Official Special Investigation Into Trump Thread

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 23 NEXT
 

Adam Jensen:

Lil devils x:
It had bipartisan support considering the people heading up the FBI, CIA, and DoD are primarily Republicans. Besides they have enough Republicans in the Senate to agree with the Intelligence agencies as it is.

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter what the IC says and does when the people already don't trust them. And Republicans would have screamed "DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY" from the top of their lungs. They would have blamed it on Obama. He had no support from the GOP on the issue. And the people, dumb as they are, would have bought it. They bought pretty much every conspiracy theory about Hillary during the election. And if Hillary had managed to win, Republicans would try to impeach her, they'd stonewall her on every turn, they'd demand investigation after investigation and they'd consider her illegitimate.

It works well enough for those who were the middle of the road. Trumps rhetoric only overrides all else to his most diehard supporters. You should consider the middle of the road voters voted FOR Obama and for Trump. They did not blame Obama regardless of what Trump ranted about. There were still plenty of people who had no idea this was happening and it would have made a difference to them.

Not everyone who voted for Trump is a die hard, and we cannot even blame all republicans for Trump as the " Never Trumpers" did not vote for him and have still been critical of him to this day.

ObsidianJones:

Seanchaidh:

ObsidianJones:
We established That Russia did it. The appropriate actions, Sanctions

Did Russia sanction the United States for its aid to Yeltsin?

Which would be up to Russia to decide. In fact, one might say they already did as the result of this election. The spies were sent and this was done for a reason.

You're actively not answering the Donald Trump aspect. Which is the problem we're all facing. If you're making a point that the US deserves to be fucked with, no argument there. Again, this is what nations do to each other, sadly.

But nations. Hell, if you're a national to an enemy nation, you just get handed back. Like the Russian Spies I mentioned before. Trump is a national to this nation. If guilty of these crimes, he conspired with a foreign nation to undermine America. Just like Russia has the rights to punish any of their own nationals who helped Yeltsin get into power along the United States, so do we have the right and frankly the duty to punish Trump.

If your nation deserves something, a philosophy of deescalation certainly requires not responding to it. (Deescalation may call for non-response even if it doesn't.)

As for Trump: Guilty of what crimes, though? Russia isn't an enemy as defined by any sane reading of the Constitution, so treason is automatically off the table. Stick a fork in that one, it's done. And "collusion" with foreigners is apparently something that approaches routine among our political elites because we live in a global capitalist culture and people with money mingle and help each other. If you want to address that, please address all of it and don't pretend the universe began in November, 2016 or January, 2017.

Seanchaidh:
As for Trump: Guilty of what crimes, though?

A bunch of things. Depending on how the judge chooses to interpret "other thing of value", then Trump is in breach of federal election law for having solicited or potentially received a campaign contribution from a foreign government. And depending on whether or not his campaign co-operated with or facilitated the dissemination of the DNC and Podesta emails, he could also be found in breach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Even if he was not directly involved in either, he could be held up on conspiracy charges for the commission of either of those two offences if it's shown that he knew about them and condoned them. I'd speculate that there are almost certainly some major financial shenanigans in Trump's past that he has been vigorously covering up - there's a reason he won't release his tax returns, after all.

That's not getting into the after-the-fact crimes - he's extremely vulnerable to a charge of obstruction of justice, and that also carries a risk of a charge of making false statements and, if he testifies, of perjury. Oh, and all the sexual assault allegations. And potentially charges of criminal threats based on the many minor personal scandals he has covered up over the years. His charity was also a colossal fraud.

Trump's dirty as shit, man. He doesn't get a pass because other historical politicians have been slightly less dirty than he is. If anything, Trump ought to be the wake-up call.

Like, you know how you look at your kitchen or your study or whatever, and it's a clutter, and you're like "eh, it's messy but I can deal with it," and then a week later you find a cockroach hiding beneath a plate or something and you're like OH SHIT YEP THAT'S IT THAT'S MY LIMIT GOTTA CLEAN THIS PLACE UP NOW

Trump is the cockroach, is what I'm saying.

Seanchaidh:
Did Russia sanction the United States for its aid to Yeltsin?

Well...they didn't, but that would've been more because sanctions at that time would have hurt Russia more than the US. You need to be in a position of economic power in order to use sanctions effectively. Otherwise, what are you really sanctioning?

If you take a broader view, it was the US messing around with Yeltsin that contributed to Putin's popularity and allowed him to entrench his government for the next two decades. In that sense, the US did get punished for their meddling; just indirectly, in the same way they got punished for meddling in Iran (with the 1979 revolution) and Afghanistan (with al-Qaeda).

Anyway, what's with this "the US did it so that makes it okay" bullshit? It should be the other way around.

bastardofmelbourne:
Anyway, what's with this "the US did it so that makes it okay" bullshit? It should be the other way around.

If Australia wants to sanction Russia for alleged election interference, that might be OK. The United States doing so is both hypocritical and escalatory. Enforcing a double standard on the rest of the world is properly read as enforcing US hegemony, not "justice" or whatever other bullshit might be said in favor of it.

Seanchaidh:

ObsidianJones:

Seanchaidh:

Did Russia sanction the United States for its aid to Yeltsin?

Which would be up to Russia to decide. In fact, one might say they already did as the result of this election. The spies were sent and this was done for a reason.

You're actively not answering the Donald Trump aspect. Which is the problem we're all facing. If you're making a point that the US deserves to be fucked with, no argument there. Again, this is what nations do to each other, sadly.

But nations. Hell, if you're a national to an enemy nation, you just get handed back. Like the Russian Spies I mentioned before. Trump is a national to this nation. If guilty of these crimes, he conspired with a foreign nation to undermine America. Just like Russia has the rights to punish any of their own nationals who helped Yeltsin get into power along the United States, so do we have the right and frankly the duty to punish Trump.

If your nation deserves something, a philosophy of deescalation certainly requires not responding to it. (Deescalation may call for non-response even if it doesn't.)

As for Trump: Guilty of what crimes, though? Russia isn't an enemy as defined by any sane reading of the Constitution, so treason is automatically off the table. Stick a fork in that one, it's done. And "collusion" with foreigners is apparently something that approaches routine among our political elites because we live in a global capitalist culture and people with money mingle and help each other. If you want to address that, please address all of it and don't pretend the universe began in November, 2016 or January, 2017.

Ok, honestly, I feel like a conversation between us is going to go nowhere. I'm not going to put too much detail or flavor text into why, because I don't see how it will honestly help. But I'm just going to address what you said now and then wish you well.

First off, you have no idea what the US considers anyone. We all have no idea what each country has (in their own well being) internally declared the other country to be. We have warm and fuzzy feelings on the surface, nice cordial speech when the nations are discussed... but we're not in the places where actual policy gets done. I will not strike anything out because I nor you do not honestly know what America has considered every country in terms of enemy of the state.

Now, again. We don't know that these things occurred. We need the investigation to see.

At a potential criminal trial and/or search for evidence of someone's crimes, you only focus on the crimes that person did. If you want to have a general debate on the nations, that's absolutely fine. Have that discussion. It's a worthwhile discussion.

But we're focusing on Trump and Russia because the depending action directly involves Trump and Russia. We don't bring China, South Africa, an Accountant who oversees Real Estate in foreign countries or a Law maker in Senegal. Why? Because they aren't thought to have done a crime in this instance. We're not focusing on the world entire because with every action of criminality, you're limited to the very instance of the crime thought to happen at that time, along with who was involved. That's why America is looking into Trump.

Not every active shooter has to answer for every active shooter of all times, and have his actions judged by how less or more he did compared to others. No. He's on crime for the direct damages he caused, the lives he took. That's the scope of the focus that day. That Man. His Crimes.

The same for Trump. If he's the latest malefactor in this idiotic game that governments feel that they have to play, fine. I get that. I get that it's been done throughout history. But as BastardofMelbourne supplied (per your request), Trump has done some legally questionable things and out right money laundering and getting into bed with the Russian Mob, as I pointed out. Which you've seem to dismiss both times as when it was supplied by me, you asked what Crimes, and when Bastard pointed it out, you just spoke about the idea of 'justice' of the US trying to sanction Russia after what they've done.

In short, America has the right to focus on the criminality of its citizens. This is what the investigation is about, because potentially Russia's acts (however anyone categorizes them as warranted or in tune with what America does all the time) are tied with Trump.

