Russia Investigation Heating Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

I haven't worked at Goodwill since 2013.

---

LOL.

Quote:

---

I don't sponge off any friends.

---

LOL x2.

Quote:

---

I certainly don't spend all day and night in a room.

---

LOL x3.

Quote:

---

Stop obsessing over and get a life.

---

LOL x4.

Quote:

---

Stop acting like a creepy old man.

---

LOL x5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwolff

This. Steele is a damn hero. He's a patriot and an ally who's worked his adult life defending the UK and aiding U.S. intelligence too. The right attacking him the way they have is shameful.

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_exCCaXsAE19H0.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

You're retarded.

---

https://i.imgur.com/YtkY319.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

https://i.imgur.com/YtkY319.png

---

Attachment 8943

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

I think the real issue here is that the fact that the Dossier seemed to predict some of the oddest stances Trump took as a candidate (lifting Russian sanctions?!?

---

So, he said one thing and did another? Interesting, sounds like a standard political candidate. With your myriad of degrees and so much supposed foreign policy experience even you should recognize that.

Quote:

---

Criticizing NATO- particularly Article 5? These are both bizarre and dangerous stances for the US and its allies),

---

Umm, expecting us to come to their aid when they won't meet their other treaty obligations and haven't for ridiculous periods of time, specifically not meeting their defense spending commitments, is very presumptuous on their part. Why should we live up to a treaty they refuse to abide by?

Quote:

---

There's enough public information at this point to verify several of the most important claims in it, and that alone tells us that it's very likely that the Trump campaign did, in fact, make a deal with Russia.

---

Yep, a deal that includes not lifting sanctions, adding more sanctions, expelling diplomats in response to their use of chemical weapons in an assassination (wonder why we didn't go after them when they used nuclear materials to conduct an assassination previously and shelling the shit out of Russian backed mercs in Syria. Some deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

So, he said one thing and did another? Interesting, sounds like a standard political candidate. With your myriad of degrees and so much supposed foreign policy experience even you should recognize that.



Umm, expecting us to come to their aid when they won't meet their other treaty obligations and haven't for ridiculous periods of time, specifically not meeting their defense spending commitments, is very presumptuous on their part. Why should we live up to a treaty they refuse to abide by?



Yep, a deal that includes not lifting sanctions, adding more sanctions, expelling diplomats in response to their use of chemical weapons in an assassination (wonder why we didn't go after them when they used nuclear materials to conduct an assassination previously and shelling the shit out of Russian backed mercs in Syria. Some deal.

---

1) "He said one thing and did another"- that would be an incorrect recount of what happened. The Trump campaign DID immediately try to lift Russian sanctions that were enacted in response to the election tampering. Congress's bill was a direct response to that- to keep that from happening.

2) NATO does meet its treaty obligations, and- most importantly- NATO "just happens" to be the single biggest barrier to Russia's geopolitical dominance. But you're distracting from the actual point here- which is that 1) This is a position that is only held byPutin and the politicians that he has backed in European countries. 2) The Dossier correctly "predicted" that Trump would take a stance against NATO. Prior to Trump, no major Presidential candidates in the US have opposed NATO in any form in decades.

3) The sanctions were mandated by Congress- so that's an utterly ridiculous statement to make. The Trump administration actually went back to Congress and told them there was no need for new sanctions. Then, when politically cornered (by Mueller's indictment presumably), they levied sanctions against organizations like the IRA but not any of the Oligarchs close to Putin. The sanctions were put in place to be of minimal impact to Putin and his power. (The guy who ordered the election meddling done by the IRA)

And initially, Trump didn't bother mentioning the assassination attempt on British soil in his call with Putin. It was only after immense domestic and international pressure that he bothered mentioning it and responding. (The US was NOT the first country to expel diplomats)

And your reasoning for us not going after Russia over the nerve agent is utterly ridiculous. We damaged our relationship with our most important Ally in an effort to avoid offending our greatest geopolitical enemy. The only winner there was Russia.

I genuinely don't understand what the point of your post was. You completely and utterly distorted what has actually been going on. What is the benefit of lying about what's happening?

Honestly though, it is nice to have you back Time4fun. I'm feeling all.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d8FTPv955I&t=34s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwolff

This. Steele is a damn hero. He's a patriot and an ally who's worked his adult life defending the UK and aiding U.S. intelligence too. The right attacking him the way they have is shameful.

