Why the Democrats are making a big mistake by obsessing over Russia

[ducks]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/04/a-noun-a-verb-and-vladimir-putin-215224

[boutons_deux]

Treasonous, destructive, corrupt Trash, Pence, the entourage MUST be run out of office ASAP.

Only the Democrats can push that objective.

[ducks]

why ?
so far their is NO evidence for them to be kicked out of office. There was a lot of lots of evidence against Hillary and all she got was a slap on the rest from the former fbi.
they keep digging but so far no criminal evidence. They are hoping and trying to convince the people there is with their media but so far nothing

[rjv]

what the dems should realize is that the public is also generally disinterested in russiagate. if they want to find a way to justify impeachment they would have to look for evidence of policy making primarily implemented for the sake of personal profit to trump. in the end, the fate of the GOP and trump from 2018-20120 will hinge upon the economy, jobs and healthcare.

[ducks]

economy, jobs and healthcare in that order correct

[boutons_deux]

public is also generally disinterested in russiagate

link? or just your Trash-fellating opinion of blind Repug loyalty?

[baseline bum]

what the dems should realize is that the public is also generally disinterested in russiagate.

Do you have a source on that?

[spurraider21]

what the dems should realize is that the public is also generally disinterested in russiagate. if they want to find a way to justify impeachment they would have to look for evidence of policy making primarily implemented for the sake of personal profit to trump. in the end, the fate of the GOP and trump from 2018-20120 will hinge upon the economy, jobs and healthcare.
does everything have to be about PR?

[Pavlov]

To see here there is nothing.

Спасибо.

[rjv]

Do you have a source on that? what i can say is economic related problems represent 21% of the most important issues for the public and then healthcare, immigration, race relations and all other non-political leadership/national security concerns represent another 55%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

i mean, the dems could take the approach that it means more or could lead to a smoking gun and therefore is worth investing time and energy into, but it's a calculated risk and nowhere near being a certainty.

[TSA]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/04/a-noun-a-verb-and-vladimir-putin-215224

good article and interesting to see Politico is now backing away from the story and preparing Dems for the let down. doesn't look like anyone has read it yet.

[rjv]

does everything have to be about PR? i'm not an election expert but i would think image counts for a lot and there is no doubt that the dems are suffering from an image problem (and that is from within its own ranks).

[spurraider21]

i'm not an election expert but i would think image counts for a lot and there is no doubt that the dems are suffering from an image problem (and that is from within its own ranks).
oh, if you're talking about getting votes yeah... i was thinking about doing an effective job, etc

[boutons_deux]

what i can say is economic related problems represent 21% of the most important issues for the public and then healthcare, immigration, race relations and all other non-political leadership/national security concerns represent another 55%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

i mean, the dems could take the approach that it means more or could lead to a smoking gun and therefore is worth investing time and energy into, but it's a calculated risk and nowhere near being a certainty.

Even Repugs can't address the economy (the lower 4 quintiles), or healtcare, or ANYTHING because Trash's FUCKING DISASTER is a black hole.

What are the Dems supposed to do? they can't pass anything in Congress, anyway.

The most patriotic, most pressing priority for the Dems and the country is for the Congressional Dems to flush Trash's complete Exec down the toilet, A S A P.

[TSA]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/04/a-noun-a-verb-and-vladimir-putin-215224

There are, here and there, warning signs that maybe the Democrats might want to, you know, focus on their own political problems. In April, the Democratic National Committee had its worst fundraising month in nearly a decade. As was seen in crucial states during the 2016 contest, African-American turnout remains a serious concern. The voters of admittedly red-state Montana just elected a guy who has been charged with assault instead of a (seemingly) competent Democrat with a clean police record. Reporters who actually spoke to voters in places like Ohio seem to have found some shrugs over the Russia frenzy. More than two-thirds of voters, according to at least one ABC News/Washington Post poll (if you believe polls anymore), said the Democrats were “out of touch.” The Democrats—yes, the Democrats—scored lower than Trump and the Republicans on that issue.

[TSA]

Trump, meanwhile, is trying to regain his message on border security, tax cuts, Obamacare repeal and telling off Europeans to their faces. You know, the kind of politically incorrect, occasionally rude things that actually ended up helping him win the election. A few weeks ago, a sociologist at Columbia University flatly predicted that Trump will be reelected in 2020. In an even crueler blow to the Democrats, an ABC poll released in April found that Trump would beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote if there were a hypothetical rematch. :lol (A rematch that at least one humble genius long ago predicted.)

[rjv]

Even Repugs can't address the economy (the lower 4 quintiles), or healtcare, or ANYTHING because Trash's FUCKING DISASTER is a black hole.

What are the Dems supposed to do? they can't pass anything in Congress, anyway.

The most patriotic, most pressing priority for the Dems and the country is for the Congressional Dems to flush Trash's complete Exec down the toilet, A S A P. for clarification, by what process do you refer to when you write "to flush Trash's complete Exec down the toilet, A S A P."?

[baseline bum]

what i can say is economic related problems represent 21% of the most important issues for the public and then healthcare, immigration, race relations and all other non-political leadership/national security concerns represent another 55%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

i mean, the dems could take the approach that it means more or could lead to a smoking gun and therefore is worth investing time and energy into, but it's a calculated risk and nowhere near being a certainty.

It looks like the #1 problem people are most concerned with is hating government and leadership, followed closely by healthcare. These are both things Trump is extremely unpopular on. I don't think you can divorce Russia from the first, considering this is the major scandal in Trump's presidency so far. And in the second case I'd be pretty surprised to hear people who hate him for trying to boot a bunch of people off their insurance would give him the benefit of the doubt on Russia when he has already proved to be a boldfaced liar on healthcare.

[RandomGuy]

Shocker.

Someone whose political party would have the most to lose from looking like treasonous jackasses thinks that the issue that makes them look like treasonous jackasses should be ignored. :wow

[baseline bum]

Trump, meanwhile, is trying to regain his message on border security, tax cuts, Obamacare repeal and telling off Europeans to their faces. You know, the kind of politically incorrect, occasionally rude things that actually ended up helping him win the election. A few weeks ago, a sociologist at Columbia University flatly predicted that Trump will be reelected in 2020. In an even crueler blow to the Democrats, an ABC poll released in April found that Trump would beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote if there were a hypothetical rematch. :lol (A rematch that at least one humble genius long ago predicted.)

Remember when Trump's message was everyone was going to have great and cheap healthcare, and how he wasn't going to cut Medicaid at all? (which is how he sold himself as not the typical Republican)

I can't imagine that Trump's message resonates with anyone but Trumpers now that he's not running against Clinton any more.

[TSA]

Remember when Trump's message was everyone was going to have great and cheap healthcare, and how he wasn't going to cut Medicaid at all? (which is how he sold himself as not the typical Republican)

I can't imagine that Trump's message resonates with anyone but Trumpers now that he's not running against Clinton any more.

What is the Dem's message now besides RUSSIA?

[rjv]

It looks like the #1 problem people are most concerned with is hating government and leadership, followed closely by healthcare. These are both things Trump is extremely unpopular on. I don't think you can divorce Russia from the first, considering this is the major scandal in Trump's presidency so far. And in the second case I'd be pretty surprised to hear people who hate him for trying to boot a bunch of people for insurance would give him the benefit of the doubt on Russia when he has already proved to be a boldfaced liar on healthcare. let's assume, just for the sake of your argument, that one cannot divorce the issue of government and leadership from Russia (because this is just an assumption, after all) and that the media with the support of many democrats choose to make this a matter of great importance, so much so that it takes up most of the mainstream coverage. what are the repercussions for the democrats if this leads to nothing? obviously, the flip side is certain but what would the public think if it leads to nothing? will they just consider it a case of the democrats doing their due diligence or will the effort be looked upon unfavorably (particularly by those demographics that could sway the election)?

[RandomGuy]

What is the Dem's message now besides RUSSIA?

Republicans are going to take away your health insurance.

[RandomGuy]

What is the Dem's message now besides RUSSIA?

Republicans hate the poor.

[RandomGuy]

What is the Dem's message now besides RUSSIA?

Democrats want a living wage, so people can support themselves through work.

[rmt]

The way I see it is that the media blows everything out of proportion so I'm tone deaf to anything they have to say. With so many people who utterly despise Trump, if there was any evidence on his collusion with Russia, don't you think it would have been leaked by now?

[boutons_deux]

Republicans are going to take away your health insurance.

... and Medicaid, and Medicare, and $10B from Federal school projects, poisoning of surface waters, etc.

So much low-hanging fruit for the Dems to FUCK the Repugs with, but Repugs can always count on 40% no matter how badly they fuck that 40%.

[Adam Lambert]

there was nothing to the clinton sex scandal in 2000 either but people were sick enough about it that they voted in bush despite clintons incredible economy.

[baseline bum]

let's assume, just for the sake of your argument, that one cannot divorce the issue of government and leadership from Russia (because this is just an assumption, after all) and that the media with the support of many democrats choose to make this a matter of great importance, so much so that it takes up most of the mainstream coverage.

I don't understand this sinister motive you're ascribing to the media. Are they not supposed to report when they get things leaked to them by people in Trump's administration? Trump likes to claim fake news and pretend the media is so biased against him, but are they supposed to sit on news told by sources they consider reliable? Why would this not be an enormous story?


lwhat are the repercussions for the democrats if this leads to nothing? obviously, the flip side is certain but what would the public think if it leads to nothing? will they just consider it a case of the democrats doing their due diligence or will the effort be looked upon unfavorably (particularly by those demographics that could sway the election)?

A few months ago because of that flip side I thought the DNC should stop focusing on Russia. I didn't really believe anything was there between Trump and Putin other than two groups working separately but towards a common goal in the election, and there is no crime on Trump's side in that case. But I thought that because Trump didn't seem to be tampering in the investigation early on. Ever since he fired Comey it has looked like a cover-up. And some Republicans in his staff seem to know it, and keep leaking to the press. It's hard to look at his people turning on him while trying to keep Pence out of the fray and not think there is something there. I don't think the GOP would have the balls to try to engage in this slow coup that seems like it's happening right now if Trump was squeaky clean on Russia.

[baseline bum]

The way I see it is that the media blows everything out of proportion so I'm tone deaf to anything they have to say.

:cry It's the media's fault for reporting shit Trump's own party leaks to them :cry

[rjv]

I don't understand this sinister motive you're ascribing to the media. Are they not supposed to report when they get things leaked to them by people in Trump's administration? Trump likes to claim fake news and pretend the media is so biased against him, but are they supposed to sit on news told by sources they consider reliable? Why would this not be an enormous story?



A few months ago because of that flip side I thought the DNC should stop focusing on Russia. I didn't really believe anything was there between Trump and Putin other than two groups working separately but towards a common goal in the election, and there is no crime on Trump's side in that case. But I thought that because Trump didn't seem to be tampering in the investigation early on. Ever since he fired Comey it has looked like a cover-up. And some Republicans in his staff seem to know it, and keep leaking to the press. It's hard to look at his people turning on him while trying to keep Pence out of the fray and not think there is something there. I don't think the GOP would have the balls to try to engage in this slow coup that seems like it's happening right now if Trump was squeaky clean on Russia. i don't think i intentionally subscribed any sinister motive to the media. i personally think the media does fall into what chomsky referred to as the "propaganda model" but that's a different discussion altogether. as to your second response, i see what you are saying but there are of course, other possibilities one of which that this is just the GOP going through the motions. i do agree that trump has often made remarks that seem to implicate himself in some sort of wrongdoing, but i think it is just as likely to be more of a concern with suspect business ventures or tax issues that could be dug up as a result of any russian investigation.

[clambake]

what exactly would be the "big mistake"?

[TSA]

I don't understand this sinister motive you're ascribing to the media. Are they not supposed to report when they get things leaked to them by people in Trump's administration? Trump likes to claim fake news and pretend the media is so biased against him, but are they supposed to sit on news told by sources they consider reliable? Why would this not be an enormous story?



A few months ago because of that flip side I thought the DNC should stop focusing on Russia. I didn't really believe anything was there between Trump and Putin other than two groups working separately but towards a common goal in the election, and there is no crime on Trump's side in that case. But I thought that because Trump didn't seem to be tampering in the investigation early on. Ever since he fired Comey it has looked like a cover-up. And some Republicans in his staff seem to know it, and keep leaking to the press. It's hard to look at his people turning on him while trying to keep Pence out of the fray and not think there is something there. I don't think the GOP would have the balls to try to engage in this slow coup that seems like it's happening right now if Trump was squeaky clean on Russia.

McCain and Graham started the slow coup before he even took office. Trump in on an island trying to fend of the Dems, Obama holdovers in the WH and IC, the neverTrump GOP's, and the media. That's a huge group of entrenched people that do not want to lose power. The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

[RandomGuy]

The way I see it is that the media blows everything out of proportion so I'm tone deaf to anything they have to say. With so many people who utterly despise Trump, if there was any evidence on his collusion with Russia, don't you think it would have been leaked by now?

Leaks = someone else's information

Who is going to leak something that potentially lands them in jail for treason or felonies for lying about contacts with foreign governments?

Conspiracies do tend to be leaky, but the first thing you see will be hints, which we seem to have plenty of.

[baseline bum]

McCain and Graham started the slow coup before he even took office. Trump in on an island trying to fend of the Dems, Obama holdovers in the WH and IC, the neverTrump GOP's, and the media. That's a huge group of entrenched people that do not want to lose power. The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

:cry Teh dems are leaking :cry
:cry All the Obama holdovers in the white house :cry
:cry Comey the loyal democrat picking on our Dear Leader :cry

[RandomGuy]

The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

You hope.

That is certainly what you are being told to believe. "Nothing to see here, move along."

[RandomGuy]

McCain and Graham started the slow coup before he even took office. Trump in on an island trying to fend of the Dems, Obama holdovers in the WH and IC, the neverTrump GOP's, and the media. That's a huge group of entrenched people that do not want to lose power. The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

Funny you should frame it that way.

What would it look like if there were a truly dangerous, ignorant president with autocratic, dictatorial tendencies?

Would members of that presidents party hold him first to account, or would it be the opposition party?

[boutons_deux]

Why is there so much lying, contacts, back channel, "forgetting", etc, etc, etc, and ...
BLATANT C O V E R U P !

... if Russiagate is bullshit? :lol

All compromised, treasonous Trash and his rotten entourage have to do is come clean, tell the truth of their innocence,

but they ...

BLATANT C O V E R U P !

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[ducks]

Former FBI Director James Comey will be forthcoming when he testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday morning, but he will stop short of saying President Donald Trump tried to interfere in the agency's investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to an ABC News exclusive

[Pavlov]

Former FBI Director James Comey will be forthcoming when he testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday morning, but he will stop short of saying President Donald Trump tried to interfere in the agency's investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to an ABC News exclusiveABC news fake, yes?

[ducks]

guess we find out when he testifies if they are not fake on that story

[Pavlov]

guess we find out when he testifies if they are not fake on that storyNot fake when you not want fake.

понимать.

[ducks]

I do not watch abc news

[Pavlov]

I do not watch abc newsBecause fake?

[ducks]

because I watch cnn , fox, msnbc and go online to see news

[baseline bum]

because I watch cnn , fox, msnbc and go online to see news

How do you have time to watch cable news? I thought you were always fucking at home.

[TSA]

You hope.

That is certainly what you are being told to believe. "Nothing to see here, move along."

:lol swallows up the MSM narrative
:lol tells others they are believing what they are told


I've given you multiple articles of detailed evidence, hard evidence, showing that the Russian "fingerprints" were left on purpose as a set up. The problem was it was done sloppily and was easily figured out by people that were actually skilled in the field and weren't hired by the DNC. The entire basis of your theory falls apart from the start after that.

[RandomGuy]

:lol swallows up the MSM narrative
:lol tells others they are believing what they are told


I've given you multiple articles of detailed evidence, hard evidence, showing that the Russian "fingerprints" were left on purpose as a set up. The problem was it was done sloppily and was easily figured out by people that were actually skilled in the field and weren't hired by the DNC. The entire basis of your theory falls apart from the start after that.

Twoofers gave me "multiple articles of detailed evidence" showing 9-11 was an inside job. Yet no matter how hard they worked their angle, their material never quite said what they wanted it to.

Your articles don't get as far as you seem to think they do, sorry.

LOL "hard evidence".

[TSA]

Twoofers gave me "multiple articles of detailed evidence" showing 9-11 was an inside job. Yet no matter how hard they worked their angle, their material never quite said what they wanted it to.

