CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
(04-01-2019 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-31-2019 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]None of those were for collusion. Collusion was the witch they were hunting for.

If the cops are looking for a bank robber, but instead arrest three shoplifters and a couple of jaywalkers, was the manhunt successful?

They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Nope. They were looking for links from the Trump campaign to Russia. Here is the letter: please note article i

But even if you were right, what do all those indictments of Americans have to do with that?

I'm not an attorney. It seems like the point of this is to investigate Russia's involvement including any collusion with Donald Trump's campaign. I'm not going to argue this point with the attorneys on this thread- I'll take their word for it if I'm reading this wrong.
(04-01-2019 10:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-31-2019 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]None of those were for collusion. Collusion was the witch they were hunting for.

If the cops are looking for a bank robber, but instead arrest three shoplifters and a couple of jaywalkers, was the manhunt successful?

They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Nope. They were looking for links from the Trump campaign to Russia. Here is the letter: please note article i

But even if you were right, what do all those indictments of Americans have to do with that?

I'm not an attorney. It seems like the point of this is to investigate Russia's involvement including any collusion with Donald Trump's campaign. I'm not going to argue this point with the attorneys on this thread- I'll take their word for it if I'm reading this wrong.

I'm not an attorney, either.

The point was as stated in the letter. It specifically mentions people associated with the campaign. I hope we can agree that Trump was associated with his campaign.

Foreign meddling is nothing new. In either direction. And foreign meddling in 2016 was not limited to Russia or Trump.

Ukraine for Hillary

more

Hillary meddled in russian elections
(04-01-2019 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-31-2019 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]None of those were for collusion. Collusion was the witch they were hunting for.

If the cops are looking for a bank robber, but instead arrest three shoplifters and a couple of jaywalkers, was the manhunt successful?

They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Nope. They were looking for links from the Trump campaign to Russia. Here is the letter: please note article i

But even if you were right, what do all those indictments of Americans have to do with that?

I'm not an attorney. It seems like the point of this is to investigate Russia's involvement including any collusion with Donald Trump's campaign. I'm not going to argue this point with the attorneys on this thread- I'll take their word for it if I'm reading this wrong.

I'm not an attorney, either.

The point was as stated in the letter. It specifically mentions people associated with the campaign. I hope we can agree that Trump was associated with his campaign.

Foreign meddling is nothing new. In either direction. And foreign meddling in 2016 was not limited to Russia or Trump.

Ukraine for Hillary

more

Hillary meddled in russian elections

So business as usual? It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack. Are you?
(04-01-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Nope. They were looking for links from the Trump campaign to Russia. Here is the letter: please note article i

But even if you were right, what do all those indictments of Americans have to do with that?

I'm not an attorney. It seems like the point of this is to investigate Russia's involvement including any collusion with Donald Trump's campaign. I'm not going to argue this point with the attorneys on this thread- I'll take their word for it if I'm reading this wrong.

I'm not an attorney, either.

The point was as stated in the letter. It specifically mentions people associated with the campaign. I hope we can agree that Trump was associated with his campaign.

Foreign meddling is nothing new. In either direction. And foreign meddling in 2016 was not limited to Russia or Trump.

Ukraine for Hillary

more

Hillary meddled in russian elections

So business as usual? It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack. Are you?

Just business as usual is happily accepting foreign national's request for meetings where they offer stolen material and then lying and covering up said meeting.

Well, business as usual for Team Trump, I guess?

Now we'll go back to the refrain how that wasn't technically illegal because it did not result in a quid pro quo (which it wasn't). But that somehow isn't grounds for an investigation to see if the meeting did result in something illegal.
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Then why no investigation into servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling as part of the investigation? I understand Congress spoke to Zuckerberg about facebook, but not much about Russia... and we never heard a word about anything related to that or any tracking back of IP addresses etc etc etc related to the Mueller report

Clearly they were looking into Trump and company's business dealings which is why they found so many other, unrelated counts.... some of them a decade old.
(04-01-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Nope. They were looking for links from the Trump campaign to Russia. Here is the letter: please note article i

But even if you were right, what do all those indictments of Americans have to do with that?

