You have to be a little more specific than just saying things like the Russians meddled in the election. There have been a couple reports by the NSA et al. that make it pretty clear the Russians tried to influence the election via media, social media accounts, etc. I don't think that much is in dispute.
There's another level, where the Russians supposedly hacked into John Podesta's email account and forwarded the contents to Wikileaks. This one is a bit less straightforward; the head of the NSA has said that has moderate confidence in that report. Other agencies have a high confidence in that report. Wikileaks has explicitly said that Russia is not the source, and there have been other suggestions that the source was actually a since-murdered Bernie supporter and DNC employee.
I'm not sure what to make of all of that. If all these intelligence agencies say it was the work of Russia, I have no real reason to dispute that until something else comes up.
None of the above really gets liberals or Democrats anywhere. The real prize is linking Trump to some active efforts of collusion, something they have failed so spectacularly at that it defies words. In fact, they have talked up claims of collusion and treason so extensively, that some of the minor procedural stuff that those in the Trump administration have gotten caught up in don't even really matter in the grand scheme of things. They have set the bar awfully high and I don't see how they can clear it.
you do realize there's an investigation going on, right?
during an investigation, intel/evidence isn't just dropped to the public piece by piece like they're feeding fish at a pond or something.
all the intelligence communities agree that russians meddled in our election.
that isn't the question. even trump HIMSELF just said so. if you were paying any sort of attention, you'd be aware of that.
the investigations currently going on is determining:
A. how much/far did they meddle B. what foreign entities were involved, other than russians C were there any americans involved, if so, who? and how far up the food chain does this go?
That's a pretty fair assessment.. it's a shame it's not reported way.. if it was, maybe almost 70% of the country wouldn't already have suspicions that somebody high up in the Trump campaign (or Trump himself) was working with the Russians....
except it is reported that way? but you don't like it cause "liberal outlets" remember?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You have to be a little more specific than just saying things like the Russians meddled in the election. There have been a couple reports by the NSA et al. that make it pretty clear the Russians tried to influence the election via media, social media accounts, etc. I don't think that much is in dispute.
why do i have to be more specific? i'm not the one doing the investigation.
you've been debating the entire time whether or not the russian's meddled. now all of a sudden you're in agreement that they did? you're all over the place right now.
Quote:
There's another level, where the Russians supposedly hacked into John Podesta's email account and forwarded the contents to Wikileaks. This one is a bit less straightforward; the head of the NSA has said that has moderate confidence in that report. Other agencies have a high confidence in that report. Wikileaks has explicitly said that Russia is not the source, and there have been other suggestions that the source was actually a since-murdered Bernie supporter and DNC employee.
Russia has also explicitly said they didn't attempt to interfere in the election, yet you don't believe them and believe our intelligence community. yet you believe wikileaks?
come on dude, where's the consistency?
Quote:
I'm not sure what to make of all of that. If all these intelligence agencies say it was the work of Russia, I have no real reason to dispute that until something else comes up.
and yet that's EXACTLY what you've been doing up until now. odd.
Quote:
None of the above really gets liberals or Democrats anywhere.
how many different ways must it be explained to you that conservatives/republicans are the ones leading the investigation?
Quote:
The real prize is linking Trump to some active efforts of collusion, something they have failed so spectacularly at that it defies words. In fact, they have talked up claims of collusion and treason so extensively, that some of the minor procedural stuff that those in the Trump administration have gotten caught up in don't even really matter in the grand scheme of things. They have set the bar awfully high and I don't see how they can clear it.
again, this goes back to you declaring that you won't comment until the investigation is over with.
and "gotten caught up in" is a vast understatement, especially since we have a guy who acted as a lobbyist for a foreign government, as well as lied about contacts with russia (flynn), and the shadiness that is Sessions, as well as a host of other peeps.
which goes back to my entire point: either trump is ignorant enough to surround himself with guys who are actively taking advantage of his gullibleness, or he's an active part in this collusion.
either way is grounds for impeachment, but i much rather deal with a stupid president than a traitor.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is no evidence of collusion [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc]. Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and what they believe invites scorn.
Okay, admittedly, I am not following this as well as I should be, but I also don't get the hysteria around Russia. It's almost become this "boogeyman" of the press, but I still don't understand what has actually happened or why the press is pushing the narrative so hard.
My biggest question is, what exactly did Russia "hack"? They've made it sound like Russia hacked into closed circuit voter booths and paper ballots to somehow change the vote. The only actual "hack" I've heard about was the Wikileaks release, which Wikileaks claims didn't come from Russia anyway. All that did was show the collusion involved in the DNC that rigged the primaries. So when the DNC and media scream that "Russia rigged the election!" ... it comes across as "Hey, they cheated better than we did!"
This is what is known that Russia did:
- They ran a complex social media campaign disparaging Hillary CLinton (mostly and by far to the largest degree), Bernie Sanders (during the primaries when it looked like he might beat HRC and after on his popular topics), Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and others to a lesser degree others in the GOP primaries. They did this to give Trump the edge, speculation is that Putin decided Trump was best for him although the reasons are still unclear. These things were done and have been tracked back to Russian "hackers" (aligned with Putin).
- These same hackers were behind the hacking of the DNC's servers where they accessed DWS, Podesta and others private communications. These hacked communications are thought to be the source for wikileaks but that has not been proven.
- HRC's emails that were released by Guccifer 2.0 (supposed hacker) are also thought to have been obtained from her personal email server or phone by these same Russian "hackers".
- Electronic footprints have also been uncovered that show attempts to hack the RNC's database, numerous State and Local political databases, and various attempts to hack voting locations/machines. These are thought to have been all thwarted by security measures.
- The social media attack (hack) consisted of large numbers of fake accounts that spread things like negative memes, fake news stories, and interacted with groups from all sides on the major social media platforms to widen the divide and reinforce Trump (mostly). These were very successful and TONS of them tracked back to the Russian hackers.
So in a nutshell that's what it's all about and that's why Trump is being investigated. America needs to know if it's President worked with a foreign enemy during an attack on our democracy for self gain (collusion), if he had prior knowledge of and or supported it while it was occurring (treason), or if he is just the guy Putin wanted to back for no apparent reason other than the obvious getting sanctions lifted for the oil deal or because Trump serves his agenda in another way; it may not even be possible to uncover the truth behind all of this but it's why there is an investigation. Trump may very well be innocent and Putin just thinks he's a stooge.
But the dems are looking at everything Trump with a microscope now and lot's of things look sketchy:
- Trump straight up asked Russia to hack HRC and get her 'lost' emails. - Many members of Trump's Campaign had meetings with Russians that they all 'forgot' to report. - Trump never has anything bad to say about Putin or Russia and even seemed giddy when he met with the Russian's in the oval office and offered up classified information (which was his prerogative as President but looked bad considering the situation). - Trump and his family have received money from Russians for years in their businesses. Trump started borrowing from Russian banks after his ability to borrow from New York banks dried up. They weathered the recession on Russian money at their golf courses according to one of his boys. So there are a lot of coincidences. - Trump appointed Tillerson as Secretary of State, the Exxon Mobile Ceo behind a failed half TRILLION dollar oil deal with Putin and Russia. Sanctions put in place by Obama's administration killed the deal, HRC would have continued sanctions while early on it looked as though Trump was going to lift them right away and push the deal through.
There are other things, a lot of other things that may or may not mean a thing but America deserves to know for sure and this is why we have the investigations going on. All of the rest is just BLAH BLAH BLAH until we know. And 40 is right, Trump is innocent until proven guilty and only time will tell. But in my opinion, anything that looks like an attempt to derail the investigations or undermine the investigators seems as serious as any treasonous interaction that may have occurred with Russia, even moreso.
So when I hear Trump crying about the investigation or his cult-like following complaining about it, I simply don't care what they think because this investigation needs to run it's course.
Now We Have Collusion - Democrats Should Be Excited'
Former DOJ Chief of Staff Mark Levin said Democrats should be "excited" because there is finally proof of collusion with the Russians - on their side of the aisle.
Levin, a syndicated radio host, said there is now proof of collusion between President Obama and Vladimir Putin.
He said that Obama knew about Russian interference in the 2016 election back in August, but did not act because he assumed Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.
"[Obama] colluded to cover this up, to keep it from the American people," Levin said.
"Now we have collusion. Democrats should be excited," he said.
Now We Have Collusion - Democrats Should Be Excited'
Former DOJ Chief of Staff Mark Levin said Democrats should be "excited" because there is finally proof of collusion with the Russians - on their side of the aisle.
Levin, a syndicated radio host, said there is now proof of collusion between President Obama and Vladimir Putin.
He said that Obama knew about Russian interference in the 2016 election back in August, but did not act because he assumed Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.
"[Obama] colluded to cover this up, to keep it from the American people," Levin said.
"Now we have collusion. Democrats should be excited," he said.
Talk about grasping at straws. What Obama did is pretty much what Bush did on 911. He hesitated to react, period. Then he launched an investigation to find out if the Russian government was behind it. He also supposedly told Putin to "cut it out"... That he must have learned the same place HRC learned it for her punishment of Wall Street.
But I will give you this 40, the investigation should go WHEREVER it leads and ANYONE suspected should be scrutinized and punished if guilty, period. Obama, HRC, Bernie, Trump, their teams, Congress, anyone else... None of them are above the law and any of them could have fault or committed a crime to one degree or another.
That would be a step up from anything Trump has done to Putin so far.
Trump would like to meet with Putin and see if a compromise can be hammered out but you and your kind cry every time he tries to speak with them.
Then the transcripts of the meeting are leaked before the ink is dry and the Press runs with it. Next you and yours start crying that Trump has given away secrets and crap.
Russia is not near the problem as the enemy within America.
Now We Have Collusion - Democrats Should Be Excited'
Former DOJ Chief of Staff Mark Levin said Democrats should be "excited" because there is finally proof of collusion with the Russians - on their side of the aisle.
Levin, a syndicated radio host, said there is now proof of collusion between President Obama and Vladimir Putin.
He said that Obama knew about Russian interference in the 2016 election back in August, but did not act because he assumed Hillary Clinton would win the presidency.
"[Obama] colluded to cover this up, to keep it from the American people," Levin said.
"Now we have collusion. Democrats should be excited," he said.
Talk about grasping at straws. What Obama did is pretty much what Bush did on 911. He hesitated to react, period. Then he launched an investigation to find out if the Russian government was behind it. He also supposedly told Putin to "cut it out"... That he must have learned the same place HRC learned it for her punishment of Wall Street.
But I will give you this 40, the investigation should go WHEREVER it leads and ANYONE suspected should be scrutinized and punished if guilty, period. Obama, HRC, Bernie, Trump, their teams, Congress, anyone else... None of them are above the law and any of them could have fault or committed a crime to one degree or another.
You have to admit that it would be hilarious if, after all these months of Democrats putting all their eggs in the "Russia" basket, the investigation ends up hurting them more than it hurts Trump.
Trump would like to meet with Putin and see if a compromise can be hammered out but you and your kind cry every time he tries to speak with them.
Then the transcripts of the meeting are leaked before the ink is dry and the Press runs with it. Next you and yours start crying that Trump has given away secrets and crap.
Russia is not near the problem as the enemy within America.
Yes, attacking our election process should equal becoming friends with no consequences. Sharing our secrets with not one, but two foreign governments should be applauded.
And I thought you claimed to be Patriotic.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
The president controls classified information. The - almost the definition of classified information is material the president wants to protect. So if the president wants to disclose it, he gets to disclose it. And disclosures that would be a very serious crime if anyone else did them are almost certainly not if the president does them.
The president controls classified information. The - almost the definition of classified information is material the president wants to protect. So if the president wants to disclose it, he gets to disclose it. And disclosures that would be a very serious crime if anyone else did them are almost certainly not if the president does them.
Now you have a clue.
That's not even close to being accurate.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
It's very simple,, if a positive statement is made about Trump, 40 is all for it. If a negative statement is made, it's fake.
So using logic will do you no good at all with him Pit!
Flip that around, remove 40 and insert about a dozen people on here and it applies equally well.
I have to agree. You know, it's funny. I really wish I could compare this universe to another universe where Hillary goes into office, does the exact same things as Trump, and then watch what the public outcry and media coverage says.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
The president controls classified information. The - almost the definition of classified information is material the president wants to protect. So if the president wants to disclose it, he gets to disclose it. And disclosures that would be a very serious crime if anyone else did them are almost certainly not if the president does them.
Now you have a clue.
That's not even close to being accurate.
Are you telling me that Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution is a liar?
Are you telling me we have replaced the Constitution of the United States of America?
The president’s classification and declassification powers are broad Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.
The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan -- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.
"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."
The president controls classified information. The - almost the definition of classified information is material the president wants to protect. So if the president wants to disclose it, he gets to disclose it. And disclosures that would be a very serious crime if anyone else did them are almost certainly not if the president does them.
Now you have a clue.
That's not even close to being accurate.
Both parties seem to love leaks when it exposes their opponent and claim it as unpatriotic when it exposes their own party...
Right now the "wannacry" ransomware (or a derivative of it) is making it's way around the world disrupting governments and businesses, holding them hostage for ransom... it was originally leaked from our government. This has little to do with Trump but this notion that people within government can get favors or make a name for themselves by leaking information is a very dangerous road to go down...
The only thing that is dead wrong here is that you believe that a president can spout off things that is considered to be a national security risk and it's just fine because he's president.
It's not that easy to excuse stupidity.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
The president controls classified information. The - almost the definition of classified information is material the president wants to protect. So if the president wants to disclose it, he gets to disclose it. And disclosures that would be a very serious crime if anyone else did them are almost certainly not if the president does them.
Now you have a clue.
That's not even close to being accurate.
Are you telling me that Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution is a liar?
Are you telling me we have replaced the Constitution of the United States of America?
The president’s classification and declassification powers are broad Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.
The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan -- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.
"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."
You're funny. I'm not arguing against the Supreme Court ruling, but your view of classification and security is overly broad. The way different SAP programs work, a president could still get in heap-loads of trouble if he did something to gravely compromise national security. It's the same reason why Hillary - rightfully so - received a ton of scrutiny and blame when she messed all the security classification stuff up. The SOS has broad powers as well when it comes to discerning classified information, but as we all saw (or rather should have seen), they can get in a lot of trouble.
I'm not going to venture far down this road, so please feel free to have the last word. I'll just leave it that this is a topic I know a lot about.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
They both suck. I highly doubt it would be any better.
Wholeheartedly agree. I just brought it up based upon my speculation that a massive amount of voters would do a complete 180 based upon the person/party, not on the acts.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
