DRIVING PREGNANT WIFE TO DELIVER BABY"

But the article conveniently omits that the ICE agents arrested the husband for a murder he allegedly committed.

https://www.newsweek.com/ice-arrest-husband-driving-preganant-wife-hospital-birth-1079380
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 19, 2018, 06:25:09 AM
How about some fake news with your coffee?

Newsweek Headline:

"ICE AGENTS, PART OF TRUMP CRACKDOWN, DETAIN HUSBAND DRIVING PREGNANT WIFE TO DELIVER BABY"

But the article conveniently omits that the ICE agents arrested the husband for a murder he allegedly committed.

https://www.newsweek.com/ice-arrest-husband-driving-preganant-wife-hospital-birth-1079380

Nothing to do with Trump-Russia.

But in similar fashion, folks here are upset Trump's campaign manager was not instantly found guilty of 19 felonies that he was fired for during the campaign. The money laundering is due to payments from Kremlin-connected oligarchs.

Manafort reached out to a RU Intel officer to cover up his cover up during his trial. So it's a witch hunt when someone obviously commits 19 felonies and reached out to the very perpetrators they were alleged to have worked with when they got in trouble.

Sounds like a legit investigation.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 19, 2018, 06:39:18 AM
My bad, Schwab.  Let me make it up to you by posting something on point written by Catherine Herridge.

DOJ's Bruce Ohr wrote Christopher Steele was 'very concerned about Comey's firing -- afraid they will be exposed'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/dojs-bruce-ohr-wrote-christopher-steele-was-very-concerned-about-comeys-firing-afraid-will-be-exposed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 19, 2018, 07:25:15 AM
My bad, Schwab.  Let me make it up to you by posting something on point written by Catherine Herridge.

DOJ's Bruce Ohr wrote Christopher Steele was 'very concerned about Comey's firing -- afraid they will be exposed'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/dojs-bruce-ohr-wrote-christopher-steele-was-very-concerned-about-comeys-firing-afraid-will-be-exposed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29

This is a leak from Congress. No one is complaining when they aren't told to complain.

This is also a joke anyway. Who is getting exposed? What is getting exposed? There's no hint here.

Luckily, Fox News and Trump have repeated vague, unfounded allegations without any proof of a conspiracy. I'm guessing Fox News believes this is related.

Trump claimed the election was rigged and is upset they are now investigating the election. Why?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Value^2 on August 19, 2018, 09:37:04 AM
I'm happy that finally people has began to see what kind of charlatan 0bama really is... he was the one who corrupted FBI & DOJ. They did their best to cover cooked H's a$$. It didn't work and they tried to frame Trump and that didn't work neither.

I also think that 0bama's recent deal with Netflix was more about damage-control than anything else.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 20, 2018, 05:37:38 PM
Admiral McRaven has now come out against Trump. Put your tail between your legs guys.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on August 21, 2018, 04:22:22 AM
How about some fake news with your coffee?

Newsweek Headline:

"ICE AGENTS, PART OF TRUMP CRACKDOWN, DETAIN HUSBAND DRIVING PREGNANT WIFE TO DELIVER BABY"

But the article conveniently omits that the ICE agents arrested the husband for a murder he allegedly committed.

https://www.newsweek.com/ice-arrest-husband-driving-preganant-wife-hospital-birth-1079380

All news is click bait nowadays. There is no way around of reading the whole article, at best from several sources. This has nothing to do with bias, the headline is written in such a way to entice the reader to read the whole thing.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 21, 2018, 05:04:18 PM
Michael Cohen took this step today so that his family can move on to the next chapter.  This is Michael fulfilling his promise made on July 2nd to put his family and country first and tell the truth about Donald Trump.

Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election.  If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?

https://twitter.com/LannyDavis/status/1032026098320789504

"Individual-1", who at that point had become the President of the United States.
https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1032024891472728066

Doug this must seem like a major victory for you. But it won't end up meaning anything in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: bookie71 on August 21, 2018, 05:28:12 PM
The "Witch Hunt" just snagged a couple more witches.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 21, 2018, 05:34:50 PM
This isn't a win for anyone. It's merely doing what is necessary to end this charade.

I suspect Cohen will be a minor cooperating witness against Trump due to this plea. Either way, this is just the start of months (or a year) of chaos. Trump should have resigned last year imo (if I had to think through his best options). Now Trump has a federal charge waiting for him and there's no turning back.

For now, on to Manafort in DC, where we'll learn about his work with Russian intel officers and Ukrainian leaders in exile in Russia.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 21, 2018, 05:44:33 PM
You guys are too funny.

Everyone knew Manafort was a dishonest guy. His charges had nothing to do with the campaign, and let's face it, more than half the charges didn't even stick.

And anyone thinking anything will come from Cohen is sadly mistaken as well. At best it's he said, she said type of stuff. Which won't lead anywhere. At worst it's not even admissible under attorney client, even if true. So whether Trump actually did it or not, all he's got to say is he didn't and it goes nowhere.

You guys have got to stop swallowing the bait so hard. Just bc MSM blasts out, "Trump's in trouble!!!", and "this is HUGE", doesn't actually make it so. They've been blasting this stuff out for the past few years, just like before, it leads nowhere.

Good to see Mueller's feather in the cap is going 8/18 on a slam dunk case that had nothing to do with 2016 election meddling.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on August 21, 2018, 06:24:40 PM
You guys are too funny.

Everyone knew Manafort was a dishonest guy. His charges had nothing to do with the campaign, and let's face it, more than half the charges didn't even stick.

And anyone thinking anything will come from Cohen is sadly mistaken as well. At best it's he said, she said type of stuff. Which won't lead anywhere. At worst it's not even admissible under attorney client, even if true. So whether Trump actually did it or not, all he's got to say is he didn't and it goes nowhere.

You guys have got to stop swallowing the bait so hard. Just bc MSM blasts out, "Trump's in trouble!!!", and "this is HUGE", doesn't actually make it so. They've been blasting this stuff out for the past few years, just like before, it leads nowhere.

Good to see Mueller's feather in the cap is going 8/18 on a slam dunk case that had nothing to do with 2016 election meddling.

It’s like a crime organization - if someone starts to sing, there is no telling how the Symphonie ends. I think a lot of people who work with Trump will have to worry about ending up in jail, when the light shines, where it is inconvenient, including the Godfather himself.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 21, 2018, 06:37:49 PM
You guys are too funny.

Everyone knew Manafort was a dishonest guy. His charges had nothing to do with the campaign, and let's face it, more than half the charges didn't even stick.

And anyone thinking anything will come from Cohen is sadly mistaken as well. At best it's he said, she said type of stuff. Which won't lead anywhere. At worst it's not even admissible under attorney client, even if true. So whether Trump actually did it or not, all he's got to say is he didn't and it goes nowhere.

You guys have got to stop swallowing the bait so hard. Just bc MSM blasts out, "Trump's in trouble!!!", and "this is HUGE", doesn't actually make it so. They've been blasting this stuff out for the past few years, just like before, it leads nowhere.

Good to see Mueller's feather in the cap is going 8/18 on a slam dunk case that had nothing to do with 2016 election meddling.

It’s like a crime organization - if someone starts to sing, there is no telling how the Symphonie ends. I think a lot of people who work with Trump will have to worry about ending up in jail, when the light shines, where it is inconvenient, including the Godfather himself.

Except anyone with a brain, like Manafort, knows if they play by "the rules" they likely get pardoned. Not exactly justice, but from where I'm standing, something I can live with given the fact Hillary and Co's many crimes were hidden, downplayed, and even outright ignored. People are just butthurt by Trump, and both Democrats and Republicans of the traditional establishment feel threatened by him, so this is what you get. A witch hunt. There are real crimes. But let's not pretend these aren't the same crimes the crooks in Washington have been guilty of since the beginning of time. It's just now they are using them to try to remove a guy who threatens their existence. The problem is that he's better at playing the game than they are, despite the fact they are too blind to see it.

FWIW, his murderers and rapists comments seem pretty fitting today. How terrible that poor girl lost her life because of our terrible immigration system and selfish politicians who do nothing about it hoping to trade open borders for votes...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 21, 2018, 07:02:36 PM
If there are mass pardons the country will shut down indefinitely and there will be massive protests/marches. That is an insane hypothetical and I highly doubt Trump would actually pardon folks or himself. Respectfully, you sound like a fool suggesting that it would be no big deal to have a king or a tyrant. Mass pardons is up there with the worst-possible scenarios.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 21, 2018, 07:03:36 PM
And anyone thinking anything will come from Cohen is sadly mistaken as well. At best it's he said, she said type of stuff. Which won't lead anywhere. At worst it's not even admissible under attorney client, even if true. So whether Trump actually did it or not, all he's got to say is he didn't and it goes nowhere.
Attorney client privilege is not absolute. There is crime-fraud exemption.

Quote
he crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime, tort, or fraud. In Clark v. United States, the US Supreme Court stated that "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told."[8] The crime-fraud exception also does require that the crime or fraud discussed between client and attorney be carried out to be triggered.[9] US Courts have not yet conclusively ruled how little knowledge an attorney can have of the underlying crime or fraud before the privilege detaches and the attorney's communications or requisite testimony become admissible.[10]

Does this sound like something that may be applicable to the Trump-Cohen relationship? Because he seemed like a member of the crew. Also apparently he made tapes. So there may be cases of he said, she said, and here's the tape.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 21, 2018, 07:15:19 PM
If there are mass pardons the country will shut down indefinitely and there will be massive protests/marches. That is an insane hypothetical and I highly doubt Trump would actually pardon folks or himself. Respectfully, you sound like a fool suggesting that it would be no big deal to have a king or a tyrant. Mass pardons is up there with the worst-possible scenarios.

He is the President and needs to be elected by the people after 4 years and after 8 he's gone for good so I think you're reaching quite a bit with the "king/tyrant" rhetoric. I mean every president has done questionable things and every president of late seems to reach further and further to expand the powers of the president. It's something Obama did more than Bush, who did more than Clinton, etc... Just how things have progressed. It's not exclusive to Trump.

I don't have to agree or disagree with the fact he will likely pardon some of these people. It's simply what is bound to happen if you follow this logically. There won't be riots if he pardons Manafort, Cohen, and a couple of others. There will be tonnes of crying from Democrats and MSM, and these days people protest everything so who cares about that...

However, what's not being reported today?

"Cohen, reportedly, is not cooperating with prosecutors by dishing damaging information on Trump in exchange for a lighter sentence. He supposedly agreed to a plea deal because it will allow his family to hold onto assets Cohen might have been forced to forfeit if he lost a trial."

Stop buying into MSM headlines hook, line, and sinker folks.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 21, 2018, 07:17:50 PM
And anyone thinking anything will come from Cohen is sadly mistaken as well. At best it's he said, she said type of stuff. Which won't lead anywhere. At worst it's not even admissible under attorney client, even if true. So whether Trump actually did it or not, all he's got to say is he didn't and it goes nowhere.
Attorney client privilege is not absolute. There is crime-fraud exemption.

Quote
he crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime, tort, or fraud. In Clark v. United States, the US Supreme Court stated that "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told."[8] The crime-fraud exception also does require that the crime or fraud discussed between client and attorney be carried out to be triggered.[9] US Courts have not yet conclusively ruled how little knowledge an attorney can have of the underlying crime or fraud before the privilege detaches and the attorney's communications or requisite testimony become admissible.[10]

Does this sound like something that may be applicable to the Trump-Cohen relationship? Because he seemed like a member of the crew. Also apparently he made tapes. So there may be cases of he said, she said, and here's the tape.

Yes, it does. But Cohen's reputation is shot. And I just don't see how his word is enough to move anything. Could more come out? Sure. Always possible. But this resembles an empty water pistol more than a smoking gun. Despite how those that want to see it as one try to make it appear as such.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on August 21, 2018, 07:29:47 PM
David French, a writer at National Review, a conservative magazine:

https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1032028419964329984

"There is no universe that exists under which all the MAGA-folks wouldn’t be calling for Hillary’s impeachment or resignation under similar facts. So take that into account when you read their defenses."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 21, 2018, 07:32:36 PM
In other news today, the second member of congress to endorse Trump for president, Duncan Hunter, was indicted for federal crimes. He follows in the footsteps of the first member of congress to endorse Trump, Chris Collins, who was also recently indicted for federal crimes.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-hunter-indict-20180821-story.html
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 21, 2018, 07:40:06 PM
For Russia related news, there was a decent article in the Weekly Standard today about Rand Paul: https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/rand-paul-russian-stooge

I wanted to like Paul, but WTF? I wonder how many members of our government are in Putin's pocket. Probably several on both sides of the aisle. Ugly...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 21, 2018, 07:55:49 PM
In other news today, the second member of congress to endorse Trump for president, Duncan Hunter, was indicted for federal crimes. He follows in the footsteps of the first member of congress to endorse Trump, Chris Collins, who was also recently indicted for federal crimes.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-hunter-indict-20180821-story.html
Who's this deadbeat that can't pay for groceries and buy a pair of shorts?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 21, 2018, 08:02:11 PM
Wait until they start squeezing the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate: Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice,
Lois Lerner, McCabe, Sally Yates - it's going to get real interesting. Anything that Trump has been involved in pales in comparison
this this organized crime bunch. Top political levels of the DOJ, FBI and CIA all conspiring to rig an American elections.
Weaponizing the IRS and NSA against political opponents.  Lying to Federal Courts and resigning in disgrace.
Trump issues are child's play in comparison to this crime syndicate.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 21, 2018, 08:07:21 PM
Wait until they start squeezing the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate: Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice,
Lois Lerner, McCabe, Sally Yates - it's going to get real interesting. Anything that Trump has been involved in pales in comparison
this this organized crime bunch. Top political levels of the DOJ, FBI and CIA all conspiring to rig an American elections.
Weaponizing the IRS and NSA against political opponents.  Lying to Federal Courts and resigning in disgrace.
Trump issues are child's play in comparison to this crime syndicate.
Yep, and for that we have your dreams and fantasies.  ::)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 21, 2018, 08:12:59 PM
Wait until they start squeezing the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate: Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice,
Lois Lerner, McCabe, Sally Yates - it's going to get real interesting. Anything that Trump has been involved in pales in comparison
this this organized crime bunch. Top political levels of the DOJ, FBI and CIA all conspiring to rig an American elections.
Weaponizing the IRS and NSA against political opponents.  Lying to Federal Courts and resigning in disgrace.
Trump issues are child's play in comparison to this crime syndicate.

I think the real story today is that an innocent girl was found murdered by someone who shouldnt even be here. Yet the self serving liberal clown machine wants to keep whining about payments to a porn star cuz they still arent over the fact that their candidate lost. How petty and arbitrary. Trump wants to reform immigration, specifically because of issues like the Molly Tibbets or Kate Steinle cases, and yet the liberals, for reasons beyond me, condone this crap, and instead cry racist! and bitch and moan about things ultimately petty and commonplace in US politics simply to shift focus of the conversation. If Tibbets was killed with a gun, by a white guy at college, they'd be screaming about banning guns. They are just massive self serving hypocrites. Nothing else to it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 21, 2018, 08:19:06 PM
I love listening to a propaganda media that has no credibility.  Let's see - Trump will never make it through the primaries.
Trump will never become President. The stock market will crash now that he is elected. Blah, blah, blah

Why anyone would listen to such a group of elitist experts anymore is beyond me. They are so out of touch with
the "deplorables" who elected this president. They will never get it. Americans wanted someone to kick the shit out
of Washington and that is exactly what they are getting. And American's love it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 21, 2018, 08:22:28 PM
Yep, thats's why more American's voted for the other candidate.

Let me help you with that. Republicans wanted to stick their finger in America's eye, that's what they're getting and Republicans love it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 21, 2018, 08:26:51 PM
Wait until they start squeezing the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate: Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice,
Lois Lerner, McCabe, Sally Yates - it's going to get real interesting. Anything that Trump has been involved in pales in comparison
this this organized crime bunch. Top political levels of the DOJ, FBI and CIA all conspiring to rig an American elections.
Weaponizing the IRS and NSA against political opponents.  Lying to Federal Courts and resigning in disgrace.
Trump issues are child's play in comparison to this crime syndicate.

I think the real story today is that an innocent girl was found murdered by someone who shouldnt even be here. Yet the self serving liberal clown machine wants to keep whining about payments to a porn star cuz they still arent over the fact that their candidate lost. How petty and arbitrary. Trump wants to reform immigration, specifically because of issues like the Molly Tibbets or Kate Steinle cases, and yet the liberals, for reasons beyond me, condone this crap, and instead cry racist! and bitch and moan about things ultimately petty and commonplace in US politics simply to shift focus of the conversation. If Tibbets was killed with a gun, by a white guy at college, they'd be screaming about banning guns. They are just massive self serving hypocrites. Nothing else to it.

Come on man - there are ~15k murders every year. This one murder is "the real story" today? It's not, but I guess the propaganda machine is working. It's impressive.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 21, 2018, 08:28:05 PM
Wait until they start squeezing the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate: Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice,
Lois Lerner, McCabe, Sally Yates - it's going to get real interesting. Anything that Trump has been involved in pales in comparison
this this organized crime bunch. Top political levels of the DOJ, FBI and CIA all conspiring to rig an American elections.
Weaponizing the IRS and NSA against political opponents.  Lying to Federal Courts and resigning in disgrace.
Trump issues are child's play in comparison to this crime syndicate.

I think the real story today is that an innocent girl was found murdered by someone who shouldnt even be here. Yet the self serving liberal clown machine wants to keep whining about payments to a porn star cuz they still arent over the fact that their candidate lost. How petty and arbitrary. Trump wants to reform immigration, specifically because of issues like the Molly Tibbets or Kate Steinle cases, and yet the liberals, for reasons beyond me, condone this crap, and instead cry racist! and bitch and moan about things ultimately petty and commonplace in US politics simply to shift focus of the conversation. If Tibbets was killed with a gun, by a white guy at college, they'd be screaming about banning guns. They are just massive self serving hypocrites. Nothing else to it.

The Liberal elite hypocrites live in gated communities, send their kids to private schools and have body guards - while they
advocate for open borders and curtailed 2nd amendment rights. They'll never get over this election. And they are mad at
the wrong guy - Trump!  They should be furious with Obama for totally wrecking the Democratic Party. It used to be the party
of the working class - now it's the party of the elites and identity politics, that could care less about the working class.
Lose your job? Too bad coal miners - learn how to make solar panels! Right Hillary!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 21, 2018, 08:31:26 PM
Wait until they start squeezing the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate: Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice,
Lois Lerner, McCabe, Sally Yates - it's going to get real interesting. Anything that Trump has been involved in pales in comparison
this this organized crime bunch. Top political levels of the DOJ, FBI and CIA all conspiring to rig an American elections.
Weaponizing the IRS and NSA against political opponents.  Lying to Federal Courts and resigning in disgrace.
Trump issues are child's play in comparison to this crime syndicate.

I think the real story today is that an innocent girl was found murdered by someone who shouldnt even be here. Yet the self serving liberal clown machine wants to keep whining about payments to a porn star cuz they still arent over the fact that their candidate lost. How petty and arbitrary. Trump wants to reform immigration, specifically because of issues like the Molly Tibbets or Kate Steinle cases, and yet the liberals, for reasons beyond me, condone this crap, and instead cry racist! and bitch and moan about things ultimately petty and commonplace in US politics simply to shift focus of the conversation. If Tibbets was killed with a gun, by a white guy at college, they'd be screaming about banning guns. They are just massive self serving hypocrites. Nothing else to it.

Come on man - there are ~15k murders every year. This one murder is "the real story" today? It's not, but I guess the propaganda machine is working. It's impressive.

You are exposing the hypocrisy. How many corrupt political acts occur every year? Pay for play? Hush payments? By your current logic, the Cohen and Manafort news arent a real story either.

The illegal should not have been here. Period. End of story. Yet it's the policies and the positions of the left that allow it to happen. Isn't it funny that in 2006 many democrats, even Obama, voted in favor of a wall?? Believe that. Yet now its the party line to be anti Trump and everyone is against it. Trade American lives for votes.

Like I said, a life was pointlessly taken by someone who doesnt belong here, and you guys are whining about payments made to a porn star...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 21, 2018, 08:35:18 PM
Yep, thats's why more American's voted for the other candidate.

Let me help you with that. Republicans wanted to stick their finger in America's eye, that's what they're getting and Republicans love it.

Yea, right - The Clintons has $1B campaign fund and an enormous organization and ground game. Trump had NOTHING but
twitter and support of middle America. 

Let me help you with Hillary's message:  Hi, I have NO platform, but  I am not Donald Trump.

Trump's message:  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs - and it's working.

And the Democrats are STILL trying to figure out why Hillary lost!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cigarbutt on August 21, 2018, 08:38:43 PM
I love listening to a propaganda media that has no credibility.  Let's see - Trump will never make it through the primaries.
Trump will never become President. The stock market will crash now that he is elected. Blah, blah, blah

Why anyone would listen to such a group of elitist experts anymore is beyond me. They are so out of touch with
the "deplorables" who elected this president. They will never get it. Americans wanted someone to kick the shit out
of Washington and that is exactly what they are getting. And American's love it.

Who are the deplorables?

-Wise members of the crowd who simply picked the best candidate under the circumstances?
-Those "left behind"? (that's been my bet so far)
-Those who feel status threat? (see reference below)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115#T1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Mutz

An argument can be made that this is coming from another disconnected elitist expert but I thought her work deserved to be read.

"The 2016 election was a result of anxiety about dominant groups’ future status rather than a result of being overlooked in the past. In many ways, a sense of group threat is a much tougher opponent than an economic downturn, because it is a psychological mindset rather than an actual event or misfortune. Given current demographic trends within the United States, minority influence will only increase with time, thus heightening this source of perceived status threat. Although whites will likely still be the best-educated and most well-off racial group, by 2040, they are unlikely to dominate in numbers. Likewise, despite US status as an extremely wealthy country relative to those countries perceived to threaten it economically, many Americans find that small comfort."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 21, 2018, 08:45:12 PM
Yep, thats's why more American's voted for the other candidate.

Let me help you with that. Republicans wanted to stick their finger in America's eye, that's what they're getting and Republicans love it.

Yea, right - The Clintons has $1B campaign fund and an enormous organization and ground game. Trump had NOTHING but
twitter and support of middle America. 

Let me help you with Hillary's message:  Hi, I have NO platform, but  I am not Donald Trump.

Trump's message:  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs - and it's working.

And the Democrats are STILL trying to figure out why Hillary lost!
Ummm... How does that contradict anything I just said? Did Trump get more votes than Hillary Clinton? Is Trump immensely popular with non-republicans?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 21, 2018, 08:48:46 PM
I love listening to a propaganda media that has no credibility.  Let's see - Trump will never make it through the primaries.
Trump will never become President. The stock market will crash now that he is elected. Blah, blah, blah

Why anyone would listen to such a group of elitist experts anymore is beyond me. They are so out of touch with
the "deplorables" who elected this president. They will never get it. Americans wanted someone to kick the shit out
of Washington and that is exactly what they are getting. And American's love it.

Who are the deplorables?

-Wise members of the crowd who simply picked the best candidate under the circumstances?
-Those "left behind"? (that's been my bet so far)
-Those who feel status threat? (see reference below)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115#T1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Mutz

An argument can be made that this is coming from another disconnected elitist expert but I thought her work deserved to be read.

"The 2016 election was a result of anxiety about dominant groups’ future status rather than a result of being overlooked in the past. In many ways, a sense of group threat is a much tougher opponent than an economic downturn, because it is a psychological mindset rather than an actual event or misfortune. Given current demographic trends within the United States, minority influence will only increase with time, thus heightening this source of perceived status threat. Although whites will likely still be the best-educated and most well-off racial group, by 2040, they are unlikely to dominate in numbers. Likewise, despite US status as an extremely wealthy country relative to those countries perceived to threaten it economically, many Americans find that small comfort."

A few comments on this.

Gated communities will always have gates. Private jets and club memberships will always be exclusive, and having percentages of the overall population change doesn't change this. I know for a fact there are plenty of areas of South American countries that resemble waspy country clubs despite those people only making up a small single digit percentage of the population. Fear of being the minority is really just a liberal fallacy mean to shit on white people.

Although whites will likely still be the best-educated and most well-off racial group, by 2040, they are unlikely to dominate in numbers.

Doesn't this essentially mean America is going to get stupider or poorer? If we presented the above as a mathematical equation it absolutely indicates we take a step back. Wanting to see your future generations prosper(which if you are black that means seeing blacks better off down the road) is not fear of being outnumbered or whatever, it is natural...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 21, 2018, 08:54:08 PM
Yep, thats's why more American's voted for the other candidate.

Let me help you with that. Republicans wanted to stick their finger in America's eye, that's what they're getting and Republicans love it.

Yea, right - The Clintons has $1B campaign fund and an enormous organization and ground game. Trump had NOTHING but
twitter and support of middle America. 

Let me help you with Hillary's message:  Hi, I have NO platform, but  I am not Donald Trump.

Trump's message:  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs - and it's working.

And the Democrats are STILL trying to figure out why Hillary lost!
Ummm... How does that contradict anything I just said? Did Trump get more votes than Hillary Clinton? Is Trump immensely popular with non-republicans?

Your brilliant candidate, Hillary, and the Clinton Machine, with the largest political war chest in history ($$$) forgot about the electoral college, since they were celebrating Hillary's election weeks in advance.

Meanwhile, Trump with nothing but a Message that actually meant something - won the "Blue Wall" - all those democratic
states that really needed jobs.

Imagine what Trump could have actually done with some money.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 21, 2018, 08:58:29 PM
Yea, you're still talking about something else dude
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 21, 2018, 09:00:30 PM
And you're just avoiding the key issues per your usual style.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: ScottHall on August 21, 2018, 09:16:24 PM
for better days ahead

http://infofranpro.wdfiles.com/local--files/19520101-on-cooling/19520101%20On%20cooling.pdf
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 21, 2018, 09:39:28 PM
And you're just avoiding the key issues per your usual style.
What issues am I trying to avoid man? You've said that Americans wanted him and that Americans love him/what he's doing. I pointed out that if he was so popular maybe he should have won the popular vote, which he didn't. His approval ratings are bad overall, suck with Independents and are basically non existent with Democrats. But they are amazing with Republicans. So basically, no, Americans are not "loving it". Some Americans are loving what he's doing but Americans not really.

You obviously knew what I was saying but didn't like where it was going. So then you pivoted to talking about election messaging and fundraising which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. Then accused me of avoiding the issues. I'll say this, you're definitely not stupid, but you are insincere.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on August 22, 2018, 01:12:06 AM
Yep, thats's why more American's voted for the other candidate.

Let me help you with that. Republicans wanted to stick their finger in America's eye, that's what they're getting and Republicans love it.

Yea, right - The Clintons has $1B campaign fund and an enormous organization and ground game. Trump had NOTHING but
twitter and support of middle America. 

Let me help you with Hillary's message:  Hi, I have NO platform, but  I am not Donald Trump.

Trump's message:  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs - and it's working.

And the Democrats are STILL trying to figure out why Hillary lost!

I was not a Hillary fan.  And I'm not a Trump fan either.  Trump is creating jobs, but so was Obama.  There are hypocrites on both, the left and right.  Obama had his issues, but it's funny how the same stats Trump points out that weren't true about Obama, are the same ones he now praises about himself...I don't think the way they calculate the unemployment rate and jobs created each quarter has changed...yet, somehow Trump's stats are now correct, while Obama's weren't accurate.

The sad part of what we are seeing is that not only can the Democrats not figure out why they lost, Republicans are ok with everything Trump does and find a way of justifying his behavior regardless of what occurs.  Two key personnel from his administration and campaign are going to jail for tax fraud, and all Republicans can do is point out that evidence of Russian collusion hasn't been provided.  There's no point in me pointing out all of the other contradictions, as there is always an excuse for every action.  But it's amazing what people will ignore or forgive if they get a little bit of what they want.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 22, 2018, 03:05:29 AM
And you're just avoiding the key issues per your usual style.
What issues am I trying to avoid man? You've said that Americans wanted him and that Americans love him/what he's doing. I pointed out that if he was so popular maybe he should have won the popular vote, which he didn't. His approval ratings are bad overall, suck with Independents and are basically non existent with Democrats. But they are amazing with Republicans. So basically, no, Americans are not "loving it". Some Americans are loving what he's doing but Americans not really.