I'm not an attorney. It seems like the point of this is to investigate Russia's involvement including any collusion with Donald Trump's campaign. I'm not going to argue this point with the attorneys on this thread- I'll take their word for it if I'm reading this wrong.

I'm not an attorney, either.

The point was as stated in the letter. It specifically mentions people associated with the campaign. I hope we can agree that Trump was associated with his campaign.

Foreign meddling is nothing new. In either direction. And foreign meddling in 2016 was not limited to Russia or Trump.

Ukraine for Hillary

more

Hillary meddled in russian elections

So business as usual? It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack. Are you?

Well, the attack happened on Obama's watch. what was his response? What did Clapper and Brennan do?

As for business as usual, I don't know what you mean. Congress and
Trump are taking measures to defend against this sort of thing in 2020.

The attack seems to me to be pretty much ineffective. I know they bought some ads, and they got Wiki to release Hillary's yoga schedule, but I see little that would have thrown the election in a direction in which it was not going anyway. Which email do you think damaged her most and tilted the campaign?

But I agree - foreigners keep out. That includes foreigners living in the US and working on campaigns. That includes Christopher Steele.
(04-01-2019 10:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Then why no investigation into servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling as part of the investigation? I understand Congress spoke to Zuckerberg about facebook, but not much about Russia... and we never heard a word about anything related to that or any tracking back of IP addresses etc etc etc related to the Mueller report

Clearly they were looking into Trump and company's business dealings which is why they found so many other, unrelated counts.... some of them a decade old.

You do know that Mueller did indict a butt ton of Russian nationals, even though there's no way they will ever see their day in court, right?

Quote: In February 2018, the special counsel charged 13 Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller targeted the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked company that engages in influence operations and aimed to spread distrust toward candidates and the American political system. By mid 2016, the Internet Research Agency had established a strategy of supporting Trump’s candidacy and disparaging Clinton.

In July 2018, the special counsel indicted an additional 12 Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton campaign, and leaking of emails and documents.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...stigation/
(04-01-2019 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Nope. They were looking for links from the Trump campaign to Russia. Here is the letter: please note article i

But even if you were right, what do all those indictments of Americans have to do with that?

I'm not an attorney. It seems like the point of this is to investigate Russia's involvement including any collusion with Donald Trump's campaign. I'm not going to argue this point with the attorneys on this thread- I'll take their word for it if I'm reading this wrong.

I'm not an attorney, either.

The point was as stated in the letter. It specifically mentions people associated with the campaign. I hope we can agree that Trump was associated with his campaign.

Foreign meddling is nothing new. In either direction. And foreign meddling in 2016 was not limited to Russia or Trump.

Ukraine for Hillary

more

Hillary meddled in russian elections

So business as usual? It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack. Are you?

Well, the attack happened on Obama's watch. what was his response? What did Clapper and Brennan do?

As for business as usual, I don't know what you mean. Congress and
Trump are taking measures to defend against this sort of thing in 2020.

The attack seems to me to be pretty much ineffective. I know they bought some ads, and they got Wiki to release Hillary's yoga schedule, but I see little that would have thrown the election in a direction in which it was not going anyway. Which email do you think damaged her most and tilted the campaign?

But I agree - foreigners keep out. That includes foreigners living in the US and working on campaigns. That includes Christopher Steele.

What was Obama's response? Responding in private to the Russians because of McConnell, and the fact that he said he would not support a bipartisan condemnation because of how it would affect his team's candidate.

I mean, just look at how y'all are acting post-hoc regarding the Russian attempts to influence the election and support Trump. Imagine how that would have played if only Team Obama was saying that in the middle of the election???
(04-01-2019 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Then why no investigation into servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling as part of the investigation? I understand Congress spoke to Zuckerberg about facebook, but not much about Russia... and we never heard a word about anything related to that or any tracking back of IP addresses etc etc etc related to the Mueller report

Clearly they were looking into Trump and company's business dealings which is why they found so many other, unrelated counts.... some of them a decade old.

You do know that Mueller did indict a butt ton of Russian nationals, even though there's no way they will ever see their day in court, right?

Quote: In February 2018, the special counsel charged 13 Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller targeted the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked company that engages in influence operations and aimed to spread distrust toward candidates and the American political system. By mid 2016, the Internet Research Agency had established a strategy of supporting Trump’s candidacy and disparaging Clinton.

