• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

RussiaGate

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Well-known member
The latest news on RussiaGate is this. Trump asked the FBI to exonerate him!

FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories

Washington (CNN)The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.

The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.

The discussions between the White House and the bureau began with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on the sidelines of a separate White House meeting the day after the stories were published, according to a U.S. law enforcement official.

The White House initially disputed that account, saying that McCabe called Priebus early that morning and said The New York Times story vastly overstates what the FBI knows about the contacts.

But a White House official later corrected their version of events to confirm what the law enforcement official described.

The same White House official said that Priebus later reached out again to McCabe and to FBI Director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background to dispute the stories. A law enforcement official says McCabe didn't discuss aspects of the case but wouldn't say exactly what McCabe told Priebus.

Comey rejected the request for the FBI to comment on the stories, according to sources, because the alleged communications between Trump associates and Russians known to US intelligence are the subject of an ongoing investigation.

...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/polit...st-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories/
 

braces_for_impact

Well-known member
So, nefarious or stupid. Everything this administration does falls into those two camps, and often it's hard to tell which clasification any given event it should be placed in. Sometimes it's one or another. Often it's both.
 

laughing dog

Well-known member
Given the FBI's help to Trump during the last weeks of the election, I am surprised to see it demur now. I wonder what is going on behind the scenes.
 

Will Wiley

Well-known member
I don't doubt that Trump would try that. But I also doubt that story is true.

Unfortunately CNN quoting anonymous officials is not a credible story.

Trump hates CNN. CNN hates Trump. CNN posts unsupported story about Trump. People who hate Trump more than they like evidence believe these stories.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Trump hates CNN.

Makes no bones about that...

CNN hates Trump.

That is certainly not clear - Trump has been a golden goose for their ratings for some 18 months now. Their reporting is fairly neutral, compared to Faux news on the right and MSNBC on the left. There may be individuals there who hate Trump, but the reporting doesn't reflect that. When Flynn was being outed and it was a hot story on MSNBC, CNN was reporting rather calmly. FOX news was "covering" a story about a high school glee club.
 

untermensche

Well-known member
Watergate was about illegally breaking into a psychiatrists office to try to get incriminating evidence. Nixon went down for a coverup, not ordering the break in.

This is about using the Russians to hack into private accounts to try to get incriminating evidence. With the promise of reducing sanctions once in office.

The only question, and there are no tapes, is what and when did Trump know?

Somebody has already fallen on their sword over this.

If all else are faithful that may be as far as it goes.

There are no tapes, that we know of.
 

Harry Bosch

Well-known member
Watergate was about illegally breaking into a psychiatrists office to try to get incriminating evidence. Nixon went down for a coverup, not ordering the break in.

This is about using the Russians to hack into private accounts to try to get incriminating evidence. With the promise of reducing sanctions once in office.

The only question, and there are no tapes, is what and when did Trump know?

Somebody has already fallen on their sword over this.

If all else are faithful that may be as far as it goes.

There are no tapes, that we know of.

It's vital that the dems retake congress in two years so that we can have an exhaustive investigation into this.
 

Malintent

Well-known member
I am of the opinion that the only thing standing between us and the collapse of American principles are our Military / Intelligence community. These non-politicians are steeped in Duty and Honor and will not be intimidated by a would-be dictator, internal or external to our nation. Not one single officer would be intimidated in the slightest by fascist threats. They will do their jobs, and do them thoroughly, unbiased, and without concern for anyone's fragile feelings or threats of tantrums. If something fishy is really happening, heads will roll (in court, or on a grassy knoll, either way).
 

braces_for_impact

Well-known member
I don't doubt that Trump would try that. But I also doubt that story is true.

Unfortunately CNN quoting anonymous officials is not a credible story.

Trump hates CNN. CNN hates Trump. CNN posts unsupported story about Trump. People who hate Trump more than they like evidence believe these stories.

Well your skepticism isn't founded in this case, as it's been confirmed by several other media outlets, and then confirmed by the White Houe.

The White House confirmed Thursday night that the conversation between Priebus and FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe occurred on Feb. 15, but said it was McCabe who initiated the contact to inform Priebus that a New York Times report was overstating the nature of their investigation, Politico reported.
 

Horatio Parker

Well-known member
I am of the opinion that the only thing standing between us and the collapse of American principles are our Military / Intelligence community. These non-politicians are steeped in Duty and Honor and will not be intimidated by a would-be dictator, internal or external to our nation. Not one single officer would be intimidated in the slightest by fascist threats. They will do their jobs, and do them thoroughly, unbiased, and without concern for anyone's fragile feelings or threats of tantrums. If something fishy is really happening, heads will roll (in court, or on a grassy knoll, either way).

I consider this a distinct possibility as well. I think it far more likely than a power grab by the "Deep State".
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Well your skepticism isn't founded in this case, as it's been confirmed by several other media outlets, and then confirmed by the White Houe.

The White House confirmed Thursday night that the conversation between Priebus and FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe occurred on Feb. 15, but said it was McCabe who initiated the contact to inform Priebus that a New York Times report was overstating the nature of their investigation, Politico reported.

When WW expresses skepticism rather than outright rejection of a story that implicates El Cheato, that's a solid sign that the story is true.
 

Malintent

Well-known member
I am of the opinion that the only thing standing between us and the collapse of American principles are our Military / Intelligence community. These non-politicians are steeped in Duty and Honor and will not be intimidated by a would-be dictator, internal or external to our nation. Not one single officer would be intimidated in the slightest by fascist threats. They will do their jobs, and do them thoroughly, unbiased, and without concern for anyone's fragile feelings or threats of tantrums. If something fishy is really happening, heads will roll (in court, or on a grassy knoll, either way).

I consider this a distinct possibility as well. I think it far more likely than a power grab by the "Deep State".

I have heard the opinion that the so-called "Deep State" IS the Intelligence community keeping things from getting unfixable.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
Watergate was about illegally breaking into a psychiatrists office to try to get incriminating evidence.
You mean "blackmail".
Nixon went down for a coverup, not ordering the break in.
Yeah, the funny thing about Watergate is that the systemic rat fucking of the Republican Party was the unbelievably ugly and unethical thing happening. The coverup, which ended a Presidency was bad, but not as big a threat to democracy as was the break-in itself.

This is about using the Russians to hack into private accounts to try to get incriminating evidence. With the promise of reducing sanctions once in office.

The only question, and there are no tapes, is what and when did Trump know?
Communication is digital and we know that the Government records a lot and they record even more with stuff going overseas to shady places like Russia. There may be digital information out there... the US may already have it.

Somebody has already fallen on their sword over this.

If all else are faithful that may be as far as it goes.
Except Trump has done a good job of alienating the Intelligence side of things. So while the Trump Admin can stay tight-lipped, the Intelligence doesn't. And a leak is what brought down Nixon, and I think many more people hate and fear a Trump Admin in DC than those did with a Nixon Admin.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
I consider this a distinct possibility as well. I think it far more likely than a power grab by the "Deep State".

I have heard the opinion that the so-called "Deep State" IS the Intelligence community keeping things from getting unfixable.
Trump is compromised. His hard shift towards Russia can't be explained any other way. The question becomes, who knows what, via how. Is the intelligence prosecutable or is it enough to make him resign or do that want to take the traitors down and put them in prison?

Our nation is in some unprecedented shit right now. Not even 50 days into this Administration and the Intelligence groups are pressing all sorts of panic buttons.
 

Malintent

Well-known member
Another statement I heard from an informed source is that Obama, at the last second right before vacating the White House, issued an EO (or the like) giving the NSA the ability to disclose findings from investigations directly to the public. It was apparently a surprise to all that he did this, and the reasons were unknown as to why he would suddenly do something like that "out of nowhere".

Perhaps, now that we are starting to learn more, we can surmise that he saw something and did that to ensure the most trusted people in government have the power to stop massive conspiracies and get around corrupt leadership, in the name of justice, truth, and the American way.

Does anyone know anything else about that, or know more about this alleged action that Obama took?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
So, nefarious or stupid. Everything this administration does falls into those two camps, and often it's hard to tell which clasification any given event it should be placed in. Sometimes it's one or another. Often it's both.

Tell the difference? Many of them are stupidly nefarious!
 

Will Wiley

Well-known member
Well your skepticism isn't founded in this case, as it's been confirmed by several other media outlets, and then confirmed by the White Houe.

