Reply With Quote
I see that this post retired DarrinS and his ilk outta this thread.
more implications of DJT's peculiar leadership:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/standard...ctoral-attacksIt is no minor matter that a president actively undermines the work of those officials charged day to day with the defense of the country. We are not speaking here of a contested policy issue but a threat from a foreign adversary about which there is consensus among defense and security experts in both Congress and the executive branch. Who is to say—and when would we know for sure—that Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the dimensions of this threat would not have consequences for the shape or implementation of critical countermeasures? It is highly unlikely that his foreign policy and national security team thought Trump should meet one on one with Putin in Helsinki, with neither aides nor note-takers present. But he did it, for more than two hours, and we are left to trust in the word of these heads of state about what they discussed and what they agreed or did not agree to.
I see that this post retired DarrinS and his ilk outta this thread.
not a bad recap:
Suppose a president refuses to accept extensive evidence, validated by executive-branch and congressional investigations, that a foreign power has engaged in aggressive subversion of the American electoral process. The actions include hacking into the files of political party organizations and attempts to penetrate the voter registration records maintained by state boards of elections. The intelligence community and Congress each report their conclusions that these attacks will continue.
The president aggressively questions these findings in communications with the American public, and he signals to the leader of the hostile foreign state that he will not join in the condemnation of these aggressive cyberattacks.
The president also fires the official in charge of the investigation into the Russian interventions and reassures representatives of this foreign state in person, in the Oval Office, that he thereby removed a source of “great pressure” on the relationship he wants with that nation. He then launches a series of virulent public attacks on the special counsel who is subsequently appointed to investigate the full extent of this electoral intervention and any collusion that may have taken place with U.S. citizens or organizations.
The president reports that in their direct discussions, the foreign leader denied the well-do ented intervention. He then meets with the leader of a foreign power at an internationally televised summit and raises no objection or question when his counterpart repeats the denial. Instead, stressing that the foreign leader “feels strongly” about the falseness of the accusations, he suggests that he sees no reason to accept the findings of American intelligence officials rather than the foreign leader’s denials. The president then reiterates that the inquiry into the electoral interventions is “ridiculous” and a “disaster for the country.” On the eve of this meeting, he had delivered this same message to the American public in a tweet.
benefit of a doubt:
Assume one gives the president the benefit of the doubt and accepts that his behavior on the Russia issue is not just pique at any suggestion that his electoral victory was tainted. Perhaps he imagines that he is making better “policy.” He might even have believed that it was in the interests of an adjustment in “policy” toward Russia that he should win the election and encourage and accept Putin’s assistance toward that end. He might also have believed that firing James Comey would justifiably subordinate law enforcement interests—especially ones he so intensely discounts— to his judgment of the larger policy imperatives. And to make all this work, he might think he can lie to the public about the Russian behavior, to limit public pressure on him to take more vigorous actions to counter Kremlin electoral interference.
hunkered down. the reluctance to take potshots from Blue team superpatriots is understandable, and the defenses available may not seem advantageous.I see that this post retired DarrinS and his ilk outta this thread.
there's a distinct possibility L'Affaire Russe could become an even bigger wedge in the right wing.
nope, that's bull , way too complicated.
Occam's Razor, it's all right before everybody's eyes
Trash isn't a strategic thinker, he's short-term, reflexive puncher intent on hurting anyone who bothers him.
Trash, who is his ONLY interest, egomaniacal self-interest, is beholden to Pootin and his mafiya,
either due to the $100Ms, $Bs?, that Russians have sluiced into Trash's orgs (and why he refuses to release tax returns. but Mueller has them)
and/or
the pee or other compromising recordings are real.
My guess is that it's not "or", it's "and".
It was Pootin's suggestions the Trash cancel the war games with SK, which Trash did without gaining anything.
Let's see what other tasks that Pootin has assigned to Trash.
guess you didn't follow the link
The truth about Trump and Russia that Republicans cannot say out loud
How many of those statements from Republicans also acknowledged the conclusion of the intelligence community that
the goal of that Russian interference was to elect Trump?
