Trump's staff coordinated with the Russians during the election

Have fun reading this: http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

Dick Cheney stated that ANY Russian interference in our elections could be considered an ACT OF WAR. . . . Members of Congress called it an "attack".

Confirmation of Trump's PERSONAL involvement would most certainly lead to impeachment and criminal prosecution.

 

Oh, so if the white house get's hacked, the pentagon gets hacked, it's not Obama's fault, yet if the military kills bin laden, Obama did it. He probably doesn't know how to shoot a gun.

What do you mean blaming Obama if hacks are occurring is retarded. That very statement should be typed into the dictionary directly next to "retarded".
If he cannot protect the American people, than get the hell out, and that's pretty much what Americans told him to do.

The CIA will know when their "disinformation program" is complete, when the American people believe what is lies, and don't know the truth.

Hey, this sounds like what has taking place the past decade, and right now. "stupid conspiracies man".

But it's not, it's literally going on right now.

 

My country traded on me a long time ago.

For one, why are people allowed to vote, that don't have jobs? One should have to hold a job for at least a year before voting. Why should someone be allowed to vote on what is done with the American tax dollars, if they are not providing American tax dollars? Of course they will vote for entitlements that allow them free stuff and money. And it's people like me, who actually do the work, to better the country. Those people just get in the way (in the way people), like standing behind someone in subway, who can't decide what sandwich they want, even though they have been standing in line able to go over the menu, they choose to play on their phone/etc (in the way people). Completely clueless because everything is given to them, they are dependent of others.

To me, that's being a traitor. Many other reasons I could off on as well.

 

Obama his administration and I have to name Hillary, because they have all participated in criminal activity. Your claim of hacking the DNC is criminal, and it very well may be, yet you could care less of the criminal activity the Obama administration has done, including war crimes, gun runs gone bad (Benghazi, still unjustified), IRS scandals, Fast and Furious, never getting rid of the Patriot Act and actually making it worse ( section 215 https://www.eff.org/foia/section-215-usa-patriot-act ), there a lot more as well, but if none of this bothers any American, well then Americans are already traitors of their own-selves and traitors to the idea of America.

All this other stuff is just fuel to the fire, and the elites are having their way with the world.

 

So, if someone hacks your e-mail; it’s not their fault…it’s Trump’s. Got it. Rest easy sir.

 

Indeed. It would be naive and foolish to assume there's nothing there. The hard part is putting together a case with sufficient evidence, especially if those involved know how to cover their tracks. There's a special Linux system people can use, for instance, that runs off of a read-only external drive and uses things like Tor to mask online activities. It even has skins to make it look like Windows, in case you're using it in a public place (also a wise thing to do, bypassing your ISP) and don't want your activities to stand out in any way. Any "hacker" will know about this stuff, though a 60+ y/o friend of Trump may not..

 

Where are you living now? Moscow? Just kidding, but you get my point.

Here is what I find interesting. Trump's avid fans expressed unbridled glee when the Russians, working with Wikileaks, revealed dirty, little secrets about the Clinton campaign. There is a distinct possibility that members of Trump's campaign staff collaborated with the Russians, hence the investigations by the FBI, Senate, and House.

Yet when an American, the National Security Advisor for the President of the United States, revealed the names of people who were collaborating with the Russians, that American is heavily criticized by Trump, his associates, conservative commentators, and these same avid fans. In addition to their anger, there are threats of criminal prosecution. According to these people and Trump, it is okay for the Russians to reveal secrets and interfere in our election, but if a federal official reveals the names of possible collaborators they should go to prison.

What do they have to worry about if what they say is true? They plaintively argue that Trump and his staff are innocent of all charges related to collusion with the enemy. If members of Trump's staff were engaged in innocent discussions with their Russian counterparts, why is it Trump and his people are so enraged? They should be ecstatic that there hero will be vindicated, and Trump shouldn't have a thing to worry about.