When WW expresses skepticism rather than outright rejection of a story that implicates El Cheato, that's a solid sign that the story is true.

Nothing that has been posted is evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Well your skepticism isn't founded in this case, as it's been confirmed by several other media outlets, and then confirmed by the White Houe.

The White House confirmed Thursday night that the conversation between Priebus and FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe occurred on Feb. 15, but said it was McCabe who initiated the contact to inform Priebus that a New York Times report was overstating the nature of their investigation, Politico reported.

Just what part of anything that has been posted constitutes evidence that CNN accurately reported anything.
Go back, re read it all.
 

Will Wiley

Well-known member
I am of the opinion that the only thing standing between us and the collapse of American principles are our Military / Intelligence community. .

Um.....what principles have they been supporting in recent years?
Kidnapping?
Torture?
Lying to congress?
Illegally obtaining information on US citizens?
Extra judicial killing of US citizens?
Spreading faulty intelligence leading to thousands being killed?


What we see from them is a goal, that they focus on and keep doubling down on, and they are prepared to abandon any principle to achieve it.


What principles are you referring to?
 
Last edited:

Will Wiley

Well-known member
Liberals Beware: Lie Down With Dogs, Get Up With Fleas

The New York Times is currently engaged in one of its most ambitious projects: Removing a sitting president from office. In fact, Times columnist Nicolas Kristof even said as much in a recent article titled “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?”

Frankly, it’s an idea that I find attractive, mainly because I think Trump’s views on immigration, the environment, human rights, civil liberties and deregulation are so uniformly horrible, they could destroy the country. But the Times objections are different from my own. The reason the Times wants Trump removed is because Trump wants to normalize relations with Russia which threatens to undermine Washington’s effort to project US power deeper into Central Asia.

Trump’s decision to normalize relations with Moscow poses a direct threat to Washington’s broader imperial strategy to control China’s growth, topple Putin, spread military bases across Central Asia, implement trade agreements that maintain the dominant role of western-owned mega-corporations, and derail attempts by Russia and China to link the wealthy EU to Asia by expanding the web of pipeline corridors and high-speed rail that will draw the continents closer together creating the largest and most populous free trade zone the world has ever seen.

This is what the US foreign policy establishment and, by inclusion, the Times are trying to avoid at all cost. The economic integration of Asia and Europe must be blocked to preserve Washington’s hegemonic grip on world power. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell.
 

blastula

Well-known member
When WW expresses skepticism rather than outright rejection of a story that implicates El Cheato, that's a solid sign that the story is true.

Nothing that has been posted is evidence.

It's been posted that the White House has officially confirmed it. True, this White House has been astonishingly dishonest, but given the context, that counts as solid confirmation.

The prior reporting using anonymous sources was also good evidence. That they were anonymous doesn't merit blanket rejection. That's not how you read the news. A news outfit's reputation depends on their track record, so the real news media are motivated to use good sources. If they have established a track record of reliable sourcing, you can provisionally trust what's been reported. Given the context of this story and sourcing, it could be trusted enough, especially so with this administration with the many staff who want to talk. And as we have now seen confirmed, the anonymous sourcing was in fact trustworthy.

Maybe you're young, but you clearly have yet to learn how to read the news yet. They should teach it in school. I have heard some schools are working on that now.
 

Will Wiley

Well-known member
What is IT? YOu said the whitehouse confirmed IT?

1.Who confirmed anything. What evidence do you have?
2.What precisely did they confirm? What evidence do you have?

Do you know what thread you're in?

All we know at best is that two people spoke. We don't know, even if the story is true, that the whitehouse confirmed CNN's slant and details of what was said.

You are not only in the wrong thread, you are on the wrong forum. Here, on this forum, we have a community who strive to present evidence.
You need to find another forum if you can't do that.
 

Will Wiley

Well-known member
The prior reporting using anonymous sources was also good evidence. That they were anonymous doesn't merit blanket rejection. That's not how you read the news. A news outfit's reputation depends on their track record, so the real news media are motivated to use good sources. If they have established a track record of reliable sourcing, you can provisionally trust what's been reported. Given the context of this story and sourcing, it could be trusted enough, especially so with this administration with the many staff who want to talk. And as we have now seen confirmed, the anonymous sourcing was in fact trustworthy.

Maybe you're young, but you clearly have yet to learn how to read the news yet. They should teach it in school. I have heard some schools are working on that now.

I understand how you appear to read the news. You listen to anonymous officials then cheer on an invasion of a foreign country and start killing women and children. These claims prove to false. Then years afterwards you claim these same sources are trustworthy.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/03/a-reprise-of-the-iraq-wmd-fiasco/

A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco?




The administration was able to launder what were essentially “fake news” stories, such as the aluminum tubes fabrication, by leaking to Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller of The New York Times. In September 2002, without an ounce of skepticism, Gordon and Miller regurgitated the claims of unnamed U.S. intelligence officials that Iraq “has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes … intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.” Gordon and Miller faithfully relayed “the intelligence agencies’ unanimous view that the type of tubes that Iraq has been seeking are used to make centrifuges.”

You will excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm.

Or are you going to claim that when it came to Iraq, you knew those claims weren't true, but on this occasion you know they are?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
I understand how you appear to read the news. You listen to anonymous officials then cheer on an invasion of a foreign country and start killing women and children. These claims prove to false. Then years afterwards you claim these same sources are trustworthy.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/03/a-reprise-of-the-iraq-wmd-fiasco/

A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco?




The administration was able to launder what were essentially “fake news” stories, such as the aluminum tubes fabrication, by leaking to Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller of The New York Times. In September 2002, without an ounce of skepticism, Gordon and Miller regurgitated the claims of unnamed U.S. intelligence officials that Iraq “has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes … intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.” Gordon and Miller faithfully relayed “the intelligence agencies’ unanimous view that the type of tubes that Iraq has been seeking are used to make centrifuges.”

You will excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm.

Or are you going to claim that when it came to Iraq, you knew those claims weren't true, but on this occasion you know they are?
Geesh, someone likes going to the Iraq well over and over again.
 

J842P

Well-known member
I understand how you appear to read the news. You listen to anonymous officials then cheer on an invasion of a foreign country and start killing women and children. These claims prove to false. Then years afterwards you claim these same sources are trustworthy.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/03/a-reprise-of-the-iraq-wmd-fiasco/

A Reprise of the Iraq-WMD Fiasco?






You will excuse me if I don't share your enthusiasm.

Or are you going to claim that when it came to Iraq, you knew those claims weren't true, but on this occasion you know they are?
Geesh, someone likes going to the Iraq well over and over again.

The well of the CIA's lying, propagandizing, torture, and downright thuggery is a deep one. Iraq just happens to be at the top.
 

Will Wiley

Well-known member
What is the connection between US invasion of Iraq and Russiagate?

It is part of Putin/authoritarian propaganda to excuse their human rights violations and other bad behavior. "But US does it too..."

Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?

Particularly appalling has been the grotesque anti-Russian tirades in an attempt to brand Trump as a “traitor” ripe for impeachment. For the record, all Trump has ever stated is an intention to improve relations with Moscow expressing the view that the two powerful nations should “get along together”, and work, for example, to eliminate ISIS and secure a lasting peace in Syria. Possibly the real reasons that Trump might want to improve US relations with Russia have less to do with personal financial connections, as his critics allege, but part of a calculated response to Russia’s “Eurasian turn” in recent years and designed to detach Moscow from its strengthening strategic and economic alliance with China and Iran; based on an understanding that they would one day form a mighty bloc capable of challenging US supremacy on the world stage not least with regards to the role of the dollar as the main global currency for pegging exchange rates. Regrettably, such considerations are rarely considered by Trump’s overexcited critics who largely eschew political analysis.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Well-known member
It is part of Putin/authoritarian propaganda to excuse their human rights violations and other bad behavior. "But US does it too..."

Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?

Particularly appalling has been the grotesque anti-Russian tirades in an attempt to brand Trump as a “traitor” ripe for impeachment. For the record, all Trump has ever stated is an intention to improve relations with Moscow expressing the view that the two powerful nations should “get along together”, and work, for example, to eliminate ISIS and secure a lasting peace in Syria. Possibly the real reasons that Trump might want to improve US relations with Russia have less to do with personal financial connections, as his critics allege, but part of a calculated response to Russia’s “Eurasian turn” in recent years and designed to detach Moscow from its strengthening strategic and economic alliance with China and Iran; based on an understanding that they would one day form a mighty bloc capable of challenging US supremacy on the world stage not least with regards to the role of the dollar as the main global currency for pegging exchange rates. Regrettably, such considerations are rarely considered by Trump’s overexcited critics who largely eschew political analysis.