You obviously knew what I was saying but didn't like where it was going. So then you pivoted to talking about election messaging and fundraising which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. Then accused me of avoiding the issues. I'll say this, you're definitely not stupid, but you are insincere.

The issue you are avoiding is the electoral college vote - Trump 320 Clinton 212 . Trump destroyed the "Blue Wall".
This is the important issue in the United States. Civics 101. States elect our President - always have, always will.
You obviously know this, but duck the key issue of who actually elects the US President.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 22, 2018, 04:09:05 AM
And you're just avoiding the key issues per your usual style.
What issues am I trying to avoid man? You've said that Americans wanted him and that Americans love him/what he's doing. I pointed out that if he was so popular maybe he should have won the popular vote, which he didn't. His approval ratings are bad overall, suck with Independents and are basically non existent with Democrats. But they are amazing with Republicans. So basically, no, Americans are not "loving it". Some Americans are loving what he's doing but Americans not really.

You obviously knew what I was saying but didn't like where it was going. So then you pivoted to talking about election messaging and fundraising which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. Then accused me of avoiding the issues. I'll say this, you're definitely not stupid, but you are insincere.

The issue you are avoiding is the electoral college vote - Trump 320 Clinton 212 . Trump destroyed the "Blue Wall".
This is the important issue in the United States. Civics 101. States elect our President - always have, always will.
You obviously know this, but duck the key issue of who actually elects the US President.

This is always ignored by the left. But it's important because the truth is that outside of NY and CA there was nothing for Clinton. And let's face it, those states aren't even massively Democrat, in fact if you look at the heat map or county by county breakdown, they are predominantly red. PA is a great example of this. The Democrats just placate the shit hole areas with pro handout, "it's ok it's not your fault" rhetoric, and promises of a better future with no plausible strategy to execute it.

So I mean, yea, rack up points by placating the cesspools and guarantee 100+ electoral votes; good strategy. But these people and areas are hardly indicative of the average American. I laugh when thinking of NJ. Goes blue every time because of Trenton, Camden, and Newark. Anyone wanna live there? NOPE! Anyone want to take a stroll down those streets? NOPE! Good for nothing but votes. The left does a good job of painting their base as the Hollywood version. Movie stars and hedge fund philanthropists. But this isn't really the case.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 22, 2018, 04:59:44 AM
Stick to the thread topic.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 22, 2018, 06:39:27 AM
In less than 2 years, Trump has done far more good for this country than Obama ever did.

When Obama should have put his citizens back to work after the greatest economic crisis of our life time, he used
all his political capital on an enormously disastrous ObamaCare. That's his legacy.

In 8 years, Obama never got above 3% GDP growth, not once. Obama strangled the economy with job killing regulations.
He totally stifled business confidence - for 8 years no less. Obama didn't care one hoot about middle America and
the "deplorables" who didn't have jobs.  Any economic recovery was due to low interest rates instituted by a
US Federal Reserve that was independent of the Executive branch and Congress.

Obama effectively destroyed the Democratic Party and wasted 8 years. It was great to see that narcissist go.

Trump is a huge breath of fresh air that is turning this country around. Trump will totally destroy Obama's legacy
which accomplished nothing. Even better - the Clinton crime syndicate is finished politically.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: SharperDingaan on August 22, 2018, 07:04:30 AM
In less than 2 years, Trump has done far more good for this country than Obama ever did.

When Obama should have put his citizens back to work after the greatest economic crisis of our life time, he used
all his political capital on an enormously disastrous ObamaCare. That's his legacy.

In 8 years, Obama never got above 3% GDP growth, not once. Obama strangled the economy with job killing regulations.
He totally stifled business confidence - for 8 years no less. Obama didn't care one hoot about middle America and
the "deplorables" who didn't have jobs.  Any economic recovery was due to low interest rates instituted by a
US Federal Reserve that was independent of the Executive branch and Congress.

Obama effectively destroyed the Democratic Party and wasted 8 years. It was great to see that narcissist go.

Trump is a huge breath of fresh air that is turning this country around. Trump will totally destroy Obama's legacy
which accomplished nothing. Even better - the Clinton crime syndicate is finished politically.

But Trump made a fashion statement of the ankle bracelet from US Pen (intentiary)  :D
Gotta have something to sell to pay the bills!

SD
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: FiveSigma on August 22, 2018, 08:39:24 AM
'Lordy, I hope there are tapes.' (c) Comey

LMAO
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 22, 2018, 12:27:04 PM
Looks like Coumo and company are about to pile on.
https://apnews.com/72c5c19195f84abfaa42eaffe78d806a/New-York-state-subpoenas-Cohen-in-Trump-Foundation-probe
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 22, 2018, 12:38:45 PM
Looks like Coumo and company are about to pile on.
https://apnews.com/72c5c19195f84abfaa42eaffe78d806a/New-York-state-subpoenas-Cohen-in-Trump-Foundation-probe

Expect nothing less. This is life and death for the Establishment. Especially the Dems as they see bug eyed, socialist clowns like Ocasio taking over the party. You've got fools like Pelosi and Maxine Waters on one end, and Home-Flipping Pocahontas and Cortez on the other. This is why they won't let go of this insatiable urge to undermine and potentially oust Trump. If one tenth of the effort was put into a Clinton investigation, she d be behind bars for life. It is fun watching them in their obsessive and petty fits though.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on August 22, 2018, 01:01:15 PM
In less than 2 years, Trump has done far more good for this country than Obama ever did.

When Obama should have put his citizens back to work after the greatest economic crisis of our life time, he used
all his political capital on an enormously disastrous ObamaCare. That's his legacy.

In 8 years, Obama never got above 3% GDP growth, not once. Obama strangled the economy with job killing regulations.
He totally stifled business confidence - for 8 years no less. Obama didn't care one hoot about middle America and
the "deplorables" who didn't have jobs.  Any economic recovery was due to low interest rates instituted by a
US Federal Reserve that was independent of the Executive branch and Congress.

Obama effectively destroyed the Democratic Party and wasted 8 years. It was great to see that narcissist go.

Trump is a huge breath of fresh air that is turning this country around. Trump will totally destroy Obama's legacy
which accomplished nothing. Even better - the Clinton crime syndicate is finished politically.

Your facts are a bit misleading.  I believe you mean GDP on an annual basis never made it over 3%, but it certainly did several times on a quarterly basis.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/

Trump needs better than 3% annual GDP growth to overcome the deficit of his huge tax cuts.  Do I disagree with the tax cuts...no.  But try and compare apples to apples.

Also, are the employment statistics you review under Trump's leadership, calculated the same way as they were under Obama's?  If so, why were the Republicans discounting the job creation results under Obama when employment trended from over 11% down to 5%?  Where are the questions of how many people have simply given up looking for a job when calculating the employment numbers behind Trumps stats?  No body mentions it now, because it was bullshit to being with! 

Finally, Trump is a beneficiary of low interest rates as well.  And he did benefit from a tail-wind provided by his predecessor.  Nothing happens exclusively in a bubble...it's not as simple as that.  Just like Obama inherited the biggest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression from his predecessor.  Cheers!

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Pauly on August 22, 2018, 01:23:48 PM

If one tenth of the effort was put into a Clinton investigation, she d be behind bars for life. It is fun watching them in their obsessive and petty fits though.

Do you not realize how bizarre this sounds? Do you really think there's a mountain of evidence showing Clinton to be some criminal mastermind that's just waiting for someone to 'put the effort' into finding?

Clinton haters are running every branch of government, yet she's walking free while the President's cronies are being locked up. Doesn't that mean anything to you?
Trump ran on a promise to 'lock her up', yet he hasn't. Why? Couldn't he just 'put in the effort' and lock her away for life? The cognitive dissonance is really astounding.

Honestly, following these threads is maddening sometimes, but at least it provides a good way to discount posts on other topics. Because if you can believe such nonsense in one area, what else are you falling for?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 22, 2018, 02:07:09 PM

If one tenth of the effort was put into a Clinton investigation, she d be behind bars for life. It is fun watching them in their obsessive and petty fits though.

Do you not realize how bizarre this sounds? Do you really think there's a mountain of evidence showing Clinton to be some criminal mastermind that's just waiting for someone to 'put the effort' into finding?

Clinton haters are running every branch of government, yet she's walking free while the President's cronies are being locked up. Doesn't that mean anything to you?
Trump ran on a promise to 'lock her up', yet he hasn't. Why? Couldn't he just 'put in the effort' and lock her away for life? The cognitive dissonance is really astounding.

Honestly, following these threads is maddening sometimes, but at least it provides a good way to discount posts on other topics. Because if you can believe such nonsense in one area, what else are you falling for?

1. You must not have been aware of the documentation showing Comey and Co went out of their way to retroactively change the wording they used after realizing their initial findings indicated a clear crime. They then lied under oath about it.

2. No. As we've already seen, if Trump or Republicans went after Clinton you'd have the libs screaming "TYRANT", or any of the other crap they start doing anytime the subject is raised.

3. I agree. I've found that loosely some of the usual suspects have poor investment results, but maybe that's just a sample size issue. Others don't even really discuss stocks, just politics. To each their own though.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 22, 2018, 02:09:18 PM
In less than 2 years, Trump has done far more good for this country than Obama ever did.

When Obama should have put his citizens back to work after the greatest economic crisis of our life time, he used
all his political capital on an enormously disastrous ObamaCare. That's his legacy.

In 8 years, Obama never got above 3% GDP growth, not once. Obama strangled the economy with job killing regulations.
He totally stifled business confidence - for 8 years no less. Obama didn't care one hoot about middle America and
the "deplorables" who didn't have jobs.  Any economic recovery was due to low interest rates instituted by a
US Federal Reserve that was independent of the Executive branch and Congress.

Obama effectively destroyed the Democratic Party and wasted 8 years. It was great to see that narcissist go.

Trump is a huge breath of fresh air that is turning this country around. Trump will totally destroy Obama's legacy
which accomplished nothing. Even better - the Clinton crime syndicate is finished politically.

Your facts are a bit misleading.  I believe you mean GDP on an annual basis never made it over 3%, but it certainly did several times on a quarterly basis.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/

Trump needs better than 3% annual GDP growth to overcome the deficit of his huge tax cuts.  Do I disagree with the tax cuts...no.  But try and compare apples to apples.

Also, are the employment statistics you review under Trump's leadership, calculated the same way as they were under Obama's?  If so, why were the Republicans discounting the job creation results under Obama when employment trended from over 11% down to 5%?  Where are the questions of how many people have simply given up looking for a job when calculating the employment numbers behind Trumps stats?  No body mentions it now, because it was bullshit to being with! 

Finally, Trump is a beneficiary of low interest rates as well.  And he did benefit from a tail-wind provided by his predecessor.  Nothing happens exclusively in a bubble...it's not as simple as that.  Just like Obama inherited the biggest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression from his predecessor.  Cheers!

Yes, correct - Obama never had over 3% GDP growth on an annual basis for any one year. First President in decades not to do it.
So he ignores his most important job, which is helping to get people back to work - for 8 friggin' years. And to think I voted for this guy.

Now this economy has huge tailwinds because Trump has rolled back all Obama's job killing and confidence killing policies.
What an idiot Obama was. As soon as he got his Nobel Prize - he realized he was the smartest man in the world and he
didn't need to listen to anyone - least of all - those middle American voters that were out of jobs.

Tell me with a straight face that 8 years is not enough time to fix employment?  Trump figured it out in 18 months.

Trump's "tailwind" was simple: just roll back all the dumb stuff Obama did - and this economy is now on fire.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 22, 2018, 02:29:17 PM
Federal investigations take years. The Trump Foundation investigation was a matter of time since they, you know, admitted to violations during the election and further evidence only made the violations more egregious.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37369515 (pre-election)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foundation-apparently-admits-to-violating-ban-on-self-dealing-new-filing-to-irs-shows/2016/11/22/893f6508-b0a9-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.16e45101bdc6 (post-election, 2016)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/nyregion/attorney-general-trump-lawsuit.html

The Clinton Foundation is also being investigated. If no charges are brought, it's probably because there isn't a strong case. The DOJ wins 95%+ cases across every criminal type (some years are slightly below but on average).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-fbi-is-investigating-the-clinton-foundation/2018/01/05/1aca0d4a-f1cf-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cd144705e484

And, to contradict every trope about federal law enforcement from certain Presidents of the United States and media outlets, the investigation was pushed by the FBI but the DOJ didn't think it had legs. I haven't seen any articles presenting a reason to doubt the DOJ.

Quote
The Clinton Foundation probe dates to 2015, when FBI agents in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock and Washington began looking at those who had made donations to the charity, based largely on news accounts, according to people familiar with the matter.

But in 2016, Justice Department prosecutors rejected a request from FBI agents to expand and intensify their work. They asked that the bureau not take any investigative steps that could become public, out of worry this could affect the impending election.

The investigation resumed after the election, with the FBI's Little Rock office taking the lead, said one person familiar with the matter. Still, there was some skepticism inside the Justice Department that it would ever produce charges.

"It was never a great case, but it's still being worked," said one person familiar with the probe.

This was known in 2017 when the DOJ said:

Quote
Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd wrote that Sessions had "directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues raised in your letters," and that those prosecutors would "report directly to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel."

This is exactly the type of disclosure Comey has been lambasted over.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 22, 2018, 07:27:28 PM
And you're just avoiding the key issues per your usual style.
What issues am I trying to avoid man? You've said that Americans wanted him and that Americans love him/what he's doing. I pointed out that if he was so popular maybe he should have won the popular vote, which he didn't. His approval ratings are bad overall, suck with Independents and are basically non existent with Democrats. But they are amazing with Republicans. So basically, no, Americans are not "loving it". Some Americans are loving what he's doing but Americans not really.

You obviously knew what I was saying but didn't like where it was going. So then you pivoted to talking about election messaging and fundraising which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. Then accused me of avoiding the issues. I'll say this, you're definitely not stupid, but you are insincere.

The issue you are avoiding is the electoral college vote - Trump 320 Clinton 212 . Trump destroyed the "Blue Wall".
This is the important issue in the United States. Civics 101. States elect our President - always have, always will.
You obviously know this, but duck the key issue of who actually elects the US President.
Oh, is that what you meant? Not avoiding that at all. I don't see that as an issue, more like a fact really. That's not debatable in my opinion. As the rules are set up in the United Stated Donald Trump won the election. He got his electoral collage votes and that's that. I don't know what else there is to say.

But you were saying how Americans love him and I was just pointing out that they don't really do.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on August 22, 2018, 09:04:22 PM
In less than 2 years, Trump has done far more good for this country than Obama ever did.

When Obama should have put his citizens back to work after the greatest economic crisis of our life time, he used
all his political capital on an enormously disastrous ObamaCare. That's his legacy.

In 8 years, Obama never got above 3% GDP growth, not once. Obama strangled the economy with job killing regulations.
He totally stifled business confidence - for 8 years no less. Obama didn't care one hoot about middle America and
the "deplorables" who didn't have jobs.  Any economic recovery was due to low interest rates instituted by a
US Federal Reserve that was independent of the Executive branch and Congress.

Obama effectively destroyed the Democratic Party and wasted 8 years. It was great to see that narcissist go.

Trump is a huge breath of fresh air that is turning this country around. Trump will totally destroy Obama's legacy
which accomplished nothing. Even better - the Clinton crime syndicate is finished politically.

Your facts are a bit misleading.  I believe you mean GDP on an annual basis never made it over 3%, but it certainly did several times on a quarterly basis.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/

Trump needs better than 3% annual GDP growth to overcome the deficit of his huge tax cuts.  Do I disagree with the tax cuts...no.  But try and compare apples to apples.

Also, are the employment statistics you review under Trump's leadership, calculated the same way as they were under Obama's?  If so, why were the Republicans discounting the job creation results under Obama when employment trended from over 11% down to 5%?  Where are the questions of how many people have simply given up looking for a job when calculating the employment numbers behind Trumps stats?  No body mentions it now, because it was bullshit to being with! 

Finally, Trump is a beneficiary of low interest rates as well.  And he did benefit from a tail-wind provided by his predecessor.  Nothing happens exclusively in a bubble...it's not as simple as that.  Just like Obama inherited the biggest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression from his predecessor.  Cheers!

Yes, correct - Obama never had over 3% GDP growth on an annual basis for any one year. First President in decades not to do it.
So he ignores his most important job, which is helping to get people back to work - for 8 friggin' years. And to think I voted for this guy.

Now this economy has huge tailwinds because Trump has rolled back all Obama's job killing and confidence killing policies.
What an idiot Obama was. As soon as he got his Nobel Prize - he realized he was the smartest man in the world and he
didn't need to listen to anyone - least of all - those middle American voters that were out of jobs.

Tell me with a straight face that 8 years is not enough time to fix employment?  Trump figured it out in 18 months.

Trump's "tailwind" was simple: just roll back all the dumb stuff Obama did - and this economy is now on fire.
Here's the thing, yes, Obama didn't have a 3% growth year. Trump didn't either. While there may be freak accident where you do get a 3% print. Trump most likely won't get a 3% year. And that's totally ok. I don't get this obsession with the 3% number. It's just a political made up thing. Has nothing to do with anything.

Now let's get a bit political. In terms of helping the unemployed, when unemployment was high and the Obama administration wanted to do some fiscal stimulus who was against it? The republicans. Back then the deficit and the debt were apparently a really big deal. The unemployed had to take a back seat to that. Once a republican started inhabiting the White House the deficit and debt became less important.

You mention that low interest rates helped a lot with the recovery. I agree. But who was really against low interest rates? The republicans. Remember all those rants about how Bernake was debasing the dollar and hyperinflation was just around the corner. So after all of that if republicans has any shame they would stop offering advice about economic management.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 23, 2018, 12:38:07 AM
How silly - sustained 3% growth translates into millions of jobs and you know it. Obama simply strangled the US economy with
job killing regulations. He totally destroyed business confidence and was the most anti business US President in years.
There is no disputing that.

This economy was set back for 8 years - we will see how it goes under Trump - so far it looks pretty good.
Trump is a businessman - Obama was an ivory tower ideologue that thought government regulation was the answer.
He simply strangled the economy while Trump unleased it.

Trump is showing BOTH parties what America is really capable of doing.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 23, 2018, 01:11:09 AM
So... back to Russia...

Looks like there are now hints that parts of the Steele Dossier involving Cohen are going to be confirmed: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/22/michael-cohen-paid-a-mysterious-tech-company-50000-in-connection-with-trumps-campaign.html

Have any of you guys read the Steele Dossier? I read it when it was released. My first impression was that at least 50% was probably false. So far nothing has been proven false and many things have been not only proven true, but it also made some accurate (or seemingly accurate) predictions. Here you go: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

The story I thought was least likely to be true, but is now veering in the direction of "true" was the weird sale/repurchase of 19% of Rosneft. The dossier predicted it would happen, and even accurately forecasted the size of the stake, and claimed that the Trump Org would get a massive brokerage fee to the tune of $250mm (probably held in escrow until sanctions are removed). Sounds too crazy to be true, but it all went through as predicted, and then a year later Michael Avenatti tweeted out a video of the guy who runs the Qatari investment firm that bought the stake at Trump Tower being escorted around with Michael Cohen two days after the sale. Crazy!

This is top of my list of things I want to know about since Cohen has flipped. Next on the list is what was Cohen doing for Hannity? We know what Cohen did for Trump and Broidy. What are the chances he did the same thing for Hannity?

Speaking of Hannity -  I'm going to take this moment to remind everyone that Hannity had a lot of nice things to say about Cohen when that news came out. Do you think he's going to change his mind in the months to come? Rhetorical question - I know  ;D
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 23, 2018, 01:18:23 AM
How silly - sustained 3% growth translates into millions of jobs and you know it. Obama simply strangled the US economy with
job killing regulations. He totally destroyed business confidence and was the most anti business US President in years.
There is no disputing that.

This economy was set back for 8 years - we will see how it goes under Trump - so far it looks pretty good.
Trump is a businessman - Obama was an ivory tower ideologue that thought government regulation was the answer.
He simply strangled the economy while Trump unleased it.

Trump is showing BOTH parties what America is really capable of doing.

Look at the attached chart. Obama did not strangle the economy for 8 years. He did not kill jobs. The data doesn't fit that hypothesis.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on August 23, 2018, 04:14:53 AM
Thanks for the visual!

You got it Bro! - It took him 8 friggin years to do this!  He should have had Americans back to work in 2 or 3. Subpar growth.
The American economy recovered due to low interest rates IN SPITE of Obama's job killing policies.

That's why the Democrats lost the election - they are no longer the party of the working class.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 23, 2018, 04:59:05 AM
I wasn't a fan of Obama, but I think the truth is that he probably didn't do anything either way. He definitely didn't help the economy, but I don't think he hurt it much either. His presence was kind of irrelevant and the results were more so a bi-product of the events that unfolded in 2007-2009.

Many of the regulation and all that crap were simply the knee jerk reaction to the financial crisis and the politicians trying to make it look like they were addressing the problem so it never happened again. We all know that is garbage, but that's what went on. The economy was simply so bad following the recession that it had no place to go but up.

Trump has actually been proactive and used common sense when handling the economy. So he deserves credit for that.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on August 23, 2018, 05:10:27 AM
Dershowitz  builds a pretty good argument that there was no campaign finance violation.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on August 23, 2018, 09:30:34 AM
cc: Bagholder Quotes.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/23/politics/trump-flipping-outlawed/

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1032368845757923328
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 23, 2018, 10:06:59 AM
I'm not sure why that story get's you guys so hard. This guy(one of Trumps few friends) was given immunity to go after Cohen, and it happened quite some time ago. Had he disclosed anything harmful to Trump it would already have been out there. If you make any effort to follow the timeline, it's clear he pinned it all on Cohen. Womp. Womp.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 23, 2018, 11:44:51 AM
Had he disclosed anything harmful to Trump it would already have been out there.

At every point this has been said, we have learned about some new detail or event that contradicts this idea. No one had heard about the Trump Tower meeting until after Mueller was appointed. No one thought anything of Papadapolous until his plea deal (and then we found out about his drunken talk with Downer was a pretty important event). No one thought there was any proof of the DNC hack until the indictment laid out evidence that some intel agency bugged them and tracked their every action.

So I don't really understand this thinking but I get that it makes it easier.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 23, 2018, 12:04:53 PM
Had he disclosed anything harmful to Trump it would already have been out there.

At every point this has been said, we have learned about some new detail or event that contradicts this idea. No one had heard about the Trump Tower meeting until after Mueller was appointed. No one thought anything of Papadapolous until his plea deal (and then we found out about his drunken talk with Downer was a pretty important event). No one thought there was any proof of the DNC hack until the indictment laid out evidence that some intel agency bugged them and tracked their every action.

So I don't really understand this thinking but I get that it makes it easier.

I think it is clear who here is trying to "make it easier".

Your points don't even make sense. Everyone with eyes and ears knew the DNC was hacked. I mean what? You think the DNC sent it to Wikileaks last summer? Come on. We didn't really need Muellers report to know this. As to the other events, yet again you are pointing to things that just aren't really that material(except maybe to those who can't get over Trump).

I mean the economy is doing great, we ve at least made minimal progress with North Korea, tax reform got done, jobs are being created, and yet to MSM and a bunch of people still bitter about the election the only thing you'd think is relevant is a couple wealthy Trump friends cheating on their taxes, whether or not Trump screwed a porn star, if there is a tape of him saying the N word! (In a funny note, some dumb ass reporter literally asked this same question 6 times in a row, in different ways, the other day, despite being given an answer. Is this really the most important thing the press has to cover lol?) it s like WTF is wrong with you people. Is your Trump hatred consuming you THIS much?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on August 23, 2018, 12:23:05 PM
I mean the economy is doing great, we ve at least made minimal progress with North Korea, tax reform got done, jobs are being created, and yet to MSM and a bunch of people still bitter about the election the only thing you'd think is relevant is a couple wealthy Trump friends cheating on their taxes, whether or not Trump screwed a porn star, if there is a tape of him saying the N word! (In a funny note, some dumb ass reporter literally asked this same question 6 times in a row, in different ways, the other day, despite being given an answer. Is this really the most important thing the press has to cover lol?) it s like WTF is wrong with you people. Is your Trump hatred consuming you THIS much?

Couple of things:
-The recovery under Obama was incredible, and yet he gets no credit for this?
-Tax reform I personally don't agree with - at least not the way it was implemented
-The issues I have with Trump's tenure have nothing to do with Stormy Daniels and have everything to do with (1) social policy regression and (2) gutting of important government regulations

He's like the crappy CEO that value investors hate: has has mortgaged our long-term success for a short-term spike. Divisive policies (trade, social), tax cuts for those who don't need it, and government/regulatory cuts which will create problems long after he is gone.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 23, 2018, 01:06:17 PM
I mean the economy is doing great, we ve at least made minimal progress with North Korea, tax reform got done, jobs are being created, and yet to MSM and a bunch of people still bitter about the election the only thing you'd think is relevant is a couple wealthy Trump friends cheating on their taxes, whether or not Trump screwed a porn star, if there is a tape of him saying the N word! (In a funny note, some dumb ass reporter literally asked this same question 6 times in a row, in different ways, the other day, despite being given an answer. Is this really the most important thing the press has to cover lol?) it s like WTF is wrong with you people. Is your Trump hatred consuming you THIS much?

Couple of things:
-The recovery under Obama was incredible, and yet he gets no credit for this?
-Tax reform I personally don't agree with - at least not the way it was implemented
-The issues I have with Trump's tenure have nothing to do with Stormy Daniels and have everything to do with (1) social policy regression and (2) gutting of important government regulations

He's like the crappy CEO that value investors hate: has has mortgaged our long-term success for a short-term spike. Divisive policies (trade, social), tax cuts for those who don't need it, and government/regulatory cuts which will create problems long after he is gone.

And this is a valid argument. You raise legit concerns. Instead of all this other crap. The wah, wah ,wah stuff you get from Dougie and Liberty and the like, who go 6-12 every time they stumble upon a Twitter rumor that has even a fractional connection to Trump. Problem is the Lib crew doesn't raise issues of substance like you just did. They just cry about things that don't really matter that much, and then try to convince everyone else how much those petty things do actually matter.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on August 23, 2018, 01:13:38 PM
I agree with you there. Its sad because it has spilled over to this forum as well. I have seen maybe 4 posts about Dept of Energy budget cuts, and zero posts on removing National Parks/Forests protections (which will allow for more drilling and contamination), and zero posts on the reduction in transparency and reporting from federal offices (which is supposed to inform the public about the amount of drilling and such which takes place). Nobody cares and we will all pay for it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 23, 2018, 01:31:27 PM
I agree with you there. Its sad because it has spilled over to this forum as well. I have seen maybe 4 posts about Dept of Energy budget cuts, and zero posts on removing National Parks/Forests protections (which will allow for more drilling and contamination), and zero posts on the reduction in transparency and reporting from federal offices (which is supposed to inform the public about the amount of drilling and such which takes place). Nobody cares and we will all pay for it.

I 100% agree on the energy policy. Trump admin is trading short term job creation for long term depletion of our reserves. When frankly we had such an awesome deal going prior. Preserve all of our resources and use everyone else's, which results in everyone else becoming reliant of us even more so, a slow burn and in the really long run, their resources are shot and we're sitting on a gold mine.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on August 23, 2018, 09:13:42 PM
I mean the economy is doing great, we ve at least made minimal progress with North Korea, tax reform got done, jobs are being created, and yet to MSM and a bunch of people still bitter about the election the only thing you'd think is relevant is a couple wealthy Trump friends cheating on their taxes, whether or not Trump screwed a porn star, if there is a tape of him saying the N word! (In a funny note, some dumb ass reporter literally asked this same question 6 times in a row, in different ways, the other day, despite being given an answer. Is this really the most important thing the press has to cover lol?) it s like WTF is wrong with you people. Is your Trump hatred consuming you THIS much?

Couple of things:
-The recovery under Obama was incredible, and yet he gets no credit for this?
-Tax reform I personally don't agree with - at least not the way it was implemented
-The issues I have with Trump's tenure have nothing to do with Stormy Daniels and have everything to do with (1) social policy regression and (2) gutting of important government regulations

He's like the crappy CEO that value investors hate: has has mortgaged our long-term success for a short-term spike. Divisive policies (trade, social), tax cuts for those who don't need it, and government/regulatory cuts which will create problems long after he is gone.

Reasonable people can disagree and I disagree with LC. My issues with Trump are grounded in my strong belief that capitalism is the best and most ethical path forward for humanity. Anyone who agrees with me would also agree that this means a government should exist for three reasons:

1. National Defense
2. Enforcement of contracts
3. Protection of individual rights (protection from murder, assault, harassment, etc.)

He's clearly failing on #1 given his continuing collusion (*conspiracy*) with Russia to undermine our democratic process, and the resulting foreign policy fallout - his stance against Nato and pandering to Putin etc. And if you roll up #2 and #3 as "Rule of Law" he obviously failing there - his former campaign chair is guilty, his former national security advisor is guilty, and his personal attorney is guilty, just to name a few. He's also handed out pardons to some pretty repugnant human beings. And all of this is just the surface. Barely a day goes by where we don't learn some new insane thing he's done to break with principles set out above.

That said, I do believe there is merit to the items LC listed. LC and I probably agree on the importance of those things, but likely disagree on what the right path is to get there. Nonetheless, there is a far larger problem to solve now. I look forward to the day when we can get back to debating mundane issues - or rather - I look forward to the day when I can pretend like politicians don't exist.

P.S. I have ideals and I like to argue them, like I did above. That said I feel like some of Trump's policy is so ridiculous it's tough to address them when arguing ideals. I have two children and I can't imagine how anyone with kids can be ok with what Trump has done with families on our borders. I don't care if they are coming here illegally. It is morally repugnant to treat other human beings that way, especially children. It's truly one of the worst episodes in our nation's history. Despicable.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on August 23, 2018, 11:34:00 PM
I mean the economy is doing great, we ve at least made minimal progress with North Korea, tax reform got done, jobs are being created, and yet to MSM and a bunch of people still bitter about the election the only thing you'd think is relevant is a couple wealthy Trump friends cheating on their taxes, whether or not Trump screwed a porn star, if there is a tape of him saying the N word! (In a funny note, some dumb ass reporter literally asked this same question 6 times in a row, in different ways, the other day, despite being given an answer. Is this really the most important thing the press has to cover lol?) it s like WTF is wrong with you people. Is your Trump hatred consuming you THIS much?

Couple of things:
-The recovery under Obama was incredible, and yet he gets no credit for this?
-Tax reform I personally don't agree with - at least not the way it was implemented
-The issues I have with Trump's tenure have nothing to do with Stormy Daniels and have everything to do with (1) social policy regression and (2) gutting of important government regulations

He's like the crappy CEO that value investors hate: has has mortgaged our long-term success for a short-term spike. Divisive policies (trade, social), tax cuts for those who don't need it, and government/regulatory cuts which will create problems long after he is gone.

And this is a valid argument. You raise legit concerns. Instead of all this other crap. The wah, wah ,wah stuff you get from Dougie and Liberty and the like, who go 6-12 every time they stumble upon a Twitter rumor that has even a fractional connection to Trump. Problem is the Lib crew doesn't raise issues of substance like you just did. They just cry about things that don't really matter that much, and then try to convince everyone else how much those petty things do actually matter.

But how is this any different than the right wing cry babies?  Maybe stop talking about babies on either side, and focus on the actual issues at heart! 

Trump has done a few smart things, but does that allow everyone to simply ignore all of the blatant lies, divisiveness, rhetoric, attacks on predecessors, support of criminals, racists, blowhards and jackasses, or his xenophobic and homophobic policies?  And that's just to name a handful of the issues around his behavior and conduct. 

No one is saying that Bush, Obama or Clinton were perfect or great...but let's not bullshit ourselves about Trump either.  The hypocrisy of evangelicals supporting him alone is mind-blowing! 

And getting back to the title subject...supporters and the Trump team were saying that he wasn't lying on almost every personal matter that he denied.
 Now you have two very close Trump cohorts going to jail...white collar criminals yes...but criminals nonetheless.  And in Manafort's case, the size of the fraud and tax evasion was enormous!  This is not a good guy, or brave guy as the President touts, but a f**king crook that he employed and was very close to.  So, let's not discount the whole Russian Collusion thing until this is all over.  It's been nothing but lies, hypocrisy and bullshit for 18 months!
 Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on August 24, 2018, 07:54:52 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/allen-weisselberg-longtime-trump-organization-cfo-is-granted-immunity-by-federal-prosecutors-in-michael-cohen-investigation-1535121992

"Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organization CFO, Is Granted Immunity in Cohen Probe"

Quote
Allen Weisselberg, President Trump’s longtime financial gatekeeper, was granted immunity by federal prosecutors for providing information about Michael Cohen in the criminal investigation into hush-money payments for two women during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Weisselberg was called to testify before a federal grand jury in the investigation earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal previously reported, citing people familiar with the investigation.

The hits just keep coming..

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-25/new-cohen-recording-surfaces-a-bigger-catch

Quote
Weisselberg, on the other hand, has worked for the Trump family since the 1970s, and knows more about the Trump Organization’s history and finances than nearly anyone. Almost 71 years old, he joined the company after graduating from college and worked for the president’s father, Fred, as an accountant. He has since become the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer and one of the president’s closest business confidants (alongside Jason Greenblatt, who was Trump’s in-house legal counsel before the president named him as a special diplomatic envoy to the Middle East).

Weisselberg also served as treasurer of the president’s troubled philanthropy, The Donald J. Trump Foundation, which the New York State Attorney General has sued for allegations involving “extensive and persistent violations of state and federal law.” The suit says the foundation routinely and willfully broke the law by engaging in self-dealing that ultimately came to include illegal coordination with Trump’s political campaign. Weisselberg hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing. [...]

Over the years, Weisselberg’s professional duties also came to include handling Trump’s personal finances as well as the Trump Organization’s corporate finances. He has paid household bills, made large purchases for Trump, and has communicated with Trump’s outside investment advisers. After Trump became president his lawyers created a trust that safeguards his interest in the Trump Organization while ostensibly managing the company without his input. The trust is run by Weisselberg and the president’s two eldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric.

More:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-24/allen-weisselberg-immunity-is-potential-trump-game-changer
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on August 24, 2018, 01:00:40 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/allen-weisselberg-longtime-trump-organization-cfo-is-granted-immunity-by-federal-prosecutors-in-michael-cohen-investigation-1535121992

"Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organization CFO, Is Granted Immunity in Cohen Probe"

Quote
Allen Weisselberg, President Trump’s longtime financial gatekeeper, was granted immunity by federal prosecutors for providing information about Michael Cohen in the criminal investigation into hush-money payments for two women during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Weisselberg was called to testify before a federal grand jury in the investigation earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal previously reported, citing people familiar with the investigation.

The hits just keep coming..

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-25/new-cohen-recording-surfaces-a-bigger-catch

Cant wait for the taxes and the Trump business stuff to come out. I would think it would be of special interest on these boards.

At least we'll finally get to see them!  I love the quote:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics/allen-weisselberg-immunity-cohen-investigation/index.html

"Allen knows where all the financial bodies are buried. Allen knows every deal, he knows every dealership, he knows every sale, anything and everything that's been done -- he knows every membership. Anything you can think of," said the person, who was not making any specific allegations about the Trump Organization's finances."

At the end of the day, this is nothing but a fake news witch hunt.  Poor Trump may end up wearing the scarlet letters "ADX".  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Lakesider on August 24, 2018, 04:36:50 PM
"I tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor."

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on August 24, 2018, 06:47:05 PM
On the topic of N Korea:

https://i.redd.it/umjj1mis23i11.jpg
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Liberty on August 26, 2018, 10:02:36 AM
Oh boy https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-26/southern-district-of-new-york-will-tear-into-trump-organization
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on August 28, 2018, 10:56:35 AM
https://nypost.com/2018/08/28/michael-cohens-lawyer-admits-to-being-source-of-cnn-story/

I believe this was one of the "BIG NEWS!" stories the liberal media, as well as folks like dougie and liberty took the bait on. How funny!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on August 28, 2018, 11:16:30 AM
https://nypost.com/2018/08/28/michael-cohens-lawyer-admits-to-being-source-of-cnn-story/

I believe this was one of the "BIG NEWS!" stories the liberal media, as well as folks like dougie and liberty took the bait on. How funny!

If Lanny lies about or misreports a fact then there's not much the media (or readers) can do to avoid the mistake, right? The Daily Caller had a nearly identical issue with Guccifer pretending to be Guccifer_2 in early 2016. It's still much more of a news outlet than a 'fake news' outlet. Shit happens sometimes.

I'll never understand taking joy in watching important facets of our country fail. It's like the folks who root for the US to lose in war. That type of attitude is never going to be for me.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on September 01, 2018, 05:34:03 AM
If Ohr is telling the truth, the Obama administration is starting to look like the Nixon administration.

https://outline.com/SfXFfE
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on September 01, 2018, 07:01:16 AM
If Ohr is telling the truth, the Obama administration is starting to look like the Nixon administration.

https://outline.com/SfXFfE

I understand better why Gowdy kept hammering July 30 during the hearing but I'm not sure I understand what Ohr did wrong. Successful people marry successful people, often with similar interests. Ohr should have told the DOJ before his July 30th meeting. Sounds like he was reprimanded for it. Then he met Steele again after the FBI stopped working with him on this case and Ohr was demoted. It seems like it was handled well by all in the DOJ.

I don't think it's surprising that the primary international organized crime lawyer at the DOJ would know and like talking to a guy like Steele. Still, the DOJ decided to enforce internal rules. What is the actual allegation of wrongdoing with relation to Trump? That I can't figure out.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on September 01, 2018, 07:05:44 AM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-31/patten-caused-foreign-money-to-be-paid-to-inaugural-committee


Trump Inaugural Committee Got Foreign Money, Plea Deal Shows

I think this is more about Tom Barrack and getting info from that layer of advisors. Doesn't seem like Trump or any POTUS-elect would raise money themselves for their inauguration.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on September 01, 2018, 07:19:05 AM
Schwab

The problems are as follows:

The FBI fired Steele per their rules then used Ohr to get around their rules and use Steele unofficially;  the FISA  applications only mention Steele as the author of the dossier and omits the fact that Ohr's wife helped write the dossier for pay; and the FBI and DOJ players who signed the FISA applications were clearly made aware of the fact that Steele had it in for Trump and neglected to mention it to the court.  From the above it appears the FISA applications were carefully designed for the purpose of spying and not because they believed what was in the dossier.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on September 01, 2018, 07:36:51 AM
But Steele was an official source as of the first application. I believe subsequent applications are based on evidence learned from the prior application (and much less on original evidence) but I'm obviously no expert. Also, they did mention the dossier was opposition research. It would be obvious that Trump was the opposition (and thus, this was probably paid for by Clinton in some manner). If we are going to argue that opposition research is common then a consequence is everyone at this level of government understand that reference in the application.

I get the concern about Ohr's wife working on the dossier that is included in the application. That seems very reasonable. We don't know what her role was in the preparation of the document though. It says she assisted. Do we know she wrote it? What did she do? My only pushback (since I'm no expert and there's scant evidence of a conspiracy against Trump imo) is that Trump's sister is a federal judge. He probably knows many of the judges that have reviewed his case. The wife of the highest ranking member of the body investigating Trump is working directly for Trump. Trump's personal lawyer said during the campaign that he was receiving information about an on-going investigation during the campaign. There's lots of examples of this stuff in both parties and for Trump himself. It's worth scrutiny but I don't think you draw a conclusion about them without more info (including in the instances with Trump - I have to assume McConnell and his wife are acting appropriately since I have no reason to believe otherwise).

I don't know, we'll have to see I guess. It seems like Trump has received fair treatment thus far imo.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on September 01, 2018, 08:03:12 AM
Schwab

Two points worth mentioning: 
First Ohr held two titles within the DOJ.  In addition to his role in the Organized Crime Department, he was also an associate attorney general - in other words a top ranked official.
Second his wife worked for Fusion GPS and according to Ohr's testimony she contributed to the dossier.  So the dossier was actually from Steele and at least in part from Fusion GPS.  The fact that Fusion and one of their employee's, a wife of a top ranked DOJ official - involvement with the dossier was kept from the court is highly troubling.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on September 01, 2018, 08:30:50 AM
I believe FISA applications are considered Top Secret. Mrs. Ohr should not know how her work was going to be used (putting aside I don't know what her work on the dossier was and it shouldn't matter since she shouldn't know regardless of her involvement). Let's say she did know her work would be included in a FISA application. That's a really big deal and both of them would be in a lot of trouble. I suppose we'll know more in time if it effects the case against the Trump Campaign but I'm not sure how it would other than maybe make some evidence inadmissible? I suppose it could also have knock-on effects without a lot of terrorism and espionage cases unrelated to Trump or 2016. Agreed that it would definitely be very bad if that is found to be the case.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on September 01, 2018, 09:01:13 AM
You're missing the point, Schwab.  Don't focus on the Ohrs. Focus instead on the players who signed off on the warrant application who - if you believe Ohr - mislead the court for the purpose of spying - because they clearly had reasons to question the veracity of the dossier. It's one thing to say that it might have been opo reasearch.  Its an entirely different story when you know that the dossier was put together in part by an American company that specializes in opo reasearch and who was using  the wife of a top ranked DOJ official.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: tooskinneejs on September 01, 2018, 09:20:30 AM
A fictional dossier was used for the sole purpose of supporting a FISA warrant on Trump's campaign.  Ohr knew this and served as a backdoor conduit with Steele even after Steele was supposed to be no longer used as a source.  And the kicker: Ohr was briefing Andrew Weissman about this backdoor stuff with Steele the whole time.  Weissman was complicit in this dirty activity and now Weissman is part of the special counsel's team looking into Trump.  It truly doesn't get any more ironic.

How people can't see this clearly is baffling to me.  But maybe I'm able to see it clearly because I go out of my way to get my news from various sources with different political leanings.

And now its revealed that the FISA court doesn't even hold hearings on the applications to evaluate their merit.  They just take them and grant the requests no questions asked.  Crazy and troubling.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on September 01, 2018, 09:56:59 AM
You're missing the point, Schwab.  Don't focus on the Ohrs. Focus instead on the players who signed off on the warrant application who - if you believe Ohr - mislead the court for the purpose of spying - because they clearly had reasons to question the veracity of the dossier. It's one thing to say that it might have been opo reasearch.  Its an entirely different story when you know that the dossier was put together in part by an American company that specializes in opo reasearch and who was using  the wife of a top ranked DOJ official.

But they couldn't have known that when the first application was approved because Steele was a formal source at that time and it was appropriate to be speaking with him. Up to that point, the only mistake is that Ohr didn't preemptively tell his colleagues he was meeting with Steele. The meeting wasn't wrong. It's just bad taste not to tell your superiors. Starting in November 2016 (after Steele is released as a formal source), you are talking about different issues.

The stories surrounding Ohr still lack a formal allegation of wrongdoing that would change the case surrounding the Trump Campaign. If we are looking at signers, the only signer that would have known about Ohr/Steele after November 2016 would be Rosenstein. Rosenstein clearly didn't know about Ohr/Steele because he demoted Ohr for the behavior that is alleged to signal some sort of conspiracy.

So it's just the fact that tips were being provided by Steele to Ohr, who passed them on to investigators, that is troubling. Why? That is normal behavior. This doesn't signal some government conspiracy. This is nearly identical to the chain of tips to investigation surrounding the Clinton Foundation... (Clinton Cash author paid for sources, compiled them in to a book, and passed the tips on to investigators who began a formal investigation). Normal behavior.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on September 01, 2018, 10:24:31 AM
According to the WSJ they did know before the first warrant application.   (See the article that I originally linked. )

Here is the specific quote:

"Mr. Ohr said, moreover, that he delivered this information before the FBI’s first application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a warrant against Trump aide Carter Page, in October 2016. Yet the FBI made no mention of this warning in the application, instead characterizing Mr. Steele as a “reliable” source. Nor does the application note that a senior Justice Department official’s spouse was contributing to the dossier and benefiting financially from a document the FBI was using in an investigation. That matters both because the FBI failed to flag the enormous conflict and because Mr. Steele’s work product potentially wasn’t entirely his own."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on September 01, 2018, 11:42:24 AM
Gotcha. Circular reference (Ohr confirming Steele when it was actually Steele reiterating himself). Maybe this is why Carter Page hasn't been charged with anything? Admissibility issues or other issues.

I wish I knew the rules better here. I know the secret courts have a ton of leeway but I imagine this would at least piss off Yates/Rosenstein who signed next. Without checking, I think Comey signed the first application. I wonder if this is partially explained by silo'ing. Either way, agree on the updates it should probably be noted/corrected/whatever the correct word is. I agree it's worth knowing more about Bruce Ohr's role. I understand not disclosing his wife's role/compensation because I think that stuff is fairly common just from my knowledge of how some financial crimes have been investigated (though I'd make a lot of similar arguments if I defended Trump's actions)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on September 01, 2018, 01:21:01 PM
A fictional dossier was used for the sole purpose of supporting a FISA warrant on Trump's campaign.  Ohr knew this and served as a backdoor conduit with Steele even after Steele was supposed to be no longer used as a source.  And the kicker: Ohr was briefing Andrew Weissman about this backdoor stuff with Steele the whole time.  Weissman was complicit in this dirty activity and now Weissman is part of the special counsel's team looking into Trump.  It truly doesn't get any more ironic.

How people can't see this clearly is baffling to me.  But maybe I'm able to see it clearly because I go out of my way to get my news from various sources with different political leanings.

And now its revealed that the FISA court doesn't even hold hearings on the applications to evaluate their merit.  They just take them and grant the requests no questions asked.  Crazy and troubling.

You are definitely seeing the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate in action. The deep state absolutely hates Trump because much of this is now going to come out, instead of being buried by Clinton partisans and criminals. This organization makes Trump look like a baby in comparison. I hope they have really good lawyers.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on September 01, 2018, 04:24:31 PM
And now its revealed that the FISA court doesn't even hold hearings on the applications to evaluate their merit.  They just take them and grant the requests no questions asked.  Crazy and troubling.

Former DOJ Inspector General, Assistant US Attorney, SDNY:

https://twitter.com/mrbromwich/status/1035955644141068288

"People who know nothing about law enforcement should not opine on it so glibly. Judges make decisions on warrants — FISA, domestic surveillance, search warrants — on the papers, without a hearing, all the time. That is the norm, not the exception."


Don't like the norm? Tell GOP to change the rules. They are in charge.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on September 01, 2018, 05:11:50 PM
Professor of Law, University of Texas:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1035867856628592640

"... applications for #FISA warrants, like all other search warrants, are _never_ resolved in adversarial hearings where the target of the warrant is represented.

So @realDonaldTrump’s complaint here is that the Page application was treated just like every other one..."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on September 01, 2018, 05:16:48 PM
People state over and over that the Steele Dossier was politically motivated and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It was originally commissioned and paid for by Republicans. Also nothing in it has been shown to be false, and more and more of it has been shown to be true.

Republican support for Nixon was high during Watergate, which was dumb because he was a criminal. History repeats itself.... yada yada...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on September 01, 2018, 05:42:39 PM
Actually, that is BS - most of the Steele dossier is total garbage, and that has been proved. The real issue its that the FBI KNEW it was false, the DOJ with Bruce Ohr
KNEW it was false, and they still preceeded with it to deceive the FISA court - total scum bags. These boys are in real trouble.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on September 01, 2018, 06:10:48 PM
Actually, that is BS - most of the Steele dossier is total garbage, and that has been proved. The real issue its that the FBI KNEW it was false, the DOJ with Bruce Ohr
KNEW it was false, and they still preceeded with it to deceive the FISA court - total scum bags. These boys are in real trouble.

What has been proved?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on September 01, 2018, 07:59:02 PM
Christopher Steele was paid by the FBI for confidential information. Then he was dropped by the FBI as an "unreliable source" and not to be used.
Bruce Ohr from the DOJ, then gets in the middle and funnels Steele's information back to the FBI, including the dossier, which is completely
unverified. Both parties, FBI and DOJ know the information is unverified from the same "unreliable source" that was dropped by the FBI
because of his creditability.  Then they use that unverified information to obtain spying warrants on those they feel are working with Trump.
All the while deceiving the court by not disclosing the facts: informant had been dropped and was not to be used by FBI, document assembled by
DOJ participant's wife (Bruce Ohr) who was paid and partisan, information in dossier was never verified per FBI standards, and informant previously deemed unreliable.


How many conflicts of interests do you need to deceive the court?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on September 01, 2018, 09:11:18 PM
New: Ohr and Steel were involved in a secret FBI program aimed to turn Russian oligarchs into informants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/us/politics/deripaska-ohr-steele-fbi.html

Quote
Between 2014 and 2016, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department unsuccessfully tried to turn Mr. Deripaska into an informant. They signaled that they might provide help with his trouble in getting visas for the United States or even explore other steps to address his legal problems. In exchange, they were hoping for information on Russian organized crime and, later, on possible Russian aid to President Trump’s 2016 campaign, according to current and former officials and associates of Mr. Deripaska.

In one dramatic encounter, F.B.I. agents appeared unannounced and uninvited at a home Mr. Deripaska maintains in New York and pressed him on whether Paul Manafort, a former business partner of his who went on to become chairman of Mr. Trump’s campaign, had served as a link between the campaign and the Kremlin.

The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader, clandestine American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from roughly a half-dozen of Russia’s richest men, nearly all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V. Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said.

Two of the players in the effort were Bruce G. Ohr, the Justice Department official who has recently become a target of attacks by Mr. Trump, and Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled a dossier of purported links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

...

The contacts between Mr. Ohr and Mr. Steele were detailed in emails and notes from Mr. Ohr that the Justice Department turned over to Republicans in Congress earlier this year. A number of journalists, including some at conservative news outlets, have reported on elements of those contacts but not on the broader outreach program to the oligarchs or key aspects of the interactions between Mr. Ohr, Mr. Steele and Mr. Deripaska.

...

While Mr. Steele did discuss the research that resulted in the dossier with Mr. Ohr during the final months of the campaign, current and former officials said that Mr. Deripaska was the subject of many of the contacts between the two men between 2014 and 2016.

A timeline that Mr. Ohr hand-wrote of all his contacts with Mr. Steele was among the leaked documents cited by the president and his allies as evidence of an anti-Trump plot.

The contacts between Mr. Steele and Mr. Ohr started before Mr. Trump became a presidential candidate and continued through much of the campaign.

...

Mr. Steele sought to aid the effort to engage Mr. Deripaska, and he noted in an email to Mr. Ohr in February 2016 that the Russian had received a visa to travel to the United States. In the email, Mr. Steele said his company had compiled and circulated “sensitive” research suggesting that Mr. Deripaska and other oligarchs were under pressure from the Kremlin to toe the Russian government line, leading Mr. Steele to conclude that Mr. Deripaska was not the “tool” of Mr. Putin alleged by the United States government.

The timeline sketched out by Mr. Ohr shows contacts stretching back to when Mr. Ohr first met Mr. Steele in 2007. It also shows what officials said was the first date on which the two discussed cultivating Mr. Deripaska: a meeting in Washington on Nov. 21, 2014, roughly seven months before Mr. Trump announced that he was running for president.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an initiative that remains classified. Most expressed deep discomfort, saying they feared that in revealing the attempts to cultivate Mr. Deripaska and other oligarchs they were undermining American national security and strengthening the grip that Mr. Putin holds over those who surround him.

But they also said they did not want Mr. Trump and his allies to use the program’s secrecy as a screen with which they could cherry-pick facts and present them, sheared of context, to undermine the special counsel’s investigation. That, too, they said they feared, would damage American security.


The program was led by the F.B.I. Mr. Ohr, who had long worked on combating Russian organized crime, was one of the Justice Department officials involved.

Mr. Steele served as an intermediary between the Americans and the Russian oligarchs they were seeking to cultivate. He had first met Mr. Ohr years earlier while still serving at MI6, Britain’s foreign spy agency, where he oversaw Russia operations. After retiring, he opened a business intelligence firm, and had tracked Russian organized crime and business interests for private clients, including one of Mr. Deripaska’s lawyers.

TL;DR

- Ohr led a secret FBI program aimed to flip Russian oligarchs
- Steele cooperated with the program
- the program was and remains secret
- Trump and allies cherry-pick the facts from this secret program to present Ohr and Steele as co-conspirators against Trump
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on September 01, 2018, 09:14:28 PM
 So the problem is the author of the report, not the actual CONTENTS of the report?

From Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier

Quote:
In May 2018, former career intelligence officer James Clapper stated that "more and more" of the dossier had been validated over time.[18] Overall, while some allegations of the dossier have been incrementally corroborated,[19] others remain unverified, but none have been disproven.[20][21][22] Some may require access to classified information for verification.[23][24]
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: EliG on September 01, 2018, 09:46:46 PM
So the problem is the author of the report, not the actual CONTENTS of the report?

Take it one step further. The claim that the FBI started to investigate Trump's campaign BECAUSE of the Steele's dossier is a lie.

The investigation started when Australia tipped the FBI about George Papadopoulos. That happened months before Steele shared his report with the FBI. FBI investigation was well under way by the time they received the report.

https://www.voanews.com/a/australian-diplomat-tip-a-factor-in-fbi-russia-probe/4186209.html

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on September 07, 2018, 10:47:50 AM
https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1038009625361170435

George Papadopoulos will be sentenced today. So, if you're keeping score at home:

Trump's Lawyer: Felon
Trump's Campaign Chairman: Felon
Trump's Deputy Campaign Chairman: Felon
Trump's National Security Adviser: Felon
Trump's Foreign Policy Adviser: Felon

LOL, this says a lot about Trump‘s people skills. I believe there is a good chance that Trump and several members of his family will end up on this list too. I also think that Trump Enterprise is going bankrupt too once he is out of the White House and that he will get another divorce. I am just not sure about the order of events. Interesting times. Let’s revisit in a couple of years.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on September 07, 2018, 11:33:11 AM
The fun will really begin when they start handing out indictments for the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate.
It won't be long - and it will make Trump's issues look like child's play.

The Clinton's took corruption to a new level, after years of getting away with it.

Obama weaponized all the major departments (IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA) against all his political opponents
with individual and group spying - and IRS targeting.  I gotta say, Barrack really knew how to
run a organized crime group of partisans. There is much at stake for the Deep State and DC Swamp.

And of course, the left and fake news continues to bury the truth, but Trump has the fight of his life
going on to bring the truth out.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on September 07, 2018, 01:47:38 PM
Doughishere

You will be happy to know that Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days in jail.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on September 07, 2018, 03:08:22 PM
Doughishere
It looks like Papadopoulos wasn't helping the investigation.  See https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/politics/papadopoulos-jail-time-special-counsel/index.html   So Mueller finally has a conviction on the board with his Russia investigation.  Not much - but something.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of perjury trap.  Meuller doesn't have to prove perjury to hurt Trump politically.  He just needs enough evidence to get a grand jury indictment - which isn't much - probably just somebody willing to say the opposite of whatever Trump says.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on September 07, 2018, 03:48:41 PM
The fun will really begin when they start handing out indictments for the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate.
It won't be long - and it will make Trump's issues look like child's play.

The Clinton's took corruption to a new level, after years of getting away with it.

Obama weaponized all the major departments (IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA) against all his political opponents
with individual and group spying - and IRS targeting.  I gotta say, Barrack really knew how to
run a organized crime group of partisans. There is much at stake for the Deep State and DC Swamp.

