(04-01-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

A McConnell is at fault for refusing to go along with Obama's plan to propagandize the interference? Got it. Pure party politics, but only on the part of the Republicans, you say? OK, have it your way.

Maybe his options were not good, but he had options, and he opted to let the Russians continue without interference.

(04-01-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

A McConnell is at fault for refusing to go along with Obama's plan to propagandize the interference? Got it. Pure party politics, but only on the part of the Republicans, you say? OK, have it your way.

Maybe his options were not good, but he had options, and he opted to let the Russians continue without interference.

Propagandize the interference? Are you suggesting that the Russian attempts are made up and a lie?

You also fundamentally forget that the Obama administration also refused to perform a defensive briefing with *anyone* from the Trump camp.

(04-01-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You also fundamentally forget that the Obama administration also refused to perform a defensive briefing with *anyone* from the Trump camp.

Maybe after his warnings regarding hiring Michael Flynn were ignored he decided that the Trump camp wasn't going to listen to him.

(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/

As you note, that's a waste of time and not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that there should have been all sorts of edicts out there talking about steps that the US government had taken (or should take) to prevent hacking... and steps taken to ease any concerns that the population has about the integrity of our elections... Steps that we were taking to make sure that trolls couldn't interfere with our elections going forward. The very important 'what' and absolutely 'how'. Not the meaningless indictment by the special counsel (with absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever) of foreign entities, some of whom they had trouble even identifying.....

Remember that the joint report on the issue that was the cornerstone of this investigation was that Russia had been trying since the cold war to 'reduce confidence in our system of government'... so why did we not take any steps to increase confidence? Said differently, how does the meaningless indictment of foreign officials do ANYTHING except to prove that we can't stop them? Thus accomplishing their goals for them?

Sure, we need to know 'who' in order to see if there was collusion with them... and apparently none was found... and of course we know 'why' (because we do it too)

but why is there no 'how or what'

(04-01-2019 01:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You also fundamentally forget that the Obama administration also refused to perform a defensive briefing with *anyone* from the Trump camp.

Maybe after his warnings regarding hiring Michael Flynn were ignored he decided that the Trump camp wasn't going to listen to him.

So ignore doing the simple action. Got it. Makes perfect sense.

You *do* realize that intentionally omitting to do this, as you surmise, makes everything undertaken by the 'Obama-crowd' (i.e. Brennan, Clapper, and all the rest) as even more partisan in nature, correct?

The simple and fundamental fact remains that the national security and law enforcement functions were used by an administration against the campaign apparatus of an opposing part --- all the while refusing to even *tell* that candidate about what they supposedly suspected.

I mean, holy fing ****, members of that national security apparatus tried tree distinct times to obtain a FISA warrant re: an adjunct of the Trump campaign, and three times denied. Not one fing time was Trump given a defensive briefing. Zero, Zilch, Nada (coincidentally the number of collusion charges brought).

(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/

Actually he only brought a grand total of 6 charges relating to the interference. The vast majority of the 'crapload' were identity theft charges and such.

You think 6 counts is somehow earth-shattering or somefink?

100 or so counts overall by the Mueller-hunt. 6 were related to the interference.

That kind of tones down your 'wow a metric ton of people were brought to justice' meme, doesnt it?

(04-01-2019 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

A McConnell is at fault for refusing to go along with Obama's plan to propagandize the interference? Got it. Pure party politics, but only on the part of the Republicans, you say? OK, have it your way.

Maybe his options were not good, but he had options, and he opted to let the Russians continue without interference.

Propagandize the interference? Are you suggesting that the Russian attempts are made up and a lie?

Obama's folks had a stick up their butt about tying Trump to the Russians -- by any means possible. Even if it meant using a National Enquirer-level dossier as 'evidence' for monitoring, and when that didnt work, they went out of their fing way to 'seed' it to press and use as 'corroboration'.

All the while, how many charges has the initial focal point of the inquiry had lodged against him? Zero. (Again, double coincidentally, the number of Russian collusion charges overall, funny that.)

(04-01-2019 02:18 PM)Hambone10 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/

As you note, that's a waste of time and not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that there should have been all sorts of edicts out there talking about steps that the US government had taken (or should take) to prevent hacking... and steps taken to ease any concerns that the population has about the integrity of our elections... Steps that we were taking to make sure that trolls couldn't interfere with our elections going forward. The very important 'what' and absolutely 'how'. Not the meaningless indictment by the special counsel (with absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever) of foreign entities, some of whom they had trouble even identifying.....

