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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Feb 2018, 9:56 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:If we fought the Cold War like we're dealing with Putin..we would be probably be speaking Russian.


4 more years of Obama and we would have been.
let it go.


Sure, just like the Cold War.

:no:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Feb 2018, 5:12 pm

That dossier! That Schiff memo!

Please read the whole piece and tell me where he's wrong. This episode shows the abuse of the system.

Heavy Reliance on Steele Dossier Confirmed
The FBI and the Justice Department heavily relied on the Steele dossier’s uncorroborated allegations. You know this is true because, notwithstanding the claim that “only narrow use” was made “of information from Steele’s sources,” the Democrats end up acknowledging that “only narrow use” actually means significant use — as in, the dossier was the sine qua non of the warrant application. The memo concedes that the FISA-warrant application relied on allegations by Steele’s anonymous Russian hearsay sources that:

Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir Putin and executive chairman of Roseneft, Russia’s state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and “an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia.” Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton (“kompromat”) and noted the possibility of its being released to Candidate #1’s [i.e., Donald Trump’s] campaign. . . . This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos.


This passage puts the lie to two of the main Democratic talking points:

1) This was obviously the most critical allegation against Page. The Democrats attempt to make much of Page’s trip to Moscow in July 2016, but the uncorroborated Sechin and Divyekin meetings, which Page credibly denies, are the aspect of the Moscow trip that suggested a nefarious Trump–Russia conspiracy. That’s what the investigation was about. Far from clandestine, the rest of Page’s trip was well publicized and apparently anodyne. And saliently — for reasons we’ll get to in due course — Page was clearly prepared to talk to the FBI about the trip if the Bureau wanted to know what he was up to.

It is the Steele dossier that alleges Page was engaged in arguably criminal activity. The Democrats point to nothing else that does.

Moreover, because Page was an American citizen, FISA law required that the FBI and the DOJ show not only that he was acting as an agent of a foreign power (Russia), but also that his “clandestine” activities on behalf of Russia were a likely violation of federal criminal law. (See FISA, Section 1801(b)(2)(A) through (E), Title 50, U.S. Code.) It is the Steele dossier that alleges Page was engaged in arguably criminal activity. The Democrats point to nothing else that does.

2) Democrats implausibly insist that what “launched” the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was not Steele’s allegations but intelligence from Australia about George Papadopoulos’s contact with what Democrats elusively describe as “individuals linked to Russia.” As we learned when Papadopoulos pled guilty, though, it is anything but clear that these “individuals linked to Russia” had much in the way of links to Putin’s regime: London-based academic Joseph Mifsud, who is from Malta and apparently does not speak Russian; an unidentified woman who falsely pretended to be Putin’s niece; and Ivan Timofeev, a program director at a Russian-government-funded think tank.

Even if we assume for argument’s sake that these characters had solid regime connections — rather than that they were boasting to impress the credulous young Papadopoulos — they were patently not in the same league as Sechin, a Putin crony, and Divyekin, a highly placed regime official. And that, manifestly, is how the FBI and the DOJ saw the matter: They sought a FISA warrant on Page, not Papadopoulos. And, as the above-excerpted passage shows, they highlighted the Steele dossier’s sensational allegations about Page and then feebly tried to corroborate those allegations with some Papadopoulos information, not the other way around. (More on that when we get to Schiff’s notion of “corroboration.”)


This investigation of "collusion" is a sham.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 27 Feb 2018, 6:56 pm

Yawn... This is a red herring. Mueller is proceeding at a steady pace up the food chain. He has Gates...he can use him to get Manafort. And Manafort will get At least Kushner and Don, Jr. And then there is Trump...

Trump has been beholden to the Russians since the beginning. That is clear. It is also clear that he was desperate to stop the Russia investigation. Maybe he "only" acted to help because of past money laundering or the hope of lucrative financial deals and did not directly collude. Or maybe he colluded. Or maybe both.

Eventually we will know why he did what he did. And it will turn out that he helped Russia to further his own interests. If that's not impeachable...I don't know what is.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Feb 2018, 7:59 pm

freeman3 wrote:Yawn... This is a red herring. Mueller is proceeding at a steady pace up the food chain. He has Gates...he can use him to get Manafort. And Manafort will get At least Kushner and Don, Jr. And then there is Trump...

Trump has been beholden to the Russians since the beginning. That is clear. It is also clear that he was desperate to stop the Russia investigation. Maybe he "only" acted to help because of past money laundering or the hope of lucrative financial deals and did not directly collude. Or maybe he colluded. Or maybe both.

