Team Trump's Complex Web of Ties With Russia

[ian hacktorp]

1 hour ago, .ZZ. said:

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

He then instead goes on to identify those things he (supposedly) DIDN'T find.

Odd, that.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I've heard people say that Trump should be immediately impeached (no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts') due to his ties to Russia more times than I've heard people complain about the weather. How you haven't heard this type of commentary is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Probably because I consume different biased media than you I'd guess.  If we're just talking about 'people', thanks for clarifying; I agree 'people' say all kinds of irrational things, but that's kinda far removed from Maddow and MSNBC.  Here's what my half-hour googling has found:

- 'Maddow Impeach Trump' doesn't come up with much

- Rep Waters who has been one of Trump's most vocal opponents and has mentioned impeachment, from what I can find, uses the word 'if' a lot.

- The solid majority of Trump impeachment insistence and commentary I can find has to do with his business interests, not Russia.

- The impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org doesn't mention Russia at all that I can find, again it seems based on the emoluments clause.

However, I definitely didn't like the wording on this, the change.org impeach trump petition, which I think has a million signers:

Quote

The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, and/or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

We, the undersigned, lobby for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump suspected of treason, in violation of THE USA PATRIOT ACT for conspiring with Russia in tampering with the results of the 2016 election. He and his administration are an immediate threat to national security and his use of intimidation as president presents undeniable challenges in this investigation. Ergo, we petition his immediate removal from office as well as the removal of Vice President Mike Pence and all civil officers appointed under his rule, pending the results of his administration's investigation.

I don't like how that mess is assembled; it seems weird to lay out that the law says you have to be convicted of treason and then talk about 'impeaching Trump suspected of treason'; conviction, not just suspicion, is required.  This is the beginning part of the petition though and is followed by mentions of other laws they feel he has violated (hate crimes, cyber bulling, unspecified state laws, but weirdly they don't mention the business conflicts).  But since we agree that facts are important, there's no getting around the words 'suspected' and 'pending'; this petition doesn't assume he's guilty, it say's impeach him anyway (maybe just based on suspicion, maybe based on the other things listed, maybe just until the investigation is completed, ... not the greatest petition).

So fair enough, I'm sure there are some people out there who are making inappropriate assumptions of guilt, but if it's more prevalent than weather complaints it sure looks like you must live in a better climate than Michigan offers (which wouldn't be difficult). 

[Frank Merton]

It is pretty obvious that the Russians manipulated the American elections, giving us Trump.  However, since Republicans control Congress, and Trump controls Justice, no meaningful investigation will ever happen, just whatever noise the press is able to make, so no smoking gun will be found and they will all get away with it.  All I can say is that anyone who maintains that Trump is a legitimate president is perpetuating and enabling evil.  Look at what they are going to do to the environment, to the internet, to education in the US, and so on and on.

[Frank Merton]

I read today that Congressman Noone will not recuse himself from heading the House investigation into Trump's Russia dealings -- less than a week after he seriously compromised himself.  For some reason they want him and no one else -- why, one must ask, since his successor would also be a Republican and nothing this guy does now is credible.

[Glockornothing]

51 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

It is pretty obvious that the Russians manipulated the American elections, giving us Trump.  However, since Republicans control Congress, and Trump controls Justice, no meaningful investigation will ever happen, just whatever noise the press is able to make, so no smoking gun will be found and they will all get away with it.  All I can say is that anyone who maintains that Trump is a legitimate president is perpetuating and enabling evil.  Look at what they are going to do to the environment, to the internet, to education in the US, and so on and on.

How did the Russians manipulate who I was voting for (they didn't), if they did hack emails and exposed the truth, why are we so focused on the hacks and not what they exposed (maybe they allowed us to dodge a bullet).  Maybe no smoking gun will be found because one does not exist, I know that is to easy of an answer to swallow, but they (the demoncrats) will trudge on for the remainder of his term trying to vindicate their loss.  MAGA

[Baz Dane]

32 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

I read today that Congressman Noone will not recuse himself from heading the House investigation into Trump's Russia dealings -- less than a week after he seriously compromised himself.  For some reason they want him and no one else -- why, one must ask, since his successor would also be a Republican and nothing this guy does now is credible.

And exactly HOW did he "seriously compromised himself"

According to Trey Gowdy,...

..." Devon is a Chairperson of the Intelligence Committee. He has an obligation to update the commander in chief on information like this."

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by Lemieux
Spelling

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Lemieux said:

And exactly HOW did he "seriously compromised himself"

According to Trey Gowdy,...

..." Devon is a Chairperson of the Intelligence Committee. He has an obligation to update the commander in chief on information like this."

 

You really think that's acceptable? The investigated party being given updates as to how the investigation is progressing? I have to think partisanship is blinding your senses just a little bit here. 

