Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jules Galen said:
Try reading this for some perspective:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074

Hope it helps.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying this from the article:
But it could also be true that both the Democratic Party and many leading media outlets are making a dangerous gamble, betting their professional and political capital on the promise of future disclosures that may not come.
Click to expand...
The public is not that sophisticated. Just as no matter the evidence the alt-facts coming from the Trump camp are demonstrably wrong, the same will happen here if the smoke clears and there is nothing there.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Guy talking now is doing his best to confuse the baseline level of Russian interference with the focused attack favoring Trump.
Click to expand...

I lost track of which Pubbie said it, but one of them told Comey not to believe the GOP platform on the Ukraine was ever softened. He claimed it never happened.

I looked it up, apparently the original version is not available online so we can see the changes. At the same time, no one denied the change until now that I'm aware of, including Trump who said in an interview, "I believe it was softened" while claiming he had nothing to do with it.
 
Distracted1 said:
Who's pretending anything? The distinction is real, and important. If the Russians tried to influence the outcome in order to defeat Hillary Clinton- obviously they would pick the person likely to defeat her (Trump, in this case) to aid- that does not indicate any fondness for Trump, only disdain for Clinton. OTOH, if they decided to aid Trumps campaign because they expect something in return from Trump, or because they feel Trump will harm the country in some way that another candidate wouldn't, the implications are different.
Click to expand...

How is that distinction relevant? It doesn't prove Trump's campaign staff weren't involved in the hacking affair. At a minimum it looks like they got information about the Podesta hack before it was released on Wikileaks (the citation is somewhere upthread about a Tweet that went out before Wikileaks posted the Podesta emails).

Why would Trump have to offer Putin something in order to be involved in Putin's attacks on Clinton?

It looks though (based on the current circumstantial evidence) that Putin may have expected more from Trump than he is getting: lifting of sanctions, softening position on Ukraine (remains to be seen) and at some point between Trump and Tillerson it looks like oil drilling in the Arctic is still a desired goal.

Trump turns out to be so incompetent, Putin may be having buyer's remorse.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that Putin has by now realised he doesn't need to get to Trump's team to cause problems for the USA. All he has to do is pay one of the Fox channel's commentators to spout what Putin wants spread. Trump will pick it up and run with it.
 
Darat said:
I suspect that Putin has by now realised he doesn't need to get to Trump's team to cause problems for the USA. All he has to do is pay one of the Fox channel's commentators to spout what Putin wants spread. Trump will pick it up and run with it.
Click to expand...

I picture a bunch of Russians sitting around thinking up stupid **** to feed Trump, then laughing their heads off when the gag exceeds their expectations.
 
Jules Galen said:
Still waiting for some facts.
Click to expand...

Which facts are those? :confused:

RT started the fake story, what's his face the CT guy went with it, Fox's Napolitano repeated it and Trump took the story and Tweeted it.

Pretty sure that is the accepted chain of events.
 
Last edited:
I'm embarrassed on behalf of Gowdy and the rest of the Trump water carriers on the committee. Leaks, leaks, and more leaks, heaven forbid, never mind Russian influence in the election and the Liar in Chief.
 
Reading through the OP and the thread and looking at the media headlines... and looking at what has been said by Clapper and other intel heads.


This russia issue is becoming more of a conspiracy theory than anything else. The media keeps claiming all of these Russia issues are bomb shells... uh... no. Clapper already covered the deal with the amount of evidence to Russia's involvement. While this doesnt mean nothing will be found in the future... there is at the moment no evidence (clappers words). We have also known in some form that russian interference has been under investigation. I am unsure how the media interprets that announcement as any thing shocking or new

As to Trump having a relationship with Putin at all... thats plausible. But that man flip flops like a mad dance and does his own damage to himself with his own rhetoric.

Im just sitting here watching the media belly aching with paranoia and ratings pursuits over objective reporting while Trump embodies alot of the childish crap ive come to hate...

My how this society has fallen
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
... This russia issue is becoming more of a conspiracy theory than anything else.... My how this society has fallen
Click to expand...

Yes. To sleazy propaganda and loose thinking. It's as if much of the country had never read history, not even last week's, or could understand sworn testimony.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Reading through the OP and the thread and looking at the media headlines... and looking at what has been said by Clapper and other intel heads.