And of course, the left and fake news continues to bury the truth, but Trump has the fight of his life
going on to bring the truth out.

This is all heresay and if that were the case, wouldn’t have Trump uncovered it by now and publicized it?   I even agree with you that Clinton deserves time, since the Whitewater scandal, but that is irreveleant. The hard evidence of having convicted felons as close as it gets within circle of an acting president is what matters and ought to be unprecedented.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on September 07, 2018, 04:02:43 PM
The fun will really begin when they start handing out indictments for the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate.
It won't be long - and it will make Trump's issues look like child's play.

The Clinton's took corruption to a new level, after years of getting away with it.

Obama weaponized all the major departments (IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA) against all his political opponents
with individual and group spying - and IRS targeting.  I gotta say, Barrack really knew how to
run a organized crime group of partisans. There is much at stake for the Deep State and DC Swamp.

And of course, the left and fake news continues to bury the truth, but Trump has the fight of his life
going on to bring the truth out.

This is all heresay and if that were the case, wouldn’t have Trump uncovered it by now and publicized it?   I even agree with you that Clinton deserves time, since the Whitewater scandal, but that is irreveleant. The hard evidence of having convicted felons as close as it gets within circle of an acting president is what matters and ought to be unprecedented.

Well, it's not hearsay. The IRS targeted conservative political opponents of Obama and the democratic party. That is undeniable.
The IRS director took the 5th multiple times in front of Congress and then resigned in disgrace.

Trump's political operatives were wiretapped and spied upon with illegal FISA warrants.

It's not at all hearsay.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on September 07, 2018, 04:32:21 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/14-days-prison-mean-papadopoulos-puzzle-222431917.html

14 days. LOL. YUGE deal, right guys?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cobafdek on September 15, 2018, 01:32:08 PM
Might be one of the few things Woodward is credible on regarding Trump:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/14/woodward_no_evidence_of_collusion_between_trump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on September 16, 2018, 12:56:10 PM
https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/ex-obama-white-house-counsel-could-face-charges/

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Investor20 on September 16, 2018, 05:18:24 PM
The fun will really begin when they start handing out indictments for the Clinton/Obama crime syndicate.
It won't be long - and it will make Trump's issues look like child's play.

The Clinton's took corruption to a new level, after years of getting away with it.

Obama weaponized all the major departments (IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA) against all his political opponents
with individual and group spying - and IRS targeting.  I gotta say, Barrack really knew how to
run a organized crime group of partisans. There is much at stake for the Deep State and DC Swamp.

And of course, the left and fake news continues to bury the truth, but Trump has the fight of his life
going on to bring the truth out.

This is all heresay and if that were the case, wouldn’t have Trump uncovered it by now and publicized it?   I even agree with you that Clinton deserves time, since the Whitewater scandal, but that is irreveleant. The hard evidence of having convicted felons as close as it gets within circle of an acting president is what matters and ought to be unprecedented.

The IRS part is not hearsay when IRS apologizes and settles in court.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 02:53:18 PM
Been quiet here for a while. Any news lately?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 02:58:34 PM
Other than Mueller forcing people to lie for plea deals... nothing.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 03:07:31 PM
Mueller is a Republican
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 03:14:00 PM
Manafort was convicted by a jury
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 03:19:21 PM
Mueller is a Republican

What does this have too do with anything? Republican's don't lie?

This guy clearly has a bias and an agenda, and there's been enough evidence, ranging from a district judge even slamming him and now multiple reports of encouraging people to lie, which again, isn't a Democrat or Republican thing, but rather a huge problem with ALL law enforcement officers. They have an agenda/objective, and then force the squares into round holes and mangle the puzzle pieces together until they fit via plea deals and witness protection arrangements. I mean how do you think 90% of the mob was brought down? They had little to nothing provable but nab someone on a speeding ticket or tax charge and then torture them into telling them what they want to hear to get the next guy. All because they are convinced they're getting the bad guy. Which may in fact be the case, like it was with much of the mafia, but IMO it isn't law enforcement's job to determine who is guilty and then stuff the puzzle pieces into the picture, but rather to get evidence and go where it leads. Something Mueller clearly isn't doing.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 03:20:23 PM
Manafort was convicted by a jury

He was. Although again, more than half the charges he was acquitted on, and again, they really had nothing to do with the 2016 election....And now it's shown Mueller is using those to try to get Manafort to lie...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 03:23:32 PM
Trump is conspiring with a convicted felon against a Republican led special counsel
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 03:30:44 PM
IMO it isn't law enforcement's job to determine who is guilty and then stuff the puzzle pieces into the picture, but rather to get evidence and go where it leads. Something Mueller clearly isn't doing.

Evidence was presented to Manafort's jury and they decided to convict him.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 03:53:28 PM
IMO it isn't law enforcement's job to determine who is guilty and then stuff the puzzle pieces into the picture, but rather to get evidence and go where it leads. Something Mueller clearly isn't doing.

Evidence was presented to Manafort's jury and they decided to convict him.

Things that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Spend enough time digging into any citizen and you'll find something.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 04:31:31 PM
IMO it isn't law enforcement's job to determine who is guilty and then stuff the puzzle pieces into the picture, but rather to get evidence and go where it leads. Something Mueller clearly isn't doing.

Evidence was presented to Manafort's jury and they decided to convict him.

Things that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Spend enough time digging into any citizen and you'll find something.

He plead guilty to conspiriy against the United States.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 04:35:55 PM
Trump's Tax attorney in Chicago's office was raided today. Deutsch Bank was raided today. These things are occurring after Trump submitted his answers to the special counsel. If he lied in any of his answers it's a felony.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 04:41:09 PM
IMO it isn't law enforcement's job to determine who is guilty and then stuff the puzzle pieces into the picture, but rather to get evidence and go where it leads. Something Mueller clearly isn't doing.

Evidence was presented to Manafort's jury and they decided to convict him.

Things that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Spend enough time digging into any citizen and you'll find something.

He plead guilty to conspiriy against the United States.

You obviously did not read what I wrote, or the things he was guilty of. Again, none had to do with 2016 election...

Once again, dig deep enough on any person, and you'll find dirt. I'd even guarantee you dig deep enough on any US Senator, and at some time they've engaged in pay for play or taken gifts of some sort. All of these things would likely lead to indictments and even pleas, none have to do with the 2016 election....You keep referencing two different things...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 05:24:08 PM
I always read your posts. You often regurgitate white house talking points which are meant to distract from the truth and should be ignored because they put together by liars.

Is there not something deep in your soul that says Trump is guilty of all of this? You're taking the word of felons? It's objectively foolish. Would you give your money to a Nigerian prince? That's in the same ballpark as believing a felon. You really believe the birther guy? Silly
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 05:41:59 PM
I always read your posts. You often regurgitate white house talking points which are meant to distract from the truth and should be ignored because they put together by liars.

Is there not something deep in your soul that says Trump is guilty of all of this? You're taking the word of felons? It's objectively foolish. Would you give your money to a Nigerian prince? That's in the same ballpark as believing a felon. You really believe the birther guy? Silly

I believe Trump is definitely guilty of something, whether it be tax fraud, bribes, whatever. Manafort is a career political consultant, I am sure he did some bad things. I don't know what you aren't grasping though. Pick any prominent person. Then circle their entire entourage. Then spend years, and millions of dollars digging for dirt on any of them. I GUARANTEE, you'll find something.

Even yourself. Ever drive too fast? Smudge your taxes a little? Smoke pot? Heck, you ever hit on a female(or another person)? Are you not only positive it was consensual(or that there isnt any chance they in hind site that they'd dont remember it as something different?) Yup.

The Russia Investigation is a partisan witch hunt looking to destroy anyone connected to Trump, with the hope that they can take down Trump too.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on November 29, 2018, 05:45:41 PM
The government must be able to prove what you plead to. At least one Trump is going to be convicted or plead to conspiracy.

Working with the Russian government to become President is not like smoking weed once.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on November 29, 2018, 05:52:57 PM
Criminal acts are criminal acts, regardless of whether “everyone” is doing it. This is basic stuff.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 05:55:55 PM
The government must be able to prove what you plead to. At least one Trump is going to be convicted or plead to conspiracy.

Working with the Russian government to become President is not like smoking weed once.

You see, only one person can do this, and in this case that would be Donald Trump. So all these other meetings, from a legal perspective are kind of irrelevant if you can't prove Trump orchestrated them, which is obviously why Mueller is now trying to get people to lie. The goal is to take down Trump by any means necessary. If not, burn the people closest to him.

It's odd, they can find dirt on Manafort going back to the 80's, but absolutely nothing on any single Democrat...ODD. Dirt is apparently only where you look for it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 06:02:48 PM
I think Kavanaugh actually summed this up perfectly. This is just retaliation for beating the Clintons and pissing off the establishment. Everyone's doing it isn't an excuse. But when everyone's been doing it(for decades, if not longer) and all of a sudden someone gets call out, it's much more about who did it than what they did.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on November 29, 2018, 06:07:22 PM
I’m not sure what your point is. Mueller’s mandate is not centered around the Clintons, who are both now private citizens.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on November 29, 2018, 06:12:31 PM
I think Kavanaugh actually summed this up perfectly. This is just retaliation for beating the Clintons and pissing off the establishment. Everyone's doing it isn't an excuse. But when everyone's been doing it(for decades, if not longer) and all of a sudden someone gets call out, it's much more about who did it than what they did.

Re: Kavanaugh: no one said boo about "Lock her up". There is also more than one person that could conspire with a foreign government to elect a President.

It's funny you said you'd find certain Trump supporters flipping to be a sign but now that Cohen has turned, the goalposts have moved. I like you Greg, but I have to point it out.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 06:20:52 PM
I think Kavanaugh actually summed this up perfectly. This is just retaliation for beating the Clintons and pissing off the establishment. Everyone's doing it isn't an excuse. But when everyone's been doing it(for decades, if not longer) and all of a sudden someone gets call out, it's much more about who did it than what they did.

Re: Kavanaugh: no one said boo about "Lock her up". There is also more than one person that could conspire with a foreign government to elect a President.

It's funny you said you'd find certain Trump supporters flipping to be a sign but now that Cohen has turned, the goalposts have moved. I like you Greg, but have yo point it out.

It's like we are trying to prove different things while arguing the same shit. I totally believe Trump did some illegal stuff. No doubt. People are flipping, and those that arent are basically saying they are being heavily encouraged to lie. I don't really care because the standard for politicians is so low and anyone arguing otherwise is fooling themselves. I'm ok because Trump is better than what the alternative was, IMO of course.

My point is that more than one person could conspire, and more than one, in the history of the US certainly has, and once you widen the scope to what it is now, there's no end in sight. Which is why it's odd that only Trump's people are being put in the cross hairs. Its a politically motivated witch hunt.

RE: Cohen, the guy walks, talks, and smells like a total bum. How does a lawyer from Michigan Cooley get to where Michael Cohen did? Well, I think we all know the answer to that.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Viking on November 29, 2018, 06:51:05 PM
I think Kavanaugh actually summed this up perfectly. This is just retaliation for beating the Clintons and pissing off the establishment. Everyone's doing it isn't an excuse. But when everyone's been doing it(for decades, if not longer) and all of a sudden someone gets call out, it's much more about who did it than what they did.

Trump is very good at using any means available to further his objectives. There is a flip side to this. The other side is going to come at you just as aggressively. This is how the game is played. These are all big boys (and girls). What is going on with Mueller is just another part of the game.

The game almost brought down Bill Clinton. We will see if Trump makes it to 4 years (let alone 8 like Clinton did).
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 29, 2018, 07:57:09 PM
The crimes that Trump appears to be guilty of are not the equivalent of smoking pot or speeding. They directly effect our national security. Look at the way he's acted toward Russia. They are attacking a country that borders a NATO member and his response is to cancel a meeting (which we all know is going to happen anyway and Russian media is already reporting this). Look at his response to Saudi Arabia. He's showing the world we'll ignore atrocities so long as you buy an apartment from Trump. It emboldens our enemies and makes our allies mistrust us. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on November 29, 2018, 08:05:33 PM
I always read your posts. You often regurgitate white house talking points which are meant to distract from the truth and should be ignored because they put together by liars.

Is there not something deep in your soul that says Trump is guilty of all of this? You're taking the word of felons? It's objectively foolish. Would you give your money to a Nigerian prince? That's in the same ballpark as believing a felon. You really believe the birther guy? Silly

+100!  Insanity is doing that same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on November 29, 2018, 08:08:41 PM
I think Kavanaugh actually summed this up perfectly. This is just retaliation for beating the Clintons and pissing off the establishment. Everyone's doing it isn't an excuse. But when everyone's been doing it(for decades, if not longer) and all of a sudden someone gets call out, it's much more about who did it than what they did.

You think far too much of the Clintons!  Nobody cares that Hillary lost...they're just sick and scared of what Trump might do.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on November 29, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Here's showing the world we'll ignore attrocities so long as you buy an apartment from Trump. It emboldens our enemies and makes our allies mistrust us.

The above is a quote, and 100 PCs Correct!!!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on November 29, 2018, 08:32:21 PM
You Liberals are 100% crazy. You are the reason why Trump is here.

Even Pocahontas is now opposed to USMCA which you claim is near identical to NAFTA signed by Clinton.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on November 29, 2018, 08:47:18 PM
You Liberals are 100% crazy. You are the reason why Trump is here.

Even Pocahontas is now opposed to USMCA which you claim is near identical to NAFTA signed by Clinton.

Cardboard

Nope, Trump is here because of right-wing crazies and weak Republicans who jumped on the wagon.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 09:02:42 PM
You Liberals are 100% crazy. You are the reason why Trump is here.

Even Pocahontas is now opposed to USMCA which you claim is near identical to NAFTA signed by Clinton.

Cardboard

Nope, Trump is here because of right-wing crazies and weak Republicans who jumped on the wagon.  Cheers!

That's an awfully simple way to describe getting 300+ electoral college votes...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on November 29, 2018, 09:19:25 PM
You Liberals are 100% crazy. You are the reason why Trump is here.

Even Pocahontas is now opposed to USMCA which you claim is near identical to NAFTA signed by Clinton.

Cardboard

Nope, Trump is here because of right-wing crazies and weak Republicans who jumped on the wagon.  Cheers!

That's an awfully simple way to describe getting 300+ electoral college votes...
Gotta love it when the majority of voting Americans vote against Trump, but he still wins. #Democracry
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 29, 2018, 09:28:22 PM
You Liberals are 100% crazy. You are the reason why Trump is here.

Even Pocahontas is now opposed to USMCA which you claim is near identical to NAFTA signed by Clinton.

Cardboard

Nope, Trump is here because of right-wing crazies and weak Republicans who jumped on the wagon.  Cheers!

That's an awfully simple way to describe getting 300+ electoral college votes...
Gotta love it when the majority of voting Americans vote against Trump, but he still wins. #Democracry

First, we are not a true Democracy. Insinuating as much just shows ignorance.

Second, I personally dont care how California voted. It's a bankrupt cesspool and besides, they want to secede anyway.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on November 29, 2018, 09:34:59 PM
You're right - we aren't a true Democracy. Some people find that shameful, some people find that a braggart claim.   :-\
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on November 29, 2018, 09:41:56 PM
You Liberals are 100% crazy. You are the reason why Trump is here.

Even Pocahontas is now opposed to USMCA which you claim is near identical to NAFTA signed by Clinton.

Cardboard

Nope, Trump is here because of right-wing crazies and weak Republicans who jumped on the wagon.  Cheers!

That's an awfully simple way to describe getting 300+ electoral college votes...

...but accurate.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 30, 2018, 04:53:52 PM
Here's showing the world we'll ignore attrocities so long as you buy an apartment from Trump. It emboldens our enemies and makes our allies mistrust us.

The above is a quote, and 100 PCs Correct!!!

The spelling mistakes and typos make me wish I hadn't used my phone to make that comment ;)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on November 30, 2018, 05:21:06 PM
Pretty sure I was a few glasses (bottles?) of wine in...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: ERICOPOLY on November 30, 2018, 06:56:29 PM
You Liberals are 100% crazy. You are the reason why Trump is here.

Even Pocahontas is now opposed to USMCA which you claim is near identical to NAFTA signed by Clinton.

Cardboard

Nope, Trump is here because of right-wing crazies and weak Republicans who jumped on the wagon.  Cheers!

That's an awfully simple way to describe getting 300+ electoral college votes...
Gotta love it when the majority of voting Americans vote against Trump, but he still wins. #Democracry

First, we are not a true Democracy. Insinuating as much just shows ignorance.

Second, I personally dont care how California voted. It's a bankrupt cesspool and besides, they want to secede anyway.

You speak in a manner remarkably similar to Trump.  First you state you don’t care about how California voted, then you assassinate California’s character, and then you spread a falsehood about secession to build an alliance against it.

Do you also find Ivanka to be a “piece of ass”?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on November 30, 2018, 07:15:05 PM
hey ERICOPOLY is back!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on November 30, 2018, 10:04:40 PM
You Liberals are 100% crazy. You are the reason why Trump is here.

Even Pocahontas is now opposed to USMCA which you claim is near identical to NAFTA signed by Clinton.

Cardboard

Nope, Trump is here because of right-wing crazies and weak Republicans who jumped on the wagon.  Cheers!

That's an awfully simple way to describe getting 300+ electoral college votes...
Gotta love it when the majority of voting Americans vote against Trump, but he still wins. #Democracry

First, we are not a true Democracy. Insinuating as much just shows ignorance.

Second, I personally dont care how California voted. It's a bankrupt cesspool and besides, they want to secede anyway.

You speak in a manner remarkably similar to Trump.  First you state you don’t care about how California voted, then you assassinate California’s character, and then you spread a falsehood about secession to build an alliance against it.

Do you also find Ivanka to be a “piece of ass”?

I mean, I do find Ivanka to be attractive. Which I guess doesn't vibe with current MSM rhetoric, which tells the non alpha male that not finding a size 16 attractive means you arent "woke" or whatever....
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on November 30, 2018, 11:48:38 PM
Are you an alpha male gregmal?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on December 01, 2018, 03:33:51 PM
There is a lot of collusion here with Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Vvmjv__VQ&list=RD1Y6pzdWBLqc&index=6

Accepting gifts from Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe2456MZB5c&index=35&list=RD1Y6pzdWBLqc

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on December 17, 2018, 06:41:15 PM
LOL. This is what Mueller had on Flynn?

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1074824372270059521

"I don't remember" gets you perjury? First off, Flynn must have been retarded, and to boot, had the worst legal representation ever if THIS is what did him in.

And second, if this is the insanely low bar necessary, and this isn't a partisan witch hunt, why hasn't one Democrat gotten caught up? What a farce...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on December 17, 2018, 07:32:54 PM
Quote
The memo describes how Flynn downplayed the approach he had taken in his discussions with Kislyak when FBI agents asked about the discussions in the January 2017 interview. He told the agents that "no," he had not sought to influence Russia's vote on a United Nations Security Council resolution about Israeli settlements.

But investigators knew, according to charging documents filed last year, that Flynn had asked for Russia to vote against or delay the resolution.

Quote
Flynn's second lie, as described in the FBI memo, came in response to the agents asking him about the US's expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing Russian properties following the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 election. They asked him if he had encouraged Kislyak not to retaliate.

"Flynn responded, 'Not really. I don't remember.' It wasn't, 'Don't do anything,' " the memo said.

But the FBI knew that Flynn had asked Russia on that call not to escalate its response to the US.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on January 09, 2019, 08:55:01 AM
Lots of new info on the conspiracy.

Trump Tower Russian lawyer is alleged to obstructed justice during work for the government of Russia while during the Magnitsky/Browder case. Probably an important detail considering the Trump Tower meeting.

Manafort lied about contacts/meetings with Russian intelligence officer, including meetings about Ukraine peace plan, '2016 campaign data', PAC payments, and a trip to Madrid. There's also a 3rd party allegation that Manafort attempt to contact the POTUS after the plea deal and Mueller believes he can prove that it's not hearsay.

These allegations kind of look like Mueller/DOJ are looking at some broad conspiracy allegation. Manafort was sharing potentially stolen polling data with a representative of the Russian government. Unknown if the conspiracy reached Trump for the moment, but there was certainly a conspiracy/collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia. Sadly, it doesn't matter that we have proof (Manafort literally admitted it).



https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1082703692611158016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/paul-manafort-shared-2016-polling-data-with-russian-employee-according-to-court-filing/2019/01/08/3f562ad8-12b0-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true&noredirect=on&utm_term=.ae591f647cb5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-lawyer-at-trump-tower-meeting-charged-in-separate-case/2019/01/08/0f0303a0-1356-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.a93bb686ae10

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/spanish-prosecutor-says-trump-jr-011300538.html

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/12/09/information-in-amended-dnc-lawsuit-reveals-that-roger-stone-is-at-significantly-greater-risk-for-cfaa-indictment/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/01/08/manaforts-redaction-fail-tells-trump-that-mueller-caught-him-lying-about-his-russian-handler-konstantin-kilimnik/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 09, 2019, 09:53:33 AM
Yeah but have you heard about the border wall  ::)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 13, 2019, 07:42:57 AM
Looks like the "Russian collusion" story is finally becoming mainstream. I encourage anyone who has not read the Steele Dossier (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html) to give it a read. It's amazing how much of it has been shown to be true while nothing has been shown to be false. And even the more outlandish things like Trump getting a cut of the Rosneft deal, seem to have a nugget of truth to them.

I wonder when Republican support will start to crumble? After Cohen testifies in February?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 13, 2019, 08:17:52 AM
Keep dreaming bud...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 13, 2019, 08:24:04 AM
Keep dreaming bud...

I remember learning about Nazis and the Holocaust and thinking, "who would support such evil? It's totally illogical." Trump has been very eye opening. He's so clearly a puppet, yet he still has 40% of the population's support
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 13, 2019, 08:31:52 AM
There's still people I'm sure, who are trying to prove Al Gore won the 2000 election. There's still 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Big Foot still gets research funding. And a lot of lefties still think Hillary Clinton had the 2016 election stolen from her. The rest, most likely, have moved on...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Vish_ram on January 13, 2019, 11:33:48 AM
I find it shocking that Trump got next to nothing selling out America to Putin. For all the destruction he is doing to USA, Putin should pay him well. A Trump tower in every major city is a good start.

The comrade who recruited Trump deserves an Order of Lenin award. How about Hero of the Russian federation award to that comrade and also to Traitor Trump?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 13, 2019, 08:11:17 PM
I find it shocking that Trump got next to nothing selling out America to Putin. For all the destruction he is doing to USA, Putin should pay him well. A Trump tower in every major city is a good start.

The comrade who recruited Trump deserves an Order of Lenin award. How about Hero of the Russian federation award to that comrade and also to Traitor Trump?

The Stele Dossier suggests there is $250mm+ in escrow from that weird sale/repurchase of Rosneft. But yeah that's not enough. His behavior is probably more of a mix of greed and blackmail rather than just greed alone
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 13, 2019, 09:04:59 PM
Old news but just confirms that nope, no connection to Russia:

https://hillreporter.com/putin-ally-tweeted-brennans-security-revocation-two-days-before-the-white-house-knew-about-it-5882

Putin Ally Tweeted Brennan’s Security Revocation Two Days Before The White House Memo
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: ERICOPOLY on January 14, 2019, 07:13:27 AM
What is Donald Trump hiding in his tax returns?  This man does nothing to look innocent.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: ERICOPOLY on January 14, 2019, 07:42:32 AM
Sean Hannity is the one that told Trump that all of the other news outlets are "Fake news".  Trump is a puppet.  How much money is he making for Fox News by repeatedly maligning the other commercial news outlets based on the word of Sean Hannity who works for... Fox News?

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/10/18177890/trump-hannity-interview-border-emergency
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 16, 2019, 08:11:04 PM
Giuliani was on CNN tonight changing the narrative from "no collusion" to "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. I said the President of the United States."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-cnntv/index.html

Trump has on at least four occasions repeated straight up Russian propaganda that could only have been fed to him by a Russian, but I'm sure he had no idea people in his campaign were colluding with Russia.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 17, 2019, 01:50:12 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/us/politics/senate-trump-russia-sanctions.html

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday narrowly staved off an effort by Democrats to deal the Trump administration’s Russia sanctions policy an embarrassing rebuke.

Eleven Republicans joined Democrats in a vote to enforce sanctions against the corporate empire of an influential ally of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but the effort fell three votes short of the 60-vote threshold required to advance the measure. The vote was 57-42, with one Democratic senator not voting.

The sanctions against companies controlled by the influential oligarch, Oleg V. Deripaska, now seem destined to be lifted this week as part of a deal negotiated by the Treasury Department to reduce Mr. Deripaska’s ownership and control of the aluminum giant Rusal and two linked companies.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 17, 2019, 07:43:33 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/us/politics/senate-trump-russia-sanctions.html

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday narrowly staved off an effort by Democrats to deal the Trump administration’s Russia sanctions policy an embarrassing rebuke.

Eleven Republicans joined Democrats in a vote to enforce sanctions against the corporate empire of an influential ally of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but the effort fell three votes short of the 60-vote threshold required to advance the measure. The vote was 57-42, with one Democratic senator not voting.

The sanctions against companies controlled by the influential oligarch, Oleg V. Deripaska, now seem destined to be lifted this week as part of a deal negotiated by the Treasury Department to reduce Mr. Deripaska’s ownership and control of the aluminum giant Rusal and two linked companies.


crazy. what's the justification for ending the sanctions? I'm especially disappointed Romney joined the Republicans in this.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 17, 2019, 07:53:13 PM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: berkshire101 on January 18, 2019, 08:18:07 AM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.

According to Trump... "It's very cool and very legal."   ::)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 18, 2019, 08:31:40 AM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.

According to Trump... "It's very cool and very legal."   ::)

Michael Cohen, a guy who paid to have a Twitter following worshiping himself as a sex symbol, saying something, is "solid evidence"... LOL
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: michaelj on January 18, 2019, 08:42:15 AM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.

According to Trump... "It's very cool and very legal."   ::)

Michael Cohen, a guy who paid to have a Twitter following worshiping himself as a sex symbol, saying something, is "solid evidence"... LOL

*If* the reporting is accurate, there is a lot more evidence than Michael Cohen's word.

"The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: lessthaniv on January 18, 2019, 09:35:36 AM
Invert

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: berkshire101 on January 18, 2019, 09:52:55 AM
Majority of Trump's base:

- Hardworking
- Blue Collar
- Christian
- Strong family values
- Admires integrity

Trump's Character

- Inherited most of his money
- Never worked an average job
- Looks down on the less fortunate
- Multiple divorces, cheats on wife while she's pregnant
- Holds record for most lies in office

Can't wait for HBO to make a series about this.  It's their next Game of Throne hit!  My popcorn is ready.   ;D :)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: kdk77 on January 18, 2019, 10:08:45 AM
+1.  Nicely summarized berkshire101
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on January 18, 2019, 10:21:15 AM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.

According to Trump... "It's very cool and very legal."   ::)

Michael Cohen, a guy who paid to have a Twitter following worshiping himself as a sex symbol, saying something, is "solid evidence"... LOL

This was his go to lawyer...and somehow the lawyer is the culprit and you allocate zero blame to Trump.  What frickin' world do you live in?  Geez!

If this was Obama's lawyer and he said Obama did this, I would have no problem saying that Obama might be culpable of something.  But you?  No way!  Everyone in the world world is lying except the lying, cheating, bullying son of a bitch who hired them all!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: berkshire101 on January 18, 2019, 10:58:33 AM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.

According to Trump... "It's very cool and very legal."   ::)

Michael Cohen, a guy who paid to have a Twitter following worshiping himself as a sex symbol, saying something, is "solid evidence"... LOL

This was his go to lawyer...and somehow the lawyer is the culprit and you allocate zero blame to Trump.  What frickin' world do you live in?  Geez!

If this was Obama's lawyer and he said Obama did this, I would have no problem saying that Obama might be culpable of something.  But you?  No way!  Everyone in the world world is lying except the lying, cheating, bullying son of a bitch who hired them all!  Cheers!