In July 2018, the special counsel indicted an additional 12 Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton campaign, and leaking of emails and documents.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...stigation/

A butt ton of Russians with no links to Trump or his campaign. So what? You can indict a bunch of Swedes and Australians, but that does not mean the "witch' (collusion with the Trump campaign) has been found.

You guys keep reading significance in things that do not have significance.

Tell me, which leaked email influenced the most Democrats to switch and vote for Trump? Was it her yoga schedule?
(04-01-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not an attorney. It seems like the point of this is to investigate Russia's involvement including any collusion with Donald Trump's campaign. I'm not going to argue this point with the attorneys on this thread- I'll take their word for it if I'm reading this wrong.

I'm not an attorney, either.

The point was as stated in the letter. It specifically mentions people associated with the campaign. I hope we can agree that Trump was associated with his campaign.

Foreign meddling is nothing new. In either direction. And foreign meddling in 2016 was not limited to Russia or Trump.

Ukraine for Hillary

more

Hillary meddled in russian elections

So business as usual? It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack. Are you?

Well, the attack happened on Obama's watch. what was his response? What did Clapper and Brennan do?

As for business as usual, I don't know what you mean. Congress and
Trump are taking measures to defend against this sort of thing in 2020.

The attack seems to me to be pretty much ineffective. I know they bought some ads, and they got Wiki to release Hillary's yoga schedule, but I see little that would have thrown the election in a direction in which it was not going anyway. Which email do you think damaged her most and tilted the campaign?

But I agree - foreigners keep out. That includes foreigners living in the US and working on campaigns. That includes Christopher Steele.

What was Obama's response? Responding in private to the Russians because of McConnell, and the fact that he said he would not support a bipartisan condemnation because of how it would affect his team's candidate.

I mean, just look at how y'all are acting post-hoc regarding the Russian attempts to influence the election and support Trump. Imagine how that would have played if only Team Obama was saying that in the middle of the election???

So, political considerations influenced him to let it go?
(04-01-2019 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Then why no investigation into servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling as part of the investigation? I understand Congress spoke to Zuckerberg about facebook, but not much about Russia... and we never heard a word about anything related to that or any tracking back of IP addresses etc etc etc related to the Mueller report

Clearly they were looking into Trump and company's business dealings which is why they found so many other, unrelated counts.... some of them a decade old.

You do know that Mueller did indict a butt ton of Russian nationals, even though there's no way they will ever see their day in court, right?

Quote: In February 2018, the special counsel charged 13 Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller targeted the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked company that engages in influence operations and aimed to spread distrust toward candidates and the American political system. By mid 2016, the Internet Research Agency had established a strategy of supporting Trump’s candidacy and disparaging Clinton.

In July 2018, the special counsel indicted an additional 12 Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton campaign, and leaking of emails and documents.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...stigation/

A butt ton of Russians with no links to Trump or his campaign. So what? You can indict a bunch of Swedes and Australians, but that does not mean the "witch' (collusion with the Trump campaign) has been found.

You guys keep reading significance in things that do not have significance.

Tell me, which leaked email influenced the most Democrats to switch and vote for Trump? Was it her yoga schedule?

So what?

Hambone asked why there wasn't an investigation into "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling."

Do you read?

edit: sorry, the last line is a bit harsh. I just find it crazy that in responding to someone asking about Mueller investigating the Russian incursions, I provide evidence that Mueller indicted Russians for hacking servers and releasing emails, as well as others involved in the disinformation campaign, and your response is literally, "so what?" You obviously did not read Hambone's question, as I provided clear evidence that Mueller did investigate the actual Russian operation.
(04-01-2019 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not an attorney, either.

The point was as stated in the letter. It specifically mentions people associated with the campaign. I hope we can agree that Trump was associated with his campaign.

Foreign meddling is nothing new. In either direction. And foreign meddling in 2016 was not limited to Russia or Trump.

Ukraine for Hillary

more

Hillary meddled in russian elections

So business as usual? It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack. Are you?

Well, the attack happened on Obama's watch. what was his response? What did Clapper and Brennan do?

As for business as usual, I don't know what you mean. Congress and
Trump are taking measures to defend against this sort of thing in 2020.

