forgot password register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#politics


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
764,379 comments by 11,146 registered users, 7 online now: Ceffer, Dan8267, lahossain, socal2, SpecialSnowflake, Strategist, Tenpoundbass

new post
« prev   politics   next »

Still not a scrap of evidence on Russia. Why does anyone even listen to NPR anymore?

By Patrick following x   2017 Sep 10, 10:45am 998 views   71 comments   watch   quote     share  

The latest spin on “Russia stole the election” is that Russia used Facebook to influence the election. The NPR women yesterday were breathless about it.

We have been subjected to ten months of propaganda about Trump/Putin election interference and still not a scrap of evidence. It is past time to ask an unasked question: If there were evidence, what is the big deal? All sorts of interest groups try to influence election outcomes including foreign governments. Why is it OK for Israel to influence US elections but not for Russia to do so? Why do you think the armament industry, the energy industry, agribusiness, Wall Street and the banks, pharmaceutical companies, etc., etc., supply the huge sum of money to finance election campaigns if their intent is not to influence the election? Why do editorial boards write editorials endorsing one candidate and damning another if they are not influencing the election?

What is the difference between influencing the election and influencing the government? Washington is full of lobbyists of all descriptions, including lobbyists for foreign governments, working round the clock to influence the US government. It is safe to say that the least represented in the government are the citizens themselves who don’t have any lobbyists working for them.


#politics

« First    « Previous     Comments 32 - 71 of 71     Last »

32 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Sep 11, 10:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
1. The Russian government broken into the DNC headquarters' computers and published technically legal, but very fraudulent and unethical dealings of the DNC in sabotaging Sanders's campaign. This act is fine, as it's perfectly fair for Russia to influence the election and to whistleblow even if their intentions are not good.


Broken into or hacked? It's very possible this was a LEAK. Could be Seth Rich, or the Awan Brothers sold it to Russian Intel.

Only Crowdstrike, a government contractor hired by the Democrats, has ever seen the email server. The Democrats probably know it's NOT Russia, or they would have handed over the server to the FBI and danced around yelling "NOBODY could have prevented this sophisticated FSB attack. We MUST have better cyber defense. We're the victims, boo hoo, Here is the Proof! Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is beside herself with Grief, send Putin to the Tree of Woe!"

And yes, I can make the FBI knows more than it's saying argument about the Awan Brothers and Seth Rich, also.

Whoever did it should get the Pulitzer Prize for realing unbelievable corruption iin the DNC where TWO (2) Chairs resigned within weeks of each other, during a Presidential Campaign, both over flat out fucking lying and skuldruggery. THAT should have been the story of 2016.

And the followup lawsuit by Bernie Supporters where the DNC argued they had no contractual obligation to be impartial, could ignore primary/caucus results, and could and did anoint Candidates in backroom deals. The media completely ignored this stunning self-admission.
33 mell   2017 Sep 11, 10:27am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
TDS still keeps running deep. Another thing many overlook is Trumps choice for VP which was excellent. Pence is by any means a statesman, and he bolsters Trumps presidency whenever DT needs it by being the more level-headed, statesman-like, diplomatic part of the presidency, yet with - so far - unwavering support for the Captain. It has become clear over the past months that not only - like Patrick mentioned - Trump showed yuge balls navigating through the relentless attacks, but also that the mainstream/left has greatly underestimated his street-smarts. I maintain that by half-time the impeachment bs will have mostly subsided and after 4 years DTs presidency will be looked upon much more favorably.
34 Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 10:28am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
TwoScoopsMcGee says
Broken into or hacked? It's very possible this was a LEAK. Could be Seth Rich, or the Awan Brothers sold it to Russian Intel.


I'm ok if they even broke into it. Although it does technically violate the law, I say whistle blowing trumps the law especially on stuff this important. And yes, even if Russia's intentions are bad, the whistleblowing is good because the people have the right to know when politicians are violating the public's trust and rigging the elections.

That said, it seems the Russian government hacked into the machines and attempted to hack into other machines including voting machines. Hacking into voting machines is a serious issue and has nothing to do with whistleblowing.

TwoScoopsMcGee says
And the followup lawsuit by Bernie Supporters where the DNC argued they had no contractual obligation to be impartial, could ignore primary/caucus results, and could and did anoint Candidates in backroom deals.


And this is ultimately why they lost the election as I showed in the thread It's official, the DNC lost the election because they screwed over Bernie supporters.