Eventually we will know why he did what he did. And it will turn out that he helped Russia to further his own interests. If that's not impeachable...I don't know what is.

If you read it, you wouldn’t be yawning.

The only thing boring is your insistence on conviction sans evidence. Trump is a bad person. He didn’t collude and there is zero evidence of it.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of Obama-era government malfeasance in this case.

Here’s one: is it true FISA courts approve warrants 99.97% of the time? If so, why do we even have it? That’s not a court; it’s a rubber stamp.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Feb 2018, 1:25 am

Admiral Rodgers, head of NSA, today from a Washington Post article:

“What I see on the Cyber Command side leads me to believe that if we don’t change the dynamic here, that this is going to continue, and 2016 won’t be viewed as isolated,” Rogers said. “This is something that will be sustained over time.”

He said of Russian interference: “We’re taking steps, but we’re probably not doing enough.” He said that sanctions and other measures haven’t “changed the calculus or the behavior” by Moscow. “They haven’t paid a price at least that’s sufficient to get them to change their behavior,” he added.

And in a couple of key moments, he made clear that he hasn’t been given additional authorities. After Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked Rogers whether he’d been authorized by either Trump or Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to do more against Russian attacks, Rogers said, “No, I have not.” After Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) sought some clarification, Rogers said he had taken extra steps within his purview, but that “I haven’t been granted any, you know, additional authorities, capacity and capability, and — no, that’s certainly true.”

And..."Rogers acknowledged that Russian President Vladimir Putin probably believes he’s paid “little price” for the interference and thus hasn’t stopped. He also said flatly that Trump has not granted him any new authorities to strike at Russian cyber-operations."

We were attacked in 2016. And Trump is keeping the door open for the Russians to attack us again. Admiral Rodgers is basically describing an Administration that is refusing to defend our democracy against Russian interference. It's traitorous conduct.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... a-efforts/
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10945
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 8:21 am

Fate
He didn’t collude and there is zero evidence of it.


What is it when your President refuses to provide Cyber Command with the authority to actually combat the Russian cyber attacks at their source?

After Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked Rogers whether he’d been authorized by either Trump or Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to do more against Russian attacks, Rogers said, “No, I have not.” After Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) sought some clarification, Rogers said he had taken extra steps within his purview, but that “I haven’t been granted any, you know, additional authorities, capacity and capability, and — no, that’s certainly true.”

And..."Rogers acknowledged that Russian President Vladimir Putin probably believes he’s paid “little price” for the interference and thus hasn’t stopped. He also said flatly that Trump has not granted him any new authorities to strike at Russian cyber-operations.
"

What is it when your President refuses to execute sanctions imposed by Congress on Russians for hacking?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 84866.html

Why is he doing this Fate if he isn't afraid the Russians will release something incredibly damaging?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 8:52 am

freeman3 wrote:Admiral Rodgers, head of NSA, today from a Washington Post article:

“What I see on the Cyber Command side leads me to believe that if we don’t change the dynamic here, that this is going to continue, and 2016 won’t be viewed as isolated,” Rogers said. “This is something that will be sustained over time.”

He said of Russian interference: “We’re taking steps, but we’re probably not doing enough.” He said that sanctions and other measures haven’t “changed the calculus or the behavior” by Moscow. “They haven’t paid a price at least that’s sufficient to get them to change their behavior,” he added.

And in a couple of key moments, he made clear that he hasn’t been given additional authorities. After Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked Rogers whether he’d been authorized by either Trump or Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to do more against Russian attacks, Rogers said, “No, I have not.” After Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) sought some clarification, Rogers said he had taken extra steps within his purview, but that “I haven’t been granted any, you know, additional authorities, capacity and capability, and — no, that’s certainly true.”

And..."Rogers acknowledged that Russian President Vladimir Putin probably believes he’s paid “little price” for the interference and thus hasn’t stopped. He also said flatly that Trump has not granted him any new authorities to strike at Russian cyber-operations."

We were attacked in 2016. And Trump is keeping the door open for the Russians to attack us again. Admiral Rodgers is basically describing an Administration that is refusing to defend our democracy against Russian interference. It's traitorous conduct.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... a-efforts/

Traitorous?

Well, thank you for your considered . . . hysteria.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 8:55 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
He didn’t collude and there is zero evidence of it.


What is it when your President refuses to provide Cyber Command with the authority to actually combat the Russian cyber attacks at their source?

After Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked Rogers whether he’d been authorized by either Trump or Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to do more against Russian attacks, Rogers said, “No, I have not.” After Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) sought some clarification, Rogers said he had taken extra steps within his purview, but that “I haven’t been granted any, you know, additional authorities, capacity and capability, and — no, that’s certainly true.”

And..."Rogers acknowledged that Russian President Vladimir Putin probably believes he’s paid “little price” for the interference and thus hasn’t stopped. He also said flatly that Trump has not granted him any new authorities to strike at Russian cyber-operations.
"

What is it when your President refuses to execute sanctions imposed by Congress on Russians for hacking?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 84866.html

Why is he doing this Fate if he isn't afraid the Russians will release something incredibly damaging?

Do you want to compare Trump’s record with Obama’s? Obama who would not even arm the Ukrainians? Who told Medvedev to let Putin know he would have “more flexibility” after his re-election?

And on and on?

No President has ever been weaker vis-a-vis Russia than Obama.

If Trump is, as freeman3 suggests, a traitor, then Obama was a Russian spy, trained at Putin’s side.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10945
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 10:15 am

Do you want to compare Trump’s record with Obama’s?
On Russian cyber attacks...
Obama
In September of 2016, top intelligence leaders briefed Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill about Russia’s attempts to undermine the election, but they were blocked by GOP leaders, according to news accounts.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was skeptical that the intelligence backed up the White House claims of Russian attacks, and key Democrats were upset that the White House did not push back harder, according to a 2017 report in the Washington Post.
In October, the Obama Administration offered a public comment about Russia’s “active measures” on the election signed by intelligence officials. After the election, the office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a declassified report that went further.
In his final days in office, Obama also sanctioned four Russian individuals and five Russian groups for election interference, closed two Russian compounds and ejected 35 Russian diplomats
.
Trump
In August of 2017, Congress passed a bill by an overwhelming veto-proof margin (419-3 in the House and 98-2 in the Senate) that imposes new sanctions on Russia in retaliation for meddling in the election and limits the president’s ability to lift them.
Trump begrudgingly signed the bill, calling it “significantly flawed” and arguing that it contained “unconstitutional provisions” limiting his authority. He also criticized Congress for harming the U.S. “relationship with Russia.”

He has not implemented the sanctions.
Trump has also repeatedly said that he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denials of meddling, most recently after meeting with Putin briefly in November.
“Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ ” Trump told reporters. “And I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it.



On Ukraine
Obama
President Obama has extended for another year U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine, according to a White House statement.
Obama signed an executive order to prolong the raft of measures that target senior Russian officials and businessmen connected to President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, as well as a number of key Russian state companies, blocking them from visiting or holding assets in the United States, as well as doing business with some U.S. companies.
The United States imposed the sanctions in March 2014, after Russian troops seized Crimea from Ukraine, sparking the most serious crisis between Moscow and Washington since the end of the Cold War.
Obama broadened the sanctions again after Moscow launched a covert war in eastern Ukraine, where the Kremlin has been arming pro-Russian separatists. The European Union has also imposed its own sanctions against Moscow over the crisis.
Referred to as "targeted sanctions,” the measures are meant to inflict discomfort on the Kremlin leadership as well as hurt Russian state companies, intended to express U.S. disapproval and to deter Moscow from further land-grabs.
A copy of the order released by the White House said Russia’s actions in Ukraine continued to pose "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security. Although fighting in eastern Ukraine has largely halted since a ceasefire began last year, the conflict remains deadlocked with the front lines frozen in place.
The United States has said that the lifting of the sanctions is tied to the fulfillment of the so-called Minsk peace agreements, signed in early 2015. Part of those agreements require Moscow to help Ukraine’s government regain control over its borders in the areas held by the rebels and for local elections to be held there, but so far there has been minimal progress towards this.
The United States has accused Moscow of continuing to support the rebels with money and weapons.
Russia has called the sanctions unjustified. A spokesman for Putin, Dmitrii Peskov, said today the Kremlin "regretted" Obama’s decision to prolong the sanctions regime. Moscow has retaliated to the European Union sanctions by banning many food imports from the bloc, including gourmet cheeses.
The sanctions, along with those imposed by the E.U., have had an effect on Russia, exacerbating an economic downturn prompted by low oil prices that has pushed the country into recession. The measures have created serious difficulties for some of Russia’s largest state companies, including key state banks, that have been unable to access Western financing.
Perhaps even more damaging for the Russian economy, the sanctions have significantly chilled foreign investment in the country, with many investors wary that Russia may be headed into further economic isolation and spooked that another geopolitical crisis might lie in wait for Moscow.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/oba ... d=37362950

Trump on Ukraine
Originally his campaign manager, formerly Viktor Yanukovych's campaign manager, changed the plank in the Republican platform that softened support for Ukraine.
The original amendment, which proposed that the GOP commit to sending "lethal weapons" to the Ukrainian army to fend off Russian aggression, was ultimately altered to say "provide appropriate assistance" before it was included in the party's official platform.

