New Revelations Regarding Trump's Campaign and Russia

[time4fun]

Two stories broke out tonight:

One, it turns out that Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.67916eb87900) (same one Flynn met with) who is also one of Russia's primary spy-recruiters twice last year but denied ever having had contact with the Russians during his confirmation hearings.

Meanwhile, NYT broke a story (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news) this evening as well- it turns out that the Obama administration uncovered evidence (from allied countries in Europe) of meetings between high ranking Russian officials (close to Putin) and members of the Trump campaign. American intelligence also intercepted communications between Russian officials discussing their contacts on the Trump campaign.

Meanwhlie, Trump's pick for Dept of Commerce was confirmed this week (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/27/commerce-nominee-wilbur-ross-bank-of-cyprus-putin). His one interaction with Trump was brokering a deal between Trump and a Russian oligarch (the oligarch purchased a $40m home from Trump for $100m, and reportedly never once stepped foot in the home). Ross also spent years as vice chairman of the Bank of Cyprus- which served as a major launderer of Russian money- and the White House intentionally blocked requests for additional documentation on his bank ties prior to confirmation.

We're running beyond the point where we can dismiss all of these interesting "coincidences". The sheer number of people in the Trump campaign and administration who have been misrepresenting their ties to Russia and/or who have deep ties to Russia is astounding.

[time4fun]

Excellent, impartial, write-up (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-02/no-lack-of-twists-questions-in-trump-russia-saga-quicktake-q-a) by Bloomberg of the major points of the Russian-Trump situation right now- including what we know, what we don't know, what we know is currently being investigated (and by whom), and how the awareness of the issues started.

It leaves out the partisan fray- the obstruction of investigation by the House and Senate GOP, and the more overtly politicized Democratic responses.

[Parkbandit]

http://bestanimations.com/Careers/Entertainment/Clowns/clown-car-animation-2.gif

[Destrier]

Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com.
7:06 AM - 2 Mar 2017
8,551 8,551 Retweets 12,844 12,844 likes
McCaskill's categorical denial was quickly contradicted--by her own Twitter timeline. Apparently the Senator forgot she met with the Russian Ambassador in January of 2013:

Follow
Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions,even those in process.
10:25 AM - 30 Jan 2013

Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
Today calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework
7:49 AM - 6 Aug 2015
165 165 Retweets 93 93 likes

Yeah, I can see how it must be hard to keep track for the dems also.

[time4fun]

Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com.
7:06 AM - 2 Mar 2017
8,551 8,551 Retweets 12,844 12,844 likes
McCaskill's categorical denial was quickly contradicted--by her own Twitter timeline. Apparently the Senator forgot she met with the Russian Ambassador in January of 2013:

Follow
Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions,even those in process.
10:25 AM - 30 Jan 2013

Claire McCaskill ✔ @clairecmc
Today calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework
7:49 AM - 6 Aug 2015
165 165 Retweets 93 93 likes

Yeah, I can see how it must be hard to keep track for the dems also.

McCaskill flubbed her messaging in a pretty embarrassing way here, but her meetings with the ambassador were group meetings. They weren't closed, 1:1 meetings. (One of Session's meetings was) And- most importantly- they weren't in 2016 when people like Sessions had been made aware of possible Russian interference in the election, nor were they done while acting as a campaign surrogate for a campaign that was already under suspicion for it's unprecedented ties to Putin. She also didn't lie/mislead under oath during a confirmation process.

So McCaskill's claim- false- if she meant 1:1 meetings (which it seems pretty clear she did), she should've said as much.

McCaskill's point- valid.

Even McCain- who heads up the Armed Services Committee- says he never met with the Russian ambassador in a 1:1 meeting. So why would Sessions be meeting with the Russian ambassador in a private 1:1 about committee business during 2016?

[ClydeR]

One, it turns out that Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.67916eb87900) (same one Flynn met with) who is also one of Russia's primary spy-recruiters twice last year but denied ever having had contact with the Russians during his confirmation hearings.

I predict that we will eventually learn that the Trump administration leaked this news itself to distract attention from the Heelgate scandal (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?107592-Do-Not-Put-Your-Feet-on-the-Furniture).

[Gelston]

Holy shit, I just realized. time4fun is ClydeR but posting as a leftist.

[Shaps]

On this point I actually agree with Time4Fun.. and she and I hardly have ever. But in this case she is making valid points IMO.

I don't understand why Sessions would meet with the Ambassador, but not being privy to that type of coordination I'll wait for the questions to be asked and answered. But does seem odd to me on the face of it.

As for how Flynn got booted for his meeting with the Ambassador and disclosing it.. I think that is more reasonable that he would talk or introduce himself to various Nations representatives. As for the whole "he didn't tell Pence, let's burn the house down" that occurred, I think was overboard.

[Tgo01]

Red scare! The Russians are coming!

Next thing we know they'll be asking these people if they know any friends or family members who have been in contact with communists before.

[Parkbandit]

McCaskill flubbed her messaging in a pretty embarrassing way here, but her meetings with the ambassador were group meetings. They weren't closed, 1:1 meetings. (One of Session's meetings was) And- most importantly- they weren't in 2016 when people like Sessions had been made aware of possible Russian interference in the election, nor were they done while acting as a campaign surrogate for a campaign that was already under suspicion for it's unprecedented ties to Putin. She also didn't lie/mislead under oath during a confirmation process.

So McCaskill's claim- false- if she meant 1:1 meetings (which it seems pretty clear she did), she should've said as much.

McCaskill's point- valid.

Even McCain- who heads up the Armed Services Committee- says he never met with the Russian ambassador in a 1:1 meeting. So why would Sessions be meeting with the Russian ambassador in a private 1:1 about committee business during 2016?

So, in summary: It's ok if Dems do it but WE NEED TO BURN ANY REPUBLICAN THAT DOES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're a special kind of special.

[Parkbandit]

Sessions should recuse himself from any investigation regarding the Russians making Hillary lose the election.

Problem solved.

I don't think he did anything wrong, but this will eliminate any resemblance of impropriety.

[Tgo01]

Didn't Eric Holder lie all the damn time while attorney general? And not only did he not resign but he basically snubbed his nose at everyone demanding he resign? Where was time4fun's outrage then?

Oh right! Black AND a Democrat! He's golden. Plus he didn't lie about something important like forgetting a meeting he once had, he lied about something inconsequential like the whole fast and furious debacle.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/06/will-fast-and-furious-justice-finally-befall-eric-holder/#6ea6a6f85e2d

[Destrier]

Anyone reading the actual exchange can see Sessions was referring to no communications “as a surrogate” just as the question’s very long pre-amble specifically referenced the focus of the question to that subject matter. Nothing about Sessions’ answer was false, nor could it be construed to be materially false or willfully false, or even false at all.

But at this point what difference does it make? Those calling for an investigation had no issue with the AG Lynch meeting with Pres Bill Clinton on a plane while his wife was being investigated by the DOJ.

[Tgo01]

But at this point what difference does it make? Those calling for an investigation had no issue with the AG Lynch meeting with Pres Bill Clinton on a plane while his wife was being investigated by the DOJ.

I had almost forgotten all about that. But in that case you're dealing with a black woman Democrat, so of COURSE she gets a pass no matter what. That's like the trifecta for Democrats.

[time4fun]

Update-

Jeff Sessions has agreed to recuse himself (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html) from any and all investigations into the Trump campaign.



Attorney General Jeff Sessions, facing a chorus of criticism over his contacts with the Russian ambassador, recused himself Thursday from any current or future investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. His conversations with the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, came amid suspected Russian hacking directed at Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

[Tgo01]

Update-

Jeff Sessions has agreed to recuse himself (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html) from any and all investigations into the Trump campaign.

Clearly this proves he's a Russian spy!!!11 You Democrats finally got something!!

[time4fun]

Anyone reading the actual exchange can see Sessions was referring to no communications “as a surrogate” just as the question’s very long pre-amble specifically referenced the focus of the question to that subject matter. Nothing about Sessions’ answer was false, nor could it be construed to be materially false or willfully false, or even false at all.

But at this point what difference does it make? Those calling for an investigation had no issue with the AG Lynch meeting with Pres Bill Clinton on a plane while his wife was being investigated by the DOJ.

Except we went over this in another thread, and the partial transcript makes the answer Sessions gave very clear. Your point would also carry more weight if he had ever acknowledged the meetings any of the times he was asked about communication with the Russians.

