Mueller: Trump-Russian collusion doesn’t seem to exist

[GMDino]

Question: If all of the Russian meddling took place during the Obama Administration, right up to January 20th, why aren’t they the subject of the investigation? Why didn’t Obama do something about the meddling? Why aren’t Dem crimes under investigation? Ask Jeff Sessions!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2018

Does he know he can find this stuff out without asking the internet?

I feel you can tell when he is angry but he lets autocorrect change names.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-21-2018, 09:29 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So are you arguing that accepting the word of a foreign leader over your entire intelligence agency and not doing anything is "tougher" than doing something that you don't think is super effective?

No, I'm saying both amount to jack frickin' squat other than to partisan idiots.

What part of my original post did you struggle to understand? All of it? You speak English, correct?

[BmorePat87]

(02-23-2018, 04:01 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, I'm saying both amount to jack frickin' squat other than to partisan idiots.

What part of my original post did you struggle to understand?  All of it?  You speak English, correct?

What did you hope to achieve with this post?

[Griever]

(02-23-2018, 09:40 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What did you hope to achieve with this post?

wanted to flaunt his e-peen tough guy attitude to distract from his fragile masculinity

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2018, 10:05 AM)Griever Wrote: wanted to flaunt his e-peen tough guy attitude to distract from his fragile masculinity

There is a lot of that these days.

[CKwi88]

(02-23-2018, 10:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a lot of that these days.

Well, when said tactic gets a dude in the White House, one would expect others to follow suit and hope for similar results. 

[Dill]

(02-21-2018, 06:38 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ehhh, so goes the argument after 30 years of NOT WORKING in Iran.  There likely were other factors involved, not to mention getting billions to sign a deal that probably isn't going to do much to stop nuclear development.

Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and yes Russia....it's a long list of failed sanctions after decades.  This is hardly an unpopular or uncommon opinion, one backed by research.

Curious statement--"not to mention getting billions to sign . . . . "

Seems to me you are guessing a lot about the Iran Deal, how it came to be and how effective it is. 

And you appear to imagine sanctions are one sort of thing, always.

What "research" tells us is that there are smart sanctions enforced through diplomacy and angry dumb ones designed to get votes.

E.g., in 1986, Congress went over Reagan's head to impose sanctions on South Africa. Five years later, the sanctions were lifted by Bush 41 as South Africa met the conditions demanded by the sanctions, unraveling Apartheid.

Sanctions designed simply to bring down a government, and lacking the necessary diplomatic buttress, seem never to achieve their stated goals, though they may help someone stay in office. Sanctions designed to work--i.e., setting reasonable goals and with the diplomatic buttress--often do work.


As for Cuba and North Korea, one could argue that sanctions were working very well on NK until the U.S. reneged on its obligations.  The Cuba sanctions were designed more to please the American right than to effect change in Cuba. In effect, Cuba sanctions were simply sanctions on Americans trading with Cuba, with no effect on Europe or Latin America.
Venezuela is too soon to tell.

As for Russian sanctions, people need to keep in mind there are many now, for differing reasons with differing levels of enforcement.  They create serious pressure on Putin. But those attempting to change his defense of Russian vital interests are least likely to work. Those exacting a penalty for election interference could very well have the desired effect--if actually implemented.

Finally, sanctions may be designed to something other than simply change behavior in the target. E.g., they may be intended to warn other countries not to follow bad behavior (as defined by the country imposing sanctions). They may simply be to punish, pure and simple.  They may successfully hamper the target's ability to project power (as sanctions on Iran and Iraq did), or to establish effective relations with potential allies, thus isolating it. 

Costs and benefits of sanctions are often weighed politically--sanctions which hurt our friends and U.S. companies may nevertheless continue if some sector of the electorate wants them too.

[GMDino]

For someone who doesn't have much time for television....



...he sure sounds like someone who watches a lot of television.

Also does that last tweet "WITCH HUNT" sound like it came from a very stable genius?

[Griever]

(02-27-2018, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: For someone who doesn't have much time for television....



...he sure sounds like someone who watches a lot of television.

Also does that last tweet "WITCH HUNT" sound like it came from a very stable genius?

i saw that when i got on today, but wasnt sure what it was in reference to this time

[GMDino]

(02-27-2018, 10:16 AM)Griever Wrote: i saw that when i got on today, but wasnt sure what it was in reference to this time

This is just my personal opinion, based on observing Trump (and people) for my entire life:

Trump doesn't like criticism.  Very few people do!  But he REALLY hates it.  Criticism implies failure to him.  Things can't just go well they have to be perfect.  It can't be successful it has to be the MOST successful. You get the idea.

The fact that someone is looking into his actions is probably driving his crazy.  First off because he doesn't believe he's capable of doing something "wrong" (a mistake or illegal, either definition) and secondly because he's not in charge of the investigation.  That ties into his management "style" which we have all discussed since before the election:  He keeps people close to him, that he can trust, in charge.  People he can berate because they won't quit because of their close ties (usually family) and people that he can make take the fall for mistakes.  This investigation is ran someone he didn't "choose" and someone he doesn't "trust" because of that.

Now add that Trump is sure he is the smartest man in the room at all times.  How could he be wrong about this investigation? Right?

And there may be no collusion going all the way to Trump.  I'd reckon he is so far out of touch with the day to day operations of almost everything (except what his closest advisors tell him) that he may NOT have known what anyone else was doing.

Then again maybe he did know but in true Trump fashion he didn't understand the law or the severity of what happened and in true Trump fashion assumed he'd just do it and worry about it later.

And now he is worried.

People with massive egos, people who are sure they are never wrong, those are the ones that cannot handle that time when they have to face their own fears about it.

And that can lead even a strong person to crack.  A little, or a lot.

[Belsnickel]

(02-27-2018, 10:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: This is just my personal opinion, based on observing Trump (and people) for my entire life:

Trump doesn't like criticism.  Very few people do!  But he REALLY hates it.  Criticism implies failure to him.  Things can't just go well they have to be perfect.  It can't be successful it has to be the MOST successful. You get the idea.

The fact that someone is looking into his actions is probably driving his crazy.  First off because he doesn't believe he's capable of doing something "wrong" (a mistake or illegal, either definition) and secondly because he's not in charge of the investigation.  That ties into his management "style" which we have all discussed since before the election:  He keeps people close to him, that he can trust, in charge.  People he can berate because they won't quit because of their close ties (usually family) and people that he can make take the fall for mistakes.  This investigation is ran someone he didn't "choose" and someone he doesn't "trust" because of that.

Now add that Trump is sure he is the smartest man in the room at all times.  How could he be wrong about this investigation? Right?

And there may be no collusion going all the way to Trump.  I'd reckon he is so far out of touch with the day to day operations of almost everything (except what his closest advisors tell him) that he may NOT have known what anyone else was doing.

Then again maybe he did know but in true Trump fashion he didn't understand the law or the severity of what happened and in true Trump fashion assumed he'd just do it and worry about it later.

And now he is worried.

People with massive egos, people who are sure they are never wrong, those are the ones that cannot handle that time when they have to face their own fears about it.

And that can lead even a strong person to crack.  A little, or a lot.

I think another aspect to it is something I mentioned in a reply to someone on Twitter. All of life is a competition to Trump. Everything in his mind is a win or a loss. A conservative I follow mentioned Trump's comments about calling MoH recipients "winners" instead. This is just my personal opinion and is backed by nothing other than my observations, but I don't believe Trump understands the idea of merit, equity, or justice in the way typical public servants do. Because of his competitive nature, because of his upbringing, the way the government is intended to work is not something that he fully understands. His mindset may be great for the free market (though that can be debated), but for government work it is toxic. It's why I've always been against the idea of a private sector leader being POTUS, even when I was more libertarian in my ideology. The goals are just different between the two and we need to recognize that.

Just my two cents.

[GMDino]

(02-27-2018, 10:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think another aspect to it is something I mentioned in a reply to someone on Twitter. All of life is a competition to Trump. Everything in his mind is a win or a loss. A conservative I follow mentioned Trump's comments about calling MoH recipients "winners" instead. This is just my personal opinion and is backed by nothing other than my observations, but I don't believe Trump understands the idea of merit, equity, or justice in the way typical public servants do. Because of his competitive nature, because of his upbringing, the way the government is intended to work is not something that he fully understands. His mindset may be great for the free market (though that can be debated), but for government work it is toxic. It's why I've always been against the idea of a private sector leader being POTUS, even when I was more libertarian in my ideology. The goals are just different between the two and we need to recognize that.

Just my two cents.

As usual you said in a paragraph what takes me a page!  

That's a big part of the ego thing.  He CAN'T lose. At anything.

Which is why he fires the "losers".  That's why he calls people who disagree with him "losers".  They don't agree with him and HE is a "winner".  At all times.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2018, 10:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: As usual you said in a paragraph what takes me a page!  

That's a big part of the ego thing.  He CAN'T lose. At anything.

Which is why he fires the "losers".  That's why he calls people who disagree with him "losers".  They don't agree with him and HE is a "winner".  At all times.

Well it helps if you just don't indent.

[GMDino]

Remember when FOX news wanted the POTUS to be tougher with Russia?

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/03/03/sarah-palin-who-predicted-russian-aggression-goes-off-on-weak-obama-and-his-mom-jeans

Quote:Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin joined Sean Hannity on Monday to discuss her 2008 prediction that Russia would be emboldened to invade Ukraine under President Barack Obama. Though she was mocked for saying it, she told Hannity that she feels vindicated and still believes Russia took advantage of Obama’s “weak leadership.”


“Anybody who carries the common sense gene knows that Putin doesn’t change his stripes,” Palin said. “He harkens back to the era of the czars and he wants that Russian empire to grow again.”


After gladly proclaiming that she was “right” on Russia, she also argued she is right on the “inherent link between energy and security, energy and prosperity.” The U.S. should be producing more energy so it can “feed others with our resources,” thus reducing the amount of dependence other nations have towards Russia, she added.
(Fox News)
Palin said the U.S. needs to build the Keystone XL pipeline to ramp up its energy production and influence around the globe.

When asked about her 2008 prediction, Palin hit Obama for his “impotency” and “weakness.”
“People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil,” she said. “They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.”


Watch the segment via Fox News:

[GMDino]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/roger-stones-secret-messages-with-wikileaks/554432/

Quote:Roger Stone's Secret Messages with WikiLeaks
Transcripts obtained by The Atlantic show Donald Trump's longtime confidante corresponded with the radical-transparency group.


On March 17, 2017, WikiLeaks tweeted that it had never communicated with Roger Stone, a longtime confidante and informal adviser to President Donald Trump. In his interview with the House Intelligence Committee last September, Stone, who testified under oath, told lawmakers that he had communicated with WikiLeaks via an “intermediary,” whom he identified only as a “journalist.” He declined to reveal that person’s identity to the committee, he told reporters later.

Private Twitter messages obtained by The Atlantic show that Stone and WikiLeaks, a radical-transparency group, communicated directly on October 13, 2016—and that WikiLeaks sought to keep its channel to Stone open after Trump won the election. The existence of the secret correspondence marks yet another strange twist in the White House’s rapidly swelling Russia scandal. Stone and Trump have been friends for decades, which raises key questions about what the president knew about Stone’s interactions with Wikileaks during the campaign. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The depth of Stone’s relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange has been closely scrutinized by congressional investigators examining whether Trump associates coordinated with Russia—or anyone serving as a cut-out for Moscow—to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Stone confirmed the authenticity of the messages, but called them “ridiculously out of context” and “a paste up.” He said that he provided the complete exchange to the House Intelligence Committee, but did not immediately respond to a request to provide his own record of the conversation to The Atlantic.

A screenshot of the exchange, which has not been previously reported, was provided to the House Intelligence Committee last year by a third-party source. The private messages confirm that Stone considered himself a “friend” of WikiLeaks, which was branded a “non-state hostile intelligence service” by CIA Director Mike Pompeo last April. Stone insisted that the messages vindicated his account. “They prove conclusively that I had no advance knowledge of content or source of WikiLeaks publications,” he said. “I merely had confirmed Assange’s public claim that he had information on Hillary Clinton and he would publish it.” He also narrowed the scope of his earlier denials, saying that he’d only denied having communicated directly with Assange, not with Wikileaks. Wikileaks did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[img=355x787]http:://thebengalsboard.com/[/img]These messages have been reproduced by The Atlantic’s art team.

“I have never said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist,” Stone told the committee in his prepared statement in September. The full hearing was held behind closed doors and the transcript has not been made public. At least one lawmaker had already obtained a screenshot of the exchange before Stone testified, according to two sources familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation.


The correspondence raises questions about whether Stone—who served as Trump’s lobbyist in Washington in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and had been encouraging him to run for president for over a decade—has kept secret any interactions that may be of interest to congressional investigators examining Russia’s election interference.

Stone also exchanged private Twitter messages in August and September of 2016 with a user known as Guccifer 2.0. Guccifer claimed in a posting on their Wordpress site to have “penetrated Hillary Clinton’s and other Democrats’ mail servers,” but the self-described hacker was later characterized by U.S. officials as a front for Russian military intelligence. Stone only published that exchange after it was revealed by The Smoking Gun, a website that publishes mugshots and other public documents.

On the afternoon of October 13, 2016, Stone sent WikiLeaks a private Twitter message. “Since I was all over national TV, cable and print defending wikileaks and assange against the claim that you are Russian agents and debunking the false charges of sexual assault as trumped up bs you may want to rexamine the strategy of attacking me- cordially R.”
WikiLeaks—whose Twitter account is run “by a rotating staff,” according to Assange—replied an hour later: “We appreciate that. However, the false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. Don’t go there if you don’t want us to correct you.”


“Ha!” Stone responded on October 15. “The more you ‘correct’ me the more people think you’re lying. Your operation leaks like a sieve. You need to figure out who your friends are.” Assange’s internet connection was cut off days later by the Ecuadorian embassy—which granted him diplomatic asylum in London in 2012—following WikiLeaks’ release of emails that had been stolen by Russian hackers from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s inbox. The morning after Donald Trump won the election, however, WikiLeaks sent Stone another message. “Happy? We are now more free to communicate.”

It is unclear whether Stone and WikiLeaks kept in touch, using Twitter or another platform, after the election. WikiLeaks continued to insist through at least last March that neither the organization nor Assange had ever communicated with Stone directly. Stone later identified radio host Randy Credico as the intermediary, but Credico denied that in an interview with The Daily Beast earlier this month. “There was no backchannel to Roger Stone, and I think that his testimony was a lot of bravado,” Credico said. “Roger’s a showman.”

The substance of the messages does seem to corroborate, however, Stone and WikiLeaks’ denials prior to October 13 that they had coordinated in any significant way. WikiLeaks indicated that Stone’s claims of association—even if through a backchannel, as Stone alleged—were false. But the screenshots do not show whether Stone and WikiLeaks communicated prior to October 13 or after November 9, 2016.


Democrats have asked GOP members to subpoena Twitter for the private messages of Trump associates currently under investigation in the Russia probe, according to one of the sources familiar with the internal proceedings. But the majority has so far refused. “It is important to verify that information by subpoenaing the records directly from third parties—a step the Majority has consistently refused to take,” said Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican who is leading the committee’s investigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. As The Atlantic’s Julia Ioffe first disclosed last fall, WikiLeaks also exchanged private Twitter messages with Donald Trump Jr., who provided the correspondence to congressional investigators. WikiLeaks continued to message Trump Jr. through July 2017, “actively soliciting” his cooperation on ventures ranging from obtaining the president’s tax returns to appointing Assange Australia’s U.S. ambassador.

On July 22, 2016, just before the Democratic National Convention kicked off, WikiLeaks  published thousands of emails that had been stolen from Democratic National Committee servers by hackers the U.S. intelligence community has since linked back to Russia. Stone told the Southwest Broward Republican Organization on August 8 that he had “communicated with Assange” and believed that “the next tranche of his documents”—which Assange had hinted at in an earlier interview with CNN— pertained to the Clinton Foundation. Stone soon walked that back, claiming instead that he communicated with Assange via an intermediary who he identified last November as Randy Credico. He declined to identify the intermediary in his interview with the House Intelligence Committee, but later changed his mind and claimed it had been Credico.


On October 4, 2016, Assange held a press conference to mark WikiLeaks’s 10th anniversary. The event had been hyped by supporters of then-candidate Trump, including Stone, as an “October surprise” that would completely derail Clinton’s presidential campaign just over a month before the election. On October 2, Stone told the far-right talk-radio host Alex Jones that he had been “assured that the mother lode” was coming. The next day, he tweeted that he had “total confidence that @wikileaks” and his “hero Julian Assange” would come through.

At his press conference, however, Assange gave no hints of what was to come, leaving his fans, and many of Trump’s, disappointed. Still, Stone was not deterred. “Libs thinking Assange will stand down are wishful thinking. Payload coming #Lockthemup,” he tweeted on October 5, 2016.

The payload actually came two days later: WikiLeaks began publishing the contents of Podesta’s inbox, which had been infiltrated by Russian hackers seven months earlier. Stone told The Daily Caller on October 12 that Assange had delayed the email dump on purpose: “I was led to believe that there would be a major release on a previous Wednesday,” he said. He denied, however, that he had been given “advance knowledge of the details” and maintained that he was only in touch with Assange “through an intermediary.”

On the morning of October 13, WikiLeaks issued a clarification: “WikiLeaks has never communicated with Roger Stone as we have previously, repeatedly stated.” It was later that day when Stone confronted WikiLeaks in a private message, and accused the organization of “attacking” him. WikiLeaks did not seem fazed by the confrontation, and re-opened its line of communication with Stone on November 9. Fourteen months later, Stone visited the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange has been holed up for more than five years.

“I didn’t go and see” Assange, Stone told The Daily Beast last month. “I dropped off a card to be a smart ass.”