But but but... it's the democrats fault!  Hilary's emails!  Fake news!  ;D ::)

Just repeating the script that's been engraved into our minds. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: lessthaniv on January 18, 2019, 11:29:38 AM
A honest question.

How do you feel about the implications of Bruce Ohr’s released testimony?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 18, 2019, 11:40:44 AM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.

According to Trump... "It's very cool and very legal."   ::)

Michael Cohen, a guy who paid to have a Twitter following worshiping himself as a sex symbol, saying something, is "solid evidence"... LOL

This was his go to lawyer...and somehow the lawyer is the culprit and you allocate zero blame to Trump.  What frickin' world do you live in?  Geez!

If this was Obama's lawyer and he said Obama did this, I would have no problem saying that Obama might be culpable of something.  But you?  No way!  Everyone in the world world is lying except the lying, cheating, bullying son of a bitch who hired them all!  Cheers!

Except you and the libtards here continue to ignore things I've said quite clearly many times over. I don't doubt for a second that Trump has done many of these things. I just don't care because he's a 1000% better alternative to the candidate you guys had running, or prior candidates you guys have elected. So he's here for one term, gets some positive things done, and then is replaced by someone else.

I'm all for a better candidate. Ive said before if Bloomberg runs Id easily support him. Yet you clowns keep pumping out Warrens, Bookers, Harris's, Sanders, and Clintons...So you continue to get what you deserve.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on January 18, 2019, 11:58:53 AM
From BuzzFeed article:
"The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents"
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: longinvestor on January 18, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
Those texts, emails were suctioned out of Cohen’s office during the pre-dawn raid. Trump’s toast.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on January 18, 2019, 12:21:15 PM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.

According to Trump... "It's very cool and very legal."   ::)

Michael Cohen, a guy who paid to have a Twitter following worshiping himself as a sex symbol, saying something, is "solid evidence"... LOL

This was his go to lawyer...and somehow the lawyer is the culprit and you allocate zero blame to Trump.  What frickin' world do you live in?  Geez!

If this was Obama's lawyer and he said Obama did this, I would have no problem saying that Obama might be culpable of something.  But you?  No way!  Everyone in the world world is lying except the lying, cheating, bullying son of a bitch who hired them all!  Cheers!

Except you and the libtards here continue to ignore things I've said quite clearly many times over. I don't doubt for a second that Trump has done many of these things. I just don't care because he's a 1000% better alternative to the candidate you guys had running, or prior candidates you guys have elected. So he's here for one term, gets some positive things done, and then is replaced by someone else.

I'm all for a better candidate. Ive said before if Bloomberg runs Id easily support him. Yet you clowns keep pumping out Warrens, Bookers, Harris's, Sanders, and Clintons...So you continue to get what you deserve.

You just ridiculed Michael Cohen essentially as a liar...that has nothing to do with choosing a better candidate.  You were throwing doubt on the guy's testimony, so that maybe people would discount what he as to say about Trump...pure and simple!  Remember everything you and Cardboard have said here for the last 18 months.  You will be remembered similarly to those that thought Nixon was innocent nearly 50 years ago!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 18, 2019, 12:25:04 PM
Except I haven't said Trump is innocent, I've said the opposite. And Cohen is a confirmed liar. Move along now.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: lessthaniv on January 18, 2019, 12:26:22 PM
Sanjeev,
Any thoughts on Bruce Ohr's testimony?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: berkshire101 on January 18, 2019, 12:57:15 PM
Sanjeev,
Any thoughts on Bruce Ohr's testimony?

Was his testimony regarding the steele dossier being bias?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on January 18, 2019, 01:03:14 PM
Sanjeev,
Any thoughts on Bruce Ohr's testimony?

Was his testimony regarding the steele dossier being bias?

The FISA document said implied that Steele's information was obtained during an effort to obtain opposition research. The Ohr information was known when the FISA application was made public. It seems to go against the allegation that the FBI/DOJ tried to hide this detail.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: berkshire101 on January 18, 2019, 01:16:09 PM
Sanjeev,
Any thoughts on Bruce Ohr's testimony?

Was his testimony regarding the steele dossier being bias?

The FISA document said implied that Steele's information was obtained during an effort to obtain opposition research. The Ohr information was known when the FISA application was made public. It seems to go against the allegation that the FBI/DOJ tried to hide this detail.

The majority of the info in Steele's dossier has been confirmed thus far.  Even 1% would be damning to any other elected official.

We investors tend to look at the facts and try to make a judgement.  As Ray Dalio said, we searching for the truth and don't care where the truth comes from.

Three questions being asked
1.  Did russia influence the election? - Yes
2.  Did Trump and friends work with Russia to do so? - Yes for friends, probably yes for Trump
3.  Is Trump putting his interest before America still? - Maybe

The Steele dossier has so far helped shined light on those answers.  The process of writing the report wasn't all sunshine and rainbow.  Then again, the truth tends to be ugly at time I think.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: berkshire101 on January 18, 2019, 01:20:11 PM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=hpsplash

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.


Here's the first solid public evidence that Trump directed a subordinate to lie about his dealings with Russia.

According to Trump... "It's very cool and very legal."   ::)

Michael Cohen, a guy who paid to have a Twitter following worshiping himself as a sex symbol, saying something, is "solid evidence"... LOL

This was his go to lawyer...and somehow the lawyer is the culprit and you allocate zero blame to Trump.  What frickin' world do you live in?  Geez!

If this was Obama's lawyer and he said Obama did this, I would have no problem saying that Obama might be culpable of something.  But you?  No way!  Everyone in the world world is lying except the lying, cheating, bullying son of a bitch who hired them all!  Cheers!

Except you and the libtards here continue to ignore things I've said quite clearly many times over. I don't doubt for a second that Trump has done many of these things. I just don't care because he's a 1000% better alternative to the candidate you guys had running, or prior candidates you guys have elected. So he's here for one term, gets some positive things done, and then is replaced by someone else.

I'm all for a better candidate. Ive said before if Bloomberg runs Id easily support him. Yet you clowns keep pumping out Warrens, Bookers, Harris's, Sanders, and Clintons...So you continue to get what you deserve.

So you picked the lesser of the evils out there...?  Can you provide your source on how Trump was less evil? 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on January 18, 2019, 01:46:00 PM
Sanjeev,
Any thoughts on Bruce Ohr's testimony?

What does Ohr's testimony have to do with anything?  Do you let Hitler go on a technicality? 

DOJ also stated that they instigated the whole investigation on what Papadopolous told them, not on the Steele dossier...do you ignore that too?  The FISA warrant was issued after they received the information from Papadopolous.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 18, 2019, 02:53:56 PM
"Remember everything you and Cardboard have said here for the last 18 months.  You will be remembered similarly to those that thought Nixon was innocent nearly 50 years ago!  Cheers!"

LOL!

You still prefer Hitlary Parsad aren't you?

I am with Gregmal. You guys keep looking for a needle in a haystack while the guy is addressing real big issues such as trade.

Conventional politicians don't address these issues: they smile, try to be nice to everyone, look for polls and do whatever it takes to get re-elected.

At the same time, they lie so often you can't keep a count. I really wish that similar investigation would have been done on Benghazi and Uranium One. There you have dead bodies and real treason.

Actually Nixon did some great things in his time too: end the Vietnam war, detente with China and USSR among others.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/13/did-any-good-come-of-watergate/nixon-had-some-successes-before-his-disgrace

Of course, all the Liberals want us to remember is stealing a few documents in their Democrats office.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 18, 2019, 03:31:14 PM
Yup. These same folks prefer the government tax the hell out of big bad corporations, and steal from hardworking people to give to lazy bums and even illegal criminals. Sorry I don't stand for handouts, redistributing wealth, and diluting the value of American citizenship by making it(or its equivalent. IE hey come over illegally, use our systems and infrastructure for free) available to everyone.

A vote for any politician, probably even on the municipal levels, but absolutely with the House and above is choosing between the lesser of two evils. Sending Trump to Washington to make some changes and deliver a giant FU to the establishment folks has been totally worth it. Its also highlighted the blatant hypocrisy of everyone. Like seriously, now Liberals are against corruption???? Pay for play? Cheating on your spouse? Race baiting? Sure... Oh wait, what does Sanjeev always say though? Thats not relevant, we're only talking about Trump!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 18, 2019, 03:47:55 PM
Quote
You guys keep looking for a needle in a haystack while the guy is addressing real big issues such as trade.

The "issues" are a separate topic, and Trump has his share of failures there. To imply that Trump is succeeding on all the "issues" is simply incorrect. For example, failing Puerto Rico's hurricane recovery, politicizing government scientific research, pushing through a tax cut for the wealthiest decile, gutting democratic regulation (net neutrality, anyone?), defanging the DOE, auctioning off wilderness to drilldrildrill, and currently overseeing the longest gov't shutdown.

These are all failures, but they are not explicitly illegal
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 18, 2019, 05:06:33 PM
We know LC that you hate capitalism.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 18, 2019, 05:29:00 PM
Oh look, Mueller's office says the Cohen story is not accurate.

Can't help but laugh here. Over. and over. and over. How many times are the libtards going to swallow these stories, fabricated by the incompetent and corrupt MSM, hook, line, and sinker?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on January 18, 2019, 05:54:39 PM
Oh look, Mueller's office says the Cohen story is not accurate.

Can't help but laugh here. Over. and over. and over. How many times are the libtards going to swallow these stories, fabricated by the incompetent and corrupt MSM, hook, line, and sinker?

Fake news from the MSM - shocker isn't it?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 18, 2019, 05:58:04 PM
Hey Gregmal, isn't the definition of grasping at straws?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 18, 2019, 06:00:59 PM
Hi Cubsfan!

I guess that Sanjeev missed you in the list of those that he will really go after based on us supporting Trump's actions in any way over the last 18 months.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 18, 2019, 06:03:12 PM
Is it shocking none of the hook, line, and sinker crowd noticed the story derived from a junkie journalist with a history of, get this, fabricating stories? Or that CNN spent two days running it, and even praising this journalist? Oh man.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on January 18, 2019, 06:16:31 PM
Oh look, Mueller's office says the Cohen story is not accurate.

Can't help but laugh here. Over. and over. and over. How many times are the libtards going to swallow these stories, fabricated by the incompetent and corrupt MSM, hook, line, and sinker?

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1086438059284054018

There's a lot more going on than the simple tropes being pushed.

Earlier today, you said Trump was a liar. You said "I don't doubt for a second that Trump has done many of these things. I just don't care"

So you willing swallow Trump's fake stories over and over and over. You are what you hate because you refuse to consider that you aren't always right. It must be everyone else.

This isn't just aimed at just you Greg. I do it, most on this board do it, it seems to be a truism of life. I just think it's funny that predictable folks are going to stop posting or start posting in this thread because of what the SCO said tonight despite the broader issues still being unchanged. All was quiet or loud by some depending on the latest news article. It makes no sense. It's still likely Trump faces all of the legal problems that we all know about.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on January 18, 2019, 06:20:11 PM
Hi Cubsfan!

I guess that Sanjeev missed you in the list of those that he will really go after based on us supporting Trump's actions in any way over the last 18 months.

Cardboard

Hi Cardboard - thanks -  I must have missed the blacklist! I've been watching way less news these days, since it's a total joke...still thinking about all the terrible things Trump has done, like not going to the American Cemetery in France "cause it was raining" - oh, my!  But I did enjoy seeing him pimp Madame Pelosi today - she earned it!

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 18, 2019, 07:47:24 PM
We know LC that you hate capitalism.

Cardboard

Hah! I take Churchill’s view: capitalism is the best of the worst. That doesn’t mean you get to ignore the shortcomings.

For example, I don’t see how critiquing Buffetts secretary paying a higher average tax rate than a guy worth 80B is a knock against capitalism.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 18, 2019, 08:18:52 PM
Critiquing another Left lie?

You don't read this board? This was debunked by someone through payroll taxes years ago.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 18, 2019, 08:28:43 PM
Consider it an analogy for the tax plan which is significantly more beneficial for the richest group. And let’s not ignore the rest of Trumps failures which I mentioned (and the ones i didn’t mention)
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on January 18, 2019, 11:54:57 PM

A vote for any politician, probably even on the municipal levels, but absolutely with the House and above is choosing between the lesser of two evils. Sending Trump to Washington to make some changes and deliver a giant FU to the establishment folks has been totally worth it. Its also highlighted the blatant hypocrisy of everyone. Like seriously, now Liberals are against corruption???? Pay for play? Cheating on your spouse? Race baiting? Sure... Oh wait, what does Sanjeev always say though? Thats not relevant, we're only talking about Trump!

When have I ever said it isn't relevant?  Or only relates to Trump?  I'm the first one that says Bill Clinton should have been impeached.  I've always said Hillary was a horrible choice.  And Trump is equally as bad!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 19, 2019, 06:34:46 AM
If Trump has been such a bad choice by the American population then why is the country doing so well?

Where is rioting and high unemployment right now?

Answer: France under Macron. Favorite of your old favorite Obama who was causing similar issues late in his administration with his policies.

When people work, have a sense of purpose, can pay their goods and raise their families, it is peaceful time and that is what we have right now in the U.S.

So when it comes to policies, I think that the American people made the right choice in 2016.

Now, the Russian thing is a joke. You have a guy with a low budget that ends up beating 16 or 17 other Republicans in a race that lasted over a year. Why?

Then he goes on to beat the media favorite again with way less money. Why?

Because the message resonated with voters. They liked what they have heard, the brash style and wanted change from politically correct bullshit.

Is this something seen only in America? No, it is a phenomenon seen around the world with Brazil being the latest. Must be Russia! Everywhere!

Regarding this investigation, I can guarantee you that it still amounts to nothing or no proof. Because I can definitely guarantee you that all the haters will go for impeachment as soon as they have anything of substance to try to get rid of the man.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on January 19, 2019, 08:27:26 AM
If Trump has been such a bad choice by the American population then why is the country doing so well?

Where is rioting and high unemployment right now?

Answer: France under Macron. Favorite of your old favorite Obama who was causing similar issues late in his administration with his policies.

When people work, have a sense of purpose, can pay their goods and raise their families, it is peaceful time and that is what we have right now in the U.S.

So when it comes to policies, I think that the American people made the right choice in 2016.

Now, the Russian thing is a joke. You have a guy with a low budget that ends up beating 16 or 17 other Republicans in a race that lasted over a year. Why?

Then he goes on to beat the media favorite again with way less money. Why?

Because the message resonated with voters. They liked what they have heard, the brash style and wanted change from politically correct bullshit.

Is this something seen only in America? No, it is a phenomenon seen around the world with Brazil being the latest. Must be Russia! Everywhere!

Regarding this investigation, I can guarantee you that it still amounts to nothing or no proof. Because I can definitely guarantee you that all the haters will go for impeachment as soon as they have anything of substance to try to get rid of the man.

Cardboard

Yup - A+
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on January 19, 2019, 07:00:27 PM
Nancy Pelosi and her strategy to solve the border crisis:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5991519083001/#sp=news-clips

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: rb on January 19, 2019, 09:11:36 PM
If Trump has been such a bad choice by the American population then why is the country doing so well?

Where is rioting and high unemployment right now?

Answer: France under Macron. Favorite of your old favorite Obama who was causing similar issues late in his administration with his policies.

When people work, have a sense of purpose, can pay their goods and raise their families, it is peaceful time and that is what we have right now in the U.S.

So when it comes to policies, I think that the American people made the right choice in 2016.

Now, the Russian thing is a joke. You have a guy with a low budget that ends up beating 16 or 17 other Republicans in a race that lasted over a year. Why?

Then he goes on to beat the media favorite again with way less money. Why?

Because the message resonated with voters. They liked what they have heard, the brash style and wanted change from politically correct bullshit.

Is this something seen only in America? No, it is a phenomenon seen around the world with Brazil being the latest. Must be Russia! Everywhere!

Regarding this investigation, I can guarantee you that it still amounts to nothing or no proof. Because I can definitely guarantee you that all the haters will go for impeachment as soon as they have anything of substance to try to get rid of the man.

Cardboard

Yup - A+
If Clinton was such a bad choice for the American population then why the good economy, budget surpluses, debt-to-GDP reduction and high approval rating?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on January 20, 2019, 06:27:54 AM
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/01/18/compromise-before-trump-won-his-first-primary-putin-collected-his-first-receipt/

The best theory I've seen on conspiracy.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 20, 2019, 09:18:07 AM
"If Clinton was such a bad choice for the American population then why the good economy, budget surpluses, debt-to-GDP reduction and high approval rating?"

Do you mean Bill?

I actually liked him and appreciated how he managed the U.S. economy.

I think that more could have been done to avoid the Internet bubble get out of hand but, the real culprit there was Greenspan IMO.

This Monica thing was a joke IMO for which I could care less.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cameronfen on January 20, 2019, 08:05:17 PM
I hate to weigh in on this but... Trump had 100 contacts with russian officials.  Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi have on text have contacted Wikileaks about hacked Russian documents.  Trump had buildings in Moscow awaiting Putin's approval 6 mo after Trump claimed he had no business in Moscow.  Trump met Putin 5 times without telling basically anyone in government and confiscated all interpreter's note and once with only Putin's interpreter.  Trump's inner circle met with known Putin's representatives (probably small time agents but still) to discuss the magistky act and "dirt" on Clinton.   Manafort shared polling data with a man with ties to Russian govt. 

Buzzfeed came out with a report that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, although Mueller said this mischatacterized what happened (and all of a sudden Mueller is a maga hero).  Trump has already been documented by the courts to have been convicted of felony campaign violations.  Note this is different than Obama's violations which were civil and ruled unintentional errors, which campaign experts say occurs with many campaigns with so many moving parts.

Now I dont understand how this could not point to Trump at the minimum of being a terrible person (and much worse than anything one can prove/show Hillary did willfully). But if the deep state really screwing trump, we are all screwed because it would take omniscience to plant evidence on over 20 people at all levels of the Trump campaign including himself pointing to Russia, without leaving a shred of evidence that plants were occurring (yes I get it the FBI hates trump but no evidence has emerged that they are actually framing him), and get approximately 10 people to flip on him, while also finding time to frame him on unrelated felony campaign finance violations.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 24, 2019, 07:58:12 PM
I hate to weigh in on this but... Trump had 100 contacts with russian officials.  Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi have on text have contacted Wikileaks about hacked Russian documents.  Trump had buildings in Moscow awaiting Putin's approval 6 mo after Trump claimed he had no business in Moscow.  Trump met Putin 5 times without telling basically anyone in government and confiscated all interpreter's note and once with only Putin's interpreter.  Trump's inner circle met with known Putin's representatives (probably small time agents but still) to discuss the magistky act and "dirt" on Clinton.   Manafort shared polling data with a man with ties to Russian govt. 

Buzzfeed came out with a report that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, although Mueller said this mischatacterized what happened (and all of a sudden Mueller is a maga hero).  Trump has already been documented by the courts to have been convicted of felony campaign violations.  Note this is different than Obama's violations which were civil and ruled unintentional errors, which campaign experts say occurs with many campaigns with so many moving parts.

Now I dont understand how this could not point to Trump at the minimum of being a terrible person (and much worse than anything one can prove/show Hillary did willfully). But if the deep state really screwing trump, we are all screwed because it would take omniscience to plant evidence on over 20 people at all levels of the Trump campaign including himself pointing to Russia, without leaving a shred of evidence that plants were occurring (yes I get it the FBI hates trump but no evidence has emerged that they are actually framing him), and get approximately 10 people to flip on him, while also finding time to frame him on unrelated felony campaign finance violations.

Dude... Clinton had a private email server, so ya know... Lock her up!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 24, 2019, 08:27:43 PM
Don't worry investor-man, Lindsey Graham (champion of the people) is going to make sure Hillary gets her comeuppance:

Lindsey Graham renews probe into Hillary's emails; Democrats burst out laughing
New Judiciary Committee chair is eager for yet another go at Hillary and the FBI; Dems suggest Michael Cohen


South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to launch new investigations into the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server.


The Hill reported that when Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, was told about Graham’s plans, he “started laughing and compared them to the ‘thrilling days of yesteryear.’”

“This is going to be like the History Channel, it turns out. Instead of taking a look at the current issues, Lindsey Graham wants to go back and answer important questions about the Bermuda Triangle and Hillary Clinton,” Durbin said, adding that Graham may want to question former President Jimmy Carter next.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who also sits on the committee, quipped that perhaps Graham should “investigate Benghazi some more.”



https://www.salon.com/2019/01/23/lindsey-graham-renews-probe-into-hillarys-emails-democrats-burst-out-laughing/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 24, 2019, 09:05:22 PM
Clinton is old news, but these same jackasses still haven't accepted she lost the 2016 election and want to keep look at Russia...Funny.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 24, 2019, 11:02:09 PM
Clinton is old news, but these same jackasses still haven't accepted she lost the 2016 election and want to keep look at Russia...Funny.

Greg I agree - Lindsey Graham is definitely a jackass. And that's putting it mildly!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on January 25, 2019, 11:40:08 AM
I hate to weigh in on this but... Trump had 100 contacts with russian officials.  Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi have on text have contacted Wikileaks about hacked Russian documents.  Trump had buildings in Moscow awaiting Putin's approval 6 mo after Trump claimed he had no business in Moscow.  Trump met Putin 5 times without telling basically anyone in government and confiscated all interpreter's note and once with only Putin's interpreter.  Trump's inner circle met with known Putin's representatives (probably small time agents but still) to discuss the magistky act and "dirt" on Clinton.   Manafort shared polling data with a man with ties to Russian govt. 

Buzzfeed came out with a report that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, although Mueller said this mischatacterized what happened (and all of a sudden Mueller is a maga hero).  Trump has already been documented by the courts to have been convicted of felony campaign violations.  Note this is different than Obama's violations which were civil and ruled unintentional errors, which campaign experts say occurs with many campaigns with so many moving parts.

Now I dont understand how this could not point to Trump at the minimum of being a terrible person (and much worse than anything one can prove/show Hillary did willfully). But if the deep state really screwing trump, we are all screwed because it would take omniscience to plant evidence on over 20 people at all levels of the Trump campaign including himself pointing to Russia, without leaving a shred of evidence that plants were occurring (yes I get it the FBI hates trump but no evidence has emerged that they are actually framing him), and get approximately 10 people to flip on him, while also finding time to frame him on unrelated felony campaign finance violations.

More fake news:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/roger-stone-donald-trump/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mueller-indictment-roger-stone-communicated-with-trump-campaign-about-wikileaks

The son-in-law or Don Jr. is next!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on January 25, 2019, 11:47:49 AM
If Trump has been such a bad choice by the American population then why is the country doing so well?

Where is rioting and high unemployment right now?...


Cardboard

Obviously, you are completely out of touch with what's going on.  The populace is pretty close to rioting and creating havoc...from both sides!  Literally a powder keg waiting to go off. 

Hopefully it won't come to that, but it is awfully scary in terms of what could happen.  The crazies on both sides can do enormous damage, which might not unite but divide further!  Inaction and words inspiring such behavior on both sides certainly does not help...both should be careful about what they might unleash by their stupidity!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 25, 2019, 12:27:23 PM
When is the last time you have been to the U.S.?

I actually travelled through 9 States during the Holidays and things looked much healthier than I recall in a long time.

Busy, happy, welcoming people.

I wonder who is more out of touch really?

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on January 25, 2019, 01:22:26 PM
When is the last time you have been to the U.S.?

I actually travelled through 9 States during the Holidays and things looked much healthier than I recall in a long time.

Busy, happy, welcoming people.

I wonder who is more out of touch really?

Cardboard

I go once a week to fill gas and once a month to visit family and friends.  Things are healthy in terms of the economy, but they are in complete disarray in terms of sentiment regarding the country.  You literally have a schism through the American psyche similar to the 60's and early 70's.  So yes, you are out of touch.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 25, 2019, 07:12:56 PM
When is the last time you have been to the U.S.?

I actually travelled through 9 States during the Holidays and things looked much healthier than I recall in a long time.

Busy, happy, welcoming people.

I wonder who is more out of touch really?

Cardboard

I go once a week to fill gas and once a month to visit family and friends.  Things are healthy in terms of the economy, but they are in complete disarray in terms of sentiment regarding the country.  You literally have a schism through the American psyche similar to the 60's and early 70's.  So yes, you are out of touch.  Cheers!

As an American living between NYC and Colorado, I would say this is accurate. Although there seems to be problem with the "chronically poor" based on my observations. Particularly in the less urban areas.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 25, 2019, 09:08:41 PM
In NYC, Colorado and around Seattle some are very concerned about an imminent disaster and/or civil unrest while everyone seems to be employed and well fed.

The concerns seem to arise after some heated exchanges at a dinner table where some people disagreed around religion and politics.

Bill Clinton's once famous catch phrase: "It's the economy stupid." now seems irrelevant. A calamity now seem unavoidable.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 25, 2019, 09:50:24 PM
In NYC, Colorado and around Seattle some are very concerned about an imminent disaster and/or civil unrest while everyone seems to be employed and well fed.
Throw the remaining 47 states in there and you're nearing the truth, at least in terms of people concerned.

"This exclusive, highly unequal society based on extreme wealth for the few may seem sturdy and inevitable right now, but eventually it will collapse," writes Hanauer. "Eventually the pitchforks will come out, and the ensuing chaos will not benefit anyone — not wealthy people like me, and not the poorest people who have already been left behind."

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on January 26, 2019, 08:23:09 AM
"Eventually the pitchforks will come out, and the ensuing chaos will not benefit anyone — not wealthy people like me, and not the poorest people who have already been left behind."

Self preservation LC?

If you truly believe in what you quoted then you should love Trump. He is trying to raise all Americans for the better.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, when you consider someone like Bernie Sanders, AOC or Elizabeth Warren then you should fear that what you quoted could very well become reality.

These people try to pit one against each other to rise to power. They highlight all differences that they can (sex, race, wealth), demonize their target group, propose to take wealth away by force and will use it if they rise to power.

If you consider both groups to be populist, then IMO Trump is similar to Franklin Roosevelt while Elizabeth Warren is similar to Adolf Hitler.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on January 26, 2019, 10:21:33 AM
Just look at what(as in what boxes will need to be checked) I guarantee will be the Dems 2020 nom. It will 100% be the winner of what I call the "mostest diverse" contest. Who can combine the greatest number of popular identity politics hashtags with anti-Trump rhetoric... Current frontrunner, Koobalo Harris, who f*cked her way into being a career politician by offering under desk service to the married mayor of SF(who happened to be 30+ years her senior)...The same people that will support her will likely be the ones railing on Trump for his character flaws...it will be amusing to watch for sure.

Trump regardless of what he is as a person, advocates for America and what's best for ALL, whereas the Democrats basically just buy votes through giving handouts to people who are failing...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on January 26, 2019, 11:07:42 AM

If you truly believe in what you quoted then you should love Trump. He is trying to raise all Americans for the better.

Cardboard

This is so true - before Trump very few of these politicians cared about middle America and the working class. They just care about their own political power in DC.  Trump came in with a message directly to the people that resonated with them, while the traditional party of the working class, the Democrats continued to ignore them.  DC, both Democrats and many Republicans hate this guy because he is trying to change the status quo of never getting anything important done.

Unfortunately, not enough people see through this because of the dishonest media and idiots like Ocasio Cortez and Elizabeth Warren. It's a real shame.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 26, 2019, 12:09:33 PM
Let's assume Trump is a man for the people. Really, wants nothing more than the best for you, me, and more importantly, the vast majority of people who are making under, call it $200k/year.

Why did his tax cuts favor (1) corporations and (2) the wealthiest segments above these folks?

And as for his wall - if he was such a good guy, wasn't trying to play politics, really wanted to increase southern border protection and really felt it was a good idea:

Why not just open the government and then petition Congress to reallocate funds? That puts 800,000 people back to work right now. After all, that's what he cares about, right? The people.

Or why not just swallow his pride? Ask for 6B, but call it "increased border protection" "expanded border patrol budget" "reallocated construction expense".