The Police ask for Citizens to abide and obey all and any laws. And the police often due criminal acts and ignore the law to keep their numbers up. Does that mean Citizens are allowed to disobey laws because some police do crime? No. Because we'll all held to the same standard of the law.

ObsidianJones:

Now, again. We don't know that these things occurred. We need the investigation to see.

You should read that one back to yourself.

ObsidianJones:
First off, you have no idea what the US considers anyone. We all have no idea what each country has (in their own well being) internally declared the other country to be.

This cannot possibly be the Constitutional standard of "enemy", as it makes whether someone is guilty of treason at any given time unknowable. "Sorry, but your participation in the Spanish civil war gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, even though you couldn't possibly have known that whichever side you fought on was an enemy at the time because who is and isn't an enemy is super secret."

No, "enemy" can only be a matter of open war.

Even the CIA Post will back me up on this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html

But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war. Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.

Seanchaidh:

ObsidianJones:
First off, you have no idea what the US considers anyone. We all have no idea what each country has (in their own well being) internally declared the other country to be.

This cannot possibly be the Constitutional standard of "enemy", as it makes whether someone is guilty of treason at any given time unknowable. "Sorry, but your participation in the Spanish civil war gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, even though you couldn't possibly have known that whichever side you fought on was an enemy at the time because who is and isn't an enemy is super secret."

No, "enemy" can only be a matter of open war.

Even the CIA Post will back me up on this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html

But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war. Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.

We have issues that arise in modern times that did not exist at the time that was defined. Is Cyber warfare war? Is a cyber attack an attack? If Russia was carrying out attacks on US soil with bombs or guns, people would see that as war, however the lines are blurred when it comes to cyber warfare. When is a cyber attack just an attack?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/cyberwar-is-officially-crossing-over-into-the-real-world/526860/

Cyberattacks Do Meet Clausewitz?s Conditions for Warfare

Going back to Clausewitz, whose conditions for an action to be considered an act of warfare the Foreign Affairs article considers cyber attacks not to meet, we may put forward a different interpretation, concluding they do. The first of the ?three main criteria? is that the action must be ?violent or potentially violent?, which once most physical systems are connected to the Internet could easily be met. It demands no long stretch of the imagination to think of potential attacks resulting in major physical damage and threats to the life and physical integrity of people, either military personnel or civilians. Disrupting a hospital, for example, may lead to the death of patients in critical care, while passengers traveling in a train may suffer injuries or die if the software controlling a railroad system is attacked. The second condition is that the action must be ?always instrumental: physical violence or the threat of force is a means to compel the enemy to accept the attacker?s will?. Concerning this, although we may witness cyber attacks with other motivations, for example by perturbed individuals or disgruntled employees seeking revenge, there is nothing in the nature of cyber attacks preventing them from being employed as an instrument to force an enemy to submit to the will of those responsible for them. The same could be said about the third, namely ?some kind of political goal or intention? by the attacker. The article adds that, for this third reason, ?acts of war must be attributable to one side at some point during a confrontation?, and while this is true, it does not mean that this must take place from day one, or that such attribution must be public. Although more easily carried out with cyber attacks, there is nothing new about a government employing, tolerating, or somehow sponsoring or egging on, irregular forces in the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Just to mention an example, we have the Boxers Rebellion.[xviii]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/cyberwar-is-war

The recent series of what our intelligence agencies believe to be Russian government sanctioned cyber attacks by Russians taking place across the US could actually qualify as attacks being carried out by a foreign government against the US government and it's citizens on US soil and be considered an act of war by the Russian Government.

We just happen to be living in the time when this technology has become possible and the laws trying to catch up to include it. so it causes confusion in the present. In the future, the lines will be less blurred as the laws catch up to clarify these things.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/uk-says-russia-was-behind-notpetya-cyberattack-shut-down-nuance-hospitals
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/hospital-chain-struggles-to-get-back-online-after-crippling-cyber-attack-655359555853
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/national-health-service-cyberattack-hits-english-hospitals-hackers-demand-bitcoin-n758516

When healthcare services are hit with these attacks slowing down ability to respond and care for patients, people do in fact die. There are physical casualties from these attacks and it is a serious issue that has to be addressed by governments.