As bad as Trump is, I'm glad he was elected instead of Hillary. As I stated in Why you should vote for someone who will lose this election, the political machinery is more important than the politicians and accepting the machinery that was trying to put Hillary in office at all costs was simply not acceptable.

Nonetheless, none of this stuff diminishes the significance of a sitting U.S. president being compromised by Russia. The intelligence community is going batshit over this and rightfully so.
35 mell   2017 Sep 11, 10:39am   ↑ like (3)   ↑ dislike (3)     quote        
Dan8267 says
Nonetheless, none of this stuff diminishes the significance of a sitting U.S. president being compromised by Russia. The intelligence community is going batshit over this and rightfully so.


There's the issue: The time has been long overdue to embrace Russia as a friend rather than an enemy. With great relations between those two powers so much could be done fixing all the conflicts in the world via a unified stance. With Europe bettering trade relations with Russia trade would flourish being a huge net positive for both sides. It's funny how people claim Alex Jones is a tinfoil hat nutjob, yet many of those still cling to the - probably more tinfoil hatter - decade old cold war conspiracy theory of Russia constantly plotting to destroy the US. Is there rivalry? Of course there is. Should there be blind trust? No. But anybody who thinks Russia poses any immediate military threat to the US since glasnost and perestroika has no business to call Jones crazy. I was in school when the wall came down and Gorbachev and Yeltsin ushered in a new era. Fucking Scorpions were singing wind of change and people had regained their optimism of a unified western world that would stretch as far as Russia. Giving up the iron curtain was a great act on their side. I have many friends who travel to Russia frequently and they say there's not much difference between Russians and Europeans. And here we are imposing sanctions because of computer hackers. Cmon.
36 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Sep 11, 10:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Dan8267 says
Nonetheless, none of this stuff diminishes the significance of a sitting U.S. president being compromised by Russia. The intelligence community is going batshit over this and rightfully so.


This is the part for which there is no actual evidence.

The Oligarchs hate him, the media hates him, the Deep State hates him, all this time and money and still nothing to connect him to Russia. Which reminds me, the story has changed from "Trump lied about Russian Business Connections" to "Putin put Trump in the White House" and is now being downgraded to "Russia influenced the Election (Like everybody else does)"

The big lie technique is to keep repeating an assertion over and over again until it becomes "everybody knows that."

The "FBI/CIA/ETC Knows" is also used to explain the Holograms of Planes hitting the tower, we need evidence. Even Obama said that none of the Very Serious People can hack a national election, so we're going to need very Serious Proof.
37 iwog   2017 Sep 11, 10:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
mell says
There's the issue: The time has been long overdue to embrace Russia as a friend rather than an enemy.


That's only the issue if you hate the United States and agree with a presidential candidate exchanging favors for help in winning the presidency.

This is why civilization is dead and we just don't know it yet. The ideas of Jefferson, Madison, and Thomas Paine are not only irrelevant to people like Mell, they stand in the way of what he wants. What he wants is the only thing that matters. What he wants is important. What he wants should be what everyone else wants. His ego stands supreme and fuck you if you don't agree.

Some of you don't have any fucking idea what I'm going to say here and you'll simply ignore it because it's not what you want, but PROCESS is all we have. The constitution is process. The entire system of laws is process. We put the law ahead of silly childish egotistical desires because that's the only way we prevent a long series of civil wars and assassinations like Rome had near the end. Process should be supreme in everyone's mind.

Now if Donald Trump agreed to give Russia anything at all for releasing the emails, he's guilty of a serious felony called sedition and he violated the constitution. He's guilty of a felony. He should serve time in prison. The fact that there is a large body of circumstantial evidence that demonstrate this might actually be true should make every American demand a full investigation, yet lots of Americans are vehemently against it.

If this is you, you aren't for the country. You are for Donald Trump. You don't love America, you love Donald Trump. I don't care who you are or what you believe took place but we need to find out the truth and Mell you need to grow the fuck up. Now.
38 mell   2017 Sep 11, 10:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
iwog says
Some of you don't have any fucking idea what I'm going to say here and you'll simply ignore it because it's not what you want, but PROCESS is all we have. The constitution is process. The entire system of laws is process. We put the law ahead of silly childish egotistical desires because that's the only way we prevent a long series of civil wars and assassinations like Rome had near the end. Process should be supreme in everyone's mind.


Nobody is saying we shouldn't follow the rule of law and the constitution, au contraire. The issue that there is no evidence, and to think that - with pretty much everybody against Trump - somebody would succeed in suppressing it if there was evidence - simply doesn't make sense. Also I'd contend that many don't love DT, but didn't want HRC. Battling Russia used to be a domain exclusively reserved for the neocons, once despised by the Democrats and the left. Now one can hardly tell them apart from each other.
39 Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 11:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
mell says
The time has been long overdue to embrace Russia as a friend rather than an enemy.


The time to do that was before Putin. Putin has made Russia worse.

Yes we should try to thaw relations as much as possible, but we should not trust them and we should guard our voting machines from being hacked by them. And we should definitely be cautious about Trump being compromised by them.
40 Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 11:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
iwog says
Now if Donald Trump agreed to give Russia anything at all for releasing the emails, he's guilty of a serious felony called sedition and he violated the constitution. He's guilty of a felony. He should serve time in prison.


There is zero chance of Trump going to prison. No high ranking politician in the U.S. has ever gone to prison or even been convicted of a crime. Evidence is irrelevant. Politicians have an unwritten rule that no high ranking politician will ever be treated like a commoner and will never be subject to being caged like a commoner.
41 iwog   2017 Sep 11, 11:12am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
mell says
The issue that there is no evidence


I proved this is a lie and listed several key points of evidence.

Why don't you fucking talk about what Trump's son-in-law was doing? Any guess? Any conjecture? Why did he lie about the meeting taking place?

Do you eve know what the word evidence means??
42 mell   2017 Sep 11, 11:21am   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        
Dan8267 says
There is zero chance of Trump going to prison. No high ranking politician in the U.S. has ever gone to prison or even been convicted of a crime. Evidence is irrelevant. Politicians have an unwritten rule that no high ranking politician will ever be treated like a commoner and will never be subject to being caged like a commoner.


So do you think the - sometimes extremely hateful and aggressive - rhetoric against Trump by many politicians is just political theater? It seems like many would like to see him suffer.

iwog says
proved this is a lie and listed several key points of evidence.

Why don't you fucking talk about what Trump's son-in-law was doing? Any guess? Any conjecture? Why did he lie about the meeting taking place?

Do you eve know what the word evidence means??


Well then you should get your impeachment soon.. Or not if there's no evidence.
43 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Sep 11, 11:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
iwog says
Some of you don't have any fucking idea what I'm going to say here and you'll simply ignore it because it's not what you want, but PROCESS is all we have. The constitution is process. The entire system of laws is process. We put the law ahead of silly childish egotistical desires because that's the only way we prevent a long series of civil wars and assassinations like Rome had near the end. Process should be supreme in everyone's mind.


So you agree that sanctuary cities are basically announcements that localities/states are opposed to the Rule of Law, yes?

I mean, you can't advocate for Rule of Law while ignoring millions breaking the immigration law while politicians are forbidding their own law enforcement from cooperating with Federal Authorities trying to enforce the law, right?
44 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Sep 11, 11:26am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Dan8267 says
There is zero chance of Trump going to prison. No high ranking politician in the U.S. has ever gone to prison or even been convicted of a crime. Evidence is irrelevant. Politicians have an unwritten rule that no high ranking politician will ever be treated like a commoner and will never be subject to being caged like a commoner.


:Process" "Rule of Law"
45 Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 12:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
mell says

So do you think the - sometimes extremely hateful and aggressive - rhetoric against Trump by many politicians is just political theater?


Plenty of people believed Obama could do no good because he was a nigger Democrat. Many Republicans voted against his policies even when his policies where literally the Republican policies from a few years ago. Plenty of right-wing conservatives accused Obama of ridiculous things like being a secret Muslim and hating America simply because he was a black Democrat.

Despite all this fake outrage at Obama, there were plenty of bad things Obama did. One could criticize Obama extensively for those bad things which has nothing to do with the fake outrage by racist conservative rightwingers.

By the exact same token, any reasonable person would criticize Trump for a plethora of legitimate problems, and such criticism would have nothing to do with the fake outrage by social justice warrior conservative leftwingers who hate Trump because of what they think he symbolizes.

Tell me, are you really so foolish as to think Trump is a good president? Seriously?

mell says
Well then you should get your impeachment soon.. Or not if there's no evidence.


Your analysis is completely wrong. No entity can self-police, especially not the government. Impeachments don't happen or fail to happen because of legal right and wrong. They happen or don't because of politics and nothing more.