Then go to his base and say "do you see those Democrats? they didn't want a "wall" so I just called it something else!  They're so dumb! And don't worry, it's gonna be a wall!"

All he has to do it sacrifice some face, to "really look out for the people" - as folks have mentioned is what he really wants more than anything.

He won't even do that.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on January 26, 2019, 12:18:02 PM

Trump regardless of what he is as a person, advocates for America and what's best for ALL, whereas the Democrats basically just buy votes through giving handouts to people who are failing...

Didn't know you did stand-up!  Probably one of the most out of touch comments we've seen on this message board.  Not defending the idiots within the Democratic party, but do you really believe Trump is an advocate for ALL of America? 

He's an advocate for his own pocket-book, and if that works for others...great!  If it doesn't, then he couldn't give two sh*ts!  How many people within his own administration has he turned against and lampooned on Twitter?  You think this man cares about Americans?!  He doesn't even pay his taxes!  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on January 26, 2019, 12:31:11 PM
If the Democratic Party is so behind the American people - why do they turn a blind eye to a increased border security?

Do they really believe that a large portion of drug trafficking and human trafficking is not a problem?

Do they really believe that MS13 and Mexican gangs are not a threat to Americans?

To me these things are so, so obvious - and you deal with it instead of pretend these problems don't exist.

I admire Trump for what he is trying to accomplish with border security. Do I like the government shutdown? No

But I find Pelosi/Schumer intellectually dishonest about a huge problem this country needs to deal with - and find it
appalling that their own solution is to just play politics - make Trump look bad - and not solve a huge problem facing America.

This is called DC politics at it's finest - do nothing - but make sure you make your opponent look bad.

Disgusting.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 26, 2019, 02:21:48 PM
Just look at what(as in what boxes will need to be checked) I guarantee will be the Dems 2020 nom. It will 100% be the winner of what I call the "mostest diverse" contest. Who can combine the greatest number of popular identity politics hashtags with anti-Trump rhetoric... Current frontrunner, Koobalo Harris, who f*cked her way into being a career politician by offering under desk service to the married mayor of SF(who happened to be 30+ years her senior)...The same people that will support her will likely be the ones railing on Trump for his character flaws...it will be amusing to watch for sure.

Trump regardless of what he is as a person, advocates for America and what's best for ALL, whereas the Democrats basically just buy votes through giving handouts to people who are failing...

Vile
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Spekulatius on January 27, 2019, 01:31:53 PM
When is the last time you have been to the U.S.?

I actually travelled through 9 States during the Holidays and things looked much healthier than I recall in a long time.

Busy, happy, welcoming people.

I wonder who is more out of touch really?

Cardboard

I go once a week to fill gas and once a month to visit family and friends.  Things are healthy in terms of the economy, but they are in complete disarray in terms of sentiment regarding the country.  You literally have a schism through the American psyche similar to the 60's and early 70's.  So yes, you are out of touch.  Cheers!

The division in opinion is greater since  at any time since the Vietnam wars (where it was far worse and actually led to riots), imo. I shudders me to think what actually might happen, when the economy goes bad.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on January 27, 2019, 09:12:31 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/us/politics/senate-trump-russia-sanctions.html

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday narrowly staved off an effort by Democrats to deal the Trump administration’s Russia sanctions policy an embarrassing rebuke.

Eleven Republicans joined Democrats in a vote to enforce sanctions against the corporate empire of an influential ally of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, but the effort fell three votes short of the 60-vote threshold required to advance the measure. The vote was 57-42, with one Democratic senator not voting.

The sanctions against companies controlled by the influential oligarch, Oleg V. Deripaska, now seem destined to be lifted this week as part of a deal negotiated by the Treasury Department to reduce Mr. Deripaska’s ownership and control of the aluminum giant Rusal and two linked companies.


And sanctions have been lifted!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/us-lifts-sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: investor-man on January 28, 2019, 09:25:34 PM
And looks like they've yet to impose the promised sanction for the attacks in Europe https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-has-not-imposed-new-sanctions-russia-required-law-n962216


What a treacherous piece of shit
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 12, 2019, 08:48:16 AM
Somehow, no one mentioned that we learned Trump's campaign Chairmen met with a GRU-connected individual during the campaign, shortly after "Russia, if you are listening" signal was sent, to share polling data and discuss sanctions. That's after the Trump Tower meeting about sanctions. In late-2015, a convicted Russian spy also asked Trump about sanctions. In August 2016, the GRU-connected individual was working directly for Oleg Deripaska, who recently had sanctions removed on companies that he still owns stakes in. He divested some shares to Russian state-owned banks, so I guess he doesn't technically have voting control so it's definitely not the payoff to the long-alleged conspiracy.

Nothing matters and no matter how much hypocrisy with Trump is pointed out, someone will deflect or ignore them to protect him. There's two sets of rules in this country. One for the guy who ran on "Lock her up!" and "Guilty until proven innocent!" and one for everyone else. In more important news, did anyone mention the freshman Rep, who's on exactly 0 legislative-writing committees, that is "a danger to the Republic"?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 12, 2019, 09:41:24 AM
Somehow, no one mentioned that we learned Trump's campaign Chairmen met with a GRU-connected individual during the campaign, shortly after "Russia, if you are listening" signal was sent, to share polling data and discuss sanctions. That's after the Trump Tower meeting about sanctions. In late-2015, a convicted Russian spy also asked Trump about sanctions. In August 2016, the GRU-connected individual was working directly for Oleg Deripaska, who recently had sanctions removed on companies that he still owns stakes in. He divested some shares to Russian state-owned banks, so I guess he doesn't technically have voting control so it's definitely not the payoff to the long-alleged conspiracy.

Nothing matters and no matter how much hypocrisy with Trump is pointed out, someone will deflect or ignore them to protect him. There's two sets of rules in this country. One for the guy who ran on "Lock her up!" and "Guilty until proven innocent!" and one for everyone else. In more important news, did anyone mention the freshman Rep, who's on exactly 0 legislative-writing committees, that is "a danger to the Republic"?
After two years Senators, both Democrats and Republicans on the committee report they have found no direct evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.   Schwab you are relying solely on innuendo to smear with no hard evidence to impeach.  Even if I accept, for example, that Donald Trump Jr. Was willing to accept help - opposition research -from the Russian, so what!  It's not illegal!  And frankly it's not different from what the Clinton campaign did when they solicited opposition research from foreign agents that included Russians. (I picked Donald Jr. as an example because he's mentioned in the article.).  What are the crimes?  More importantly where is the proof?

https://guardianlv.com/2019/02/senate-has-found-no-evidence-of-trump-and-russian-collusion/


Which freshman democrat anti semite?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 12, 2019, 10:37:47 AM
Somehow, no one mentioned that we learned Trump's campaign Chairmen met with a GRU-connected individual during the campaign, shortly after "Russia, if you are listening" signal was sent, to share polling data and discuss sanctions. That's after the Trump Tower meeting about sanctions. In late-2015, a convicted Russian spy also asked Trump about sanctions. In August 2016, the GRU-connected individual was working directly for Oleg Deripaska, who recently had sanctions removed on companies that he still owns stakes in. He divested some shares to Russian state-owned banks, so I guess he doesn't technically have voting control so it's definitely not the payoff to the long-alleged conspiracy.

Nothing matters and no matter how much hypocrisy with Trump is pointed out, someone will deflect or ignore them to protect him. There's two sets of rules in this country. One for the guy who ran on "Lock her up!" and "Guilty until proven innocent!" and one for everyone else. In more important news, did anyone mention the freshman Rep, who's on exactly 0 legislative-writing committees, that is "a danger to the Republic"?
After two years Senators, both Democrats and Republicans on the committee report they have found no direct evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.   Schwab you are relying solely on innuendo to smear with no hard evidence to impeach.  Even if I accept, for example, that Donald Trump Jr. Was willing to accept help - opposition research -from the Russian, so what!  It's not illegal!  And frankly it's not different from what the Clinton campaign did when they solicited opposition research from foreign agents that included Russians. (I picked Donald Jr. as an example because he's mentioned in the article.).  What are the crimes?  More importantly where is the proof?

https://guardianlv.com/2019/02/senate-has-found-no-evidence-of-trump-and-russian-collusion/


Which freshman democrat anti semite?


It is illegal to accept campaign contributions from a foreign government
It is not illegal to hire a non-US citizen. Either way, the campaign didn't hire Steele directly.

As to "no direct evidence of collusion", it was literally included in the Manafort transcript. Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiring with Kilimnik. What more evidence of conspiracy do you need? No one is going to call it collusion in a court document. You haven't even seen the Senate report. It's funny how news is reliable sometimes and fake news at other times. If all we need is an article for evidence then the evidence of conspiracy is magnitudes greater. The amount of time the investigation took has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You've been misled that the amount of time matters. You've been misled that accepting help from a sovereign foreign government is OK for a campaign. You've been misled that the "process crimes" have nothing to do with conspiracy. Roger Stone's indictments are directly related to the warrants served on 12 GRU officers hacking the DNC.

Mueller's prosecutor said the Manafort/Kilimnik meeting, in August 2016, where they discussed polling data and sanctions, "gets to the heart of our investigation".

Respectfully, you are repeating nonsense talking points.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 12, 2019, 11:08:35 AM
This is too funny - there is so much corruption to go around with Comey, DOJ, FBI, Clinton campaign - Trump's activities don't hold
a candle to the illegal activities that occurred by the DC Swamp trying to elect Hillary. And the coverup has been worse than the crime.

What a joke.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 12, 2019, 11:12:48 AM
What are the crimes?  More importantly where is the proof?


This is too funny - there is so much corruption to go around with Comey, DOJ, FBI, Clinton campaign - Trump's activities don't hold
a candle to the illegal activities that occurred by the DC Swamp trying to elect Hillary. And the coverup has been worse than the crime.

What a joke.

Trump in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 12, 2019, 11:24:52 AM
Yea, it's really good to have the Clinton Crime Syndicate out of business for once and for all.

Let's hope the POS stays out in the woods for good.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 12, 2019, 11:28:42 AM
Somehow, no one mentioned that we learned Trump's campaign Chairmen met with a GRU-connected individual during the campaign, shortly after "Russia, if you are listening" signal was sent, to share polling data and discuss sanctions. That's after the Trump Tower meeting about sanctions. In late-2015, a convicted Russian spy also asked Trump about sanctions. In August 2016, the GRU-connected individual was working directly for Oleg Deripaska, who recently had sanctions removed on companies that he still owns stakes in. He divested some shares to Russian state-owned banks, so I guess he doesn't technically have voting control so it's definitely not the payoff to the long-alleged conspiracy.

Nothing matters and no matter how much hypocrisy with Trump is pointed out, someone will deflect or ignore them to protect him. There's two sets of rules in this country. One for the guy who ran on "Lock her up!" and "Guilty until proven innocent!" and one for everyone else. In more important news, did anyone mention the freshman Rep, who's on exactly 0 legislative-writing committees, that is "a danger to the Republic"?
After two years Senators, both Democrats and Republicans on the committee report they have found no direct evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.   Schwab you are relying solely on innuendo to smear with no hard evidence to impeach.  Even if I accept, for example, that Donald Trump Jr. Was willing to accept help - opposition research -from the Russian, so what!  It's not illegal!  And frankly it's not different from what the Clinton campaign did when they solicited opposition research from foreign agents that included Russians. (I picked Donald Jr. as an example because he's mentioned in the article.).  What are the crimes?  More importantly where is the proof?

https://guardianlv.com/2019/02/senate-has-found-no-evidence-of-trump-and-russian-collusion/


Which freshman democrat anti semite?


It is illegal to accept campaign contributions from a foreign government
It is not illegal to hire a non-US citizen. Either way, the campaign didn't hire Steele directly.

As to "no direct evidence of collusion", it was literally included in the Manafort transcript. Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiring with Kilimnik. What more evidence of conspiracy do you need? No one is going to call it collusion in a court document. You haven't even seen the Senate report. It's funny how news is reliable sometimes and fake news at other times. If all we need is an article for evidence then the evidence of conspiracy is magnitudes greater. The amount of time the investigation took has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You've been misled that the amount of time matters. You've been misled that accepting help from a sovereign foreign government is OK for a campaign. You've been misled that the "process crimes" have nothing to do with conspiracy. Roger Stone's indictments are directly related to the warrants served on 12 GRU officers hacking the DNC.

Mueller's prosecutor said the Manafort/Kilimnik meeting, in August 2016, where they discussed polling data and sanctions, "gets to the heart of our investigation".

Respectfully, you are repeating nonsense talking points.

Schwab:

Four quick points:

1). Your statement that it is only illegal to accept money from foreign governments is just plain wrong.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

2).  As I understand Manafort's plea agreement, he plead guilty to charges stemming from his work with Ukraine, not Russia, long before his work with the Trump campaign. 

3). Your comment about going to the heart of the Trump investigation was an argument made concerning the enforcement of the plea agreement with Manafort.  It wasn't a claim that Manafort's guilty plea was proof against Trump.  It reflected the investigators frustration with Manafort over his not providing evidence against Trump in exchange for the plea deal. Specifically the investigators argued that Manafort's repeated lies were sufficient to void his plea agreement

4). If someone can't rely on news reports from supposedly reputable sources, then what are you relying on to make your allegations?
Moreover you're indirectly arguing that I must wait for the actual report before drawing any conclusions.  But aren't you drawing conclusions before reading the reports? 

Respectfully - color me unconvinced.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 12, 2019, 11:44:10 AM
Look Mark - The real purpose of the Russia Investigation was to DEFLECT all the attention of the illegal activities of the Clinton campaign, FBI, and the
DOJ - onto Trump - since surprise, surprise - Trump was elected, which was NEVER supposed to happen. Then those players KNEW they
were in DEEP DEEP shit. So far the coverup has worked masterfully - but watch when they come up empty handed on Trump.

They successfully delayed the spotlight that should be shining on them for 2 years with a useless investigation - when the real corruption
was flagrantly playing out during the campaign. It's been a National disgrace - and living proof of the corruption of the DC Swamp.

Look no further than Barrack Obama's strong statement months before the election - that US elections could not be compromised!
Then, 3 months later - Trump WINS - and bingo - the election had to be compromised because the coronation of Hillary Clinton did not happen!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 12, 2019, 11:46:00 AM

Schwab:

Four quick points:

1). Your statement that it is only illegal to accept money from foreign governments is just plain wrong.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

2).  As I understand Manafort's plea agreement, he plead guilty to charges stemming from his work with Ukraine, not Russia, long before his work with the Trump campaign. 

3). Your comment about going to the heart of the Trump investigation was an argument made concerning the enforcement of the plea agreement with Manafort.  It wasn't a claim that Manafort's guilty plea was proof against Trump.  It reflected the investigators frustration with Manafort over his not providing evidence against Trump in exchange for the plea deal. Specifically the investigators argued that Manafort's repeated lies were sufficient to void his plea agreement

4). If someone can't rely on news reports from supposedly reputable sources, then what are you relying on to make your allegations?
Moreover you're indirectly arguing that I must wait for the actual report before drawing any conclusions.  But aren't you drawing conclusions before reading the reports? 

Respectfully - color me unconvinced.

1. I didn't say it was only illegal, just that it was. I said it's not illegal to hire a non-US citizen in the sense that Steele was hired. Consider the fact that a campaign purchases various goods/services from foreign companies for campaign purposes. That is not illegal. It wasn't illegal for the Trump Campaign to have purchased "Make America Great Again" hats made in China. I'm not a lawyer and not nearly bright enough to point to the technical reasons differentiating the two other than to say they were clearly different situations. The direct offer from the sovereign country being an obvious difference.

2. Thus my "gets to the heart of the investigation" comment. Read the transcript. Ukraine Peace Plan, Russian sanctions, Deripaska, Russian trolls, Trump Tower Moscow, ect are all intertwined. Russian sanctions exist because of Crimea. They cannot be viewed in isolation.

3. It wasn't related to Trump. It was related to a specific lie made by Manafort. When explaining the "materiality" to the judge, Mueller's prosecutor said that the lie gets to the heart of the investigation. He was pointing out that it was more than merely meeting the minimum materiality hurdle.

4. In this thread, lately, I've only used court documents because there was too much pushback in past months that certain articles were "fake news" and thus unconvincing. I'm trying to remind folks that conspiracy isn't just a vague allegation but that the actual conspiracy is being proven in court every week. As this thread and point #2 shows, the conspiracy is broad and includes many actors. It will take awhile to go through all the legal steps to "prove it".
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on February 12, 2019, 12:15:23 PM
Do the Liberals out here still have any critical judgement?

Isn't Barrack Obama who did not honour U.S. commitment to defend Ukraine after they accepted to give up their nuclear weapons?

Of course it got tricky since Russia had signed that same treaty and honouring it could have meant a direct war with Russia.

However, not only did he not defend Ukraine, he did not even want to provide them with anti-tank weaponry to defend themselves. Then Trump did...

I mean if you look at actions, it is truly Obama who seems to have given Putin all he could have ever wanted.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 12, 2019, 12:21:26 PM
Putin made Obama look like a fool.

And of course, the Clintons had NO problem taking millions from the Russian's in speaking fees and for the "Clinton Foundation".
The Clinton's influence was easily bought.

Need approval for Uranium One?  Make a deposit with the Clinton Foundation - because the State Department is "open for business"!!!

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 12, 2019, 12:31:41 PM

Schwab:

Four quick points:

1). Your statement that it is only illegal to accept money from foreign governments is just plain wrong.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

2).  As I understand Manafort's plea agreement, he plead guilty to charges stemming from his work with Ukraine, not Russia, long before his work with the Trump campaign. 

3). Your comment about going to the heart of the Trump investigation was an argument made concerning the enforcement of the plea agreement with Manafort.  It wasn't a claim that Manafort's guilty plea was proof against Trump.  It reflected the investigators frustration with Manafort over his not providing evidence against Trump in exchange for the plea deal. Specifically the investigators argued that Manafort's repeated lies were sufficient to void his plea agreement

4). If someone can't rely on news reports from supposedly reputable sources, then what are you relying on to make your allegations?
Moreover you're indirectly arguing that I must wait for the actual report before drawing any conclusions.  But aren't you drawing conclusions before reading the reports? 

Respectfully - color me unconvinced.

1. I didn't say it was only illegal, just that it was. I said it's not illegal to hire a non-US citizen in the sense that Steele was hired. Consider the fact that a campaign purchases various goods/services from foreign companies for campaign purposes. That is not illegal. It wasn't illegal for the Trump Campaign to have purchased "Make America Great Again" hats made in China. I'm not a lawyer and not nearly bright enough to point to the technical reasons differentiating the two other than to say they were clearly different situations. The direct offer from the sovereign country being an obvious difference.

2. Thus my "gets to the heart of the investigation" comment. Read the transcript. Ukraine Peace Plan, Russian sanctions, Deripaska, Russian trolls, Trump Tower Moscow, ect are all intertwined. Russian sanctions exist because of Crimea. They cannot be viewed in isolation.

3. It wasn't related to Trump. It was related to a specific lie made by Manafort. When explaining the "materiality" to the judge, Mueller's prosecutor said that the lie gets to the heart of the investigation. He was pointing out that it was more than merely meeting the minimum materiality hurdle.

4. In this thread, lately, I've only used court documents because there was too much pushback in past months that certain articles were "fake news" and thus unconvincing. I'm trying to remind folks that conspiracy isn't just a vague allegation but that the actual conspiracy is being proven in court every week. As this thread and point #2 shows, the conspiracy is broad and includes many actors. It will take awhile to go through all the legal steps to "prove it".

Schwab,

So if Steel used money given him by the law firm who represented Clinton and the DNC to pay Russians for dirt on Trump then that would be equivalent to Trump buying MAGA hats from China?

Since you haven't shared any of the documents that you're relying on to prove your point, I'll withhold additional comment until you post them. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 12, 2019, 12:41:17 PM
Just think - and once the documents have been paid for by the Clinton's - just have the DOJ work with the FBI
to DEFRAUD the FISA court into giving you illegal surveillance on YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT.

No problem there at all !

What a joke.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 12, 2019, 01:19:52 PM
Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, who was hired by a law firm representing a campaign. I can not list every single reason Steele is not like saying "I love it" when a foreign government offers dirt on an opponent and meeting with them to attempt to further the proposed transaction. If it is illegal to hire Steele, I'll accept it and support whatever consequence occurs. I suppose it would raise the issue with Cambridge Analytica, right? Or Psy Group? If it is illegal then it doesn't help Trump, his campaign, or make him innocent.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/did-hillary-clinton-break-the-law-hiring-trump-dossier-author
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-cambridge-analytica-workers-say-firm-sent-foreigners-to-advise-us-campaigns/2018/03/25/6a0d7d90-2fa2-11e8-911f-ca7f68bff0fc_story.html?noredirect=on

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rick-gates-tells-mueller-about-trump-teams-dealings-with-israeli-intelligence-firm
https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-trump-had-many-ties-to-israeli-intel-firm-in-muellers-crosshairs
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/18/private-mossad-for-hire
https://www.thedailybeast.com/swiss-mystery-company-is-at-the-heart-of-a-mueller-puzzle


It'll take awhile to post a link to every docket related to the Russia investigation and every article related to every allegation, if I even can. Maybe I'll start a thread for the purpose of adding docs/articles related to the investigation and we can leave this thread for commenting while just referring to the other thread. I don't really want to do it if the links will just get buried in clutter like this thread. Most of the documents you want to see are linked in this thread already. For now, here's some more.

Trump Tower Moscow:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/trump-tower-moscow-the-secret-files-cohen-sater-putin (actual emails)

Semi-related:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6669989/Massive-cache-emails-reveal-scale-plan-Trump-Moscow-campaign.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/russia-s-peskov-shares-2016-emails-from-ex-trump-lawyer-cohen

Manafort Transcript:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/transcript-paul-manafort-hearing/index.html

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 12, 2019, 02:02:38 PM
Schwab
I don't expect you to find and post everything.  But if you want me to respond you need to put out something more concrete.  For example, I don't believe that Manafort's guilty plea had much to do with Trump other than fodder for cheap innuendo.  https://www.lawfareblog.com/manafort-guilty-plea-mueller-investigation-and-president
There is a link in the above that will show you exactly what he plead to.  Now you can respond to something relatively concrete.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on February 12, 2019, 03:32:25 PM
Quote
But if you want me to respond you need to put out something more concrete

;D ;D ;D ;D

The guy posts hours worth of reading, even spells out the summation for you, and you respond in 40 minutes asking for something "more concrete".

What a good faith effort at a constructive discussion!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 12, 2019, 03:42:04 PM
Quote
But if you want me to respond you need to put out something more concrete

;D ;D ;D ;D

The guy posts hours worth of reading, even spells out the summation for you, and you respond in 40 minutes asking for something "more concrete".

What a good faith effort at a constructive discussion!

I could spend the rest of my life pouring over the links that Schwab posted and still not find hard evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 12, 2019, 03:52:03 PM
That's cause he's looking for collusion in the wrong place!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 12, 2019, 03:57:58 PM
Quote
But if you want me to respond you need to put out something more concrete

;D ;D ;D ;D

The guy posts hours worth of reading, even spells out the summation for you, and you respond in 40 minutes asking for something "more concrete".

What a good faith effort at a constructive discussion!

I could spend the rest of my life pouring over the links that Schwab posted and still not find hard evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.

Earlier it was the Steele hire was illegal, so I showed Trump Campaign did the same thing. Do you still think hiring foreigners is illegal and a big deal?

Then you asked for evidence of collusion. I show you Manafort colluded but you don't want to read it and it doesn't implicate Trump so "who cares". But it's his campaign chairman. That's like the CFO or COO commiting a crime and assuming the CEO is clean.

Honestly, until you define collusion, it's pointless for you to respond in this thread. Without committing to what you need to  see, no amount of evidence will be enough (similar to gregmal admitting he doesn't care and nothing will make him turn on Trump). I'm guessing you won't define it because of similar reasons.

We've also already discussed the same things you mentioned today before
http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/russia-investigation/msg341117/?topicseen#msg341117
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 12, 2019, 04:35:52 PM
Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, who was hired by a law firm representing a campaign.

You are leaving out key facts of course. Steele was employed by the FBI as source #1. After the first FISA warrant, he was deemed unreliable, since
he went talking to the press. This pissed off the FBI - and they told the FISA court he was no longer being used. And of course that was a lie, based
on a technicality. Steele worked directly with Nellie Ohr, so DOJ attorney, Bruce Ohr was used as the "go between" to hide the "fired" source#1.
So Steele was not "directly" used - and this was misrepresented to the FISA court multiple times - since Source #1 was told to the court
to be unreliable by the FBI.

In addition to deliberately deceiving the court - the unverified/phony document is paid for by Hillary!

Illegal?    Maybe not.
 
Highly deceiving to a Federal Foreign Surveillance court?    You can bet your ass.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 12, 2019, 07:11:38 PM
Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, who was hired by a law firm representing a campaign. I can not list every single reason Steele is not like saying "I love it" when a foreign government offers dirt on an opponent and meeting with them to attempt to further the proposed transaction. If it is illegal to hire Steele, I'll accept it and support whatever consequence occurs. I suppose it would raise the issue with Cambridge Analytica, right? Or Psy Group? If it is illegal then it doesn't help Trump, his campaign, or make him innocent.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/did-hillary-clinton-break-the-law-hiring-trump-dossier-author
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-cambridge-analytica-workers-say-firm-sent-foreigners-to-advise-us-campaigns/2018/03/25/6a0d7d90-2fa2-11e8-911f-ca7f68bff0fc_story.html?noredirect=on

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rick-gates-tells-mueller-about-trump-teams-dealings-with-israeli-intelligence-firm
https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-trump-had-many-ties-to-israeli-intel-firm-in-muellers-crosshairs
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/18/private-mossad-for-hire
https://www.thedailybeast.com/swiss-mystery-company-is-at-the-heart-of-a-mueller-puzzle


It'll take awhile to post a link to every docket related to the Russia investigation and every article related to every allegation, if I even can. Maybe I'll start a thread for the purpose of adding docs/articles related to the investigation and we can leave this thread for commenting while just referring to the other thread. I don't really want to do it if the links will just get buried in clutter like this thread. Most of the documents you want to see are linked in this thread already. For now, here's some more.

Trump Tower Moscow:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/trump-tower-moscow-the-secret-files-cohen-sater-putin (actual emails)

Semi-related:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6669989/Massive-cache-emails-reveal-scale-plan-Trump-Moscow-campaign.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/russia-s-peskov-shares-2016-emails-from-ex-trump-lawyer-cohen

Manafort Transcript:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/transcript-paul-manafort-hearing/index.html



Let me spend time reading BuzzFeed reports that have been discredited by Meuller - that wouldn't be a waste of my time.  Pick up any dictionary and you will find a.definition of collusion.  You won't find, however,  a definition in any of our criminal codes because it isn't a crime.  And concerning your argument about corporate officers - you would have to prove the CEO also committed a crime to convict.  Admittedly the CEO could be removed by the BOD but the rules for removing a CEO from his office and the rules on impeaching a President from office differ dramatically.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 13, 2019, 04:16:13 AM
You are mixing up BuzzFeed articles. I'm posting one that has emails and text messages. Michael Cohen pled guilty to some of this same info.

Collusion is defined in the dictionary as secret cooperation/conspiracy to cheat or deceive, which does not necessarily have to be illegal. Trump persomally "colluded" with Russia by signing a letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow and lying when he said he had no business or contacts in or with Russians.

You are being purposefully dense with the CEO example. It was meant to point out how ridiculous it is to assume Trump is completely innocent with everything else we know. He won't be indicted without proof, but we as citizens are allowed to use our eyes and ears. It takes less circumstantial evidence for Cubs to rant about nonsensical theories with a few facts thrown in. You never asked him to define crimes/show hard proof, right?

There's clearly "collusion" by Trump himself and the campaign. We've been talking about why it's a stupid word to use for a year. I'm guessing the next response will be "it's not illegal". Just admit you don't care if he is guilty.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 13, 2019, 05:45:27 AM
You are mixing up BuzzFeed articles. I'm posting one that has emails and text messages. Michael Cohen pled guilty to some of this same info.

