Merged All things Trump + Russia

[TofuFighter]

Meanwhile:

Oliver Stone Interviews Putin on U.S.-Russia Relations, 2016 Election, Snowden, NATO & Nuclear Arms

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] Unlike many partners of ours, we never interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries. This is one of the principles we stick to in our work.

this is not a comedy thread.
Also, what does this have to do with Trump?

eta - i've picked up copies those interviews (at least the first two, i don't know if there are more yet) - will be watching them in the next day or so.

 

[JihadJane]

this is not a comedy thread.
Also, what does this have to do with Trump?

eta - i've picked up copies those interviews (at least the first two, i don't know if there are more yet) - will be watching them in the next day or so.

The joke about Russian foreign interventions is that it's actually the USA wot does it all over the planet, shamelessly, on a massive scale!

This comedy thread showcases Americans' hilarious delusional paranoia and gullibility. Tell them they're being attacked and they'll believe anything...

What has the interview got to do with Trump? The clue is in the title: Oliver Stone Interviews Putin on U.S.-Russia Relations

 

[Belz...]

The joke about Russian foreign interventions is that it's actually the USA wot does it all over the planet, shamelessly, on a massive scale!

This comedy thread showcases Americans' hilarious delusional paranoia and gullibility. Tell them they're being attacked and they'll believe anything...

Speaking of hypocrisy, how about your reflexive belief in anything Russia claims?

 

[uke2se]

Are Oliver Stone or Vladimir Putin in any way credible now? I mean, Putin is a credible threat, but apart from that?

 

[d4m10n]

The sad thing is... executive privilege wasn't even invoked. He was pointedly claiming that he was refusing to answer just in case the President wanted to invoke it later.

Just insane. And let's not forget what exactly Jefferson Beauregard was baselessly refusing to answer by invoking Schrodinger's Executive Privilege, which may be alive of dead depending on when his boss opens the box.

FEINSTEIN: You had no verbal conversation with him about the firing of Mr. Comey?

SESSIONS: I'm not able to discuss with you or confirm or deny the nature of a private conversation that I may have had with the president on this subject or others. I know this will be discussed, but that's the rules that have been adhered to by the Department of Justice as you know.

FEINSTEIN: You are a long time colleague, but we heard Mr. Coats and Admiral Rogers say essentially the same thing. When it was easy just to say if the answer was no, no.

What blows my mind about this particular evasion is that even assuming conversations between Trump and Sessions are indeed privileged, that privilege cannot reasonably be extended to conversations which never happened. It is still okay to say, "We never discussed that issue..." without breaching any confidence.

 

[Tony Stark]

Are Oliver Stone or Vladimir Putin in any way credible now? I mean, Putin is a credible threat, but apart from that?

Obviously Putin would never do something bad and lie about it.

 

[Belz...]

Obviously Putin would never do something bad and lie about it.

Well, he's not an imperialist pig, is he?

 

[acbytesla]

Just insane. And let's not forget what exactly Jefferson Beauregard was baselessly refusing to answer by invoking Schrodinger's Executive Privilege, which may be alive of dead depending on when his boss opens the box.

What blows my mind about this particular evasion is that even assuming conversations between Trump and Sessions are indeed privileged, that privilege cannot reasonably be extended to conversations which never happened. It is still okay to say, "We never discussed that issue..." without breaching any confidence.

Oh, how cute of you. Sessions isn't going to answer a question that might incriminate himself. Oh, I forgot, he already did. But he's not going to do it twice. The joke is that committee. The Republicans were trying to have it both ways. See people, we are holding hearings but we'll let them avoid answering any questions. It was a joke.

 

[d4m10n]

Oh, how cute of you. Sessions isn't going to answer a question that might incriminate himself.

If only there were some sort of testimonial immunity against self-incrimination, here in America. [emoji12]

 

[quadraginta]

If only there were some sort of testimonial immunity against self-incrimination, here in America. [emoji12]

We already know their opinion of the guilt of anyone who takes the Fifth. It isn't any surprise they would feel the same way about using it themselves.

 

[Aridas]

If only there were some sort of testimonial immunity against self-incrimination, here in America. [emoji12]

Are you suggesting that the unnamed policy that Sessions was citing was basically "Pleading the fifth?" While I've considered that and that would work for that, it tends to require actually being cited, doesn't it? Specifically claiming that he was just leaving it open for the President to invoke executive privilege would seem to unavoidably be perjury in that case, though, either way.

 

[d4m10n]

What I am really suggesting is that we should adjust our priors on the probability that Sessions actually did discuss firing Comey with Trump, upward, significantly. There is no other sensible explanation for his refusal to answer that particular question, and the answer given is patently evasive.

Basically three possibilities here:

1) If you didn't talk about it, just say so.

2) If you did discuss it but want to invoke a known legal privilege against divulging the substance of the discussion, just say so.

3) If you did discuss it but don't want to say whether the discussion happened or invoke a known legal privilege, throw up a smokescreen and call the Senators "colleague" over and over, hoping they will go easy on you and forget about their subpoena power.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[jimbob]

What I am really suggesting is that we should adjust our priors on the probability that Sessions actually did discuss firing Comey with Trump, upward, significantly. There is no other sensible explanation for his refusal to answer that particular question, and the answer given is patently evasive.

Basically three possibilities here:

1) If you didn't talk about it, just say so.

2) If you did discuss it but want to invoke a known legal privilege against divulging the substance of the discussion, just say so.

3) If you did discuss it but don't want to say whether the discussion happened or invoke a known legal privilege, throw up a smokescreen and call the Senators "colleague" over and over, hoping they will go easy on you and forget about their subpoena power.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Yes

 

[acbytesla]

If only there were some sort of testimonial immunity against self-incrimination, here in America. [emoji12]

But he never invoked the 5th. And law enforcement officers are usually terminated for invoking it. Sessions is the head of the Justice Department. He is answerable to the judiciary committee. What signal does that send to the American public when the Attorney General won't answer simple questions? He's a disgrace to the office he holds. He should answer the questions or resign.

 

[jimbob]

But he never invoked the 5th. And law enforcement officers are usually terminated for invoking it. Sessions is the head of the Justice Department. He is answerable to the judiciary committee. What signal does that send to the American public when the Attorney General won't answer simple questions? He's a disgrace to the office he holds. He should answer the questions or resigns.

See post 2312. That is the point that d4m10n is making

 

[acbytesla]

Are you suggesting that the unnamed policy that Sessions was citing was basically "Pleading the fifth?" While I've considered that and that would work for that, it tends to require actually being cited, doesn't it? Specifically claiming that he was just leaving it open for the President to invoke executive privilege would seem to unavoidably be perjury in that case, though, either way.

Not perjury. Bull crap yes. But the Republicans running the show have no interest at getting at the truth. Only the appearance that they are trying to.

 

[skyeagle409]

LOL! The US spends (squanders?) more on its military than next 8 nations combined.

Other nations are not up to the level of the US as far as sophisticated hardware and software are concerned, so it is understandable why the US spends more on its military and cyber technology, much of which is unknown to the public.

As a military retiree who has worked for the Air Force, Navy, and Army in military, civilian and defense contractor capacities, and who has engineered components, special tools and equipment for Air Force and Army, I say the military has been underfunded and say so from direct experience. I have been aware of squadrons that were so broke, they could not fill some of my orders for supplies. In fact, so broke in some cases, the Air Force did not have the money to fill my order for safety gloves for my workers. If you don't have inside experience, don't think you know everything there is to know. There is an old saying that goes something like this:

Those who think they know it all, are annoying to those of us who do.

 

[skyeagle409]

LOL!
Meanwhile:

Oliver Stone Interviews Putin on U.S.-Russia Relations, 2016 Election, Snowden, NATO & Nuclear Arms

Let me make it very simple. If Russia denies involvement in anything, that's proof enough the Russians were involved. The Russians seem to think that people in the West were born yesterday, which is in the neighborhood of how Trump thinks of his supporters.

 

[skyeagle409]

The joke about Russian foreign interventions is that it's actually the USA wot does it all over the planet, shamelessly, on a massive scale!

This comedy thread showcases Americans' hilarious delusional paranoia and gullibility. Tell them they're being attacked and they'll believe anything...

What has the interview got to do with Trump? The clue is in the title: Oliver Stone Interviews Putin on U.S.-Russia Relations

This can be found in your link:

Oliver Stone Interviews Putin on U.S.-Russia Relations, 2016 Election, Snowden, NATO & Nuclear Arms


PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] Unlike many partners of ours, we never interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries. This is one of the principles we stick to in our work.

Now, you have your proof that the Russians lie. Once again, if the Russians denied they were involved, chances are, they were! Amazingly, there are those who are so gullible they take Russia at its word, just like Trump supporters.

 

[Belz...]

This can be found in your link:

"we never interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries."

Wow, it's hard to imagine a more transparent lie. Pretty much every country has interfered in the affairs of others throughout history. You'd have to be pretty gullible, or ideologically invested, to believe that.