whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Comrade Trump back to Believing Russian Interference is a Hoax

85,947 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, bueno said:

If you deal in Russia, you can't avoid dealing with the mob.

That may be true, but then that leads to two follow up questions:

1) Did the Trump organization do anything illegal while dealing with the Russian mob? 

2) Given the close ties between the Russian mob and Putin/Russian gov't, do Trump's alleged relations with the Russian mob put him in a precarious position when dealing with Russia? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Sigh. We all know John Schindlers back story , don't we?

Whoa.  a quick Google search, and I definitely remember this story.  This dude is a straight up clown.  

http://blackbag.gawker.com/the-crazy-emails-that-took-down-nsa-spook-john-schindle-1610203101

 

Quote

Remember John Schindler, the conservative talking head, retired NSA spook, and Naval War College professor who briefly went incognito after screenshots of (what appear to be) his penis leaked onto the Internet? While he has since reappeared on Twitter—where he first drew attention for defending domestic spying and criticizing Edward Snowden—he has refused to comment on the mysterious emails, sent to the Naval War College by an unnamed blogger, that prompted the school to place him on leave, and his penis under official investigation.

 

The emails sent to NWC, which Gawker obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, refer to Schindler’s habit of calling himself a “spy”; detail his correspondence with an unnamed woman (who apparently received his penis photo); and, in a lengthy missive, accuse Schindler of staging “cyber warfare” against his online enemies, using “thuggish tactics” to silence NSA critics, and violating various federal laws.

Each of the messages is heavily redacted, and the identities of their senders obscured, due to the ongoing investigation into Schindler’s conduct. But the last email is detailed (and nutty) enough to earn a closer reading, so we’ve embedded it below. You can read the rest here. Let us know if anything sticks out.

Also, it's probably very serious, but I wouldn't be upset if my penis was under official investigation.  I might even brag about it.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a requirement for running for president would be obtaining the highest level security clearances possible. I mean we make business analysts obtain them so why not follow the money on every candidate before they run?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MikeIke said:

Well, there is the little fact that Trump Taj Mahal was assessed a $10 million penalty for violating the Bank Secrecy Act, which is one of the government's primary tools for combating money laundering.

http://www.reuters.com/article/trump-ent-trumptajmahal-moneylaundering-idUSL1N0VL2L120150211

Is this from when Trump's dad laundered money through the casino?

Or is that a different completely shady situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

Man liberals are getting desperate. Guys, it's over.

something something Hillary something something election something something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, massraider said:

something something Hillary something something election something something

Something something Trump something something Russia something something

Edited by Weebs210

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Weebs210 said:

Something something Trump something something something Russia something something

Yep, some mesage board go-to retort is the same as the entire intelligence community in agreement on something.

It's the exact same thing.  

Anyone ever call you Knowledge Dropper?  Cause you just dropped some, dawg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MikeIke said:

Well, there is the little fact that Trump Taj Mahal was assessed a $10 million penalty for violating the Bank Secrecy Act, which is one of the government's primary tools for combating money laundering.

http://www.reuters.com/article/trump-ent-trumptajmahal-moneylaundering-idUSL1N0VL2L120150211

Where is the Russian connection in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, massraider said:

Yep, some mesage board go-to retort is the same as the entire intelligence community in agreement on something.

It's the exact same thing.  

Anyone ever call you Knowledge Dropper?  Cause you just dropped some, dawg.

Thanks dawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whoknew said:

Well I hope this doesn't get me banned, but its an important story that should be discussed.

John Schindler went on a tweet storm about Trump's Russian mob ties this morning. Here is the storified version.

The basic premise is that the Trump organization has had Russian mob ties since the 90s. And this is well known in the intelligence community.

 

Good for him...Maybe he can use those ties to cleanup South Chicago.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

Man liberals are getting desperate. Guys, it's over.

@Joe Bryant 

Yo mods. This is a prime example of a post that should be deleted and the poster given a timeout. Serves no purpose to the discussion at hand.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bucky86 said:

@Joe Bryant 

Yo mods. This is a prime example of a post that should be deleted and the poster given a timeout. Serves no purpose to the discussion at hand.

That's the one you picked out of all nonsense posted here?  Or the only one that irritates your political beliefs?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread will end well

:popcorn:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only read the OP. Is this like Obama's Kenyan ties?


Trump should send his own investigative team to Russia to get to the bottom of it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

That's the one you picked out of all nonsense posted here?  Or the only one that irritates your political beliefs?