The attack seems to me to be pretty much ineffective. I know they bought some ads, and they got Wiki to release Hillary's yoga schedule, but I see little that would have thrown the election in a direction in which it was not going anyway. Which email do you think damaged her most and tilted the campaign?

But I agree - foreigners keep out. That includes foreigners living in the US and working on campaigns. That includes Christopher Steele.

What was Obama's response? Responding in private to the Russians because of McConnell, and the fact that he said he would not support a bipartisan condemnation because of how it would affect his team's candidate.

I mean, just look at how y'all are acting post-hoc regarding the Russian attempts to influence the election and support Trump. Imagine how that would have played if only Team Obama was saying that in the middle of the election???

So, political considerations influenced him to let it go?

Yep. The Obama admin did not have by-in from the Senate majority leader to fully condemn the Russians in public for the repeated incursions.

Because McConnell was unwilling to vocally stand up for America because of how he thought it would affect the election, he basically put the kabosh on any public response.
(04-01-2019 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]They were looking for Russian interference into the 2016 election.

Then why no investigation into servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling as part of the investigation? I understand Congress spoke to Zuckerberg about facebook, but not much about Russia... and we never heard a word about anything related to that or any tracking back of IP addresses etc etc etc related to the Mueller report

Clearly they were looking into Trump and company's business dealings which is why they found so many other, unrelated counts.... some of them a decade old.

You do know that Mueller did indict a butt ton of Russian nationals, even though there's no way they will ever see their day in court, right?

Quote: In February 2018, the special counsel charged 13 Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller targeted the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked company that engages in influence operations and aimed to spread distrust toward candidates and the American political system. By mid 2016, the Internet Research Agency had established a strategy of supporting Trump’s candidacy and disparaging Clinton.

In July 2018, the special counsel indicted an additional 12 Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton campaign, and leaking of emails and documents.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...stigation/

A butt ton of Russians with no links to Trump or his campaign. So what? You can indict a bunch of Swedes and Australians, but that does not mean the "witch' (collusion with the Trump campaign) has been found.

You guys keep reading significance in things that do not have significance.

Tell me, which leaked email influenced the most Democrats to switch and vote for Trump? Was it her yoga schedule?

So what?

Hambone asked why there wasn't an investigation into "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling."

Do you read?

edit: sorry, the last line is a bit harsh. I just find it crazy that in responding to someone asking about Mueller investigating the Russian incursions, I provide evidence that Mueller indicted Russians for hacking servers and releasing emails, as well as others involved in the disinformation campaign, and your response is literally, "so what?" You obviously did not read Hambone's question, as I provided clear evidence that Mueller did investigate the actual Russian operation.

Still, so what? I asked for anything indicating these efforts had the slightest effect on the election. Still waiting. In particular, still waiting for YOU to tell ME which was the most damaging email revealed.

The Russian actions were not in collusion with the Trump campaign, and Mueller's report said as much. Collusion was the witch being hunted. It was not not found.

They can indict half of Russia for all I care, there is no connection with the Trump campaign or Trump shown.

You guys seem to confuse denying collusion with denying interference. Two different things. Interference, however ineffective, happened. Collusion did not.

do you have any opinion on the Ukrainian interference? Does the fact that they interfered on Hillary's behalf indicate Hillary-Ukrainian collusion to you? If not, what's the difference?

So to summarize, both Russia and Ukraine tried to interfere. Neither was very successful at it. Neither was done in collusion with any campaign, AFAWK.

One was investigated and cleared. Maybe we ought to investigate the other so we can clear it too.
(04-01-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]So business as usual? It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack. Are you?

Well, the attack happened on Obama's watch. what was his response? What did Clapper and Brennan do?

As for business as usual, I don't know what you mean. Congress and
Trump are taking measures to defend against this sort of thing in 2020.

The attack seems to me to be pretty much ineffective. I know they bought some ads, and they got Wiki to release Hillary's yoga schedule, but I see little that would have thrown the election in a direction in which it was not going anyway. Which email do you think damaged her most and tilted the campaign?

But I agree - foreigners keep out. That includes foreigners living in the US and working on campaigns. That includes Christopher Steele.

What was Obama's response? Responding in private to the Russians because of McConnell, and the fact that he said he would not support a bipartisan condemnation because of how it would affect his team's candidate.

I mean, just look at how y'all are acting post-hoc regarding the Russian attempts to influence the election and support Trump. Imagine how that would have played if only Team Obama was saying that in the middle of the election???

So, political considerations influenced him to let it go?

Yep. The Obama admin did not have by-in from the Senate majority leader to fully condemn the Russians in public for the repeated incursions.

Because McConnell was unwilling to vocally stand up for America because of how he thought it would affect the election, he basically put the kabosh on any public response.

All McConnells's fault, eh? Good to know Obama danced to Mac's tune.

Here is my take: Obama thought public action would reflect poorly on Clinton, and he did not want to defend the US if it might hurt the Democrat nominee, so he let it go thinking it was minor and she was going to win anyway and then it would be her problem. Pure selfish party politics.

Bottom line, it happened on BHO's watch, and he permitted it to continue.
(04-01-2019 12:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Still, so what? I asked for anything indicating these efforts had the slightest effect on the election. Still waiting. In particular, still waiting for YOU to tell ME which was the most damaging email revealed.

The Russian actions were not in collusion with the Trump campaign, and Mueller's report said as much. Collusion was the witch being hunted. It was not not found.

They can indict half of Russia for all I care, there is no connection with the Trump campaign or Trump shown.

You guys seem to confuse denying collusion with denying interference. Two different things. Interference, however ineffective, happened. Collusion did not.

do you have any opinion on the Ukrainian interference? Does the fact that they interfered on Hillary's behalf indicate Hillary-Ukrainian collusion to you? If not, what's the difference?

So to summarize, both Russia and Ukraine tried to interfere. Neither was very successful at it. Neither was done in collusion with any campaign, AFAWK.

One was investigated and cleared. Maybe we ought to investigate the other so we can clear it too.

I don't think that the hack into Clinton's server and eventual release of the emails was the deciding factor in Trump getting elected. Hillary ran a poor campaign and paid the price for it.

I don't know anything about these Ukraine allegations. Did they just come out? Are they similar in seriousness to the Russian actions?

Also... I still have yet to find any evidence that Rosenstein and Mueller are actively participating in the redaction process. Can anybody provide links to this?
(04-01-2019 12:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Then why no investigation into servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling as part of the investigation? I understand Congress spoke to Zuckerberg about facebook, but not much about Russia... and we never heard a word about anything related to that or any tracking back of IP addresses etc etc etc related to the Mueller report

Clearly they were looking into Trump and company's business dealings which is why they found so many other, unrelated counts.... some of them a decade old.

You do know that Mueller did indict a butt ton of Russian nationals, even though there's no way they will ever see their day in court, right?

Quote: In February 2018, the special counsel charged 13 Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller targeted the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked company that engages in influence operations and aimed to spread distrust toward candidates and the American political system. By mid 2016, the Internet Research Agency had established a strategy of supporting Trump’s candidacy and disparaging Clinton.

In July 2018, the special counsel indicted an additional 12 Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton campaign, and leaking of emails and documents.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...stigation/

A butt ton of Russians with no links to Trump or his campaign. So what? You can indict a bunch of Swedes and Australians, but that does not mean the "witch' (collusion with the Trump campaign) has been found.

You guys keep reading significance in things that do not have significance.

Tell me, which leaked email influenced the most Democrats to switch and vote for Trump? Was it her yoga schedule?

So what?

Hambone asked why there wasn't an investigation into "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling."

Do you read?

edit: sorry, the last line is a bit harsh. I just find it crazy that in responding to someone asking about Mueller investigating the Russian incursions, I provide evidence that Mueller indicted Russians for hacking servers and releasing emails, as well as others involved in the disinformation campaign, and your response is literally, "so what?" You obviously did not read Hambone's question, as I provided clear evidence that Mueller did investigate the actual Russian operation.

Still, so what? I asked for anything indicating these efforts had the slightest effect on the election. Still waiting. In particular, still waiting for YOU to tell ME which was the most damaging email revealed.

The Russian actions were not in collusion with the Trump campaign, and Mueller's report said as much. Collusion was the witch being hunted. It was not not found.

They can indict half of Russia for all I care, there is no connection with the Trump campaign or Trump shown.

You guys seem to confuse denying collusion with denying interference. Two different things. Interference, however ineffective, happened. Collusion did not.

do you have any opinion on the Ukrainian interference? Does the fact that they interfered on Hillary's behalf indicate Hillary-Ukrainian collusion to you? If not, what's the difference?

So to summarize, both Russia and Ukraine tried to interfere. Neither was very successful at it. Neither was done in collusion with any campaign, AFAWK.

One was investigated and cleared. Maybe we ought to investigate the other so we can clear it too.

Ok. Cool.

I was responding to Hambone's specific question "Then why no investigation into servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling as part of the investigation?"
(04-01-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Well, the attack happened on Obama's watch. what was his response? What did Clapper and Brennan do?

As for business as usual, I don't know what you mean. Congress and
Trump are taking measures to defend against this sort of thing in 2020.

The attack seems to me to be pretty much ineffective. I know they bought some ads, and they got Wiki to release Hillary's yoga schedule, but I see little that would have thrown the election in a direction in which it was not going anyway. Which email do you think damaged her most and tilted the campaign?

But I agree - foreigners keep out. That includes foreigners living in the US and working on campaigns. That includes Christopher Steele.

What was Obama's response? Responding in private to the Russians because of McConnell, and the fact that he said he would not support a bipartisan condemnation because of how it would affect his team's candidate.

I mean, just look at how y'all are acting post-hoc regarding the Russian attempts to influence the election and support Trump. Imagine how that would have played if only Team Obama was saying that in the middle of the election???

So, political considerations influenced him to let it go?

Yep. The Obama admin did not have by-in from the Senate majority leader to fully condemn the Russians in public for the repeated incursions.

Because McConnell was unwilling to vocally stand up for America because of how he thought it would affect the election, he basically put the kabosh on any public response.

All McConnells's fault, eh? Good to know Obama danced to Mac's tune.

Here is my take: Obama thought public action would reflect poorly on Clinton, and he did not want to defend the US if it might hurt the Democrat nominee, so he let it go thinking it was minor and she was going to win anyway and then it would be her problem. Pure selfish party politics.

Bottom line, it happened on BHO's watch, and he permitted it to continue.

It has been reported as a combination of the two.

McConnell's unwillingness to support a bipartisan statement that publicly exposed the Russian intervention meant that any public exposure would have been viewed 100% as a political motive by the Obama admin to hurt the Trump campaign. Without McConnell's help, the Obama admin was stuck between a rock and a hard place with respect to responding, in real time.

You're right that they then felt that Clinton was a pretty sure bet to win, so instead of kicking the angry bees' nest that is McConnell, they wanted it to blow over.

I find it hilarious you're criticizing the Obama Admin's lack of response when it was overwhelmingly caused by McConnell's decision to put party over country. How would you have wanted Obama to handle this, in real time?
(04-01-2019 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 12:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Still, so what? I asked for anything indicating these efforts had the slightest effect on the election. Still waiting. In particular, still waiting for YOU to tell ME which was the most damaging email revealed.

The Russian actions were not in collusion with the Trump campaign, and Mueller's report said as much. Collusion was the witch being hunted. It was not not found.

They can indict half of Russia for all I care, there is no connection with the Trump campaign or Trump shown.

You guys seem to confuse denying collusion with denying interference. Two different things. Interference, however ineffective, happened. Collusion did not.

do you have any opinion on the Ukrainian interference? Does the fact that they interfered on Hillary's behalf indicate Hillary-Ukrainian collusion to you? If not, what's the difference?

So to summarize, both Russia and Ukraine tried to interfere. Neither was very successful at it. Neither was done in collusion with any campaign, AFAWK.

One was investigated and cleared. Maybe we ought to investigate the other so we can clear it too.

I don't think that the hack into the Clinton's server and eventual release of the emails was the deciding factor in Trump getting elected. Hillary ran a poor campaign and paid the price for it.

I don't know anything about these Ukraine allegations. Did they just come out? Are they similar in seriousness to the Russian actions?

Also... I still have yet to find any evidence that Rosenstein and Mueller are actively participating in the redaction process. Can anybody provide links to this?

