Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
jimbob said:
OK adding those to the timeline


My additions in Red
Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
Dec- 29 | Flynn Consults With Transition Team, Then Calls Kislyak*
Dec 30 | Putin Declines to Retaliate
2017 |
Jan 15 | Pence Says He Is Unaware of Flynn’s Discussions**
Feb 9| Flynn’s Conversation Is Revealed by WaPo
Feb 13 | Flynn firedred
Feb 14 | White House Says Flynn Violated President’s Trust***
May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
May 12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case


*On the same day that President Barack Obama announced new sanctions against Russia in retaliation for interference in the 2016 election, Mr. Flynn called a senior member of the presidential transition team who was with other members of the team at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

Mr. Flynn and the senior transition official discussed what Mr. Flynn should relay to Mr. Kislyak about the new sanctions and what effect they could have on Mr. Trump’s foreign policy agenda.

“Immediately” after his call with the senior transition official, Mr. Flynn called Mr. Kislyak, according to court documents made public Friday 2017-12-01.

Mr. Flynn told the ambassador that Russia should not retaliate in response to the sanctions. In a subsequent call, Mr. Kislyak told Mr. Flynn that “Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”

The following day, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia announced that Moscow would not retaliate against the United States for its latest round of sanctions, surprising some in the Obama administration who had expected an aggressive response from Mr. Putin.

In response to Mr. Putin’s announcement, Mr. Trump praised the Russian president.

----------------------

**Mike Pence, the Vice President-elect who was the head of the transition team, has said repeatedly that he did not know that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions on the calls with Mr. Kislyak.

-----------------------------------------
*** Sean Spicer, then the White House spokesman, said that Mr. Flynn had been fired for misleading Mr. Pence and other officials about what transpired on the phone calls with Mr. Kislyak.

"We’ve been reviewing and evaluating this issue with respect to General Flynn on a daily basis for a few weeks, trying to ascertain the truth,” he said.

"We got to a point not based on a legal issue, but based on a trust issue, where a level of trust between the President and General Flynn had eroded to the point where he felt he had to make a change. The President was very concerned that General Flynn had misled the Vice President and others.”

( Which looks misleading in light of what we know from December 29/30, where Flynn's actions seem to have informed both the actions of the Transition team and Putin).
Click to expand...

You should add:

Feb. 14: Trump asks FBI Director Comey to let the investigation go

May 9: Comey is fired

May 11: Trump tells NBC he considered 'this Russia thing' before firing Comey
 
bobtaftfan said:
Oh. My. Word. THAT is what you consider to be "evidence"?! Please invest in a critical thinking class and learn about basic logic fallacies.

Meanwhile, everyone is still waiting for one shred of substantive, credible evidence that Trump or any of his senior people colluded with the Russians to try to tamper with the election.
Click to expand...
:id:

Ahem, Don Jr's emails and the rest of the evidence surrounding that meeting was pretty straight forward. You can say that's not enough by itself but you cannot deny it is a shred, unless of course you aren't using critical thinking. :rolleyes:
 
WilliamSeger said:
Furthermore, we now know that "because he lied to the Vice President" is abject BS -- they knew he was lying.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm glad the news media is noticing this again. It came out, then every reference I heard in the MSM for months implied that Pence didn't know he was repeating a lie. Now it seems the news has rediscovered, Pence knew he was presenting a lie from Flynn all along, Yate's visit to warn about Flynn meant Pence knew.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah, I'm glad the news media is noticing this again. It came out, then every reference I heard in the MSM for months implied that Pence didn't know he was repeating a lie. Now it seems the news has rediscovered, Pence knew he was presenting a lie from Flynn all along, Yate's visit to warn about Flynn meant Pence knew.
Click to expand...

True but even more directly, on Dec 29th Flynn consulted the Transition Team before talking to Kislyak. Pence was the leader of the Transition Team.


Can you add that Yates visit to the timeline please?

Or I will if you prefer

@Stacko, I'll do so later, unless you want to - I feel no ownership of that table, I picked it up and ran with it from someone else, and it's just the bits that struck me.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Because there isnt enough evidence to support that conclusion.
Click to expand...

But there is more than enough evidence to hold that as the most likely explanation. When you look at the blatant dishonesty on display everywhere in this administration about this Russian stuff -- it's certainly not just Flynn -- and in particular the several clues about what the non-trivial stuff might be, even skeptics are allowed to say that the most likely explanation is simply the most likely.
 
Some people have a very strange idea about what skepticism is, behaving as if True Skeptics™ are required to deny all conclusions until all possible evidence is revealed. Tentative conclusions based on currently available evidence are somehow a violation of True Skepticism™.

This is worthless for the very obvious reason that a person can never be sure that they have all possible evidence.