---

Grassley and Graham should be ashamed of themselves. They should both be voted out of office for attacking someone who risked his own life to help protect our Democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by time4fun

1) "He said one thing and did another"- that would be an incorrect recount of what happened. The Trump campaign DID immediately try to lift Russian sanctions that were enacted in response to the election tampering. Congress's bill was a direct response to that- to keep that from happening.

2) NATO does meet its treaty obligations, and- most importantly- NATO "just happens" to be the single biggest barrier to Russia's geopolitical dominance. But you're distracting from the actual point here- which is that 1) This is a position that is only held byPutin and the politicians that he has backed in European countries. 2) The Dossier correctly "predicted" that Trump would take a stance against NATO. Prior to Trump, no major Presidential candidates in the US have opposed NATO in any form in decades.

3) The sanctions were mandated by Congress- so that's an utterly ridiculous statement to make. The Trump administration actually went back to Congress and told them there was no need for new sanctions. Then, when politically cornered (by Mueller's indictment presumably), they levied sanctions against organizations like the IRA but not any of the Oligarchs close to Putin. The sanctions were put in place to be of minimal impact to Putin and his power. (The guy who ordered the election meddling done by the IRA)

And initially, Trump didn't bother mentioning the assassination attempt on British soil in his call with Putin. It was only after immense domestic and international pressure that he bothered mentioning it and responding. (The US was NOT the first country to expel diplomats)

And your reasoning for us not going after Russia over the nerve agent is utterly ridiculous. We damaged our relationship with our most important Ally in an effort to avoid offending our greatest geopolitical enemy. The only winner there was Russia.

I genuinely don't understand what the point of your post was. You completely and utterly distorted what has actually been going on. What is the benefit of lying about what's happening?

---

Before the election everyone and their brother was going on about playing nice with Russia and trying the carrot and not the stick. Hummmm, that is what Liberals/Socialists have been wanting for a long time. Most NATO members have completely NOT met their treaty obligations in regards to mandated defense spending, some of them for decades so try again. You really need to look at the sanctions as many of them directly go after Putin's buddies and money suppliers. And now you are arguing that because we didn't do the first sanctions that ours don't count. You really are a piece of work. You are almost as good at rationalizing your idiotic position as Latrin is. You need to sober up or get clean and re-read what I said about the assassination, I didn't wonder why they didn't or did, just why we didn't go after them for the nuclear assassination. Your understanding of what I said is almost as bad as your perception of reality. Seriously, put down the pipe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

Before the election everyone and their brother was going on about playing nice with Russia and trying the carrot and not the stick. Hummmm, that is what Liberals/Socialists have been wanting for a long time. Most NATO members have completely NOT met their treaty obligations in regards to mandated defense spending, some of them for decades so try again. You really need to look at the sanctions as many of them directly go after Putin's buddies and money suppliers. And now you are arguing that because we didn't do the first sanctions that ours don't count. You really are a piece of work. You are almost as good at rationalizing your idiotic position as Latrin is. You need to sober up or get clean and re-read what I said about the assassination, I didn't wonder why they didn't or did, just why we didn't go after them for the nuclear assassination. Your understanding of what I said is almost as bad as your perception of reality. Seriously, put down the pipe.

---

Not after Russia was caught meddling in our election. You're actually talking about years prior to the election. We were attacked by Russia- they were hacking into voter registration systems, were hacking emails from the candidate they didn't like, sending bountiful resources and people to the Trump campaign, illegally spending money on ads intended to boost their chosen candidate, etc.

This really shouldn't be shocking to you, but after a country attacks you- it requires you to adjust your stance. For the first time in US history, our response to the attack was to try to do that country some favors.

As for NATO funding- you are 100% incorrect. I recommend that you leverage fact checking sites before you start uncritically buying political rhetoric.

When you say "the" sanctions- you are eliding two VERY different things: existing sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, and the sanctions that the Trump administration finally (after months of refusal) enacted. And the latter sanctions were incredibly weak. In fact, some of the entities on the list were already sanctioned.

I'm genuinely curious- is this a situation where you are so holed up in right-wing news sources that you don't actually know what's going on in the world? Or is this a situation where you are intentionally distorting the facts because you think it makes for an effective argument?