Ninjamedic:

ObsidianJones:

Now, again. We don't know that these things occurred. We need the investigation to see.

You should read that one back to yourself.

By proposing that the investigation should come to pass? I listed the known issues that Trump has already done. As other people have. That's all the links I put up all the time.

Does he seem dirty with the Russian investigation? Hell yes. Do I have an opinion? Hell yes. Have I ever said he's done it? No. I might believe he has concluded with Russia, but I strongly press for the investigation to prove if he has or not.

Anything else?

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

ObsidianJones:
First off, you have no idea what the US considers anyone. We all have no idea what each country has (in their own well being) internally declared the other country to be.

This cannot possibly be the Constitutional standard of "enemy", as it makes whether someone is guilty of treason at any given time unknowable. "Sorry, but your participation in the Spanish civil war gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, even though you couldn't possibly have known that whichever side you fought on was an enemy at the time because who is and isn't an enemy is super secret."

No, "enemy" can only be a matter of open war.

Even the CIA Post will back me up on this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html

But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war. Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law.

We have issues that arise in modern times that did not exist at the time that was defined.

None of those issues makes Russia in open warfare with the United States. Suitably tortured definitions of warfare may apply, but they are certainly not 'open'.

ObsidianJones:

Anything else?

Well for one wanting sound as authoritative in your dismissal of Sean's opinions you sure are falling on back on qualifiers that show your points are just as valid as his as speculations.

There's a reason I'm waiting to see what Mueller turns up and not treating this as it's CIA: Smackdown

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

This cannot possibly be the Constitutional standard of "enemy", as it makes whether someone is guilty of treason at any given time unknowable. "Sorry, but your participation in the Spanish civil war gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States, even though you couldn't possibly have known that whichever side you fought on was an enemy at the time because who is and isn't an enemy is super secret."

No, "enemy" can only be a matter of open war.

Even the CIA Post will back me up on this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html

We have issues that arise in modern times that did not exist at the time that was defined.

None of those issues makes Russia in open warfare with the United States. Suitably tortured definitions of warfare may apply, but they are certainly not 'open'.

Oh please, attempting to use the declaration of War to define war would mean the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars never existed. They no longer declare war, so that standard would be outdated and not appropriate to apply to how modern war is defined in the US.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
We have issues that arise in modern times that did not exist at the time that was defined.

None of those issues makes Russia in open warfare with the United States. Suitably tortured definitions of warfare may apply, but they are certainly not 'open'.

Oh please, attempting to use the declaration of War to define war would mean the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars never existed. They no longer declare war, so that standard would be outdated and not appropriate to apply to how modern war is defined in the US.

Armed hostilities between military organizations is open warfare, even when not declared by an act of Congress. A smattering of cyber-vandalism isn't.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

None of those issues makes Russia in open warfare with the United States. Suitably tortured definitions of warfare may apply, but they are certainly not 'open'.

Oh please, attempting to use the declaration of War to define war would mean the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars never existed. They no longer declare war, so that standard would be outdated and not appropriate to apply to how modern war is defined in the US.

Armed hostilities between military organizations is open warfare, even when not declared by an act of Congress. A smattering of cyber-vandalism isn't.

Cyber attacks can be more than a matter of "vandalism", as I stated above they very well can be seen as an act of war and have casualties. This isn't like they spray painted a box car here.

Ninjamedic:

ObsidianJones:

Anything else?

Well for one wanting sound as authoritative in your dismissal of Sean's opinions you sure are falling on back on qualifiers that show your points are just as valid as his as speculations.

There's a reason I'm waiting to see what Mueller turns up and not treating this as it's CIA: Smackdown

Basically the same as my opinion on the matter. Just fucking drop the hammer already. All this speculation is killing any of the public's interest in this stuff.

Trump's term will be over and done with before something finally happens.

And that's if they find anything substantial. A couple indictments mean shit all if nothing actually comes from it.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
Oh please, attempting to use the declaration of War to define war would mean the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars never existed. They no longer declare war, so that standard would be outdated and not appropriate to apply to how modern war is defined in the US.

Armed hostilities between military organizations is open warfare, even when not declared by an act of Congress. A smattering of cyber-vandalism isn't.

Cyber attacks can be more than a matter of "vandalism", as I stated above they very well can be seen as an act of war and have casualties. This isn't like they spray painted a box car here.

The alleged election interference mostly consists of putting up some ineffectual ads on the internet and allegedly hacking the DNC and passing the info to Wikileaks which caused people to know more about the corruption in our system. This is not open warfare by any reasonable definition. If it is, then there are plenty of corporations in open warfare with the United States.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Armed hostilities between military organizations is open warfare, even when not declared by an act of Congress. A smattering of cyber-vandalism isn't.

Cyber attacks can be more than a matter of "vandalism", as I stated above they very well can be seen as an act of war and have casualties. This isn't like they spray painted a box car here.

The alleged election interference mostly consists of putting up some ineffectual ads on the internet and allegedly hacking the DNC and passing the info to Wikileaks which caused people to know more about the corruption in our system. This is not open warfare by any reasonable definition. If it is, then there are plenty of corporations in open warfare with the United States.

I mean, are you saying we shouldn't eat the rich?

image

crimson5pheonix:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
Cyber attacks can be more than a matter of "vandalism", as I stated above they very well can be seen as an act of war and have casualties. This isn't like they spray painted a box car here.

The alleged election interference mostly consists of putting up some ineffectual ads on the internet and allegedly hacking the DNC and passing the info to Wikileaks which caused people to know more about the corruption in our system. This is not open warfare by any reasonable definition. If it is, then there are plenty of corporations in open warfare with the United States.

I mean, are you saying we shouldn't eat the rich?

image

I'm saying that you can only declare Russia to be in open war with the United States after you've personally eaten all the rich.

Seanchaidh:
The alleged election interference mostly consists of putting up some ineffectual ads on the internet and allegedly hacking the DNC and passing the info to Wikileaks which caused people to know more about the corruption in our system. This is not open warfare by any reasonable definition. If it is, then there are plenty of corporations in open warfare with the United States.

It's not OPEN warfare, you're right about that. But it's warfare nonetheless. And Russian interference in all things American goes above and beyond what you've been told. Their goal is literally to destroy the US and separate it from its historic allies. It's Putin's ultimate agenda. And the current US president loves the guy. Trump literally admires a man who's greatest desire in life is to destroy the US. That should be enough for everyone to see where Trump's loyalty truly lies and whether Trump truly gives a flying fuck about the US and its people.
It's also a very good indicator of what's going to happen to him. Unless you think that the USIC will just let him destroy the country they've all sworn to protect.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

Armed hostilities between military organizations is open warfare, even when not declared by an act of Congress. A smattering of cyber-vandalism isn't.

Cyber attacks can be more than a matter of "vandalism", as I stated above they very well can be seen as an act of war and have casualties. This isn't like they spray painted a box car here.

The alleged election interference mostly consists of putting up some ineffectual ads on the internet and allegedly hacking the DNC and passing the info to Wikileaks which caused people to know more about the corruption in our system. This is not open warfare by any reasonable definition. If it is, then there are plenty of corporations in open warfare with the United States.

No the worst of it was not even the ads. The vast majority of what took place was actually impersonation of US citizens, false/ misleading news stories as that had a far greater impact than all of the ads put together. There was far more going on at the time by the same people involved:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-hack-almost-brought-the-u-s-military-to-its-knees/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/29/fbi-warns-russians-hacked-hundreds-of-thousands-of-routers.html
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/27/15881666/global-eu-cyber-attack-us-hackers-nsa-hospitals
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/experts-link-nsa-leaks-shadow-brokers-russia-kaspersky-144840962.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/23/596044821/russia-hacked-u-s-power-grid-so-what-will-the-trump-administration-do-about-it
https://federalnewsradio.com/cybersecurity/2018/02/russian-hackers-exploit-weakness-in-us-cyber-defense-2/

When you have the same Russian Hackers interfering with Global elections, including the US ALSO hacking US government officials and agencies, The department of defense, Citizens, Hospitals and businesses, US power Grid, and other resources This is far more than "some Russians bought some ads. Then of course you have Trumps entire team up to their eyeballs in Russians and meetings here. At the time Trump asked Russians to hack Clinton, I thought he was kidding. I am not so sure now.

Have you not been paying attention to all of this happening? Notice the same names coming up over and over again? That is far from a coincidence here.

Lil devils x:
Have you not been paying attention to all of this happening? Notice the same names coming up over and over again? That is far from a coincidence here.

Yes, it's like there's a big focus on people in the Trump administration because Trump is a convenient scapegoat for ordinary problems that ought to be associated with the broader shift toward jingoistic authoritarianism that has taken place over the past few decades.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
Have you not been paying attention to all of this happening? Notice the same names coming up over and over again? That is far from a coincidence here.

Yes, it's like there's a big focus on people in the Trump administration because Trump is a convenient scapegoat for ordinary problems that ought to be associated with the broader shift toward jingoistic authoritarianism that has taken place over the past few decades.

I wasn't talking about the people in the Trump Admin. I was talking about the hacker groups involved in the attacks on Department of defense, Citizens, wikileaks, hospitals ect.

Trump is not being scapegoated here. Trump is and always has been a scam. When you look at his entire business record and dealings, there is nothing honorable there. He scammed his business partners, friends, vendors, students and the many people he peddled his wares to. That is what he does and who he is and there really has never been anything else there. All you have to do is actually look at his very long and detailed history of this. The devil is in the details. These people were not "sharks", that was just another trump lie.

There is nothing "ordinary" about any of this.

Ninjamedic:

ObsidianJones:

Anything else?

Well for one wanting sound as authoritative in your dismissal of Sean's opinions you sure are falling on back on qualifiers that show your points are just as valid as his as speculations.

There's a reason I'm waiting to see what Mueller turns up and not treating this as it's CIA: Smackdown

Sorry, away for a bit.

My opinions were developed by months of investigation, 4 Trump officials who plead guilty from not disclosing pertinent information involving the Russian investigation, financial fraud and lying to investigators (which came about after Mueller uncovered laundered money, which totaled $30 million, came from Mr. Manafort's work as a lobbyist and political consultant to Viktor F. Yanukovych, the Russia-aligned former Ukrainian president.), more money laundering and acting as an agent a foreign agent to the Ukraine, to outright lying to the FBI as part of Mueller's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

The crux of what happened between Sean and me, to my knowledge, is that he believes that the part that Russia played in Trump being elected is minuscule, and along with what the US has done many a time in other elections makes Russian meddling seem not as grand. I get where he's coming from on the latter, and slightly agree/slightly disagree on the Former.

My point is that the investigation into Russia not only has to do with what Russia has done (which has been proven), but if any nationals knew of the plot and did nothing about it, for whatever the reason. We have 4 links picked by Trump and/or his team. We have knowledge on Michael Cohen and his ties, We have possible evidence of Russian mob buying stakes in Trump's once failing business.

What we don't have is the smoking gun. Which is why I said in multiple posts that the Investigation must go on unhindered.

Are my opinions biased due to the amount of evidence we're seeing? Absolutely. Just like anyone would be for any crime. The most important thing, however, is that we only call him guilty when it's been proven that he's guilty. If he's guilty, I will not cry. No love lost. If he's innocent, then he's innocent and we need to leave all of this in the dust.

The CIA:Smackdown quip was clever, but that has nothing to do with what him and I were debating.

Seanchaidh:
The impact of Russia on the election is vastly overstated. Most of the stuff put out by Russians went public only after the election, and it was dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of bullshit pouring out of both campaigns, and the funding from other sources. To call this meddling in an election is to insult what the United States routinely does in other countries through things like Voice of America (or, indeed, CNN). Russia didn't prevent Sec. Clinton from going to Wisconsin, nor did it advocate for NAFTA and TPP, inflate Hillary's opinion poll numbers or deflate her ability to inspire support. That's pretty much all on her (aside from the overconfident polling, perhaps).

This is the comment that made me respond to him. And although my original post was longer, this was my response to him.

ObsidianJones:
So, in the end, the efforts of Russia are meaningless... up until we get to the President's involvement. I know the US has done similar things to other countries. That's apart of the disgusting game that keeps our society moving. But Domestic agents either aiding and/or concealing a foreign power's intentions of destabilizing their home nation is a crime. A major one. One that a lot of Trump's "Best people" are flipping on and pleading guilty to lesser crimes because they know the dirt they've done.

Hillary was a bad candidate. She lost and lost bad. That's not the issue. If Bill Clinton, Bush, or Obama won while doing a criminal act, we shouldn't focus on the fact that America voted for these Presidents... we should be focusing on the criminal acts. That's what we're doing now. Trump somehow won. Fault lies with the American people for either being duped or not voting correctly.

That does not negate the criminality that happened of Russia's involvement. And to be clear, if Hillary won? Yes, I still think we should have this investigation because a.) such vulnerabilities should be brought to light and b.) even if he lost, if Trump had something to do with it, it would still have at least the Possession of Stolen Property crime if he indeed received info from the hacked DNC computers.

There are elements of a Crime here. If we consider ourselves a just and lawful society, we see it through to make sure Justice (if any needed) is meted out.

The majority of responses from him were basically about how the US did bad things too. To which I concurred, but we're talking about the possible criminality involving American nationals associated with Russia's actions. However minor Russia's actions to America's elections were, they were criminal acts. The most we can do to Russia is impose sanctions. But to American national conspirators (if there are any), that would be much more severe. And that's what we're finding out more and more as these investigations occur. Manafort himself was signed a contract for 10 million a year to promote Russian interests by an ally of Putin.

Saying "but the US does bad things too", while factual, does not dismiss the actions of these people, and possible more to be discovered. That is the 'dismissal' you're getting from me when I was talking to Sean. You don't forgive a snitch giving the wrong information to the cops to prevent a crime boss from being arrested just because the police have been shown to be corrupt as well. You arrest the corrupt officers, you arrest the crime boss, and you legally deal with the snitch by the matter of the Law. Same applies here.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/30/jerry-jones-president-made-it-clear-that-he-wasnt-letting-anthem-issue-go/

That's a federal crime, by the way. In case it wasn't obvious that there's a criminal in the White House.

Adam Jensen:

That's a federal crime, by the way. In case it wasn't obvious that there's a criminal in the White House.

"This is Adam Jensen, reporting live from 1987."

Manafort attempted to tamper with potential witnesses: U.S. special counsel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump?s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who has been indicted by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, attempted to tamper with potential witnesses, Mueller said in a court filing on Monday.

Mueller, who is investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, asked the judge overseeing the case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to revoke or revise an order releasing Manafort ahead of his trial.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/manafort-attempted-to-tamper-with-potential-witnesses-u-s-special-counsel-idUSKCN1J1043

So now his campaign manager is witness tampering and Trump wants to pardon himself. Seriously, could you imagine the shit storm that would be happening if these guys were democrats? Trump and his goons makes Dem's look like saints by comparison.

Lil devils x:
Manafort attempted to tamper with potential witnesses: U.S. special counsel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump?s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who has been indicted by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, attempted to tamper with potential witnesses, Mueller said in a court filing on Monday.

Mueller, who is investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, asked the judge overseeing the case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to revoke or revise an order releasing Manafort ahead of his trial.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/manafort-attempted-to-tamper-with-potential-witnesses-u-s-special-counsel-idUSKCN1J1043

So now his campaign manager is witness tampering and Trump wants to pardon himself. Seriously, could you imagine the shit storm that would be happening if these guys were democrats? Trump and his goons makes Dem's look like saints by comparison.

The communications were "in an effort to influence their testimony and to otherwise conceal evidence," Domin wrote. "The investigation into this matter is ongoing."

Wait, this sounds familiar...

Oh yeah!

Former FBI Director James Comey will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday that President Trump did ask him for "loyalty" at a January dinner and later told him alone in the Oval Office that he "hope[d] you can let" the investigation into former national security director Michael Flynn "go."

...Comey was fired by Trump last month, and the president later said the Russia investigation factored into his decision. Comey will testify that in March, Trump called him and asked what the FBI could do to "lift the cloud" around him and his administration involving Russia.

I find it amazing that a lot of certain types of Republicans (not fiscal republicans, and even not all conservatives) tell us that we need to trust cops when they are showed brutalizing people, because we weren't there and we need to listen to the cops when they say they needed to do that to affect the arrest... But when the ex-literal top cop in ALL OF AMERICA says the President said this, he's suddenly a liar and has his own agendum.

It's amazing how mental gymnastics can make everything work out in your favor.

crimson5pheonix:

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:
Cyber attacks can be more than a matter of "vandalism", as I stated above they very well can be seen as an act of war and have casualties. This isn't like they spray painted a box car here.

The alleged election interference mostly consists of putting up some ineffectual ads on the internet and allegedly hacking the DNC and passing the info to Wikileaks which caused people to know more about the corruption in our system. This is not open warfare by any reasonable definition. If it is, then there are plenty of corporations in open warfare with the United States.

I mean, are you saying we shouldn't eat the rich?

image

No, the goal isn't to eat the rich, it's to knife-fight the rich. Every person needs to claim dibs on a rich person to knife-fight. (Mine is Jay-Z) Nobody is allowed to claim Trump, he needs to be impeached before he can be stabbed.

Adam Jensen:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/media/fox-news-federal-investigation/index.html

Somebody is getting fucked.

I'm quoting myself because somebody is getting SERIOUSLY FUCKED!
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/391115-hannity-advises-witnesses-in-mueller-probe-smash-their-phones-to-little-itsy

You don't obstruct justice live on TV by telling witnesses to destroy evidence unless you're scared shitless of something.

He'll face no consequences.

Adam Jensen:
-Snorp-

When are you going to realize that in most cases there's no such thing as consequences for these people?

Dr. Thrax:

Adam Jensen:
-Snorp-

When are you going to realize that in most cases there's no such thing as consequences for these people?

The day he does that, the day we all just roll over and let it happen... That's the very day we should put on our slave shackles and just accept that we're the subservient class.

We push for equal responsibilities. We can get disheartened, we can get disillusioned, but we can not stop.

Dr. Thrax:

Adam Jensen:
-Snorp-

When are you going to realize that in most cases there's no such thing as consequences for these people?

I guess you should give FBI a call and tell them they've been wasting their time with their counterintelligence investigation Fox News and Hannity for at least two years.

I kinda like that people don't believe that the FBI is conducting a massive organized crime and counterintelligence investigation of the GOP and their accomplices. It's going to be more fun when shit hits the fan.

EDIT: Oh look, Mueller just established a direct link between Trump's campaign and Russian intel: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/robert-mueller-indicts-paul-manafort-associate-russian-ukrainian-consultant-konstantin-kilimnik

This is very methodical work.

Lil devils x:

Adam Jensen:

Lil devils x:
It had bipartisan support considering the people heading up the FBI, CIA, and DoD are primarily Republicans. Besides they have enough Republicans in the Senate to agree with the Intelligence agencies as it is.

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter what the IC says and does when the people already don't trust them. And Republicans would have screamed "DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY" from the top of their lungs. They would have blamed it on Obama. He had no support from the GOP on the issue. And the people, dumb as they are, would have bought it. They bought pretty much every conspiracy theory about Hillary during the election. And if Hillary had managed to win, Republicans would try to impeach her, they'd stonewall her on every turn, they'd demand investigation after investigation and they'd consider her illegitimate.

It works well enough for those who were the middle of the road. Trumps rhetoric only overrides all else to his most diehard supporters. You should consider the middle of the road voters voted FOR Obama and for Trump. They did not blame Obama regardless of what Trump ranted about. There were still plenty of people who had no idea this was happening and it would have made a difference to them.

Not everyone who voted for Trump is a die hard, and we cannot even blame all republicans for Trump as the " Never Trumpers" did not vote for him and have still been critical of him to this day.

While I agree with you some Republicans didn't support Trump and have criticized him. There's now a section of these never trumpers supporting him because he is falling in line with Republican orthodoxy. The reasons why they never supported him because he's 1. Too mean 2. He was gonna cost them the election and maybe the senate back in 2016 and didn't want to be associated with a potential liability who is now their greatest asset, and that is why they're changing their tune.

OT: I really can't say this special investigation will indict this man. But I can dream.

ObsidianJones:

The day he does that, the day we all just roll over and let it happen... That's the very day we should put on our slave shackles and just accept that we're the subservient class.

You passed that day quite some time ago.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 23 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here