This russia issue is becoming more of a conspiracy theory than anything else. The media keeps claiming all of these Russia issues are bomb shells... uh... no. Clapper already covered the deal with the amount of evidence to Russia's involvement. While this doesnt mean nothing will be found in the future... there is at the moment no evidence (clappers words). We have also known in some form that russian interference has been under investigation. I am unsure how the media interprets that announcement as any thing shocking or new

As to Trump having a relationship with Putin at all... thats plausible. But that man flip flops like a mad dance and does his own damage to himself with his own rhetoric.

Im just sitting here watching the media belly aching with paranoia and ratings pursuits over objective reporting while Trump embodies alot of the childish crap ive come to hate...

My how this society has fallen
Click to expand...


Becoming?:rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
How is that distinction relevant? It doesn't prove Trump's campaign staff weren't involved in the hacking affair. At a minimum it looks like they got information about the Podesta hack before it was released on Wikileaks (the citation is somewhere upthread about a Tweet that went out before Wikileaks posted the Podesta emails).

Why would Trump have to offer Putin something in order to be involved in Putin's attacks on Clinton?

It looks though (based on the current circumstantial evidence) that Putin may have expected more from Trump than he is getting: lifting of sanctions, softening position on Ukraine (remains to be seen) and at some point between Trump and Tillerson it looks like oil drilling in the Arctic is still a desired goal.

Trump turns out to be so incompetent, Putin may be having buyer's remorse.
Click to expand...
The distinction is very relevant to how the relationship between Russia and the Trump administration might proceed after the election is over.

If the Russians goal was only to defeat Hillary Clinton, the mission was accomplished on Nov. 8 and any benefit they might expect beyond that is purely a bonus to them.

If they were aiding Trump because he is Trump, they would have done so with expectations that the Trump presidency would bring them something that is the goal of the operation in the first place.

Look at it this way. The question might be asked whether the Russians would have helped Trump regardless who his opponent was (would they have aided Trump against Bernie Sanders?). If the answer to this is "yes", it is reasonable to assume that they are expecting something from the Trump presidency.
If the answer is that they would not have helped Trump had his opponent not been Hillary Clinton, the reasonable assumptions change.


IOW. Was the Trump presidency a means to an end (the defeat of Hillary Clinton) for Russia?, or is it the end in itself. I think that distinction is important.
 
Last edited:
I previously thought it was unlikely, but the way the Trump spokespeople are retroactively minimizing the roles of Manafort and others under suspicion has convinced me that there probably was direct and knowing collusion. If that is true, I would guess that Trump himself was unaware, but is aware now.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Reading through the OP and the thread and looking at the media headlines... and looking at what has been said by Clapper and other intel heads.

This russia issue is becoming more of a conspiracy theory than anything else.
Click to expand...
True, albeit a CT with a lot of circumstantial evidence.

The media keeps claiming all of these Russia issues are bomb shells... uh... no.
Click to expand...
Explain then why Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin. Why Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine. Why Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform. Why Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts. Why Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts. Why Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts. Why Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts. Why various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign. Why Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts. Why Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign.

In the world I live in, the reason people lie is to conceal the truth. Can you explain these lies?

And simultaneously, Trump tosses Ukraine under the bus, defies generations of policy concerning Russia, thumbs his nose at NATO, kisses Putin's ass at every opportunity, and openly encourages Russia to persist with their meddling.

This is not the entirety of the circumstantial evidence mind you.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
The distinction is very relevant to how the relationship between Russia and the Trump administration might proceed after the election is over.

If the Russians goal was only to defeat Hillary Clinton, the mission was accomplished on Nov. 8 and any benefit they might expect beyond that is purely a bonus to them.

If they were aiding Trump because he is Trump, they would have done so with expectations that the Trump presidency would bring them something that is the goal of the operation in the first place.

Look at it this way. The question might be asked whether the Russians would have helped Trump regardless who his opponent was (would they have aided Trump against Bernie Sanders?). If the answer to this is "yes", it is reasonable to assume that they are expecting something from the Trump presidency.
If the answer is that they would not have helped Trump had his opponent not been Hillary Clinton, the reasonable assumptions change.


IOW. Was the Trump presidency a means to an end (the defeat of Hillary Clinton) for Russia?, or is it the end in itself. I think that distinction is important.
Click to expand...

But the bottom line is, Trump is POTUS and that's a disaster. Whether or not Russia gets a direct quid pro quo is background noise at this point. We have a completely incompetent POTUS and a GOP led legislature that is fluctuating between taking advantage of their good luck and walking on eggshells around the nut in charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom