No Indication ANY American Helped Hack the 2016 Election!!!
-
Dateline: Friday the Thirteenth 2018—Let’s repeat that: No Indication ANY American Helped Hack the 2016 Election.
Deep State =
Pathetic.
Just pathetic.
No more Fed Notes for the Deep State.
Give the Fed Notes to KU BASKETBALL, so KU can sign the 1st, 2rd, and 3rd ranked players like UK did.
Rock Chalk!!!
-
NATO was set up to defend the world against Russian aggression. Who needs that these days?
Why have alliances with European democracies, when you can align yourself with Asiatic dictators?
Why do we even need the FBI when we have a strong politically oriented DOJ?
This too shall pass.
-
This isn’t the end of the investigation, if anything, the unflinching response by the White House seems to all but guarantee that they expect to be indicted later as well.
-
“No evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election despite the unanimous agreement of US intel agencies” was the refrain from the admin in 2017.
The new refrain is a bit more limited. And just wait, Roger Stone admits he is in the cross hairs.
-
approxinfinity said:
Why do we even need the FBI when we have a strong politically oriented DOJ?
PHOF
-
approxinfinity said:
NATO was set up to defend the world against Russian aggression. Who needs that these days?
Why have alliances with European democracies, when you can align yourself with Asiatic dictators?
Why do we even need the FBI when we have a strong politically oriented DOJ?
This too shall pass.
No lets pays billions of American tax payers to protect Europe from Russia while they make energy deals with them. Filling up Russian coffers.
Makes sense to me. LOL
-
As for the investigation it’s never going away. It will only end after Trump is dead and buried. Then it will come out that he was innocent. By then nobody will care, and nobody will step up to the mick and admit they were wrong. Ahh have to love political warfare.
-
The investigation will never stop, the hypocrisy of politics these days insane. I wish people would just find better things to do with there time than go and on about politics. Trump is the president whether you like it or not I’d be surprised if anything is done to change that before the next elections. It’s the same with Clinton’s emails, the investigation will probably never stop.
-
kjayhawks said:
The investigation will never stop, the hypocrisy of politics these days insane. I wish people would just find better things to do with there time than go and on about politics. Trump is the president whether you like it or not I’d be surprised if anything is done to change that before the next elections. It’s the same with Clinton’s emails, the investigation will probably never stop.
—————————
You just went on about politics!
Why do aliases go on about politics trying to discourage other aliases from going on about politics? I have never understood this contradiction.
Can you explain why you just went on about politics trying tso discourage others from going on about politics?
Also, isn’t this the politics and world affairs section? Wouldn’t it be absurd to discuss something else in this section?
Rock Chalk!
-
@jaybate-1.0 well it is the politics and world affairs section but I think our definition of going on and on about something varies by a lot.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@DoubleDD This isn’t about protecting Europe from Russia. It’s about protecting the Baltics.
-
This President is either colluding with Russia or too stupid to realize that he shouldn’t be meeting with Russia alone. I really don’t see another way to interpret the fact that Trump wants to meet with Putin alone. This is not how you conduct diplomacy with Russia, just two dictators shootin’ the breeze.
These guys are seriously passionate about national adoption policies, amirite?
-
@approxinfinity Maybe they are talking about soccer?
-
Several things can simultaneously be true. That’s the nature of living in a complex world.
Trump won the election by virtue of the Electoral College, as is dictated by law. That is true.
Trump lost the popular vote. That is also true.
Russians interfered with the election by stealing information, including stealing voter information. That is true as we see from the most recent indictment.
Americans had contact with those Russians. Also true.
The thing we don’t know is who all of those people were, and whether they knowingly assisted or colluded with the Russians.
And that is why the investigation continues.
-
approxinfinity said:
NATO was set up to defend the world against Russian aggression. Who needs that these days?