And for you to compare denying a closed door meeting with a notorious Russian spy with a chat between an AG and a former President is an attempt to turn a serious national security issue into partisan fray.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not something is actually going on between Trump and Putin, there are two questions we need to ask ourselves:

1) *IF* it turns out that Putin has infiltrated the Trump campaign/administration, and there is genuine treason afoot here- are we currently acting in a manner that would allow us to uncover that fact quickly and protect our national security and sovereignty?

and

2) *EVEN IF NOT*, are we currently acting in a manner that would actively dissuade a foreign power like Russia from attempting that kind of infiltration? Are we sending the message that this kind of espionage would be fruitless?

Put the partisan blinders away for a moment. If the answer to either of those questions is "maybe" or "no", then what the hell are we doing right now? And why are any of us arguing for any approach here that fails to satisfy either of those two questions?

[Tgo01]

And for you to compare denying a closed door meeting with a notorious Russian spy with a chat between an AG and a former President is an attempt to turn a serious national security issue into partisan fray.

Wait, wasn't the meeting with the ambassador? LOL at you. Holy shit you're a sad human being.

[Destrier]

Except we went over this in another thread, and the partial transcript makes the answer Sessions gave very clear. Your point would also carry more weight if he had ever acknowledged the meetings any of the times he was asked about communication with the Russians.

And for you to compare denying a closed door meeting with a notorious Russian spy with a chat between an AG and a former President is an attempt to turn a serious national security issue into partisan fray.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not something is actually going on between Trump and Putin, there are two questions we need to ask ourselves:

1) *IF* it turns out that Putin has infiltrated the Trump campaign/administration, and there is genuine treason afoot here- are we currently acting in a manner that would allow us to uncover that fact quickly and protect our national security and sovereignty?

and

2) *EVEN IF NOT*, are we currently acting in a manner that would actively dissuade a foreign power like Russia from attempting that kind of infiltration? Are we sending the message that this kind of espionage would be fruitless?

Put the partisan blinders away for a moment. If the answer to either of those questions is "maybe" or "no", then what the hell are we doing right now? And why are any of us arguing for any approach here that fails to satisfy either of those two questions?

ok, putting the partisan blinders away a moment... That last post is bat shit crazy.

[time4fun]

ok, putting the partisan blinders away a moment... That last post is bat shit crazy.

I agree, the post before your last one was.

[Tgo01]

2) *EVEN IF NOT*, are we currently acting in a manner that would actively dissuade a foreign power like Russia from attempting that kind of infiltration? Are we sending the message that this kind of espionage would be fruitless?[/B]


For someone who teaches logic you sure do say stupid shit. So let me get this straight, if NOTHING nefarious is going on we obviously have to act like something IS going on and lose our shit to dissuade a foreign power from attempting something like this in the first place? That is so mind blowingly retarded.

Just in case you're a pedophile time4fun we all better act like you are a pedophile to dissuade you from abusing little kids in the future.

[Shaps]

So educated myself on the Sessions questions and comments. If you watch the full exchange during his hearing... there is no way he answered inappropriately. He answered the question IN CONTEXT that he was asked.

So I am going to revert back to my opinion that Democrats are whining bitches for the most part.

[Tgo01]

So educated myself on the Sessions questions and comments. If you watch the full exchange during his hearing... there is no way he answered inappropriately. He answered the question IN CONTEXT that he was asked.

But JUST IN CASE we have to act like he DID perjure himself and he IS a Russian spy. You know, to make sure no one really becomes a Russian spy. Think of the children!

[time4fun]

So educated myself on the Sessions questions and comments. If you watch the full exchange during his hearing... there is no way he answered inappropriately. He answered the question IN CONTEXT that he was asked.

So I am going to revert back to my opinion that Democrats are whining bitches for the most part.

Except it wasn't just Democrats who called for Sessions to recuse himself.


He also answered Franken, but you did not post the question or entire response.

SEN. AL FRANKEN: "If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?," the Minnesota Democrat asked. (emphasis mine)

SESSIONS: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians." (emphasis mine)
DATE: January 10



You'll have to help me understand how we are supposed to take the response that Sessions offered as meaning anything other than, "I didn't communicate with the Russian government".

He first identified himself as affiliated with the campaign, and then he stated that he had never communicated with the Russians.

Franken's question in that moment was direct- it wasn't referring to people who had communicated with the Russian government ABOUT the 2016 election (Though certainly that was addressed in other questions), it was whether or not anyone affiliated with the campaign had communicated with the Russians DURING the 2016 election.

Sessions was extremely clear on this fact- no he had not.

(Except he had)


And, again, the real question here isn't about whether or not we've decided something nefarious is afoot- we genuinely don't know. In context with all of the other evidence about ties to Russia, yeah, this looks bad. But it could be totally innocent, and in a year where Russia wasn't interfering with our election and possibly our government, we might let it slide.

The question is- are we as a Nation approaching this situation in a way that would actually keep us safe if the worst case scenario were true? And sitting around whining about republicans vs democrats instead of taking this seriously and expecting serious, independent investigations would suggest no.

[Androidpk]

And he recused himself.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-02/sessions-removes-himself-from-russia-inquiry-over-meeting-envoy

[Neovik1]

GS player's corner where we just talk politics and flood the activity feed with garbage.

[time4fun]

More like independent fact checking and echo chamber removal procedures.

[time4fun]

And he recused himself.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-02/sessions-removes-himself-from-russia-inquiry-over-meeting-envoy

posted that earlier already.

Now we just need an independent prosecutor to look into all of this and no obstruction from either party.

[Tgo01]

You'll have to help me understand how we are supposed to take the response that Sessions offered as meaning anything other than, "I didn't communicate with the Russian government".

Just admit right here once and for all that you NEVER taught logic. Please? Just give us this one thing.

What gets me is you yourself bold the words that answer your own fucking question. Sessions himself has been called a surrogate and he did not have communications with the Russians. How can you interpret that as anything other than in his official surrogate capacity he has had no communications with the Russians. He even spelled it out for you and everything in his answer.

Now if evidence shows up where he did discuss things with the ambassador in his surrogate capacity then I would say he lied. Until then all you have is a man saying as a surrogate he had no contact with the Russians and a meeting he had with the Russian ambassador where he claims it was in his senator capacity.

One thing is for sure, you NEVER taught English.

[Shaps]

Except it wasn't just Democrats who called for Sessions to recuse himself.



You'll have to help me understand how we are supposed to take the response that Sessions offered as meaning anything other than, "I didn't communicate with the Russian government".

He first identified himself as affiliated with the campaign, and then he stated that he had never communicated with the Russians.

Franken's question in that moment was direct- it wasn't referring to people who had communicated with the Russian government ABOUT the 2016 election (Though certainly that was addressed in other questions), it was whether or not anyone affiliated with the campaign had communicated with the Russians DURING the 2016 election.

Sessions was extremely clear on this fact- no he had not.

(Except he had)


And, again, the real question here isn't about whether or not we've decided something nefarious is afoot- we genuinely don't know. In context with all of the other evidence about ties to Russia, yeah, this looks bad. But it could be totally innocent, and in a year where Russia wasn't interfering with our election and possibly our government, we might let it slide.

The question is- are we as a Nation approaching this situation in a way that would actually keep us safe if the worst case scenario were true? And sitting around whining about republicans vs democrats instead of taking this seriously and expecting serious, independent investigations would suggest no.

Agree with you on your first point. But Republicans are so used to being whipping boys, they don't know how to respond when people start screaming and ranting. Most of them cower because they think people calling them names means something, instead of using logic and telling those people to STFU and go about their business.

As for the second point, you're cherry picking a limited part of the exchange. Watch the full exchange, not just read one line of it.. you might change your mind...

I'm willing to call out anyone I think is doing some shady shit (past 8 years it's been the Dems.. now it's the Republicans), but I won't just agree to something because people spin shit out of all common sense to try and improve their political position.

[time4fun]

USA Today just broke the news (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/02/exclusive-two-other-trump-advisers-also-spoke-russian-envoy-during-gop-convention/98648190/) that Trump's ex-campaign manager Carter and JD Gordon (who was Trump's National Security advisor during the campaign) also spoke with the Russian Ambassador/Notorious spy recruiter during the same Heritage Foundation event Sessions spoke with him at.