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Probably because I consume different biased media than you I'd guess.  If we're just talking about 'people', thanks for clarifying; I agree 'people' say all kinds of irrational things, but that's kinda far removed from Maddow and MSNBC.  Here's what my half-hour googling has found:

- 'Maddow Impeach Trump' doesn't come up with much

- Rep Waters who has been one of Trump's most vocal opponents and has mentioned impeachment, from what I can find, uses the word 'if' a lot.

- The solid majority of Trump impeachment insistence and commentary I can find has to do with his business interests, not Russia.

- The impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org doesn't mention Russia at all that I can find, again it seems based on the emoluments clause.

However, I definitely didn't like the wording on this, the change.org impeach trump petition, which I think has a million signers:

I don't like how that mess is assembled; it seems weird to lay out that the law says you have to be convicted of treason and then talk about 'impeaching Trump suspected of treason'; conviction, not just suspicion, is required.  This is the beginning part of the petition though and is followed by mentions of other laws they feel he has violated (hate crimes, cyber bulling, unspecified state laws, but weirdly they don't mention the business conflicts).  But since we agree that facts are important, there's no getting around the words 'suspected' and 'pending'; this petition doesn't assume he's guilty, it say's impeach him anyway (maybe just based on suspicion, maybe based on the other things listed, maybe just until the investigation is completed, ... not the greatest petition).

So fair enough, I'm sure there are some people out there who are making inappropriate assumptions of guilt, but if it's more prevalent than weather complaints it sure looks like you must live in a better climate than Michigan offers (which wouldn't be difficult). 

What was fair enough?  Even when you have to do the legwork for another poster's accusations, it remains that Impeachment is a legal process, not some irrational assumption of guilt more common than complaining about the weather for which no evidence was provided.   Calling for Trump's impeachment now is bad strategy because there's no impeachable offense yet established, but calling for impeachment isn't presuming guilt because impeachment itself isn't presuming guilt.  The impeachment process confers with the "innocent until proving guilty" legal model too.

Since Rachel Maddow was cited specifically, I looked too and I couldn't find any irrational assumption of guilt there either.  

There's evidence of collusion and an investigation underway of that evidence.   Conversely, there is no investigation of Obama wiretapping Trump Tower because there is no evidence.   Going where the evidence takes us is the way forward.

[Frank Merton]

23 minutes ago, Glockornothing said:

How did the Russians manipulate who I was voting for (they didn't), if they did hack emails and exposed the truth, why are we so focused on the hacks and not what they exposed (maybe they allowed us to dodge a bullet).  Maybe no smoking gun will be found because one does not exist, I know that is to easy of an answer to swallow, but they (the demoncrats) will trudge on for the remainder of his term trying to vindicate their loss.  MAGA

You are in denial or only watch FOX as your naive ignorance of reality is pretty hard to grasp.

I don't think Trump will accomplish much except ruin the environment and cause a lot of suffering for the poor both in the States and elsewhere.  He had made fierce enemies of the Democrats on a personal level with his arrogance and put-downs, so he has to have a united Republican party, and that is obviously not in the cards.

By the way, who you voted for is a bit arrogant, typical of Trump types.  I can imagine you were influenced by the Russian produced and spread lies, or maybe you are a sexist enough to not want a woman, or maybe also racist and wanting to take a jab at Obama, or maybe her being pushed a little too far to the left by our idiot Senator from Vermont, or who knows?

About 2-3 percent of the electorate was "undecided" and presumed would break about evenly.  It didn't.  This is why the polls turned out wrong, but I trust them more than the actual vote count (part of it of course had to do with the AG's sudden "investigation" that evaporated as soon as the election was over).

People tend to think somehow the US is immune to the sorts of criminality that happens elsewhere in the world -- people can be bribed or blackmailed in the US too, and when you see such a sudden reversal, this is a natural conclusion.  From what we've seen, neither Trump nor Putin is above that sort of thing.

[Frank Merton]

I don't see how impeachment would be possible so long as Republicans control congress, and once the Democrats take control they would need more than a simple majority, which would mean hearings like what happened to Nixon ("What did the President know and when did he know it").  Absent a "smoking gun," even then a conviction in the Senate would be very hard to get.

If Trump is to be removed, he will have to be persuaded to resign, as was Nixon.  Nixon had some pride and wouldn't try to govern when it was impossible.  Trump is a different person.

So I see him staying for four years, and shudder at the harm and suffering he will cause.  At that point the Republicans will either disavow him or disappear from history.  (At least that is what would happen in most countries -- there are enough racists in the US who would remain Republican that it's hard to be sure).

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 minute ago, Yamato said:

What was fair enough? 

That there's no disputing the claim that 'people say'.  I'm sure some do, even if I can't find very good examples of what it is incomprehensible that I haven't already heard.