Collusion is defined in the dictionary as secret cooperation/conspiracy to cheat or deceive, which does not necessarily have to be illegal. Trump persomally "colluded" with Russia by signing a letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow and lying when he said he had no business or contacts in or with Russians.

You are being purposefully dense with the CEO example. It was meant to point out how ridiculous it is to assume Trump is completely innocent with everything else we know. He won't be indicted without proof, but we as citizens are allowed to use our eyes and ears. It takes less circumstantial evidence for Cubs to rant about nonsensical theories with a few facts thrown in. You never asked him to define crimes/show hard proof, right?

There's clearly "collusion" by Trump himself and the campaign. We've been talking about why it's a stupid word to use for a year. I'm guessing the next response will be "it's not illegal". Just admit you don't care if he is guilty.

I do care very much!  It would be awful for America if Trump actively engaged in criminal activity designed to benefit himself and the Russians.  However, I a!so believe that justice is damaged when innocent people are.wrongly convicted either in the judicial system or in the court of public opinion.   I've watch commentators "connect the dots" and routinely publish blockbuster reports that loudly proclaim the end of the Trump administration - which routinely turn out to be wrong.   These actions hurt the office of the President, the media and the country as a whole.   That's why I feel that hard evidence is so important.    So - you're entitled to your opinion.   I just wish that you would rely less on circumstantial evidence where it is necessary to connect the dots to fill in the unproven areas.  But who am I?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 13, 2019, 05:55:58 AM
That's reasonable.

I'd only add that I'm not using circumstantial evidence to say we already know Trump 'colluded' in at least one case. He literally signed the Trump Tower Moscow Letter of Intent during the campaign and lied about it. You should read through the emails and text messages about the effort. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying about the business deal to Congress.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 13, 2019, 06:36:25 AM
That's reasonable.

I'd only add that I'm not using circumstantial evidence to say we already know Trump 'colluded' in at least one case. He literally signed the Trump Tower Moscow Letter of Intent during the campaign and lied about it. You should read through the emails and text messages about the effort. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying about the business deal to Congress.

If you have a specific text or email that you feel is pertinent, I'll gladly read it and comment.  However, I'm not going to search for and read all texts and emails on the subject then try to guess which text or email is in your opinion a lie.  I've asked for more concrete things to respond to not to be an asshole but from a real practical standpoint.  Even if I found every text and email on the subject, I still wouldn't know which one you're considering a lie.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 13, 2019, 06:54:28 AM
That's reasonable.

I'd only add that I'm not using circumstantial evidence to say we already know Trump 'colluded' in at least one case. He literally signed the Trump Tower Moscow Letter of Intent during the campaign and lied about it. You should read through the emails and text messages about the effort. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying about the business deal to Congress.

If you have a specific text or email that you feel is pertinent, I'll gladly read it and comment.  However, I'm not going to search for and read all texts and emails on the subject then try to guess which text or email is in your opinion a lie.  I've asked for more concrete things to respond to not to be an asshole but from a real practical standpoint.  Even if I found every text and email on the subject, I still wouldn't know which one you're considering a lie.

Trump Campaign Russia highlights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfsd6uW-D0I
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/politics/trump-team-russia-then-now/ (in text format)

The letter signed by Trump:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5719169-Trump-Moscow.html#document/p47

If you had read any of my comments and looked at any of the support I provided you'd see I've been very concrete. Trump denied business dealings with Russia. There is a signed letter of intent for a Trump Tower in Moscow that could pay him as much as $300m. It was signed during the campaign. That's straightforward 'collusion' involving Trump personally.

It meets every element required to define it as collusion. It was:
1. secret (it wasn't disclosed during the campaign)
2. a cooperation (signed with a Russian counterparty)
3. deceptive (in this case, a lie demonstrates the deceptive element rigorously)

definition of collusion:
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+collusion&oq=define%3A+collusion
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 13, 2019, 07:09:13 AM
Well, gee - looks like you cracked the case - should be a slam dunk for Mueller since he has unlimited time, resources and budget - plus
no oversight. Look forward to the coming Federal indictments or at the very least, the impeachment of the President.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 13, 2019, 07:50:22 AM
Wow!  You want me to respond to what is essentially buckshot claims - some of which are just silly like Clinton calling Trump
 "Putin's puppet."
 
Here is my response: 
Did Trump engage in political spin?  Absolutely!  Was it intended to intentionally deceive? Possibly.  Intent is difficult to determine and even more difficult to prove.  Did Trump lie about the letter of intent?  Probably not.  In all of the instances that I've seen Trump was careful to use the present tense.  In other words he answered the question by saying that at the time of the question, he had no dealings with Russia.  This would technically be the truth.

BTW Did you know that people lie about 3 times every ten minutes?  https://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2009/05/18/were-all-lying-liars-why-people-tell-lies-and-why-white-lies-can-be-ok
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 13, 2019, 08:15:29 AM
In other words he answered the question by saying that at the time of the question, he had no dealings with Russia.  This would technically be the truth.

Normally that could be plausible, but he has had 'business dealings' with Russia. One example is shown below. It's technically not true no matter how you look at it.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-sold-40-million-estate-russian-oligarch-100-million-and-democratic-802613

You are deflecting again, as predicted. I'm not saying it's clear Trump is guilty today. I'm writing about new information in the investigation and pointing out what's known and how stupid the 'NO COLLUSION', "Steele hiring is illegal", and other counters are. You are too partisan to be able to talk about this topic. You also admitted you aren't well-read on the investigation. You and cubs should just post in other threads about AOC or polls about potential caravans until you have something to add.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 13, 2019, 08:24:20 AM
You're getting a little testy Sherlock Schwab! 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 13, 2019, 08:34:33 AM
You are very likely being disingenuous and you are unprepared to discuss a conversation that you insist on being a part of. I'm treating you commensurate to your preparedness and attitude.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 13, 2019, 08:49:37 AM
You are very likely being disingenuous and you are unprepared to discuss a conversation that you insist on being a part of. I'm treating you commensurate to your preparedness and attitude.

We can't all be Sherlock Schwab!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on February 13, 2019, 10:07:01 AM
You are very likely being disingenuous and you are unprepared to discuss a conversation that you insist on being a part of. I'm treating you commensurate to your preparedness and attitude.
It's sadly not the first time this behavior has come up with Mark and a few others.

You can tell when he's flustered because he starts setting self-imposed standards on other people's posts. And if they don't follow it, he will "refuse to address it".

It's just a way to change the subject and deflect, as you correctly mentioned earlier. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 13, 2019, 10:18:52 AM
Dr. Watson,  i was wondering when you would show up.  It's nice to know that you and Sherlock have solved the Case of Guilt by Deflection.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 13, 2019, 10:21:48 AM
More idiotic posts - it's so clear that the way Steele was used put the Dems in hot water.

Intentionally defrauding the FISA court - by none other that the FBI and DOJ !

The DOJ, FBI and Adam Sleaze-bag Shift fought for months to keep this from the public.
Thank God for organizations like Judicial Watch that were able to shine the light on the coverup.

And Schwab can't even admit it - what a joke!  Hiding behind - "well it might not be illegal".

Yea, maybe - but certainly evidence of corruption at the highest levels.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 14, 2019, 05:49:22 AM
A federal judge has determined that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team has established that Paul Manafort lied in 3 of the 5 occurrences they cite and that she concurs that he breached his plea agreement.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47234491

Welcome back Dougie! Adding value to COBF by the day!

We all know Manafort is guilty, but the fact that the judge saw there were 5 accused occurrences and only 3 violations would again indicate that these guys are definitely trying everything they can to ratchet this up and harm the guy to the fullest extent they can.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Morgan on February 14, 2019, 08:57:19 PM
Hi Greg. I’ve been reading many of your political posts and mostly staying quiet.

More and more criminal charges are coming out about Trumps team. Many feel Trump and his teams actions are inexcusable, but you seem to feel otherwise. So my question is; is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? If so, what is it?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Parsad on February 15, 2019, 12:55:59 AM
Hi Greg. I’ve been reading many of your political posts and mostly staying quiet.

More and more criminal charges are coming out about Trumps team. Many feel Trump and his teams actions are inexcusable, but you seem to feel otherwise. So my question is; is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? If so, what is it?

Even if Trump said, "I colluded with the Russians", there would still be some doubt around the whole investigation.  Why?  Because we all know Trump is a liar, so how could anyone in their right mind believe him if he did actually tell the truth!?  It's like the boy who cried wolf...you eventually just stop believing in wolves!  You can guess the repercussions.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on February 15, 2019, 04:44:30 AM
Morgan it’s real simple.

Typical of many cults, the members of the Trump Cult would follow him no matter what logic dictates. 

He even laughed at his own followers when he boasted...  “I could stand on New York’s Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and still not lose voters.”

So don’t anticipate that logic or facts will deter them in support of their leader.

David Koresh took 79 of his followers to a fiery death at Waco. Jim Jones convinced 900 of his people to drink a deadly dose of cyanide laced Kool Aid. And Adolph Hitler took millions of his followers to their deaths in the 1940's.
 
The vast majority of Trump's cult are fully prepared to drink his Kool Aid and unfortunately have no qualms about dragging the rest of us down with them.

If his followers can ignore his constant lies and his obvious mental problems, don’t expect them to listen to logic or facts. Facts are Trumps enemy and he does everything he can to distort and discredit the facts. This is the reason for his constant attack on the legitimate media. Can you name one authoritarian government with a free press? 

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 15, 2019, 04:52:52 AM
A federal judge has determined that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team has established that Paul Manafort lied in 3 of the 5 occurrences they cite and that she concurs that he breached his plea agreement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47234491

Cool summary:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/02/14/the-unseen-aspects-of-paul-manaforts-lies-and-truth-telling/
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 15, 2019, 04:57:14 AM
Hi Greg. I’ve been reading many of your political posts and mostly staying quiet.

More and more criminal charges are coming out about Trumps team. Many feel Trump and his teams actions are inexcusable, but you seem to feel otherwise. So my question is; is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? If so, what is it?

The lefties like to rearrange the focus and turn this into a "they'll never believe he did it" story. I've said plenty that this is not the case. I think many of the Trump associates are likely guilty. If not here definitely of other things. Like Manafort and Stone. I believe Trump has made a lot of money in his career doing unethical things with bad people. My stance on this Russia investigation though is simple. I dont care if he did this stuff or not. The evidence has been weak or circumstantial at best, hence none of the charges to date have anything to do to the Trump campaign or Trump himself colluding with Russia. Why dont I care if Trump did any of this or not? Because these are only issues because it's Trump who won. If you ask me would I be ok sending Trump to jail along with Clinton, and Obama, Comey, etc, and all the other corrupt, wheeling and dealing huckster Democrats before him, I'd be perfectly fine with it. But as long as it remains a partisan witch hunt, I will remain partisan in my support. Nothing to do with believing anything he says, or being in denial about him. I know exactly what he is, and what came before him. Thats the issue
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 15, 2019, 05:19:19 AM
Seems like this President took the Presidential route.

Tried to work with an obstructionist Congress to build a wall most Americans want.
Both Republicans and Democrats failed him. I'm very disappointed in the number of Republicans and their silent opposition.
He tried it their way - now they get to deal with his way. He is the President and we have balance of powers in this country.

He has constitutional authority to find and pull funds for a national emergency - let's see how the challenges go, when the Dems go to court.

Politicians, specifically, Congress again, NOT doing their job to protect Americans against a drug crisis and human trafficking.
IF those 2 things don't constitute a national emergency, given the thousands of deaths and all the misery they cause, I'll be surprised.

An excellent move by Trump.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 15, 2019, 05:28:25 AM


Typical of many cults, the members of the Trump Cult would follow him no matter what logic dictates. 

 

Talk about a CULT! --- look at the insane Left making complete fools of the Democratic Party the last 2 weeks!
Not just once, but numerous times - infanticide, Anti-semitism, shutdown the energy sector, pay people who don't wish to work, etc...

Completely pyscho - and even the mainstream of the Democratic Party does NOTHING to distance themselves from this lunacy!

A national embarrassment! What a bunch of fools !
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 15, 2019, 05:38:37 AM
Seems like this President took the Presidential route.

Tried to work with an obstructionist Congress to build a wall most Americans want.
Both Republicans and Democrats failed him. I'm very disappointed in the number of Republicans and their silent opposition.
He tried it their way - now they get to deal with his way. He is the President and we have balance of powers in this country.

He has constitutional authority to find and pull funds for a national emergency - let's see how the challenges go, when the Dems go to court.

Politicians, specifically, Congress again, NOT doing their job to protect Americans against a drug crisis and human trafficking.
IF those 2 things don't constitute a national emergency, given the thousands of deaths and all the misery they cause, I'll be surprised.

An excellent move by Trump.

Meanwhile, the media narrative?
Trump sucks at negotiating. Oh the Democrats bent him over. Oh he lied and hasn't delivered on his campaign promise for a wall...

Now he's getting the wall done..granted a different way become there is no negotiating with some of these loons, and so they must shift the narrative again...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: SharperDingaan on February 15, 2019, 05:42:59 AM
Quite agreed, now we have all the nails needed for the coffin!
Criminal organization, congressional over-rides, etc. - start of the final drop before the neck snaps?
Get in quick boys, 'cause time's a running out ;)

SD

Seems like this President took the Presidential route.

Tried to work with an obstructionist Congress to build a wall most Americans want.
Both Republicans and Democrats failed him. I'm very disappointed in the number of Republicans and their silent opposition.
He tried it their way - now they get to deal with his way. He is the President and we have balance of powers in this country.

He has constitutional authority to find and pull funds for a national emergency - let's see how the challenges go, when the Dems go to court.

Politicians, specifically, Congress again, NOT doing their job to protect Americans against a drug crisis and human trafficking.
IF those 2 things don't constitute a national emergency, given the thousands of deaths and all the misery they cause, I'll be surprised.

An excellent move by Trump.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Viking on February 15, 2019, 08:07:32 AM
Clearly i am dumb as a stump. President Trump has declared a national emergency to obtain funding for his border wall.

What i do not understand... the Party of President Trump (Republicans) controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for two full years. If a national emergency existed was this not the time to deal with it?

Or has something happened in the last 90 days that i am not aware of?

PS: i just finished watching a documentary on the rise to power of Mussolini and Hitler. Step one: intimidate and destroy the press. Step 2: Tell obvious lies; and the bigger the lie the better. Rabid supporters ran with the lie and non-supporters stayed in the shadows. As economic growth improved many people who did not like the method continued to look the other way. Step 3: Circumvent democratic institutions in place; declare a national emergency to justify the action. I wonder what Germans and Italians would have done differently if given the chance?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 15, 2019, 08:26:17 AM
Clearly i am dumb as a stump. President Trump has declared a national emergency to obtain funding for his border wall.

What i do not understand... the Party of President Trump (Republicans) controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for two full years. If a national emergency existed was this not the time to deal with it?

Or has something happened in the last 90 days that i am not aware of?

During R control, bipartisan deal proposed was ~$25b for border security in exchange for DACA protections. Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections. At the time, they appeared to have the leverage to do so and D leadership almost agreed. During 2017-2018, R's and D's needed to make a deal for border security because the only way around 60 votes in the Senate is through reconciliation. However, the tax deal was done through reconciliation and you only get a limited number of reconciliations per Congress. R's choose tax deal over border security/immigration for reconciliation.

Shortly after the D's won the House, the Supreme Court passed on ruling on the DACA case that both sides were betting on, which increased D's leverage. Trump's prior comments and actions makes declaring an emergency a waste of time other than to point out unfavorable court rulings. Doesn't matter what court or who's on the bench though, the emergency declaration is very likely DOA.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on February 15, 2019, 08:32:39 AM
LOL!

This is so funny or people talking about a cult and a politician who possibly made borderly or illegal things...

The key here are 3 things or big picture:

1- Trump was elected by people because they felt they were not heard.
2- Trump made promises and he is following up on them which is unheard of in politics.
3- The country is doing phenomenal!

End of the story. You guys are mad for all the wrong reasons. But, keep trying to find dirt on him if it makes you less mad. And keep hoping for a worst leader and declining economy.

In the meantime, I will state lyrics from 2 Chainz:

"You getting mad. I'm getting rich."
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Viking on February 15, 2019, 08:47:57 AM
LOL!

This is so funny or people talking about a cult and a politician who possibly made borderly or illegal things...

The key here are 3 things or big picture:

1- Trump was elected by people because they felt they were not heard.
2- Trump made promises and he is following up on them which is unheard of in politics.
3- The country is doing phenomenal!

End of the story. You guys are mad for all the wrong reasons. But, keep trying to find dirt on him if it makes you less mad. And keep hoping for a worst leader and declining economy.

In the meantime, I will state lyrics from 2 Chainz:

"You getting mad. I'm getting rich."

Cardboard, i am not mad. :-) And i totally agree with your first and third point.
1- Trump was elected by people because they felt they were not heard.
3- The country is doing phenomenal!

Regarding point 2, yes, Trump made promises. However, he is not a king or a dictator. The US is a democracy, with a divisions of powers, with checks and balances, and as such Trump needs to work with the House and Senate. Just like when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Viking on February 15, 2019, 08:49:41 AM
Clearly i am dumb as a stump. President Trump has declared a national emergency to obtain funding for his border wall.

What i do not understand... the Party of President Trump (Republicans) controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for two full years. If a national emergency existed was this not the time to deal with it?

Or has something happened in the last 90 days that i am not aware of?

During R control, bipartisan deal proposed was ~$25b for border security in exchange for DACA protections. Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections. At the time, they appeared to have the leverage to do so and D leadership almost agreed. During 2017-2018, R's and D's needed to make a deal for border security because the only way around 60 votes in the Senate is through reconciliation. However, the tax deal was done through reconciliation and you only get a limited number of reconciliations per Congress. R's choose tax deal over border security/immigration for reconciliation.

Shortly after the D's won the House, the Supreme Court passed on ruling on the DACA case that both sides were betting on, which increased D's leverage. Trump's prior comments and actions makes declaring an emergency a waste of time other than to point out unfavorable court rulings. Doesn't matter what court or who's on the bench though, the emergency declaration is very likely DOA.

Schwab, i learned something today :-) Thanks for taking the time to explain how the US system functions.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Morgan on February 15, 2019, 09:09:24 AM
Hi Greg. I’ve been reading many of your political posts and mostly staying quiet.

More and more criminal charges are coming out about Trumps team. Many feel Trump and his teams actions are inexcusable, but you seem to feel otherwise. So my question is; is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? If so, what is it?

The lefties like to rearrange the focus and turn this into a "they'll never believe he did it" story. I've said plenty that this is not the case. I think many of the Trump associates are likely guilty. If not here definitely of other things. Like Manafort and Stone. I believe Trump has made a lot of money in his career doing unethical things with bad people. My stance on this Russia investigation though is simple. I dont care if he did this stuff or not. The evidence has been weak or circumstantial at best, hence none of the charges to date have anything to do to the Trump campaign or Trump himself colluding with Russia. Why dont I care if Trump did any of this or not? Because these are only issues because it's Trump who won. If you ask me would I be ok sending Trump to jail along with Clinton, and Obama, Comey, etc, and all the other corrupt, wheeling and dealing huckster Democrats before him, I'd be perfectly fine with it. But as long as it remains a partisan witch hunt, I will remain partisan in my support. Nothing to do with believing anything he says, or being in denial about him. I know exactly what he is, and what came before him. Thats the issue

Thank you for your reply Greg, but it does not answer the question.

Is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? Yes or No?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 15, 2019, 09:22:50 AM
Clearly i am dumb as a stump. President Trump has declared a national emergency to obtain funding for his border wall.

What i do not understand... the Party of President Trump (Republicans) controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for two full years. If a national emergency existed was this not the time to deal with it?

Or has something happened in the last 90 days that i am not aware of?

During R control, bipartisan deal proposed was ~$25b for border security in exchange for DACA protections. Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections. At the time, they appeared to have the leverage to do so and D leadership almost agreed. During 2017-2018, R's and D's needed to make a deal for border security because the only way around 60 votes in the Senate is through reconciliation. However, the tax deal was done through reconciliation and you only get a limited number of reconciliations per Congress. R's choose tax deal over border security/immigration for reconciliation.

Shortly after the D's won the House, the Supreme Court passed on ruling on the DACA case that both sides were betting on, which increased D's leverage. Trump's prior comments and actions makes declaring an emergency a waste of time other than to point out unfavorable court rulings. Doesn't matter what court or who's on the bench though, the emergency declaration is very likely DOA.

Schwab, i learned something today :-) Thanks for taking the time to explain how the US system functions.

Viking

I wouldn't rely on Schwab to explain how the U.S. system works.  I disagree with quite a bit of his post.  For example, I don't believe that reconciliation was contemplated for use in resolving DACA.  The use of reconciliation is limited by the Byrd rule to budgetary issues.  Although the left blames republicans for scuttling  DACA the right believes that the democrats were responsible.  The most plausible scenario is that it takes two to f__k things up.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 15, 2019, 09:41:50 AM
Hi Greg. I’ve been reading many of your political posts and mostly staying quiet.

More and more criminal charges are coming out about Trumps team. Many feel Trump and his teams actions are inexcusable, but you seem to feel otherwise. So my question is; is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? If so, what is it?

The lefties like to rearrange the focus and turn this into a "they'll never believe he did it" story. I've said plenty that this is not the case. I think many of the Trump associates are likely guilty. If not here definitely of other things. Like Manafort and Stone. I believe Trump has made a lot of money in his career doing unethical things with bad people. My stance on this Russia investigation though is simple. I dont care if he did this stuff or not. The evidence has been weak or circumstantial at best, hence none of the charges to date have anything to do to the Trump campaign or Trump himself colluding with Russia. Why dont I care if Trump did any of this or not? Because these are only issues because it's Trump who won. If you ask me would I be ok sending Trump to jail along with Clinton, and Obama, Comey, etc, and all the other corrupt, wheeling and dealing huckster Democrats before him, I'd be perfectly fine with it. But as long as it remains a partisan witch hunt, I will remain partisan in my support. Nothing to do with believing anything he says, or being in denial about him. I know exactly what he is, and what came before him. Thats the issue

Thank you for your reply Greg, but it does not answer the question.

Is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? Yes or No?

I do not think you understood my response. Of course there would and could(or in the hearts of libtards "should") be evidence of "collusion". Yes or no it is not something I waste time worrying about because in either event it does not matter to me, given the precedent that has been set by the same people pretending to be so outraged. It would be like asking someone who smokes cigars "is there evidence that would convince you it's linked to bad things?". The response would more or less be "Sure, I guess, but whatever, that's not relevant and has no impact on my decision to smoke cigars. People have been smoking them for hundreds of years, so with that in mind, I'm fine either way".
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 15, 2019, 10:09:21 AM
Clearly i am dumb as a stump. President Trump has declared a national emergency to obtain funding for his border wall.

What i do not understand... the Party of President Trump (Republicans) controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for two full years. If a national emergency existed was this not the time to deal with it?

Or has something happened in the last 90 days that i am not aware of?

PS: i just finished watching a documentary on the rise to power of Mussolini and Hitler. Step one: intimidate and destroy the press. Step 2: Tell obvious lies; and the bigger the lie the better. Rabid supporters ran with the lie and non-supporters stayed in the shadows. As economic growth improved many people who did not like the method continued to look the other way. Step 3: Circumvent democratic institutions in place; declare a national emergency to justify the action. I wonder what Germans and Italians would have done differently if given the chance?

Well you do have a very valid point - the first 2 years we had a totally gutless Republican Party - very disappointing!
Some of them fight Trump as much as the Dems and the Media.

It's a miracle the Trump has accomplished as much as he had in the sewer that is Washington - only because the people are behind him.
Shows you what a populist can do when he's not beholden to the media and lobbyists, like our gutless politicians.

Of course, the biggest fools in this whole mess has been the media - they have been wrong about EVERYTHING.
Trump is not a serious candidate - wrong. Trump can't get elected - wrong. They've been wrong for 3 years - it's astonishing anyone listens to them.
Now they've not only been wrong for 3 years, they aren't honest about anything and do NOTHING to hide their partisanship!

Nothing like a "free" but dishonest press - we used to call that Yellow journalism....
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 15, 2019, 10:41:01 AM

Viking

I wouldn't rely on Schwab to explain how the U.S. system works.  I disagree with quite a bit of his post.  For example, I don't believe that reconciliation was contemplated for use in resolving DACA.  The use of reconciliation is limited by the Byrd rule to budgetary issues.  Although the left blames republicans for scuttling  DACA the right believes that the democrats were responsible.  The most plausible scenario is that it takes two to f__k things up.

Lol, why do you do this to yourself?

You are right reconciliation has nothing to do with DACA, which is why I didn't say it did. It does for border funding, which is an appropriation/budget issue.

The only changes to DACA are due to judicial rules. No one seriously believes it's legislative related.

Border funding deal:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wtsp.com/amp/article%3fsection=news&subsection=nation-world&headline=senate-rejects-daca-bill-25-billion-for-wall&contentId=67-519361171

DACA cases:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna960321
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 15, 2019, 10:43:55 AM
Clearly i am dumb as a stump. President Trump has declared a national emergency to obtain funding for his border wall.

What i do not understand... the Party of President Trump (Republicans) controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for two full years. If a national emergency existed was this not the time to deal with it?

Or has something happened in the last 90 days that i am not aware of?

During R control, bipartisan deal proposed was ~$25b for border security in exchange for DACA protections. Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections. At the time, they appeared to have the leverage to do so and D leadership almost agreed. During 2017-2018, R's and D's needed to make a deal for border security because the only way around 60 votes in the Senate is through reconciliation. However, the tax deal was done through reconciliation and you only get a limited number of reconciliations per Congress. R's choose tax deal over border security/immigration for reconciliation.

Shortly after the D's won the House, the Supreme Court passed on ruling on the DACA case that both sides were betting on, which increased D's leverage. Trump's prior comments and actions makes declaring an emergency a waste of time other than to point out unfavorable court rulings. Doesn't matter what court or who's on the bench though, the emergency declaration is very likely DOA.

Schwab, i learned something today :-) Thanks for taking the time to explain how the US system functions.

Viking

I wouldn't rely on Schwab to explain how the U.S. system works.  I disagree with quite a bit of his post.  For example, I don't believe that reconciliation was contemplated for use in resolving DACA.  The use of reconciliation is limited by the Byrd rule to budgetary issues.  Although the left blames republicans for scuttling  DACA the right believes that the democrats were responsible.  The most plausible scenario is that it takes two to f__k things up.

Lol, why?

You are right reconciliation has nothing to do with DACA, which is why I didn't say it did. It does for border funding, which is an appropriation/budget issue.

The only changes to DACA are due to judicial rules. No one seriously believes it's legislative related.

Border funding deal:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wtsp.com/amp/article%3fsection=news&subsection=nation-world&headline=senate-rejects-daca-bill-25-billion-for-wall&contentId=67-519361171

DACA cases:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna960321

I'll let your own words speak for themselves:

 "During 2017-2018, R's and D's needed to make a deal for border security because the only way around 60 votes in the Senate is through reconciliation. However, the tax deal was done through reconciliation and you only get a limited number of reconciliations per Congress. R's choose tax deal over border security/immigration for reconciliation."

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 15, 2019, 10:46:35 AM
Yes... it says border security, not DACA?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 15, 2019, 10:52:10 AM
Yes... it says border security, not DACA?

You actually wrote:   "Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections"

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 15, 2019, 10:54:42 AM
Trump's prior comments and actions makes declaring an emergency a waste of time other than to point out unfavorable court rulings. Doesn't matter what court or who's on the bench though, the emergency declaration is very likely DOA.

Talk about a laugh - you know the law and constitution so, so well..you have it all figured out.

Trump took the HIGH road here. Congress (both gutless parties) can't get there shit together - and the populist President was elected
by the PEOPLE to build a wall. The people know a drug issue when they see it, they know human trafficking when they see it.
They know gang problems when they see it.

