The Russians and the 2016 Election PT III

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

It might. Want to wager? EVERY leading Dem that has been briefed has said there's no there there. The base won't accept that.

And BTW - a "Scooter Libby" outcome does not equal "substantial".

I'll bet something substantial comes of it. Even if it's getting the biggest piece of shit greedy out for only himself sexual predator president to change his asinine ways.

What's the bet?

DWags wrote:We don't have to define substantial. We can agree. A pie vs an autographed poster by every girl on the cheer and dance team.

tGreenWay wrote:I've heard Dem reps and senators say there's something there. We all heard L Graham say the other day this is now a criminal investigation. Now.
The real investigation is just getting started; let the child fall where they may. I don't like any of the policy moves Trump has made, but that's not impeachable stuff. Those are decisions in many cases based on campaign promises and the Party platform. When people say elections have consequences, and that's what those are. I'll bitch about them til the midterms knowing if my candidate had won, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
But if Trump's campaign colluded with Russia, and Donnie then hindered and obstructed an investigation and publicly intimidated a witness, which seems pretty clear he did, then those are obvious impeachable offenses. And if it's proven he did those things, then impeachment isn't enough. Indict his traitorous ass and send him to prison. That won't happen, but it might to Flynn and Manafort.

The Iranians held firm to their position, perhaps because they knew that help was on the way, in the form of a new president. Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. At some point either before or after that date, but prior to the election, he secretly let the Iranians know that he would be much easier to bargain with than President Bush. Michael Ledeen reported the story last year:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

So Obama secretly told the mullahs not to make a deal until he assumed the presidency, when they would be able to make a better agreement. Which is exactly what happened: Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium, so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:


I'll bet something substantial comes of it. Even if it's getting the biggest piece of shit greedy out for only himself sexual predator  president to change his asinine ways.

What's the bet?

Small one for fun, it's the way I roll baby.   ;-)    But first we need to define "substantial".    Let me see if I can give  contrasting examples.

Based on recent rumors that the only target INSIDE the White House is Kushner.

1) They find that during the campaign Kushner talked to Russians about financing a real estate purchase in Manhattan.   Didn't happen because Trump won.  

I would call that not substantial because it could be considered normal course of business since no one really thought Trump would win except Bob.

2) They find that Kushner continued those talks after election Day, the Russians provided some of the financing for his family to buy him out and he denied it happened.

That's substantial.

I'll accept Cameron as the judge even though he leans your way - he may the closest to an honest broker we have here.

LooseGoose wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:I've heard Dem reps and senators say there's something there. We all heard L Graham say the other day this is now a criminal investigation. Now.
The real investigation is just getting started; let the child fall where they may. I don't like any of the policy moves Trump has made, but that's not impeachable stuff. Those are decisions in many cases based on campaign promises and the Party platform. When people say elections have consequences, and that's what those are. I'll bitch about them til the midterms knowing if my candidate had won, then we wouldn't be in this mess.
But if Trump's campaign colluded with Russia, and Donnie then hindered and obstructed an investigation and publicly intimidated a witness, which seems pretty clear he did, then those are obvious impeachable offenses. And if it's proven he did those things, then impeachment isn't enough. Indict his traitorous ass and send him to prison. That won't happen, but it might to Flynn and Manafort.

I won't argue that the Russians may have tried to interfere. Hell we've done the same thing in other countries. I dispute that they somehow colluded with or coordinated with the Trump campaign.

And I know I'll draw a chorus here but go read this with an open mind.

HOW BARACK OBAMA CONSPIRED WITH AN ENEMY TO UNDERMINE US FOREIGN POLICY

The Iranians held firm to their position, perhaps because they knew that help was on the way, in the form of a new president. Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. At some point either before or after that date, but prior to the election, he secretly let the Iranians know that he would be much easier to bargain with than President Bush. Michael Ledeen reported the story last year:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

So Obama secretly told the mullahs not to make a deal until he assumed the presidency, when they would be able to make a better agreement. Which is exactly what happened: Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium, so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on.

Now tell me about the press on that and people KNOW it happened. The players acknowledged it happened.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I won't argue that the Russians may have tried to interfere. Hell we've done the same thing in other countries. I dispute that they somehow colluded with or coordinated with the Trump campaign.

And I know I'll draw a chorus here but go read this with an open mind.

HOW BARACK OBAMA CONSPIRED WITH AN ENEMY TO UNDERMINE US FOREIGN POLICY



Now tell me about the press on that and people KNOW it happened. The players acknowledged it happened.

That's pretty shady. I was not a fan of much of Obama's foreign policy.

I'm curious, though, what did Obama get out of that? Just the chance to get his own deal in place? Not much of a quid pro quo unless there's more to it.