We don't know how much Trump is entangled with Russia, but only an idiot thinks Trump is not at all entangled.
46 Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 12:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
TwoScoopsMcGee says
:Process" "Rule of Law"


?
47 komputodo   2017 Sep 11, 12:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
iwog says
If this is you, you aren't for the country. You are for Donald Trump. You don't love America, you love Donald Trump.


When I hear that it always makes me chuckle...how do you define "THE COUNTRY"? Half of the people like Trump. Aren't they the "country"?
48 mell   2017 Sep 11, 12:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
Plenty of people believed Obama could do no good because he was a nigger Democrat. Many Republicans voted against his policies even when his policies where literally the Republican policies from a few years ago. Plenty of right-wing conservatives accused Obama of ridiculous things like being a secret Muslim and hating America simply because he was a black Democrat.

Despite all this fake outrage at Obama, there were plenty of bad things Obama did. One could criticize Obama extensively for those bad things which has nothing to do with the fake outrage by racist conservative rightwingers.

By the exact same token, any reasonable person would criticize Trump for a plethora of legitimate problems, and such criticism would have nothing to do with the fake outrage by social justice warrior conservative leftwingers who hate Trump because of what they think he symbolizes.

Tell me, are you really so foolish as to think Trump is a good president? Seriously?


I think he is better than HRC, but he wasn't my favorite candidate. However the question was with so many Dems calling for impeachment (Maxine Waters etc.) and pretty much 90% of the media against him why would you think he cannot be impeached? Is it just political theater by his opponents? Obama was never attacked like Trump was although I agree many attacks were ludicrous. I consider him a better president than W though I certainly didn't like his presidency.

Dan8267 says
Your analysis is completely wrong. No entity can self-police, especially not the government. Impeachments don't happen or fail to happen because of legal right and wrong. They happen or don't because of politics and nothing more.

We don't know how much Trump is entangled with Russia, but only an idiot thinks Trump is not at all entangled.


That sort of answers the above question mostly. I think if they had anything serious on him they would have started long ago. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a bj, why should Trump, who has pretty much everybody against him (it seems) get away by bending the rule of law?
49 iwog   2017 Sep 11, 1:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
komputodo says

When I hear that it always makes me chuckle...how do you define "THE COUNTRY"? Half of the people like Trump. Aren't they the "country"?


See what I mean? I predicted you would have no idea what I was talking about and I was correct.

The country as I described it is the set of documents and ideals that have kept this nation on course since 1776. These are the same documents that you shit all over when you claim you don't care if Donald Trump made a deal with the Russians or not.
50 Dan8267   2017 Sep 11, 2:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
mell says
However the question was with so many Dems calling for impeachment (Maxine Waters etc.) and pretty much 90% of the media against him why would you think he cannot be impeached?


1. I don't think he cannot be impeached. I think he won't spend a day in prison because he is a high ranking politician.
2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many". His reason was that Trump obstructed justice by interfering with the ongoing federal investigation into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.
3. It's irrelevant if the Democrats want to impeach Trump. Only the Republicans can actually impeach them since they have the majority in House. Impeachment requires a majority support in the House of Representatives, and actually removing the president from office requires two-thirds approval in the Senate. The Republicans control both chambers and so only they can actually impeach Trump or later remove Trump from office.

mell says
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a bj


Bill Clinton was impeached for being an effective president. His impeachment was purely political. He absolutely did not lie under oath. That is a complete falsehood.

Bill Clinton simply answered the question that was asked of him and did not volunteer any further information. The Republicans fucked up by not asking what they wanted to ask. They did not ask if Clinton was fellated by Monica Lewinsky. They asked if Clinton had sexual intercourse with Lewinsky. Big fucking difference. It's not Clinton's fault that dumb ass Republicans don't even know the right euphemisms for sexual acts. Sexual "relations" means intercourse, not fellatio. Hell, I knew that since the fifth grade.

By the way, there is no legitimate reason to ask a president if he had fellatio with a consenting woman. None whatsoever. The entire thing was a trap. The Trump Russian scandal is entirely different. No one trapped Trump into being compromised by Russia, and it's a national security issue. Bill Clinton's dick isn't a national security issue.

mell says
Trump, who has pretty much everybody against him


Oh yes, because conservative media never wrongfully attacked President Blackie McBlackass. They never tried to make him look bad.
51 mell   2017 Sep 11, 2:44pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Dan8267 says
2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many".


You may want to research this again, I count at least 3 (Speier, Moore, Green).


Dan8267 says
Bill Clinton was impeached for being an effective president. His impeachment was purely political. He absolutely did not lie under oath. That is a complete falsehood.


That was the narrative. How is this different than saying the narrative against trump is a falsehood? I didn't think it was necessary at that time but it was to show an example that impeachments do happen if there is evidence. True the Repubs are in control, but some were close to defecting. But since no evidence was provided, they didn't have to fear to be on the wrong side and suddenly got silent. But you can't say they are as tight-nit as Dems were during Obama.Dan8267 says
Oh yes, because conservative media never wrongfully attacked President Blackie McBlackass. They never tried to make him look bad.


They did, but I'd say it pales compared to the Trump firestorm.
52 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Sep 11, 2:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
?


I'm in favor of "(Legal) Process" and "Rule of Law", as you advocate with your notice that politicians get no time.

Who knows, maybe we'll see Rx Menendez get some time. I want a special prosecutor to look into his motive for trying to prevent/water down the Medicare Fraud Investigation.

It would be nice if we enforced the law and had "process" onoging for immigration law violators, also.
53 iwog   2017 Sep 11, 3:32pm   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        
TwoScoopsMcGee says

It would be nice if we enforced the law and had "process" onoging for immigration law violators, also.


We do but it has become so mangled and impossible to enforce that it might as well not exist.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, all illegals enter the deportation process once they are identified. I have a friend who is from Manila and she has been stuck in limbo now for about 5 years. She doesn't have a visa yet she attends hearings every year where they allow her to stay one more year. The reason she can do this is because our courts aren't capable of deporting the criminals in a timely manor let alone the gardeners and maids.

It is up to congress to fix this and they wont. The reason you like the idea of a wall is that it's childish and simple to understand. "Build wall! No more bad people come here. We like Trump!" However it doesn't solve jack shit. Republicans are stuck and they know it. They can't kick them out because a large amount of money comes from people like Donald Trump (LOL) who use illegals extensively in the hotel industry and other places where cheap labor is necessary to keep profits high.

This issue is a giant mountain of bullshit. To their credit, the commie libs have a coherent belief that multi-culturalism adds to the common good and that people from other nations should be allowed in for diversity. It's stupid and it's wrong, however it's coherent and the conclusion results from the premise.

The right is so utterly fucked up and rancid on this issue that dissecting it down to policy is impossible. They simultaneously need illegals in the country AND they need them to stay illegal so they don't pose inconvenient questions like "If they pay into medicare and social security, how come they can't receive it?" and so forth. Ayn Randian right wingers, of which all Republicans are now supporting whether they know it or not, need serfs. Mexicans and Filipinos and others are the serfs. (for now) You'll be one of the serfs later. Keep voting Republican.
54 anonymous   2017 Sep 11, 5:36pm   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        
Dan8267 says
1. The Russian government broken into the DNC headquarters' computers


This has been proven to be an absolute lie, due to transfer speeds. Metadata has shown the email files were copied to a flash drive DIRECTLY from the servers inside the DNC. There's zero evidence the data was hacked from a remote location. This is why the DNC won't let the FBI look at their computers.
55 FortWayne   2017 Sep 11, 5:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
If there was something it would be found by now. But the only thing we have is left wing conspiracy theories.
56 iwog   2017 Sep 11, 6:02pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
FortWayne says
If there was something it would be found by now. But the only thing we have is left wing conspiracy theories.


When did you decide the 6 year investigation of Bill Clinton was going nowhere?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say NEVER!
57 Tenpoundbass   2017 Sep 12, 12:12pm   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        
I listen to NPR just so I know how low Liberals are willing to go next.
58 Ceffer   2017 Sep 12, 12:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
All countries work hard to influence the internal affairs of other countries and disrupt them. Computers are just another avenue. Get used to it.

The USA has been finger fucking foreign sovereignties since it's inception, stop with the righteousness, already.
59 iwog   2017 Sep 12, 12:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Tenpoundbass says
I listen to NPR just so I know how low Liberals are willing to go next.


Is Donald Trump ever going to actually do anything or is he just going to keep jacking off on twitter?
60 Dan8267   2017 Sep 13, 8:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
mell says
Dan8267 says
2. Only a single Democrat has actually called for Trump's impeachment. That's hardly "so many".


You may want to research this again, I count at least 3 (Speier, Moore, Green).


I might be wrong on this, but to clarify what I meant, as far as I know only one Democrat has actually called for a vote on impeachment, which is all that matters. Tweeting about impeachment does not count. I think you and I might be talking about different things.

Tweeting and talking about impeachment is just bullshit political rhetoric. The Republicans engaged in that every single day during the Obama administration. The did not, however, call for a vote to impeach the Obama.

Again, I might be wrong about this, but the last time I checked only one Democrat actually called for impeachment in a Congressional session.

mell says
How is this different than saying the narrative against trump is a falsehood?


It is absolutely certain that Trump obstructed justice -- hell, he admitted to that on television -- and that alone is an impeachable offense. It is also absolutely known that Trump and his campaign officials had many Russian contacts that they lied about under oath. That is also impeachable. What isn't know is how strong those contacts are, and how much influence the Russians have over the Trump administration. However, this is clearly a national security issue whereas Bill Clinton's dick is not.

mell says
But since no evidence was provided


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/13/15952212/trump-russia-investigation-evidence http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/14/media/charles-krauthammer-donald-trump-jr-collusion/index.html
mell says
They did, but I'd say it pales compared to the Trump firestorm.


You're only saying that because this time it's your team being attacked. There is at least legitimacy to attacking Trump on Russia. I say this as someone who advocated strongly against Hillary being elected. Any impartial person will acknowledge that the Trump scandal is a real one and a grave national security concern.

anonymous says
Dan8267 says
1. The Russian government broken into the DNC headquarters' computers


This has been proven to be an absolute lie, due to transfer speeds. Metadata has shown the email files were copied to a flash drive DIRECTLY from the servers inside the DNC. There's zero evidence the data was hacked from a remote location. This is why the DNC won't let the FBI look at their computers.


That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.
61 Quigley   2017 Sep 13, 9:43am   ↑ like (3)   ↑ dislike (3)     quote        
iwog says

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say NEVER


Is that your answer as to when Russian collusion will be proven? LOL
62 mell   2017 Sep 13, 9:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
You're only saying that because this time it's your team being attacked. There is at least legitimacy to attacking Trump on Russia. I say this as someone who advocated strongly against Hillary being elected. Any impartial person will acknowledge that the Trump scandal is a real one and a grave national security concern.


My team was Rand Paul, in fact I actively donated for a while. I do have a personal (and logical) interest in good relation with Russia, but - aside - from meetings I see no evidence of any sort of deal. And meetings are not prosecution worthy or impeachable. At some time the lamestream media purported a story where Trump "might" have stayed in some hotel and engaged in golden showers. WTF? This is worse than the Clinton BJ coverage. What it seems like is that Trump was forced to give up on good relations with Russia and back the sanctions and mild saber-rattling by the deep state. Part of the push-pull game.
63 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Sep 13, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.


That could mean somebody on the inside - Rich, the Awan Brothers, etc. - got the info and then passed it on or sold it. An inside job, which makes the Dems look even weaker on CyberSecurity after the Clinton Email Server and Podesta's Moron P@ssw0rd
64 FortWayne   2017 Sep 13, 12:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Redirecting subject again Iwog, this isn't about Billy.

iwog says
FortWayne says
If there was something it would be found by now. But the only thing we have is left wing conspiracy theories.


When did you decide the 6 year investigation of Bill Clinton was going nowhere?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say NEVER!
65 anonymous   2017 Sep 13, 12:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Dan8267 says
That would still constitute breaking into computers. Any unauthorized access does regardless of how it's done.


But the OP was about Russia. Facts have shown it wasn't Russia that broke into the DNC computers. Time for you liberals to find another boogieman.
66 Dan8267   2017 Sep 13, 12:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
TwoScoopsMcGee says

That could mean somebody on the inside - Rich, the Awan Brothers, etc. - got the info and then passed it on or sold it.


Perhaps, it's conjecture. However, it's irrelevant.

It is not bad that the Russians broken into DNC computers, copied data, and released it to the public. Regardless of their intentions, the people have the right to know what shady backroom deals the politicians are doing. Anyone who bitches about the DNC's shady dealings being exposed is saying "fuck the people, they don't have the right to know what politicians are actually doing". That's a very weak case to make.

However, the issue of Russia trying to hack into election machines is a very serious issue. And that's not in the best interest of the American public, and it is a national security issue.

Furthermore, the argument for impeaching Trump has nothing to do with either of these issues. There are three independent legitimate arguments to impeach Trump whether or not their is sufficient evidence to remove him from office, which is something only a trial would reveal.
1. Trump obstructed justice by interfering with an FBI investigation. This is a cold, hard fact.
2. Trump and his campaign perjured about ties to Russia and meeting Russian government officials. This is also a cold, hard fact.
3. Trump may be compromised by blackmail and/or business deals with the Russian government or government officials.

Each of these is a serious matter. The only one that is questionable is the third, but the suspicion is certainly reasonable and the consequences dire.
67 Quigley   2017 Sep 13, 6:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Dan8267 says

1. Trump obstructed justice by interfering with an FBI investigation. This is a cold, hard fact.
2. Trump and his campaign perjured about ties to Russia and meeting Russian government officials. This is also a cold, hard fact.
3. Trump may be compromised by blackmail and/or business deals with the Russian government or government officials.

Each of these is a serious matter. The only one that is questionable is the third, but the suspicion is certainly reasonable and the consequences dire.


1. Interfering with an FBI investigation? Cmon that's ridiculous. If you want to say that firing the director counts, then you'd have to charge Trump with interfering with every one of the doubtless thousands of investigations ongoing at the time. Which is ridiculous. This kind of charge is a nebulous catch-all they like to tack onto something more serious, but is ridiculously tough to prove by itself.

2. I'm not aware of ANY perjury by Trump or his campaign, on any subject. Reminding you of course, that one is only able to commit perjury while under oath by a court or congress. Lying in any other context is not perjury. So even if you parse everyone's spoken words for lies about Russia, you still won't have a legal leg to stand on!

3. Yes, but his arm is crooked in that picture so it's fake!

Could you BE any more grandiose and wrong at the same time? It's a high bar.
68 bob2356   2017 Sep 13, 7:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
anonymous says

This has been proven to be an absolute lie, due to transfer speeds. Metadata has shown the email files were copied to a flash drive DIRECTLY from the servers inside the DNC. There's zero evidence the data was hacked from a remote location. This is why the DNC won't let the FBI look at their computers.


The theory of one anonymous blogger called “The Forensicator” isn't proof of anything.
69 Quigley   2017 Sep 13, 8:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
bob2356 says
proof of anything

That's exactly what we are missing. Proof of goddam anything!
70 Dan8267   2017 Sep 14, 9:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Quigley says
1. Interfering with an FBI investigation? Cmon that's ridiculous


No, it's not. Firing a head cop for the expressed purpose of hindering the investigation that cop was conducting when you are integrity suspect in that investigation is the very definition of obstruction of justice. It's like if Al Capone had fired Eliot Ness.

It is ridiculous to assert that Trump was not obstructing justice.

Quigley says
2. I'm not aware of ANY perjury by Trump or his campaign, on any subject. Reminding you of course, that one is only able to commit perjury while under oath by a court or congress


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/11/donald-trump-jr-may-have-just-crossed-the-legal-line-on-collusion/?utm_term=.99b817459708
Jacobovitz said conspiracy to commit election fraud is the big legal fish Mueller and his team may be trying to fry. But they're probably also looking at a whole host of laws that could have been broken under this scenario: quid pro quo with the Russians, bribery, potential perjury related to what members of the Trump campaign said under oath to Congress and failing to disclose these contacts in official security forms.


And you can commit perjury without lying to Congress, as again, the Trump campaign did.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/
“If the emails are probative of anything, it’s of any sworn statements [Trump Jr.], or others, might have made to federal investigators or on paperwork signed under penalty of perjury, where the meeting might either have been omitted or mischaracterized,” Vladeck said. Lying to federal investigators during an investigation is a felony offense.


OK, so now that you are aware of the evidence, you'll change your mind, right?

Quigley says

3. Yes, but his arm is crooked in that picture so it's fake!


A non-argument that carries no weight.

Quigley says
Could you BE any more grandiose and wrong at the same time? It's a high bar.


The facts are the facts, and you have failed to refute them. What you call grandiose, the rest of the world calls serious legal liability. Your attempts to make like of these facts and the legal issues does not detract from the gravity of the situation. If you tried to make such a defense to any judge, you'd lose big time.
71 Dan8267   2017 Sep 14, 9:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Quigley says

That's exactly what we are missing. Proof of goddam anything!


What exactly would constitute proof by your standards?

« First    « Previous     Comments 32 - 71 of 71     Last »

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home