[Yamato]

3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That there's no disputing the claim that 'people say'.  I'm sure some do, even if I can't find very good examples of what it is incomprehensible that I haven't already heard.

Sure people say things.  People say "Lock her up." 

Doesn't matter.  Calling on a process that determines guilt isn't an assumption of guilt.  It's not skipping the trial and going straight to the prison, it's just calling on the trial.   When we get to "Lock him up!" that'll be square.   But we sure haven't heard Rachel Maddow say that.   And if a UM poster did I'd like to know who.

[Frank Merton]

29 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

I don't see how impeachment would be possible so long as Republicans control congress, and once the Democrats take control they would need more than a simple majority, which would mean hearings like what happened to Nixon ("What did the President know and when did he know it").  Absent a "smoking gun," even then a conviction in the Senate would be very hard to get.

If Trump is to be removed, he will have to be persuaded to resign, as was Nixon.  Nixon had some pride and wouldn't try to govern when it was impossible.  Trump is a different person.

So I see him staying for four years, and shudder at the harm and suffering he will cause.  At that point the Republicans will either disavow him or disappear from history.  (At least that is what would happen in most countries -- there are enough racists in the US who would remain Republican that it's hard to be sure).

I should correct the second paragraph.  Nixon had some honor.  Both are prideful.

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

So fair enough, I'm sure there are some people out there who are making inappropriate assumptions of guilt, but if it's more prevalent than weather complaints it sure looks like you must live in a better climate than Michigan offers (which wouldn't be difficult). 

Just from a human standpoint, take politics out of it for a second and examine trump the man, his entire body of work and I think the assumption of guilt becomes quite appropriate pretty well regardless of the topic. Im not suggesting that investigators or officials shouldn't give trump the same "innocent until proven guilty" that the rest of us should get, but for the average joe I think billionaire scumbags doing shady things are a pretty well accepted part of life in oligarchical America. 

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Just from a human standpoint, take politics out of it for a second and examine trump the man, his entire body of work and I think the assumption of guilt becomes quite appropriate pretty well regardless of the topic. Im not suggesting that investigators or officials shouldn't give trump the same "innocent until proven guilty" that the rest of us should get, but for the average joe I think billionaire scumbags doing shady things are a pretty well accepted part of life in oligarchical America. 

Huh? He's a billionaire scumbag, so obviously he must be guilty? It doesn't really matter of what? 

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

You are in denial or only watch FOX as your naive ignorance of reality is pretty hard to grasp.

I don't think Trump will accomplish much except ruin the environment and cause a lot of suffering for the poor both in the States and elsewhere.  He had made fierce enemies of the Democrats on a personal level with his arrogance and put-downs, so he has to have a united Republican party, and that is obviously not in the cards.

By the way, who you voted for is a bit arrogant, typical of Trump types.  I can imagine you were influenced by the Russian produced and spread lies, or maybe you are a sexist enough to not want a woman, or maybe also racist and wanting to take a jab at Obama, or maybe her being pushed a little too far to the left by our idiot Senator from Vermont, or who knows?

About 2-3 percent of the electorate was "undecided" and presumed would break about evenly.  It didn't.  This is why the polls turned out wrong, but I trust them more than the actual vote count (part of it of course had to do with the AG's sudden "investigation" that evaporated as soon as the election was over).

People tend to think somehow the US is immune to the sorts of criminality that happens elsewhere in the world -- people can be bribed or blackmailed in the US too, and when you see such a sudden reversal, this is a natural conclusion.  From what we've seen, neither Trump nor Putin is above that sort of thing.

You really couldn't make it up. First he says "You are in denial or only watch FOX as your naive ignorance of reality is pretty hard to grasp", and then he says "I can imagine you were influenced by the Russian produced and spread lies,". So where did you get your unimpeachable information from that the vile Russkies' lies influenced the election, Frank? And nice completely unwarranted personal attack there. "or maybe you are a sexist enough to not want a woman, or maybe also racist and wanting to take a jab at Obama". Your bias is so far out there that it's beyond absurd.

[Farmer77]

17 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Huh? He's a billionaire scumbag, so obviously he must be guilty? It doesn't really matter of what? 

Im just speaking on a human level. People are acting shocked that the majority are willing to accept the accusations against trump. I find that to be a ludicrous position, the man is not a credible person, regardless of party affiliation the dude is a living caricature of a slimy human being.

So much so that they created the evil biff tannen character from back to the future 2 after him.  Biff Tannen from Back to the Future was based on Donald Trump  

Yet people are shocked that noone believes him when he talks , or that people are willing to believe the worst about him. 

Edited March 29, 2017 by Farmer77

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That there's no disputing the claim that 'people say'. 

So claiming that "people say" that the Media is hysterically biased towards the "Democrats" is not good enough, and you insist on documented examples, but if "people say" that the New Stalin assisted the New Hitler into office, than that obviously is true, because "everyone knows" it? It's quite laughable. 