Representatives of Facebook told congressional investigators Wednesday that it has discovered it sold ads during the U.S. presidential election to a shadowy Russian company seeking to target voters, according to several people familiar with the company’s findings.

Facebook officials reported that they traced the ad sales, totaling $100,000, to a Russian “troll farm” with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda, these people said.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Susan Hennessey @Susan_Hennessey  4 minutes ago
But this was reportedly highly effective targeted materials, better than most political campaigns can muster. That raises the big question.

Susan Hennessey‏@Susan_Hennessey  3 minutes ago
Did they receive data or assistance or in any way (directly or indirectly) coordinate with a campaign? If so, that's a big big deal.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Fake news.

Oh, and Hillary... emails.. Benghazi.

BROWN PEOPLE!!!!

“To the extent they had information concerning the fitness, character or qualifications of a presidential candidate, I believed that I should at least hear them out,” he said. “Depending on what, if any, information they had, I could then consult with counsel to make an informed decision as to whether to give it further consideration.”

GRR Spartan wrote:The Congressional testimony is an end run to keep Donald Trump Jr, Manafort and others to testify followed by Congress refusing to release entire transcripts to Mueller's investigators and shield the interviewees from being qustioned by investigators who have more information that could result in damaging follow up questions.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:witch hunt!

fake news.. umm.. Hillary.. emails.. colored boy.. BENGHAZI!!

Once again, a huge Trump-Russia story that relied upon anonymous sources has fallen apart.

NBC News dropped what the network hyped as a “potential bombshell” last week. “Manafort Notes From Russian Meet Contain Cryptic Reference to ‘Donations,'” the original headline read. The story claimed that Manafort’s notes from the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with White House aide Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee.

NBC began walking back the “potential bombshell” almost immediately, issuing a correction the same day noting that the word “donation” didn’t actually appear in the notes, but quoting one source who said the word “donor” was in the notes.

But NBC’s corrected story still wasn’t accurate, according to a new Politico report, which said that the word “donor” didn’t appear in Manafort’s notes. Moreover, Manafort’s notes “are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials,” Politico reported. The outlet cited several sources who have seen Manafort’s notes, while NBC relied on “two sources briefed on the evidence” to make its claim.

Even before Politico fully debunked NBC’s reporting, the network’s decision to publish the story came under fire. The day after NBC originally published the story, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple criticized the story, which he said “provides only fodder for innuendo and conspiracy, not for sound conclusions about what happened.”

NBC News’ botched “bombshell” is just the latest anonymously sourced Trump-Russia story to fall apart. (RELATED: Trump Dossier Firm Worked With Media Outlets Now Giving The Firm A Pass)

CNN was forced to rewrite a story in June that claimed that former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony would refute President Trump’s assertion that Comey reassured him three times that he was not under investigation. In fact, Comey confirmed Trump’s account.

Later that month, CNN retracted a story that claimed Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation in relation to Congress’ Russia probe. The botched story turned into a public relations nightmare for CNN, and three of the network’s employees ended up resigning. (RELATED: Washington Post Publishes False News Story About Russians Hacking Electrical Grid)

A Feb. 14 New York Times story that was widely seen as a bombshell was actually “almost entirely wrong,” Comey said during his Senate testimony,

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:witch hunt!

fake news.. umm.. Hillary.. emails.. colored boy.. BENGHAZI!!

Yet Another Anonymously Sourced Trump-Russia Story Falls Apart

Once again, a huge Trump-Russia story that relied upon anonymous sources has fallen apart.

NBC News dropped what the network hyped as a “potential bombshell” last week. “Manafort Notes From Russian Meet Contain Cryptic Reference to ‘Donations,'” the original headline read. The story claimed that Manafort’s notes from the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with White House aide Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee.

NBC began walking back the “potential bombshell” almost immediately, issuing a correction the same day noting that the word “donation” didn’t actually appear in the notes, but quoting one source who said the word “donor” was in the notes.

But NBC’s corrected story still wasn’t accurate, according to a new Politico report, which said that the word “donor” didn’t appear in Manafort’s notes. Moreover, Manafort’s notes “are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials,” Politico reported. The outlet cited several sources who have seen Manafort’s notes, while NBC relied on “two sources briefed on the evidence” to make its claim.

Even before Politico fully debunked NBC’s reporting, the network’s decision to publish the story came under fire. The day after NBC originally published the story, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple criticized the story, which he said “provides only fodder for innuendo and conspiracy, not for sound conclusions about what happened.”

