Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Jun 2017, 11:25 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Wasn't sure whether to post this article here or under the "Maybe Trump is Right" thread. It seems more appropriate here.

The CNN "resignations" are too few and 18 months too late.

Everyone of these networks should clean house and simply start over.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/cnn-retracts-story-supposed-russian-175206933.html

And what a class act Scaramucci is in the way he handled the situation. And how absolutely unfair to him and his reputation as an American citizen and civil servant.

If only the New York Times would fire or "resign" their entire editorial board I might consider subscribing again.


I honestly cannot read the NYT or WaPo without screaming. For all the news in it, there is also so much editorial slanting . . . well, it's like watching CNN. I turned to CNN a few weeks ago. Everyone on the screen for 2 hours was attacking Trump. There are estimates that 92% of its coverage of Trump is negative--and that seems low.

I don't even like Trump, but I find the constant trashing of him unproductive. It's a bit like Hillary's campaign. Instead of telling everyone how bad of a person he is, why not go after his arguments? It's not hard. He's rarely coherent.

But, they won't. They hate the man so much and are so angry Hillary lost to him that they cannot function without screeching.

And, Maddow, oh sister! She has fallen into some kind of mirror-image of Sean Hannity. She ought to start a fan club--maybe $10 a month and she ships a fresh roll of tinfoil to your house every month.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 Jun 2017, 5:15 pm

Have you guys looked at the facts of the case? The entire Seth Rich story is a bullshit conspiracy theory (which Hannity keeps spouting about and Fox had to issue a retraction on one of their stories on it with no firings)...whereas the main problem with the CNN story was not properly vetted: (1) it had only one source, (2) CNN guidelines call for such a story to be reviewed by an executive editor and it wasn't, and (3) guidelines for any story that involves allegations of possible criminal/inappropriate behavior call for review by an attorney and it wasn't. So we don't even know the story was incorrect, just that guidelines were violated that are there to reduce the risk of a story being incorrect.

Just to review the timeline a bit:

1-17 Scaramucci meets with Dmietriev head of a 10 billion Russian sanctioned by the US in 2015 to discuss possible joint investments.At the time Scaramucci was described as an aide to Trump and was being considered for a job in the new Administration. Scaramucci in an interview with TASS at the time confirmed the meeting with Dmietriev and criticized US sanctions against Russia as being ineffective.

1-19 Business Insider reports that Senators Cardin and Warren would be sending a letter to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin to investigate Scaramucci for possible violating the sanctions against Russia. Bloomberg indicates that this seemed to be a reference to a meeting with Dmietriev

June CNN story--Says Treasury was looking into into the Scaramucci meeting at the behest of two Democrstic senators--Warren and Cardin-- to determine whether Scaramucci promised to lift sanctions.

I have seen stories that say the Senate intelligence committee was looking into the meeting...but the story only said they were looking at Dmietriev's fund, not the Scaramucci-Dmietriev meeting. In the article it was stated Scaramucci had told Bloomberb TV that it was a brief meeting and he said he told Dmietriev in his capacity within the administration he would reach out to people to help him if he could get through ethical requirements to do so.

So...basically we already know that Warren and Cardin were planning to ask Mnuchin to look into the meeting. The only thing this article said is that Treasury was doing so...and Mnuchin promised back on January 19 he would "properly investigate" any letter sent to his office regarding any allegation of violation of sanctions.

So all the CNN article was add..that Mnuchin did what he already said he would do if a letter regarding sanctions was sent to his office and that apparently the letter was sent or the Senators had contacted Treasury in some manner. Some revelation.

Here are the relevant articles:

http://www.weny.com/story/35727254/cong ... -officials

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... story.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... emlin-fund

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... an-meeting


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busine ... ing-2017-1

Maybe you actually should look into the facts of case before making such a blanket indictment with regard to CNN for whatvhappened here. Dags alleged that the whole thing was unfair to Scaramucci. Really? How so? Given that senator said he was going to send a letter to Mnuchin signed by himself and Warren and that Mnuchin said he would investigate such a letter, it would hardly be surprising if the letter were sent and Treasury looked into the matter--as Mnuchin promised to do. In other words..it is very likely that the contents of the CNN article is true, at least as it pertains to Scarsmucci. I have got no reason to think any of the rest of the article is incorrect, either.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Jun 2017, 6:01 pm

Yeah, rally around the hammer and sickle, boys, girls, and undetermined!

There is a lot more evidence that your boy, Bernie, and his woman, Jane, committed fraud and/or covered it up (Bernie) than there is of any Trump/Russia hoo-ha. Even a CNN producer admitted that. Of course, you didn't link that . . . Weird.

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/06/2 ... s-bullsit/

Btw, who was it who knew about Russia trying to intervene in the election and did absolutely nothing?

Oh yeah. It was then-President Barack Obama.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 Jun 2017, 6:11 pm

Interesting...but it has nothing to do with the Scaramucci story.

Which by the way...is yet another instance where a Trump Associate during the transition is trying to assure the Russians that something could be done by sanctions. Translation: Trump Assiciates telling Russians we were going to help you make money. And in return the Russians would do...what? Nothing! What a great deal maker Trump agreeing to help someone for...nothing. Not likely.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 Jun 2017, 6:34 pm

Well, I wasted a few minutes of my life listening to that CNN producer. Wow cable news is focused on stories that carry ratings. That's a surprise? They found a CNN producer who appears to be centrist at least and probably a Republican and his views reflect that. I mean, we never get to see all the conversations by these undercover people where nothing happened. How does this producer just decide to talk to this undercover person and invite them into the newsroom? Seems a bit odd to me. Not that easy to be hired in a newsroom. Was this a legitimate undercover gotcha...or was the producer in on it? Anyway, he did not say anything that controversial.The news is focused on the Russia story because it is interesting. CNN helped to make Trump, remember? He wasn't complaining about them, then. The main thing is that news organizations use proper methods in publishing the news. And in the Scaramucci article those methods were not followed...and CNN reacted drastically. Which says something. Something that was not done in Fox's retracted Seth Rich story where the content was actually clearly bs (National Enquirer level) and no one got fired for it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jun 2017, 5:24 am

freeman3 wrote:Well, I wasted a few minutes of my life listening to that CNN producer. Wow cable news is focused on stories that carry ratings. That's a surprise? They found a CNN producer who appears to be centrist at least and probably a Republican and his views reflect that. I mean, we never get to see all the conversations by these undercover people where nothing happened. How does this producer just decide to talk to this undercover person and invite them into the newsroom? Seems a bit odd to me. Not that easy to be hired in a newsroom. Was this a legitimate undercover gotcha...or was the producer in on it? Anyway, he did not say anything that controversial.The news is focused on the Russia story because it is interesting. CNN helped to make Trump, remember? He wasn't complaining about them, then. The main thing is that news organizations use proper methods in publishing the news. And in the Scaramucci article those methods were not followed...and CNN reacted drastically. Which says something. Something that was not done in Fox's retracted Seth Rich story where the content was actually clearly bs (National Enquirer level) and no one got fired for it.


Oh brother.

That producer's politics are known to you how? All he said was that there is NO evidence!

But, you're a liberal Democrat, so who needs evidence! Trump stole the election and the Russians helped!!!! We know this because . . . There is no way Hillary could have lost to that troglodyte!

Interestingly, to those of us who care about facts, Obama told us in October 2016 that it was impossible to rig an American election. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN12I27L

Furthermore, everything CNN alleged . . . Where is the evidence? You have some circumstantial evidence, but it us unsubstantiated. As with every tinfoil-hat anti-Trump conspiracy theory, all that is missing is evidence.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jun 2017, 6:52 am

CNN says producer worked on medicine and health...really keyed into the Russia investigation...

The big key with the Russia investigation is financial docs. What are Trump's financial ties to Russia? Did he get large-scale funding from Russia? Any reasonable person looking at his behavior would conclude that he is beholden to Russia in some fashion. What has been lost in the CNN retraction is that it is not disputed that Scaramucci told the leader of a ten billion dollar investment bank that he would try to do something about getting them off of sanctions.

When we have Trump's tax returns and his financial docs then we can determine whether his cozying up to Russia and trying to shut down the Russia investigation was due to his being heavily reliant on Russian money. Since we don't have that financial information...all talk that nothing has been found is premature. Trump's behavior is indicative of somehow who owes something to Russia. If he is innocent he should let Mueller look at his financial docs and if he has no significant ties to Russia...then I suspect that will be that. But we need to see his Russian entanglements. His behavior in trying to get Russia off of sanctions was not to benefit America. It was there to benefit himself. You have to be very naive or a blind partisan to think otherwise. I strongly suspect that he did so because he owes a lot of money to Russia and wants to keep Russia happy. If that was the rationale for the many attempts by his associates to mollify the Russians with regard to sanctions then he should get impeached for that.

Saying the investigation has not gotten anywhere is a tactic because the financial docs have not been obtained yet. Those will decide if Trump did anything wrong. If he wants to speed up the investigation and get past it, he should voluntarily allow access to his tax returns and the businesss dealings of his companies. Otherwise, he will just have to wait.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jun 2017, 7:15 am

freeman3 wrote:CNN says producer worked on medicine and health...really keyed into the Russia investigation...

The big key with the Russia investigation is financial docs. What are Trump's financial ties to Russia? Did he get large-scale funding from Russia? Any reasonable person looking at his behavior would conclude that he is beholden to Russia in some fashion.


Sorry, no. Any "reasonable person" would conclude there is zero evidence to believe "he is beholden to Russia in some fashion."

He is actually opposing Russia more often than Obama ever did. His UN ambassador blasts Russia. Did Obama shoot down Assad's planes?

In any event, where is your actual "evidence?" You know, something that would stand up in a court of law?

What has been lost in the CNN retraction is that it is not disputed that Scaramucci told the leader of a ten billion dollar investment bank that he would try to do something about getting them off of sanctions.


That is not how our system works. A bogus allegation doesn't have to be refuted. It has to be proved. Are you familiar with how American justice works? We don't have the "guilty until proven innocent" method.

When we have Trump's tax returns and his financial docs then we can determine whether his cozying up to Russia and trying to shut down the Russia investigation was due to his being heavily reliant on Russian money.


Again, you are out on a limb, and without a tree attached. Trump didn't try to "shut down" the Russia investigation. Comey and the FBI started that in spring of last year. They had zero evidence of collusion. None. If you know of any, please post it.

Since we don't have that financial information...all talk that nothing has been found is premature.


Wrong again. That's not our system. Furthermore, the way DC has been leaking nearly everything, if there was ANY evidence we'd have some by now.

Trump's behavior is indicative of somehow who owes something to Russia.


I disagree. It is indicative of someone who wants a better relationship with Russia, but who has taken action against Russia and its interests, including Assad.

If he is innocent he should let Mueller look at his financial docs and if he has no significant ties to Russia...then I suspect that will be that. But we need to see his Russian entanglements.


Mueller is looking more and more like a political hack. Firstly, by law he should recuse himself from anything involving his good friend, Jim Comey. Secondly, he's done nothing but hire Hillary donors. In fact, his staff could have been her staff. Thirdly, what you need "to see his Russian entanglements" is actual evidence.

I know. I said that already. However, you seem to be forgetting the basic rules of American law.

His behavior in trying to get Russia off of sanctions was not to benefit America. It was there to benefit himself.


I'm easily persuaded. Prove it.

You have to be very naive or a blind partisan to think otherwise. I strongly suspect that he did so because he owes a lot of money to Russia and wants to keep Russia happy. If that was the rationale for the many attempts by his associates to mollify the Russians with regard to sanctions then he should get impeached for that.


This is all political and personal for you. You hate Trump, therefore he is guilty. He whupped Hillary, therefore he is guilty.

There simply has to be proof--and you demand Trump furnish it!

Um. That should be your clue that you are so far over your skis that you're about to land on your shoulders.

Saying the investigation has not gotten anywhere is a tactic because the financial docs have not been obtained yet. Those will decide if Trump did anything wrong. If he wants to speed up the investigation and get past it, he should voluntarily allow access to his tax returns and the businesss dealings of his companies. Otherwise, he will just have to wait.


