RussiaGate

[Jimmy Higgins]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)]

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.]

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]

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.]

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.

 

[barbos]

So, yes, he was a private citizen negotiating with a foreign power before quite being legal to do so.

No, he was not negotiating.

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...

They can break the law all they want, they just can't complain about the law when they have the same law themselves.
US state department can't complain about Putin kicking out foreign money/influence from the politics when they have the same laws. Seriously, imagine if Russia were financing Trump campaign, yet this is what US is often did when it comes to Russia.

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

I don't follow you here.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't follow you here.

You are being obfuscated.

 

[Elixir]

No, he was not negotiating.

And you know that ...How? Did Breitbart tell you? Faux Nooz? Or did you get it from RT?

If this was just some chummy conversation, why shouldn't they release the transcripts and recordings? The fact that they have not done so indicates that there was sensitive content, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, he was not negotiating.

And you know that ...How?

It is kind of surprising that barbos doesn't show up more in creationist threads. EVERYONE ELSE needs full and complete, documented support for their every utterance, while is free to offer bare assertions and call it good.

 

[Elixir]

And you know that ...How?

It is kind of surprising that barbos doesn't show up more in creationist threads. EVERYONE ELSE needs full and complete, documented support for their every utterance, while is free to offer bare assertions and call it good.

In all fairness, not quite everyone is subject to that requirement. The other Russian shill, whichphilosophy, is also free to make vacuous uninformed pronouncements.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

The request was not made to Director Comey, but to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

I wonder how long Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gets to keep his job

 

[Will Wiley]

Flynn IS evidence.

Saying the words "Flynn is evidence"is not providing evidence.

No wonder you guys ended up with Trump as your President.

 

[Elixir]

Flynn IS evidence.

Saying the words "Flynn is evidence"is not providing evidence.

The fact that the transcripts and recordings of Flynn's "innocent" call to the Russian ambassador have not been released, IS evidence of nefarious activity, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. Or ... perhaps you have another explanation for keeping it secret?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Saying the words "Flynn is evidence"is not providing evidence.

The fact that the transcripts and recordings of Flynn's "innocent" call to the Russian ambassador have not been released, IS evidence of nefarious activity, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. Or ... perhaps you have another explanation for keeping it secret?

Maybe Flynn's writing a movie script about his experiences as a National Security Advisor and has copyrighted the conversation?

Of course, the title will be a problem. If he goes with '24' people will think it's a Jack Bauer movie.
'Land Speed Record,' they'll think it's an Olympics movie.
'In and Out,' people will be wondering why there's a movie about a burger joint...
'Betrayed Trump' will just lead to lawsuits as everyone will want to use that title...

 

[Elixir]

The fact that the transcripts and recordings of Flynn's "innocent" call to the Russian ambassador have not been released, IS evidence of nefarious activity, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. Or ... perhaps you have another explanation for keeping it secret?

Maybe Flynn's writing a movie script about his experiences as a National Security Advisor and has copyrighted the conversation?

Of course, the title will be a problem. If he goes with '24' people will think it's a Jack Bauer movie.
'Land Speed Record,' they'll think it's an Olympics movie.
'In and Out,' people will be wondering why there's a movie about a burger joint...
'Betrayed Trump' will just lead to lawsuits as everyone will want to use that title...

Seriously though... if that call was so innocuous, they could have made the whole kerfuffle go away in a heartbeat just by releasing the recording.
Why didn't they?
Why haven't they still? At the very least, it must have content that is germane to ongoing investigation(s). At worst ... whothehell knows? I suspect that in some way or another it would reek of the billionaire cabal's ambitions to sell Russian (and other off-limits) oil.