NBC News’ botched “bombshell” is just the latest anonymously sourced Trump-Russia story to fall apart. (RELATED: Trump Dossier Firm Worked With Media Outlets Now Giving The Firm A Pass)

CNN was forced to rewrite a story in June that claimed that former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony would refute President Trump’s assertion that Comey reassured him three times that he was not under investigation. In fact, Comey confirmed Trump’s account.

Later that month, CNN retracted a story that claimed Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation in relation to Congress’ Russia probe. The botched story turned into a public relations nightmare for CNN, and three of the network’s employees ended up resigning. (RELATED: Washington Post Publishes False News Story About Russians Hacking Electrical Grid)

A Feb. 14 New York Times story that was widely seen as a bombshell was actually “almost entirely wrong,” Comey said during his Senate testimony,

Keep hoping boys.   Doesn't make any of the shit you're in here peddling true.

Now Travie can call me a liar again as he makes excuses for the bullshit from others.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:witch hunt!

fake news.. umm.. Hillary.. emails.. colored boy.. BENGHAZI!!

Yet Another Anonymously Sourced Trump-Russia Story Falls Apart

Once again, a huge Trump-Russia story that relied upon anonymous sources has fallen apart.

NBC News dropped what the network hyped as a “potential bombshell” last week. “Manafort Notes From Russian Meet Contain Cryptic Reference to ‘Donations,'” the original headline read. The story claimed that Manafort’s notes from the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with White House aide Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee.

NBC began walking back the “potential bombshell” almost immediately, issuing a correction the same day noting that the word “donation” didn’t actually appear in the notes, but quoting one source who said the word “donor” was in the notes.

But NBC’s corrected story still wasn’t accurate, according to a new Politico report, which said that the word “donor” didn’t appear in Manafort’s notes. Moreover, Manafort’s notes “are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials,” Politico reported. The outlet cited several sources who have seen Manafort’s notes, while NBC relied on “two sources briefed on the evidence” to make its claim.

Even before Politico fully debunked NBC’s reporting, the network’s decision to publish the story came under fire. The day after NBC originally published the story, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple criticized the story, which he said “provides only fodder for innuendo and conspiracy, not for sound conclusions about what happened.”

NBC News’ botched “bombshell” is just the latest anonymously sourced Trump-Russia story to fall apart. (RELATED: Trump Dossier Firm Worked With Media Outlets Now Giving The Firm A Pass)

CNN was forced to rewrite a story in June that claimed that former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony would refute President Trump’s assertion that Comey reassured him three times that he was not under investigation. In fact, Comey confirmed Trump’s account.

Later that month, CNN retracted a story that claimed Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation in relation to Congress’ Russia probe. The botched story turned into a public relations nightmare for CNN, and three of the network’s employees ended up resigning. (RELATED: Washington Post Publishes False News Story About Russians Hacking Electrical Grid)

A Feb. 14 New York Times story that was widely seen as a bombshell was actually “almost entirely wrong,” Comey said during his Senate testimony,

Keep hoping boys.   Doesn't make any of the shit you're in here peddling true.

Now Travie can call me a liar again as he makes excuses for the bullshit from others.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:witch hunt!

fake news.. umm.. Hillary.. emails.. colored boy.. BENGHAZI!!

Yet Another Anonymously Sourced Trump-Russia Story Falls Apart

Once again, a huge Trump-Russia story that relied upon anonymous sources has fallen apart.

NBC News dropped what the network hyped as a “potential bombshell” last week. “Manafort Notes From Russian Meet Contain Cryptic Reference to ‘Donations,'” the original headline read. The story claimed that Manafort’s notes from the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with White House aide Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee.

NBC began walking back the “potential bombshell” almost immediately, issuing a correction the same day noting that the word “donation” didn’t actually appear in the notes, but quoting one source who said the word “donor” was in the notes.

But NBC’s corrected story still wasn’t accurate, according to a new Politico report, which said that the word “donor” didn’t appear in Manafort’s notes. Moreover, Manafort’s notes “are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials,” Politico reported. The outlet cited several sources who have seen Manafort’s notes, while NBC relied on “two sources briefed on the evidence” to make its claim.

Even before Politico fully debunked NBC’s reporting, the network’s decision to publish the story came under fire. The day after NBC originally published the story, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple criticized the story, which he said “provides only fodder for innuendo and conspiracy, not for sound conclusions about what happened.”

NBC News’ botched “bombshell” is just the latest anonymously sourced Trump-Russia story to fall apart. (RELATED: Trump Dossier Firm Worked With Media Outlets Now Giving The Firm A Pass)

CNN was forced to rewrite a story in June that claimed that former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony would refute President Trump’s assertion that Comey reassured him three times that he was not under investigation. In fact, Comey confirmed Trump’s account.