This is what is known as "a fishing expedition."

No crime is alleged to have occurred. There is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. However, leftists and Hillaryites are sure something wrong happened because . . . well, she lost and that was impossible!

Obama himself downplayed the Russian angle before the election. Why is that?

Oh, because there was no evidence of it impacting the election? And, there was no connection between Trump and the Russians?

Ever think about writing leftist-themed, Tom Clancy-style thrillers?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jun 2017, 9:50 am

In the history of the US there has never been a US president during the transition period who has had this level of contacts with a foreign power. NEVER. This, after said foreign power interfered in our election to get Trump elected. It doesn't happen. It's ridiculous. You want it act like it's normal. It's not normal. It's the US acting like it's a client state of Russia. And nothing substantive has happened with regard to Russia...except not supporting Article 5 which Russia was happy about. Not supporting Article 5 which was huge and substantive vs meaningless bluster.

Scaramucci told bloomberg TV that "what I said to him last night, in my capacity within the administration, was that I would certainly reach out to people to help him." That's kind of hard to do because...US companies are banned from lending or receiving money from sanctioned Russian banks, such as the one run by Dmietriev. The only thing he could do...is work to get sanctions lifted. Does that qualify as evidence for you?

http://www.kyma.com/news/politics/congr ... /557302474

It's laughable he did not try to shut down the Russia investigation. First, he tried to get Comey under his thumb. When that did not work he still tried to get him to shut down the Russia investigation. When that didn't work he asked other intelligence chiefs to persuade Comey to shut it down. When that didn't work he fired Comey.

I don't know what system you are talking about. The evidence so far is these inexplicable contacts with the Russians seeking to mollify them about sanctions and Trump aides lying about it. These were not normal contacts and they are frankly inexplicable. These contacts about sanctions were improper, as Obama was still president. So we need to investigate why these contacts were made. They don't make sense as being normal contacts between an in-coming president and a foreign power, particularly one that sought to help Trump win. That's the "evidence" so far. Then you add Trump's panicky attempts to stop the investigation. More evidence. The smoking gun evidence will come from Trump's financial docs--which we don't have, yet. So, yes, it's premature to say that Trump has been cleared because nothing big has been found..when the main thing that needs to be looked at--financial docs--haven't been looked at. When the investigation is done, it's done. It's not done, yet. Trump is hiding something big, that's very clear. He did not try to shut down the Russia investigation because he was worried that it was interfering with his politicsl agenda. That's a joke.

Man, you are really sticking with conservative talking points. Mueller and Comey worked for the Bush Administrstion. Oops.

I don't care if you believe that Trump worked so hard during the Transition period to make contact with the Russians and assure them regard sanctions to help US interests. Nothing about the man would indicate that and it also makes no sense as a policy. When he became president he could changed policy but trying to do it during the Transition period. Please. Believe what you want.

There are a lot of stories about Trump's financial dealings with Russia. We need to find out what they
are. I don't hate Trump. But his behavior is of someone who helped Russia to further his interests. Now we got to get the financial docs to prove it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jun 2017, 11:08 am

freeman3 wrote:In the history of the US there has never been a US president during the transition period who has had this level of contacts with a foreign power. NEVER. This, after said foreign power interfered in our election to get Trump elected. It doesn't happen. It's ridiculous. You want it act like it's normal. It's not normal. It's the US acting like it's a client state of Russia. And nothing substantive has happened with regard to Russia...except not supporting Article 5 which Russia was happy about. Not supporting Article 5 which was huge and substantive vs meaningless bluster.

Scaramucci told bloomberg TV that "what I said to him last night, in my capacity within the administration, was that I would certainly reach out to people to help him." That's kind of hard to do because...US companies are banned from lending or receiving money from sanctioned Russian banks, such as the one run by Dmietriev. The only thing he could do...is work to get sanctions lifted. Does that qualify as evidence for you?

http://www.kyma.com/news/politics/congr ... /557302474


Two Democratic senators want an investigation into Trump/Russia connections? Wow, that's almost like video evidence (except for Democrats, when there actually is video evidence, claim it was altered, but I digress).

Investigate away!