There's genuinely nothing unusual about that. What IS unusual is that throughout Trump's campaign and into his presidency, he has repeatedly denied (20 different on the record denials here) (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/)that anyone affiliated with his campaign had any contact with the Russian government. And this has repeatedly been shown to be false- which begs the question, why bother denying it? Nothing in the Heritage Foundation event seemed unusual, so why not acknowledge it when repeatedly asked?

[Wrathbringer]

http://bestanimations.com/Careers/Entertainment/Clowns/clown-car-animation-2.gif

this.

[time4fun]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ





Franken: Okay. CNN has just published a story, and I’m telling you this about a news story that’s just been published. I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that, quote, “Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say, quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.


Franken was pointedly asking about exchange of information between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. I'm sorry, but I'm still failing to see how we are supposed to believe that Franken wasn't asking about general information exchange, but actually only about information about the 2016 campaign.

Am I missing a part of the quote?

[Wrathbringer]

...I'm sorry, but I'm still failing...

yep.

[Tgo01]

And this has repeatedly been shown to be false- which begs the question, why bother denying it?

If this particular exchange is no big deal then why even talk about it? When people are accusing Trump and his administration of being a bunch of spies why would he say "Well yeah I think my campaign manager once spoke with the Russian ambassador like everyone else does." Seriously this seems like such a pathetic non-issue that you Democrats are desperately clinging to.

Okay so NOTHING is out of the ordinary with these two people speaking with the Russian Ambassador (NOTORIOUS SPY!!!) but since Trump didn't specifically mention it obviously something fishy is going on? YOU. NEVER. TAUGHT. FUCKING. LOGIC. Or if you did you should be thrown in jail for falsifying your credentials.

This is the game Democrats play. They can't win with actual policies, they abused their identity politics and burnt out that approach in 8 short years, so now they are insisting something bad is going on and it puts Republicans in a position where even if they admit contact with the Russian government, EVEN IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY, it looks bad because Democrats have already insisted Russia is the enemy and therefore any contact is bad.

time4fun, this is why your pathetic party will keep losing. Here's an idea, insist your politicians work on actual policies to try and win back voters. Your witch hunts are getting old already.

[Shaps]

USA Today just broke the news (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/02/exclusive-two-other-trump-advisers-also-spoke-russian-envoy-during-gop-convention/98648190/) that Trump's ex-campaign manager Carter and JD Gordon (who was Trump's National Security advisor during the campaign) also spoke with the Russian Ambassador/Notorious spy recruiter during the same Heritage Foundation event Sessions spoke with him at.

There's genuinely nothing unusual about that. What IS unusual is that throughout Trump's campaign and into his presidency, he has repeatedly denied (20 different on the record denials here) (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/)that anyone affiliated with his campaign had any contact with the Russian government. And this has repeatedly been shown to be false- which begs the question, why bother denying it? Nothing in the Heritage Foundation event seemed unusual, so why not acknowledge it when repeatedly asked?

Probably because of the same reason if they were asked... "has anyone in your campaign been dealing with government officials from Mexico/Iran/Iraq/Syria/France/China/Japan/Germany/The Lost World/Zork/etc...."

Meeting people in official capacities happen all the time over any number of issues or venues. So I can easily see how someone maybe shook hands, had a conversation, or a meeting and because it relates in no way shape or form to collusion to subvert an election.. thought anything about it when providing their response. Because it wasn't the context as it was presented.

I agree there should be full disclosure, but in the proper context. For example: The Russians hacked the DNC.. they ALSO tried hacking the RNC. They were only able to get into the DNC, therefor.. those documents were released. I don't think (at least I hope there wasn't) any malicious involvement from people from either side of OUR politicians.

I think both sides of OUR political parties should be mad.. and working TOGETHER to ensure it doesn't happen again. Not just throw shit against the wall and see what sticks against one political party for their own gain. The Russians were (as well as plenty of other countries) trying to mess with our country. It should be a united front to stop it, not get a leg up.

I hated what Obama did in the Israeli election also. Where he sent surrogates+money to opposition parties to try and unseat Netanyahu. Similarly I hate the Russians trying to mess with our stuff, be it RNC or DNC (which is irrelevant, because it's them fucking with AMERICANS.. not a political party) -- how I see it at least.

[Tgo01]

Am I missing a part of the quote?

No, you're just fucking retarded. So in a question that goes on and on about information being exchanged between Trump's surrogates and the Russian government, you take this to mean ANYONE affiliated with the Trump campaign having ANY conversation with ANY Russian government official?

Let's just for one minute assume Sessions was speaking with the Russian ambassador in his official senator capacity. They discussed routine senator/ambassador shit. Just hear me out for a minute. You honestly think this is what Franken was referring to in his question? To quote a retard: "Am I missing a part of the quote?"

[Shaps]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ





Franken was pointedly asking about exchange of information between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. I'm sorry, but I'm still failing to see how we are supposed to believe that Franken wasn't asking about general information exchange, but actually only about information about the 2016 campaign.

Am I missing a part of the quote?

Thanks for linking the video.

I see what your saying, in a sense.. but for me, just my opinion.. that question is in the context of people working for the Trump campaign meeting with Russians to affect the election. Franken was asking if he knew, or did, anything of the sort. He said he doesn't and did not.

Hence the context of it.

He wasn't asked.. "have you ever in the past 2 years (or year) met with a Russian official". If he had been asked that and then given the response he did.. I would understand the point you're trying to make.

As it stands, I think he gave a truthful answer given what Franken was asking about.

[time4fun]

I think it's interesting that you bring up the RNC hack. The RNC hack- and the fact that nothing damning about Trump was ever leaked afterwards- was one of the primary pieces of evidence that Russia was hacking in order to get Trump into office.

One of the things that isn't being talked about much here is that Russia's favorite tactic for "recruiting" operatives in the US is to compile embarrassing or damaging information about them in order to black mail them into doing work for Russia. They often target Russian nationals who live in the US, but they have used this tactic on US citizens many times (it's believed this was part of how they recruited US-based hackers for the DNC attack). For Russia, hacking the RNC to get any opposition research on Trump would have been Part B of the plan. Part A is "get anything that looks bad about Clinton and leak it", and Part B would be "Get anything that looks bad about Trump and threaten him with it".

You keep saying that we should all work together, but so far there's been a LOT of leg work on the part of the Trump administration and Congressional Republican leadership to try to prevent/obstruct/etc any investigations into alleged ties between Trump's campaign and Russia. First, they refused to extent the investigation into the election interference to Trump's campaign (finally bowing to pressure and including it), then they repeatedly denied inquiries requesting documentation on some of his nominees' financial and personal ties to Russia, then the heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were actually calling reporters to tell them the Trump campaign was completely innocent (WHILE the investigations were just getting underway), then Trump tried to prevent Sessions from recusing himself, and finally they've all fought tooth and nail against a special prosecutor.

It's pretty obvious that Democrats are hoping this'll be the nail in the coffin for Trump (which is disgusting- that folks are sort of secretly hoping Trump is colluding with the Russians), but an independent, special prosecutor and committee would be the obvious way both sides could work together and rise above the partisan fray.

So why are the Trump administration and the Republican Leadership pushing back on it? Is there actually an argument to be made that it ISN'T in our best interest?

[Tgo01]

Just to ensure these investigations aren't being conducted with Russian spies I think all Congress people should recuse themselves if they have ever had any contact at all with a Russian government official. It's only logical, right time4fun?

[Nathala Crane]

GS player's corner where we just talk politics and flood the activity feed with garbage.

Exactly why I've blocked various posters from both sides of the political spectrum who consistently flood the activity feed with multiple fucking boring political shitposts. In fact, the entire last page of this thread is full of nothing BUT those names.

[Tgo01]

I think it's interesting that you bring up the RNC hack. The RNC hack- and the fact that nothing damning about Trump was ever leaked afterwards- was one of the primary pieces of evidence that Russia was hacking in order to get Trump into office.

Remember folks, she used to teach logic! Not releasing information on Trump is actually proof that the Russians were meddling in our elections in order to get Trump elected. Oh and they are black mailing him in order to be Putin's bitch. Let that sink in for a minute folks. Lack of evidence is actually evidence in time4fun land.

[time4fun]

Thanks for linking the video.

I see what your saying, in a sense.. but for me, just my opinion.. that question is in the context of people working for the Trump campaign meeting with Russians to affect the election. Franken was asking if he knew, or did, anything of the sort. He said he doesn't and did not.