Later that month, CNN retracted a story that claimed Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation in relation to Congress’ Russia probe. The botched story turned into a public relations nightmare for CNN, and three of the network’s employees ended up resigning. (RELATED: Washington Post Publishes False News Story About Russians Hacking Electrical Grid)

A Feb. 14 New York Times story that was widely seen as a bombshell was actually “almost entirely wrong,” Comey said during his Senate testimony,

Keep hoping boys. Doesn't make any of the shit you're in here peddling true.

Now Travie can call me a liar again as he makes excuses for the bullshit from others.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:witch hunt!

fake news.. umm.. Hillary.. emails.. colored boy.. BENGHAZI!!

Yet Another Anonymously Sourced Trump-Russia Story Falls Apart

Once again, a huge Trump-Russia story that relied upon anonymous sources has fallen apart.

NBC News dropped what the network hyped as a “potential bombshell” last week. “Manafort Notes From Russian Meet Contain Cryptic Reference to ‘Donations,'” the original headline read. The story claimed that Manafort’s notes from the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with White House aide Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee.

NBC began walking back the “potential bombshell” almost immediately, issuing a correction the same day noting that the word “donation” didn’t actually appear in the notes, but quoting one source who said the word “donor” was in the notes.

But NBC’s corrected story still wasn’t accurate, according to a new Politico report, which said that the word “donor” didn’t appear in Manafort’s notes. Moreover, Manafort’s notes “are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials,” Politico reported. The outlet cited several sources who have seen Manafort’s notes, while NBC relied on “two sources briefed on the evidence” to make its claim.

Even before Politico fully debunked NBC’s reporting, the network’s decision to publish the story came under fire. The day after NBC originally published the story, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple criticized the story, which he said “provides only fodder for innuendo and conspiracy, not for sound conclusions about what happened.”

NBC News’ botched “bombshell” is just the latest anonymously sourced Trump-Russia story to fall apart. (RELATED: Trump Dossier Firm Worked With Media Outlets Now Giving The Firm A Pass)

CNN was forced to rewrite a story in June that claimed that former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony would refute President Trump’s assertion that Comey reassured him three times that he was not under investigation. In fact, Comey confirmed Trump’s account.

Later that month, CNN retracted a story that claimed Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation in relation to Congress’ Russia probe. The botched story turned into a public relations nightmare for CNN, and three of the network’s employees ended up resigning. (RELATED: Washington Post Publishes False News Story About Russians Hacking Electrical Grid)

A Feb. 14 New York Times story that was widely seen as a bombshell was actually “almost entirely wrong,” Comey said during his Senate testimony,

Keep hoping boys. Doesn't make any of the shit you're in here peddling true.

Now Travie can call me a liar again as he makes excuses for the bullshit from others.

Around the time presidential candidate Donald Trump was touting his real estate dealings at a Republican primary debate, a proposal was in the works to build a Trump Tower in Russia that would have given his company a $4 million upfront fee, no upfront costs, a percentage of the sales, and control over marketing and design. And that's not all: the deal included the opportunity to name the hotel spa after his daughter Ivanka.

GRR Spartan wrote:Nothing to see.  Fake news.  
Only losers think there was Russian involvement in the 2016.

The you read and view stuff like this.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/30-batsht-crazy-mostly-racist-facebook-memes-the-russians-used-to-corrupt-your-mind

NigelUno wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Nothing to see.  Fake news.  
Only losers think there was Russian involvement in the 2016.

The you read and view stuff like this.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/30-batsht-crazy-mostly-racist-facebook-memes-the-russians-used-to-corrupt-your-mind

A guy on this board was dropping Russian memes.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Putin again said he didn't meddle, so I guess we're done here.

Trump, Putin meet 1-on-1 on sidelines of APEC Summit, discuss Russian meddling in election

wink wink

Meanwhile, Putin's press secretary Dmitri Peskov told CNN that Putin and Trump did not discuss meddling in the presidential elections. In a text, CNN's Matthew Chance asked Peskov, "as far as you know, did the two leaders discuss meddling?"

Peskov's response was "No."

"President Trump today stated that he believed Vladimir Putin is being sincere when he denies Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and reiterated that he hopes to cooperate with Russia in Syria," McCain, a strong critic of the President, said in a statement. "There's nothing 'America First' about taking the word of a KGB colonel over that of the American intelligence community. There's no 'principled realism' in cooperating with Russia to prop up the murderous Assad regime, which remains the greatest obstacle to a political solution that would bring an end to the bloodshed in Syria. Vladimir Putin does not have America's interests at heart. To believe otherwise is not only naive but also places our national security at risk."