Your articles don't get as far as you seem to think they do, sorry.

LOL "hard evidence".And I'm sure you easily debunked the 9-11 truthers am I right?

The material I provided you said exactly what you didn't want to hear. You weren't able to dismiss it though, you said yourself you didn't have knowledge to properly understand the claims and evidence provided detailing the Guccifer 2.0 hack.

[Splits]

How do you have time to watch cable news? I thought you were always fucking at home.

:lol

[ducks]

How do you have time to watch cable news? I thought you were always fucking at home.
who said I watched news at home?

[RandomGuy]

McCain and Graham started the slow coup before he even took office. Trump in on an island trying to fend of the Dems, Obama holdovers in the WH and IC, the neverTrump GOP's, and the media. That's a huge group of entrenched people that do not want to lose power. The entire Russia story is one huge tantrum that will soon come to an embarrassing end for those who pushed it.

Funny you should frame it that way.

What would it look like if there were a truly dangerous, ignorant president with autocratic, dictatorial tendencies?

Would members of that presidents party hold him first to account, or would it be the opposition party?

[RandomGuy]

And I'm sure you easily debunked the 9-11 truthers am I right?

The material I provided you said exactly what you didn't want to hear. You weren't able to dismiss it though, you said yourself you didn't have knowledge to properly understand the claims and evidence provided detailing the Guccifer 2.0 hack.

2.0's activitities wasn't the entirety of what went on to my knowledge. The FBI itself was the first to indicate there was Russian intrusion by more than one entity. The critique itself seemed to have more than a small axe to grind, so I was left with something beyond my ability to evaluate that was very obviously pushing a specific bias. This leads me, absent an independent neutral analysis, to be somewhat skeptical of what was presented.

You have shown evidence that SOME of what went on MAY have been a nefarious inside job. This isn't what you want to hear, so you build this up into "it was definitely an inside job" in your head.

The level of evidence required to show that it was all faked is way more than you have presented so far. You yourself admit that you don't know what information may be classified.

The biggest hole in your theory is that there has been no investigation or prosecution into anyone at the DNC for faking the intrusion that I am aware of. The FBI tends to look askance at being lied to.

[TSA]

2.0's activitities wasn't the entirety of what went on to my knowledge. The FBI itself was the first to indicate there was Russian intrusion by more than one entity. The critique itself seemed to have more than a small axe to grind, so I was left with something beyond my ability to evaluate that was very obviously pushing a specific bias. This leads me, absent an independent neutral analysis, to be somewhat skeptical of what was presented.

You have shown evidence that SOME of what went on MAY have been a nefarious inside job. This isn't what you want to hear, so you build this up into "it was definitely an inside job" in your head.

The level of evidence required to show that it was all faked is way more than you have presented so far. You yourself admit that you don't know what information may be classified.

The biggest hole in your theory is that there has been no investigation or prosecution into anyone at the DNC for faking the intrusion that I am aware of. The FBI tends to look askance at being lied to.

Are you forgetting the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server?

[RandomGuy]

Are you forgetting the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server?

Who initially informed the DNC that they were being hacked by the Russians?

[RandomGuy]

Are you forgetting the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server?

"didn't access" or "not allowed"?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because _it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html

DNC says they were never asked. FBI says they asked at multiple levels.

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email.

How have you determined that the DNC outright "refused to cooperate", as opposed to was too disorganized to get their shit together, or that people at the FBI thought they had asked but really didn't?

Have you seen the responses to the FBI requests?



[edit]

Think carefully. I have a lot of experience in asking entities to produce data, I will pull the professional expertise card in evaluating your answer.

[hater]

Democrats might kamikaze Trump. Sure they might eventually take him out but they will take themselves out of contention for the next several decades :lmao

All that just for one orange haired guy :lol

[TSA]

"didn't access" or "not allowed"?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because _it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html

DNC says they were never asked. FBI says they asked at multiple levels.


How have you determined that the DNC outright "refused to cooperate", as opposed to was too disorganized to get their shit together, or that people at the FBI thought they had asked but really didn't?

Have you seen the responses to the FBI requests?



[edit]

Think carefully. I have a lot of experience in asking entities to produce data, I will pull the professional expertise card in evaluating your answer.FBI denied, straight out of Comey's mouth.

"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

It really comes down to who you believe, the FBI or the DNC.

I'm going with the FBI as the DNC was shown to be completely corrupt.

[RandomGuy]

FBI denied, straight out of Comey's mouth.

"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

It really comes down to who you believe, the FBI or the DNC.

I'm going with the FBI as the DNC was shown to be completely corrupt.

So your assumption is that the FBI made really clear requests, and were told absolutely no by the DNC, and told their boss they didn't make a mistake, and that the DNC MUST be lying.

Have you seen these requests?

[RandomGuy]

FBI denied, straight out of Comey's mouth.

"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

It really comes down to who you believe, the FBI or the DNC.

I'm going with the FBI as the DNC was shown to be completely corrupt.

Here is a possibility:


The FBI asked for access a few times at one or two levels, and the requests were given to the wrong people, got misrouted, or lost in the middle of election turmoil.

Then, when the higher ups wanted an update, the underlings swore up and down they made really good efforts to get access to their superiors, who briefed the director.


Would this scenario be congruent with statements from the FBI that say they were denied access, and the DNC executive says he never was asked?

How have you eliminated this potential explanation that fits the available data?

[TSA]

you could come up with alternate scenarios for days on end.

Like I said earlier it really comes down to who you believe the FBI or the DNC.

We witnessed the shady corruption within the DNC during the primary, I'm taking what Comey said at face value.

[RandomGuy]

Here is a possibility:


The FBI asked for access a few times at one or two levels, and the requests were given to the wrong people, got misrouted, or lost in the middle of election turmoil.

Then, when the higher ups wanted an update, the underlings swore up and down they made really good efforts to get access to their superiors, who briefed the director.


Would this scenario be congruent with statements from the FBI that say they were denied access, and the DNC executive says he never was asked?

How have you eliminated this potential explanation that fits the available data?


you could come up with alternate scenarios for days on end.

Like I said earlier it really comes down to who you believe the FBI or the DNC.

We witnessed the shady corruption within the DNC during the primary, I'm taking what Comey said at face value.

The answer to my question that you so studiously avoided answering is, yes, the miscommunication scenario explains the available information.

So you didn't explore any other possibility other than the one you liked that fit with your starting theory.

In my professional opinion as an auditor with thousands of hours of experience in asking for, and receiving, such access, I will tell you that the "miscommunication" scenario is far more likely than your pet "DNC has something to hide so they flatly refused to cooperate with the FBI" theory, especially since you have not bothered trying to falsify your assertion.

[RandomGuy]

you could come up with alternate scenarios for days on end.

We can indeed.

My scenario allows for the possibility that both parties are telling the truth as they see it, and does not assume any over-arching devious motives, which your scenario does.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/william-of-ockham-razor-quote.png?w=640

[TSA]

We can indeed.

My scenario allows for the possibility that both parties are telling the truth as they see it, and does not assume any over-arching devious motives, which your scenario does.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/william-of-ockham-razor-quote.png?w=640

sure your scenario allows it. but it seems silly to me as the DNC had just been exposed as corrupt liars during the primaries. what makes you think they would be telling the truth?

[RandomGuy]

sure your scenario allows it. but it seems silly to me as the DNC had just been exposed as corrupt liars during the primaries. what makes you think they would be telling the truth?

Because I have not seen any evidence to say they are not about this subject, and more importantly NEITHER HAVE YOU.

That is how it works in critical thinking land. People are telling the truth, until shown otherwise.

That is how we know for certain Trump is a lying sack of shit.

[Chris]

Bad News for Trump... This could get him impeached...
TRUMP RUSSIA-NEW INFORMATION
1. Trump took $35 million from Russian company Rusnano... One of the founders of the company-Vladimir Putin!!
2. Trump took a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian company called Renaissance Capital.
3. Trump sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
4. Trump got $145 million donated to his charity from the same Russians/shareholders of the company that he sold the uranium to.
5. Trump took millions in donations to his charity from power players in Russia like the mayor of Moscow, business tycoons and other govt officials...
JUST KIDDING!!!! All this was done by BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol

[pgardn]

Bad News for Trump... This could get him impeached...
TRUMP RUSSIA-NEW INFORMATION
1. Trump took $35 million from Russian company Rusnano... One of the founders of the company-Vladimir Putin!!
2. Trump took a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian company called Renaissance Capital.
3. Trump sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
4. Trump got $145 million donated to his charity from the same Russians/shareholders of the company that he sold the uranium to.
5. Trump took millions in donations to his charity from power players in Russia like the mayor of Moscow, business tycoons and other govt officials...
JUST KIDDING!!!! All this was done by BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol

Great job Chris.
We already knew the Clinton's get money from many foreign sources.
So when Trump releases HIS tax returns... Wait a sec... Something to hide?

[Chris]

So when Trump releases HIS tax returns... Wait a sec... Something to hide?

Is this all you need to embrace the Donald?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2014/01/dr-evil-crying1.gif

[spurraider21]

sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
lets talk about this one for a bit.

1) who are the russians you speak of? is this the russian government?

2) can any of this american uranium be transported to russia?

3) can the government of russia use any of this uranium?

4) did clinton have the power to veto or approve the deal?

[Thread]

Bad News for Trump... This could get him impeached...
TRUMP RUSSIA-NEW INFORMATION
1. Trump took $35 million from Russian company Rusnano... One of the founders of the company-Vladimir Putin!!
2. Trump took a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian company called Renaissance Capital.
3. Trump sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
4. Trump got $145 million donated to his charity from the same Russians/shareholders of the company that he sold the uranium to.
5. Trump took millions in donations to his charity from power players in Russia like the mayor of Moscow, business tycoons and other govt officials...
JUST KIDDING!!!! All this was done by BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol

Chris

[Pavlov]

BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol*ding*

[boutons_deux]

Trash president, not Hillary nor Bill.

and no links provided. 4chan, or other paranoid rightwing conspiracies assholes, maybe?

[boutons_deux]

Comey says Pence was aware of Flynn problems as early as the transition, which means Pence lied (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/8/1669982/-Comey-says-Pence-was-aware-of-Flynn-problems-as-early-as-the-transition-which-means-Pence-lied)

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/8/1669982/-Comey-says-Pence-was-aware-of-Flynn-problems-as-early-as-the-transition-which-means-Pence-lied?detail=emaildksc

[clambake]

pence is a liar

[boutons_deux]

...

[pgardn]

Is this all you need to embrace the Donald?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2014/01/dr-evil-crying1.gif

Embrace him.
You are doing fine suckling off his breasts.
Im not needed here.

[pgardn]

Chris

I bet you look mighty good to Chris in that skimpy cheerleading outfit.

[RandomGuy]

COMEY: The first cyber — there was all kinds of cyber intrusions going on all the time. The first Russian-connected cyber intrusion I became aware of in the late summer of 2015.

BURR: And in that time frame, there were more than the DNC and the D triple C that were targets?

COMEY: Correct, a massive effort to target government and nongovernmental, near governmental agencies like nonprofits.

BURR: What would be the estimate of how many entities out there the Russians specifically targeted in that time frame?

COMEY: It's hundreds. I suppose it could be more than 1,000, but it's at least hundreds.

BURR: When did you become aware that data had been exfiltrated?

COMEY: I'm not sure exactly. I think either late '15 or early '16.

BURR: And did you, the director of the FBI, have conversations with the last administration about the risk that this posed?

COMEY: Yes.

BURR: And share with us, if you will, what actions they took.

COMEY: Well, the FBI had already undertaken an effort to notify all the victims, and that's what we consider the entities attacked as part of this massive spear-phishing campaign so we notified them in an effort to disrupt what might be ongoing, and then there was a series of continuing interactions with entities through the rest of '15 into '16, and then throughout '16, the administration was trying to decide how to respond to the intrusion activity that it saw.


The only mistake is thinking that Republicans care about the country more than they care about their political party.

[ducks]

pence is a liar

COMEY IS!

[clambake]

grrrrrr

[Chucho]

The only mistake is thinking that Democrats care about the country more than they care about their political party.

[RandomGuy]

"democrats bad"

uh, ok.

What is funny is that if there were a Democrat accused of doing what Trump is, you would be screaming bloody murder to get an investigation.

Do you think that the potential interference should be fully investigated, even if it implicates people close to President Trump?

[Chucho]

*republicans bad. ignore the crimes of our side, pretend moral superiority. repeat*

[Chucho]

uh, ok.

What is funny is that if there were a Democrat accused of doing what Trump is, you would be screaming bloody murder to get an investigation.

Do you think that the potential interference should be fully investigated, even if it implicates people close to President Trump?


The funny thing is, and you pretend it didn't happen, is that already happened. It happened with Comey Ep. 1: The "Matter". And 6 months later, we are finding Obama and Co. were doing basically the same thing you and yours have come to string Trump on, except that we also know Obama was wiretapping us all and spying on us all, but...full circle. You're going to stand by yours, selectively pick what to ignore and then point your grubby mitts to the other side of the fence and shit on them for the same offense.

You're doing what you say the Right is doing, except they are wrong for doing it because you're doing it. That's all you're saying, no matter how you frame it and responding to questions with questions or trying to disprove someone by asking questions isn't changing the basic gist of your activity on these threads. You're just semen-shielding and deflecting.

[Pavlov]

Obama and Co..*ding*

[RandomGuy]

...

uh, ok.

What is funny is that if there were a Democrat accused of doing what Trump is, you would be screaming bloody murder to get an investigation.

Do you think that the potential interference should be fully investigated, even if it implicates people close to President Trump?

[RandomGuy]

The funny thing is, and you pretend it didn't happen, is that already happened. It happened with Comey Ep. 1: The "Matter". And 6 months later, we are finding Obama and Co. were doing basically the same thing you and yours have come to string Trump on, except that we also know Obama was wiretapping us all and spying on us all, but...full circle. You're going to stand by yours, selectively pick what to ignore and then point your grubby mitts to the other side of the fence and shit on them for the same offense.

You're doing what you say the Right is doing, except they are wrong for doing it because you're doing it. That's all you're saying, no matter how you frame it and responding to questions with questions or trying to disprove someone by asking questions isn't changing the basic gist of your activity on these threads. You're just semen-shielding and deflecting.

I think any criminal wrongdoing by the Obama administration should be investigated. If someone did something illegal, that should be investigated.

See how easy that was?

The fact that you can't, or won't, bring yourself to say the obvious, decent thing, i.e. "investigate the people who lied about meeting the Russians to see if any laws were broken", pretty much makes my case for me, that I am in fact morally and ethically superior to you.

I will happily await your saying that to be contradicted. Prove me wrong.

[boutons_deux]

The Real Scandal Is Still Russia

Donald Trump is trying to give the Russians everything they want. That’s scarier than his possible obstruction of justice

No one of these triumphs resulted directly from Putin pushing a button and having Trump act.

They reflect a more subtle success, borne of Russian influence upstream in the Washington ecosystem.

Russian intelligence agencies successfully interfered with and influenced the U.S. election, according to a consensus position (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) of the U.S. intelligence community.

By subtly influencing the election outcome,

cultivating relationships with top Trump officials, and

creating distrust of core U.S. national security institutions like the CIA—including among the president himself—

Russia set in motion a complex chain reaction that is now paying off for the Russian regime.

Whether they actively colluded with the Trump campaign or not, the Russians got what they wanted:

a president who was more friendly to their interests, and more pliable in their hands too.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/06/donald_trump_is_trying_to_give_the_russians_everyt hing_they_want.html

Trash wanted Comey/FBI to drop the Flynn case BECAUSE Trash and his entourage has been compromised by Pootin.

As the above article says, chasing obstruction of justice charges is superb sideshow distracting from WHY Trash obstructed justice.

Pootin "turned" the whore Trash by buying his cheap, venal, bankrupt ass.

[RandomGuy]

The Real Scandal Is Still Russia

Donald Trump is trying to give the Russians everything they want. That’s scarier than his possible obstruction of justice

No one of these triumphs resulted directly from Putin pushing a button and having Trump act.

They reflect a more subtle success, borne of Russian influence upstream in the Washington ecosystem.

Russian intelligence agencies successfully interfered with and influenced the U.S. election, according to a consensus position (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) of the U.S. intelligence community.

By subtly influencing the election outcome,

cultivating relationships with top Trump officials, and

creating distrust of core U.S. national security institutions like the CIA—including among the president himself—

Russia set in motion a complex chain reaction that is now paying off for the Russian regime.