Remember that the joint report on the issue that was the cornerstone of this investigation was that Russia had been trying since the cold war to 'reduce confidence in our system of government'... so why did we not take any steps to increase confidence? Said differently, how does the meaningless indictment of foreign officials do ANYTHING except to prove that we can't stop them? Thus accomplishing their goals for them?

Sure, we need to know 'who' in order to see if there was collusion with them... and apparently none was found... and of course we know 'why' (because we do it too)

but why is there no 'how or what'

Wait, you've seen the Mueller report? Because based on what you're writing, it sure seems like you're certain of its contents.

Being that the Mueller investigation has results in the indictment of foreign nationals for the issues you bring up, I would guess that some of the 300+ pages are dedicated to dissecting the how question you bring up. It would be very odd if it did not. That's why, in response to your question about why the Mueller team didn't investigate "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling" I said that he indicted numerous individuals for those crimes. The indictments make it clear they did investigate those activities.

Mueller's team investigated a lot of different angles that fell under the purview granted to him - how the Russians attempted to influence the elections, potential Trump campaign coordination, shady Trump business dealings, etc. And I would assume we'll hear about them all in the report.

(04-01-2019 02:39 PM)tanqtonic 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/

Actually he only brought a grand total of 6 charges relating to the interference. The vast majority of the 'crapload' were identity theft charges and such.

You think 6 counts is somehow earth-shattering or somefink?

100 or so counts overall by the Mueller-hunt. 6 were related to the interference.

That kind of tones down your 'wow a metric ton of people were brought to justice' meme, doesnt it?

Where did I say a "crapload"?

Or something was earth-shattering?

I was pointing out that the indictments of these foreign nationals clearly indicates Mueller was investigating the Russian meddling attempts themselves. Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?

Like far to often, you seem to want to argue a point I'm not arguing. Because the point I was trying to make has nothing to do with people being brought to justice - I was commenting on one of the focuses of the investigation.

But go on, keep arguing with what you think I said.

(04-01-2019 02:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

A McConnell is at fault for refusing to go along with Obama's plan to propagandize the interference? Got it. Pure party politics, but only on the part of the Republicans, you say? OK, have it your way.

Maybe his options were not good, but he had options, and he opted to let the Russians continue without interference.

Propagandize the interference? Are you suggesting that the Russian attempts are made up and a lie?

Obama's folks had a stick up their butt about tying Trump to the Russians -- by any means possible. Even if it meant using a National Enquirer-level dossier as 'evidence' for monitoring, and when that didnt work, they went out of their fing way to 'seed' it to press and use as 'corroboration'.

All the while, how many charges has the initial focal point of the inquiry had lodged against him? Zero. (Again, double coincidentally, the number of Russian collusion charges overall, funny that.)

So what you're saying is that the Obama folks, who had a stick up their butt about trying to tie Trump to Russia, went out of their way to be quiet about all of the intelligence that they faked, instead of getting it into the open when it could actually affect the outcome of the election?

(04-01-2019 04:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 02:39 PM)tanqtonic 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/

Actually he only brought a grand total of 6 charges relating to the interference. The vast majority of the 'crapload' were identity theft charges and such.

You think 6 counts is somehow earth-shattering or somefink?

100 or so counts overall by the Mueller-hunt. 6 were related to the interference.

That kind of tones down your 'wow a metric ton of people were brought to justice' meme, doesnt it?

Where did I say a "crapload"?

Or something was earth-shattering?

Well your superlative of 'butt ton' seems to indicate how awed you are with it. Funny when you dissect the actual indictments amongst the 'butt ton' of defendants, there are 6 counts -- a low number. 6 divided by 'a butt ton' is even a lower number.

Quote:I was pointing out that the indictments of these foreign nationals clearly indicates Mueller was investigating the Russian meddling attempts themselves.

Good god lad.... read the passage. It goes like this:

Ham: "why they found so many other, unrelated counts.... some of them a decade old."

You: but but but but but........ there were a butt ton of Russkies indicted.

Sound about right to you?

Quote:Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?

No one disagrees that Mueller investigated 'Russians.' The original comment pointed out the absolute paucity of activity on 'Russians' and on 'interference'. You simply tried to say 'a butt ton of Russians' means something -- it doesnt. Out of the 45 or charges leveled at that 'butt ton' of Russians, exactly 6! had anything to do with interference.

Quote:Like far to often, you seem to want to argue a point I'm not arguing. Because the point I was trying to make has nothing to do with people being brought to justice - I was commenting on one of the focuses of the investigation.

Im just repeating what the fk you said right above.

Again, in response to 'a LOT of old not on point charges' you yammer 'a BUTT TON of Russians', without bothering to note that of all the charges leveled at the BUTT TON of Russians exactly 6! charges were based on the interference.