Not sure about Rosenstein, but Mueller is helping, per the AP.

https://www.apnews.com/5e065d01a1c94827a2818943759e0f4c

Quote: Barr said he is preparing to redact multiple categories of information from the report and Mueller is helping the Justice Department identify sections that will be blacked out in the public version.

Those include grand jury material, information that would compromise sensitive sources and methods; information that could affect ongoing investigations, including those referred by Mueller’s office to other Justice Department offices and information that could infringe on the personal privacy and reputation of “peripheral third parties.”
(04-01-2019 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What was Obama's response? Responding in private to the Russians because of McConnell, and the fact that he said he would not support a bipartisan condemnation because of how it would affect his team's candidate.

I mean, just look at how y'all are acting post-hoc regarding the Russian attempts to influence the election and support Trump. Imagine how that would have played if only Team Obama was saying that in the middle of the election???

So, political considerations influenced him to let it go?

Yep. The Obama admin did not have by-in from the Senate majority leader to fully condemn the Russians in public for the repeated incursions.

Because McConnell was unwilling to vocally stand up for America because of how he thought it would affect the election, he basically put the kabosh on any public response.

All McConnells's fault, eh? Good to know Obama danced to Mac's tune.

Here is my take: Obama thought public action would reflect poorly on Clinton, and he did not want to defend the US if it might hurt the Democrat nominee, so he let it go thinking it was minor and she was going to win anyway and then it would be her problem. Pure selfish party politics.

Bottom line, it happened on BHO's watch, and he permitted it to continue.

It has been reported as a combination of the two.

McConnell's unwillingness to support a bipartisan statement that publicly exposed the Russian intervention meant that any public exposure would have been viewed 100% as a political motive by the Obama admin to hurt the Trump campaign. Without McConnell's help, the Obama admin was stuck between a rock and a hard place with respect to responding, in real time.

You're right that they then felt that Clinton was a pretty sure bet to win, so instead of kicking the angry bees' nest that is McConnell, they wanted it to blow over.

I find it hilarious you're criticizing the Obama Admin's lack of response when it was overwhelmingly caused by McConnell's decision to put party over country. How would you have wanted Obama to handle this, in real time?

The same way Trump would handle a disagreement on policy with Pelosi.

Interesting you think Obama's hands were tied.

As for criticizing Obama's (lack of) response, I was just setting the record straight in repose to Rice93's statement " It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack."
(04-01-2019 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2019 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So, political considerations influenced him to let it go?

Yep. The Obama admin did not have by-in from the Senate majority leader to fully condemn the Russians in public for the repeated incursions.

Because McConnell was unwilling to vocally stand up for America because of how he thought it would affect the election, he basically put the kabosh on any public response.

All McConnells's fault, eh? Good to know Obama danced to Mac's tune.

Here is my take: Obama thought public action would reflect poorly on Clinton, and he did not want to defend the US if it might hurt the Democrat nominee, so he let it go thinking it was minor and she was going to win anyway and then it would be her problem. Pure selfish party politics.

Bottom line, it happened on BHO's watch, and he permitted it to continue.

It has been reported as a combination of the two.

McConnell's unwillingness to support a bipartisan statement that publicly exposed the Russian intervention meant that any public exposure would have been viewed 100% as a political motive by the Obama admin to hurt the Trump campaign. Without McConnell's help, the Obama admin was stuck between a rock and a hard place with respect to responding, in real time.

You're right that they then felt that Clinton was a pretty sure bet to win, so instead of kicking the angry bees' nest that is McConnell, they wanted it to blow over.

I find it hilarious you're criticizing the Obama Admin's lack of response when it was overwhelmingly caused by McConnell's decision to put party over country. How would you have wanted Obama to handle this, in real time?

The same way Trump would handle a disagreement on policy with Pelosi.

Interesting you think Obama's hands were tied.

As for criticizing Obama's (lack of) response, I was just setting the record straight in repose to Rice93's statement " It seems like Russia's attack on our election process was a monumental uptick in aggression. I'm not satisfied with Trump's response to this attack."

I disagree with your characterization that the Obama admin let it happen. He was stuck without a good option since the other side of the political equation didn't want to do anything. Context is important in understanding the decision. The outrage from the right would have been monumental if Obama had publicly brought to light the Russian efforts to help Trump.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's