Whether they actively colluded with the Trump campaign or not, the Russians got what they wanted:

a president who was more friendly to their interests, and more pliable in their hands too.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/06/donald_trump_is_trying_to_give_the_russians_everyt hing_they_want.html

Trash wanted Comey/FBI to drop the Flynn case BECAUSE Trash and his entourage has been compromised by Pootin.

As the above article says, chasing obstruction of justice charges is superb sideshow distracting from WHY Trash obstructed justice.

Pootin "turned" the whore Trash by buying his cheap, venal, bankrupt ass.





That slate article sums it up nicely. They got what they wanted.

[Chris]

:cry I'm serious you goys it's really Russia! :cry

:lmao

[TSA]

Do you think that the potential interference should be fully investigated, even if it implicates people close to President Trump?

Yes it should be fully investigated and it is being fully investigated.

When nothing comes of it what will you want investigated next? What is the 3.5 year investigation plan?

[TSA]

I think any criminal wrongdoing by the Obama administration should be investigated. If someone did something illegal, that should be investigated.

See how easy that was?

The fact that you can't, or won't, bring yourself to say the obvious, decent thing, i.e. "investigate the people who lied about meeting the Russians to see if any laws were broken", pretty much makes my case for me, that I am in fact morally and ethically superior to you.

I will happily await your saying that to be contradicted. Prove me wrong.

I just said it should be investigated so we are both sitting equal morally and ethically.

Now, do you think Hillary Clinton should have been charged for the laundry list of Federal offenses Comey listed off concerning her handling of classified material at the highest levels?

[RandomGuy]

Yes it should be fully investigated and it is being fully investigated.

When nothing comes of it what will you want investigated next? What is the 3.5 year investigation plan?

Then you have to move on to conflicts of interest and potential money laundering. You know, that stuff you have been avoiding like the plague?

[RandomGuy]

I just said it should be investigated so we are both sitting equal morally and ethically.

Now, do you think Hillary Clinton should have been charged for the laundry list of Federal offenses Comey listed off concerning her handling of classified material at the highest levels?

If the evidence warrants it, yes.

Remind me again if the investigators made a determination on that point.

[TSA]

If the evidence warrants it, yes.

Remind me again if the investigators made a determination on that point.

The evidence overwhelmingly warranted it. The investigators were clearly being pressured by the WH and DOJ. More will be coming out on this soon I have heard, we got a little crumb from Comey yesterday.

[Pavlov]

Hillary Clinton*ding*

[RandomGuy]

[Clintons should be prosecuted if] the evidence warrants it, yes.

Remind me again if the investigators made a determination on that point.


The evidence overwhelmingly warranted it. The investigators were clearly being pressured by the WH and DOJ. More will be coming out on this soon I have heard, we got a little crumb from Comey yesterday.


I'm taking what Comey said at face value.


In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

I think I will take the words of experienced investigators and lawyers over your evaluation of the evidence you never saw. Bullshit it did.

[tlongII]

Then you have to move on to conflicts of interest and potential money laundering. You know, that stuff you have been avoiding like the plague?

Keep throwing shit against the wall. Eventually something will stick.

[TSA]

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibdtipp-poll-americans-see-anti-trump-media-political-witch-hunt-pushing-russia-investigation/

majority of Americans doubt the 2016 presidential election outcome was influenced by Russia and nearly half agree that the current investigation is a "political 'witch hunt' aimed at getting the president impeached," according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll.

Moreover, despite growing talk among Trump's political foes of possible impeachment, 65% called such talk "premature" while 32% said it was "appropriate." However, just 4% of Republicans agreed that impeachment talk was appropriate, compared to 60% of Democrats.

The results of the national poll of 903 adults, taken from May 30 to June 6, strongly suggest that many Americans see the current investigation into alleged Trump campaign ties to Russian government officials as largely political and driven by sensational media coverage.

"A majority of the public feels that the news media are putting the cart before the horse regarding discussions of alleged collusion between President Trump and Russia," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica, who directed the IBD/TIPP Poll.

"The American people perceive that, in the court of the media, Trump is guilty until proven innocent," Mayur added. "Since the election, the media have persistently questioned the president's legitimacy on various fronts, from Michigan's close vote count and Russian interference to Trump's mental capacity, and, presently, alleged collusion with Russia," Mayur added. "So far, the public has not been swayed."

Other IBD/TIPP Poll news: Trump's approval drops as his spending, tax cut agenda gain wide support.

Despite the media's saturation coverage, some 52% of respondents said the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was "not influenced" by Russia, while just 39% said it was.

The responses split along predictable party lines, with 77% of Democrats saying Russians influenced the election, but just 6% of Republicans in agreement. Among independents, only 31% saw a Russian influence on the election outcome.

Americans overwhelmingly blame the media for the hoopla surrounding the Russian investigation, with 57% agreeing that "the media has prematurely declared President Trump and his allies guilty of collusion with Russia" despite a lack of evidence. Just 39% disagreed.

And once again, the partisan split was notable, with 83% of Republicans agreeing that the media had displayed bias, but just 32% of Democrats saying the same. Some 62% of independents saw media bias in the coverage of the Russia investigation.

Perhaps surprisingly, the age group that saw the greatest media effect was the youngest — the 18-to-24 year-old age group, with 72% agreeing that the media had essentially treated Trump and his campaign officials as guilty in covering the Russia issue without providing evidence. All of the other age groups were in the 53% to 59% range.

Meanwhile, some 47% agreed with the statement that "the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is a political 'witch hunt' aimed at getting the president impeached." But 48% disagreed.

Even so, 21% of Democrats agreed that the investigation was a witch hunt, along with 75% of Republicans and 51% of independents.

On Thursday, former FBI Director James Comey, whom President Obama hired in 2013 and President Trump fired in May, is scheduled to testify to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the events surrounding the FBI's investigation into Trump campaign officials' ties to Russia — especially those of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who served as Trump's national security advisor for a month before being fired for misleading Vice President Mike Pence about Flynn's past contacts with Russian officials.

In prepared testimony slated for delivery Thursday before Congress, Comey once again said that Trump had expressed his hope in an Oval Office meeting on Feb. 14 that Comey would end his investigation into Flynn because "he is a good guy and has been through a lot."

But Trump neither ordered Comey to end his Flynn investigation nor implied he would retaliate if he didn't. Still, Comey said, he found his contacts with Trump troubling.

Comey also made clear that Trump didn't appear to be trying to get him to stop the much broader FBI investigation into White House ties to Russia, as some in the media have suggested.

"I had understood the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December," Comey says in his prepared text. "I did not understand the president to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign."

[TSA]

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

I think I will take the words of experienced investigators and lawyers over your evaluation of the evidence you never saw. Bullshit it did.

Can you find the word "intent" in the laws concerning the handling of classified information?

[tlongII]

Can you find the word "intent" in the laws concerning the handling of classified information?

He cannot.

[rmt]

More importantly from that IBD/TIPP poll:

A majority of the public approves of the Republican plan to cut Medicaid spending while handing greater control of the health care program to states, the latest IBD/TIPP poll finds. It also found overwhelming support for President Trump's call to impose work requirements on able-bodied food-stamp recipients, and strong support for tax cuts.

Medicaid Reforms Wanted

The IBD/TIPP poll found that 55% support "reducing federal funding of Medicaid, a program that provides health care for low-income Americans, by giving states more flexibility to manage the program," while 42% oppose this reform. In addition to strong support from Republicans (70% of whom approve of this idea), more than half (54%) of independents back it, as do 44% of Democrats.

Work For Food Stamps

On food stamps, more than three quarters (76%) support "adding a work requirement for able-bodied food-stamp recipients." That includes a large majority of Democrats (66% of whom back a work requirement) and independents (77% approve). In fact, the idea gets majority support from every demographic breakdown included in the poll results. For example, 71% of those making less than $30,000 a year support food-stamp work requirements.

Tax Cuts Over Spending Hikes

The poll also asked those surveyed whether they'd prefer more government services and higher taxes or fewer services and lower taxes.

It found that 57% would prefer tax cuts more than government services. Out of all the demographic, partisan and ideological categories, only Democrats and liberals said they prefer more government services and higher taxes (65% and 64%, respectively).

Nearly two-thirds of independents (63%) and more than half of moderates (52%), would rather have tax cuts than bigger government.


http://www.investors.com/politics/public-backs-gop-plans-to-cut-medicaid-food-stamps-and-taxes-ibd-tipp-poll/

[RandomGuy]

Keep throwing shit against the wall. Eventually something will stick.

That is how you deal with mob bosses.

Its wasn't murder that took Capone down, it was taxes.

So much corruption, so little time.

[RandomGuy]

Can you find the word "intent" in the laws concerning the handling of classified information?

Comey lawyer, not TSA. :)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Comey lawyer, not TSA. :)


In order to constitute the crimes denounced by §§ 1(b) and 2 of the Espionage Act -- the obtaining of documents connected with or relating to the national defense and their delivery to an agent of a foreign country with an intent, or reason to believe, in each case, that they are to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3890371975220889957&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Judicial review by the SCOTUS is not that hard to follow.

[RandomGuy]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3890371975220889957&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Judicial review by the SCOTUS is not that hard to follow.


Thanks.

I wasn't going to work too hard to find it, but that would do. I seem to remember reading up on that at some point.

As noted, it seems intent was central to the decision, made by the professional lawyers that there was not really a case.

The only case to be made was that of ignorance/stupidity, which was made by Comey.

The whole thing reminds me of a trope from Ted Tomorrow "Conservative Jones".

[TSA]

Comey lawyer, not TSA. :)

Comey rewrote the statute in order to let Clinton off. I'm sure this was from being pressured by Lynch.


18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

[RandomGuy]

Comey rewrote the statute in order to let Clinton off. I'm sure this was from being pressured by Lynch.


18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Good start.

Now find the definition of "gross negligence". Your citation seems to hinge on it, c'est va?

[RandomGuy]

Can you find the word "intent" in the laws concerning the handling of classified information?

Your claim, your burden of proof, not mine.

You need definitions, citations, and legal precedent showing generally how the law is applied.

Go forth.

Bullshit has been called.

[RandomGuy]

[Random guy] cannot [find the word "intent" in the statutes governing the handling of classified information].


(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793.htm

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[TSA]

Good start.

Now find the definition of "gross negligence". Your citation seems to hinge on it, c'est va?


gross negligence
noun

an extremely careless action or an omission that is willful or reckless disregard for the consequences to the safety or property of another; also called very great negligence, culpa lata

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gross-negligence?s=t


Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information (Comey rewriting the law), there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains were classified at the ‘Top Secret Special Access Program’ at the time they were sent and received...There is evidence to support the conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the positions of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

[TSA]

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793.htm

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Yet you didn't find it in the applicable section I am referencing.

[RandomGuy]

gross negligence
noun

an extremely careless action or an omission that is willful or reckless disregard for the consequences to the safety or property of another; also called very great negligence, culpa lata

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gross-negligence?s=t


Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information (Comey rewriting the law), there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains were classified at the ‘Top Secret Special Access Program’ at the time they were sent and received...There is evidence to support the conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the positions of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”


That Virginia Vineyard

Among the dozens of properties President Trump owns is Trump Vineyard Estates and Winery in Charlottesville, Virginia, the source of his namesake wine. On December 23, the property requested temporary H-2A visas for six foreign workers, according to The Washington Post; on February 17, BuzzFeed reported an additional request that upped the total to 29. The visas, which are administered by the Citizenship and Immigration Services wing of the Department of Homeland Security, allow businesses to temporarily hire foreign, unskilled workers provided that the employer proves that there are not enough domestic candidates to fulfill a one-time or seasonal shortage and that the hiring will not depress wages for U.S.-born employees. Trump, of course, appointed the current Secretary of Homeland Security, which gives Trump authority over the very department responsible for deciding whether to grant the visas that the vineyard has requested. His choice for the position, the retired general John Kelly has a relatively scant track record when it comes to immigration, leaving open the question of how much influence Trump himself will have over the DHS’s policy on the matter.

On top of the fact that Trump will soon be able to influence the outcome of the request, that his organization has continued to request visas after his election underscores a tension in the president’s stance on immigration. From the moment that he announced that he would be running for president, Trump made antagonism toward immigration the central aspect of his campaign, arguing that both legal and illegal immigrants are taking jobs that should be filled by native-born Americans and depressing wages for others. Though he did not specifically single out the H-2B visa, the president has on multiple occasions spoken critically about the H-1B program, which enables employers to temporarily hire foreign workers for skilled jobs like those in the tech industry.

But the Trump Organization has long been a beneficiary of immigrant labor. For example, according to a Reuters report from August 2015, nine companies of which Trump is the majority owner have requested at least 1,100 foreign visas since 2000. The majority of these requests were from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida, which has requested at least 787 foreign visas since 2006, including 70 applications in 2015. (Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that, since 2010, only 17 of the nearly 300 domestic applicants for positions at the Mar-a-Lago have been hired.) The Trump Organization also famously may have benefited from illegal immigration: There is significant evidence that many of the Polish construction workers at the Trump Tower construction site in New York in 1980 were in the country illegally. In other words, Trump’s track record includes not just taking advantage of the very visa process he claims to abhor but also actually subverting existing law for his own profit. Now, by applying for visas for his vineyard, Trump is signaling that he expects that his business will continue to be able to profit from one of the very immigration programs he continually denounces.


"willful".
will·ful
/ˈwilfəl/
adjective
US
adjective: wilful; adjective: willful

(of an immoral or illegal act or omission) intentional; deliberate.

[RandomGuy]

Yet you didn't find it in the applicable section I am referencing.


That Las Vegas Labor Dispute

On top of owning various properties and enterprises, Trump and his company employ roughly 34,000 people, according to an analysis by CNN. On December 21, several hundred of those workers resolved a labor dispute against the president—one in which, had it continued for even a few weeks more, Trump would have had the unprecedented power to make appointments to affect its outcome.

Here’s the situation: In October 2015, several hundred employees, primarily housekeeping staff, at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas voted to join the local branch of the Culinary Workers Union. Trump Ruffin Commercial LLC, which owns the hotel and is itself owned by Trump and the casino magnate Phil Ruffin, contested the vote, first by enlisting an anti-union consulting firm (for whose services it paid $500,000) and then by filing complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Shortly before the election, the NLRB not only rejected Trump and Ruffin’s complaints but also found that, because the pair had refused to negotiate with the nascent union, they had violated federal law and their hotel was operating illegally. Trump and Ruffin have since appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

On December 21, more than a year after the hotel’s workers first voted to join the union, the workers announced that they arrived at their first collectively-bargained contract, achieved, according to an employee quoted in ThinkProgress, despite significant pressure from ownership that attempting to unionize would cost workers their jobs. According to the union, the new agreement “will provide the employees with annual wage increases, a pension, family health care, and job security” comparable to that of other Las Vegas hotels. Moreover, the Culinary Workers Union’s parent organization, UNITE HERE, has reached an agreement to represent workers at Trump’s recently-opened hotel in Washington, D.C..

Although this dispute has been resolved, it is included here because it exemplifies the type of situation in which Trump’s business interests are likely to overlap with his duties as president. Trump will be tasked with appointing members to fill current openings on the NLRB, the very body that ruled against him shortly before the election and will be tasked with resolving any future disputes between the hotel’s owners and its employees. Moreover, as Slate noted, the chief justice of the D.C. Court of Appeals is none other than Merrick Garland, whose nomination to the Supreme Court has spent months languishing in the Republican-controlled Congress and was withdrawn once Trump became president. Finally, if disputes of this nature go beyond the Court of Appeals, the case would go to the Supreme Court, to which Trump will be appointing a justice, which is expected to tip the balance decisively in a more conservative (and likely anti-union) direction. In other words, no matter how far up the chain future disputes of this nature go, Trump’s presidency will give him new power to influence the results.

http://officiallyscrewed.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Moving-The-Goalposts.jpg

[TSA]

"willful".
will·ful
/ˈwilfəl/
adjective
US
adjective: wilful; adjective: willful

(of an immoral or illegal act or omission) intentional; deliberate.

Clinton had classified headers willfully removed in order to send documents. Clinton willfully set up illegal unprotected servers and the willfully wiped the data from the same servers.

If you can not admit she willfully intended to do any of this you are being dishonest here and there is no point in discussing further. Comey was pressured by Lynch and Comey let your girl off the hook.