With all due respect you are factually incorrect. NATO was created in 1949 not to protect the world but a limited number of Wester European countries from the Soviet Union and was originally a political alliance designed, as told at the time…to keep Americans in, Russians out and Germans down; in fact Germany was not even a part of the original alliance. In 1955 the alliance became more if a military one and it was determined that German troops would be needed to defend Europe and Germany joined NATO. As a result, the Soviet block created the Warsaw Pact to counter NATO. The NATO Charter only allows common defense against attacks from countries in the Northern emisphere and this is why NATO did not get involved in the Falklands War. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact many of the former Soviet Block countries joined NATO to be protected from the new Russia but proved to be for naught since the lack of determination by our former president allowed the Russians to annex the Crimean Peninsula away from Ukraine and stepped all over the line drawn in the sand in Siria with no consequences…so in that respect you are correct, why have an alliance that will not act when really needed?
-
@JayHawkFanToo Do you think that we should let Russia take over the Baltics and Ukraine now? Is NATO not the organization best positioned to prevent that from happening? You can try to splice the rhetorical peapod with a nanoblade, but if the answers to these two questions are yes, then undermining NATO is a mistake.
-
approxinfinity said:
@JayHawkFanToo Do you think that we should let Russia take over the Baltics and Ukraine now? Is NATO not the organization best positioned to prevent that from happening? You can try to splice the rhetorical peapod with a nanoblade, but if the answers to these two questions are yes, then undermining NATO is a mistake.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO but in any case, ask Ukraine how well it has worked so far…
NATO countries agreed In 2006 to increase their military spending to 2% of their GDP and in the 12 years since then only 4 countries, UK, Poland, Greece and Estonia have met that target and countries like a Germany with the largest economy in a Europe are at 1.2% while the US is at 3.6% of a much larger economy and at 70% of the budget, it contributes almost 3 times the contribution of all the other countries…combined. This is unacceptable and untenable and the President is correct in asking them to live up to what they agreed, particularly when it is their own security…how exactly is this undermining NATO? If anything, it is trying to make it stronger.
The current German administration has been hostile to the US for a while now and has become close with Russia building a direct pipeline that will make it even more energy dependent. As you recall this has been an ongoing concern for our 3 previous administrations as well; in fact, the Obama administration was caught spying on Chancellor Merkel, precisely because of the concern that if economic sanction were imposed on Russia, how would Germany act agains the country that control its energy?
-
I just saw this…the New York Times, yes…that New York Times thinks Trump did well and got everything Obama asked for but could not get.
-
@JayHawkFanToo if you’re going to quote an opinion piece from a paper why not link to the opinion piece itself rather than another source?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/opinion/editorials/trump-nato-obama.html
-
I think the point that the New York Times is attempting to make is that the 2% spending on Defense that Trump asked for was already asked for by Obama by 2024. More off-the-cuff bullshit-artistry from a man who when asked if he would defend the Baltic countries if they were attacked immediately responded that he would first check to see if they had “paid their dues” by which he meant spent 2% on Defense. The answer should have been unequivocally “yes”. Not this nonsense.This is undermining NATO.
Here’s a New York Times podcast where they elaborate on the points: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/rss.art19.com/episodes/f4012a48-f902-4f31-9492-896ab07ed83d.mp3
-
First, let’s cut the rethoric down and keep it civil. My post quoted verbatim the words in the New York Times headline without all its typical anti Trump bs. The 2% figure was actually agreed in 2006 during the Bush administration and both, the Bush and Obama administrations, continued to pursue it and neither could get a firm commitment for it in the ensuing 12 years from the major players until now.
By the way, the new pipeline that will transports gas directly from Russia to Germany bypasses the current Baltic states that YOU indicated NATO is supposed to protect and will deprive them of considerable income. Doesn’t it give you pause when our ally, Germany, is eager to negotiate and become energy dependent with the country we are supposedly protecting it from instead of working with its NATO allies?
Now I am going back to posting about sports and stay out of the political section; not a good idea to get on the wrong side of the owner of the site.
-
It’s one thing to play hardball – and it’s good to have a leader who knows how to operate around a variety of types of personalities – but it’s another to be the ultimate hardass all of the time. It’s like he’s turned up the ‘asshole’ to 11, 110% of the time.
I’m not talking politics. I’m talking about what kind of human being I want representing me. I don’t want someone who sows seeds of doubt with idle threats with such comfort and frequency. And his use of innuendo is sublime. He says one thing officially and simultaneously signals a contradicting message.
This is the kind of behavior seen in dysfunctional corporate cultures that creates a toxic environment and slowly rots a business. My concern is that Trump is running the free-world the way he ran his businesses. That is, not well.
He operates as though the ends is irrelevant of the means. It’s an approach that gets short-term results… and then, not so much. So he may be able to get some things accomplished that others haven’t. But at what cost?
His threat to withdraw the US from NATO (-- he didn’t actually say that, he just suggested the US might have to go alone) is an affront to the democratic system he is entrusted to preserve. This fiat seems dismissive of Legislative branch and his propensity to make such comments raise concerns about his despotic tendencies.
When Trump was elected, one of the hopes was that he would be a disruptor, especially to the the two-party political system that is riddled with foibles and in need of rejuvenation. But he’s more like an Asmovian Mule: unpredictable and likely to render more collateral damage than any one could guess.
-
@JayHawkFanToo you and the source you are borrowing from took the NYT title out of context. Read the subtitle in the original story. This is playing sound byte politics.
You’re running a different story as if it justifies what Trump does. It doesn’t. At all. Should we talk about Germany’s oil deal? Sure. But that does not justify Trump’s actions. Totally different story.
-
@bskeet well put! I never would have thought of the Mule as a Trump comp but that is perfect. Thank you for bringing up the “we might have to go it alone” comment as well. This freewheeling approach to diplomacy is not acceptable when the stakes are as high as they are. We don’t need uncertainty as to who is allied with whom.
-
approxinfinity said:
This President is either colluding with Russia or too stupid to realize that he shouldn’t be meeting with Russia alone. I really don’t see another way to interpret the fact that Trump wants to meet with Putin alone. This is not how you conduct diplomacy with Russia, just two dictators shootin’ the breeze.
These guys are seriously passionate about national adoption policies, amirite?
I find the whole situation laughable. One if the DNC party would have followed proper procedure to protect their computers and servers. This whole Russian collusion wouldn’t even be a so called issue.
Hanging and talking to Russia was just fine when Obama, Hillary and the gang were running the show. Hell they even agreed to sell the evil Russian empire uranium. Yet now, OMG don’t let President Trump talk to Putin alone. Just Crazy. The Hypocrisy is off the charts.
Here is the thing. All countries are hacking each other, and trying to effect their elections. See Obama and the previous Israel elections.
Nobody screwed up but the DNC. They refused to use the proper Government protocol. Um Maybe they have something to hide??? Oh but we won’t go there will we?
-
DoubleDD said:
Hanging and talking to Russia was just fine when Obama, Hillary and the gang were running the show. Hell they even agreed to sell the evil Russian empire uranium. Yet now, OMG don’t let President Trump talk to Putin alone. Just Crazy. The Hypocrisy is off the charts.
Tossing aside the politics for just a second, you have highlighted the big issue here in your own statement:
OMG don’t let President Trump talk to Putin alone.
In critical negotiations, you never meet one on one. EVER. Particularly with a party that may be hostile. You don’t meet one on one to do a business deal at higher levels. You may chat about terms, but when things are being agreed on, there are multiple people from both sides in the room.
You have multiple people there to make sure that every detail is remembered and to be sure that everything that was agreed to was understood by both sides.
Meeting with Putin one on one is a mistake whether you agree with Trump’s policies and approach or not because you have to make sure that what Trump believes was agreed to (or what Putin believes was agreed to) was actually what was agreed to. This is especially important when there is a language barrier.
