Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump's got an itchy fire-Mueller finger.

President Donald Trump says it's "bothersome" that the man investigating possible ties between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia is good friends with fired FBI director James Comey.

Trump tells "Fox and Friends" in an interview to be broadcast Friday that special counsel Robert Mueller is "very, very good friends with Comey, which is very bothersome."

Comey was overseeing the investigation until Trump fired him last month out of frustration with the inquiry.

Asked whether Mueller should step down from the investigation because of his friendship with Comey, Trump says, "We're going to have to see."

 

[Stacko]

Trump's got an itchy fire-Mueller finger.

He's going to probing the finances of Trump & Co.

Actually, Trump has even more cause for concern because, like previous investigations, this one won’t be narrowly limited. Recall that the Whitewater independent counsel began by probing an Arkansas land deal and wound up nailing Bill Clinton for lying under oath about his sex life. To get the truth about Kremlingate, Mueller will need to investigate any possible financial ties between Trump, his associates, and Russia — and that, in turn, will lead Mueller to probe just about every financial transaction in which Trump and his cronies have been involved.

The Washington Post reported that investigators are “looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates,” while the New York Times wrote: “A former senior official said Mr. Mueller’s investigation was looking at money laundering by Trump associates. The suspicion is that any cooperation with Russian officials would most likely have been in exchange for some kind of financial payoff, and that there would have been an effort to hide the payments, probably by routing them through offshore banking centers.”

Did someone say money laundering? For some strange reason that reminded me of this NBC News report that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, “was associated with at least 15 bank accounts and 10 companies on Cyprus, dating back to 2007,” and that “At least one of those companies was used to receive millions of dollars from a billionaire Putin ally.”

He's worked very hard to hide his finances and Mueller is going to get access.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump's big mistake, thinking Mueller is the only one who is investigating. He has a team, they have the evidence they've collected so far. If the investigation were to be shut down you can expect leaking by whistleblowers.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

He's going to probing the finances of Trump & Co.

He's worked very hard to hide his finances and Mueller is going to get access.

My spidey sense is tingling a bit, suggesting Mr. Mueller is being put on notice.

 

[Stacko]

My spidey sense is tingling a bit, suggesting Mr. Mueller is being put on notice.

Trump is recklessly obsessed with clamping down on the investigation for some reason. A long history of money laundering for the Russians seems more likely than actual collusion as an explanation. Lindsey Graham was very prescient in saying, "I don't believe Trump colluded with the Russians because I don't think he colludes with his own staff."

 

[Belz...]

Trump's big mistake, thinking Mueller is the only one who is investigating.

Yeah numbers aren't his thing, either.

 

[sts60]

Trump is recklessly obsessed with clamping down on the investigation for some reason. A long history of money laundering for the Russians seems more likely than actual collusion as an explanation. Lindsey Graham was very prescient in saying, "I don't believe Trump colluded with the Russians because I don't think he colludes with his own staff."

I think so too. When I call Trump a traitor, it's not because I think he was passing classified information on the sly - well, he just blurts it out in the open - or is secretly sabotaging armaments factories or stuff like that. It's because he is working so hard to destroy the representative democracy we have by attacking its institutions, and aiding and abetting a hostile foreign power in its attacks on these institutions.

Those acts are all done brazenly, in the open - the collusion is in his tweets and rants to friendly lapdogs like Fox. It's in his fawning praise of Putin and his gang of kleptocrats - people just like him except not as loud and stupid but a lot more actually dangerous. It's in the open invitation to attack political opponents and incessant denials that there is anything wrong - like every other promise he's ever made, his oath of office was just another lie of convenience.

What's disheartening is how many collaborators he has in the GOP Congress, willing to overlook all of his malfeasance with an occasional pro forma tut-tut, but never willing to put country before party - craven, treasonous wretches, the lot of them.

I do think there's outright collusion aplenty to be found among his campaign and staff, as well as lots more money laundering and other financial crimes. With Trump, the explicit stuff is the money laundering and obstruction. But there's plenty to go around - I hope the lot of them spend he rest of their miserable lives in Leavenworth: the entire Trump crime family, Bannon, Flynn, Pence, Manafort, Page, etc. - oh, and an extra side of Ryan and McConnell, too, please.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Trump's got an itchy fire-Mueller finger.

Asked whether Mueller should step down from the investigation because of his friendship with Comey, Trump says, "We're going to have to see."

Pff... Which basically translates as, "If it doesn't go in a direction that I approve of, yes."

 

[BobTheCoward]

I didn't take a position on your stance towards the Constitution, Bob.

Let me ask a more specific question. If the President were to order a halt to all immigrants who pray facing Mecca, does the theory of unitary executive require that there be no checks on that order?

I'm only saying that check cannot.come from the executive branch and not be thwarted by him.

 

[Childlike Empress]

CIA-Funded Washington Post Makes Desperate Attempt To Reignite Russia Hysteria

 

[BobTheCoward]

CIA-Funded Washington Post Makes Desperate Attempt To Reignite Russia Hysteria [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074f54e3b17f64e.gif[/qimg]

I agree with the article that nothing the WaPo puts out should not be regarded as factual as it is based on anonymous sources that can simply be fabrication. As skeptics, open presentation of evidence is required to accept a claim.

 

[varwoche]

CIA-Funded Washington Post Makes Desperate Attempt To Reignite Russia Hysteria [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074f54e3b17f64e.gif[/qimg]

That might be the goofiest nonsense you ever foisted, and that's no small feat.

 

[skyeagle409]

CIA-Funded Washington Post Makes Desperate Attempt To Reignite Russia Hysteria [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074f54e3b17f64e.gif[/qimg]

Russia is the threat.

Russia threatens to NUKE Norway in response to allowing US Marines to deploy in the country

* Last week Norway agreed to allow 330 US Marines to be based at Værnes

* Russia is furious and Frants Klintsevich said Norway was now fair game

* Klintsevich's views are thought to be in line with those of President Putin's

Norway has been warned by a senior Russian politician that it could now be a nuclear target after it allowed for the deployment of 330 US Marines.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...response-allowing-Marines-deploy-country.html

 

[jimbob]

That might be the goofiest nonsense you ever foisted, and that's no small feat.

Indeed, and the two posters who dispute this (where the CIA story is only part of the evidence) have two completely different approaches to evidence.

One requires absolute proof for everything - which is consistent but intellectually sterile.

One requires no evidence to accept Russian propaganda or anything that paints the West in a bad light.

In their ways, both are consistent.

I agree with the article that nothing the WaPo puts out should not be regarded as factual as it is based on anonymous sources that can simply be fabrication. As skeptics, open presentation of evidence is required to accept a claim.

CIA-Funded Washington Post Makes Desperate Attempt To Reignite Russia Hysteria [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074f54e3b17f64e.gif[/qimg]

 

[BobTheCoward]

Indeed, and the two posters who dispute this (where the CIA story is only part of the evidence) have two completely different approaches to evidence.

One requires absolute proof for everything - which is consistent but intellectually sterile.

One requires no evidence to accept Russian propaganda or anything that paints the West in a bad light.

In their ways, both are consistent.

There is a huge difference between requiring absolute proof and requiring whoever is making a claim to present their evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is a huge difference between requiring absolute proof and requiring whoever is making a claim to present their evidence.

Hypothetically, if a news source had decades of history where when their anonymous sources were revealed, or when there was corroborating evidence supporting what was previously reported from anonymous sources, the news source was found to be consistently honest, the anonymous sources found to be consistently well vetted,

at what point might you trust that news source when they again cited anonymous sources?

 

[jimbob]

There is a huge difference between requiring absolute proof and requiring whoever is making a claim to present their evidence.

Hypothetically, if a news source had decades of history where when their anonymous sources were revealed, or when there was corroborating evidence supporting what was previously reported from anonymous sources, the news source was found to be consistently honest, the anonymous sources found to be consistently well vetted,

at what point might you trust that news source when they again cited anonymous sources?

Especially when there is good reason for the sources to wish to remain anonymous.

If this approach had been applied to Watergate, Deep Throat either wouldn't have come forward, or they would have been quickly identified and shut down before they highlighted sufficient wrongdoing.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That might be the goofiest nonsense you ever foisted, and that's no small feat.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Hypothetically, if a news source had decades of history where when their anonymous sources were revealed, or when there was corroborating evidence supporting what was previously reported from anonymous sources, the news source was found to be consistently honest, the anonymous sources found to be consistently well vetted,

at what point might you trust that news source when they again cited anonymous sources?

Never. No one ever gains exemption from skeptical inquiry.

 

[Childlike Empress]

One requires no evidence to accept Russian propaganda or anything that paints the West in a bad light.

Contrary to you lot I'm not engaged in smearing "the leader of the free world" with goofy conspiracy theories with obvious agendas and no evidence.