[RandomGuy]

Clinton had classified headers willfully removed in order to send documents. Clinton willfully set up illegal unprotected servers and the willfully wiped the data from the same servers.

If you can not admit she willfully intended to do any of this you are being dishonest here and there is no point in discussing further. Comey was pressured by Lynch and Comey let your girl off the hook.


Those Certificates of Divestiture

In addition to the many possibilities for President Trump to pursue his financial interests in office, the unique makeup of his cabinet also creates a new set of financial motivations. While Trump’s own fortune automatically makes his administration the wealthiest in history, he has also surrounded himself with an unprecedented collection of billionaires and multi-millionaires whose investments are likely to also come under scrutiny.

Unlike the president himself, those who are up for Trump’s cabinet, such as his proposed Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, will be legally obligated to divest from any holdings which may pose a conflict of interest. However, as The Washington Post noted, even selling off their holdings offers an opportunity for Trump’s cabinet members to enhance their fortunes. A federal program known as a “certificate of divestiture” allows executive-branch appointees and employees to avoid capital-gains taxes when selling their assets. The program has existed since 1989, and most recently received attention when President George W. Bush appointed Hank Paulson, then the chief executive of Goldman Sachs as his Treasury Secretary in 2006. Paulson was forced to sell off $700 million in shares of the bank; the certificate of divestiture enabled him to avoid a potential $200 million in capital-gains tax liability. According to The Washington Post, the Office of Government Ethics is currently researching whether the president himself would qualify for the tax break; even if he doesn’t, the unprecedented wealth of Trump’s cabinet promises to push this provision, and the financial incentives it creates, to the limit.


(shrugs)

Again, I am not taking your word for anything "she" did. I didn't look at all the evidence in its totality, and neither did you. You have a VERY specific point of view, so it makes it very hard to take your interpretation of things at face value.

In the end, I will simply have to trust that competent people did their jobs as honestly as they could.

If you think Lynch obstructed justice, and Comey demurred, then make that case too.

*

[Pavlov]

So Trump to be putting big ankle lady in jail now!

Or Lynch pressure him?

[spurraider21]

"willful".
will·ful
/ˈwilfəl/
adjective
US
adjective: wilful; adjective: willful

(of an immoral or illegal act or omission) intentional; deliberate.
According to the text of the statute you can be found guilty in 2 ways.

1) handling the info with gross negligence (ie known or should have known that it was being mishandled)
2) intentionally omitting to report such conduct

The intentional element only applies to the latter. Should be noted that gross negligence is a higher burden than typical civil negligence

The real question is if this is the statute they tried to apply to Clinton.

[TSA]

(shrugs)

Again, I am not taking your word for anything "she" did. I didn't look at all the evidence in its totality, and neither did you. You have a VERY specific point of view, so it makes it very hard to take your interpretation of things at face value.

You don't need to my word for any of it as it is all public record. There are emails instructing to remove classified headers---fact. Clinton set up unsecured servers in her basement---fact. Clinton had her IT team wipe the data---fact.


In the end, I will simply have to trust that competent people did their jobs as honestly as they could. :rollin


If you think Lynch obstructed justice, and Comey demurred, then make that case too.

*I don't think she would be charged for obstruction of justice, but I think she made it known to Comey that nothing would come of the Clinton email matter.

[spurraider21]

Also I'm confused, is randomguy really now arguing that gross negligence means intentional?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/


We now know from the FBI investigation that:
◾More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. (Most emails were retroactively deemed to contain classified information by the U.S. agencies from which the information originated.)
◾Some of the emails containing classified information “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” contrary to Clinton’s claims that none was marked classified. Comey did not provide a specific number.
◾“[S]everal thousand work-related emails” were not turned over to the State Department in 2014, but were recovered by the FBI. Comey said “three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received.”

So here is the problem.

How do you prove intent?


“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” Comey said. “But even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Update, July 7: Comey told Congress that three emails sent and received by Clinton had “portion markings” — a letter “C” in the body of the emails — indicating the presence of classified information. The State Department said it believes that at least two of the emails were marked in error. We have written a separate story that provides more details.

FWIW.

Interested me enough to dig a bit.

Enough there to show she herself probably got away with it, IMO. Case would have been politically charged and almost impossible to litigate. Can't blame them for shying away from it.


That Caribbean Villa

President Donald Trump has another property on the market: Le Château des Palmiers, his estate on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten. The president’s company bought the 11-bedroom beachfront compound in 2013, and the Trump Organization has been using it as a rental property ever since. It’s listed at $6,000 per night on TripAdvisor; according to specialty sites such as Luxury Retreats, which lists the price as between $6,000 and $20,000, and Mansion Global, which places the upper limit at $28,000, the price increases substantially during the winter, when the Caribbean offers an escape from cold weather. According to the disclosure forms Trump submitted to the Federal Election Commission (which remain the only public documentation of his finances), he derived between $100,001 and $1 million from the property in the year leading up to May 2016.

The asking price for Le Château des Palmiers remains unknown. The Trump Organization is selling the property through the real-estate agency and auction house Sotheby’s; according to the listing for the complex, the price is available only upon request. However, there are some clues available. On his FEC disclosure forms, Trump lists the property as worth between $5 million and $25 million, which does correspond with the $19.7 million he paid for it four years ago. According to Mansion Global, 7th Heaven, a real-estate brokerage in St. Maarten, has identified the asking price as $28 million, although 7th Heaven’s current page for the property lists the price as “PoA,” or Price on Application.

[RandomGuy]

Now that we have that out of the way:

Does that mean we can allow a sitting president to obstruct justice and generally ignore the constitution?


Those Reelection-Campaign Funds

For President Donald Trump, it pays to be in constant campaign mode.

Metaphorically, at least, this isn’t unusual; the idea of the “permanent campaign,” a reference to how politicians consider their reelection chances from almost the moment they take office, has been around for decades. Such is the case for Trump, who filed a letter with the Federal Election Commission establishing his eligibility to run for a second term in 2020 just hours after taking the oath of office. Though the letter declares only that he can run, not necessarily that he will run, it gives broad coverage for the president to begin fundraising and holding campaign events, and to do so far earlier in his first term than have previous presidents.


Since doing so, Trump has held several events that, while officially presented as part of his “thank-you tour,” have seemed an awful lot like his campaign rallies. Meanwhile, between merchandise sales and an already-active fundraising effort, he has raised more than $7.1 million, and the Republican National Committee has raised an additional $23 million. That’s not necessarily noteworthy by itself; by this time, President Obama and the Democratic National Committee had raised $15 million. (Obama had not yet filed for eligibility in 2012 three months into his first term, although he had held events to promote his economic-stimulus package.) What does make Trump unusual is that he has already spent $6.3 million of his reelection campaign funds—and, according to reports he recently filed with the FEC, he is paying some of that money to his own personal businesses—for instance, renting space at his hotels or golfing on his courses—thereby literally profiting off of his permanent campaign.

This practice is nothing new for Trump. As early as 2000, he was speculating that he “could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it” by patronizing his own businesses and running the campaign out of one of his properties. During his 2016 bid, he did exactly that, establishing his political headquarters in Trump Tower (and quintupling the rent as soon as he became the Republican nominee and began drawing funds from the party rather than his personal war chest). Shortly before his victory, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s campaign had paid out the unprecedented sum of more than $14 million to his family and companies for such services as flights on his personal airplanes, rent at Trump Tower, and meals and hotel rooms at other Trump buildings.

[RandomGuy]

Do we normalize people running for president of the country to ask for help in the election from hostile foreign powers trying to destroy liberal democracy?

gNa2B5zHfbQ


That Second Hotel in Washington, D.C.

There may soon be more than one Trump Hotel in Washington D.C. According to The Washington Post, the Trump Organization is considering purchasing another property in the nation’s capital to develop for its recently created Scion brand, which aims to offer a more affordable alternative to the upscale properties bearing the president’s name.

Unlike the Trump International Hotel—the upscale property that opened in September 2016 and has become something of a synecdoche for the president’s conflicts of interest—a new Scion hotel in D.C. would likely be a licensing deal. That means that, rather than the Trump Organization owning and operating the property itself, a third-party hotelier will be paying the president’s company for the right to use the Scion name; candidates identified by the Post include Foxhall Partners, which has two properties in the city and a third under development, and the Beacon Hotel in downtown D.C.

But even if it isn’t actually owned or operated by the Trump Organization, the new hotel would likely attract scrutiny along the same lines as the Trump International. A licensing agreement means that the president will not be profiting off of the building directly; payments from individuals or organizations booking rooms or events there will not go straight to the Trump Organization, but to the hotelier. But Trump will still have a financial stake in the hotel’s viability: The longer it stays in business and the more successful it is, the more (and longer) the licensee will pay to use the Scion name, and the more likely other owners may be to commit to similar partnerships with the fledgling brand. Trump has resigned from his positions with the Trump Organization and transferred control of his assets to his two adult sons and a long-time business partner. But he still owns the company, which means he will still profit from his properties. According to his son Eric, the president will even continue to receive quarterly reports on how his real-estate empire is faring financially. The pathway to Trump’s pocketbook may be slightly more complicated, but it still exists.

Tone at the top.

Hillary mishandling classified emails sets a bad tone. She should have been held to account for it. See how easy that is?

Now, what do we do or should we think about the Republican? Is he innocent of any corruption because of the magic "R"?

[RandomGuy]

But it is Trump’s financing from Russian satellite business interests that would seem to explain his pro-Putin sympathies.

Read more: This Is How the Trump Campaign May Have Interfered With Russia Policy

The most obvious example is Trump Soho, a complicated web of financial intrigue that has played out in court. A lawsuit claimed that the business group, Bayrock, underpinning Trump Soho was supported by criminal Russian financial interests. While its initial claim absolved Trump of knowledge of those activities, Trump himself later took on the group’s principal partner as a senior advisor in the Trump organization.

“Tax evasion and money-laundering are the core of Bayrock’s business model,” the lawsuit said of the financiers behind Trump Soho. The financing came from Russian-affiliated business interests that engaged in criminal activities, it said. “(But) there is no evidence Trump took any part in, or knew of, their racketeering.”

Journalists who’ve looked at the Bayrock lawsuit, and Trump Soho, wonder why Trump was involved at all. “What was Trump thinking entering into business with partners like these?” Franklin Foer wrote in Slate. “It’s a question he has tried to banish by downplaying his ties to Bayrock.”

But Bayrock wasn’t just involved with Trump Soho. It financed multiple Trump projects around the world, Foer wrote. “(Trump) didn’t just partner with Bayrock; the company embedded with him. Bayrock put together deals for mammoth Trump-named, Trump-managed projects—two in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a resort in Phoenix, the Trump SoHo in New York.”

But, as The New York Times has reported, that was only the beginning of the Trump organization’s entanglement with Russian financiers. Trump was quite taken with Bayrock’s founder, Tevfik Arif, a former Soviet-era commerce official originally from Kazakhstan.

“Bayrock, which was developing commercial properties in Brooklyn, proposed that Mr. Trump license his name to hotel projects in Florida, Arizona and New York, including Trump SoHo,” the Times reported. “The other development partner for Trump SoHo was the Sapir Organization, whose founder, Tamir Sapir, was from the former Soviet republic of Georgia

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

http://i.imgur.com/O0UjOJZ.jpg

[RandomGuy]

The Times also reported that federal court records recently released showed yet another link to Russian financial interests in Trump businesses. A Bayrock official “brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians ‘in favor with’ President Vladimir V. Putin,’” the Times reported. “The Icelandic company, FL Group, was identified in a Bayrock investor presentation as a ‘strategic partner,’ along with Alexander Mashkevich, a billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt.”

Trump Soho was so complicated that Bayrock’s finance chief, Jody Kriss, sued it for fraud. In the lawsuit, Kriss alleged that a primary source of funding for Trump’s big projects with Bayrock arrived “magically” from sources in Russia and Kazakhstan whenever the business interest needed funding.

http://i.imgur.com/O0UjOJZ.jpg

[RandomGuy]

There are other Russian business ties to the Trump organization as well. Trump’s first real estate venture in Toronto, Canada, was a partnership with two Russian-Canadian entrepreneurs, Toronto Life reported in 2013.

“The hotel’s developer, Talon International, is run by Val Levitan and Alex Shnaider, two Russian-Canadian entrepreneurs. Levitan made his fortune manufacturing slot machines and creating bank note validation technology, and Shnaider earned his in the post-glasnost steel trade,” it reported.

Finally, for all of his denials of Russian ties lately, Trump has boasted in the past of his many meetings with Russian oligarchs. During one trip to Moscow, Trump bragged that they all showed up to meet him to discuss projects around the globe. “Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room” just to meet with him, Trump said at the time.

http://i.imgur.com/O0UjOJZ.jpg

[RandomGuy]

And when Trump built a tower in Panama, his clients were wealthy Russians, the Washington Post reported. “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., said at a real estate conference in 2008, according to a trade publication, eTurboNews.

http://i.imgur.com/O0UjOJZ.jpg

[spurraider21]

I get that bringing up Clinton was a red herring to begin with... but you decided to engage in that convo, and when you didn't like how it was going, you only THEN bring up that it was a red herring and just go right back to trump.

[RandomGuy]

I get that bringing up Clinton was a red herring to begin with... but you decided to engage in that convo, and when you didn't like how it was going, you only THEN bring up that it was a red herring and just go right back to trump.

I looked into it, TSA has a fairly valid point. I admitted she was probably wrong. Do I need to do anything else?


That Property in Georgia (the Country)

Trump’s election has had the effect of speeding up development on a number of his branded properties, even when the president appears not to be pulling any strings himself. As occurred with Trump Tower Buenos Aires, the completion of an embattled Trump-branded building in the former Soviet republic of Georgia is no longer on hold now that Trump has won. The project, which has been in the works in the seaside resort city of Batumi since 2010, was initially scheduled to break ground in 2013, but has been in stasis for several reasons, possibly including the 2013 electoral defeat of President Mikheil Saakashvili, a friend of Trump’s and a supporter of the deal.

According to a report in The Washington Post, the green-lighting of the Trump property in Batumi has not been linked to a specific conversation with Georgian leaders, and a U.S.-based partner on the project has suggested that it has moved forward without any nudging from the government. However, numerous public statements in the days since suggest that Trump’s election was a major factor, including an interview with a real-estate entrepreneur who said, “Cutting the ribbon on a new Trump Tower in Georgia will be a symbol of victory for all of the free world.”

[TSA]

I looked into it, TSA has a fairly valid point. I admitted she was probably wrong. Do I need to do anything else?

You and I are all squared up. You admitted Clinton was wrong and I said earlier Trump should be investigated.

[RandomGuy]

You and I are all squared up. You admitted Clinton was wrong and I said earlier Trump should be investigated.

What about Trumps conflicts of interest, potential money-laundering, and other possible felonies, including the emouluments clause?

We aren't squared up by a long shot.


hat Property in Azerbaijan

When it comes to President Donald Trump’s constellation of foreign investments, properties, and companies, much of the attention so far has been on his business’s apparent violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which bars officeholders from taking gifts from foreign leaders. According to numerous ethics experts, the clause takes an expansive definition of gifts, encompassing everything from a direct bribe to a foreign official’s approval of construction of a new Trump property. But some of the Trump Organization’s properties raise additional red flags due to the specific partners involved. That’s true in Indonesia, for example, where Trump’s affiliates have been involved in bribery scandals and radical Islamic nationalist parties, and Brazil, where the company pulled out of a branding agreement amid a criminal investigation of a local business partner.

Such is the case in Azerbaijan, which Transparency International ranks as among the most corrupt countries in the world, where the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Baku remains unopened. Though the long-stalled development has generated a steady drip of news and rumors for years, an overview by Adam Davidson in The New Yorker, entitled “Donald Trump’s Worst Deal,” puts into perspective just how convoluted the situation is, and just how much the project has led Trump and his company into a partnership with numerous corrupt officials in the Middle East. The details suggest that, on top of the continual underlying breach of the Emoluments Clause, the Trump Organization’s involvement may also violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, which forbids American companies from participating, even unknowingly, in bribery schemes in other countries, with a penalty of up to $2 million and up to five years in jail.

[TSA]

What about Trumps conflicts of interest, potential money-laundering, and other possible felonies, including the emouluments clause?Investigate away.


We aren't squared up by a long shot.

You're right though we aren't squared up by a long shot :lol

I brought up conflicts of interest with Clinton and Azerbaijan that were ignored by you long before you brought up Trump and Azerbaijan.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/81186

A lobbyist connection between Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Azerbaijan could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, if the democratic nominee wins the US general election on November 8.