However, if there was collaboration between Trump, his staffers, and the Russians ...

 

I get your point, but it is not a very honorable one. You are, of course, insinuating that I am an agent of some sort for Putin.

I am not, but I once did meet with a Russian diplomatic person in the Russian Embassy in a foreign capital.

I don't find it that interesting. I don't expect Trump supporters to be any more principled than Clinton supporters. Both sides try to advance their interests by making high sounding noises about principles, but it is all a sham.

Myself, I try to keep my principles to a minimum so as not to interfere with my prejudices. It saves a lot of psychic energy not to constantly have to justify my prejudices by torturing my principles until they give me the answer I want.

Try the shoe on the other foot: it is terrible that a foreign power released information about a US politician, but it is OK if the highest levels of the Executive branch uses the nearly unlimited power of US intelligence to spy on political opponents.

I have quite a bit of respect for your intelligence and I don't doubt you can come up with a high sounding principled argument to justify this abuse of government power. I even think you will be able to convince yourself, but you won't convince me.

My opinion is that Mr. Trump will at least attempt to implement policies that will make this country a better place for my children and grandchildren to live in than Ms. Clinton would.

Well, you see, merely accusing someone tarnishes his reputation even if ultimately vindicated. And the sturm und drang, of such an investigation will delay and possibly derail Mr. Trump's agenda, which is of course a goal you approve of. It is rarely in anybody's interest to be falsely accused of a crime, even if they are ultimately found innocent.

It is just like the barb hidden in your joshing suggestion that I am a Russian agent. The mere idea being floated poisons the well*.

And I still wonder, what do you think Mr. Trump or his supporters did to abet the Russian hackers?

---------------------------
* Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

 

It is very possible that the Russians tried to influence our election. However, there has not been any direct evidence that the Trump team coordinated with them to help Trump or hurt Hillary.

There was not this concern when Obama used the U.S. Government influence and resources to influence the Israeli election.

 

Although, you may be right. I'm not putting too much stock in the Prince episode. There is too much other reliable evidence. This is something to mull over. Is this garden variety diplomacy?

The Syrian civil war began six years ago as a part of the Arab Spring protests of 2011. Since then, along with his Russian ally, the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Syrians. In addition, Syria's largest city, Aleppo, a former rebel stronghold, has been totally destroyed. Other cities and Syria's infrastructure have been severely damaged. The Russian air force has played a role in this destruction.

With that as a backdrop, President Trump has shifted the U.S. position from that of the Obama administration. Under President Obama the U.S. position included the removal of Assad from power. Trump's position is that of assisting the Syrian government in fighting ISIS, maintaining that should be the main objective of the U.S. in Syria, despite appeals from rebels for continued help in their fight against President al-Assad.

The Obama administration had armed the rebels in their efforts to remove Assad. The Trump administration wants no part of that strategy, preferring to ally himself with Assad and Russia.

“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting Isis, and you have to get rid of ISIS,” he said interview with the Wall Street Journal.

Trump has also been emphatic about mending ties with Russia, Syria’s long-standing ally and military backer in the conflict.

On March 30, The Trump administration doubled down on prioritizing the fight against ISIS instead of ending the Syrian civil war and getting rid of its main protagonist, President Bashar al-Assad -- a suggestion that was swiftly criticized by Republicans on the Hill.

Indicating the shift in US policy on the war in Syria from the days of the Obama administration, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on a trip to Turkey that the "longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people."

In New York, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley was even stronger about the Trump administration's decision not to push for Assad's departure. "Our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out," Haley told wire reporters.

On April 4, it was reported that the Syrian regime launched a poison gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, killing at least 65 people — including at least eleven children — and wounding 350, according to the Paris-based Union of Medical Care & Relief Organizations and others. A few hours later, Syrian warplanes launched another airstrike on one of the medical clinics where victims of the first attack were being treated.