Obviously.
Republicans are reluctant to say that out loud, because it might diminish the greatness of Trump’s victory, which would anger him and his voters.
But I think this gaping hole in the public posture of the GOP hints at deeper truths about the predicament that Republicans — and all of us — are consumed with right now.
many Republicans are privately worried that Trump’s display with Putin will hurt them in November’s midterm elections.
Their concerns:
Republicans lose when the focus is on the Russia investigation and Trump’s temperamental recklessness,
and not on the economy, and
swing voters aren’t going to side with Trump on this matter.
As one aide to a vulnerable House Republican put it:
“Is there an independent, swing voter in the country who would say:
‘Yeah, I really think Putin is telling the truth and the U.S. Department of Justice is the real problem?’ ”
the Republican base sides with Trump (and increasingly with Putin, as well)
against special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
As one House Republican suggested to CNBC’s John Harwood,
Republicans must be careful about opposing Trump when they stand up for the Russia inquiry, because “my cons uents love him.”
these statements do this in a limited way:
They don’t acknowledge the intelligence services’ consensus view that the Russian sabotage effort was designed to elect Trump.
the House Intelligence Committee,
which has been converted by Trump loyalists into a bad-faith effort to undermine the Mueller probe,
con uously refused to reach that conclusion.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266387&page=836
So Repugs' political power of winning elections, which is more important honesty, ethics, morals, America, is more important than an illegit Repug so-called President elected by Pootin.
The truth about Trump and Russia that Republicans cannot say out loud
How many of those statements from Republicans also acknowledged the conclusion of the intelligence community that
the goal of that Russian interference was to elect Trump?
Obviously.
Republicans are reluctant to say that out loud, because it might diminish the greatness of Trump’s victory, which would anger him and his voters.
But I think this gaping hole in the public posture of the GOP hints at deeper truths about the predicament that Republicans — and all of us — are consumed with right now.
many Republicans are privately worried that Trump’s display with Putin will hurt them in November’s midterm elections.
Their concerns:
Republicans lose when the focus is on the Russia investigation and Trump’s temperamental recklessness,
and not on the economy, and
swing voters aren’t going to side with Trump on this matter.
As one aide to a vulnerable House Republican put it:
“Is there an independent, swing voter in the country who would say:
‘Yeah, I really think Putin is telling the truth and the U.S. Department of Justice is the real problem?’ ”
the Republican base sides with Trump (and increasingly with Putin, as well)
against special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
As one House Republican suggested to CNBC’s John Harwood,
Republicans must be careful about opposing Trump when they stand up for the Russia inquiry, because “my cons uents love him.”
these statements do this in a limited way:
They don’t acknowledge the intelligence services’ consensus view that the Russian sabotage effort was designed to elect Trump.
the House Intelligence Committee,
which has been converted by Trump loyalists into a bad-faith effort to undermine the Mueller probe,
con uously refused to reach that conclusion.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266387&page=836
So Repugs' political power of winning elections, which is more important honesty, ethics, morals, America, is more important than an illegit Repug so-called President elected by Pootin.
The truth about Trump and Russia that Republicans cannot say out loud
How many of those statements from Republicans also acknowledged the conclusion of the intelligence community that
the goal of that Russian interference was to elect Trump?
Republicans are reluctant to say that out loud,
because it might diminish the greatness of Trump’s victory, which would anger him and his voters.
But I think this gaping hole in the public posture of the GOP hints at deeper truths about the predicament that Republicans — and all of us — are consumed with right now.
many Republicans are privately worried that Trump’s display with Putin will hurt them in November’s midterm elections.
Their concerns:
Republicans lose when the focus is on the Russia investigation and Trump’s temperamental recklessness,
and not on the economy, and
swing voters aren’t going to side with Trump on this matter.