For the past seven years, the Podesta Group, a high-powered Washington lobbying firm, has handled networking and image-building for Azerbaijan’s embassy in the United States. Azerbaijan ranks alongside Tajikistan as the third worst rights abuser in the former Soviet Union, behind Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, according to the watchdog group Freedom House.

The Podesta Group’s chief executive officer is 73-year-old Tony Podesta, who has acted as a major fundraiser for the Clinton campaign. In addition, Podesta’s 67-year-old brother, John, serves as Clinton’s campaign chairman, and previously served as former president Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.

John Podesta co-founded the firm, but has not been directly involved in the Podesta Group since 1993. As Clinton’s campaign chairman and, potentially, a future official or adviser in a Clinton administration, he could potentially be of help in enabling Azerbaijani officials, via the Podesta Group, to gain access to White House officials, some human rights activists worry.

The end result, activists say, could be that Washington de-emphasizes democratization in its dealings with Azerbaijan. “The connection to Hillary Clinton’s campaign is worrisome,” said Rebecca Vincent, a former American diplomat who has been active in Azerbaijan human rights causes.

The Azerbaijani embassy’s current contract with the Podesta Group runs until the end of the year, according to documents obtained from the Department of Justice’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) registry. The embassy pays Podesta a monthly fee of $45,000.

Aside from encounters with senators and congressional representatives, media and non-governmental organizations, the Podesta Group has agreed to arrange meetings with “executive branch officials,” at the embassy’s request.

How much leverage it would have to take matters further with a Clinton White House is unclear.

Emails allegedly hacked from John Podesta’s account and published by WikiLeaks show that the Clinton campaign debated the propriety of accepting donations raised by lobbyists, like the Podesta Group, which do work for foreign countries. The campaign ultimately decided to accept the donations.

The Washington Post reported in July that Podesta had raised $268,000 for the Clinton campaign this year. In addition, Podesta has raised over $152,300 for the Hillary Victory Fund, which supports the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 Democratic state parties.

Emin Huseynov – the director of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, who spent nearly a year living in the Swiss embassy in Baku to avoid arrest – described Baku’s image-crafting efforts as highly effective. “Lobbyists like the Podesta Group are helping the Aliyev ... regime to distract international attention from the unprecedented repression taking place in the country,” he said.

Clinton is not the only presidential candidate with a link to Azerbaijan. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump earlier partnered with the controversial Azerbaijani businessman Anar Mammadov, son of Transportation Minister Ziya Mammadov, on a project to erect Trump Towers in Baku. That project appears to have stalled, however.

Trump has not addressed Azerbaijan’s rights record. Clinton’s last public remark appears to have been in 2012, when, on a visit to the country as secretary of state, she called on the Azerbaijani government to show greater respect for freedom of expression and to release those imprisoned for expressing their opinions.

Caucasus observer Lincoln Mitchell believes that the Podesta Group would not go out on a limb to promote Azerbaijan’s interests with the new presidential administration.

“It is critical to understand that for the Podestas, their relationship with Clinton is worth much, much more than their monthly retainer from Baku. They would not jeopardize the former to help the latter,” said Mitchell, a New York-based political-development specialist. “This is not due to any moral courage, but to the reality of the dollars and cents calculations. If the Podestas lead Clinton to make a mistake with regards to Azerbaijan, they could damage their relationships and their livelihood in Washington.”

Maran Turner, executive director of Freedom Now, a Washington-based organization working to free prisoners of conscience, and other rights activists want the US government to limit contact with Baku until all political prisoners are released and Azerbaijani officials introduce meaningful democratic reforms.

Mitchell believes such an approach to be unrealistic, given that US-Azerbaijan relations are first and foremost defined by realpolitik.

“The US will speak out against the Aliyev government’s rights abuses if the government in Baku gets much closer to Russia or begins to disagree with the US on issues that are important to Washington,” he said. “Short of that, I do not expect a Clinton administration to freeze out the Aliyev government.”

[Pavlov]

Investigate away.



You're right though we aren't squared up by a long shot :lol

I brought up conflicts of interest with Clinton and Azerbaijan that were ignored by you long before you brought up Trump and Azerbaijan.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/81186

A lobbyist connection between Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Azerbaijan could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, if the democratic nominee wins the US general election on November 8.TSA demand hypothetical investigation now!

[RandomGuy]

Investigate away.



You're right though we aren't squared up by a long shot :lol

I brought up conflicts of interest with Clinton and Azerbaijan that were ignored by you long before you brought up Trump and Azerbaijan.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/81186

A lobbyist connection between Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Azerbaijan could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, if the democratic nominee wins the US general election on November 8.

[Hillary Clinton bad]

Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Trump president, not Clinton.

Give it a fucking break, because it looks more and more like you are trying to deflect with some bullshit false equivalence.

The false equivalence here is that what you have there is pay for access.


http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/845fbfa/2147483647/resize/658x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F25%2F9e%2F 4ebcb877499cab6ac64837b11175%2Ftrump-administration-ties-to-russia.png

[RandomGuy]

http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/f16dc34/2147483647/resize/658x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F4d%2F66%2F 9e61159444489273c59ea9cb33c5%2Ftrump-ties-to-putin-michael-flynn.png

[RandomGuy]

http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/9324905/2147483647/resize/658x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F0d%2Fe9%2F 44fe308d461689b82a3f48bfe320%2Fmag-trump-campaign-ties-to-putin.png

[RandomGuy]

http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/563722c/2147483647/resize/658x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F5d%2Fb8%2F 9ec495674f2a818d281b2b175089%2Fmag-putin-trump-ties-manafort.png

[RandomGuy]

http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/ad39c21/2147483647/resize/658x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F83%2F84%2F 80909c174c22be487faa04362c51%2Fmag-trump-russia-putin-business-ties.png

[RandomGuy]

http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/5ca4079/2147483647/resize/658x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F20%2F18%2F 0667269c482582b13740c24d924f%2Frussia-family-finalpng.png

[RandomGuy]

Personally, I think Manafort is the most compromised, due to some rather sketchy transactions over shares in Russian oil/gas.

I think Trump Organization is directly guilty of more than one violation of the foreign corrupt practices act, and that more than a few of the companies that Trump is in bed with internationally were funded by Russian organized crime.

I think there is some RICO and money laundering hidden in his overseas businesses, and this is the prime reason his tax returns will never, ever, see the light of day.
This is the most likely explanation for his fondness of Vladimir Putin. Putin knows he can easily list details of Trumps involvement financially, and has communicated this through these informal channels.

Putin knows that he didn't have nearly as much on Clinton, and how bad Trump would be for liberal democracy, which he is actively trying to undermine.

[spurraider21]

Bad News for Trump... This could get him impeached...
TRUMP RUSSIA-NEW INFORMATION
1. Trump took $35 million from Russian company Rusnano... One of the founders of the company-Vladimir Putin!!
2. Trump took a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian company called Renaissance Capital.
3. Trump sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
4. Trump got $145 million donated to his charity from the same Russians/shareholders of the company that he sold the uranium to.
5. Trump took millions in donations to his charity from power players in Russia like the mayor of Moscow, business tycoons and other govt officials...
JUST KIDDING!!!! All this was done by BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol


lets talk about this one for a bit.

1) who are the russians you speak of? is this the russian government?

2) can any of this american uranium be transported to russia?

3) can the government of russia use any of this uranium?

4) did clinton have the power to veto or approve the deal?
?

[tlongII]

Personally, I think Manafort is the most compromised, due to some rather sketchy transactions over shares in Russian oil/gas.

I think Trump Organization is directly guilty of more than one violation of the foreign corrupt practices act, and that more than a few of the companies that Trump is in bed with internationally were funded by Russian organized crime.

I think there is some RICO and money laundering hidden in his overseas businesses, and this is the prime reason his tax returns will never, ever, see the light of day.
This is the most likely explanation for his fondness of Vladimir Putin. Putin knows he can easily list details of Trumps involvement financially, and has communicated this through these informal channels.

Putin knows that he didn't have nearly as much on Clinton, and how bad Trump would be for liberal democracy, which he is actively trying to undermine.

So what you're saying is you got nothing. As per usual.

[RandomGuy]

So what you're saying is you got nothing. As per usual.

(shrugs)

That is so poorly reasoned/stated, I am not sure it is worth bothering with.

There is likely enough evidence of law breaking that it won't take much kicking over of rocks for this stuff to come scurrying out from under.

You will have to find a new schtick after the "there is no evidence now" thing becomes thin even for someone as bad as you are at critical thinking to ignore.
.

[tlongII]

(shrugs)

That is so poorly reasoned/stated, I am not sure it is worth bothering with.

There is likely enough evidence of law breaking that it won't take much kicking over of rocks for this stuff to come scurrying out from under.

You will have to find a new schtick after the "there is no evidence now" thing becomes thin even for someone as bad as you are at critical thinking to ignore.
.

You might want to practice your "critical thinking".

[RandomGuy]

You might want to practice your "critical thinking".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[RandomGuy]

You might want to practice your "critical thinking".

Or alternately:

I am accountant/auditor with 10+ years worth of financial and forensic auditing and financial analysis experience.

I am literally paid to think critically, and paid well.

This opinion is guided by my reading and experience.

Feel free to dismiss that because you think people in your party can't do any wrong, that demonstrates great critical thinking.

.

[tlongII]

Or alternately:

I am accountant/auditor with 10+ years worth of financial and forensic auditing and financial analysis experience.

I am literally paid to think critically, and paid well.

This opinion is guided by my reading and experience.

Feel free to dismiss that because you think people in your party can't do any wrong, that demonstrates great critical thinking.

.

I design financial systems. I deal with accountants and auditors all the time.

[pgardn]

By far the most important matter to be taken care of is the clear attempts the Russians have made in creating chaos in our elections; Not in attempts to put anyone candidate in office, the general attempts at disruption. They have stuck this in our face and Republicans poo-poo this, Democrats try to make it into some overly ornate plan.

I hope the Trump administration is actively pursuing not so subtle retribution. Including further sanctions. The Europeans are more than ready for more sanctions. There are growing street protests in Russia. Putin's major political thorn in side was just jailed again. The Russians people DO react to economic pressure.

A good dose of Western news in Russia would also help. The general populace will quickly tire of the same old political RT lines as Putin tightens the reins on reporting.

[tlongII]

But enough about me. I am not belittling you or anyone else. Accountants and auditors are generally very bright. I have a BS in Accounting/Auditing myself actually.

[tlongII]

But enough about me. I am not belittling you or anyone else. Accountants and auditors are generally very bright. I have a BS in Accounting/Auditing myself actually.

Damn my first sentence paired with my last sentence made zero sense. :lol

[pgardn]

Or alternately:

I am accountant/auditor with 10+ years worth of financial and forensic auditing and financial analysis experience.

I am literally paid to think critically, and paid well.

This opinion is guided by my reading and experience.

Feel free to dismiss that because you think people in your party can't do any wrong, that demonstrates great critical thinking.

.


I design financial systems. I deal with accountants and auditors all the time.

I call BS.

One can think critically in their job and completely drop this thinking and go fundamental ideologue. In fact IMO people with expertise in one area gain some sort of logical hubris which leads them to cherry pick their input in politics.

[tlongII]

I call BS.

One can think critically in their job and completely drop this thinking and go fundamental ideologue. In fact IMO people with expertise in one area gain some sort of logical hubris which leads them to cherry pick their input in politics.

I'll have to agree with that.

[pgardn]

But enough about me. I am not belittling you or anyone else. Accountants and auditors are generally very bright. I have a BS in Accounting/Auditing myself actually.

I would totally disagree.

What is your definition of bright? I have a BS in molecular biology and a masters in Biochem. I don't consider myself as bright, just curious. ( since we have decide to compare penis length) There are plenty of very bright people who are not motivated and not curious but are tremendous at solving logic puzzles. They die on the vine because they don't gain any current knowlege as they move along in life. They don't keep up and they become very binary IMO.

[tlongII]

I would totally disagree.

What is your definition of bright? I have a BS in molecular biology and a masters in Biochem. I don't consider myself as bright, just curious. ( since we have decide to compare penis length) There are plenty of very bright people who are not motivated and not curious but are tremendous at solving logic puzzles. They die on the vine because they don't gain any current knowlege as they move along in life. They don't keep up and they become very binary IMO.

You disagree that accountants and auditors are generally very bright? In my experience they generally are.

[tlongII]

Most accountants I know are ambitious and attack life. It doesn't fit the stereotype but that's what I think. I find it refreshing.

[pgardn]

You disagree that accountants and auditors are generally very bright? In my experience they generally are.

Yeah I would. What's bright?

If it's the ability to concentrate for long periods of time I would agree.

[RandomGuy]

I call BS.

One can think critically in their job and completely drop this thinking and go fundamental ideologue. In fact IMO people with expertise in one area gain some sort of logical hubris which leads them to cherry pick their input in politics.

True.

Good critical thinking and examining bias is difficult. Human brains aren't made for that kind of underlying analysis.

[RandomGuy]

I would totally disagree.

What is your definition of bright? I have a BS in molecular biology and a masters in Biochem. I don't consider myself as bright, just curious. ( since we have decide to compare penis length) There are plenty of very bright people who are not motivated and not curious but are tremendous at solving logic puzzles. They die on the vine because they don't gain any current knowlege as they move along in life. They don't keep up and they become very binary IMO.

Curiosity is the most important thing, IMO, no matter what you do.

[RandomGuy]

By far the most important matter to be taken care of is the clear attempts the Russians have made in creating chaos in our elections; Not in attempts to put anyone candidate in office, the general attempts at disruption. They have stuck this in our face and Republicans poo-poo this, Democrats try to make it into some overly ornate plan.

I hope the Trump administration is actively pursuing not so subtle retribution. Including further sanctions. The Europeans are more than ready for more sanctions. There are growing street protests in Russia. Putin's major political thorn in side was just jailed again. The Russians people DO react to economic pressure.

A good dose of Western news in Russia would also help. The general populace will quickly tire of the same old political RT lines as Putin tightens the reins on reporting.

That right there is a good way to falsify the whole collusion thing.

If Trump was/is colluding, and was/is compromised, he won't do anything.

It seems obvious we need to hit back in no uncertain terms, but that doesn't seem to be a priority in the slightest on the part of the Trump administration.

It reminds me of the story about the murderer on trial, when the defense lawyer says the victim is just "missing" and can walk through the door at any time, pointing. Then entire room looks, except for the accused, who knows the absolute truth more than anyone.

The Trump administration is staring at their fingernails.

[TSA]

You will have to find a new schtick after the "there is no evidence now" thing becomes thin even for someone as bad as you are at critical thinking to ignore.
.

No, you'll just move on to the next manufactured story and until there is no evidence found, then on to next, then the next etc.

[DarrinS]

If Trump was/is colluding, and was/is compromised, he won't do anything.



srsly?

[RandomGuy]

I call BS.

One can think critically in their job and completely drop this thinking and go fundamental ideologue. In fact IMO people with expertise in one area gain some sort of logical hubris which leads them to cherry pick their input in politics.

Fair enough, I will elaborate then.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a very easy one to run afoul of. You can do it, without even knowing you are doing it, especially if you aren't careful.

The types of businesses that the Trump Organization does, namely real estate development, are the exact kinds of business enterprise that brings corrupt officials out of the woodwork with their hands out at all levels.

The inherent risk of that kind of work in those countries is HIGH, even if you are careful. If you are willing to bend the law, look the other way, etc., as Trump seems to be from the accounts I have read, that means this risk was likely not mitigated, as long as the check cleared.

The sheer number of transactions and undertakings means that there is a LOT Of chances to run afoul of this.

Real estate and construction also is VERY attractive for money laundering. The Baku development was almost certainly used for this by the government of Azerbaizhan that has some well-documented ties to various elements of the Iranian government under banking sanctions. The sheer amount of money involved increases the risk of this. This relates to sanctions, but that country's government is one of the most corrupt in the world.

The question is if T.Org. was aware of this at some level. This is harder to say, but again, whistling and looking the other way when someone stuffs a big check in your hand tends not to be a very good defense.

On to the Russian connection. That government is so corrupt that the Economist had to coin a new term "Kleptocracy". It is very hard to seperate business from mafia from government. If you start taking Russian investment money, you can bet some of it will be linked back to some nasty characters.

When the financial crisis hit, and banks were puckered up, the people with cash to offer were the same types that always have cash to offer, for a price.