More specific conclusions should require more specific evidence, for sure, but when someone asks the question, "Why did he lie about this trivial thing," the answer, "Because that thing might be non-trivial," is absolutely supported by the available evidence.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Some people have a very strange idea about what skepticism is, behaving as if True Skeptics™ are required to deny all conclusions until all possible evidence is revealed. Tentative conclusions based on currently available evidence are somehow a violation of True Skepticism™.

This is worthless for the very obvious reason that a person can never be sure that they have all possible evidence.

More specific conclusions should require more specific evidence, for sure, but when someone asks the question, "Why did he lie about this trivial thing," the answer, "Because that thing might be non-trivial," is absolutely supported by the available evidence.
Click to expand...

When asked that question, the correct answer is, "there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and it is unnecessary for me to employ a lesser standard."
 
@ Stacko and Skeptic Ginger:

Added your suggestions in

Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
Dec- 29 | Flynn Consults With Transition Team, Then Calls Kislyak
Dec 30 | Putin Declines to Retaliate
2017 |
Jan 15 | Pence Says He Is Unaware of Flynn’s Discussions
Jan 26| Sally Yates meets White House Counsel and warns that Flynn is lying and the Russians can prove it - making him a blackmail risk
Feb 9| Flynn’s Conversation Is Revealed by WaPo
Feb 13 | Flynn fired
Feb 14 | White House Says Flynn Violated President’s Trust
Feb 14| Trump asks FBI Director Comey to drop investigation into Flynn
May 9| Comey is fired
May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
May 11| Trump tells NBC he considered "this Russia thing" before firing Comey
May 12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case
 
BobTheCoward said:
Because there isnt enough evidence to support that conclusion.
Click to expand...
There is, given how little it needs to stand up against. If Flynn lied to the FBI about a trivial matter which had no non-trivial ramifications then his lie to the FBI about a trivial matter was stand-alone. That's not credible. If it were Trump then it would be credible, since he's known for just saying stuff to no purpose but Flynn is not a moron. He's a normal person and lies in a calculated fashion.
 
jimbob:

May I suggest an addition to your graphic indicating the Obama White House, on December 29 (2016), announcing sanctions against Russia? As it stands now, the Denver 29 “Putin declines to retaliate” entry lacks relevant context.
 
This seems bad.

When President Trump fired his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in February, White House officials portrayed him as a renegade who had acted independently in his discussions with a Russian official during the presidential transition and then lied to his colleagues about the interactions.

But emails among top transition officials, provided or described to The New York Times, suggest that Mr. Flynn was far from a rogue actor. In fact, the emails, coupled with interviews and court documents filed on Friday, showed that Mr. Flynn was in close touch with other senior members of the Trump transition team both before and after he spoke with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, about American sanctions against Russia.

...

On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump’s victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times.

...

But it is evident from the emails — which were obtained from someone who had access to transition team communications — that after learning that President Barack Obama would expel 35 Russian diplomats, the Trump team quickly strategized about how to reassure Russia. The Trump advisers feared that a cycle of retaliation between the United States and Russia would keep the spotlight on Moscow’s election meddling, tarnishing Mr. Trump’s victory and potentially hobbling his presidency from the start.

As part of the outreach, Ms. McFarland wrote, Mr. Flynn would be speaking with the Russian ambassador, Mr. Kislyak, hours after Mr. Obama’s sanctions were announced.

“Key will be Russia’s response over the next few days,” Ms. McFarland wrote in an email to another transition official, Thomas P. Bossert, now the president’s homeland security adviser.
Click to expand...

I don't think KT McFarland is going to be Ambassador to Singapore.
 
BobTheCoward said:
When asked that question, the correct answer is, "there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and it is unnecessary for me to employ a lesser standard."
Click to expand...
The problem of that approach, to my mind, is that it's intellectually barren. Where do we go from there? There's never sufficient evidence when there's no upper-limit to the standard required.

Conclusions are the launch-point for further interpretation (or "speculation", if you'd prefer) of the evidence available. Flynn did lie to conceal a matter of significance which he understood to be of significance. That we can safely conclude. The matters to ponder, in my opinion, are what were those matters and why did Flynn undertand them to be significant?
 
CapelDodger said:
The problem of that approach, to my mind, is that it's intellectually barren. Where do we go from there? There's never sufficient evidence when there's no upper-limit to the standard required.

Conclusions are the launch-point for further interpretation (or "speculation", if you'd prefer) of the evidence available. Flynn did lie to conceal a matter of significance which he understood to be of significance. That we can safely conclude. The matters to ponder, in my opinion, are what were those matters and why did Flynn undertand them to be significant?
Click to expand...

But you have no reason to require yourself to ponder those questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom