Zombie
Well-Known Member
Apparently some people have difficulty understanding why it is appropriate for an American President to engage in talks with a foreign power and not others.
Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app
Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking
Sent from my SM-G935V using JazzFanz mobile app
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11 A bill that will go no where has been introduced.
As a result of Popodopolous' cooperation, Sessions could be seeing perjury charges in his future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeloNmi9JjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65o0oNfvNV8
Admittedly, the sources are a partisan. (You're welcome,Franklin) BUT, they replayed what was said, and in context, in the second one. It's a little harder to spin it at that point.
As a result of Popodopolous' cooperation, Sessions could be seeing perjury charges in his future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeloNmi9JjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65o0oNfvNV8
Admittedly, the sources are a partisan. (You're welcome,Franklin) BUT, they replayed what was said, and in context, in the second one. It's a little harder to spin it at that point.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Those aren't mutually exclusive. Unfortunately for us it seems both are true.
Not saying they would be mutually exclusive, but the idea is that there's only focus on one of those issues. We'll see how much attention comes of the Donna Brazil stuff but my guess is another waive of Russia hysteria will come up to sweep it under the rug. But, to your point, I'd be curious to know what exactly Russia did that you feel could have been sizable enough to swing the election. On the other side, you can make a solid argument that Bernie could have been the legitimate victor against Clinton.
It's hard to call it hysteria when evidence piles up faster than it's disproven.
Nothing will come from the "Bernie got screwed" wing. It was recognized by the courts that the DNC can run it's party any way it wants to, and favor any candidate it wants to. Bruzzle will her have her fifteen seconds of fame, and nothing will change.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
This statement is bizarre to me. If Trump had been caught saying what Obama did it would be by far the biggest evidence of collusion thus far. Can you name something that has come out in the Trump investigation that is even half as incriminating as that statement would have been, had Trump been caught saying it?
DutchJazzer
Banned
wednesday it has been 1 year since the election!
it will be another 7 years before their will be another president!
it will be another 7 years before their will be another president!
For what it's worth, I wouldn't trust the businessinsider.com website. They are very anti-Trump, which is fine with me, but they take it to the extreme where they often talk about extremely small probability events as if they are very possible or even likely to occur. (I haven't read this particular article, just a general comment.)
The emails about a meeting to discuss dirt on Hillary between a russian government operative and the leadership team of the Trump campaign. Follow thst with multiple contradictory statements about weather such a meeting happend, then the nature of what was discussed. Then you quickly discover criminal activity by Trump campaign officials involving ties to Russia.
So were you ****ing joking, or what?
There's a chance that Trump doesn't get directly implicated, but his campaign warrants an investigation.
I didn't even mention the quid pro quo proposal from Trump to Comey which when rejected led to Comey getting fired. The false statement Trump directed Kushner to make. The draft letter explaining that Comey got fired for not dropping the investigation...
Get real man.
Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app
Red
Well-Known Member
For me, the issue of Russian interference was not whether or not they actually swung the election to Trump, but that the interference happened at all. I saw it as the application of what the Russians term "active measures" in cyberspace, and resulting in an attack on the sovereignty of the United States.
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-primer-on-russias-active-measures
I'm a lot more concerned in understanding all the various components of their cyberwar active measures against our democratic institutions, and what we can do to protect ourselves far better in future elections.
I don't think many people feel their "help" actually put Trump in the Oval Office, although that might depend on understanding what effect their targeted ads and social media postings might have had in those Midwestern states that were the swing states in 2016.
I would not want to see a focus on shenanigans involving Clinton and the DNC overshadow the fact that Russia committed an act of war against the United States(yes, that's an extreme view to some, but that's how I interpret what they did), and will use what they learned in 2016 to continue interfering in our elections and undermining our national sovereignty and democratic institutions. Did the Russians make a difference? I don't know enough to answer that question. But I don't expect them to stop trying now, especially with the present administration seemingly demonstrating no interest whatsoever in actually addressing this problem.
They attacked my country. It's a big deal to me, regardless of whether they actually made a difference this time around.
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-primer-on-russias-active-measures
I'm a lot more concerned in understanding all the various components of their cyberwar active measures against our democratic institutions, and what we can do to protect ourselves far better in future elections.
I don't think many people feel their "help" actually put Trump in the Oval Office, although that might depend on understanding what effect their targeted ads and social media postings might have had in those Midwestern states that were the swing states in 2016.
I would not want to see a focus on shenanigans involving Clinton and the DNC overshadow the fact that Russia committed an act of war against the United States(yes, that's an extreme view to some, but that's how I interpret what they did), and will use what they learned in 2016 to continue interfering in our elections and undermining our national sovereignty and democratic institutions. Did the Russians make a difference? I don't know enough to answer that question. But I don't expect them to stop trying now, especially with the present administration seemingly demonstrating no interest whatsoever in actually addressing this problem.
They attacked my country. It's a big deal to me, regardless of whether they actually made a difference this time around.
Yeah I don't think the question is if Russia got Donald in office, just if they actively attempted to interfere.
That's one question that has to do with Russia by itself. Then there is a question of the Trump campaign seeking assistance from a foriegn power to assist them in their campaign.
Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app
That's one question that has to do with Russia by itself. Then there is a question of the Trump campaign seeking assistance from a foriegn power to assist them in their campaign.
Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
If Donald had been caught on tape leaning over to Putin and saying, "I'll have more flexibility after the election," it would be a biggger lightning rod and a bigger legitimate piece of evidence of collusion than any of these things you have pointed out, by far.