As one aide to a vulnerable House Republican put it:
“Is there an independent, swing voter in the country who would say:
‘Yeah, I really think Putin is telling the truth and the U.S. Department of Justice is the real problem?’ ”
the Republican base sides with Trump (and increasingly with Putin, as well)
against special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
As one House Republican suggested to CNBC’s John Harwood,
Republicans must be careful about opposing Trump when they stand up for the Russia inquiry, because “my cons uents love him.”
these statements do this in a limited way:
They don’t acknowledge the intelligence services’ consensus view that the Russian sabotage effort was designed to elect Trump.
the House Intelligence Committee,
which has been converted by Trump loyalists into a bad-faith effort to undermine the Mueller probe,
con uously refused to reach that conclusion.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...66387&page=836
So Repugs' political power of winning elections with Trash's scary cult,
which is more important than honesty, ethics, morals, America,
is more important than an illegit Repug so-called President elected by Pootin.
The truth about Trump and Russia that Republicans cannot say out loud
How many of those statements from Republicans also acknowledged the conclusion of the intelligence community that
the goal of that Russian interference was to elect Trump?
Republicans are reluctant to say that out loud,
because it might diminish the greatness of Trump’s victory, which would anger him and his voters.
But I think this gaping hole in the public posture of the GOP hints at deeper truths about the predicament that Republicans — and all of us — are consumed with right now.
many Republicans are privately worried that Trump’s display with Putin will hurt them in November’s midterm elections.
Their concerns:
Republicans lose when the focus is on the Russia investigation and Trump’s temperamental recklessness,
and not on the economy, and
swing voters aren’t going to side with Trump on this matter.
As one aide to a vulnerable House Republican put it:
“Is there an independent, swing voter in the country who would say:
‘Yeah, I really think Putin is telling the truth and the U.S. Department of Justice is the real problem?’ ”
the Republican base sides with Trump (and increasingly with Putin, as well)
against special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
As one House Republican suggested to CNBC’s John Harwood,
Republicans must be careful about opposing Trump when they stand up for the Russia inquiry, because “my cons uents love him.”
these statements do this in a limited way:
They don’t acknowledge the intelligence services’ consensus view that the Russian sabotage effort was designed to elect Trump.
the House Intelligence Committee,
which has been converted by Trump loyalists into a bad-faith effort to undermine the Mueller probe,
con uously refused to reach that conclusion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nl_most&wpmm=1
So Repugs' political power of winning elections with Trash's scary cult,
which is more important than honesty, ethics, morals, America,
is more important than an illegit Repug so-called President elected by Pootin.
yeah, the lawfare link
Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
Well, now we know.
======
Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
Great World Cup.
Question for President Trump as he meets Putin:
Do you know which team you play for?
4:34 PM - Jul 16, 2018
================
I think the idea that Trash is compromised, a traitor, an illegit President, thanks to Pootin, will now be more openly, more frequently talked about.
Trump's Most Fervent Supporter Cancels TV Appearance, Refusing to Defend #TreasonSummit
Salon referred to
as the “Dystopian Prophet” and the “leading intellectual of the Trump revolution” for his ridiculous, over-the-top
essay comparing the Trump movement to the heroes of Flight 93:
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the pit or you die.
You may die anyway.
You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the pit and not know how to fly or land the plane.
There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain.
To compound the metaphor:
a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto.
His essay was circulated widely in conservative circles, and
is credited for pushing many skeptics into Trump’s camp.
Anton has been a lapdog for Trump ever since.
Until now.
CNN's Erin Burnett had him scheduled to appear on her show
to provide Trump’s defense of his performance in Helsinki, Finland.
In case you missed it, in just one day:
an American journalist was forcibly removed;
Trump blamed the US for our problems with Russia;
Trump threw every US intelligence agency under the bus;
Trump explicitly refused to denounce the Russian attack on our elections; and
groveled to Putin so much that
even Fox News had enough.