I don't have a problem with trying to improve relations with Russia. That's a strawman and not what the thread is about. Given Elixir's response to you about Flynn and Manafort, you must know this.
 

barbos

Well-known member
Present some actual real evidence and we can discuss it.
Until you do it's just a circle jerk

Flynn.
Manafort.

Your move.

And what did Flynn do? I mean besides "forgetting" what he did. He merely called russian ambassador and told him not to react to provocations from Obama administrations which russians did. Yes, he stupidly "forgot" to mention it to the FBI. But so have Hillary and her staff many times. As for the law which forbids private people contacting foreign officials this smells Soviet Union style of paranoia. And US officials don't mind breaking it themselves and then blaming other party for being totalitarian. Yes, I am talking about american ambassador talking to opposition in Russia, according to that law that would be illegal.

As for Manafort, he is an ordinary election SOB for hire.
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
As for the law which forbids private people contacing foreign officials .
No, the law is against people representing the government when they're not in a position to do so.`

You can't speak FOR the government until you AM the government, either elected as an official or appointed to do so on behalf of the elected official.

And US officials don't mind breaking it themselves and then blaming other party for being totalitarian.
Well, that's silly.
If they're OFFICIALS of the US, they cannot break this law about private citizens illegally presenting themselves as US OFFICIALS.
It's like arresting a cop for impersonating a cop...
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Well-known member
Since there's a question on the table as to, "Flynn, so what?" I'd like to write that there's a reason the thread is called RussiaGate. This is bigger than just Flynn and Manafort, though that's part of a larger picture that is developing...

Pieces of the puzzle so far (feel free to contribute):
1. The Russians were involved in pro-Trump election propaganda. This is an established reliable fact;
2. Flynn telling Russians behind the scenes that if Trump is elected he will be easy on the Russians. This is an established reliable fact;
3. Certain electronic footprints seem to indicate Russian hacking, though this is not that reliable;
4. Story about Trump and golden showers which also might not be reliable;
5. Trump telling the Russians to find Hillary's emails. This is an established reliable fact;
6. From the op "FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians..."
 

Jimmy Higgins

Well-known member
Flynn.
Manafort.

Your move.

And what did Flynn do? I mean besides "forgetting" what he did. He merely called russian ambassador and told him not to react to provocations from Obama administrations which russians did. Yes, he stupidly "forgot" to mention it to the FBI. But so have Hillary and her staff many times. As for the law which forbids private people contacting foreign officials this smells Soviet Union style of paranoia. And US officials don't mind breaking it themselves and then blaming other party for being totalitarian. Yes, I am talking about american ambassador talking to opposition in Russia, according to that law that would be illegal.

As for Manafort, he is an ordinary election SOB for hire.
The Trump Admin fire Flynn, so this whole, 'what'd he do?' crap is dumb. If he didn't do something wrong, he wouldn't have been cut loose.
 

braces_for_impact

Well-known member
And what did Flynn do? I mean besides "forgetting" what he did. He merely called russian ambassador and told him not to react to provocations from Obama administrations which russians did. Yes, he stupidly "forgot" to mention it to the FBI. But so have Hillary and her staff many times. As for the law which forbids private people contacting foreign officials this smells Soviet Union style of paranoia. And US officials don't mind breaking it themselves and then blaming other party for being totalitarian. Yes, I am talking about american ambassador talking to opposition in Russia, according to that law that would be illegal.

As for Manafort, he is an ordinary election SOB for hire.
The Trump Admin fire Flynn, so this whole, 'what'd he do?' crap is dumb. If he didn't do something wrong, he wouldn't have been cut loose.

Exactly. Especially when the administration stated Flynn was fired because an "eroding level of trust". Yet the next day, Trump said Flynn was treated unfairly. What?
 