I'm waiting for evidence that:

1. Trump colluded with Russia.
2. The Russians actually changed votes in our election.
3. Some law was broken.

It's laughable he did not try to shut down the Russia investigation. First, he tried to get Comey under his thumb.


You've lost all ability to reason here. It's sad to watch. Really.

Should he have asked Comey to be disloyal?

It's funny: Comey was the scum of the Earth and cost Hillary the election. After his "death," he's become St. James.

When that did not work he still tried to get him to shut down the Russia investigation. When that didn't work he asked other intelligence chiefs to persuade Comey to shut it down. When that didn't work he fired Comey.


Oh mercy.

Did you not hear Comey's testimony? Nothing was going to shut down the investigation until the FBI was done with it. Do you think they stopped just because he got fired?

And, since Comey is such a profligate leaker, do you really think if there was evidence on Trump that NONE of it would have leaked by now?

I don't know what system you are talking about. The evidence so far is these inexplicable contacts with the Russians seeking to mollify them about sanctions and Trump aides lying about it. These were not normal contacts and they are frankly inexplicable.


Because Senators don't meet with the Russians, right? I mean that's what Sen. McCaskill said.

Seeking to distinguish herself from Attorney General Sessions, who explained that previously undisclosed encounters with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak had taken place as a part of his routine senatorial duties, Claire McCaskill all but accused Sessions of lying. McCaskill wanted it to be known that, despite her membership with Sessions on the Armed Services Committee, she had never suffered such a close encounter either in person or by telephone despite her membership on the Armed Services Committee.


Ok. But what about you, Senator?

It didn’t take long to refute McCaskill with her own words in two tweets.

Follow
Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions,even those in process.
10:25 AM - 30 Jan 2013
736 736 Retweets 350 350 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Follow
Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
Today calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework
7:49 AM - 6 Aug 2015


Oops.

These contacts about sanctions were improper, as Obama was still president. So we need to investigate why these contacts were made. They don't make sense as being normal contacts between an in-coming president and a foreign power, particularly one that sought to help Trump win. That's the "evidence" so far.


Actually, let me help you: those are "allegations" and not "evidence." Or, do you have records and transcripts?

Then you add Trump's panicky attempts to stop the investigation. More evidence.


Nope, that's you attempting to read ancient Mayan and translate it into hieroglyphics.

The smoking gun evidence will come from Trump's financial docs--which we don't have, yet. So, yes, it's premature to say that Trump has been cleared because nothing big has been found..when the main thing that needs to be looked at--financial docs--haven't been looked at. When the investigation is done, it's done. It's not done, yet. Trump is hiding something big, that's very clear. He did not try to shut down the Russia investigation because he was worried that it was interfering with his politicsl agenda. That's a joke.


Here's the joke: you're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the person being accused. Instead, you are demanding that he provide the evidence to prove he didn't do things you can't even prove were done. I'd say you're putting the ox before the cart, but you don't have an ox or a cart. You've got nothing but fertile imagination.

Man, you are really sticking with conservative talking points. Mueller and Comey worked for the Bush Administrstion. Oops.


So what?

I don't care if you believe that Trump worked so hard during the Transition period to make contact with the Russians and assure them regard sanctions to help US interests. Nothing about the man would indicate that and it also makes no sense as a policy. When he became president he could changed policy but trying to do it during the Transition period. Please. Believe what you want.


If he's so pro-Russia, how do you explain his policies?

There are a lot of stories about Trump's financial dealings with Russia. We need to find out what they are. I don't hate Trump. But his behavior is of someone who helped Russia to further his interests. Now we got to get the financial docs to prove it.


Sure you don't hate Trump. Right. Okay. Let's go with that.

As Ben Shapiro tweeted:

Imagine Geraldo's regret when he opened Al Capone's vault to find Rachel Maddow's report on Trump's taxes.


You're going to have as much luck seeing his returns as conservatives did looking at Obama's college transcripts.

