Author Topic: Russia Investigation.  (Read 78147 times)

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #20 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.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 08:08:55 AM by Schwab711 »


doughishere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #21 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.


no_free_lunch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1475
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #23 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.

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1720
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #24 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.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 11:51:54 AM by Gregmal »

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #25 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.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 01:57:58 PM by Schwab711 »

cobafdek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #26 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?

cobafdek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #27 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?

doughishere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #28 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.

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1720
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #29 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.