Will Wiley

Well-known member
Um...has anyone actually tried to use that stated intention as the basis for a call for impeachment?
You obviously missed the bizarre tweeting Michael Moore has been doing :)

https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/831558794744315906?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

The very next paragraph in the article I linked to mentioned him also. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/24/trump-and-the-left-a-case-of-mass-hysteria/

Most disgracefully of all, the left has willingly joined in the anti-Russian feeding frenzy. Michael Moore, showing no scruples about employing the language of Senator McCarthy, called Trump a “Russian traitor…squatting in our oval office” and demanded his immediate impeachment.
 

Will Wiley

Well-known member
I don't have a problem with trying to improve relations with Russia. That's a strawman and not what the thread is about. Given Elixir's response to you about Flynn and Manafort, you must know this.

I asked for evidence , he gave none.
But again. If one of you would provide evidence then we could discuss evidence.

Having CNN or WAPO or the NYT quote vague statements from anonymous officials is not evidence. I gave you evidence of why it is not evidence. If that were evidence then the fake stories spread about Iraq's WMD would have been true and not fake. ;)
Why do you insist upon believing proven liars?
You guys could even learn something from George W Bush

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A[/YOUTUBE]
 

barbos

Well-known member
No, the law is against people representing the government when they're not in a position to do so.`

You can't speak FOR the government until you AM the government,
And he was not representing the government. He was representing future government. And Russian ambassador knew he was not yet in the government.
either elected as an official or appointed to do so on behalf of the elected official.

And US officials don't mind breaking it themselves and then blaming other party for being totalitarian.
Well, that's silly.
If they're OFFICIALS of the US, they cannot break this law about private citizens illegally presenting themselves as US OFFICIALS.
It's like arresting a cop for impersonating a cop...
I am talking about Russian law. If it were the same as in US Putin could have thrown opposition leaders to prison for merely talking to American officials.
 

barbos

Well-known member
And what did Flynn do? I mean besides "forgetting" what he did. He merely called russian ambassador and told him not to react to provocations from Obama administrations which russians did. Yes, he stupidly "forgot" to mention it to the FBI. But so have Hillary and her staff many times. As for the law which forbids private people contacting foreign officials this smells Soviet Union style of paranoia. And US officials don't mind breaking it themselves and then blaming other party for being totalitarian. Yes, I am talking about american ambassador talking to opposition in Russia, according to that law that would be illegal.

As for Manafort, he is an ordinary election SOB for hire.
The Trump Admin fire Flynn, so this whole, 'what'd he do?' crap is dumb. If he didn't do something wrong, he wouldn't have been cut loose.
Yes, this is correct but it did not stop press going apeshit about it as if russians were controlling Trump government. Maybe they are, but this Flynn story is no evidence of that.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Well-known member
I don't have a problem with trying to improve relations with Russia. That's a strawman and not what the thread is about. Given Elixir's response to you about Flynn and Manafort, you must know this.

I asked for evidence , he gave none.
But again. If one of you would provide evidence then we could discuss evidence.

Having CNN or WAPO or the NYT quote vague statements from anonymous officials is not evidence. I gave you evidence of why it is not evidence. If that were evidence then the fake stories spread about Iraq's WMD would have been true and not fake. ;)
Why do you insist upon believing proven liars?
You guys could even learn something from George W Bush

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A[/YOUTUBE]

Flynn IS evidence.
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
Um...has anyone actually tried to use that stated intention as the basis for a call for impeachment?
You obviously missed the bizarre tweeting Michael Moore has been doing :)
Um, again, i have to ask, has anyone tried to use 'that stated intention' as the sole basis of a charge of treason? Is anyone calling for impeachment SOLELY because he says he wants better relations with Russia?

Or is this just strawmanning the issue?
 

Elixir

Content Thief
You obviously missed the bizarre tweeting Michael Moore has been doing :)
Um, again, i have to ask, has anyone tried to use 'that stated intention' as the sole basis of a charge of treason? Is anyone calling for impeachment SOLELY because he says he wants better relations with Russia?

Or is this just strawmanning the issue?

ANYTHING to divert attention away from the clear and present need for a thorough independent investigation...
 

Keith&Co.

Well-known member
And he was not representing the government. He was representing future government.
So, yes, he was a private citizen negotiating with a foreign power before quite being legal to do so.
I am talking about Russian law.
IN the name of any randomly selected deity, why? US officials cannot break a Russian law about citizens negotiating in the place of officials...

What an odd defense.
OR it would be if the goal weren't so clearly obfuscation.
 
Top