Trump TRIED to work within the legislative branch with no success. Now he uses his Executive powers and constitional authority to solve
a crisis at the border and stave off thousands of drug deaths.   

Now the Judicial branch may get to weigh in.,,

Have some respect for the constitution already.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on February 15, 2019, 11:01:46 AM
But why is all this controversy about the wall funding?
Didn’t Trump promise that the Mexicans were going to pay for it?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 15, 2019, 11:05:53 AM
But why is all this controversy about the wall funding?
Didn’t Trump promise that the Mexicans were going to pay for it?

Again, just like with everything else, why is Trump obligated to deliver on EVERY single campaign promise(forget that he's already delivered on more than any other politician I've ever seen) when nobody has ever expected the same from others? Obama promised hope and change and given what we hear from all the whining libtards these days, obviously he didn't deliver it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on February 15, 2019, 11:07:27 AM
"Again, just like with everything else, why is Trump obligated to deliver on EVERY single campaign promise"

And you think the border wall and the funding is just a little detail?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 15, 2019, 11:09:10 AM
Yes... it says border security, not DACA?

You actually wrote:   "Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections"

Yes, because you can only do one reconciliation bill per year so border security had to he done through normal legislative process. I don't think you realize that fact. That's why sometimes 50 votes is enough in the Senate and sometimes you need 60.

So R's had to make a deal. D's said we need DACA. R's said put some immigration reform on the table too then. Everything I wrote is correct.

I feel like you are going to try to gotcha my summary meant to help you. I don't like your new shtick.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on February 15, 2019, 11:11:59 AM
"Again, just like with everything else, why is Trump obligated to deliver on EVERY single campaign promise"

And you think the border wall and the funding is just a little detail?

Hell - the friction' government shutdown cost more that Trump was asking for.

$5B is not much in the context of the Federal budget especially when the American people are demanding it.
Give the people the ONE thing they elected this President on - that is a BIG detail.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 15, 2019, 11:14:26 AM
"Again, just like with everything else, why is Trump obligated to deliver on EVERY single campaign promise"

And you think the border wall and the funding is just a little detail?

It's not a little detail, but given he's tackled bigger issues, such as tax reform, and trade, I dont see what the problem here is. He promised we'd build a wall and Mexico would pay for it. We're building the wall. At best Mexico is indirectly paying for it via trade, but still, even if they aren't paying in any aspect, he's delivering on the promise of a wall. Once again, why is Trump the only politician held to this level of scrutiny? You really, really want a wall? Paid for by Mexico?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on February 15, 2019, 11:17:00 AM
When Obama got re-elected last time, he said he had obtained a mandate to deliver on his promises.

So Trump got mandated by the American to build the wall. If Democrats or Republicans are not happy, too bad!

He too will use the pen!

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on February 15, 2019, 11:17:28 AM
"$5B is not much in the context of the Federal budget especially when the American people are demanding it."
That doesn't seem to be what the polls are saying.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on February 15, 2019, 11:22:07 AM
"When Obama got re-elected last time, he said he had obtained a mandate to deliver on his promises.

So Trump got mandated by the American to build the wall. If Democrats or Republicans are not happy, too bad!

He too will use the pen!"

There you go cwericb! We also know all too well what polls indicate  ::) Do you want a referendum for the wall?

He tried to do it nicely but, people did not want to cooperate. Now he is executing the mandate given by the American people to finish the job started by whom? Bill Clinton or Bush senior?

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 15, 2019, 11:29:43 AM
But why is all this controversy about the wall funding?
Didn’t Trump promise that the Mexicans were going to pay for it?

True.  But the democrats just included in the bill that just past a provision prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security from implementing a fee on border crossings. So you can also blame the Congress.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on February 15, 2019, 11:44:15 AM
" Do you want a referendum for the wall?"
You have to admit, that would be interesting, especially if the price tag was included in the question.

Cardboard you have a good point when you say that he was given a mandate when he was elected, but a large part of that promise was that it would not cost the US taxpayer. So does he really have the mandate to build the wall?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Morgan on February 15, 2019, 11:52:26 AM
Hi Greg. I’ve been reading many of your political posts and mostly staying quiet.

More and more criminal charges are coming out about Trumps team. Many feel Trump and his teams actions are inexcusable, but you seem to feel otherwise. So my question is; is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? If so, what is it?

The lefties like to rearrange the focus and turn this into a "they'll never believe he did it" story. I've said plenty that this is not the case. I think many of the Trump associates are likely guilty. If not here definitely of other things. Like Manafort and Stone. I believe Trump has made a lot of money in his career doing unethical things with bad people. My stance on this Russia investigation though is simple. I dont care if he did this stuff or not. The evidence has been weak or circumstantial at best, hence none of the charges to date have anything to do to the Trump campaign or Trump himself colluding with Russia. Why dont I care if Trump did any of this or not? Because these are only issues because it's Trump who won. If you ask me would I be ok sending Trump to jail along with Clinton, and Obama, Comey, etc, and all the other corrupt, wheeling and dealing huckster Democrats before him, I'd be perfectly fine with it. But as long as it remains a partisan witch hunt, I will remain partisan in my support. Nothing to do with believing anything he says, or being in denial about him. I know exactly what he is, and what came before him. Thats the issue

Thank you for your reply Greg, but it does not answer the question.

Is there any specific evidence or event that would convince you Trump colluded, or conspired with the Russians? Yes or No?

I do not think you understood my response. Of course there would and could(or in the hearts of libtards "should") be evidence of "collusion". Yes or no it is not something I waste time worrying about because in either event it does not matter to me, given the precedent that has been set by the same people pretending to be so outraged. It would be like asking someone who smokes cigars "is there evidence that would convince you it's linked to bad things?". The response would more or less be "Sure, I guess, but whatever, that's not relevant and has no impact on my decision to smoke cigars. People have been smoking them for hundreds of years, so with that in mind, I'm fine either way".

Thank you for your reply Greg.

Frankly, it is disturbing that you "dont care if he did this stuff or not" when referring to Trump and his team conspiring against the United States of America. This is our country and the President, his team, and a long-time enemy are working to weaken us.

Saying smoking cigars is detrimental to health but you don't care and will do it anyways is not an equal argument to the President working to weaken the US. You smoking cigars impacts only you (except for second smoke), while the President working to weaken our government impacts hundred of millions of people. Not to mention is immoral. As a citizen, we have a duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves, build a better country for future generations and work to reduce violence and harm, and more. Trumps actions are harming our country. 

So, is there any evidence or criminal charge that would convince you that Trump is detrimental for the USA? Yes or No. It is a simple question.



Lastly, name calling doesn't strengthen an argument.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 15, 2019, 11:55:06 AM
Trump's prior comments and actions makes declaring an emergency a waste of time other than to point out unfavorable court rulings. Doesn't matter what court or who's on the bench though, the emergency declaration is very likely DOA.

Talk about a laugh - you know the law and constitution so, so well..you have it all figured out.


All I'm doing is regurgitating/sourcing articles correcting misinformation posted here. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know arcane Congressional rules. I just read a lot and don't look for sources supporting the answer I want to be right. It's funny because assuming I'm usually wrong lets me just look up the right answer.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 15, 2019, 01:14:28 PM
Yes... it says border security, not DACA?

You actually wrote:   "Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections"

Yes, because you can only do one reconciliation bill per year so border security had to he done through normal legislative process. I don't think you realize that fact. That's why sometimes 50 votes is enough in the Senate and sometimes you need 60.

So R's had to make a deal. D's said we need DACA. R's said put some immigration reform on the table too then. Everything I wrote is correct.

I feel like you are going to try to gotcha my summary meant to help you. I don't like your new shtick.

Let me try one more time in a slightly different way.  You wrote:   "R's choose tax deal over border security/immigration for reconciliation.". I submit that republicans never had the choice to use reconciliation for border security, daca, mmigration reform of any other way you would like to describe the situation.  Reconciliation can only be used for budgetary issues.  Border security, daca, immigration reform aren't budgetary issues.

The isn't about semantics.  You answered Vikings question about why none of this got done in the two years Republicans controlled Congress.  The actual answer is that except for reconciliation and confirmations  you have to have 60 votes in the Senate to get the matter to the floor for a vote.  At no time during the last two years have Republicans had 60 members in the Senate. As a consequence Democrats in the Senate have blocked  everything they didn't like except the tax reform package and confirmations, which they could not block under their rules.


Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 15, 2019, 03:28:14 PM
Yes... it says border security, not DACA?

You actually wrote:   "Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections"

Yes, because you can only do one reconciliation bill per year so border security had to he done through normal legislative process. I don't think you realize that fact. That's why sometimes 50 votes is enough in the Senate and sometimes you need 60.

So R's had to make a deal. D's said we need DACA. R's said put some immigration reform on the table too then. Everything I wrote is correct.

I feel like you are going to try to gotcha my summary meant to help you. I don't like your new shtick.

Let me try one more time in a slightly different way.  You wrote:   "R's choose tax deal over border security/immigration for reconciliation.". I submit that republicans never had the choice to use reconciliation for border security, daca, mmigration reform of any other way you would like to describe the situation.  Reconciliation can only be used for budgetary issues.  Border security, daca, immigration reform aren't budgetary issues.

The isn't about semantics.  You answered Vikings question about why none of this got done in the two years Republicans controlled Congress.  The actual answer is that except for reconciliation and confirmations  you have to have 60 votes in the Senate to get the matter to the floor for a vote.  At no time during the last two years have Republicans had 60 members in the Senate. As a consequence Democrats in the Senate have blocked  everything they didn't like except the tax reform package and confirmations, which they could not block under their rules.

Trump is asking for border money because it is an appropriation... I am right...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/411858-budget-reconciliation-is-the-key-to-building-the-border%3famp
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 15, 2019, 04:34:04 PM
Yes... it says border security, not DACA?

You actually wrote:   "Ultimately the deal was rejected by a few R's because they wanted immigration reform + border security for DACA protections"

Yes, because you can only do one reconciliation bill per year so border security had to he done through normal legislative process. I don't think you realize that fact. That's why sometimes 50 votes is enough in the Senate and sometimes you need 60.

So R's had to make a deal. D's said we need DACA. R's said put some immigration reform on the table too then. Everything I wrote is correct.

I feel like you are going to try to gotcha my summary meant to help you. I don't like your new shtick.

Let me try one more time in a slightly different way.  You wrote:   "R's choose tax deal over border security/immigration for reconciliation.". I submit that republicans never had the choice to use reconciliation for border security, daca, mmigration reform of any other way you would like to describe the situation.  Reconciliation can only be used for budgetary issues.  Border security, daca, immigration reform aren't budgetary issues.

The isn't about semantics.  You answered Vikings question about why none of this got done in the two years Republicans controlled Congress.  The actual answer is that except for reconciliation and confirmations  you have to have 60 votes in the Senate to get the matter to the floor for a vote.  At no time during the last two years have Republicans had 60 members in the Senate. As a consequence Democrats in the Senate have blocked  everything they didn't like except the tax reform package and confirmations, which they could not block under their rules.

Trump is asking for border money because it is an appropriation... I am right...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/411858-budget-reconciliation-is-the-key-to-building-the-border%3famp

Do you mean like this bill trying to use reconciliation to get wall funding the was introduced last October?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr7073
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 15, 2019, 04:42:22 PM
Yup... I just linked to his op-ed. He proposed it because it's an appropriation. Opposite what you said because they did have a choice. I don't understand why you are digging in on this stupid topic?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 15, 2019, 04:50:33 PM
Schwab

He introduce an actual bill.  It wasn't just an oped.   I don't know specifically why the bill failed - but it clearly did.  I have a headache.  You win!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 27, 2019, 06:29:44 AM
Michael Cohen's opening statement today:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/636-michael-cohens-congressional-t/3a1530b333230e775df5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 27, 2019, 07:00:04 AM
Michael Cohen's opening statement today:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/636-michael-cohens-congressional-t/3a1530b333230e775df5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

For decades we have operated under the rule "politics should stop at the water's edge."  I find the democrats actions today shameful. They are undermining our President during critical negotiations that may impact millions of lives.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 27, 2019, 07:35:28 AM
https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article1129651.html

I don't disagree with the sentiment of what should be, but "Let slip the dogs of war" better describes US politics. I hope it gets better and the revenge cycle stops.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on February 27, 2019, 08:17:36 AM
"and the revenge cycle stops."

Actually Trump did by not investigating Hillary further.

Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on February 27, 2019, 08:53:06 AM
https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article1129651.html

I don't disagree with the sentiment of what should be, but "Let slip the dogs of war" better describes US politics. I hope it gets better and the revenge cycle stops.

I agree that Republicans have also violated the spirit of the rule.  However, I also believe that the negotiations involving nuclear weapons and peace on the Korean peninsula is qualitatively different from a trip to Havana to essentially praise the Castro regime. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on February 27, 2019, 10:59:21 AM
"and the revenge cycle stops."

Actually Trump did by not investigating Hillary further.

I guess we'll find out if that's true in time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html


I think Mark makes a better point that the straying from normal procedure has led to consequences that only hurt the nation as a whole. Not that anyone in this forum did it or can fix it.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 28, 2019, 07:09:39 AM
Anyone else find it interesting how the left was appalled by Michael Cohen and hated everything about him not long ago. Now they dont care about any of that and he is a celebrated hero of the left and MSM. Which just further kind of highlights that the outrage about Trump's character is just fake partisan outrage. Just further repressed anger that their candidate lost in 2016. We all know that if straight as an arrow, Girl Scout Hillary won, she would be their champion! And none of these pundits would have any qualms about "character issues".
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on February 28, 2019, 08:01:20 AM
Nobody finds it interesting because he's just another in a long line of former Trump associates who have been shown to have engaged in unethical and illegal behavior on behest of the President.

What is interesting is that you seem to think Trump is squeaky clean while surrounding himself with a legion of swamp things.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 28, 2019, 08:06:16 AM
Nobody finds it interesting because he's just another in a long line of former Trump associates who have been shown to have engaged in unethical and illegal behavior on behest of the President.

What is interesting is that you seem to think Trump is squeaky clean while surrounding himself with a legion of swamp things.

Except I dont and have clearly said as much. But its a cute narrative to keep pushing. Go Hillary!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: LC on February 28, 2019, 08:10:17 AM
Oh I see - so you do in fact think Trump is probably a criminal. Thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on February 28, 2019, 08:23:34 AM
Oh I see - so you do in fact think Trump is probably a criminal. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yup.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cameronfen on March 01, 2019, 08:16:06 PM
Oh I see - so you do in fact think Trump is probably a criminal. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yup.

If you think Trump is a criminal do you think he committed a felony, like let's say felony campaign finance violations?

A felony is certainly a high crime or misdemeanor that is grounds for impeachment.  We may disagree on Hillary's criminality, but we probably agree that Pence is likely clean and definitely cleaner than Trump and should legally take over if Trump is a criminal. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on March 02, 2019, 04:37:44 AM
Oh I see - so you do in fact think Trump is probably a criminal. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yup.

If you think Trump is a criminal do you think he committed a felony, like let's say felony campaign finance violations?

A felony is certainly a high crime or misdemeanor that is grounds for impeachment.  We may disagree on Hillary's criminality, but we probably agree that Pence is likely clean and definitely cleaner than Trump and should legally take over if Trump is a criminal. 

 I seriously doubt that Trump will ever be convicted of an FEC criminal violation.  I also think it's funny that we've gone from collusion to obstruction and now to FEC violations and next to business dealings long before he was elected.  Is this the left's version of  "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime? 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Cardboard on March 05, 2019, 06:09:25 AM
Same approval rating as Obama at same time in 1st term:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar04

Better get something more solid Doughi, because the electorate does not give a crap about your stuff!

Cardboard
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cameronfen on March 05, 2019, 08:51:34 PM
Oh I see - so you do in fact think Trump is probably a criminal. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yup.

If you think Trump is a criminal do you think he committed a felony, like let's say felony campaign finance violations?

A felony is certainly a high crime or misdemeanor that is grounds for impeachment.  We may disagree on Hillary's criminality, but we probably agree that Pence is likely clean and definitely cleaner than Trump and should legally take over if Trump is a criminal. 

 I seriously doubt that Trump will ever be convicted of an FEC criminal violation.  I also think it's funny that we've gone from collusion to obstruction and now to FEC violations and next to business dealings long before he was elected.  Is this the left's version of  "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime?

Wait what?  Most of us never commit a felony in our lifetimes.  And it's not Mueller who is prosecuting.  It's the DA.  Even if it is a fishing expedition, if someone proves you committed a felony you should pay the price.  The fact that you are leader of the free world means you are held to a higher standard.  Whether you agree with it or not, Hillary Clinton was investigated by Republicans and the press over and over again.  Why is Trump not held to that standard? 

Also keep in mind Mueller hasn't released anything.  If Meuller clears him of collusion, I will defer to Mueller's judgement.  However if someone is able to prove Trump committed a felony even if its unrelated to Russia, he should not be president. 

If Ralph Northam should resign for wearing blackface 20 years ago, and I think he should, surely Trump should resign if he is guilty of a felony. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on March 06, 2019, 03:01:33 AM
Oh I see - so you do in fact think Trump is probably a criminal. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yup.

If you think Trump is a criminal do you think he committed a felony, like let's say felony campaign finance violations?

A felony is certainly a high crime or misdemeanor that is grounds for impeachment.  We may disagree on Hillary's criminality, but we probably agree that Pence is likely clean and definitely cleaner than Trump and should legally take over if Trump is a criminal. 

 I seriously doubt that Trump will ever be convicted of an FEC criminal violation.  I also think it's funny that we've gone from collusion to obstruction and now to FEC violations and next to business dealings long before he was elected.  Is this the left's version of  "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime?

Wait what?  Most of us never commit a felony in our lifetimes.  And it's not Mueller who is prosecuting.  It's the DA.  Even if it is a fishing expedition, if someone proves you committed a felony you should pay the price.  The fact that you are leader of the free world means you are held to a higher standard.  Whether you agree with it or not, Hillary Clinton was investigated by Republicans and the press over and over again.  Why is Trump not held to that standard? 

Also keep in mind Mueller hasn't released anything.  If Meuller clears him of collusion, I will defer to Mueller's judgement.  However if someone is able to prove Trump committed a felony even if its unrelated to Russia, he should not be president. 

If Ralph Northam should resign for wearing blackface 20 years ago, and I think he should, surely Trump should resign if he is guilty of a felony. 

Three quick points in response:

1) Most adults have committed a felony at some point in their lives.   https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/08/stephen-carter/watch-out-70-us-have-done-something-could-put-us-j/

2) The committee lead by Nadler has issued 81 subpoenas.  The majority of people receiving these subpoenas will now have to hire very expensive Washington lawyers.  Failure to do so will expose them to possible perjury traps. Some of these people can afford to hire expensive lawyers but many can't.

3) Our system of justice should not rely on fishing expeditions.  Traditionally once a crime has been committed an investigation is undertaken.  We do not start with a person then look for a crime.  We have in this country a presumption of innocence that should prevent this from happening - however more and more the left seems to honor the presumption less and less.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on March 06, 2019, 04:22:47 AM

“3) Our system of justice should not rely on fishing expeditions. (But that is essentially what criminal investigations are.) Traditionally once a crime has been committed an investigation is undertaken.  We do not start with a person then look for a crime. (Oh? Tell that to “a person of interest”) We have in this country a presumption of innocence that should prevent this from happening - however more and more the left seems to honor the presumption less and less. (This is not a Left vs Right matter. The presumption of innocence applies only in the courtroom, not to criminal investigations. )"

So then, what if the President is not guilty of “A” felony.

What if he is found to be guilty of several, or even numerous felonies?

Where do you draw the line? Two previous felonies? Five? Ten? Do you have a number in mind?

And let’s just suppose the President previously committed several felonies and was successful in covering them up until now.  Are you suggesting that he shouldn’t be held responsible for those past crimes simply because he was successful in covering them up until now? Or would his defense be "Well everyone commits crimes."

By the way. The presumption of innocence does not apply to investigations of crimes. If so, how would any crime be investigated if all suspects were presumed innocent?
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cubsfan on March 06, 2019, 04:52:36 AM

3) Our system of justice should not rely on fishing expeditions.  Traditionally once a crime has been committed an investigation is undertaken.  We do not start with a person then look for a crime.  We have in this country a presumption of innocence that should prevent this from happening - however more and more the left seems to honor the presumption less and less.

This is the key point. This is Russia under Stalin: Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.

When Trump is exonerated by Mueller for collusion, the Dems line up 81 individuals because they still have
found nothing. What a travesty and an incredible shame for a Democratic Party: We have no agenda, but we
must get rid of Trump. US Politics is disgusting, but I am happy to have a President that fights for Americans
in the face of the DC Swamp that only cares about power.

Identity politics, LGBTQ issues, slave reparations, Welfare for those that don't wish to work?

Are those the real issues for a serious political party? I think most hardworking American's think not - certainly Trump.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Gregmal on March 06, 2019, 05:12:22 AM

3) Our system of justice should not rely on fishing expeditions.  Traditionally once a crime has been committed an investigation is undertaken.  We do not start with a person then look for a crime.  We have in this country a presumption of innocence that should prevent this from happening - however more and more the left seems to honor the presumption less and less.

This is the key point. This is Russia under Stalin: Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.

When Trump is exonerated by Mueller for collusion, the Dems line up 81 individuals because they still have
found nothing. What a travesty and an incredible shame for a Democratic Party: We have no agenda, but we
must get rid of Trump. US Politics is disgusting, but I am happy to have a President that fights for Americans
in the face of the DC Swamp that only cares about power.

Identity politics, LGBTQ issues, slave reparations, Welfare for those that don't wish to work?

Are those the real issues for a serious political party? I think most hardworking American's think not - certainly Trump.

Oh watch. If Mueller finds nothing, these same bozos like Nadler and Schiff will simply claim that Mueller was only investigating Russia. Even though we know that if Mueller was sticking to the scope and only investigating Russia, he wouldn't have any indictments...
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on March 06, 2019, 05:15:44 AM

“3) Our system of justice should not rely on fishing expeditions. (But that is essentially what criminal investigations are.) Traditionally once a crime has been committed an investigation is undertaken.  We do not start with a person then look for a crime. (Oh? Tell that to “a person of interest”) We have in this country a presumption of innocence that should prevent this from happening - however more and more the left seems to honor the presumption less and less. (This is not a Left vs Right matter. The presumption of innocence applies only in the courtroom, not to criminal investigations. )"

So then, what if the President is not guilty of “A” felony.

What if he is found to be guilty of several, or even numerous felonies?

Where do you draw the line? Two previous felonies? Five? Ten? Do you have a number in mind?

And let’s just suppose the President previously committed several felonies and was successful in covering them up until now.  Are you suggesting that he shouldn’t be held responsible for those past crimes simply because he was successful in covering them up until now? Or would his defense be "Well everyone commits crimes."

By the way. The presumption of innocence does not apply to investigations of crimes. If so, how would any crime be investigated if all suspects were presumed innocent?

The burden of proof includes 1) that a crime has been committed and 2) that this person committed the crime.  The presumption of innocence also includes the proof that a crime has been committed.  Typically before an full investigation can be opened the investigating body must have a reasonab!e, articulate suspicion that a crime has in fact been committed.  If you want to argue that since we aren't charging anyone with a penal offense we don't have to grant them a presumption of innocence and that we can use all of the weight and power of the U.S. Government to destroy them, I would direct you to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which works in connection with the presumption of innocence:

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on March 06, 2019, 05:39:44 AM
"Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Irrelevant . He has not been charged with any offence.

"2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.."

Irrelevant. He has not been found guilty of any offence

"Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

There is no “arbitrary interference” here. There are grounds to suspect wrongdoing.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on March 06, 2019, 05:52:43 AM
"Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Irrelevant . He has not been charged with any offence.

"2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."

Irrelevant. He has not been found guilty of any offence

"Article 12

No one shall be subjected to with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

There is no “arbitrary interference” here. There are grounds to suspect wrongdoing.

The last time I looked "wrongdoing" was not listed in the criminal code as a crime. 
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on March 06, 2019, 05:56:46 AM
"The last time I looked "wrongdoing" was not listed in the criminal code as a crime. "
I was being generous.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on March 06, 2019, 06:03:09 AM
Yes.  You were very "generous" with the lack of a predicate.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on March 06, 2019, 06:06:56 AM
Time will tell.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on March 06, 2019, 07:31:16 AM
This isn't a fishing expedition. There's no reason to believe it is, other than some pundits and Trump himself have said so. Specific events began an investigation in to individuals adjacent to Trump. From there, the investigation expanded. Like much of this thread, every complaint is repeated. It's been shown that Trump himself is to blame for the expanding probe. The folks that still think this is all a witch hunt are the ones that make no effort to read anything that might challenge their beliefs.

Trump openly favored Putin to Obama, ran on policies and his senior advisors were actively discussing policies that were counter to 'US interests', he ignored warnings from the FBI during the campaign and continued behavior they warned him about, his campaign manager was suspected of having allegiance to countries other than the US, his NSA plotted to kidnap an exiled former leader of a NATO ally, his NSA plotted to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia without going through proper channels, his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with a Russian lawyer to discuss 'adoptions', they hid emails during the initial part of the investigation that mentioned that "Russia threw the election for Trump", Trump asked his FBI Director that was investigating his NSA for loyalty and to drop the case, Trump bragged to Russian leaders that he removed the 'cloud over the investigation' after firing Comey, Trump bragged on TV about firing Comey to kill the investigation, Trump hid business deals with Russian developers, emails about the business deal shows that The Trump Org was only interested if they had support from Russia's political leaders, and the list goes on and on.


In court, judges have questioned the loyalty of GP, Cohen, Flynn, and Manafort to the United States. In Flynn's case, the judge asked if Mueller's team considered treason charges. Ultimately, the judge noted that Flynn wasn't in the administration at the time of his acts. That's a hell of a claim by a judge in court. It's the judge that many on Fox News said would find Flynn innocent because McCabe said his body language didn't indicate he was lying. They were wrong and the story will get worse.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/02/18/four-sentences-what-the-legal-system-has-said-about-the-suspect-loyalty-of-trumps-flunkies/


The defense of Trump has shifted from "we never met Russians and I have no business dealings with Russians" to "they never helped me" to "they didn't literally change votes that were cast and the business deal was never completed anyway". That last defense still meets the definition of conspiracy. Whether you are successful or not, if you hide an illegal plan while trying to carry out the plan, it's conspiracy.

Trump also has the future defense that Mueller doesn't charge him. Mueller won't charge Trump. It's against DOJ policy. As long as Trump is President, Congress almost certainly will have to impeach Trump. Post-Presidency is a different story.

I find it hypocritical that the investigations of Clinton were supported but now any investigation of Trump's financial impropriety are considered a fishing expedition. It's the exact same thing. If you were fine with one, why not the other? Clinton's financial investigations (which are ongoing) were started by a political opposition book, Clinton Cash (financed by Bannon). No one voiced concerns about that kind of information leading to an investigation.


I also can't help but think of all the accusations by Cubsfan of an 'Obama/Clinton crime syndicate' without any proof provided or any specific crimes alleged. In those cases you never voiced concern about innocent until proven guilty. Rules for me, not for thee.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: MarkS on March 06, 2019, 08:20:45 AM
Schwab

You're accusing me of being a hypocrite.   Well- ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies). You need to establish the definition of hypocrisy. You need to show that failure to speak out falls within that definition.  You need to actually prove that I was aware of Cubsfan's posts - that I actually read them.  You need to prove that I actually believe that Clinton doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence by showing for example that I made statements to that effect.  And so on.....
If this were a criminal trial you would have to prove all of element of the "crime of hypocrisy"  beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a preponderance of the evidence and not by clear and convincing evidence.  Just so you know!
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: Schwab711 on March 06, 2019, 08:52:22 AM
I meant it generally, not at you (or even Cubsfan). Otherwise, I thought the joke was funny.
Title: Re: Russia Investigation.
Post by: cwericb on March 06, 2019, 10:14:06 AM
Hi MarkS. Look this is a message board not a court of law and your legal points are rather questionable