Hence the context of it.

He wasn't asked.. "have you ever in the past 2 years (or year) met with a Russian official". If he had been asked that and then given the response he did.. I would understand the point you're trying to make.

As it stands, I think he gave a truthful answer given what Franken was asking about.

Actually, what's interesting about the whole exchange is that Sessions was OVER answering the question. He didn't have to identify himself as affiliated with the campaign. And he didn't have to give such a strong, blanket denial of any contact with the Russian government.

All Franken was looking for was, "We will, of course, investigate any information that leads us to believe there was any collusion between *anyone* here in the US and the Russians."

Sessions' first instinct was apparently to get defensive and to make sure no one thought he was one of those people the CNN report was referring to. Which is odd because no one was suggesting he was. Why did he rush up to "prove" his innocence with a lie when no one was accusing him of anything?

Sessions never actually answered Franken's question.

[Tgo01]

Sessions' first instinct was apparently to get defensive and to make sure no one thought he was one of those people the CNN report was referring to. Which is odd because no one was suggesting he was.

Now in time4fun logic land, Sessions saying he was referred to as a surrogate and that he did not have contact with Russians is proof that he was indeed working with the Trump campaign and colluding with the Russian government.

You can't even make this shit up.

[Shaps]

Time4Fun,
From a political perspective, sure you could spin it that way. It's easy to do. Just because the RNC wasn't hacked and no information from there came out about Trump (from that source), doesn't validate your point.

Trump had 16 Republicans, all Democrats, and everyone else to include their grandmother pouring gas on him daily and lighting it. I doubt the RNC has anything that isn't already out there.

What made the DNC documents so damning, was the shocking collusion between Clinton's campaign and the DNC (when the DNC is supposed to treat all of their candidates fairly through the Primary). I still can't believe Bernie jumped on board with Clinton after that all came out. I lost a ton of respect for him. I never agree'd with his policies, but I respected that he stood by his positions and argued for them... then he just sold the fuck out after the primaries for personal/political gain. Was a sad blow to the Democratic party if you ask me.

That is a tangent though :) ..

I do agree that it should be looked into.. because Democrats have created enough of a storm of accusations (85% of them pure bullshit) that the American people deserve an honest answer. But I also think it is fine to fight back and say NO, when people just randomly make shit up and accuse you of something day in and day out.

It's like if I walked up to you while you were sitting in a restaurant and started yelling saying how you're a racist and I can't believe you walked in front of that black guy at the door and thought he was the valet and you treated him like crap. Everyone is watching and now thinking you're a racist (when we know you're not).. then when you try to defend yourself, it just makes you look more guilty... because we all know that a racist would say they weren't right?

It's a process the Dems have perfected (and I give them credit for) over the years. Republicans need to learn from it, or just ignore it and drive on.

[Viekn]

Exactly why I've blocked various posters from both sides of the political spectrum who consistently flood the activity feed with multiple fucking boring political shitposts. In fact, the entire last page of this thread is full of nothing BUT those names.

Same here. I've got 40 people blocked and my GS PC experience has been so much better since that day.

[Shaps]

You guys probably have me blocked.. but don't come in the folder maybe? It's not like you have to read the political threads. The site doesn't DING and pop up with each new message.

For all our differences, we enjoying the game together and have fun debating politics. You guys don't like it.. /shrug.. but don't need to knock our back and forth conversations.

Have a good day! :)

[Neovik1]

I don't have any problems with anyone in this thread and would rather not block anyone. Just wish there was a way to block the politics forum in general. It's just a pointless battle on here. No one will ever agree or change their political affiliation.

[Shaps]

I don't have any problems with anyone in this thread and would rather not block anyone. Just wish there was a way to block the politics forum in general. It's just a pointless battle on here. No one will ever agree or change their political affiliation.

I wish we'd block that f'in sports forum during football season. I never win those fantasy matches :(

[Androidpk]

I don't have any problems with anyone in this thread and would rather not block anyone. Just wish there was a way to block the politics forum in general. It's just a pointless battle on here. No one will ever agree or change their political affiliation.


There IS a way to do it and Anticor was going to implement it before he poofed. I've emailed Kranar about it but never got a reply.

[time4fun]

Time4Fun,
From a political perspective, sure you could spin it that way. It's easy to do. Just because the RNC wasn't hacked and no information from there came out about Trump (from that source), doesn't validate your point.

Trump had 16 Republicans, all Democrats, and everyone else to include their grandmother pouring gas on him daily and lighting it. I doubt the RNC has anything that isn't already out there.

What made the DNC documents so damning, was the shocking collusion between Clinton's campaign and the DNC (when the DNC is supposed to treat all of their candidates fairly through the Primary). I still can't believe Bernie jumped on board with Clinton after that all came out. I lost a ton of respect for him. I never agree'd with his policies, but I respected that he stood by his positions and argued for them... then he just sold the fuck out after the primaries for personal/political gain. Was a sad blow to the Democratic party if you ask me.

That is a tangent though :) ..

I do agree that it should be looked into.. because Democrats have created enough of a storm of accusations (85% of them pure bullshit) that the American people deserve an honest answer. But I also think it is fine to fight back and say NO, when people just randomly make shit up and accuse you of something day in and day out.

It's like if I walked up to you while you were sitting in a restaurant and started yelling saying how you're a racist and I can't believe you walked in front of that black guy at the door and thought he was the valet and you treated him like crap. Everyone is watching and now thinking you're a racist (when we know you're not).. then when you try to defend yourself, it just makes you look more guilty... because we all know that a racist would say they weren't right?

It's a process the Dems have perfected (and I give them credit for) over the years. Republicans need to learn from it, or just ignore it and drive on.

So this is my fault for not having cited, but the bit I included about hacking the RNC but not releasing the information (and that being used by intelligence agencies as primary evidence of Russian's intention to support Trump's campaign) was actually from the US intelligence agencies themselves. (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html)

Both the RNC and DNC do opposition research on potential candidates. It's part of good campaign hygiene, and they tend to have more resources to hire the best opposition research firms than the campaigns themselves do. If you were trying to collect damaging information about a Republican Presidential candidate, the RNC is exactly where you would go first.

Don't think for a second that Russia was hacking for fun. They chose their targets carefully and with purpose. If the purpose of gathering intel on Trump WASN'T to release it publicly- what was it for?


------------------
Re: Tangent

So here's the thing. The DNC E-mails were grossly inappropriate, and the people who were involved paid the price for it. But there was nothing ever uncovered that suggested that anyone had actually done anything to favor one candidate over the other. They were VERY obviously considering it- which itself is disgusting and was more than enough reason to have those people fired. But it doesn't seem like anything had actually happened.

It's not that we didn't deserve to know about that. But it was being used by an enemy of the US to interfere with our elections in order to get someone in office that THEY preferred. I'm afraid that far too many people have directed far more of their anger at the DNC than at Russia.

And that is terrifying.
-------------------

Look- if people are making things up about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia- that's a problem. I know there have been a few things that turned out to be nothing but political hay, but here's the deal-

If you were being accused of having colluded with Russia in order to win your campaign, and if people suspected that Russia had damning information about you that they were using to control you. How would you react?

When choosing your cabinet members- would you pick a Secretary of State who had won an award from Russia and who had ties to Putin?

Would you choose a Secretary of Commerce who served as an intermediary between you and a Russian oligarch- who purchased your $40m home for $100m at a time when you were desperate for the cash?

Would you appoint someone to be a part of your National Security team who had well-known ties to Russia and who had repeatedly spoken on Russia's government-controlled media outlet?

When it turns out that your AG lied about meeting with a well known Russian spy, would you immediately defend him and insist he didn't need to recuse himself from investigations into your alleged contacts?

Would you choose two campaign managers who had serious histories with Putin, including a guy whose claim to fame was helping to install a Putin plant as President of the Ukraine?

Would you repeatedly deny that your campaign had ever had contact with the Russian government even though it was painfully obvious they had?

Would you repeatedly praise Putin, even though you had a reputation for never praising anyone but yourself?

Would your campaign go to the RNC's Convention and actively insert milder language in the session on how to respond to Russia and the Ukraine?

Would you get on national TV and encourage the Russians to hack your political opponent when you knew that they were actively doing so already?

Would you, after receiving intelligence briefings that clearly stated Russia was behind the hacks, get up in a national Presidential debate and tell everyone it wasn't Russia?

Would you start a war with the intelligence agencies afterwards, trying to undermine public faith in them agencies after they say that Russia had, in fact, worked to help your campaign?

Would you start attacking the media and trying to undermine public faith in them for (largely) accurately reporting about potential ties to Russia?

Look, I'm not saying he's definitely colluding with the Russians. What I'm saying is- for a guy who's actively trying to convince people that he isn't- he's sure acting as though he is.

If you were him- wouldn't you be doing the opposite of what he's been doing?

[Tgo01]

Don't think for a second that Russia was hacking for fun. They chose their targets carefully and with purpose. If the purpose of gathering intel on Trump WASN'T to release it publicly- what was it for?

Clearly to blackmail him in case he became president! Lack of evidence is proof of evidence! I used to teach logic!

[Viekn]

I don't have any problems with anyone in this thread and would rather not block anyone. Just wish there was a way to block the politics forum in general. It's just a pointless battle on here. No one will ever agree or change their political affiliation.

I don't have any problems with anyone in this thread or any of the political threads. But I like to browse the forum using the "What's New?" activity stream so it was just easier for me to block people. There are some people who post a lot of good GS stuff but a lot of political stuff too, so I have them blocked but when I see they've posted something GS related, I click on "View Post" so I can read it.


You guys probably have me blocked.. but don't come in the folder maybe? It's not like you have to read the political threads. The site doesn't DING and pop up with each new message.

For all our differences, we enjoying the game together and have fun debating politics. You guys don't like it.. /shrug.. but don't need to knock our back and forth conversations.

Have a good day! :)

I do have you blocked and I could care less which way you lean politically or what you post. And as this forum has political folders, I support your right to post there all day long. I think it just boils down to the fact a lot of people use the activity stream to see what's been going on, and as the amount of political posts overwhelms the amount of GS related posts, it frustrates some people. That's why when I finally learned about the ignore function, I put it to good use. But using ignore is in no way a judgement on that person. I have Tgo01, Drauz, and Fallen blocked and I love just about 100% of the GS related stuff they post, but they also post a lot of non-GS related stuff (politics included), so I blocked them and just read their individual GS related posts.

[Parkbandit]

Exactly why I've blocked various posters from both sides of the political spectrum who consistently flood the activity feed with multiple fucking boring political shitposts. In fact, the entire last page of this thread is full of nothing BUT those names.

You are a delicate little snowflake.

Go melt elsewhere, dumbass.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/11045887445_59867d367c_o.gif

[Parkbandit]

There IS a way to do it and Anticor was going to implement it before he poofed. I've emailed Kranar about it but never got a reply.

Ask the new Super Moderator.

[Gelston]

You are a delicate little snowflake.

Go melt elsewhere, dumbass.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/11045887445_59867d367c_o.gif

That looks like the Galactic Empire's symbol.

[Parkbandit]

I don't have any problems with anyone in this thread and would rather not block anyone. Just wish there was a way to block the politics forum in general. It's just a pointless battle on here. No one will ever agree or change their political affiliation.

Is that what you believe the goal is?

Weird.

[Gelston]

Ask the new Super Moderator.

I don't think he has that power. Anticor is/was an Administrator.

[Parkbandit]

So this is my fault for not having cited, but the bit I included about hacking the RNC but not releasing the information (and that being used by intelligence agencies as primary evidence of Russian's intention to support Trump's campaign) was actually from the US intelligence agencies themselves. (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html)

Both the RNC and DNC do opposition research on potential candidates. It's part of good campaign hygiene, and they tend to have more resources to hire the best opposition research firms than the campaigns themselves do. If you were trying to collect damaging information about a Republican Presidential candidate, the RNC is exactly where you would go first.

Don't think for a second that Russia was hacking for fun. They chose their targets carefully and with purpose. If the purpose of gathering intel on Trump WASN'T to release it publicly- what was it for?


------------------
Re: Tangent

So here's the thing. The DNC E-mails were grossly inappropriate, and the people who were involved paid the price for it. But there was nothing ever uncovered that suggested that anyone had actually done anything to favor one candidate over the other. They were VERY obviously considering it- which itself is disgusting and was more than enough reason to have those people fired. But it doesn't seem like anything had actually happened.

It's not that we didn't deserve to know about that. But it was being used by an enemy of the US to interfere with our elections in order to get someone in office that THEY preferred. I'm afraid that far too many people have directed far more of their anger at the DNC than at Russia.

And that is terrifying.
-------------------

Look- if people are making things up about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia- that's a problem. I know there have been a few things that turned out to be nothing but political hay, but here's the deal-

If you were being accused of having colluded with Russia in order to win your campaign, and if people suspected that Russia had damning information about you that they were using to control you. How would you react?

When choosing your cabinet members- would you pick a Secretary of State who had won an award from Russia and who had ties to Putin?

Would you choose a Secretary of Commerce who served as an intermediary between you and a Russian oligarch- who purchased your $40m home for $100m at a time when you were desperate for the cash?

Would you appoint someone to be a part of your National Security team who had well-known ties to Russia and who had repeatedly spoken on Russia's government-controlled media outlet?

When it turns out that your AG lied about meeting with a well known Russian spy, would you immediately defend him and insist he didn't need to recuse himself from investigations into your alleged contacts?

Would you choose two campaign managers who had serious histories with Putin, including a guy whose claim to fame was helping to install a Putin plant as President of the Ukraine?

Would you repeatedly deny that your campaign had ever had contact with the Russian government even though it was painfully obvious they had?

Would you repeatedly praise Putin, even though you had a reputation for never praising anyone but yourself?

Would your campaign go to the RNC's Convention and actively insert milder language in the session on how to respond to Russia and the Ukraine?

Would you get on national TV and encourage the Russians to hack your political opponent when you knew that they were actively doing so already?

Would you, after receiving intelligence briefings that clearly stated Russia was behind the hacks, get up in a national Presidential debate and tell everyone it wasn't Russia?

Would you start a war with the intelligence agencies afterwards, trying to undermine public faith in them agencies after they say that Russia had, in fact, worked to help your campaign?

Would you start attacking the media and trying to undermine public faith in them for (largely) accurately reporting about potential ties to Russia?

Look, I'm not saying he's definitely colluding with the Russians. What I'm saying is- for a guy who's actively trying to convince people that he isn't- he's sure acting as though he is.

If you were him- wouldn't you be doing the opposite of what he's been doing?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lClu1NnY6E0/VcsIviu-a3I/AAAAAAABSfs/5sCpVUuK-Lo/s1600/images-animated-gif.blogspot.com.gif

[Viekn]

Thread: New Revelations Regarding Trump's Campaign and Russia
You poor, delicate little thing you. If only you could block reputation comments, your echo chamber would be perfect!

Parkbandit, why even bother not signing rep anymore? And did you even read my comments? I don't care one bit what you all say one way or the other. Sounds like you're trying to stir trouble where there isn't any.

[drauz]

USA Today just broke the news (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/02/exclusive-two-other-trump-advisers-also-spoke-russian-envoy-during-gop-convention/98648190/) that Trump's ex-campaign manager Carter and JD Gordon (who was Trump's National Security advisor during the campaign) also spoke with the Russian Ambassador/Notorious spy recruiter during the same Heritage Foundation event Sessions spoke with him at.

There's genuinely nothing unusual about that. What IS unusual is that throughout Trump's campaign and into his presidency, he has repeatedly denied (20 different on the record denials here) (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/)that anyone affiliated with his campaign had any contact with the Russian government. And this has repeatedly been shown to be false- which begs the question, why bother denying it? Nothing in the Heritage Foundation event seemed unusual, so why not acknowledge it when repeatedly asked?

Who is saying he is a spy?

[Parkbandit]

Thread: New Revelations Regarding Trump's Campaign and Russia
You poor, delicate little thing you. If only you could block reputation comments, your echo chamber would be perfect!

Parkbandit, why even bother not signing rep anymore? And did you even read my comments? I don't care one bit what you all say one way or the other. Sounds like you're trying to stir trouble where there isn't any.

Why would I start signing my rep comments?

Go on about how many people you put on ignore and how delicate your little ego is again.. it honestly never gets old. Really.

:jerkit::break::deadhorse::blah:

[time4fun]

Who is saying he is a spy?




Current and former US intelligence officials (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/world/sergey-kislyak-russian-ambassador-us-profile/) have described Kislyak as a top spy and recruiter of spies, a notion that Russian officials have dismissed.

the White House also just acknowledged (http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-jared-kushner-met-with-russian-1488499538-htmlstory.html) this evening that there was another previously undisclosed meeting with the Russian ambassador, Kushner, and Flynn at Trump Towers last year,


As a reminder, on January 16th of this year during the notorious Press conference:


Trump told reporters, “I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”

It just begs the question- why didn't he just come clean? Why the continual denial which he knew was inaccurate?

[Tgo01]

It just begs the question- why didn't he just come clean? Why the continual denial which he knew was inaccurate?

Which really begs the question; when are you going to stop using the phrase "begs the question" when you really mean "raises the question."

[Nathala Crane]

I encourage everyone who doesn't like the Activity Feed cluttered with political nonsense to do the same. Block 'em all whether they're conservative or liberal, laugh at the ineffectual red rep they send, and peruse the suddenly remarkably tolerable forum for stuff that's actually worth the time spent reading it.

[Gelston]

I encourage everyone who doesn't like the Activity Feed cluttered with political nonsense to do the same. Block 'em all whether they're conservative or liberal, laugh at the ineffectual red rep they send, and peruse the suddenly remarkably tolerable forum for stuff that's actually worth the time spent reading it.

You remind me of those people in MMOs that like to tell everyone repeatedly that they are ignoring someone. Nobody cares. Crawl back up into your own ass.

[Parkbandit]

I encourage everyone who doesn't like the Activity Feed cluttered with political nonsense to do the same. Block 'em all whether they're conservative or liberal, laugh at the ineffectual red rep they send, and peruse the suddenly remarkably tolerable forum for stuff that's actually worth the time spent reading it.

Translation: I am posting in the political folder to tell people not to post in the political folder because I'm literally that fucking retarded.

The last time someone complained this hard, he decided to "leave" this forum and start his own. Like his life, it flopped miserably.. so he ended up coming back here under another login name.

[~Rocktar~]

I encourage everyone who doesn't like the Activity Feed cluttered with political nonsense to do the same. Block 'em all whether they're conservative or liberal, laugh at the ineffectual red rep they send, and peruse the suddenly remarkably tolerable forum for stuff that's actually worth the time spent reading it.

I forget where, but I seem to remember a thread with a post on how to not get notifications from this folder or something? Maybe someone should bring it up again for this inDUHvidual.

[~Rocktar~]

This is why CNN is a joke and people should turn them off. This is also the reason most Liberal/Socialists in the US should just grow up. Feelings don't make law.

https://youtu.be/Pjo16QamjIc

[time4fun]

This is why CNN is a joke and people should turn them off. This is also the reason most Liberal/Socialists in the US should just grow up. Feelings don't make law.

https://youtu.be/Pjo16QamjIc

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that all of these stories are CNN exclusives?

Reuters, USA Today, Newsweek, Washington Post, Politico, New York Times, and CNN have all been engaged in investigative journalism on the topic. And several outlets have reported that they were informed by intelligence officials that the Russian ambassador is a well-known spy and spy recruiter.

Or is the point here that any news outlet that isn't favorable to the administration is fake news? There's a word for that- propaganda.

[Androidpk]

Man I hate how many people toss around the word treason as if they know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Trump]

Don't you people think that if the Russians really wanted to turn Sessions into a spy they would do it discreetly and not head him over to the Russian embassy in broad daylight and announce his meeting?

[time4fun]

Don't you people think that if the Russians really wanted to turn Sessions into a spy they would do it discreetly and not head him over to the Russian embassy in broad daylight and announce his meeting?

Actually, he was in Session's office. Interestingly enough, normally in a meeting with a diplomat both sides have staff there taking notes. Oddly, Sessions initially didn't recall any details about this meeting. (As though there were no meeting notes, and as though there were no other staffers who recalled the meeting).

of course, today, Sessions magically seems to remember quite a bit about it.

I highly doubt anyone was trying to turn him into a spy- the more likely scenario (if we're going with nefarious) is that they were negotiating the Russian sanction- which would be a violation of the Logan Act.

[Tgo01]

Interestingly enough, normally in a meeting with a diplomat both sides have staff there taking notes.

Source? Or is this just more shit you're being fed that you gleefully eat up and ask for seconds?


I highly doubt anyone was trying to turn him into a spy- the more likely scenario (if we're going with nefarious) is that they were negotiating the Russian sanction- which would be a violation of the Logan Act.

You Democrats really are reaching now aren't ya?

[Destrier]

Heard Sessions released a statement on what they were talking about. "Their grandchildren."

[Androidpk]

Interestingly enough, normally in a meeting with a diplomat both sides have staff there taking notes.

You pulled this "fact" out of your ass, as usual.

[Tgo01]

Heard Sessions released a statement on what they were talking about. "Their grandchildren."

Took me a minute to get this.

[Neveragain]

Clearly to blackmail him in case he became president! Lack of evidence is proof of evidence! I used to teach logic!

It's her standard (among others) and the PC isn't the only place they play this game. Saddest part is that people still buy into her bullshit as long as it's delivered with a smile.

[Destrier]

News alert. Media claiming that the Trump admin has been meeting with Raymond Reddington.
Well that wont end well.

[time4fun]

Breaking news:

US Investigators purportedly confirm (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/)at least some of the details of the Trump dossier:


For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration.


But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

[time4fun]

Other interesting note made by a political commentator today:

We all know at this point that when Flynn was talking to the Russian ambassador about US Sanctions and later denied it.

How did we know? Because there were transcripts of the conversations made by US Intelligence Agencies.

For those who aren't aware- US law allows our intelligence agencies to wiretap foreign nationals and their conversations. Having said that, the second a US citizen enters the conversation (i.e. if they call/communicate with a US citizen) they are legally required to stop listening.

unless they have a FISA warrant on the US citizen.

So here's the deal- if they had transcripts of Michael Flynn's conversation it means that they had a warrant on him. Not a great sign for the Trump administration.

Disclaimer- I loathe the existence of the FISA program. So I'm going to approach this with the same level of skepticism I approach all FISA warrants with. The thing of note here is that it means they had an active investigation of Flynn, and that they had at least some level of evidence of inappropriate contact with the Russian government.

[Tgo01]

Breaking news:

US Investigators purportedly confirm (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/)at least some of the details of the Trump dossier:


None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier.


The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals.


US intelligence officials emphasize the conversations were solely between foreign nationals, including those in or tied to the Russian government, intercepted during routine intelligence gathering.

Russian officials speaking with Russian individuals? This IS a scandal!

[Tgo01]

So here's the deal- if they had transcripts of Michael Flynn's conversation it means that they had a warrant on him. Not a great sign for the Trump administration.

LACK OF EVIDENCE IS PROOF OF EVIDENCE! I USED TO TEACH LOGIC.

[Thondalar]

Other interesting note made by a political commentator today:

We all know at this point that when Flynn was talking to the Russian ambassador about US Sanctions and later denied it.

How did we know? Because there were transcripts of the conversations made by US Intelligence Agencies.

For those who aren't aware- US law allows our intelligence agencies to wiretap foreign nationals and their conversations. Having said that, the second a US citizen enters the conversation (i.e. if they call/communicate with a US citizen) they are legally required to stop listening.

unless they have a FISA warrant on the US citizen.

I'm guessing you don't realize that this, in itself, is being investigated because of the fact that there was no warrant on Flynn at the time, and this wiretapping and leak afterwards are super illegal.


So here's the deal- if they had transcripts of Michael Flynn's conversation it means that they had a warrant on him. Not a great sign for the Trump administration.

Except they didn't. See above.


Disclaimer- I loathe the existence of the FISA program. So I'm going to approach this with the same level of skepticism I approach all FISA warrants with. The thing of note here is that it means they had an active investigation of Flynn, and that they had at least some level of evidence of inappropriate contact with the Russian government.

You really shouldn't contradict yourself in the same sentence like that, it is unbecoming.

[Neveragain]

Pelosi caught lying about her Russian contacts.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/03/03/nancy-pelosi-caught-lying-nation-russian-intelligence-contacts/

[Thondalar]

Pelosi caught lying about her Russian contacts.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/03/03/nancy-pelosi-caught-lying-nation-russian-intelligence-contacts/

Eh, this is just making light of the situation.

I understand the humor behind it...Sessions' "contact" with the same Russian diplomat at an RNC convention event was just as innocuous as that event with Pelosi, but c'mon, man...

[Neveragain]

Eh, this is just making light of the situation.

I understand the humor behind it...Sessions' "contact" with the same Russian diplomat at an RNC convention event was just as innocuous as that event with Pelosi, but c'mon, man...

I didn't even read it. LOL

At this point if I was looking for real Russian involvement, I would start here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhggbxh9og

[time4fun]

I'm guessing you don't realize that this, in itself, is being investigated because of the fact that there was no warrant on Flynn at the time, and this wiretapping and leak afterwards are super illegal.



Except they didn't. See above.



You really shouldn't contradict yourself in the same sentence like that, it is unbecoming.

Hey Thond- if there was no warrant on Flynn- then why did they eavesdrop on his conversation AND keep transcripts of it?

Sorry, but the odds that it was an illegal wiretap when we already know that the US intelligence agencies have been investigating Trump's campaign for their unusually frequent communications with Russia are pretty low.

[Tgo01]

Hey Thond- if there was no warrant on Flynn- then why did they eavesdrop on his conversation AND keep transcripts of it?

Because you're making up facts to push your narrative.

Your bullshit post about them needing to stop all recording as soon as an American enters the conversation is just that, 100% bullshit. They are authorized to spy on people like the Russian ambassador, to think they have to stop recording altogether as soon as an American starts talking is fucking absurd.

They are supposed to keep recording but they are supposed to protect the identity of the American in question and only release the name if necessary to understand the context of the recording and even then they are only supposed to release a name in an official report and the official report is only supposed to be seen by someone who is authorized to read it, like members of Congress or whatnot.

The fact that Flynn's conversation was being recorded proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL. It is so routine in our intelligence gathering that it doesn't raise a single eyebrow, except yours apparently. What SHOULD raise eyebrows is the fact that this conversation was leaked to the general public because that is indeed illegal.

[Parkbandit]

"Some of the same liberal law professors and journalists who thought Hillary should be president after lying to Congress about hiding emails and who also praised Clapper’s 'independence' after he repeatedly lied to Congress about NSA spying, now attack Attorney General Sessions under a bogus claim of 'lying' to Congress.


There is no basis to suggest Sessions committed any crime at all for doing his job as a senator on the Armed Services Committee.


Sessions [...] met with over 20 ambassadors in 2016. One of them was the Russian ambassador. There is no evidence, at all, Sessions met with the ambassador to review Trump campaign strategy, or anything of the sort."

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/sorry-but-jeff-sessions-absolutely-did-not-perjure-himself-under-oath-when-asked-about-russia/

[time4fun]

Excellent article by CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/donald-trump-russia-congress-washington/index.html)today that really sums up the thing that has always been most suspicious to a lot of us:


The White House spokesman Sean Spicer insists that there is "no there, there" in the Russia intrigue.
But the conduct of the President himself often undercuts that message. Some observers have noted that while there may be nothing nefarious going on, the President often acts in a way that suggests there is.

This is a reference to the fact that he and many of his top campaign officials have consistently lied about their frequent contacts with Russia. If nothing is going on- why haven't they just been open and honest about it?

And why did Trump deny that Russia had anything to do with the election hacking even after receiving classified briefings as a candidate that told him otherwise?

Why did he immediately start attacking our intelligence agencies instead of just accepting their judgement and making a strong proclamation against Putin- as one would typically expect of a US President or Presidential candidate?

Why has he spent so much time going after the free press for publishing this information instead of thanking them for the investigating journalism and promising to take the findings seriously (even if he had no intention of doing so)?

Why did he install so many pro-Russian people with deep ties to Putin and Russian oligarchs into some of our most important positions- dealing with Foreign Affairs, our intelligence agencies, commerce, etc?

Why did he point blank tell everyone that he and his staff had never met with members of the Russian government when he literally had the Russian ambassador at Trump Tower meeting with his son-in-law and soon-to-be National Security adviser?

Why did he have his people go into the RNC and change just one major policy piece in the Republican Platform- that happened to be about arming Ukraine against Russia?

Why has he continued to praise Putin and push for his political best interests (like American isolationism, withdrawing from NATO, etc)?

Why was he so upset that Sessions recused himself, and why did he tell everyone he shouldn't? That was politically dangerous on his end.

Why won't he release his tax returns, when doing so could help clear a HUGE source of doubt over his Russia contacts?


None of this feels like the behavior of someone who is innocent and who wants everyone to know. It's the behavior of someone who is hiding something- whether or not he actually is.

[Parkbandit]

Excellent article by CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/donald-trump-russia-congress-washington/index.html)today that really sums up the thing that has always been most suspicious to a lot of us:



This is a reference to the fact that he and many of his top campaign officials have consistently lied about their frequent contacts with Russia. If nothing is going on- why haven't they just been open and honest about it?

And why did Trump deny that Russia had anything to do with the election hacking even after receiving classified briefings as a candidate that told him otherwise?

Why did he immediately start attacking our intelligence agencies instead of just accepting their judgement and making a strong proclamation against Putin- as one would typically expect of a US President or Presidential candidate?

Why has he spent so much time going after the free press for publishing this information instead of thanking them for the investigating journalism and promising to take the findings seriously (even if he had no intention of doing so)?

Why did he install so many pro-Russian people with deep ties to Putin and Russian oligarchs into some of our most important positions- dealing with Foreign Affairs, our intelligence agencies, commerce, etc?

Why did he point blank tell everyone that he and his staff had never met with members of the Russian government when he literally had the Russian ambassador at Trump Tower meeting with his son-in-law and soon-to-be National Security adviser?

Why did he have his people go into the RNC and change just one major policy piece in the Republican Platform- that happened to be about arming Ukraine against Russia?

Why has he continued to praise Putin and push for his political best interests (like American isolationism, withdrawing from NATO, etc)?

Why was he so upset that Sessions recused himself, and why did he tell everyone he shouldn't? That was politically dangerous on his end.

Why won't he release his tax returns, when doing so could help clear a HUGE source of doubt over his Russia contacts?


None of this feels like the behavior of someone who is innocent and who wants everyone to know. It's the behavior of someone who is hiding something- whether or not he actually is.

Remember when people used to say "There is no such thing as a dumb question"? time4fun is proving that wrong 10 fold.

[Wrathbringer]

Remember when people used to say "There is no such thing as a dumb question"? time4fun is proving that wrong 10 fold.

There's seriously something wrong with her.

[Parkbandit]

There's seriously something wrong with her.

Her meds are out of balance. She needs to get to her doctors quick.

[time4fun]

Interesting report (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2017/03/15/428074/russias-5th-column/) today that looks into the behaviors of the Putin-backed far right, nationalist leaders that have popped up in Europe and compares them to Trump's approach to governing.


Russia deploys an array of tools to help its designated partners, actions that range from the relatively benign practice of elevating the profile of European far-right leaders to disinformation, propaganda, alleged illicit financing, and covert influence operations.


Some of Russia’s activities in support of far-right political parties occur in the open and are typically entirely legitimate forms of international engagement even if they are pushing policies and messages that are inconsistent with liberal democratic values. The Kremlin arranges large international conferences, mostly in Russia, to bring together like-minded political leaders from across the continent to share strategies, messages, and tactics. It seeks to elevate far-right leaders—and obtain a measure of political cover—by inviting them to high-profile meetings with Russian leaders. It gives far-right politicians airtime on its television networks. And it has even provided indirect financing in some cases.


What follows in the wake of these activities is a striking alignment among these far-right parties in favor of Russian objectives. There is near-universal praise of Putin as a strong leader. Each of these parties denigrates its domestic political leadership and European institutions in eerily similar language. They all support lifting EU sanctions on Russia even though there is little, if any, evidence that they have opposed other EU sanctions nor clear indication of the benefits for their own countries. These parties blame the European Union and NATO for precipitating the Ukraine crisis. They back Russia’s actions in Syria and its so-called fight against the Islamic State. Researchers at the Institute for Modern Russia have calculated that members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, that belong to the pro-Russian Nations and Freedoms group of European MEPs in the Parliament vote in favor of Russian interests 93 percent of the time.37


President Donald Trump is following the same playbook as the Russian-backed far-right European leaders, adopting eerily similar language to theirs and pursuing the same policies that advance Russia’s objectives even when they are inconsistent with previous Republican policy positions. Trump or top Trump administration officials even met with four of these European far-right leaders during the presidential campaign or the transition.

[Back]

Russia isn't just meddling in US affairs. It is doing the same thing everywhere it has interests around the world. Most likely we are too but it appears Russia is being far more aggressive in it's disinformation campaigns.

Now I wonder how long has Russia been at this here in the US. Has Russia been behind the entire "MSM = bad" this whole time? That narrative certainly fits into how they operate at home.

[Tgo01]

Russia isn't just meddling in US affairs. It is doing the same thing everywhere it has interests around the world. Most likely we are too but it appears Russia is being far more aggressive in it's disinformation campaigns.

"Most likely" the US meddles in other countries? Obama literally gave money to a group in Israel that was campaigning against Netanyahu when he was up for reelection.

But that's Obama so everything is good. But Russia might have done something in the US? Well shit! Clearly Trump is a bought and paid for Russian spy!!

[Androidpk]

Most likely... as if you even have to question that. Get the fuck outta here!

[time4fun]

Russia isn't just meddling in US affairs. It is doing the same thing everywhere it has interests around the world. Most likely we are too but it appears Russia is being far more aggressive in it's disinformation campaigns.

Now I wonder how long has Russia been at this here in the US. Has Russia been behind the entire "MSM = bad" this whole time? That narrative certainly fits into how they operate at home.

For a long time. Which, in fairness, is about as long as we've been in their country doing similar things.

But it is definitely scary at this point and takes an extraordinary amount of denial to ignore. The amount of circumstantial evidence that is mounting at this point is dizzying. What scares me is that there's a lot of disincentive in one party to genuinely look into this. And there's a lot of incentive in the other party to make political hay out of a serious threat to our national sovereignty. The combination isn't a good one.

[Tgo01]

For a long time. Which, in fairness, is about as long as we've been in their country doing similar things.

But it is definitely scary at this point and takes an extraordinary amount of denial to ignore. The amount of circumstantial evidence that is mounting at this point is dizzying. What scares me is that there's a lot of disincentive in one party to genuinely look into this. And there's a lot of incentive in the other party to make political hay out of a serious threat to our national sovereignty. The combination isn't a good one.

I have no doubt Russia is attempting to influence our elections/policies. If Democrats wanted to make this their latest bullshit thing to pretend to care about to try and get more voters then they just might have succeeded in gaining more support.

The problem is that isn't good enough for brain dead Democrats. They had to paint the narrative that not only is Russia hacking our elections but that Trump was complicit in all of this shit even though there is ZERO evidence of this. So Democrats don't really give a flying fuck what Russia is doing, they just care that Trump won and are using the Russia narrative to attempt to weaken Trump politically.

[Thondalar]

I have no doubt Russia is attempting to influence our elections/policies. If Democrats wanted to make this their latest bullshit thing to pretend to care about to try and get more voters then they just might have succeeded in gaining more support.

The problem is that isn't good enough for brain dead Democrats. They had to paint the narrative that not only is Russia hacking our elections but that Trump was complicit in all of this shit even though there is ZERO evidence of this. So Democrats don't really give a flying fuck what Russia is doing, they just care that Trump won and are using the Russia narrative to attempt to weaken Trump politically.

Pretty well-known fact that Russia has meddled in our elections since the early 1900's. The primary objective is to delegitimize our election process. They've been working at that for decades. They're finding a willing accomplice in Democrats this go-around...Putin is loving this hubbub. Probably laughing his ass off as we speak.

[Thondalar]

Russia isn't just meddling in US affairs. It is doing the same thing everywhere it has interests around the world. Most likely we are too but it appears Russia is being far more aggressive in it's disinformation campaigns.

Now I wonder how long has Russia been at this here in the US. Has Russia been behind the entire "MSM = bad" this whole time? That narrative certainly fits into how they operate at home.

This has happened for quite some time. We can go back even further, but it is a known fact that they placed people in Jimmy Carter's campaign...so that's at least 40 years ago, and that's only something we can completely verify as fact. The "cold war" was started well before WW2, in that respect, and has continued well after it "ended." There is quite a bit of evidence linking Ted Kennedy with the Kremlin in an attempt to undermine President Reagan's re-election.

I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone. Global superpowers do this sort of stuff all the time. The US does this sort of stuff. China does this sort of stuff.

The issue at hand is the Dems are running out of straws to grasp.

The "entire MSM=bad" thing comes from the fact that they have completely abandoned journalistic integrity in favor of blatantly promoting a political agenda.

[time4fun]

Pretty well-known fact that Russia has meddled in our elections since the early 1900's. The primary objective is to delegitimize our election process. They've been working at that for decades. They're finding a willing accomplice in Democrats this go-around...Putin is loving this hubbub. Probably laughing his ass off as we speak.

Democrats are the accomplices?

Uh. Riiight.

And their primary goal isn't to legitimize the electoral process. It's to get the US to adopt policies that are beneficial to Russia by installing leaders who are beholden to those interests.

Which should make us all very, very nervous.

The fact that you keep trying to make our national sovereignty a partisan issue should make us all downright terrified.

[Tgo01]

Democrats are the accomplices?

Uh. Riiight.

And their primary goal isn't to legitimize the electoral process. It's to get the US to adopt policies that are beneficial to Russia by installing leaders who are beholden to those interests.

Which should make us all very, very nervous.

The fact that you keep trying to make our national sovereignty a partisan issue should make us all downright terrified.

Look who pretends to care about our national sovereignty, the person harboring an illegal alien and who thinks sanctuary cities are the best.

[Back]

Democrats are the accomplices?

Uh. Riiight.

And their primary goal isn't to legitimize the electoral process. It's to get the US to adopt policies that are beneficial to Russia by installing leaders who are beholden to those interests.

Which should make us all very, very nervous.

The fact that you keep trying to make our national sovereignty a partisan issue should make us all downright terrified.

Lately I've been wondering if this isn't a "Hero" situation. Like... the two greatest powers on Earth band together to keep everyone else in check... until one of the two betrays the other to have total control.

[Thondalar]

Democrats are the accomplices?

Uh. Riiight.

Well, yes. Russia has been doing this for decades...but because you think there might be some way to tie it to Trump(with zero actual evidence, just some half-baked conspiracy theories), you're suddenly making a deal about it.


And their primary goal isn't to legitimize the electoral process. It's to get the US to adopt policies that are beneficial to Russia by installing leaders who are beholden to those interests.

Delegitimize. Putin couldn't care less who the actual President of the US is, and if you seriously think Trump will be easier on him than Hillary already has been, you're more insane than I already thought you were.


Which should make us all very, very nervous.

It makes me very, very nervous that someone with your supposed acumen and intellect can't grasp the concept that chasing ghosts and questioning Trump's election is exactly what someone like Putin would want you to do.


The fact that you keep trying to make our national sovereignty a partisan issue should make us all downright terrified.

Man, how should I approach this one...

1) Since when does our "national sovereignty" mean a damn thing to you?

2) I'm saying Russia is doing what Russia has done for a long time now, something they have done in every Presidential election for decades, both Dem and Rep. That's hardly partisan.

3) We can prove that Russia has attempted to meddle in our election process in many ways for a long time now. The only thing seemingly partisan in this conversation is your belief that Trump is somehow in collusion with the Russian government...but I'm sure this notion is based purely on facts, and has nothing to do with your partisan bias. What were those facts again?

[Androidpk]

The "entire MSM=bad" thing comes from the fact that they have completely abandoned journalistic integrity in favor of blatantly promoting a political/corporate agenda

fixed

[Parkbandit]

Democrats are the accomplices?

Uh. Riiight.

And their primary goal isn't to legitimize the electoral process. It's to get the US to adopt policies that are beneficial to Russia by installing leaders who are beholden to those interests.

Which should make us all very, very nervous.

The fact that you keep trying to make our national sovereignty a partisan issue should make us all downright terrified.

Please get your meds evened out. If you are "very, very nervous" and "downright terrified", you are clearly unstable.

[Wrathbringer]

Democrats are the accomplices?

Uh. Riiight.

And their primary goal isn't to legitimize the electoral process. It's to get the US to adopt policies that are beneficial to Russia by installing leaders who are beholden to those interests.

Which should make us all very, very nervous.

The fact that you keep trying to make our national sovereignty a partisan issue should make us all downright terrified.

Again, I'm tired of pointing out that you're retarded but you just keep posting.