This summit followed a week of
Trump insulting Germany,
threatening to dismantle NATO,
insulting the British prime minister, and
fist-bumping the Turkish dictator Erdogan
after telling him he “does things the right way”.
Yet
Michael Anton could always be counted on to give a full-throated defense of the Donald,
or so we thought. Today, he just couldn’t do it.
Really, what was he supposed to say?
Erin Burnett explained on her show:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...tail=emaildkre
"He was scheduled to be on the show, and
he's not on because he said
he's not going to defend what [Trump] did today," Burnett said.
"Aboard Air Force One back to Washington,
Mr. Trump’s mood grew foul
as the breadth of the critical reactions became clear,
according to some people briefed on the flight.
Aides steered clear of the front of the plane
to avoid being tapped for a venting session with Mr. Trump."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/w...T.nav=top-news
Trash is smart? He has NO IDEA of how he is seen, how his BULL is taken
I bet he schedules a campaign rally soon so his ignorant, duped cult can cheer him up.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-17-2018 at 02:12 PM.
McConnell and Paul Ryan just broke with Trump on Russia with defiant condemnations
Both Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) spoke out in public opposition to Trump’s shameful kowtowing to the Kremlin.
“There is no question that Russia interfered in our election and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around the world,” Ryan said.
“The president must appreciate that Russia is not our ally.”
“I have said a number of times, I’ll say it again:
The Russians are not our friends.
And I entirely believe the assessment of our intelligence community,” McConnell said.
https://washingtonpress.com/2018/07/...condemnations/
tee hee
Trash folds like limp
Trump Walks Back Controversial Comments On Russian Election Interference
President Trump attempted some damage control Tuesday, saying "I accept" the findings of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign.
But he again repeated his claim that there was no collusion between his Presidential campaign and Russia.
Trump added that he has "full faith and support for America's great intelligence agencies."
"I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place," Trump said, but then calling into question the extent of his acceptance, adding that it "could be other people also, there are a lot of people out there."
Trump walked back his comments after top Republican Congressional leaders implicitly criticized Trump's initial remarks in Finland Tuesday.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/17/62976...nterests?sc=tw
Next admission:
"Yes, Pootin meddled in the Pres campaign,
EFFECTIVELY,
such that I was fraudulently elected.
THERE ING FORE
I, Don The Con Trash, am NOT a legitimate President."
Trying damage control by flip-flopping then immediately flip-flopping again in the next sentence.
Waffles Dennison is the weakest president in US history.
Mariia Butina and the Open Secrets of the Russia Scandal
Butina will go down in history as perhaps the first person to publicly ask Trump what his policy toward Russian sanctions would be if he were President.
In July, 2015, a few weeks after Trump declared his candidacy,
he called on her—
apparently at random
—during an event in Las Vegas.
“Do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that are damaging of both economies?” Butina asked.
“I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin, O.K.?” Trump replied.
“I don’t think you’d need the sanctions.”
Later, according to Michael Isikoff and David Corn’s book, “Russian Roulette,”
the Trump campaign advisers
Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus worried about this exchange.
“How was it that this Russian woman happened to be in Las Vegas for that event?
And how was it that Trump happened to call on her?
And Trump’s response?”
Isikoff and Corn wrote.
“It was odd, Bannon thought, that
Trump had a fully developed answer.
Priebus agreed there was something strange about Butina.
Whenever there were events held by conservative groups, she was always around,
he told Bannon.”
Several months ago, Butina’s lawyer told a federal judge on Monday,
she testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed-door session.
Journalists have been on Butina’s trail since at least the spring of last year.
Trump’s closest advisers have had su ions about her since the campaign.
Now she’s facing federal charges,
and the public is being asked to catch up.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...Q0MTQzMTYwOAS2
Mueller Suspected of Giving Podesta Brothers Immunity to Indict Manafort and Is HIDING THIS FROM PUBLIC
ruh roh raggy!
Vladimir Putin does a lot for his country considering he’s only paid the measly salary of $112,000 a year
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