He didn't mention you calling people tools, should he have quoted that one?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

That's the one you picked out of all nonsense posted here?  Or the only one that irritates your political beliefs?

Or we can have a debate on a subject without generalizing the other side? :shrug:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually want to buy a Trump/Russia tie to wear camping this summer.  Anyone selling these yet? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like a lot of smoke but no fire (yet) 

i wonder if there is anything here, and if so, why are we just hearing about it now? seems a functioning media would have gone down this rabbit hole and alerted us like a year ago if there was anything substantive underneath this. 

trump can also release his tax and financial records to remove all suspicion (assuming he has nothing to hide) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

I actually want to buy a Trump/Russia tie to wear camping this summer.  Anyone selling these yet? 

Soon to be sold here.

 

https://trumpstore2016.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to learn how to speak Russian, I want to make our President Putin proud.
Whose followers are worse, Scientology or Trumps? Should really be a poll about these things.

Edited by WheelsUp
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WheelsUp said:

I need to learn how to speak Russia, I want to make our President Putin proud.
Whose followers are worse, Scientology or Trumps? Should really be a poll about these things.

I'd love to know what % of Scientologists voted for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, massraider said:

He didn't mention you calling people tools, should he have quoted that one?

:lmao:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WheelsUp said:

I need to learn how to speak Russian, I want to make our President Putin proud.
Whose followers are worse, Scientology or Trumps? Should really be a poll about these things.

@Joe Bryant

He said mean things please delete and give time out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL at Bucky calling out something he does all the time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is is Trump and his supporters (and Scientology for that matter) want to silence everyone in the media and its critics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jamny said:

Where is the Russian connection in that?

Fair question.  Doubt there is a Russian connection with that Trump Taj Majal fine.  It does show behavior consistent with someone willing to business with organized crime, which makes this Russian mob story seem like it's not from nowhere.  

Not proving anything, not certifying the connection.  However, there's a long pattern of behavior from Trump dong shady things himself and working with other shady characters domestically that it wouldn't be a total surprise if he took that act on the road.  

It does seem a little strange that this didn't pop up earlier, but Trump's refusal to release meaningful financial information about himself during the campaign might have played a role in that.

Edited by Bruce Dickinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why we can't have nice things...

Could those taking shots at "liberals" and calling people "tools," or those generalizing and insulting Trump supporters please just stop? These are interesting and important issues, and it would be nice if adults could read/discuss such things. 

Of course, if your shtick is funny, please realize I'm not talking about you. 

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, its hard to read and discuss anything Trump related.
Maybe that should give those who support Trump pause of why MORE than have the countrey is not just upset, but enraged.
Normally you cant discuss a person or his issues seriously if they mocked a disabled person on the campaign trail while also being on camera talking about his one year olds breasts in the past. Oh, and dont forget his Access Hollywood tape, its hard for some to even get past the joke of Trump to talk seriously. So sorry if some of us look at Trump and everything about him as a complete joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:

LOL at Bucky calling out something he does all the time.

Really? ALL the time?

Yeah, I have called Trump supporters "Trumpkins." However, once the mods told people to stop using that term.(Trump supporters like their safe spaces too) I stopped. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WheelsUp said:

To be fair, its hard to read and discuss anything Trump related.
Maybe that should give those who support Trump pause of why MORE than have the countrey is not just upset, but enraged.
Normally you cant discuss a person or his issues seriously if they mocked a disabled person on the campaign trail while also being on camera talking about his one year olds breasts in the past. Oh, and dont forget his Access Hollywood tape, its hard for some to even get past the joke of Trump to talk seriously. So sorry if some of us look at Trump and everything about him as a complete joke.

Suck it!  They won!  Woooooohooooo!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Really? ALL the time?

Yeah, I have called Trump supporters "Trumpkins." However, once the mods told people to stop using that term.(Trump supporters like their safe spaces too) I stopped. 

 

Yea guys this one time he wants a serious discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bucky86 said:

Really? ALL the time?

Yeah, I have called Trump supporters "Trumpkins." However, once the mods told people to stop using that term.(Trump supporters like their safe spaces too) I stopped. 

 

Not a big deal LOL.  OK, a vast majority of your posts are little quips mocking whatever.  I find most of them funny and part of the overall FFA schtick.  I do it alot also :hifive:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's as if the hacking allegations aren't panning out, so they decided to go back to the drawing board.  I'm sure everyone of the conspiracy theorists peddling this is just as familiar with Hillary Clinton's ties to the Hot Springs Arkansas mob...  Where was the outrage about that?  One could piece together an extravagant, loosely based story on that as well.

