(02-14-2017 02:29 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does it matter? Flynn stepped down, if anything, because he lied. And he lied in a way that caused the VP to go on TV and lie to the American public. He obviously transgressed the rules of the Trump WH in such a way that he was (most likely) forced to step down.

edit: but to address your comment directly - him calling Russian officials ahead of an official announcement and providing them with information they had not officially received from the current or incoming administration is helpful - ergo assisting.

what information did he provide, and who told you this?

You make it sound as if he made this call: "Igor, comrade. There are things you need to know. Listen closely..."

Is that the accusation?

I agree, he lied. First real lie I have heard in this whole mess, and "lie" is thrown about daily now. To his bosses. I have heard the cover up is always worse than the crime.

OO, are you kidding me? Try reading the news. You seem to be stuck in this strange rut of deny, deny, deny regardless of what credible news agencies are reporting. Can't you do some digging on your own and discuss the results of that?

The Flynn-Russia thing has been news for a while, and started heating up as more revelations come out. Quoting the WashPo (which I found as the first Google response for "flynn accusations russia sanctions":

Quote:National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election...

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

Flynn’s contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...ef7a451e7e

The biggest issue that is proven right now is that Flynn lied and that lie caused Pence to do so as well. So far, the initial accusations are that he communicated with the Russian ambassador about the existing and potential new sanctions. Another thing that came to light involving Flynn is that the Justice Dept. warned the Trump admin about a month ago that he could be susceptible to blackmail by the Russians due to his lying about the calls (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...796.html).

Ah, think you for the link. I found this part most interesting:

"Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration."

So the question remains, what information did he provide?

1) an implicit promise?
2) something important enough to be susceptible to blackmail by Russia.
3) something important enough to draw Trump's ire and cause Flynn to resign.

All three are problematic. But I suppose we should just assume they were discussing the best places to get borscht until we hear otherwise. Because people definitely resign over calls about borscht.

"could be" susceptible to blackmail.

People sometimes resign over 'optics' (i.e., things appear much worse than they are, but because of the circumstances, it is going to be impossible to rectify the narrative) . . . .

although I will grant you that concern over 'optics' has not seemed to be a priority with this administration to date.

just saying that listing the worst case scenarios doesn't mean that all, or any, of them are applicable.

(02-14-2017 02:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  what information did he provide, and who told you this?

You make it sound as if he made this call: "Igor, comrade. There are things you need to know. Listen closely..."

Is that the accusation?

I agree, he lied. First real lie I have heard in this whole mess, and "lie" is thrown about daily now. To his bosses. I have heard the cover up is always worse than the crime.

OO, are you kidding me? Try reading the news. You seem to be stuck in this strange rut of deny, deny, deny regardless of what credible news agencies are reporting. Can't you do some digging on your own and discuss the results of that?

The Flynn-Russia thing has been news for a while, and started heating up as more revelations come out. Quoting the WashPo (which I found as the first Google response for "flynn accusations russia sanctions":

Quote:National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election...

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

Flynn’s contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...ef7a451e7e

The biggest issue that is proven right now is that Flynn lied and that lie caused Pence to do so as well. So far, the initial accusations are that he communicated with the Russian ambassador about the existing and potential new sanctions. Another thing that came to light involving Flynn is that the Justice Dept. warned the Trump admin about a month ago that he could be susceptible to blackmail by the Russians due to his lying about the calls (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...796.html).

Ah, think you for the link. I found this part most interesting:

"Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration."

So the question remains, what information did he provide?

When they release the entire report, I'll tell you.

But what's your point of questioning the exact details of the discussion of sanctions with Russian diplomats?

because you said he provided information, and I was wondering what information he provided and why. It seems you don't know either. I guess maybe we should both wait for the release of the entire report.

OO, do you not trust credible news agencies anymore?

Right now, based on journalism and the resignation of Flynn, I assume he discussed these sanctions with Russian diplomats in some way, shape, or form. And that, since he was willing to LIE about those discussions, he was doing it to assist the Russians in some way shape or form, as I previously stated.

From the same WashPo article:

Quote:wo of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

How is that not assisting Russia? It definitely isn't explicitly telling them that the sanctions would be lifted, as was reported. But it definitely is Flynn telling Russia what to do, likely for their own gain.

(02-14-2017 02:44 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:29 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  what information did he provide, and who told you this?

You make it sound as if he made this call: "Igor, comrade. There are things you need to know. Listen closely..."

Is that the accusation?

I agree, he lied. First real lie I have heard in this whole mess, and "lie" is thrown about daily now. To his bosses. I have heard the cover up is always worse than the crime.

OO, are you kidding me? Try reading the news. You seem to be stuck in this strange rut of deny, deny, deny regardless of what credible news agencies are reporting. Can't you do some digging on your own and discuss the results of that?

The Flynn-Russia thing has been news for a while, and started heating up as more revelations come out. Quoting the WashPo (which I found as the first Google response for "flynn accusations russia sanctions":

Quote:National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election...

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn’s communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

Flynn’s contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...ef7a451e7e

The biggest issue that is proven right now is that Flynn lied and that lie caused Pence to do so as well. So far, the initial accusations are that he communicated with the Russian ambassador about the existing and potential new sanctions. Another thing that came to light involving Flynn is that the Justice Dept. warned the Trump admin about a month ago that he could be susceptible to blackmail by the Russians due to his lying about the calls (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...796.html).

Ah, think you for the link. I found this part most interesting:

"Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration."

So the question remains, what information did he provide?

1) an implicit promise?
2) something important enough to be susceptible to blackmail by Russia.
3) something important enough to draw Trump's ire and cause Flynn to resign.

All three are problematic. But I suppose we should just assume they were discussing the best places to get borscht until we hear otherwise. Because people definitely resign over calls about borscht.

"could be" susceptible to blackmail.

People sometimes resign over 'optics' (i.e., things appear much worse than they are, but because of the circumstances, it is going to be impossible to rectify the narrative) . . . .

although I will grant you that concern over 'optics' has not seemed to be a priority with this administration to date.

just saying that listing the worst case scenarios doesn't mean that all, or any, of them are applicable.

You're right. But at some point, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, isn't it a duck?

(02-14-2017 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:44 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:29 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, are you kidding me? Try reading the news. You seem to be stuck in this strange rut of deny, deny, deny regardless of what credible news agencies are reporting. Can't you do some digging on your own and discuss the results of that?

The Flynn-Russia thing has been news for a while, and started heating up as more revelations come out. Quoting the WashPo (which I found as the first Google response for "flynn accusations russia sanctions":


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...ef7a451e7e

The biggest issue that is proven right now is that Flynn lied and that lie caused Pence to do so as well. So far, the initial accusations are that he communicated with the Russian ambassador about the existing and potential new sanctions. Another thing that came to light involving Flynn is that the Justice Dept. warned the Trump admin about a month ago that he could be susceptible to blackmail by the Russians due to his lying about the calls (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...796.html).

Ah, think you for the link. I found this part most interesting:

"Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration."

So the question remains, what information did he provide?

1) an implicit promise?
2) something important enough to be susceptible to blackmail by Russia.
3) something important enough to draw Trump's ire and cause Flynn to resign.

All three are problematic. But I suppose we should just assume they were discussing the best places to get borscht until we hear otherwise. Because people definitely resign over calls about borscht.

"could be" susceptible to blackmail.

People sometimes resign over 'optics' (i.e., things appear much worse than they are, but because of the circumstances, it is going to be impossible to rectify the narrative) . . . .

although I will grant you that concern over 'optics' has not seemed to be a priority with this administration to date.

just saying that listing the worst case scenarios doesn't mean that all, or any, of them are applicable.

You're right. But at some point, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, isn't it a duck?

утка крякает

(02-13-2017 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think that likely. I hope you have Al's sense of humor.

I have heard that he will be a candidate for Prez the next election. Does that sit well with you?

Personally, I think I'm *at least* as funny as Al. My friends and family may beg to differ.

I haven't heard him mentioned for 2020. Have heard Kloubachar(?) the other MN Senator mentioned.

I remember reading that after getting elected he never did national media, only MN, and focused on the job, which won over his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He seems to have changed that policy of late. Don't know if that means he's considering a presidential run or not.

I always found his one-man-mobile-uplink-unit skits pretty funny:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/v...9879?snl=1
(And hey, Dennis Miller! It's bipartisan!)

Thing is, reporters actually do this now, but with their phones.

(02-14-2017 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, do you not trust credible news agencies anymore?

Right now, based on journalism and the resignation of Flynn, I assume he discussed these sanctions with Russian diplomats in some way, shape, or form. And that, since he was willing to LIE about those discussions, he was doing it to assist the Russians in some way shape or form, as I previously stated.

From the same WashPo article:

Quote:wo of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

How is that not assisting Russia? It definitely isn't explicitly telling them that the sanctions would be lifted, as was reported. But it definitely is Flynn telling Russia what to do, likely for their own gain.

Actually, Lad, I do NOT implicitly trust anything and everything I hear, whether it be from a "credible" news agency (who decides that?) or from a poster on a message board who does trust them. That is why I asked you to tell me WHAT information he provided and HOW you know. You seemed very positive of that, but now it has devolved into "I assume" and "likely".

So far, it seems he MIGHT have told there MIGHT be a different viewpoint when there was a different person in the WH. Damn. Wish he had kept that a secret. How else could they have figured that out? Certainly nobody on this board had an inkling.

It sounds a lot like Obama saying he could be more flexible AFTER the election.

He lied, true, bit there can be other reasons than he was assisting the Russians for their good. To wit, keeping his job.

Astounding how easy we can accuse a retired three star general of being a Russian spy/plant/agent. How long has he been passing these secrets to Vasily and Arkady? Decades? Where is Senator McCarthy when you need him?

Now if Flynn catches the next plane to his dacha on the Black Sea....I think that might be proof.

Seems to me it is just more of the antiTrump hysteria. I specifically wondered what the problem was, with the advisor of the incoming President talking to ...well, anybody. Maybe he talked to Israel, too, told told them to hold on. Oh, how horrible. How else could they have figured that out?

He cannot conduct diplomacy before he is in office, but so far, all we have are assumptions that he did, not proof that he did. If he would have owned up to it, he would still be advisor, i think. But he lied, and that's why he is gone.

A more concerning question to me is why somebody in OUR intelligence community LEAKED this.

(02-14-2017 04:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, do you not trust credible news agencies anymore?

Right now, based on journalism and the resignation of Flynn, I assume he discussed these sanctions with Russian diplomats in some way, shape, or form. And that, since he was willing to LIE about those discussions, he was doing it to assist the Russians in some way shape or form, as I previously stated.

From the same WashPo article:

Quote:wo of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

How is that not assisting Russia? It definitely isn't explicitly telling them that the sanctions would be lifted, as was reported. But it definitely is Flynn telling Russia what to do, likely for their own gain.

Actually, Lad, I do NOT implicitly trust anything and everything I hear, whether it be from a "credible" news agency (who decides that?) or from a poster on a message board who does trust them. That is why I asked you to tell me WHAT information he provided and HOW you know. You seemed very positive of that, but now it has devolved into "I assume" and "likely".

So far, it seems he MIGHT have told there MIGHT be a different viewpoint when there was a different person in the WH. Damn. Wish he had kept that a secret. How else could they have figured that out? Certainly nobody on this board had an inkling.

It sounds a lot like Obama saying he could be more flexible AFTER the election.

He lied, true, bit there can be other reasons than he was assisting the Russians for their good. To wit, keeping his job.

Astounding how easy we can accuse a retired three star general of being a Russian spy/plant/agent. How long has he been passing these secrets to Vasily and Arkady? Decades? Where is Senator McCarthy when you need him?

Now if Flynn catches the next plane to his dacha on the Black Sea....I think that might be proof.

Seems to me it is just more of the antiTrump hysteria. I specifically wondered what the problem was, with the advisor of the incoming President talking to ...well, anybody. Maybe he talked to Israel, too, told told them to hold on. Oh, how horrible. How else could they have figured that out?

He cannot conduct diplomacy before he is in office, but so far, all we have are assumptions that he did, not proof that he did. If he would have owned up to it, he would still be advisor, i think. But he lied, and that's why he is gone.

A more concerning question to me is why somebody in OUR intelligence community LEAKED this.

OO, to the bolded items.

My position has not changed. My original assertion was that he was assisting Russian diplomats and right now, the evidence I have provided supports that claim (him telling diplomats what not to do).

There is a difference between the POTUS talking to a head of state/foreign dignitary as a representative of the US about international affairs while occupying the presidency and an un-elected official do the same prior tot he administration he is affiliated with taking over.

I am not, and have not, accused Flynn of being a spy or plant. I have simply supported the reporting that I have presented. You're the only one in this conversation who has brought that up.

And yes, there is proof. I provided you a quote with the proof of him conducting that diplomacy. Unless the two officials who were quoted were making up the fact that, on his calls with the Russian diplomat that he was urging Russia to not overreact because the position could be reviewed once Trump was sworn in.

OO, my posts aren't hysteria, they have really just been a rehash of the revelations of reporting that you are trying to poke holes in to fill your own agenda that all this anti-Trump stuff is made up and nonsensical. I have not suggested Flynn was some spy because there isn't evidence for that. - you brought that hysteria up.

Right now thought, the former National Security Adviser was caught lying about his interactions with a foreign country who we currently do not see eye to eye with. The same country how was caught trying to influence our election. The same country that French intelligence is now worried will try to influence their elections. Because of the evidence that suggests Russia is trying to covertly assert its influence across the globe, we should not take lightly that this was the country, of all countries, that Flynn tried to play too nice with when he shouldn't have.

I just want to state, there is a difference between stating that something is concerning and suggesting that there is a grand conspiracy. Can we not think that some developments within the administration are odd/bad without being accused of hysteria?

(02-14-2017 05:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is a difference between the POTUS talking to a head of state/foreign dignitary as a representative of the US about international affairs while occupying the presidency and an un-elected official do the same prior tot he administration he is affiliated with taking over.

Yes. One is legal, the other illegal. Otherwise, exactly the same.

I am not, and have not, accused Flynn of being a spy or plant. I have simply supported the reporting that I have presented. You're the only one in this conversation who has brought that up.

quote" But it definitely is Flynn telling Russia what to do, likely for their own gain.

And yes, there is proof. I provided you a quote with the proof of him conducting that diplomacy. Unless the two officials who were quoted were making up the fact that, on his calls with the Russian diplomat that he was urging Russia to not overreact because the position could be reviewed once Trump was sworn in.

Yes, he was saying that Trump would have more flexibility after the Inauguration. Big secret.



OO, my posts aren't hysteria, they have really just been a rehash of the revelations of reporting that you are trying to poke holes in to fill your own agenda that all this anti-Trump stuff is made up and nonsensical. I have not suggested Flynn was some spy because there isn't evidence for that. - you brought that hysteria up.

Once again: quote" But it definitely is Flynn telling Russia what to do, likely for their own gain.

Now if he is telling Russia what to do for the benefit of Russia, then by definition he is an agent of Russia, right?




Right now thought, the former National Security Adviser was caught lying about his interactions with a foreign country who we currently do not see eye to eye with. The same country how was caught trying to influence our election. The same country that French intelligence is now worried will try to influence their elections. Because of the evidence that suggests Russia is trying to covertly assert its influence across the globe, we should not take lightly that this was the country, of all countries, that Flynn tried to play too nice with when he shouldn't have.

Two things.

He did nothing in December that would not have be OK after January 20. It was OK when Obama did it, because Obama was in office. It would have been OK on Jan. 21. So he should have waited. It was not for the benefit of Russia then, any more than it would be for the benefit of Russia now. It was for the benefit of the US. Overreaction just prior to Trump taking office would have made it much tougher for the US to deal with them. The US.

He lied to the VP. For that, he should lose his job. And did.

Telling someone what to do for their gain does not make one an agent. How would you connect those two definitively? It proves sympathy for the entity, but says nothing about that person working on behalf of or under the direction of that entity.

By your definition, every news source would be an agent of that media outlet.

If nothing else, at least we (for now) ho longer have a conspiracy theory believing lunatic who *wants* to start a "war with Islam" as National Security Advisor. Flynn was by far, IMHO, the scariest appointment.

Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

yeah, call me when they are made public.

Now, give me the evidence for this: "... then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?" You imply targeting, when what I see is easy opportunity on one server, and you imply support for the other as a motive. How do you prove that motive, lad?

Next, I would like to point out that like the released emails, "...it isn't like these leaks are made up". Yeah, truth is what was leaked. But in one case, by your own statements, it was an enemy, and in the other, our own people acting as vigilantes in violation of law and their duty. Exactly the same?

Lastly, he forced Flynn to step down because he lied to the VP. Must be hard to accept if it doesn't fit the narrative that we caught a Russian minion.

I think a lot of this Russian hysteria is just that - hysteria, and it doesn't even hold together logically. Trump as a tool of Russia - then what's the problem with Flynn talking to them? Why in the world would Russia prefer Trump and/or the Republicans over Hillary and/or the Democrats? Obama spent eight years bending over backward for Russia, why would they worry about Ms. business-as-usual? The pronouncement I heard was that the Russians wanted to sow distrust of our system, and if so, the Dems are working hand in hand with them to achieve that result, to the benefit of Russia, as you would say.

BTW, I understand the author of that linked report is a liberaL

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

So I take it that it is of no concern to you about intelligence leaks.

Both Flynn's activities (notwithstanding what was said, since no one like us actually really knows), and the lying to the Veep are worrisome.

The leaking of that information to the press is also highly worrisome. As much as the initial actions. But no one seems to really give a rat's ass about that side of this coin.

This is not the "either/or" game you make it out to be.

(02-15-2017 11:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

So I take it that it is of no concern to you about intelligence leaks.

Both Flynn's activities (notwithstanding what was said, since no one like us actually really knows), and the lying to the Veep are worrisome.

The leaking of that information to the press is also highly worrisome. As much as the initial actions. But no one seems to really give a rat's ass about that side of this coin.

This is not the "either/or" game you make it out to be.

I'm a bit torn on the intelligence leaks. It doesn't appear as if these leaks have caused any classified information to be leaked and they are American officials releasing information to the American press, which has corroborated the reports with other sources. They have also been fairly objective and more about reporting on the contents of the reports and investigations. You had some sources going out of the way to state that there was no explicit promise to reduce sanctions - so they really wanted to make it clear that they were just letting the reporter know that the conversations happened and to not speculate about future discoveries.

And remember, leaks similar to this is what brought down Watergate. Whistleblowers can be important.

But I do understand the implications that a very leaky intelligence agency has and how it can erode the trust of both the ruling party and potentially the electorate. If the FBI had not been so leaky about Clinton, I could see the case being made that this is some partisan BS. But right now, it seems like they are willing to talk about investigations into both sides, so I do not think this is some indication of a partisan intelligence agency.

But I think this can be an either or. You can not fall squarely on one side of this situation and fall squarely on the other for the Russian-led hacking. If you are concerned about one, you should at least harbor some form or concern about the other, and vice versa.

(02-15-2017 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

yeah, call me when they are made public.

Now, give me the evidence for this: "... then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?" You imply targeting, when what I see is easy opportunity on one server, and you imply support for the other as a motive. How do you prove that motive, lad?

Next, I would like to point out that like the released emails, "...it isn't like these leaks are made up". Yeah, truth is what was leaked. But in one case, by your own statements, it was an enemy, and in the other, our own people acting as vigilantes in violation of law and their duty. Exactly the same?

Lastly, he forced Flynn to step down because he lied to the VP. Must be hard to accept if it doesn't fit the narrative that we caught a Russian minion.

I think a lot of this Russian hysteria is just that - hysteria, and it doesn't even hold together logically. Trump as a tool of Russia - then what's the problem with Flynn talking to them? Why in the world would Russia prefer Trump and/or the Republicans over Hillary and/or the Democrats? Obama spent eight years bending over backward for Russia, why would they worry about Ms. business-as-usual? The pronouncement I heard was that the Russians wanted to sow distrust of our system, and if so, the Dems are working hand in hand with them to achieve that result, to the benefit of Russia, as you would say.

BTW, I understand the author of that linked report is a liberaL

OO, you should read some more news stores. A lot of articles have been written about the issues Putin personally had with Clinton. Basically they hated each other, which makes it easy to see why Putin did not want to see her become president.

Here's a decent summary on where Putin's resentment comes from (that also includes his views on Trump and some of his picks):

Quote:Putin’s resentment of Clinton was always manifest; it is almost as severe as Trump’s. Putin saw the Clinton Administration of the nineties as having taken advantage of Russian weakness after the fall of the Soviet Union, twenty-five years ago. He viewed Hillary Clinton as a foreign-policy hawk who wanted regime change from Baghdad to Kiev to Moscow. In 2011, Putin, who lives in fear of spontaneous uprisings, events like the Arab Spring and the “color revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, accused Clinton of giving “a signal” to urge thousands of Russians to come out on the streets of Moscow to protest parliamentary-election “irregularities” and Putin’s intention to return once more to the Kremlin as President.

In the past few weeks, I’ve had conversations with Russian political experts, and all of them agreed that Putin was certainly pleased, at least initially, with Trump’s victory—and that satisfaction is reflected, too, on countless news and talk shows on television. These analysts added that Putin is undoubtedly cheered that Rex Tillerson, Trump’s appointment to head the State Department, was likely to leave behind American “sanctimony” about human rights and democracy and, following the pattern of his career at ExxonMobil, to concentrate on purely “transactional politics.” Some, however, wondered if Putin will remain enchanted with Trump once he encounters Trump’s inconsistencies, his alarming penchant for surprise pronouncements via Twitter.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...e-big-hack

Here's one which explains Clinton's views on Putin:

Quote:For Clinton, the rhetoric reflects genuine disappointment and frustration from a tumultuous term as secretary of state during which cooperation between Moscow and Washington briefly soared, only to come crashing to Earth after Putin’s reelection as president in 2012 following a four-year hiatus, according to current and former U.S. officials involved in Russian policymaking at the time. Clinton, who began her tenure by famously offering a “reset” of Russian relations, would end it by publicly blasting Putin’s government on issues including alleged vote-rigging in Russia and Putin’s support for Syria’s authoritarian president, Bashar al-Assad.

Putin would fire back with repeated attacks against her, ­often injecting an unusually personal tone into the growing diplomatic rift. The exchanges helped cement an adversarial view of Clinton on the Russian side that may explain, more than any other single factor, the apparent efforts by Russian operatives to influence the election by hacking email accounts of senior Clinton staff members, longtime Kremlin observers say.

“She has policies and a history that the Russians don’t like,” said Michael McFaul, who became the U.S. ambassador to Moscow during Clinton’s final year as secretary of state. “It’s frequently forgotten because there’s so much noise about Trump and Putin. But this history is real, and Putin doesn’t forget these things.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7f2f279c7c

And finally, a succinct summary of their beef:

Quote:If Russia is indeed behind the damaging leak of Democratic Party emails on the eve of its national convention, it's not just because President Vladimir Putin likes Republican nominee Donald Trump and his pro-Russian views, former U.S. officials and experts tell NBC News.

It's because the former KGB operative hates Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, with such a passion that he wants to embarrass her personally and undermine — if not derail — her presidential campaign, they say.

For a Russian leader who is considered as vain as he is ruthless, Clinton's criticism long ago crossed over from the political into the personal. He carries a grudge against a woman who has publicly compared him to Hitler and expressed doubts that he has a soul.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-...on-n617236

(02-15-2017 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

yeah, call me when they are made public.

Now, give me the evidence for this: "... then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?" You imply targeting, when what I see is easy opportunity on one server, and you imply support for the other as a motive. How do you prove that motive, lad?

Next, I would like to point out that like the released emails, "...it isn't like these leaks are made up". Yeah, truth is what was leaked. But in one case, by your own statements, it was an enemy, and in the other, our own people acting as vigilantes in violation of law and their duty. Exactly the same?

Lastly, he forced Flynn to step down because he lied to the VP. Must be hard to accept if it doesn't fit the narrative that we caught a Russian minion.

I think a lot of this Russian hysteria is just that - hysteria, and it doesn't even hold together logically. Trump as a tool of Russia - then what's the problem with Flynn talking to them? Why in the world would Russia prefer Trump and/or the Republicans over Hillary and/or the Democrats? Obama spent eight years bending over backward for Russia, why would they worry about Ms. business-as-usual? The pronouncement I heard was that the Russians wanted to sow distrust of our system, and if so, the Dems are working hand in hand with them to achieve that result, to the benefit of Russia, as you would say.

BTW, I understand the author of that linked report is a liberaL

Responding to the bolded.

#1: See my previous post about motive.

#2: stop trying to spin my words into something I've NEVER said. I really find it offensive in the back and forth we've had. If you are talking about some other conspiracy you've heard about that I have not brought up, please specify that.

#3: Good for him

(02-15-2017 11:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

yeah, call me when they are made public.

Now, give me the evidence for this: "... then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?" You imply targeting, when what I see is easy opportunity on one server, and you imply support for the other as a motive. How do you prove that motive, lad?

Next, I would like to point out that like the released emails, "...it isn't like these leaks are made up". Yeah, truth is what was leaked. But in one case, by your own statements, it was an enemy, and in the other, our own people acting as vigilantes in violation of law and their duty. Exactly the same?

Lastly, he forced Flynn to step down because he lied to the VP. Must be hard to accept if it doesn't fit the narrative that we caught a Russian minion.

I think a lot of this Russian hysteria is just that - hysteria, and it doesn't even hold together logically. Trump as a tool of Russia - then what's the problem with Flynn talking to them? Why in the world would Russia prefer Trump and/or the Republicans over Hillary and/or the Democrats? Obama spent eight years bending over backward for Russia, why would they worry about Ms. business-as-usual? The pronouncement I heard was that the Russians wanted to sow distrust of our system, and if so, the Dems are working hand in hand with them to achieve that result, to the benefit of Russia, as you would say.

BTW, I understand the author of that linked report is a liberaL

OO, you should read some more news stores. A lot of articles have been written about the issues Putin personally had with Clinton. Basically they hated each other, which makes it easy to see why Putin did not want to see her become president.

Here's a decent summary on where Putin's resentment comes from (that also includes his views on Trump and some of his picks):

Quote:Putin’s resentment of Clinton was always manifest; it is almost as severe as Trump’s. Putin saw the Clinton Administration of the nineties as having taken advantage of Russian weakness after the fall of the Soviet Union, twenty-five years ago. He viewed Hillary Clinton as a foreign-policy hawk who wanted regime change from Baghdad to Kiev to Moscow. In 2011, Putin, who lives in fear of spontaneous uprisings, events like the Arab Spring and the “color revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, accused Clinton of giving “a signal” to urge thousands of Russians to come out on the streets of Moscow to protest parliamentary-election “irregularities” and Putin’s intention to return once more to the Kremlin as President.

In the past few weeks, I’ve had conversations with Russian political experts, and all of them agreed that Putin was certainly pleased, at least initially, with Trump’s victory—and that satisfaction is reflected, too, on countless news and talk shows on television. These analysts added that Putin is undoubtedly cheered that Rex Tillerson, Trump’s appointment to head the State Department, was likely to leave behind American “sanctimony” about human rights and democracy and, following the pattern of his career at ExxonMobil, to concentrate on purely “transactional politics.” Some, however, wondered if Putin will remain enchanted with Trump once he encounters Trump’s inconsistencies, his alarming penchant for surprise pronouncements via Twitter.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...e-big-hack

Here's one which explains Clinton's views on Putin:

Quote:For Clinton, the rhetoric reflects genuine disappointment and frustration from a tumultuous term as secretary of state during which cooperation between Moscow and Washington briefly soared, only to come crashing to Earth after Putin’s reelection as president in 2012 following a four-year hiatus, according to current and former U.S. officials involved in Russian policymaking at the time. Clinton, who began her tenure by famously offering a “reset” of Russian relations, would end it by publicly blasting Putin’s government on issues including alleged vote-rigging in Russia and Putin’s support for Syria’s authoritarian president, Bashar al-Assad.

Putin would fire back with repeated attacks against her, ­often injecting an unusually personal tone into the growing diplomatic rift. The exchanges helped cement an adversarial view of Clinton on the Russian side that may explain, more than any other single factor, the apparent efforts by Russian operatives to influence the election by hacking email accounts of senior Clinton staff members, longtime Kremlin observers say.

“She has policies and a history that the Russians don’t like,” said Michael McFaul, who became the U.S. ambassador to Moscow during Clinton’s final year as secretary of state. “It’s frequently forgotten because there’s so much noise about Trump and Putin. But this history is real, and Putin doesn’t forget these things.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7f2f279c7c

And finally, a succinct summary of their beef:

Quote:If Russia is indeed behind the damaging leak of Democratic Party emails on the eve of its national convention, it's not just because President Vladimir Putin likes Republican nominee Donald Trump and his pro-Russian views, former U.S. officials and experts tell NBC News.

It's because the former KGB operative hates Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, with such a passion that he wants to embarrass her personally and undermine — if not derail — her presidential campaign, they say.

For a Russian leader who is considered as vain as he is ruthless, Clinton's criticism long ago crossed over from the political into the personal. He carries a grudge against a woman who has publicly compared him to Hitler and expressed doubts that he has a soul.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-...on-n617236

Yes. I started to bring this in, to refute your accusation that the hacking was done "to overtly support the other". It is entirely possible that Putin hated Hillary more than he liked Trump. It is entirely possible he didn't care who was president as long as it wasn't Hillary. It also could be that he wanted to sow distrust of the election system, and the DNC computers et al were just so much easier to hack than the RNC, and one is enough.

The Flynn talks are not worrisome to me yet. For all we know, he told the Ambassador to not worry his pretty little head about sanctions, meaning almost anything. The US intelligence community, at least part of it, declaring war on the President does worry me.

And where does this fit in?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/russ...d=45490605

(02-15-2017 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The US intelligence community, at least part of it, declaring war on the President does worry me.

Agreed...the fact that the president and his administration are distrusted to the point that intelligence officers are beginning to withhold information is extremely disturbing.

http://observer.com/2017/02/donald-trump...n-embassy/