[Space Commander Travis]

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Great, should be all the easier to provide an example then of what specifically you are talking about.  Not everyone in the world views everything just like people from Glyndyfrdwy do, but maybe if I knew an example I could join you and say, 'yep, that's an unfair assumption'.  

Of course, what it is is you wouldn't believe that anything you might read in the Mainstream Media about Adolf is a hysterical load of guff - sorry, an unfair assumption - because you obviously wouldn't think that anything, no matter how hilarious, was an unfair assumption, I suppose. I mean, the funny thing is, there's a lot already that you could quite legitimately criticize and challenge him on - his environmental policies, for a start - but all this clinging to this paranoid hysteria about the Russkies and these double standards - insisting on documentary proof that some of the things that have been said about him is hysterical crap, while accepting without question the CIA's suave assurances that "oh, the Russkies conspired to put him in office, trust us on this" - really defeats your own argument, and distracts from the legitimate grounds to challenge his policies. In fact, all this hysterical white noise about the Russkies almost serves the purpose of a smokescreen to deflect attention from the actual policies. Maybe it's all a conspiracy promoted by the Trump Camp all along to discredit criticism of him!  

[Michelle]

If you can't beat 'em join 'em...

Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed the "great importance" of ties between his country and France as he met French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen at the Kremlin on Friday, Russian state-run news agency Tass reported.

Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters that Russia was not seeking to influence the upcoming French election but had the right to communicate with French politicians.

Russia had no intention of "interfering in anyone's internal business or electoral processes," Peskov said.

cont...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/putin-le-pen-kremlin/

 

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

It is pretty obvious that the Russians manipulated the American elections, giving us Trump.  However, since Republicans control Congress, and Trump controls Justice, no meaningful investigation will ever happen, just whatever noise the press is able to make, so no smoking gun will be found and they will all get away with it.  All I can say is that anyone who maintains that Trump is a legitimate president is perpetuating and enabling evil.  Look at what they are going to do to the environment, to the internet, to education in the US, and so on and on.

 

Explain the mechanism by which a foreign government can sway an election to not only give a majority vote in 31 states but to simultaneously allow for the opponent to win the popular vote.   Unless you can do that, your opinion is just that, an OPINION.  A very poorly formed opinion at that.  

[+and-then]

24 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Of course, what it is is you wouldn't believe that anything you might read in the Mainstream Media about Adolf is a hysterical load of guff - sorry, an unfair assumption - because you obviously wouldn't think that anything, no matter how hilarious, was an unfair assumption, I suppose. I mean, the funny thing is, there's a lot already that you could quite legitimately criticize and challenge him on - his environmental policies, for a start - but all this clinging to this paranoid hysteria about the Russkies and these double standards - insisting on documentary proof that some of the things that have been said about him is hysterical crap, while accepting without question the CIA's suave assurances that "oh, the Russkies conspired to put him in office, trust us on this" - really defeats your own argument, and distracts from the legitimate grounds to challenge his policies. In fact, all this hysterical white noise about the Russkies almost serves the purpose of a smokescreen to deflect attention from the actual policies. Maybe it's all a conspiracy promoted by the Trump Camp all along to discredit criticism of him!  

 

Spot on!  Trump will be his own undoing if he continues alienating his base.  His presidency rests on a knife's edge as it is.  This health care bill was treated like a throwaway issue.  He promised to repeal and replace, not repackage and add to the cost.  He's now talking about working with the Democrats.  In a fair, honorable system that would be good news.  Unfortunately, history has proven how vicious this lot (both sides) are.  When his poll numbers drop consistently into the 30's, he'll be impeached and removed.  I just hope that Mike Pence is as honorable as he appears to be.  I also hope that Trump will be vengeful enough to take up the Article Five fight.  Ultimately, it's the only real hope for saving this nation in some semblance of what the Founders intended.

[Myles]

8 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

  This is why the polls turned out wrong, but I trust them more than the actual vote count (part of it of course had to do with the AG's sudden "investigation" that evaporated as soon as the election was over).

 

Trusting the polls more than the actual vote is pretty naive. 

 

[Myles]

8 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Y

 

By the way, who you voted for is a bit arrogant, typical of Trump types.  I can imagine you were influenced by the Russian produced and spread lies, or maybe you are a sexist enough to not want a woman, or maybe also racist and wanting to take a jab at Obama, or maybe her being pushed a little too far to the left by our idiot Senator from Vermont, or who knows?

Pretty typical.    Throwing out the "sexist" and "racist" accusations.  

[Frank Merton]

Just now, Myles said:

Trusting the polls more than the actual vote is pretty naive. 

 

The opposite.  The polls are scientific samples and there are several of them competing with each other, so when they agree they have it right -- and that has been the case since they realized telephone ownership was not enough (Truman Dewey)..