Edited by Quez
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reposting from @adonis

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-russian-agent-legal-analysis

 

Quote

 

Is Trump a Russian Agent? A Legal Analysis

By Susan Hennessey, Benjamin Wittes

 Wednesday, July 27, 2016, 1:46 PM

An amazing debate is taking place among serious analysts and journalists in the United States regarding the relationship between the Republican nominee for President and the Russian state.

This debate is not taking place on the fringes, or in internet comments, but instead in the pages of the New York Review of Books, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Slate, and elsewhere. The participants are undeniably substantive—editors of famed magazines, Pulitzer Prize winners, and authors of esteemed books on Russia, its leader, and its history.

This high-power group is debating whether Donald Trump is a tool, wittingly or unwittingly, of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On the “yes” side is a remarkable lineup of intellectual firepower. There’s this remarkable essay by Franklin Foer; there’s this piece from Anne Applebaum; there’s this one from Paul Krugman; and there’s this from Josh Marshall. On the other side of the ledger, in addition to the weird comments both from official Russian sources and from Trump himself, is this essay by Putin foe Masha Gessen, who sees the entire Trump-Putin meme as a distraction from the deeply American dangers of Trump.

The fact that serious people can have a serious discussion of whether a major party candidate for president is operating on behalf of an adversarial foreign nuclear power is alone gobsmacking. And we don’t propose to resolve the dispute here, at least not in any final kind of way.

We do think, however, that the discussion would benefit from slightly greater clarity of terms. So as a public service, we are offering the following analysis of the Trump-Putin evidence against several different legal and non-legal standards.

 

Question #1: Is Donald Trump an Agent of a Foreign Power Targetable Under FISA?

Answer: Not On the Current Record.

One way of asking whether a U.S. person is a Manchurian Candidate is to look at whether he meets the criteria for surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The fact that we are even writing this sentence about a presidential candidate is a reflection of what a strange year 2016 is.

FISA defines an “agent of a foreign power,” in relevant part, as follows: any person who “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States”; or who “pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.”

The DNC hack provides considerable evidence that Trump is the beneficiary of the clandestine activity of “a foreign power.” And there is plenty of evidence that Trump has spoken in a fashion that would reasonably please the foreign actor in question. But there is no evidence at all that Trump has engaged in or abetted clandestine espionage activity himself, much less that he has done so in probable violation of any U.S. law.

So if the Manchurian Candidate question is one of whether Trump is a Putin agent within the meaning of FISA, the public record certainly does not support that.  

 

Question #2: Is Trump an Agent of a Foreign Principal Under FARA?

Answer: Not on the current record.

Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), every non-exempt agent of a foreign principal is required to register with the Department of Justice.

Donald Trump is clearly a “person” within the meaning of the Act (less obviously in other senses of the word). His corporations, partnerships and organizations also qualify, though we’ll treat him as an individual for now. A foreign principal includes “a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party” or any non-US citizen outside the United States (subject to exceptions). Here, the Russian government, Vladimir Putin, and most of the various associated actors clearly qualify.

The important legal question under FARA is whether Trump (a person) qualifies as an “agent” of Russia (a foreign principal). An agent of a foreign principal is any person who acts “at the order, request, or under the direction or control of” that principal, anyone “whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized” by that principal and who then “engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interest of such foreign principal.” Separately, an agent of a foreign principal under FARA is “any person who agrees, consents, assumes, or purports to act as, or who is or holds himself out to be … an agent of a foreign principal” as otherwise defined.

Based on the facts in evidence, Donald Trump does not qualify as a foreign agent within the Act. Previously, FARA was primarily focused on countering propaganda and did not require a direct nexus or connection. But the law has been amended to more narrowly define the requirements for an agent relationship. While Trump has ties to Russia and has expressed surprising affinity and admiration for its strongman leader, there is no evidence that he is actually working under the direction or control of Russia or Putin and he expressly disavows that characterization. On the present record, at least, to borrow language from the ISIS discussion, Trump seems to be more inspired by Putin than directed by him. (Note: it is more plausible that particular Trump campaign advisors—who are engaging in “political activity” by virtue of their participation in his campaign—would be required to register under the Act.)