Inow, you're going to have to make the case another way. Best of luck.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jun 2017, 12:56 pm

I guess we'll see what happens. I have no doubt, ZERO doubt that Trump has something to hide with his dealings with Russia. Whether it is loans from Russia or Russians laundering their money through real estate investments in Trump buildings. Something like that. He was cash short and he got money from Russians who wanted to take cash/rubles out of Russia and invest it in tangible assets. Like condos or golf courses. And those Russians are tied-in with Putin. That makes the most sense. Banks did not lend money to Trump after he lost a billion dollars of their money in the 1990s..so he turned to Russians trying to clean up cash by investing in the US. That would explain his wanting to please Putin. And that would explain his getting hysterical when an investigation into Russia started. His behavior is inexplicable, otherwise.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jun 2017, 12:59 pm

Imagine the neurologist's surprise when he did a CT scan of Ben Shapiro's head...and found it empty!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jun 2017, 1:10 pm

By the way....

(1) How did Paul Manafort--a guy who got 30 million from a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine-- get hired as campaign chair?
(2) Why was the plank about arming the Ukrainians defeated at the Republican convention even though it was popular among Republicans
(3) How did Flynn get hired, someone known for his Russian contacts, get selected as NSC?
(4) How did Tillerson get selected as Secretary of State--a man with NO government experience--but who had extensive business dealings with Russia as head of Exxon?

It all just stinks...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jun 2017, 1:47 pm

freeman3 wrote:I guess we'll see what happens. I have no doubt, ZERO doubt that Trump has something to hide with his dealings with Russia. Whether it is loans from Russia or Russians laundering their money through real estate investments in Trump buildings. Something like that. He was cash short and he got money from Russians who wanted to take cash/rubles out of Russia and invest it in tangible assets. Like condos or golf courses. And those Russians are tied-in with Putin. That makes the most sense. Banks did not lend money to Trump after he lost a billion dollars of their money in the 1990s..so he turned to Russians trying to clean up cash by investing in the US. That would explain his wanting to please Putin. And that would explain his getting hysterical when an investigation into Russia started. His behavior is inexplicable, otherwise.


Actually, his behavior is normal. The Russian investigation had been going on for months. Anyone who was innocent and was told by Comey they were not targeted, would be exasperated. Why? Because it's all the kooks at CNN and MSNBC want to talk about!

If you have ZERO doubt, well then, he should be subject to the most stringent application of the law. Have at it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jun 2017, 1:58 pm

freeman3 wrote:By the way....

(1) How did Paul Manafort--a guy who got 30 million from a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine-- get hired as campaign chair?
(2) Why was the plank about arming the Ukrainians defeated at the Republican convention even though it was popular among Republicans
(3) How did Flynn get hired, someone known for his Russian contacts, get selected as NSC?
(4) How did Tillerson get selected as Secretary of State--a man with NO government experience--but who had extensive business dealings with Russia as head of Exxon?

It all just stinks...


Huh. Well, check out Podesta--and this is an article that purports to exonerate him. https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-podes ... sia.t8748/

I'll answer your questions:

1. I've no idea. And, so what? He got fired. Is it a crime?
2. Easy. Trump ran as heavy on the isolation, light on the confrontation with Russia. Is it a crime?
3. Beats me. Is it a crime?
4. He came highly recommended by people with Russian expertise, like Condi Rice.

Tillerson, then Mattis:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-31/tillerson-calls-nato-critical-in-countering-russian-aggression

“Let me be very clear at the outset of my remarks: the U.S. commitment to NATO is strong and this alliance remains the bedrock for trans-Atlantic security,” Tillerson said Friday in Brussels. “The NATO alliance is also fundamental to countering both nonviolent, but at times violent, Russian agitation and Russian aggression.”

He said U.S. sanctions on Russia for annexing Crimea “will remain until Moscow reverses the actions that triggered our sanctions” and “we will continue to hold Russia accountable.”

Defense Secretary James Mattis, a retired general known for his straight talk, was even more outspoken. At a briefing in London on Friday, he said Russia’s “violations of international law are now a matter of record -- from what happened with Crimea to other aspects of their behavior in mucking around inside other people’s elections, that sort of thing.”


It's not like the Trump Administration is going easy on Russia. So, guess again.

Or, maybe Democrats should start trying to appeal to American voters? You know, like Hillary didn't?