NOtice I haven't said a single thing about the political affiliation of Donald Trump. These risks exist outside of that, no matter if he were a Democrat, Republican, Green, or Communist.

He is a con man, and a fairly obvious one at that.

[RandomGuy]

srsly?

(Shrugs)

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this?

Has Trump addressed the issue to a level you think might be commensurate with active Russian cyberassuault on the US voting system, as appears to be the case?

A statement or speech would work as evidence. Anything.

[RandomGuy]

No, you'll just move on to the next manufactured story and until there is no evidence found, then on to next, then the next etc.

What, do you think the Azerbaijan government is not corrupt? Is that manufactured?

[RandomGuy]

srsly?


Senate overwhelmingly votes to impose new sanctions on Russia over election meddling


97-2

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/senate-overwhelmingly-votes-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-russia-over-election-meddling.html

My question remains, and this is a really good way to falsify my theory. Be happy to admit he isn't compromised, if some evidence supports that. Everything he has done thus far is consistent with compromised and/or some level of collusion. Any actions against Russia would put that to rest. The more he ignores this, the thinner your denials will be, and the stronger the case gets.

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this?

[TSA]

What, do you think the Azerbaijan government is not corrupt? Is that manufactured?

I pointed out how corrupt the Azerbaijan government was long before you brought it up and you conveniently ignored all of the lobbying on behalf of the Podesta group because at the time your girl still had a chance.

[RandomGuy]

but, but, but Hillary.

:rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

I pointed out how corrupt the Azerbaijan government was long before you brought it up and you conveniently ignored all of the lobbying on behalf of the Podesta group because at the time your girl still had a chance.

Senate overwhelmingly votes to impose new sanctions on Russia over election meddling


97-2

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/senat...-meddling.html

My question remains, and this is a really good way to falsify my theory. Be happy to admit he isn't compromised, if some evidence supports that. Everything he has done thus far is consistent with compromised and/or some level of collusion. Any actions against Russia would put that to rest. The more he ignores this, the thinner your denials will be, and the stronger the case gets.

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this?

[Pavlov]

Podesta*ding*

Impeach him!

[pgardn]

Here it is.

This is what each side fears but won't say.

Some Republicans are so edgy they actually fear their Donald might have indeed got help from the Russians. The Democrats bolster this fear by pretending there was some ornate plan between Trump and the Russians to get him elected.

The real side story right now is that the Russians really did interfere in our elections to CAUSE DOUBT that our system works. They did not get Trump elected.

Sanctions need to happen and they need to be bipartisan and NOW. Trump needs to start up these talks now and let the Senate work on it. You don't "talk" with the Russians under Putin without a hammer-lock on their testicles first.

So for once in your life stop the wandering idiocy darkman Duck, ya damn Rajun Asian.

[rjv]

Here it is.

This is what each side fears but won't say.

Some Republicans are so edgy they actually fear their Donald might have indeed got help from the Russians. The Democrats bolster this fear by pretending there was some ornate plan between Trump and the Russians to get him elected.

The real side story right now is that the Russians really did interfere in our elections to CAUSE DOUBT that our system works. They did not get Trump elected.

Sanctions need to happen and they need to be bipartisan and NOW. Trump needs to start up these talks now and let the Senate work on it. You don't "talk" with the Russians under Putin without a hammer-lock on their testicles first. i can agree with this to a certain extent BUT with the caveat that the "evidence" is shown. fueling further antagonism with russia is already a dangerous agenda and the flavor of the day for the vast neocon population in washington. also, in many ways (and what the MSM refuses to acknowledge) this is a pendulous dynamic between the U.S. and russia that goes back to the end of the warsaw pact. the U.S. is not without its own intrusions (or acts of aggression) against russia.

[boutons_deux]

ornate plan between Trump and the Russians to get him elected.



I don't think any ornate angle was on the Repug side, they aren't that smart, as we can see now. All sophistication was on the Russian side, cracking US machines, leaking to Assange, and also paying (probably cheaply) 100s or 1000s people in Macedonia, IIRC, to spread fake news, fake websites, fake social media BS.

I do think Trash and his entourage were informed by the Russians what the Russians were doing on his behalf. Their silence is criminally treasonous.

Pootin HATED Hillary for Ukraine/Crimea sanctions and saying that his 2011 election was illegit.

Pootin/Assange damaged Hillary badly, with complicity from the media, blocking her from getting any traction, from the time Assange started dribbling out the Dem emails until the election.

Badly damaged, Hillary was finished off by protocol-violating Comey's "we got more emails, but we haven't look at them" crap 10 days before the election, which compounded the damage he did months earlier violating FBI protocol to trash Hillary severely on national TV but w/o an indictment. He effectively incriminated Hillary with indicting.

538 said it saw movement to Trash in the weekend after Comey's "we got more emails", in the 3 states that Trash won by small fractions of a percent, giving him enough EVs to win.

[RandomGuy]

i can agree with this to a certain extent BUT with the caveat that the "evidence" is shown. fueling further antagonism with russia is already a dangerous agenda and the flavor of the day for the vast neocon population in washington. also, in many ways (and what the MSM refuses to acknowledge) this is a pendulous dynamic between the U.S. and russia that goes back to the end of the warsaw pact. the U.S. is not without its own intrusions (or acts of aggression) against russia.

Senate overwhelmingly votes to impose new sanctions on Russia over election meddling

97-2

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/senat...-meddling.html

My question remains, and this is a really good way to falsify my theory. Be happy to admit he isn't compromised, if some evidence supports that. Everything he has done thus far is consistent with compromised and/or some level of collusion. Any actions against Russia would put that to rest.

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this?

[RandomGuy]

Here it is.

This is what each side fears but won't say.

Some Republicans are so edgy they actually fear their Donald might have indeed got help from the Russians. The Democrats bolster this fear by pretending there was some ornate plan between Trump and the Russians to get him elected.

The real side story right now is that the Russians really did interfere in our elections to CAUSE DOUBT that our system works. They did not get Trump elected.

Sanctions need to happen and they need to be bipartisan and NOW. Trump needs to start up these talks now and let the Senate work on it. You don't "talk" with the Russians under Putin without a hammer-lock on their testicles first.

So for once in your life stop the wandering idiocy darkman Duck, ya damn Rajun Asian.

There didn't have to be an "ornate plan" to simply share operational intel, or to simply talk about how to get sanctions eased.

The margin of victory for Trump was determined by 3 states, which, if they had gone the other way, would have swung the electoral college.

The total margin of victory from those three states was 80,000. Meaning if 40,000 people had switched votes, the entire election would have gone the other way.

40,000 out of 130,000,000 votes. Three hundredths of one percent.

How much effort do you think it would take to affect the opinions of .03% of the electorate?

[ducks]

Donald J. Trump realDonaldTrump
·
1h

Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?

USA USA USA

[boutons_deux]

40,000 out of 130,000,000 votes. Three hundredths of one percent.

How much effort do you think it would take to affect the opinions of .03% of the electorate?

It wasn't Pootin who did that.

Pootin/Assange weakened Hillary, then it Comey "we got more (unread) emails" 10 days before the election that Silver said moved those 3 states just barely into Trash's column.

Trash didn't win, Hillary got screwed.

[rjv]

Senate overwhelmingly votes to impose new sanctions on Russia over election meddling

97-2

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/senat...-meddling.html

My question remains, and this is a really good way to falsify my theory. Be happy to admit he isn't compromised, if some evidence supports that. Everything he has done thus far is consistent with compromised and/or some level of collusion. Any actions against Russia would put that to rest.

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this? what steps would you want the trump administration to take? and while trump creates smoke each time he reacts in a manner which creates suspicion, we have yet to see anyone produce a smoking gun. would you be comfortable (again, given the degree of U.S. aggression towards russia and interference in russian affairs over the past few decades) with actions taken against russia on a reasonable degree of suspicion? does the possibility of increased hostility between the two countries not merit any consideration?

[boutons_deux]

"reasonable degree of suspicion"

didn't you hear that 39 states were hacked, not just DNC server and Podesta email?

Russia must be laughing their asses off, finding what low hanging fruit that USA was to fuck with.

[rjv]

"reasonable degree of suspicion"

didn't you hear that 39 states were hacked, not just DNC server and Podesta email?

Russia must be laughing their asses off, finding what low hanging fruit that USA was to fuck with.


possibly digital signatures and some part-time contractor(s)?

[ducks]

Rachel Maddow: 'I Absolutely Believe It's Possible' Trump Did Not Collude With Russia

[TSA]

There didn't have to be an "ornate plan" to simply share operational intel, or to simply talk about how to get sanctions eased.

The margin of victory for Trump was determined by 3 states, which, if they had gone the other way, would have swung the electoral college.

The total margin of victory from those three states was 80,000. Meaning if 40,000 people had switched votes, the entire election would have gone the other way.

40,000 out of 130,000,000 votes. Three hundredths of one percent.

How much effort do you think it would take to affect the opinions of .03% of the electorate?

Google is more powerful and worrisome

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548

[Pavlov]

Google is more powerful and worrisome

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548You worry about Google.

[boutons_deux]

You worry about Google.

I doubt Google's power, but Facebook, Bing, etc all have enormous power, which history shows is ALWAYS abused.

BigCorp + billionaires = oligarchy is a much greater threat.

In fact, they already own and operate America, which is why it's fucked and unfuckable.

btw, Faux News has dropped "fair and balanced" tag line. So now you rightwingnutjobs might start to believe than Ailes' shitpile is lying to ya.

[spurraider21]

Rachel Maddow: 'I Absolutely Believe It's Possible' Trump Did Not Collude With Russia
fake news. maddow always lies.

[clambake]

fake news. maddow always lies.

ducks will accept this as truth.


but just this time.

[baseline bum]

Rachel Maddow: 'I Absolutely Believe It's Possible' Trump Did Not Collude With Russia

You're a sick bastard, watching Maddow while you're fucking.

[DarrinS]

You worry about Google.

They have more influence than your comrades.

[TSA]

I doubt Google's power, but Facebook, Bing, etc all have enormous power, which history shows is ALWAYS abused.

BigCorp + billionaires = oligarchy is a much greater threat.

In fact, they already own and operate America, which is why it's fucked and unfuckable.

btw, Faux News has dropped "fair and balanced" tag line. So now you rightwingnutjobs might start to believe than Ailes' shitpile is lying to ya.:lol I doubt Google's power

Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson .

Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.

There are at least three very real scenarios whereby Google—perhaps even without its leaders’ knowledge—could shape or even decide the election next year. Whether or not Google executives see it this way, the employees who constantly adjust the search giant’s algorithms are manipulating people every minute of every day. The adjustments they make increasingly influence our thinking—including, it turns out, our voting preferences.

What we call in our research the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) turns out to be one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. Our comprehensive new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), includes the results of five experiments we conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, because the effect is so large and because there are currently no specific regulations anywhere in the world that would prevent Google from using and abusing this technique, we believe SEME is a serious threat to the democratic system of government.

[TSA]

:lol I doubt Google's power

Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson .

Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.

There are at least three very real scenarios whereby Google—perhaps even without its leaders’ knowledge—could shape or even decide the election next year. Whether or not Google executives see it this way, the employees who constantly adjust the search giant’s algorithms are manipulating people every minute of every day. The adjustments they make increasingly influence our thinking—including, it turns out, our voting preferences.

What we call in our research the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) turns out to be one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. Our comprehensive new study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), includes the results of five experiments we conducted with more than 4,500 participants in two countries. Because SEME is virtually invisible as a form of social influence, because the effect is so large and because there are currently no specific regulations anywhere in the world that would prevent Google from using and abusing this technique, we believe SEME is a serious threat to the democratic system of government.

MSM and social media giants were blatantly in the bag for Clinton and influenced people far more than any other factor and the kunt still lost.

http://observer.com/2016/08/tech-companies-apple-twitter-google-and-instagram-collude-to-defeat-trump/

[clambake]

MSM and social media giants were blatantly in the bag for Clinton and influenced people far more than any other factor and the kunt still lost.

http://observer.com/2016/08/tech-companies-apple-twitter-google-and-instagram-collude-to-defeat-trump/

truth


hell, trump didn't even have fox in the bag.

[DarrinS]

truth


hell, trump didn't even have fox in the bag.


True

[Pavlov]

They have more influence than your comrades.You worried also about Google?

[spurraider21]

MSM and social media giants were blatantly in the bag for Clinton and influenced people far more than any other factor and the kunt still lost.

http://observer.com/2016/08/tech-companies-apple-twitter-google-and-instagram-collude-to-defeat-trump/
Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

[pgardn]

i can agree with this to a certain extent BUT with the caveat that the "evidence" is shown. fueling further antagonism with russia is already a dangerous agenda and the flavor of the day for the vast neocon population in washington. also, in many ways (and what the MSM refuses to acknowledge) this is a pendulous dynamic between the U.S. and russia that goes back to the end of the warsaw pact. the U.S. is not without its own intrusions (or acts of aggression) against russia.

They have one-upped us.

97-2 in the Senate says it all. Putin is a thug plain and simple.

[spurraider21]

They have one-upped us.

97-2 in the Senate says it all. Putin is a thug plain and simple.
which begs the question... who were the two :lol

[pgardn]

There didn't have to be an "ornate plan" to simply share operational intel, or to simply talk about how to get sanctions eased.

The margin of victory for Trump was determined by 3 states, which, if they had gone the other way, would have swung the electoral college.

The total margin of victory from those three states was 80,000. Meaning if 40,000 people had switched votes, the entire election would have gone the other way.

40,000 out of 130,000,000 votes. Three hundredths of one percent.

How much effort do you think it would take to affect the opinions of .03% of the electorate?

Seriously?

So you and the Russians knew these 3 states were the lynchpins of the election BEFORE the election.
Get out of town now.

This is hindsight and it is infuriating. Call it BEFORE the election, not after. And it took far more than this to go right for Trump to win. Look at Florida etc... Your argument is rubbish. This election was supposed to be a landslide. Show a pre election post indicating you knew what you stated.

[pgardn]

which begs the question... who were the two :lol

One is probably Rand Paul.

But that's a really good question.

[pgardn]

They have one-upped us.

97-2 in the Senate says it all. Putin is a thug plain and simple.

And I might add they have done exactly the same shit in Europe.
This is not a military threat, this is a DIRECT threat to the democratic process which they fear and despise.
This is not an insignificant attack on Democracy where I shrug it off with, "we have done worse and move on". We are having this conversation freely without fear of retribution. I really don't think North Americans and Europeans fully appreciate what we are able to do so freely.

[SnakeBoy]

One is probably Rand Paul.

But that's a really good question.

It was Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders

[pgardn]

And I might add they have done exactly the same shit in Europe.
This is not a military threat, this is a DIRECT threat to the democratic process which they fear and despise.
This is not an insignificant attack on Democracy where I shrug it off with, "we have done worse and move on". We are having this conversation freely without fear of retribution. I really don't think North Americans and Europeans fully appreciate what we are able to do so freely.

ok...

So I am talking to myself...


It was Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders

Thanks.

[spurraider21]

.

[boutons_deux]

Donald Trump’s new hardline policy on Cuba is yet another gift to Russia

But most foreign-policy observers think Russia has more to gain if the US restricts ties with Cuba than if it expands them.

Without cash from US tourists and companies, the island will be increasingly dependent on Russia as an economic patron, especially as Venezuela, another stalwart Cuban ally, falls apart.

“If we pull out and return to a policy of isolation, then we leave the field open, not just for the Russians but for

the Chinese, who are also really interested in building influence in Cuba,”

William Leogrande, an American University expert on Latin America, told me last week.

In recent years, Russia has forgiven billions of dollars of Cuban debt and become a major supplier of petroleum once again.

Military cooperation between the two countries, including a Russian base 90 miles from the US mainland, could be next on the agenda.

“A close military alliance between Russia and Cuba could have grave security consequences for the United States,” US senator Patrick Leahy warned in an op-ed (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/337794-putins-stake-in-president-trumps-decision-on-cuba-policy) yesterday. “One obvious way to mitigate Russian influence in our hemisphere is through enhanced engagement with Cuba.”

https://qz.com/1007416/donald-trumps-cuba-trade-and-travel-roll-back-is-another-gift-to-russia/

Pootin's BFF Trash giving Pootin everything he wants.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously?

So you and the Russians knew these 3 states were the lynchpins of the election BEFORE the election.
Get out of town now.

This is hindsight and it is infuriating. Call it BEFORE the election, not after. And it took far more than this to go right for Trump to win. Look at Florida etc... Your argument is rubbish. This election was supposed to be a landslide. Show a pre election post indicating you knew what you stated.

My point was not one of prescience. I doubt that there was any real planning. This stuff was put out there just to mess with us, for the most part, and partly to support a candidate they preferred. I think it was just enough in just the right places to move the needle a bit, and mostly that of luck. Comey's last minute re-opening of the investigation probably didn't help.

Yes, the election was probably going to be one that Hillary was probably going to win. I was surprised as anyone, but know enough that 70% of winning still means the odd 3 in ten losses.

It is impossible, even with hindsight to say what the definitive reason for his victory was, despite what he himself claims. It is complex, which is the point I was trying to make.

It is obvious the Russians were trying to move the needle. How much, and to what effect is likely never to be known, but the narrow margin of victory means that if they did have an effect it is fully within the realm of possibility that it did tip the balance, i.e. they got lucky.

[RandomGuy]

which begs the question... who were the two :lol

One missed the vote, if memory serves, and the other is an idiot.

[RandomGuy]

And I might add they have done exactly the same shit in Europe.
This is not a military threat, this is a DIRECT threat to the democratic process which they fear and despise.
This is not an insignificant attack on Democracy where I shrug it off with, "we have done worse and move on". We are having this conversation freely without fear of retribution. I really don't think North Americans and Europeans fully appreciate what we are able to do so freely.

+1

The only real question is how to respond.

The only thing the Trump administration appears to be angling for is removing economic sanctions on Russia. One has to wonder why this choice of action is indicated, when common sense would seem to dictate that rewarding them would not be appropriate.

This administration is reinstating restrictions on Cuba, because they view Cuba as hostile, wants to scrap the Iran deal, because they view Iran as hostile, talks about militarily threatening North Korea, because they view NK as hostile, yet nothing about Russia, other than pushing to ease sanctions.

What do you think is so different about Russia to them?

[rjv]

They have one-upped us.

97-2 in the Senate says it all. Putin is a thug plain and simple. i'm not sure what you mean by 97-2 says it all. i'm inclined to believe you're making a "might makes right" argument. to date, as far as evidence is concerned, the russians have committed less sabotage than the chinese did to the U.S. a few years ago, and we still do not know the full extent to which the NSA has spread out its own cyber attacks across the world. if not for whistle blowers, we'd likely know a lot less.

[TSA]

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

And that has fuck all to do with the contents of the article. If you want to argue that the MSM and social media giants were not in the bag for Clinton make your case---lol Kushner doesn't cut it.

[boutons_deux]

And that has fuck all to do with the contents of the article. If you want to argue that the MSM and social media giants were not in the bag for Clinton make your case---lol Kushner doesn't cut it.

Lots of people calculated media coverage of Trash was worth $1B+

If a lot of it was negative it's his fault for being racist, bigoted, xenophobic, LYING, slandering, condescending, bullying, misogyntic, etc, etc

Repug fabricated email BS, pootin/assange Leaks were covered extensively and hurt Hillary badly but she still wiped toilet floor with Trash's fake hair by 3M votes

[TSA]

Lots of people calculated media coverage of Trash was worth $1B+

If a lot of it was negative it's his fault for being racist, bigoted, xenophobic, LYING, slandering, condescending, bullying, misogyntic, etc, etc

Repug fabricated email BS, pootin/assange Leaks were covered extensively and hurt Hillary badly but she still wiped toilet floor with Trash's fake hair by 3M votes


Trump's negative coverage was his fault, but Hillary's negative coverage due to federal laws being broken concerning her handling of classified material was Repug fabricated


You are such a fucking hack :lol

[Reck]

Trump's negative coverage was his fault, but Hillary's negative coverage due to federal laws being broken concerning her handling of classified material was Repug fabricated


You are such a fucking hack :lol

They're interchangeable at this point. Hillary, Trump. Both are useless POS who cant get out of their own way.

Surely you can agree to that at least.

[rjv]

They're interchangeable at this point. Hillary, Trump. Both are useless POS who cant get out of their own way.

Surely you can agree to that at least. indeed. reminders of just how bad our options were this past november.

[pgardn]

i'm not sure what you mean by 97-2 says it all. i'm inclined to believe you're making a "might makes right" argument. to date, as far as evidence is concerned, the russians have committed less sabotage than the chinese did to the U.S. a few years ago, and we still do not know the full extent to which the NSA has spread out its own cyber attacks across the world. if not for whistle blowers, we'd likely know a lot less.

It says there is agreement which is extraordinarily rare these days. "Might" is the wrong term IMO. The Chinese sabatoge on mostly private business and intell is completely different than attempting to undermine a lynchpin of a democracy like elections. I don't think people fully appreciate the attempts of authoritarian societies to undermine the faith in democratic ideals.

And... You and I know and are allowed to discuss the NSA, Snowden etc... We KNOW about it! Try this outside of Western democracies. Honestly, people need to travel to Eastern Europe including Russia for a contrast. It's absolutely shocking.

[boutons_deux]

Pence Summons Republican Swamp Monster


https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Pence-Lawyer-Up.jpg

Mike Pence has lawyered up (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-hires-outside-counsel-to-deal-with-russia-probe-inquiries/2017/06/15/c40ef55c-51f5-11e7-a973-3dae94ed3eb7_story.html) with a guy

who has a history of helping Republican leaders under serious criminal investigations, like Nixon, and Reagan, (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/us/politics/pence-hires-criminal-defense-lawyer.html?mcubz=2)

which means he’s a hell of a lot better than Trump’s lawyer, and way more connected (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/16/pences-lawyer-is-the-godfather-of-comeys-daughter-thats-the-swamp-for-you/'%20target=) in Washington.

https://wonkette.com/618737/pence-summons-republican-swamp-monster-wonkagenda-for-fri-june-16-2017

[boutons_deux]

Why Trash and entourage ADORE Pootin/Russia (or maybe they all be bought, like standard issue Repugs )

From Russia With Blood

Lavish London mansions. A hand-painted Rolls-Royce. And eight dead friends. For the British fixer Scot Young, working for Vladimir Putin's most vocal critic meant stunning perks – but also constant danger.

His gruesome death is one of 14 that US spy agencies have linked to Russia – but the UK police shut down every last case.

A bombshell cache of documents today reveals the full story of a ring of death on British soil that the government has ignored.

?https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil?utm_term=.ee0R7QMNN#.ftl4VA5pp

[rjv]

It says there is agreement which is extraordinarily rare these days. "Might" is the wrong term IMO. The Chinese sabatoge on mostly private business and intell is completely different than attempting to undermine a lynchpin of a democracy like elections. I don't think people fully appreciate the attempts of authoritarian societies to undermine the faith in democratic ideals.

And... You and I know and are allowed to discuss the NSA, Snowden etc... We KNOW about it! Try this outside of Western democracies. Honestly, people need to travel to Eastern Europe including Russia for a contrast. It's absolutely shocking. rare, but not shocking in that it's a matter of foreign policy which is the one domain on which there has been general bipartisan agreement for over a decade now, and even longer when it comes to the matter of Russia. In fact, it is this consensus which led to the Patriot Act, mass surveillance and the growing police state within the U.S., and to such an extent that it threatens your ability to categorically declare that Western democracies are autonomous havens. Let's not forget what happened to Snowden or how the FBI has infiltrated the Black Lives Matter movement or even the Occupy movement a few years ago (much as it infiltrated such groups in the 60's). And I have to assert that the U.S. has perfected the art of undermining democracies in other regions of the world. We have 800 military bases around the world and have interfered in (along with Russia) 117 sovereign elections since 1947 and that's not including our tacit support of other coups (such as Honduras when Clinton was Secretary of State). I would ask you this: what would the U.S. position be if Russia had a military presence, along with a Russian friendly government in both Canada and Mexico, and this came about despite promises by Russia that they would not take part in such boundary aggression?

[TSA]

They're interchangeable at this point. Hillary, Trump. Both are useless POS who cant get out of their own way.

Surely you can agree to that at least.

This has literally nothing to do with what I'm discussing

[pgardn]

rare, but not shocking in that it's a matter of foreign policy which is the one domain on which there has been general bipartisan agreement for over a decade now, and even longer when it comes to the matter of Russia. In fact, it is this consensus which led to the Patriot Act, mass surveillance and the growing police state within the U.S., and to such an extent that it threatens your ability to categorically declare that Western democracies are autonomous havens. Let's not forget what happened to Snowden or how the FBI has infiltrated the Black Lives Matter movement or even the Occupy movement a few years ago (much as it infiltrated such groups in the 60's). And I have to assert that the U.S. has perfected the art of undermining democracies in other regions of the world. We have 800 military bases around the world and have interfered in (along with Russia) 117 sovereign elections since 1947 and that's not including our tacit support of other coups (such as Honduras when Clinton was Secretary of State). I would ask you this: what would the U.S. position be if Russia had a military presence, along with a Russian friendly government in both Canada and Mexico, and this came about despite promises by Russia that they would not take part in such boundary aggression?

You keep turning back to the argument "well we have done this" Yes, we have. And WE know about it and actively discuss it and hopefully try to balance it. That is one of the largest issues in democracies, the right of the individual's freedom v. the right to protect a society as a whole. What Snowden did was flat out WRONG and VERY IMPORTANT. We can't have individuals taking it upon themselves to decide what they deem important and put other individuals and possibly the country in danger IMO. That's why we have elected officials and people they hire and attempt to hold to certain agreed upon laws. Did the blonde that took it upon herself to release info ask us if it was ok? If the rules need to be changed, vote to change them. Vote people in who will look into the intelligence conondrum.

The Russian situation is one of their doing during and after WWII. Why don't you go ask the Poles, Germans, Checs how they feel about Russia? Then ask Canadians and Mexicans how much they fear our military. Why don't you ask the Crimeans and Georgians who overtly had Russians walk into their territory and take it? Does Putin even admit he had troops there yet? Contrast that with the fact we have had US presidents, generals, Secretary of State in our COUNTRY OPENLY WRITE ABOUT OUR FORAYS into governmental manipulation and meddling in other countries. Absolutely horrible comparison IMO.

[DarrinS]

9:55 - 13:55


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT4MO9uQxgc

[rjv]

You keep turning back to the argument "well we have done this" Yes, we have. And WE know about it and actively discuss it and hopefully try to balance it. That is one of the largest issues in democracies, the right of the individual's freedom v. the right to protect a society as a whole. What Snowden did was flat out WRONG and VERY IMPORTANT. We can't have individuals taking it upon themselves to decide what they deem important and put other individuals and possibly the country in danger IMO. That's why we have elected officials and people they hire and attempt to hold to certain agreed upon laws. Did the blonde that took it upon herself to release info ask us if it was ok? If the rules need to be changed, vote to change them. Vote people in who will look into the intelligence conondrum.

The Russian situation is one of their doing during and after WWII. Why don't you go ask the Poles, Germans, Checs how they feel about Russia? Then ask Canadians and Mexicans how much they fear our military. Why don't you ask the Crimeans and Georgians who overtly had Russians walk into their territory and take it? Does Putin even admit he had troops there yet? Contrast that with the fact we have had US presidents, generals, Secretary of State in our COUNTRY OPENLY WRITE ABOUT OUR FORAYS into governmental manipulation and meddling in other countries. Absolutely horrible comparison IMO. Who openly discusses it? The population? What percentage of the population? Is it discussed in congress, with the goal of reform as the catalyst for such conversation? And what Snowden did was wrong from what perspective? From the notion that it violates law? Whistle blowers violate protocol. They step outside agreements because they see a greater law that has been violated. To declare Snowden's actions 'flat out" wrong seems like a strictly legal view because it certainly couldn't be a moral perspective. We do vote to change these rules but the democratic process has been infiltrated by our own country more than it has any other nation or alleged Russian attack. Gerrymandering, dark money, voter ID laws, special interests go a long way towards undermining democracy. And I am not trying to paint the Russians out to be saints. I mentioned, that they along with the U.S., are the two nations the most responsible for the greatest amount of human rights atrocities in this world since the end of WWII. Go ask Latin America, the Middle East, Indonesia and Africa how they regard the United States. We have had some politicians admit to the wrong doings of this nation although when it comes to presidents and their cabinets, that rhetoric is usually perfunctory at best as it is often contradicted by their policies.

[pgardn]

Who openly discusses it? The population? What percentage of the population? Is it discussed in congress, with the goal of reform as the catalyst for such conversation? And what Snowden did was wrong from what perspective? From the notion that it violates law? Whistle blowers violate protocol. They step outside agreements because they see a greater law that has been violated. To declare Snowden's actions 'flat out" wrong seems like a strictly legal view because it certainly couldn't be a moral perspective. We do vote to change these rules but the democratic process has been infiltrated by our own country more than it has any other nation or alleged Russian attack. Gerrymandering, dark money, voter ID laws, special interests go a long way towards undermining democracy. And I am not trying to paint the Russians out to be saints. I mentioned, that they along with the U.S., are the two nations the most responsible for the greatest amount of human rights atrocities in this world since the end of WWII. Go ask Latin America, the Middle East, Indonesia and Africa how they regard the United States. We have had some politicians admit to the wrong doings of this nation although when it comes to presidents and their cabinets, that rhetoric is usually perfunctory at best as it is often contradicted by their policies.

We are.

What % of the population? I don't know. The point is we CAN and DO discuss this. If a democratic society does not wish to discuss an issue they have made the choice because the history and perspectives given by our OWN government officials without fear of retribution have made available to us! This IS the point. You think this happens in Russia.

Of course my comment on Snowden is a strictly legal view and I explained why the law exists. I also noted it was VERY important. Thus the conundrum. The country understands the problem and as expected some side more with protecting the whole rather than the individual as expected. Some think there is no reason to keep anything secret. Let corporations give nuclear plans to and equipment to Assad.

All of the problems with Democracies are well known and widely discussed depending on which group is fostering the importance of gerrymandering, dark money, etc... Who ever said democracies are perfect? our founding fathers profoundly discussed this problem. Again you and I have the right to vote and change these problems. And if you feel our democracy is too corrupt, then run yourself by God. The tea party was grass roots. It had an effect that was subverted IMO. WE DO have choices. If you claim some sort of equivalence with Russia in this respect I believe you are dead wrong. And if you don't like the idea of democracy like some because it's very inefficient, then go more totalitarian or just go total chaos. This has and always been a problem with governments. The Greeks and Romans understood the basics of what we are discussing.

[pgardn]

We are.

What % of the population? I don't know. The point is we CAN and DO discuss this. If a democratic society does not wish to discuss an issue they have made the choice because the history and perspectives given by our OWN government officials without fear of retribution have made available to us! This IS the point. You think this happens in Russia.

Of course my comment on Snowden is a strictly legal view and I explained why the law exists. I also noted it was VERY important. Thus the conundrum. The country understands the problem and as expected some side more with protecting the whole rather than the individual as expected. Some think there is no reason to keep anything secret. Go give nuclear plans to and equipment to Assad.

All of the problems with Democracies are well known and widely discussed depending on which group is fostering the importance of gerrymandering, dark money, etc... Who ever said democracies are perfect? our founding fathers profoundly discussed this problem. Again you and I have the right to vote and change these problems. And if you feel our democracy is too corrupt, then run yourself by God. The tea party was grass roots. It had an effect that was subverted IMO. WE DO have choices. If you claim some sort of equivalence with Russia in this respect I believe you are dead wrong. And if you don't like the idea of democracy like some because it's very inefficient, then go more totalitarian or just go total chaos. This has and always been a problem with governments. The Greeks and Romans understood the basics of what we are discussing.

Latin America, Indonesia and others is a good lesson in how democracies can be guided by greedy corporations. This CAN be stopped. If enough Americans deem this important they CAN and HAVE made attempts to stop this. Again, we can do something about this. Maybe if you would replace boots as the spokesperson for this board it would result in lights turning on. And maybe not mention killing cops as retribution for blacks having problems with law enforcement.

[rjv]

We are.

What % of the population? I don't know. The point is we CAN and DO discuss this. If a democratic society does not wish to discuss an issue they have made the choice because the history and perspectives given by our OWN government officials without fear of retribution have made available to us! This IS the point. You think this happens in Russia.

Of course my comment on Snowden is a strictly legal view and I explained why the law exists. I also noted it was VERY important. Thus the conundrum. The country understands the problem and as expected some side more with protecting the whole rather than the individual as expected. Some think there is no reason to keep anything secret. Go give nuclear plans to and equipment to Assad.