If Trump were to be deemed an agent of a foreign power, that would be a rather serious matter. While the United States has not successfully prosecuted any criminal violations of FARA in a half-century, it does routinely seek civil enforcement against covered individuals who fail to register. Moreover, if Trump were a foreign agent within the Act and actually won the Presidency, he would be in violation of 18 USC 219, which prohibits any “public official” from being an agent of a foreign principal. Public officials include Members of Congress and “an officer or employee or person acting for on on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof… in any official function.” Being President of the United States would appear to qualify.   

 

Question: Is Russia Actively Supporting Trump’s Candidacy?

Answer: Damn Straight!

The evidence that Russia is actively supporting Trump’s candidacy using covert intelligence means seems, at this point, pretty strong. This does not mean, of course, that Trump is a Russian agent. But apparently without his direction or control, Russian intelligence agencies have a laid a bet on the man. Susan summarized the evidence of this the other day: 

Defense One lays out the powerful, though not definitive, public evidence of Russian involvement. The New York Times offers a somewhat more tempered assessment. It is important to recognize that the strongest evidence regarding attribution was made public long before the most recent batch of emails was released:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reported in May that the intelligence community had evidence that foreign governments were targeting campaigns.

In June, Crowdstrike published its account, specifically naming Russian state actors as behind the DNC hack.

While the Russians have long been known to use information and disinformation campaigns to influence foreign elections, there was initial skepticism regarding the degree of Crowdstrike’s certainty. However, the discovery of incriminating metadata—first noticed by Matt Tait who tweets under @pwnallthethings—and other evidence quickly corroborated the Crowdstrike assessment.

There are well-documented connections between Wikileaks—the chosen vehicle for the leak release—its founder Julian Assange, and the Russian state apparatus.

Paired with the technical indicators, the sum total of evidence is about as close to a smoking gun as can be expected where a sophisticated nation state is involved.  

Since then, the evidence has only grown stronger. The New York Timesyesterday reported that “American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have ‘high confidence’ that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee.”

Even if there were no covert actions, the overt ones alone are pretty telling. Putin and others in the Russian leadership have repeatedly praised Trump. They are not playing their cards close to their vests about liking him and disliking his opponent. In U.S. presidential elections, the distinction between working on behalf of one candidate versus against the other is largely semantic. Harm done to one of the candidates in a two-party system necessarily benefits the other. So it is difficult to understand how much Russia is motivated by liking Trump and how much it is motivated by hating Clinton. Probably a bit of a both.

Bottom line: Trump may not be acting (legally speaking) on behalf of Russia, but Russia is acting on behalf of him.

 

Question: Is Trump a “Useful Idiot” for Putin?

Answer: Yup.

The phrase “useful idiots” (полезные дураки, in Russian) is often attributed to Lenin—though probably not accurately—and refers to people in the West who can be counted upon by virtue of naivete or stupidity to act on Russia’s behalf while not being active agents. This is probably the best way to understand the relationship between Trump and Putin. The evidence of a bromance between them is uncontestable. The evidence of an affinity in personality and strongman nastiness is as well.

Moreover, the evidence is neither contested or contestable that Trump has taken public positions exceedingly favorable to Russia and far outside of the American mainstream. As Foer points out at great length in his excellent piece, Trump has repeatedly sought to do business in Russia and acquired financing from Russian sources. He has proposed Russia-friendly policies, even to the point of proposing to abandon NATO allies. He has praised Putin repeatedly. And he has surrounded himself with people who have extensive histories representing the interests of those close to Putin. Only today, Trump openly sided with Russian intelligence against the United States and urged further spying.

Small wonder that Russia has responded by seeking to advance Trump’s cause domestically, both by covert and overt means. Who needs an agent when you get so much for free?

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the hacking allegations proved quite a bit and told us a lot. I'm not sure what anyone should have realistically expected the information to do in terms of its impact, though. The general public who voted for Trump clearly wasn't going to be influenced by those results. He's done and said far worse and they still support him. The prominent Republicans who back him aren't going to change positions now. They've made their choice and it will stick for four more years.

I think any legitimate information about Trump should be brought to light. I just question the impact any of it will have. I think he's untouchable at this point. I'd love to be wrong about that but seeing everything he did that resulted in him being prominently supported and ultimately elected has me dubious that any bit of information will prove to be his undoing now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, packersfan said:

I think the hacking allegations proved quite a bit and told us a lot. 

I think any legitimate information about Trump should be brought to light.

I just question the impact any of it will have. I think he's untouchable at this point. 

They proved most were unwilling to change their opinions based on allegations with lack of strong evidence.  If allegations with legitimate evidence ever came about, that would be a different story.  So far he is untouchable to allegations with weak evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now