Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
Russia and our election - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Russia and our election (/Thread-Russia-and-our-election)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

RE: Russia and our election - michaelsean - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is an article from National Review on all of this, which I think is extremely well done: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449376/donald-trump-jr-e-mails-proof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia

I encourage everyone to read it that has an interest in this story. For those on the left, it is a well reasoned article on the most recent activities of what has been going on. For those on the right, if you aren't familiar with this publication I encourage you to get better acquainted with it. I follow this and some of the editors online because they provide a very logical conservative approach to things. I don't always agree with them, but when I do disagree it is just because of ideological differences and not because they are whackadoodle like some of the other sources out there.

Anyway, enjoy.

Yeah that's a   good take I think.  It's amateur hour which is what you get when you hire family.  Get the family out.  If they really really want to do something, let them do first lady type things.  Say no to drugs or healthier food in the lunchroom.   

RE: Russia and our election - GMDino - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is an article from National Review on all of this, which I think is extremely well done: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449376/donald-trump-jr-e-mails-proof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia

I encourage everyone to read it that has an interest in this story. For those on the left, it is a well reasoned article on the most recent activities of what has been going on. For those on the right, if you aren't familiar with this publication I encourage you to get better acquainted with it. I follow this and some of the editors online because they provide a very logical conservative approach to things. I don't always agree with them, but when I do disagree it is just because of ideological differences and not because they are whackadoodle like some of the other sources out there.

Anyway, enjoy.

Excellent article.

That is why I am with you on letting Mueller do his job...hopefully unimpeded.

Also why I think the Trump family is a bunch of awful liars.  Smirk

RE: Stop all the investigations! - michaelsean - 07-11-2017

Well if you think the only reason to investigate is to remove the President, then that's sound advice.

RE: Russia and our election - Dill - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 04:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That would be akin to me saying there is quid pro quo if I give money to a campaign and they win.  

That is a quid pro quo, and a perfectly legal one if you are a US citizen. You want Trump to lower your taxes so you contribute $50,000 to his campaign. He wins and lowers your taxes by six million.  

If you are a foreign national contributing to a campaign, it is not a legal quid pro quo--at least not for the US candidate.

If you are a US campaign operative and agree to work with a hostile foreign power to achieve their foreign policy ends for your personal ends, then you are committing treason.

RE: Russia and our election - Au165 - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is an article from National Review on all of this, which I think is extremely well done: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449376/donald-trump-jr-e-mails-proof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia

I encourage everyone to read it that has an interest in this story. For those on the left, it is a well reasoned article on the most recent activities of what has been going on. For those on the right, if you aren't familiar with this publication I encourage you to get better acquainted with it. I follow this and some of the editors online because they provide a very logical conservative approach to things. I don't always agree with them, but when I do disagree it is just because of ideological differences and not because they are whackadoodle like some of the other sources out there.

Anyway, enjoy.

I think we will need to know what was actually said in the meeting and what he thought he was getting. I still stand by receiving the services to acquire such information, if through hacking, has an easily definable value that could fall under election laws. That would be tough to prove though, so we will have to wait and see.

I get the feeling now that you have one confirmed interaction there is now ammunition to dig a lot deeper.

RE: Stop all the investigations! - Au165 - 07-11-2017

This

There can be people around the President who did dirty things. The investigations are about who knew what and what that means. It's not all or nothing remove the President or not.

RE: Russia and our election - Belsnickel - 07-11-2017


That tweet starts a thread of tweets that I think is a good read for both sides, even though it is directed at his fellow conservatives. It focuses on behavior that both sides of the aisle have been exhibiting.

RE: Russia and our election - Dill - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 04:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: Services by skilled professionals is considered valuable. You can attach an hourly value to hackers like you can lawyers. White hat hacking firms do in fact have hourly rates for services. The services used to acquire that report would fall under the in-kind contribution definition for services.