All of the problems with Democracies are well known and widely discussed depending on which group is fostering the importance of gerrymandering, dark money, etc... Who ever said democracies are perfect? our founding fathers profoundly discussed this problem. Again you and I have the right to vote and change these problems. And if you feel our democracy is too corrupt, then run yourself by God. The tea party was grass roots. It had an effect that was subverted IMO. WE DO have choices. If you claim some sort of equivalence with Russia in this respect I believe you are dead wrong. And if you don't like the idea of democracy like some because it's very inefficient, then go more totalitarian or just go total chaos. This has and always been a problem with governments. The Greeks and Romans understood the basics of what we are discussing.

The definition (conceptually, not legally) of "treason" is fluid. There are those who would technically violate a code of Chapter 15 while still having the best interest of the American citizenry at hand. If you are arguing this is an absolute which cannot be compromised, I would counter one cannot reasonably be relativistic in regards to absolutes. Otherwise, we would just have to assume the subject of Snowden to be yet another matter on which the ethic of consequentialism reigns. I, for one, am tired of deferring so often to the merits of pragmatism, an ideology which seems to greatly benefit the neoliberal and neoconservative agendas of Washington. So, yes, I do try to run myself by what you refer to as "God". Utilitarianism is a bankrupt ideology, and this is the moral question at hand: do we want to be accomplices to heresy or oppression? As for the Greeks, they did not invent "democracy" nor did they agree on it. There are many versions of democracy among the Pre-Socratic and Post-Socratic philosophers as there are many different views of democracy today (and not all are inherited from the West). I just don't believe it is as simple as a binary choice between one version of democracy (although we are currently in a corporate oligarchy) and totalitarianism (or some form of entropy).

[pgardn]

The definition (conceptually, not legally) of "treason" is fluid. There are those who would technically violate a code of Chapter 15 while still having the best interest of the American citizenry at hand. If you are arguing this is an absolute which cannot be compromised, I would counter one cannot reasonably be relativistic in regards to absolutes. Otherwise, we would just have to assume the subject of Snowden to be yet another matter on which the ethic of consequentialism reigns. I, for one, am tired of deferring so often to the merits of pragmatism, an ideology which seems to greatly benefit the neoliberal and neoconservative agendas of Washington. So, yes, I do try to run myself by what you refer to as "God". Utilitarianism is a bankrupt ideology, and this is the moral question at hand: do we want to be accomplices to heresy or oppression? As for the Greeks, they did not invent "democracy" nor did they agree on it. There are many versions of democracy among the Pre-Socratic and Post-Socratic philosophers as there are many different views of democracy today (and not all are inherited from the West). I just don't believe it is as simple as a binary choice between one version of democracy (although we are currently in a corporate oligarchy) and totalitarianism (or some form of entropy).

I did not state Greeks invented democracies. And of course democracies have differences. But the fundamentals are the same. So you brought the US into the discussion about the Russian government to provide some sort of equivalence the "look what we do" defense. That, I object to. We are not the same. Our histories are entirely different. They have a history of rule by strongmen, we don't come close to that even if some presidents were able to exert more control than others.

[spurraider21]

9:55 - 13:55


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT4MO9uQxgc
35:38

[pgardn]

The definition (conceptually, not legally) of "treason" is fluid. There are those who would technically violate a code of Chapter 15 while still having the best interest of the American citizenry at hand. If you are arguing this is an absolute which cannot be compromised, I would counter one cannot reasonably be relativistic in regards to absolutes. Otherwise, we would just have to assume the subject of Snowden to be yet another matter on which the ethic of consequentialism reigns. I, for one, am tired of deferring so often to the merits of pragmatism, an ideology which seems to greatly benefit the neoliberal and neoconservative agendas of Washington. So, yes, I do try to run myself by what you refer to as "God". Utilitarianism is a bankrupt ideology, and this is the moral question at hand: do we want to be accomplices to heresy or oppression? As for the Greeks, they did not invent "democracy" nor did they agree on it. There are many versions of democracy among the Pre-Socratic and Post-Socratic philosophers as there are many different views of democracy today (and not all are inherited from the West). I just don't believe it is as simple as a binary choice between one version of democracy (although we are currently in a corporate oligarchy) and totalitarianism (or some form of entropy).

Snowden is not a pragmatic issue. It's a basic issue any democracy has. It is the rights of an individual vs. the rights of the whole. Again, look what his copycat did. There must be a control over what individuals in a society are allowed to make public. In turn there must be a way for legit whistle blowers to have a path to right perceived wrongs. I feel that the aforementioned is a very basic idea that is very difficult to sort through.

I would also say it is very clear our constitution and laws are firmly implanted in Judeo-Christian beliefs. How they actually work in practice as seen by slavery, the subjugation of women, internment camps... is not always consistent with the rules.

[rjv]

I did not state Greeks invented democracies. And of course democracies have differences. But the fundamentals are the same. So you brought the US into the discussion about the Russian government to provide some sort of equivalence the "look what we do" defense. That, I object to. We are not the same. Our histories are entirely different. They have a history of rule by strongmen, we don't come close to that even if some presidents were able to exert more control than others. yes, in theory, there are common denominators to the varying paradigms of democracy, but the current state of the United States resembles a plutocracy far more than it does any version of democracy. So back to your earlier post, it is not the idea of a democracy that I am opposed to. It is the idea of a corrupted democracy that I harbor antipathy towards. I do think we have deviated from the topic at hand in that the question is not whether or not a citizen of the United States would enjoy more freedom than a citizen of Russia. The question is whether or not Russia's still alleged transgression in the U.S. elections are any more, or less, egregious than any of the U.S. foreign policy transgressions towards Russia in the past few decades. You clearly state that you feel the answer is clearly Russia. That does not make the question moot, nor is the response something that can be clearly quantified. The clandestine and hypocritical posture of both nations serves to makes the matter that much more opaque. Risking increased tensions under these circumstances seems risky to me (or calculated).

[pgardn]

35:38

Darrin was going to get to that part.
You just know he was.

[rjv]

Snowden is not a pragmatic issue. It's a basic issue any democracy has. It is the rights of an individual vs. the rights of the whole. Again, look what his copycat did. There must be a control over what individuals in a society are allowed to make public. In turn there must be a way for legit whistle blowers to have a path to right perceived wrongs. I feel that the aforementioned is a very basic idea that is very difficult to sort through.

I would also say it is very clear our constitution and laws are firmly implanted in Judeo-Christian beliefs. How they actually work in practice as seen by slavery, the subjugation of women, internment camps... is not always consistent with the rules. not any democracy, and certainly not the current state of our democracy. From this post, though, it does appear that you are making a moral statement about Snowden and it appears that it is being made as if this is an absolute law which, as I mentioned before, begs the question: can one be relative about what laws should be considered absolute? and, to what absolute are you referring to? the good of the American government? the good of the American people as a whole, but not as individuals? I agree that is a hard issue to grapple with, but that in itself implies that there is no moral certainty here.

[pgardn]

yes, in theory, there are common denominators to the varying paradigms of democracy, but the current state of the United States resembles a plutocracy far more than it does any version of democracy. So back to your earlier post, it is not the idea of a democracy that I am opposed to. It is the idea of a corrupted democracy that I harbor antipathy towards. I do think we have deviated from the topic at hand in that the question is not whether or not a citizen of the United States would enjoy more freedom than a citizen of Russia. The question is whether or not Russia's still alleged transgression in the U.S. elections are any more, or less, egregious than any of the U.S. foreign policy transgressions towards Russia in the past few decades. You clearly state that you feel the answer is clearly Russia. That does not make the question moot, nor is the response something that can be clearly quantified. The clandestine and hypocritical posture of both nations serves to makes the matter that much more opaque. Risking increased tensions under these circumstances seems risky to me (or calculated).

The transgression of Russia towards its own people is by far the most disappointing. The most obvious change since the Soviet Union fell is the reliance on military presence to become a player again, economic strength be damned. This is a country with a wealth of resources in which common folks live like crap. I have yet to read another viable way to deal with them other than to make them hurt more economically. Their current regime is more interested in being disruptive to neighbor's and beyond instead of solving a perpetually rotten core of economics. This is an incredibly corrupt stagnating country with unrealized potential IMO.

[RandomGuy]

The transgression of Russia towards its own people is by far the most disappointing. The most obvious change since the Soviet Union fell is the reliance on military presence to become a player again, economic strength be damned. This is a country with a wealth of resources in which common folks live like crap. I have yet to read another viable way to deal with them other than to make them hurt more economically. Their current regime is more interested in being disruptive to neighbor's and beyond instead of solving a perpetually rotten core of economics. This is an incredibly corrupt stagnating country with unrealized potential IMO.

+1

Sad to watch, especially when leaders seem more interested in their own enrichment than anything else.

[rjv]

The transgression of Russia towards its own people is by far the most disappointing. The most obvious change since the Soviet Union fell is the reliance on military presence to become a player again, economic strength be damned. This is a country with a wealth of resources in which common folks live like crap. I have yet to read another viable way to deal with them other than to make them hurt more economically. Their current regime is more interested in being disruptive to neighbor's and beyond instead of solving a perpetually rotten core of economics. This is an incredibly corrupt stagnating country with unrealized potential IMO. fair enough.

[rjv]

+1

Sad to watch, especially when leaders seem more interested in their own enrichment than anything else. that narrative, unfortunately, hits way too close to home, and can be said of far too many nations at this point and time in history.

[pgardn]

that narrative, unfortunately, hits way too close to home, and can be said of far too many nations at this point and time in history.

It indeed does.

I probably need to write Putin instead of The Russians when writing about how I feel about the absolute waste that has characterized this vast country.

[SnakeBoy]

The transgression of Russia towards its own people is by far the most disappointing. The most obvious change since the Soviet Union fell is the reliance on military presence to become a player again, economic strength be damned. This is a country with a wealth of resources in which common folks live like crap. I have yet to read another viable way to deal with them other than to make them hurt more economically. Their current regime is more interested in being disruptive to neighbor's and beyond instead of solving a perpetually rotten core of economics. This is an incredibly corrupt stagnating country with unrealized potential IMO.

Well more sanctions should fix all those problems and make life wonderful for the Russian people. Sanctions are always so effective at bringing about positive change that there is no chance the govt will be able to convince the people that it's the sanctions from the west that are causing all their problems.

[baseline bum]

They're interchangeable at this point. Hillary, Trump. Both are useless POS who cant get out of their own way.

Surely you can agree to that at least.

I like how Clinton took a page out of the Trump playbook and blamed the media, the FBI, the DNC, everyone but herself for blowing an election she should have won in a landslide.

[rjv]

I like how Clinton took a page out of the Trump playbook and blamed the media, the FBI, the DNC, everyone but herself for blowing an election she should have won in a landslide. and the dems better look in the mirror and avoid the same sort of path clinton is taking in making everyone but herself responsible. otherwise, the dems will fail to gain any ground in 2018.

[Adam Lambert]

Well more sanctions should fix all those problems and make life wonderful for the Russian people. Sanctions are always so effective at bringing about positive change that there is no chance the govt will be able to convince the people that it's the sanctions from the west that are causing all their problems.

oh now were avoiding sanctions that might impact the people in the countries with those sanctions? thats an interesting change in foreign policy.

be sure to tell cuba.

[TSA]

I like how Clinton took a page out of the Trump playbook and blamed the media, the FBI, the DNC, everyone but herself for blowing an election she should have won in a landslide.

Dumb bitch should just shut up and be happy she's not sitting in a jail cell like all the other "regular" people who mishandled classified material are doing.

[TSA]

oh now were avoiding sanctions that might impact the people in the countries with those sanctions? thats an interesting change in foreign policy.

be sure to tell cuba.

These sanctions would impact more than Russia. Merkel is already throwing a fit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions-germany-idUSKBN197156?il=0

[RandomGuy]

These sanctions would impact more than Russia. Merkel is already throwing a fit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions-germany-idUSKBN197156?il=0

Ja, ich hab' das geliest. Not quite hitting what they were aiming for.

[pgardn]

Well more sanctions should fix all those problems and make life wonderful for the Russian people. Sanctions are always so effective at bringing about positive change that there is no chance the govt will be able to convince the people that it's the sanctions from the west that are causing all their problems.

Its causing street protests right now. Putin just jailed his political rival again for the protests. So yes they do have an effect. The general population gets involved.

Do you have a better solution. Cause talking with them when they have internal problems that are obvious does have more of an affect. A 97-2 bipartisan vote in the Senate tells me this theory does work. It's more than some punishment, it causes them to deal from a position of weakness. The short term says we must get them out of their little games of attempting to disrupt a free population's belief in the power of free elections. Something that puts us at a huge advantage in so many ways. With Hillary and the Democrats, and people thinking Trump has somehow asked the Russians to get him elected, this is an important issue. Trump claiming 3 million people voting illegally was childish and hurtful as well. The Europeans understand this better than us because they have dealt with tyrant kings and queens. Sanctions, now.

So Snake, how to deal with them?

[boutons_deux]

Late night people, and Maddow, are boosting their careers and ratings with EXCELLENT destruction of Trash


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_x7S5PADE

[pgardn]

Late night people, and Maddow, are boosting their careers and ratings with EXCELLENT destruction of Trash


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_x7S5PADE

7:50-8:05

Good Christ, what a mealy mouthed freak...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Given Trump's impotence in pushing any agenda and the state of the midterm polling I would say that the Dems are on the right track.

Then of course there is the reality that Flynn, Manafort and Sessions indeed misrepresented their interactions with the Russians giving this scandal legitimacy.

[tlongII]

Senate overwhelmingly votes to impose new sanctions on Russia over election meddling

97-2

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/14/senat...-meddling.html

My question remains, and this is a really good way to falsify my theory. Be happy to admit he isn't compromised, if some evidence supports that. Everything he has done thus far is consistent with compromised and/or some level of collusion. Any actions against Russia would put that to rest.

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this?

That ain't the way it works RG. You have to produce evidence that he was compromised. So far you haven't.

[pgardn]

That ain't the way it works RG. You have to produce evidence that he was compromised. So far you haven't.

So when do further sanctions get underway?

[RandomGuy]

What steps has the Trump administration undertaken to hold Russia to account for this?


That ain't the way it works RG. You have to produce evidence that he was compromised. So far you haven't.

I will not claim he has been compromised, as the evidence to that regard is not developed, at this time. Since I am not claiming, I do not take on a burden of proof.

I have pointed out though, his behavior and statements are fully consistent with being compromised, a fact you, and TSA, seem desperate to ignore.

That is the way it works. I don't make claims of fact that are not in evidence.

A good theory is, however, falsifiable.

"Trump is compromised" is exactly that kind of theory. Evidence he is not would be public criticisms of Putin and/or the Russian government, and holding Russia accountable for what amounts to an attack.

If it were bullshit, it would be easily found out.

That you can't find anything, you really should be asking why his behavior in terms of criticizing anyone, even allies and long time trading partners, suddenly changes when it comes to Russia. "America first"*
Gets a big asterisk.



*except when it comes to Russian interests
-

[tlongII]

I will not claim he has been compromised, as the evidence to that regard is not developed, at this time. Since I am not claiming, I do not take on a burden of proof.

I have pointed out though, his behavior and statements are fully consistent with being compromised, a fact you, and TSA, seem desperate to ignore.

That is the way it works. I don't make claims of fact that are not in evidence.

A good theory is, however, falsifiable.

"Trump is compromised" is exactly that kind of theory. Evidence he is not would be public criticisms of Putin and/or the Russian government, and holding Russia accountable for what amounts to an attack.

If it were bullshit, it would be easily found out.

That you can't find anything, you really should be asking why his behavior in terms of criticizing anyone, even allies and long time trading partners, suddenly changes when it comes to Russia. "America first"*
Gets a big asterisk.



*except when it comes to Russian interests
-

No it's not. But I suspect you know that already.

[TSA]

I will not claim he has been compromised, as the evidence to that regard is not developed, at this time. Since I am not claiming, I do not take on a burden of proof.




Be happy to admit he isn't compromised, if some evidence supports that.

:lol pick a lane

[Chucho]

I have pointed out though, his behavior and statements are fully consistent with being compromised, a fact you, and TSA, seem desperate to ignore.

So, you're a behaviorist who's assertions should be taken as fact??



I will not claim he has been compromised... Since I am not claiming, I do not take on a burden of proof.

Bu...but, but:


I have pointed out though, his behavior and statements are fully consistent with being compromised, a fact you, and TSA, seem desperate to ignore.


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao