Jeff sessions didnt disclose russian meetings

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2017, 04:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I know what you asked. 

I was following it up with a question i should have worded better. 

Why should we not have concern Trumps Campaign, advisors, and appointees have lied about and covered up lots of communcation with an unfriendly country that directly influenced our election to his benefit?

No worries.  I may not be aware of them, this past week has been crazy, but is there evidence of "lots of communication" between Trump's people and Russia?

(03-03-2017, 04:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I had previously seen the list, and I would agree with you were it not for the way the story from Sessions has evolved as more details come out and he has had to pivot.

As for the meddling, Russia doesn't like Trump, they like that there is chaos here. They meddled to meddle in addition to just not liking Clinton.

It's possible, maybe probable, that the pivot is due to the political climate and nothing to do with his actual activities.  As for Russia, you're not incorrect, but I think you underestimate how much Putin absolutely hates Hillary.  He'd have screwed her over even if the GOP candidate was the biggest Russophobe on the planet.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-03-2017, 04:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No worries.  I may not be aware of them, this past week has been crazy, but is there evidence of "lots of communication" between Trump's people and Russia?


It's possible, maybe probable, that the pivot is due to the political climate and nothing to do with his actual activities.  As for Russia, you're not incorrect, but I think you underestimate how much Putin absolutely hates Hillary.  He'd have screwed her over even if the GOP candidate was the biggest Russophobe on the planet.

I have a list of 6 that we know about in another thread. Most of them spoke with the Russians more than once.

"Lots of communication" with an unfriendly foreign government actively interfereing with our government is open to personal opinion I guess.

[Bengalzona]

(03-03-2017, 12:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If he deliberately lied that is, of course, a problem.  Can someone explain to me why his meeting with the Russian ambassador after the election is meaningful or a cause for concern?

I haven't researched, but I heard some talk that his second meeting with the ambassador, along with several other Trump campaign peoples' meetings, occurred after it was announced that the CIA and FBI had discovered Russian involvement in the election and after President Obama had called for further investigation. 

[Bengalzona]

(03-03-2017, 12:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Them discussing policy is pure conjecture.  I imagine he spoke with quite a few foreign diplomats during his tenure.

I don't speculate on what Sessions may have discussed. But I feel pretty certain what the Russian ambassador would have wanted to discuss: lifting sanctions. They have been pretty consistent on that theme for awhile now. 

[Bengalzona]

(03-03-2017, 04:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No worries.  I may not be aware of them, this past week has been crazy, but is there evidence of "lots of communication" between Trump's people and Russia?

Including Flynn, Sessions and this guy who came out on Fox News yesterday, I've heard seven names mentioned.

[BoomerFan]

(03-03-2017, 04:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: This is just the Dems way of retaliating for how the Repubs went after Hillary for the email scandal.

On a side note it is a bit funny how the same Russian ambassador was at Trump's speech the other night and was seated on the Dems side. For future sake, I hope all that talked to him will remember speaking to him and exactly what they said.

If they are asked under oath about that or any other experience, I would hope they wouldn't perjure themselves. This isn't a joke or retaliation or anything like that. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-03-2017, 05:51 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: This isn't a joke or retaliation or anything like that. 

What is it?

[Belsnickel]

So, here is an interesting thought in all of this. Trump has tweeted an image of Schumer meeting with Putin, and a link to a story from Politico showing Pelosi met with the Russian ambassador what's-his-face in 2010, demanding investigations to their "close ties to Russia." These are innocuous photos but given the

Now, there has been a lot of rhetoric from some on the left claiming the campaign had close ties to Russia, and while I support an investigation I don't really know if anything went down. Mainly, I think if anything there was potential for them to be compromised, but I doubt there was any intentional colluding and that the "forgetfulness" is more about people not thinking things through very well. But here is the difference between overzealous partisans and what Trump has done: Trump demanding an investigation on Twitter could carry actual weight since he can give orders to the DoJ and the intelligence community. What are the thoughts on how this plays out?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-03-2017, 06:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is an interesting thought in all of this. Trump has tweeted an image of Schumer meeting with Putin, and a link to a story from Politico showing Pelosi met with the Russian ambassador what's-his-face in 2010, demanding investigations to their "close ties to Russia." These are innocuous photos but given the

Now, there has been a lot of rhetoric from some on the left claiming the campaign had close ties to Russia, and while I support an investigation I don't really know if anything went down. Mainly, I think if anything there was potential for them to be compromised, but I doubt there was any intentional colluding and that the "forgetfulness" is more about people not thinking things through very well. But here is the difference between overzealous partisans and what Trump has done: Trump demanding an investigation on Twitter could carry actual weight since he can give orders to the DoJ and the intelligence community. What are the thoughts on how this plays out?

If Trimp believed his allegations he would give the orders to start the investigation. If Trump doesn't give the orders, he's just trolling on Twitter as usual. It's what reality TV stars do. 

[GMDino]

(03-03-2017, 06:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is an interesting thought in all of this. Trump has tweeted an image of Schumer meeting with Putin, and a link to a story from Politico showing Pelosi met with the Russian ambassador what's-his-face in 2010, demanding investigations to their "close ties to Russia." These are innocuous photos but given the

Now, there has been a lot of rhetoric from some on the left claiming the campaign had close ties to Russia, and while I support an investigation I don't really know if anything went down. Mainly, I think if anything there was potential for them to be compromised, but I doubt there was any intentional colluding and that the "forgetfulness" is more about people not thinking things through very well. But here is the difference between overzealous partisans and what Trump has done: Trump demanding an investigation on Twitter could carry actual weight since he can give orders to the DoJ and the intelligence community. What are the thoughts on how this plays out?

That he's blowing smoke out his ass and forgetting he's POTUS and his words carry weight.

Also someone probably sent him all that to send to his followers so they would spread the false equivalency and calm their tits.

[BoomerFan]

(03-03-2017, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is it?

If you ever ask a lawyer they're going to tell you that under oath you need to be very careful about what you say because it is a very serious format. Sessions perjured himself, and that's the bottom line. 

Furthermore, yes we should be concerned about Russian connections (especially to Russian organized crime -- which we know Felix Sater has formal ties with) within our government. 



Now is there a political side? Sure. This exchange (that Belsnickel refers to above) shows both sides have gotten rather heated about the whole thing:

We should start an immediate investigation into @SenSchumer and his ties to Russia and Putin. A total hypocrite! pic.twitter.com/Ik3yqjHzsA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 3, 2017

Happily talk re: my contact w Mr. Putin & his associates, took place in '03 in full view of press & public under oath. Would you &your team? https://t.co/yXgw3U8tmQ

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) March 3, 2017

[hollodero]

(03-03-2017, 06:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is an interesting thought in all of this. Trump has tweeted an image of Schumer meeting with Putin, and a link to a story from Politico showing Pelosi met with the Russian ambassador what's-his-face in 2010, demanding investigations to their "close ties to Russia." These are innocuous photos but given the

Now, there has been a lot of rhetoric from some on the left claiming the campaign had close ties to Russia, and while I support an investigation I don't really know if anything went down. Mainly, I think if anything there was potential for them to be compromised, but I doubt there was any intentional colluding and that the "forgetfulness" is more about people not thinking things through very well. But here is the difference between overzealous partisans and what Trump has done: Trump demanding an investigation on Twitter could carry actual weight since he can give orders to the DoJ and the intelligence community. What are the thoughts on how this plays out?

First, the photos are innocuous, but I'm still amazed at how Democrats manage to squander that one by needlessly throwing out inaccurate claims of their own. Virtually doing nothing would benefit their cause more. How clumsy can one be.
Second, nothing's gonna happen. He just has no impulse control and tweets stuff out hastily, obviously needing three attempts to spell "hereby" correct. He won't act on it. It's still all a disaster, of course. Your president behaves like a mad child and I can just tell from my country that most former sympathisants came around and joined the overall laughter. Embarrassing, nothing more.
Third, your sentence seems to vanish.

[*bfine32*]

I think the question that often gets overlooked is:

What exactly could/ did Russia do to influence our election?

[hollodero]

(03-03-2017, 07:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the question that often gets overlooked is:

What exactly could/ did Russia do to influence our election?

Maybe that's too easy an answer, but hacking Podesta's emails and giving them to Assange?

[*bfine32*]

(03-03-2017, 07:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe that's too easy an answer, but hacking Podesta's emails and giving them to Assange?

So spreading the truth? 

[hollodero]

(03-03-2017, 07:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So spreading the truth? 

If you want to see it that way... sure. I'm not that much for hacking myself, and when a foreign power does this hacking, I would be even less for it. You seem relaxed about that, though. So OK.
And it's not really fair to only hack one side, I'd say. Biased Russian hacks.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-03-2017, 07:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: If you want to see it that way... sure. I'm not that much for hacking myself, and when a foreign power does this hacking, I would be even less for it. You seem relaxed about that, though. So OK.
And it's not really fair to only hack one side, I'd say. Biased Russian hacks.

So...

Democrat Emails = Unfair
Trump's P**** Audio = Fair

I think we'd all be a lot better off with all of them nowhere near positions that make decisions affecting our lives, but doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous that you're getting all indignant about one leak of truth, but not another leak of truth? Both are truth, and both expose them as terrible/untrustworthy people. Either hate both leaks, or accept both.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-03-2017, 07:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So...

Democrat Emails = Unfair
Trump's P**** Audio = Fair

I think we'd all be a lot better off with all of them nowhere near positions that make decisions affecting our lives, but doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous that you're getting all indignant about one leak of truth, but not another leak of truth? Both are truth, and both expose them as terrible/untrustworthy people. Either hate both leaks, or accept both.

So you think wearing a microphone and being filmed for a TV show and that footage being released is the exact same as personal emails being hacked by an unfriendly foreign government and slowly being leaked out over months to control the narrative of an election cycle?  I must be crazy to think there is a little bit of a difference there.

[hollodero]

(03-03-2017, 07:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So...

Democrat Emails = Unfair
Trump's P**** Audio = Fair

I think we'd all be a lot better off with all of them nowhere near positions that make decisions affecting our lives, but doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous that you're getting all indignant about one leak of truth, but not another leak of truth? Both are truth, and both expose them as terrible/untrustworthy people. Either hate both leaks, or accept both.

I'm not really indignant, I answered a question. I merely wonder why you aren't more indignant about a foreign power hacking around during your election - probably in an intent to influence it. But well, that's up to you.

About Trump's audio, that is a fair point and I have to think about it. I agree halfway. Seen as an isolated incident, it sure was not the most noble thing to reveal that. But the situation is not quite the same. He kind of had to be aware that the tape was rolling. Hacking Emails is a whole other thing. To me, but I really can get how one could see that differently. Both things are not really clean methods.
Given that Podesta was hacked, I didn't mind too much that the tape was released. It seemed like a bit of balancing the unfair game out.

-- But the question was "What did Russians do to influence the election?" and the clear, un-indignant answer is: Hacking Podesta's emails (and not hacking, say, Lewandowski too).

[*bfine32*]

(03-03-2017, 07:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: If you want to see it that way... sure. I'm not that much for hacking myself, and when a foreign power does this hacking, I would be even less for it. You seem relaxed about that, though. So OK.
And it's not really fair to only hack one side, I'd say. Biased Russian hacks.

Unsecured emails get hacked all the time, just ask the VP. WTS, are we mad at Trump or the Russians?