Imagine this. Putin orders a spy to break into Hillary's home looking for dirt. He does and finds a letter to Hillary's lesbian lover confessing that she killed Vince Foster because he stole money from the Clinton's child trafficking operation.  The spy gives the letter to Trump jr. who is caught by the CIA in the act of giving it to his father.

The courts would not set a monetary value on the spy's time burglarizing, and then assess both that and the letter as a "foreign campaign contribution."

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that illegal hacking would have about the same legal status as burglary in the above case. The courts would not assess crime as a "campaign contribution," and in any case would have no way of determining a number' of hours to value.

Rather, the "deliverable" in this case is alone the product of the hacking--Hillary dirt. It is not fungible against other items of campaign dirt (a pair of Bernie's underwear signed by Sarah Palin), nor could one assess its exchange value in money.  It does not free up campaign money for other purposes, as would donated items like restaurant meals and airline tickets.

For these reasons, I do not see how stolen information can be accorded the legal status of "contribution" as defined by law.

RE: Russia and our election - Dill - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:
That tweet starts a thread of tweets that I think is a good read for both sides, even though it is directed at his fellow conservatives. It focuses on behavior that both sides of the aisle have been exhibiting.

I don't agree that "both sides" have somehow been equally accepting of bad behavior if no laws are broken. People may have to say that in hopes of getting a hearing. 

Benghazi was pure and simple a false scandal. No cover up. Hillary was not telling lies which were only technically legal. When that fishing expedition discovered Hillary's private email server, she paid a steep price for it. And holding that up as an example of Democrats being ok with any unethical behavior so long as its not illegal or not technically lying does not signal a desire to restore accuracy and responsibility in political discourse. It is one Republican who is really unable to admit what's going on in his party unless he can believe (or at least claim) the other party has been just as bad, doing the same thing.

(Not aimed at you Bels. I'm addressing that Benson guy)

RE: Russia and our election - NATI BENGALS - 07-11-2017

Three of his top advisors (2 sons) working for his campaign had a meeting in his tower that has his name on it. And smart genius Trump didnt know about it.

Why is someone who constantly lies to the American people still our president?

This is nuts. Letting the clown continue to run the show is asking for a civil catastrophe.

RE: Russia and our election - JustWinBaby - 07-11-2017

Well, finally something legit and justifiable in this whole Russia collusion thing.

Though I still find it hypocritical that at least one Republican primary candidate (or their supporters) and a Hillary supporter - I'm sure completely separate and arms length in both cases - engaged an intermediary to pay Russian spies for dirt on Trump....and no story.

Most of them are shady/corrupt. Trump is just less savvy and experienced about it (I mean, they are like the 3 Stooges with how they handle these accusations), as least as it relates to politics.

The problem is this behavior will continue, and continue to produce results, so long as people only care when the other side does it and refuse to hold their side accountable.

RE: Russia and our election - Belsnickel - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 06:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Three of his top advisors (2 sons) working for his campaign had a meeting in his tower that has his name on it. And smart genius Trump didnt know about it.

Why is someone who constantly lies to the American people still our president?

This is nuts. Letting the clown continue to run the show is asking for a civil catastrophe.

Haven't fact checked it, but there are folks pointing out Trump's first "her emails" tweet was later that day. Coincidence? Maybe, but that is fishy.

RE: Russia and our election - Belsnickel - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 06:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't agree that "both sides" have somehow been equally accepting of bad behavior if no laws are broken. People may have to say that in hopes of getting a hearing. 

Benghazi was pure and simple a false scandal. No cover up. Hillary was not telling lies which were only technically legal. When that fishing expedition discovered Hillary's private email server, she paid a steep price for it. And holding that up as an example of Democrats being ok with any unethical behavior so long as its not illegal or not technically lying does not signal a desire to restore accuracy and responsibility in political discourse. It is one Republican who is really unable to admit what's going on in his party unless he can believe (or at least claim) the other party has been just as bad, doing the same thing.

(Not aimed at you Bels. I'm addressing that Benson guy)

Benghazi is definitely a poor example, but he isn't wrong in his sentiment overall. That is more of what I focusing on.

RE: Russia and our election - GMDino - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 07:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Haven't fact checked it, but there are folks pointing out Trump's first "her emails" tweet was later that day. Coincidence? Maybe, but that is fishy.



RE: Russia and our election - GMDino - 07-11-2017



RE: Russia and our election - StLucieBengal - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 07:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Haven't fact checked it, but there are folks pointing out Trump's first "her emails" tweet was later that day. Coincidence? Maybe, but that is fishy.

Her emails and the dnc/podesta emails were not the Russians or trumps fault. It was on them and maybe podesta's password shouldn't be password.

RE: Russia and our election - Belsnickel - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 08:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Her emails and the dnc/podesta emails were not the Russians or trumps fault. It was on them and maybe podesta's password shouldn't be password.

They shouldn't have done what they did, the Russian sponsored hackers shouldn't have done what they did, and if anyone in the Trump campaign colluded, they shouldn't have done what they did. I feel like these are some simple facts that we should all be able to agree upon.

RE: Russia and our election - BmorePat87 - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 07:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Haven't fact checked it, but there are folks pointing out Trump's first "her emails" tweet was later that day. Coincidence? Maybe, but that is fishy.

(07-11-2017, 07:27 PM)GMDino Wrote:

The fact that 32,000 emails or so were deleted or not turned over was public knowledge in 2015.

just a coincidence

RE: Russia and our election - GMDino - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 09:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The fact that 32,000 emails or so were deleted or not turned over was public knowledge in 2015.

just a coincidence

Ah!

Well...

I didn't see that in my own quick search.


Here's another timeline of events:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/look-at-the-timeline


Quote:Circa Summer 2015: The US government alleges that Russian hackers first gain access to DNC computer networks.


...


March 19th, 2016: Hackers successfully hack into Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta’s email.



...


April 2016: DNC network administrators first notice suspicious activity on Committee computer networks in late April, 2016, according to The Washington Post. The DNC retains the services of network security firm Crowdstrike which expels hackers from the DNC computer network. Crowdstrike tells The Washington Post it believes hackers had been operating inside the DNC networks since the Summer of 2015.

April 19th, 2016: “DCLeaks.com” url/address registered.



...


June 3rd, 2016: First email contact between Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump Jr. about meeting with “Russian government lawyer” with damaging information about Hillary Clinton.


June 7th, 2016: Donald J Trump gives speech in which he promises a major speech about Hillary Clinton’s crimes on June 13th. “I am going to give a major speech on … probably Monday [June 13th] of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.”




June 8th, 2016: First tweet posted to “DCLeaks” Twitter account.




June 9th, 2016: Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort meet with Natalia Veselnitskaya. Trump agreed to take the meeting after being told by Trump associate Rob Goldstone that Veselnitskaya had damaging information about Hillary Clinton which came from a Russian government operation to help his father Donald J. Trump.




June 12th, 2016: Julian Assange first announces that Wikileaks has Clinton emails which are soon to be released. “Wikileaks has a very big year ahead … We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.”




June 14, 2016: Washington Post publishes first account of hacking of the DNC computer networks, allegedly by hackers working on behalf of the Russian government.




June 15th, 2016: “Guccifer 2.0”, later identified by US government officials and other private sector analysts as a fictive persona created by Russian intelligence operatives, contacts The Smoking Gun to take credit for hacking the DNC.



June 27th, 2016: First hacked DNC emails posted to “DCLeaks” website.




The timeline also goes into some detail of the Trump team's contact with Russian officials before, during and after that.

RE: Russia and our election - Belsnickel - 07-11-2017

(07-11-2017, 09:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The fact that 32,000 emails or so were deleted or not turned over was public knowledge in 2015.

just a coincidence

I knew it was knowledge in the public earlier, but the timing of the meeting and his first tweet on the subject is just interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know about it until then, but it wouldn't surprise me if he already knew.