Trump's fascination with Putin

FDR and Truman allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. But Truman had no illusions about Stalin's intentions in Europe and Japan. FDR gave Stalin everything he wanted in Yalta thinking that Stalin would leave eastern Europe alone - how'd that turn out.

Again Trump didn't become a billionaire by being naïve about people. If there is something to be gained by working with Russia then he will do it. Why would Trump choose his cabinet and advisors who understand the threat of Russia if Trump were so complicit with Putin as you suggest ?? And ISIS is a common enemy - they threaten the Russia even more than the US at this point in time.

 

Trump is acting to not poison the well before attempting to gain the help of Russia in the ME. He clearly understands who Putin is - the evidence of this are his cabinet and security advisors - Flynn's recent book lays out in detail the problems and actions of the Russian-Iranian-Syrian partnership. Trump will negotiate conditions and will act both economically (via natural gas production and sanctions) and militarily (by arming the Ukrainians and possibly moving the missile defense system back to Poland) if Russia attempts to screw us over.

 

I can concur with that assessment. He has said repeatedly that his goal is to eradicate ISIS from the earth and I believe he means that. And he also repeatedly talks about stopping these endless and unnecessary wars. Kudos to him for that. Our soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines deserve that for a change.

 

Yes, and if Trump sends out magnificent troops into battle he will change the rules of engagement and fight to win. His military, defense, and intelligence advisors know exactly how to do that. They also know the realities of war and will avoid conflict but if ordered to fight will insist on a mission statement and the tools to win decisively and quickly.

 

Oops - Somehow I replied to your post instead of another. It appears we are on the same page.

 

No worries...I agree. General Mattis doesn't mince words when it comes to his explanation of achieving decisive victory. My kind of guy!

 

Andrew Breitbart and his coroner would agree with Trump's statement.

 

Russian Aggression? They have only attacked Afghanistan in last 70 years, other invasions were are result of the fall of the Russian empire and the redistribution of strategic interests. US on the other hand has fought in Korea, Afghanistan, Central America, Middle East, Afghanistan, Balkans... lets not throw stones in glass houses

 

Russia attacked Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. Russian warplanes are in support of Assad in Syria and played a role in destroying Aleppo in 2016, Syria's largest city. She also has a hand in the killing of 500,000 Syrians. Russia continues to provide weapons to Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

In each of our wars since WWII we were defending other nations from an aggressor. The only exception is Iraq where a Republican President illegally attacked. We now have another Republican President saber-rattling from Iran to Syria to China.

What is it about Trump and his fans and their love of Russia? I don't get it.

 

Private citizen Michael Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak a month before Trump took office, then he lied to Vice-President Mike Pence about it. He also lied to White House officials about the phone conversation.

Flynn’s communications with Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election. Shortly thereafter, on Dec. 30, President Vladimir Putin ruled out expelling anyone in retaliation for Washington's decision to throw out 35 Russian diplomats and impose sanctions on two of the country's intelligence agencies. At the time the RIA news agency quoted Putin as saying he would consider the actions of President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office next month, when deciding on further steps in Russia-U.S. relations.

Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences, never have.

Last month when leaks indicated Flynn had discussed the sanctions with Kislyak, Pence appeared on Sunday news shows saying that he had talked to Flynn and, no, he had not talked to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS News last month.

This was important because the nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments, according to officials familiar with that debate. Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election.

The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.” On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

Several White House officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

If you believe that, I gotta bridge I'd like to sell you.

 

What is the source of this information ?? Where is the transcript ?? If sanctions were discussed there is no issue with that. The Logan Act is from 1798 and has never been used.

 

I follow the news. Are you unaware of the storm clouds gathering over Flynn? I didn't make this up, although, if it were a Hollywood script, it would be tossed as being too much over the top. But it's true. The Trump White House is that screwed up.

I didn't mention the Logan act. But you did. So you know all about it. Why the question about substantiation?

Here is the latest. Yesterday, in a brief interview with reporters on Air Force One, Trump said he didn't know anything about it. Yeah, right. Is he that stupid or that misinformed? Those are the only two choices. Half the nation knew about Flynn's activities, but not Trump. Sheesh.

 

I am aware of the narratives being presented by the left based on unknown sources. There is no released transcript of the conversation.

 

Failed policy.

Russia never join America to fight China. Trumps game is transparent. Nice speeches but no action. (Nato is still on Russia's borders)

And until the American rhetoric matches the geopolitical reality then the Russians will make plans with the Chinese.

 

Several White House officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

Then there is this. "Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.” On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”"

So, Flynn was either lying or he forgot that he talked to a Russian ambassador about Presidential sanctions. In either case he should be fired.

A transcript? Once again Trump and his fans want our intelligence agencies to reveal their secrets similar to when they demanded hard proof that Russia interfered in our elections. Surely you know that NSA has a recording of that conversation. It would be highly detrimental to our intelligence agencies to reveal that transcript. It is foolish to ask for it.

There is something seriously wrong when Trump and his people want our intelligence agencies to reveal their secrets.

 

The transcript would cover a phone conversation between a private citizen and a Russian official. There no "revealing of secrets" involved. And it is very obvious to anyone talking with a Russian official and that official themselves that their conversation is being recorded. These are leaks by someone in the gov. The only way to determine what has transpired is to release the transcript. Who are these WH officials ??

 

Yes, the leaks are coming from someone in the government. They are not saying who, but someone in the NSA comes to mind.

 

Of course they are but no one knows what exactly was said. If anything it is a cover up in search of a crime. There is no crime. And it is perfectly reasonable for an incoming Flynn to talk about sanctions with Russia.

 

The White House has admitted sanctions were involved. Spicer said Trump knew about the matter three weeks ago. Flynn apologized to Pence for lying to him. No one is calling it a crime yet, but Senate Majority Leader McConnell has said it is "highly likely" the Senate intelligence committee will investigate. They will also investigate Russian interference in our election and any quid pro quo from Trump's standpoint.

Did Flynn act alone? That is very unlikely. Like a loyal soldier that he is he was probably acting on orders. Like the loyal soldier he is taking the bullet for his leader. Who is the one person who could order private citizen Flynn to talk to Russian authorities?

 

There was no crime committed. Flynn was not honest and paid the price although we still do not have the transcript. Whoever leaked this information (we still have not seen the transcript) has definitely committed a crime. There are very strict laws governing phone calls involving private citizens. For the name to be released to the public is a felony. This was most likely a member of the Obama administration still in charge prior to the inauguration of Trump. There should be an investigation to determine who committed the felony disclosure.

That is pure speculation. And there is no crime involved in your conspiracy theory except for the person(s) who disclosed Flynn's name. The Obama administration was out to get Flynn who was very critical of the Obama foreign policy and the failure to disclose all the material found in the OBL raid and killing. And they got him through innuendo and breaking the law.

 

Trump once dismissed the trans-Atlantic military alliance as "obsolete," and his apparent change of heart comes a day after talking with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Then the president praised the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, telling the audience of U.S. military personnel, "we strongly support NATO."

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis issued an ultimatum Wednesday to allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, warning that if they do not boost their defense spending to goals set by the alliance, the United States may alter its relationship with them.

“I owe it to you all to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country’s people in concrete terms,” Mattis said. “America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense.”

At his press conference today, Trump said, "And, you know, you can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal, to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats and the press plays right into it. In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this — that they know nothing about it; they weren’t in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call."

In January, Trump said, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia and China and all these countries? Wouldn’t it be nice?"

Weakening NATO, saying nice things about Russia, Putin definitely got his man.

 

Stringing a bunch of one liners out of context and then using those to arrive at a conclusion is not indicative of critical thinking. It seems to me that requiring NATO members (especially Germany) to invest the minimum 2% of gdp into their (and NATO's) military would actually strengthen NATO, no ?? Saying nice things about Putin proves what ?? SecDef Mattis is over in Europe now meeting with NATO to discuss how to address terrorism and reformulate strategy and rules of engagement in the war on terror. Does that sound like he is weakening NATO ??

 

Saying nice things about Putin proves Trump is an idiot. You must have missed recent events and the reasons for being suspicious of Russian goals. Take for example their attack on Ukraine and their annexation of Crimea in 2014. Russia has an alliance with Assad in Syria, and, BTW, Russian aircraft helped to destroy Aleppo, Syria's largest city. Russia has played a role in the killing of 500,000 Syrians. Iran is our sworn enemy in the Middle East and Iran's ally is -- wait for it -- Russia. Russia supplies Iran with some very sophisticated weapons that can sink our ships in the Persian Gulf.

Oh, and BTW, Russia interfered in our election, has a spy ship 30 miles off our east coast, and her fighter planes buzzed an American destroyer in the Black Sea.

Is that proof enough for you?

 

That's absurd. Trump knows who Putin is and is well aware of what Putin has done. If there is a way to turn Russia around and work together to destroy ISIS (which threatens Russia as well) then Trump will negotiate that. The difference is that Trump won't give away the farm as Obama did with Putting and FDR did with Stalin. Trump has learned from those lessons in history. If there is no way to work with Russia Trump will not work with Russia.

 

I believe a crime was committed. Bear in mind Flynn had no role in government in December when the call took place. A private citizen interfering with the relations between our country and an enemy power is a crime.

Did Flynn interfere? The circumstantial evidence is compelling. The call took place the same day Obama issued the sanctions. The next day, very uncharacteristically, Putin did not retaliate. Instead, he invited American children living in Moscow to a Christmas party. It seems pretty clear a deal was made between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. In addition, Flynn lied to the Vice-President.

Then there is the question. Did Flynn act alone? That is inconceivable. Who else but Trump could order Flynn, a private citizen, to call the Russian ambassador and make a deal?

Naturally, you take the Trump position that the person or persons who revealed the truth committed a crime, but the act itself is not a crime. That is typical convoluted Trump reasoning.

Yes, technically speaking, the person or persons who leaked the call committed a crime. The Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating all aspects of the case, including Trump staff involvement and Trump himself. We'll just have to wait to see the results of the investigation.