Let that sink in for a moment: Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, then bombed those desperately trying to save the lives of those suffering and dying from the chemicals, Vox asserted.

The Trump White House reacted by saying, “Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world,"

Then Trump blamed Obama.

“These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution,” Mr Trump said.

 

The thing is you have to live with what you say. Your sudden bipartisan bitching against both parties is a little late. Your emphatic defense of the Russian government caused me to contemplate evil thoughts about you. Maybe you were just playing the devil's advocate. Well, you are responsible for the consequences of that role, too.

We know there was Russian interference in our election. We know Trump encouraged the Russians. And we know the Russian interference benefited Trump. We also know Trump is protecting Russia by not condemning them for interfering in our election, a national security threat to our democracy.

And we know you are defending the Russians.

BTW, I never considered that your were a Russian agent. I did consider you were sympathetic to Russian interests. What are we to think? That is what you were doing.

If that were true. We only have Trump's word on that, and he is a little weak in the truth department. Also, the names did not come up due to surveillance of Trump staffers. Those names were caught in the web of surveillance of foreign nationals.

Despite the qualifying statement I will take that as a compliment. Thank you. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I believe you and I are similar in one respect. We both are interested in what the other is saying, if only to convince ourselves that we are right.

I believe that even if you are a Russian agent.

 

I thought the idea was that the Russians did it. So even if some incompetent russian hacker can be tracked all the way to his laptop running windows 95, we've still got to connect that dot to Trump. If you can't do that, then all of this will amount to some nefarious plot by the Russians. I think they can handle the bad publicity.

A competent hacker would be using public wifi with a disposable laptop (use it and chuck it) so even if they can trace it all the way to a particular address, it's just going to lead to a busy starbucks in moscow filled with cossacks wearing ushankas.

So this is a dead-end, unless the incompetent hacker was also using a windows 95 machine hooked up to an IP in the penthouse of trump tower, and it's still sitting there on Trump's desk.

 

I wasn't aware that I had defended the Russian government let alone defended it emphatically. I think I said I considered Russia to be much less threatening to the world I prefer than the Globalists and their lackey Clinton.

I am concerned American interests (and I recognize that we may differ on what those interests are) which at this time I don't consider to demand hostility to Russian interests. Russia is trying to reinstate its sphere of influence which is much less interesting to me than the Islamicist thrust for global hegemony.

The point is that those names are not supposed to "come up." It is illegal to spy on US citizens incidentally recorded and the names are masked accordingly. That the names were unmasked and the intelligence widely promulgated I consider malfeasance, at least, and the leaking of that dubiously acquired intelligence to the press is most definitely a crime.

It was meant as a compliment. And I do enjoy our discussion.

 

So what if Putin has influence in Syria? I think it is just as likely he will be dragged into a quagmire comparable to Afghanistan.



There are wheels within wheels here (if I may make a Biblical reference) and I sure don't understand the machinations of the various parties, or even who they are, really. American public opinion is being manipulated by stories of these atrocities in furtherance of somebody else's interests.

Appalling things happen in this world all the time. The recurrent civil wars in the Congo have claimed almost as many victims as World War II. It looks like it may be starting up again, yet nobody cares, at least it is never mentioned here. I guess the Globalists have no interest in Congo at the moment, so these atrocities are ignored.

What with the success of fracking, US interest in the ME is greatly lessened. If Russia wants influence there, it is no skin off my nose.

But Russia is a great irritant to the Globalists and they wouldn't mind at all the US going to war with Russia over Syria to further their interests.

A no fly zone in Syria to put US aviators in close and unfriendly contact with Russian aviators. Does that really seem like a good idea to you? Yet that is what Clinton proposed.

 

I'd say that was emphatically defending Russia while putting down an American President. Where did you say your address was in Moscow?

Both Russia and Islamic terrorism are a threat to our national security. One is no better than the other. Recently Syria's Assad gassed his own people. Russia is Assad's ally.

If Rice unmasked Americans who were colluding with the Russians and their interference in our election, I am of the opinion those Americans will get their just rewards. They were caught up in a web of surveillance of foreign nationals of interest to our intell agencies. My assertion is a likely possibility.

Now that we have gotten to know each other better, I enjoy our conversations as well.

 

So tell us how Russia threatens the US? The US and NATO our child, is much more of a threat to Russia. If Russian was mustering on our borders, with their proxy, armed to the teeth, then yes Russia would be a threat. Russia's great sin is they do not support the elite scheme of globalism, and they want their own culture, instead of left wing nuts destroying it, for some rainbow clad unicorn idealism.

Meanwhile your own nation not only interferes in elections, hundreds since the cia was born, but we remove leaders who are not good for business for our elites. And you think Russia is the great threat? To what, an evil nation like the US who has the nerve to call putin an evil man?

To believe what you spew forth is requires hypocrisy and a refusal to educate yourself on what reality actually is. You live in a false reality.

The only laws broken were done by spying on trump for political reasons, and the people who committed felonies, by leaking, in order to run political schemes. Your people. If there were evidence on collusion, or even on Russia turning emails over to wilkileaks, we would have seen it given how your people have leaked all they had to try to take trump down. You guys failed, and now all you can do is run off at the mouth without one shred of evidence. OTOH, the fact that your team committed felonies and leaked, is the only evidence we have seen of any wrong doing, and illegal activity.

 

Assad is not an Islamic extremist. He is fighting against Islamic extremist. What vital interest is it of the US to oust Assad?

Well, then, we should definitely get Ms. Rice to testify under oath to Congress, as she seems to be the source, if indirectly, of all the evidence against Trump. I mean, the FBI seems to have done a piss poor job of it so far. No doubt Ms. Rice's responsibilities were so light so could use her copious spare time to investigate Americans who just happened to be political adversaries. Not that their being political adversaries had anything to do with it .... I am sure she averted her eyes to any politically juicy information should it happen to arise. She does after all have an impeccable reputation for honesty and probity.

Do you like that idea?

 

You misunderstood my post. I wasn't talking about Syria as it relates to Russia. I was talking about Syria (and Russia) as it relates to the Trump administration.

 

You consistently use hyperbole in vain attempts to prove your point. Then you wander off into other matters. Let's get back on track. Currently we are discussing Assad's chemical attack on his people and the reaction from the Trump White House.

Trump's comments in 2017, “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution.”

Regarding Obama's red line, Trump's comments in 2013, "We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO."

As for Obama's red line, Trump's supporters keep mentioning it without knowing the history of the ubiquitous red line. Allow me to refresh your memory.

Obama's red line at the time was a threat of US military action against Syria should it continue to use chemical weapons. When Obama asked the GOP-led Congress to authorize the potential use of force against Syria, the Republicans, not wanting to take a firm stance or embolden the Obama administration, declined to hold a vote. Still, Obama's move prompted Assad to agree to a Russian-brokered deal to give up his chemical weapons. To a degree, Obama's threat worked diplomatically and without the use of military force. That is always a plus.

Detractors may point out that Assad obviously did not give up his chemical weapons. It should be pointed out, that was four years ago. Obviously, he required them.

 

“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS,” Trump said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

On March 30, The Trump administration doubled down on prioritizing the fight against ISIS instead of ending the Syrian civil war and getting rid of its main protagonist, President Bashar al-Assad. Indicating the shift in US policy on the war in Syria from the days of the Obama administration, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on a trip to Turkey that the "longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people."

In New York, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley was even stronger about the Trump administration's decision not to push for Assad's departure. "Our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out," Haley told wire reporters.

As recently as yesterday, President Trump’s spokesman said doing so would be “silly” in the face of the political realities in the country. This was said right around the time Assad was gassing Syrian children.

Following Assad's chemical attack on his people, President Trump said today the images of death inside Syria in the aftermath of the chemical attacks “crosses many lines, beyond a red line, many many lines.” And he said that the death of “innocent children, innocent babies, little babies” has made him reassess the situation and Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.

“It’s very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much,” Mr. Trump said.

However, he did not say how his attitude had changed. Nor did he address the U.S. foreign policy that he established last week. Pressed on what his policy will be, Mr. Trump said it would be unwise to reveal any plans his administration might have. Which is code for not knowing how his plans will change or if they will. This leaves Americans and foreign governments twisting in the wind, not knowing what U.S. policy is regarding Syria, and Mr. Trump is not saying.

Mr. Trump on Wednesday repeated his belief that Mr. Obama bears blame for the chemical attacks because he declared that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would “cross a red line” in 2013 and then declined to follow up on that threat by using military force.

Mr. Trump's position was equally clear in 2013. "We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO"

 

The chair of the House investigation into Trump’s colluding with the Rookies had to recuse himself today over communication with the White House during the investigation.

Another Trump ally goes down…..

 

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that Trump is remiss in not being able to decide on steps he should take regarding Assad following the chemical attack on his own people. It is far too early for that, and no one wants an impetuous response. I am suggesting he was wrong when he changed U.S. policy to supporting Assad in the vain hope that Assad and Russia would help us defeat ISIS.

It is one thing to dream of the possibility of friendlier relations with Russia. It is quite another matter to adopt a pie-in-the-sky approach to official U.S. foreign policy.

Trump just learned a very valuable lesson. His powerful persona and a lifetime of getting his way doesn't mean squat to our enemies.

 

Last Week

The Trump administration doubled down on prioritizing the fight against ISIS instead of ending the Syrian civil war and getting rid of its main protagonist, President Bashar al-Assad. Indicating the shift in US policy on the war in Syria from the days of the Obama administration.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on a trip to Turkey that the "longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people."

In New York, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley was even stronger about the Trump administration's decision not to push for Assad's departure. "Our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out," Haley told wire reporters.

Trump’s spokesman said removing Assad would be “silly” in the face of the political realities in the country. This was said right around the time Assad was gassing Syrian children.

This week

Following Assad's chemical attack on his people, President Trump said today the images of death inside Syria in the aftermath of the chemical attacks “crosses many lines, beyond a red line, many many lines.” And he said that the death of “innocent children, innocent babies, little babies” has made him reassess the situation and Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.

“It’s very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much,” Mr. Trump said.

“What happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity, and he’s there, and I guess he’s running things, so I guess something should happen,” said Mr Trump today. He declined to outline what action he would take.

“With the acts that he [Mr Assad] has taken, it would seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people,” Mr Tillerson said. “The process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort.”

Asked whether the US would organize an international coalition to pave the way for the removal of Mr Assad from power, he said: “Those steps are under way.”

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he doesn't think it's a coincidence that a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria occurred shortly after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad could remain in power.

Lesson learned

President Trump should not make rash changes in years long U.S. foreign policy. He has been in office for 2 1/2 months with no prior experience on the international stage. That factor should be taken into account, and he should listen to his experienced advisors. In the international game, Mr. Trump is not the boss. Fate is.

As he is learning quickly enough with Syria and North Korea, matters can get out of hand at the drop of a hat, and he has no control over those matters.

 

Yeah, here's the skinny on that.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) will temporarily step aside from an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including interactions between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

The move comes as the House Ethics Committee announced that it is investigating allegations that Nunes may have mishandled classified information.

In a statement, Nunes blamed complaints filed with the Office of Congressional Ethics over his decision to brief President Donald Trump on intelligence intercepts of conversations between Trump campaign aide and Russian officials during the election.

You think!!!

"... intelligence intercepts of conversations between Trump campaign aide and Russian officials during the election.

Didn't Nunes say the intercepts didn't involve the Russians?