I’ve negotiated contracts before with a language barrier. There are always three or four people on either side to be certain that every agreement is understood and that there wasn’t anything lost in translation. You have to remember that in a translated dialogue, if I say something to you, it gets translated and actually spoken to you, then you respond in your native language and that gets translated and repeated to me. For complex terms where there is no direct translation (a common problem), often this means it takes three or four back and forth exchanges to clarify what each side means.
During this time, both sides are taking notes on each exchange, just in case there is confusion later on. That’s a safety feature of having multiple people in the room.
To do this one on one, you lose that.
We already saw this become an issue with the North Korea meeting, with North Korea now disputing what the President says they agreed to. With no one else in the room, there isn’t a check on that.
That’s a poor way to negotiate.
-
@DoubleDD You’re promoting a false dichotomy.
Did the DNC screw up by having lax cyber security? Yes. Does this mean that it’s acceptable to hack their servers? No. Is this the same issue as President Trump’s handling of NATO? No. It would even be a false dichotomy if we were discussing collusion, in that DNC stupidity doesn’t justify collusion. But we aren’t discussing that.
@justanotherfan is 100% on the money here. This is what we are discussing. No amount of pointing at the DNC or Hillary changes the fact that this is not how you conduct negotiations with Russia.
-
approxinfinity said:
@DoubleDD You’re promoting a false dichotomy.
Did the DNC screw up by having lax cyber security? Yes. Does this mean that it’s acceptable to hack their servers? No. Is this the same issue as President Trump’s handling of NATO? No. It would even be a false dichotomy if we were discussing collusion, in that DNC stupidity doesn’t justify collusion. But we aren’t discussing that.
@justanotherfan is 100% on the money here. This is what we are discussing. No amount of pointing at the DNC or Hillary changes the fact that this is not how you conduct negotiations with Russia.
Yet there is no evidence of Collusion, and that is the point. Yet you accuse of me pushing a false dichotomy when actually it is you that is pushing such a narrative. This concept that Trump is guilty before proven innocent will never come to fruition. The perception is that he is guilty and that isn’t going change even if he is proven innocent.
What’s scary or what scares me is how one party the DNC can push such a false narrative and create this perception of guilty way before there is any evidence or a conclusion of an investigation. Just crazy.
Is it wrong to take something that doesn’t belong to you. Sure I totally agree. Yet I’m not stupid enough to leave my front door open, then get all pissed and blame my neighbors. When somebody comes and helps their selves to my stuff.
Yes wrong is wrong, yet sometimes you get what you deserve. Right? Also if the DNC is so concerned over this hacking and stuff, then why not turn over the missing server? smile
-
I kind of believe there is more than one way to skin a cat. Sure you may be correct in the points you have made. Yet is that the only way?
Trump isn’t like any president we have ever had. Whether one views that as good or bad is a matter of perception. At the end of the day he’s going to do what has made him successful. And if that means meeting one on one then so be it.
I know there is this thought you don’t sit down with a rogue nation or leader as you legitimize them and what they are doing. Yet how is burying your head in the sand and act like it’s not happening fix anything either. Lines of communication should always be open. Just as when Obama went to Cuba.
Me personally I’m not sure why we have to have the media privy to every minor detail. This isn’t some reality show. The future of our children and nations depend on meetings like this. The media in my opinion isn’t some outlet to be trusted with producing clear facts of a situation, summit, or meeting. As I think it is quite clear they are indeed pushing and agenda.
Having rambled on like a mad man. I do see your point and wouldn’t disagree.
-
@DoubleDD you’re not understanding me. I am saying that collusion is not the point at all. We are not talking about collusion. You are artificially bringing collusion into the discussion. Let’s not talk about collusion. We can talk about collusion in a different thread. I’ll start it.
Let’s talk about how a president negotiates with Russia.
-
I’m not against sitting down with other countries to discuss things diplomatically. I wasn’t against the North Korea meeting, and I am not against meeting with Russia.
What I am against is one on one high level diplomatic meetings. The stakes are too high The risk is too great. You can have one on one meetings to set up the high level stuff, but when its showtime, you need all hands on deck.
I am very much pro diplomacy. I want Trump to be successful in these meetings because eliminating the nuclear threat from North Korea, or ending Russian aggression in Eastern Europe are both things that will make the world more peaceful. But I think Trump cuts the chances of success down drastically by going it alone. We’ve already seen this backfire with North Korea, as I said before, and without anyone in the room, there’s no one else to help keep Putin honest even if they do come to a deal one on one.
Is the method I described the only way? No, of course not.
Is it the best way (i.e., most likely way to lead to success)? Probably.
-
@DoubleDD you are right, he’s not like any other president.
-
Now we know from Putin, through Trump, that the Russians weren’t involved either.
Damn, then who did do all that crap that even top Republicans say happened?
-
@mayjay clearly it was the democrats.
-
DoubleDD said:
Me personally I’m not sure why we have to have the media privy to every minor detail. This isn’t some reality show. The future of our children and nations depend on meetings like this. The media in my opinion isn’t some outlet to be trusted with producing clear facts of a situation, summit, or meeting. As I think it is quite clear they are indeed pushing and agenda.
A timely topic.
If we could just get the cameras and reporters out of the way and let the despots have their meetings in privacy, we’d all feel a lot safer.
But then, we wouldn’t know that our own president prefers to defend the Russians rather than his own FBI.
Even if he thinks it’s broken, I’m not sure why he would sell them out on such a global stage.
I will give him this: He is making unique choices about what to be transparent about and what to keep quiet (I’m not sure what is in the latter category.)
Ignorance is Bliss.
-
Here’s a litany of quotes from Republican lawmakers condemning Donald Trump’s meeting with Putin in strong terms: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-putin-summit-reaction-20180716-story.html
If you aren’t getting these quotes from your regular news sources, I think you need to question whether your sources are truly conservative, or even news at all.
-
A more comprehensive list:
-
It appears I’ve highjacked the topic. My bad.
To be honest I’m not so sure I trust the FBI right now, or should I say the ones in positions of power.
How Peter Strzok still has a job is a bit mind boggling to me. After watching his testimony how anybody doesn’t think he didn’t allow his political views to affect his investigation of Hillary and Russian Collusion is beyond on me.
I also find it very interesting that Muller’s release of the indictment of the 12 Russians takes places right after Strzok’s failed testimony.
For the record I think the FBI is a fine secret service agency. Yet I’m not naïve enough to think that it is beyond reproach.
-
Why do you feel this a RNC and DNC issue?
See this why I get befuddled with some of the thought processes of left leaning thinkers. They hate Trump and then blame Russians for Hillary losing the election. Yet they push a narrative of Trump guilt with no evidence and before the investigation is even over. Seems a bit unfair to me.
Why do they push this narrative, because the DNC didn’t follow proper protocol in protecting their servers, and got hacked by anybody and everybody that had a computer. Again that doesn’t seem quite fair.
I also don’t understand why the Trump hate, as if he cheated or something? You know the reality is if the DNC wouldn’t have rigged their own elections. Trump wouldn’t be President right now. Old Bernie was a juggernaut that had captured the youth devotion in the same vein as Obama did. I would gather Bernie would’ve mopped the floor with Trump. Alas it was not to be.
I don’t mean to be rude or mean, but if your a left leaning thinker, stop with this corruption stuff. Or at the very least clean your own house before you lecture the rest of us that don’t lean left.
The DNC is the reason Trump is president. Keep it up and he’ll get elected for a second term.
-
Ok guys I’ll play the devil’s advocate in this thread. More than happy to give all of us some thing to do until basketball season kicks in. Yet first sign of hurt feelings I’m bailing.
For the record: Yes I do lean Conservative, however I’m no Right leaner that just punches the ticket Red. I tend to mistrust all government and politicians to some degree or another. Also feel the DNC needs a big overhaul of it’s leadership. Nancy, Chuck and the gang just aren’t cutting it anymore. One last thing. CNN is fake news. LOL
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
@DoubleDD you are right, he’s not like any other president.
Yea I know. He actually does what he says he’d going to do. Isn’t it refreshing? LOL
-
@DoubleDD He said he would discuss election meddling prior to the meeting, then omitted it from the agenda, and jumped to Putin’s defense, interjecting when reporters asked Putin about it.
You mean he actually does [only the things he wants to do that] he says he’s going to do?
The thing is, he could have come out of that meeting and said “we discussed the meddling, we know it happened, and we’ve agreed that it must stop” and this would have put Trump on the right side of the law. What he did was inexcusable, and speaks to the long shadow his ego casts over this summit. Either he feels that by acknowledging meddling he would be invalidating his presidency, or he is compromised, or he thinks that Vladimir Putin is his friend. Or maybe all three.
Robert Mueller is a Bush nominee. To suggest that the FBI has a liberal lean is just nonsensical. For Trump to side with Putin over American Intelligence is stupid, narcissistic and dangerous.
-
As far as I know from watching the main media outlets. Trump did bring up/ask Putin about the meddling of US elections? In fact if i’m not mistaken Putin has agreed to investigate the 12 accused Russians. In his own way and on his own terms, with US oversight. I know funny stuff. I agree.
I think/feel the blow back is how trump has responded to the aftermath. Even fanning the fames in fellow Republicans. Almost comical to see the Reps and Dems finally agree on something. Don’t your think? smile.
I guess in retrospect I am accusing the FBI upper brass of playing politics. To be fair I’m basing this off what I see, and not so much off what this or that Media person is saying. It just seems quite obvious to me. That some foul play has or is taking place.
How is that Hillary walks free when there is mountain of evidence that she willfully broke the law? If you or I would have done what she had. We would already be in jail. Yet this same FBI that gave Hillary a free pass. Is willing to throw Trump under the bus without any real evidence. Sure the FBI has found a few infractions against the Trump team (none for Russian Collusion). However lets turn the FBI loose on your life or anybody for a year and half? Pretty sure they’ll find something. Nobody is without fault.
Look some people may not like Trump, but it’s a dangerous game when we as a nation subvert a sitting president because we don’t like him/her, or their policies. A very dangerous game indeed.
-
As for Trump siding with Putin.
What is the answer? Are you suggesting a war with Russia? Ok count me in. Not a big fan of Russia, never have been. Their history if full of travesty, and abusers of human life. Even as far back when the DNC was calling Stalin old uncle Joe. A killer that was even worse than Hitler. Yet you won’t find that in the history books. LOL
Funny how time changes things. Just with the last president our country under the DNC leadership was bending over backwards to make friends with Russia and Putin. We had the reset button, had our DNC sitting president caught on tape telling a Russian Surrogate to tell Putin he can be more flexible in his second term. Also lets not forget it was under this DNC leadership that we sold Russia businesses a 3rd or our Uranium. Yet today this same DNC wants nothing to do with Russia or Putin.
Man how things do change indeed. LOL
-
@DoubleDD Putin’s terms were for Russia to be allowed to interrogate Mueller’s team. It is rediculous that you would even consider that as a viable proposal.
There is nothing comical about this situation.
Re: FBI Brass, What do you see and are you going with your gut?
This isn’t about Hillary.
Yes Obama said he had more freedom in his second term to negotiate. Is that a surprise? Isn’t that always the case with politicians?
Your fact about Uranium is bogus. A company had ownership change, there is no evidence that Uranium went to Russia.
-
If this isn’t the biggest pile of BS ever…
-
nobody can believe that! More than 24 hrs after he said it and gloated about it? How dumb do they think we are?
-
Well I believe it!!! what does that say? lol
-
@DoubleDD after he read that from a script, he said dble d, send lots of money to crimsons!
, USA.