Quote:But go on, keep arguing with what you think I said.

So I guess you use the term 'BUTT TON of Russians' for no reason. Got it. You werent in the slightest trying to emphasize how many people got caught up in this laser-like investigation.

(04-01-2019 04:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 02:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

A McConnell is at fault for refusing to go along with Obama's plan to propagandize the interference? Got it. Pure party politics, but only on the part of the Republicans, you say? OK, have it your way.

Maybe his options were not good, but he had options, and he opted to let the Russians continue without interference.

Propagandize the interference? Are you suggesting that the Russian attempts are made up and a lie?

Obama's folks had a stick up their butt about tying Trump to the Russians -- by any means possible. Even if it meant using a National Enquirer-level dossier as 'evidence' for monitoring, and when that didnt work, they went out of their fing way to 'seed' it to press and use as 'corroboration'.

All the while, how many charges has the initial focal point of the inquiry had lodged against him? Zero. (Again, double coincidentally, the number of Russian collusion charges overall, funny that.)

So what you're saying is that the Obama folks, who had a stick up their butt about trying to tie Trump to Russia, went out of their way to be quiet about all of the intelligence that they faked, instead of getting it into the open when it could actually affect the outcome of the election?

I guess you dont understand the import of 'seed it to the press', do you?

(04-01-2019 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wait, you've seen the Mueller report? Because based on what you're writing, it sure seems like you're certain of its contents.

Being that the Mueller investigation has results in the indictment of foreign nationals for the issues you bring up, I would guess that some of the 300+ pages are dedicated to dissecting the how question you bring up. It would be very odd if it did not. That's why, in response to your question about why the Mueller team didn't investigate "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling" I said that he indicted numerous individuals for those crimes. The indictments make it clear they did investigate those activities.

Mueller's team investigated a lot of different angles that fell under the purview granted to him - how the Russians attempted to influence the elections, potential Trump campaign coordination, shady Trump business dealings, etc. And I would assume we'll hear about them all in the report.

How many times are you going to deflect from what I said?

First, you point out that people have been indicted all along throughout the investigation.... and now you claim that we have to wait for the report to be assured that we've taken steps to improve our security against them?

I'm sure such things WILL be in the report... but if we didn't have to wait for the report to file charges against people and set court dates, I'm certain that we wouldn't have to wait to address the security risk... or at least to say that we've addressed them.

(04-01-2019 07:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wait, you've seen the Mueller report? Because based on what you're writing, it sure seems like you're certain of its contents.

Being that the Mueller investigation has results in the indictment of foreign nationals for the issues you bring up, I would guess that some of the 300+ pages are dedicated to dissecting the how question you bring up. It would be very odd if it did not. That's why, in response to your question about why the Mueller team didn't investigate "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling" I said that he indicted numerous individuals for those crimes. The indictments make it clear they did investigate those activities.

Mueller's team investigated a lot of different angles that fell under the purview granted to him - how the Russians attempted to influence the elections, potential Trump campaign coordination, shady Trump business dealings, etc. And I would assume we'll hear about them all in the report.

How many times are you going to deflect from what I said?

First, you point out that people have been indicted all along throughout the investigation.... and now you claim that we have to wait for the report to be assured that we've taken steps to improve our security against them?

I'm sure such things WILL be in the report... but if we didn't have to wait for the report to file charges against people and set court dates, I'm certain that we wouldn't have to wait to address the security risk... or at least to say that we've addressed them.

No deflection - your first comment was asking why there hadn't been an investigation, and I clearly showed that there was...

Now that the Mueller report is out, I've seen a shift in tone from the right, that matches what you want. We've now stopped hearing them question if hacking happened, to talking about what we can do to address the issue going forward.

We had to wait until the report came out for the right to jump on board, because the right needed to wait until Mueller cleared Trump of charges before they were willing to admit that the Russian government did what Comey et al accused them of doing.

(04-01-2019 08:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 07:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wait, you've seen the Mueller report? Because based on what you're writing, it sure seems like you're certain of its contents.

Being that the Mueller investigation has results in the indictment of foreign nationals for the issues you bring up, I would guess that some of the 300+ pages are dedicated to dissecting the how question you bring up. It would be very odd if it did not. That's why, in response to your question about why the Mueller team didn't investigate "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling" I said that he indicted numerous individuals for those crimes. The indictments make it clear they did investigate those activities.

Mueller's team investigated a lot of different angles that fell under the purview granted to him - how the Russians attempted to influence the elections, potential Trump campaign coordination, shady Trump business dealings, etc. And I would assume we'll hear about them all in the report.

How many times are you going to deflect from what I said?

First, you point out that people have been indicted all along throughout the investigation.... and now you claim that we have to wait for the report to be assured that we've taken steps to improve our security against them?

I'm sure such things WILL be in the report... but if we didn't have to wait for the report to file charges against people and set court dates, I'm certain that we wouldn't have to wait to address the security risk... or at least to say that we've addressed them.

No deflection - your first comment was asking why there hadn't been an investigation, and I clearly showed that there was...

Now that the Mueller report is out, I've seen a shift in tone from the right, that matches what you want. We've now stopped hearing them question if hacking happened, to talking about what we can do to address the issue going forward.

We had to wait until the report came out for the right to jump on board, because the right needed to wait until Mueller cleared Trump of charges before they were willing to admit that the Russian government did what Comey et al accused them of doing.

Let me get this straight.

The right would never accept that there was interference *unless* Trump was cleared. Is this really what you say and believe? Seriously? Wow, if so the kool-aid runs deep......

Why dont you slow down, take a hit of vodka, and say that three times. And then ponder that comment above with all your protestations of how 'open-minded' you are..... You have labeled the 'right' as so gd ignorant that they have to wait for that to happen. Amazing. No wonder you defended Hillary's 'deplorable' comment to your dying breath.

God, you truly do believe that everyone else is a deplorable, or so fing ignorant that that step has to be taken? Amazing.

(04-01-2019 09:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 08:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 07:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wait, you've seen the Mueller report? Because based on what you're writing, it sure seems like you're certain of its contents.

Being that the Mueller investigation has results in the indictment of foreign nationals for the issues you bring up, I would guess that some of the 300+ pages are dedicated to dissecting the how question you bring up. It would be very odd if it did not. That's why, in response to your question about why the Mueller team didn't investigate "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling" I said that he indicted numerous individuals for those crimes. The indictments make it clear they did investigate those activities.

Mueller's team investigated a lot of different angles that fell under the purview granted to him - how the Russians attempted to influence the elections, potential Trump campaign coordination, shady Trump business dealings, etc. And I would assume we'll hear about them all in the report.

How many times are you going to deflect from what I said?

First, you point out that people have been indicted all along throughout the investigation.... and now you claim that we have to wait for the report to be assured that we've taken steps to improve our security against them?

I'm sure such things WILL be in the report... but if we didn't have to wait for the report to file charges against people and set court dates, I'm certain that we wouldn't have to wait to address the security risk... or at least to say that we've addressed them.

No deflection - your first comment was asking why there hadn't been an investigation, and I clearly showed that there was...

Now that the Mueller report is out, I've seen a shift in tone from the right, that matches what you want. We've now stopped hearing them question if hacking happened, to talking about what we can do to address the issue going forward.

We had to wait until the report came out for the right to jump on board, because the right needed to wait until Mueller cleared Trump of charges before they were willing to admit that the Russian government did what Comey et al accused them of doing.

Let me get this straight.

The right would never accept that there was interference *unless* Trump was cleared. Is this really what you say and believe? Seriously? Wow, if so the kool-aid runs deep......

Why dont you slow down, take a hit of vodka, and say that three times. And then ponder that comment above with all your protestations of how 'open-minded' you are.....

Dude, we have people on this very board suggesting Russia may not have behind the email hacks (I keep seeing talk about download speeds). The right often puppeted Trump about how the hackers could have been some fat dude in a basement and how it wasn’t Russia.

But now that Barr has summarized that Trump and Co did not conspire, tunes are changing to actually caring about the election interference because Cheeto-Bandito is in the clear for collusion. People all over the right would have kept peddling conspiracy theories about Seth Rich if Mueller had found Trump and Co guilty because they would t have wanted to believe that Trump was guilty. The only way they could have cared was if they didn’t have to worry about their Orange savior being in bed with the Russians.

(04-01-2019 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 09:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 08:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 07:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 04:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wait, you've seen the Mueller report? Because based on what you're writing, it sure seems like you're certain of its contents.

Being that the Mueller investigation has results in the indictment of foreign nationals for the issues you bring up, I would guess that some of the 300+ pages are dedicated to dissecting the how question you bring up. It would be very odd if it did not. That's why, in response to your question about why the Mueller team didn't investigate "servers and email accounts and Facebook trolling" I said that he indicted numerous individuals for those crimes. The indictments make it clear they did investigate those activities.

Mueller's team investigated a lot of different angles that fell under the purview granted to him - how the Russians attempted to influence the elections, potential Trump campaign coordination, shady Trump business dealings, etc. And I would assume we'll hear about them all in the report.

How many times are you going to deflect from what I said?

First, you point out that people have been indicted all along throughout the investigation.... and now you claim that we have to wait for the report to be assured that we've taken steps to improve our security against them?

I'm sure such things WILL be in the report... but if we didn't have to wait for the report to file charges against people and set court dates, I'm certain that we wouldn't have to wait to address the security risk... or at least to say that we've addressed them.

No deflection - your first comment was asking why there hadn't been an investigation, and I clearly showed that there was...

Now that the Mueller report is out, I've seen a shift in tone from the right, that matches what you want. We've now stopped hearing them question if hacking happened, to talking about what we can do to address the issue going forward.

We had to wait until the report came out for the right to jump on board, because the right needed to wait until Mueller cleared Trump of charges before they were willing to admit that the Russian government did what Comey et al accused them of doing.

Let me get this straight.

The right would never accept that there was interference *unless* Trump was cleared. Is this really what you say and believe? Seriously? Wow, if so the kool-aid runs deep......

Why dont you slow down, take a hit of vodka, and say that three times. And then ponder that comment above with all your protestations of how 'open-minded' you are.....

Dude, we have people on this very board suggesting Russia may not have behind the email hacks (I keep seeing talk about download speeds). The right often puppeted Trump about how the hackers could have been some fat dude in a basement and how it wasn’t Russia.

But now that Barr has summarized that Trump and Co did not conspire, tunes are changing to actually caring about the election interference because Cheeto-Bandito is in the clear for collusion. People all over the right would have kept peddling conspiracy theories about Seth Rich if Mueller had found Trump and Co guilty because they would t have wanted to believe that Trump was guilty. The only way they could have cared was if they didn’t have to worry about their Orange savior being in bed with the Russians.

Yes. The right is so fing ignorant that it has to wait until Trump is cleared before 'jumping on' that there was interference.

Good for you on jumping aboard the SS Condescending Progressive Asshat for the daytrip ticket.

Now I know what a 20-something year old guy sounds like channeling Hillary.

(04-01-2019 08:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No deflection - your first comment was asking why there hadn't been an investigation, and I clearly showed that there was...

No you didn't.... I asked about servers and email accounts... our vulnerability and restoring the confidence that Russia has sought to destroy. I see no evidence that any such vulnerability has been addressed. If you do, can you please point it out to me? Your investigation is about 'who'. I'm more interested in HOW... and what we've done to address it. If I didn't make that clear, I'll apologize.

Quote:Now that the Mueller report is out, I've seen a shift in tone from the right, that matches what you want. We've now stopped hearing them question if hacking happened, to talking about what we can do to address the issue going forward. We had to wait until the report came out for the right to jump on board, because the right needed to wait until Mueller cleared Trump of charges before they were willing to admit that the Russian government did what Comey et al accused them of doing.

Really? I guess you missed these (among others)


The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued a bipartisan report which asserted that the intelligence community’s findings on Russian meddling were fairly and professionally done and that more evidence had since come forward.

“As the inquiry has progressed since January 2017, the Committee has seen additional examples of Russia’s attempts to sow discord, undermine democratic institutions, and interfere in U.S. elections and those of our allies,” the report noted.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a report written by the committee’s Republicans which found no evidence that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to interfere with the election.

But that report did find that Russia had tried to meddle.

“In 2015, Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election,” it said. “The Russian government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, sought to sow discord in American society and undermine our faith in the democratic process.”

The fact that you don't remember any of this only proves my point

But despite these acknowledgements, I STILL can't find much talking about how they did it and what we've done to stop it from happening again... you know, restoring confidence or protecting ourselves. Can you?



I'm not expecting detailed information about encryption or whatever.... except perhaps as it relates to say facebook because it is a US public entity... if they can't keep Russians from manipulating it and influencing our elections, then maybe we need to just shut it down, or at least consider doing so around the election, or eliminating all political conversations on it. We can talk about the green new deal, how about the secure deal?

Heck, every day I learn something new about Facebook and how it manipulates people... but nothing about what we're doing to keep Russians (or really anyone else) from sowing discord, undermining democratic institutions, and interfering in U.S. elections

(04-01-2019 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 01:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 12:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

A McConnell is at fault for refusing to go along with Obama's plan to propagandize the interference? Got it. Pure party politics, but only on the part of the Republicans, you say? OK, have it your way.

Maybe his options were not good, but he had options, and he opted to let the Russians continue without interference.

Propagandize the interference? Are you suggesting that the Russian attempts are made up and a lie?

No. Are you wearing your special glasses that let you see what you want me to say?

THE interference. what part of that phrase indicates to you that the interference was made up?

Propagandize. sure, tell the world that Putin wants Trump, and do with McConnell's blessing. What leftist would not love that?