The altered amendment has come back into the spotlight amid reports that the campaign's chairman at the time, Paul Manafort, offered to exchange briefings about the campaign for debt repayment and/or cancellation from his contacts in Ukraine and Russia. Manafort had been a top adviser to Ukraine's pro-Russia Party of Regions from 2004 to 2014


Since then, however Trump has increased military cooperation with Ukraine. Selling them weapons. (Good for some weapons manufacturer I guess)
However, the most effective thing, sanctions ... he's not implementing. Because why?

No President would sit back and accept Russian cyber meddling once it had been definitively proven and not order the NSA to take counter measures...
No President would ignore congress when they pass sanctions against Russia.
But Trump has...
Why does he do this Fate? Just protecting Russians from sanctions is obvious collusion.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 10:23 am

Obama did nothing. He scoffed at the idea Russia was our greatest geopolitical foe. He tried to “reset” relations with the Russians. He invited the Russians into Syria.

Obama was the weakest foreign policy President of the modern era. Even Carter figured it out eventually, but not Obama.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Feb 2018, 10:30 am

Your comparison of Obama with Trump is weak sauce. And you know it. Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for its interference in the elections. That's doing something. Trump has continually refused to do anything about Russia's cyberattacks on the US that are designed to undermine our democracy.His friggin' NSA head publicly in essence called him out on it. Trump refuses to implement sanctions passed by the Congress. Earlier, he tried to mollify Russia by having Flynn repeatedly contact the Russian ambassador with regard to sanctions.

Not defending the country when it is being attacked...I don't know, what would you call it?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 10:54 am

freeman3 wrote:Your comparison of Obama with Trump is weak sauce. And you know it. Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for its interference in the elections. That's doing something.


Not really. He *knew* about it for quite some time before he did anything. Why?

Because he was sure Hills was going to win an didn't want to delegitimize her.

Trump has continually refused to do anything about Russia's cyberattacks on the US that are designed to undermine our democracy.His friggin' NSA head publicly in essence called him out on it. Trump refuses to implement sanctions passed by the Congress. Earlier, he tried to mollify Russia by having Flynn repeatedly contact the Russian ambassador with regard to sanctions.


I don't think we know everything going on with Russia. However, we do know that our armed forces have led/coordinated attacks on Russian troops in Syria resulting in Russian deaths. How many Russians did Obama kill?

As for your latter claim, it's rubbish. Please prove Trump instructed Flynn to contact the Russian ambassador with sweet offers re sanctions.

Not defending the country when it is being attacked...I don't know, what would you call it?


I'd call it "The Obama Doctrine."
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Feb 2018, 12:15 pm

Obama might have been weak...Trump is a Fifth Columnist. Big difference.

As for Flynn being directed by Trump...it's called making an inference. NSC heads don't typically go rogue on things like that. I am confident that is what will be eventually revealed.

But if you're typical of Republicans...then we need to take back the Congress to get this guy out of there.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 2:16 pm

freeman3 wrote:Obama might have been weak...Trump is a Fifth Columnist. Big difference.

As for Flynn being directed by Trump...it's called making an inference. NSC heads don't typically go rogue on things like that. I am confident that is what will be eventually revealed.


If we can use "guilt by inference," every member of the Obama Administration would be in prison--gun running, IRS abuse, etc.

As for "fifth column," there has never been a POTUS who disliked the country as much as Obama. His wife told us that. And, it was he himself who constantly carped about the changes needed. Oh, and he did more damage to the military than any POTUS in the superpower era.

Putin surely loved that.

But if you're typical of Republicans...then we need to take back the Congress to get this guy out of there.


Yes, because we need communists in charge of Congress.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10945
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 3:18 pm

fate
However, we do know that our armed forces have led/coordinated attacks on Russian troops in Syria resulting in Russian deaths

Actually the Russians attacked a US/Rebel position.

I thought that Trump dropping a monster bomb on a Syrian airfield was supposed to stop the use of poison gas, and deter Syrian or Russian agression against the US?
Didn't work out huh?