What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (6 Viewers)

Sinn Fein said:
More dots to connect - this was reporting from 2017:

The initial statement Donald Trump Jr. provided to the press, which was reportedly dictated by his father, read:

"It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand."

The statement did not mention that Donald Trump Jr. had been offered compromising information about Hillary Clinton in exchange for taking the meeting. And it was crafted by the president one day after he discussed "adoptions" with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a dinner at the G20 summit.

Asked about that dinner later, Trump told the New York Times that he and Putin "just talked about things. Actually, it was very interesting; we talked about adoptions."

The fact that Trump and Putin spoke about the adoption issue — which is intimately connected to the US' sanctions policy— the night before Trump reportedly crafted his son's statement about the Trump Tower meeting raises questions about whether Putin played a role, directly or indirectly, in influencing the version of events Trump's team relayed to the press.
Click to expand...
Trump crafting the statements is funny to me.  Like that statement wasn't given to him by Putin.  

You can almost here the "aha" moment in the middle of this sentence ... "just talked about things. Actually, it was very interesting; we talked about adoptions."

 
Sabertooth said:
Trump crafting the statements is funny to me.  Like that statement wasn't given to him by Putin.  

You can almost here the "aha" moment in the middle of this sentence ... "just talked about things. Actually, it was very interesting; we talked about adoptions."
Click to expand...
Its funny, because when this was reported in 2017 - nobody took the allegation that Putin was running Trump seriously.

Now, its not funny, because it might be true.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Presuming this happens, do you want to take a shot at a justification or argument why the US should allow a security risk acting against the nation’s interest for an adversarial power to remain president?  
Click to expand...
If this is purely "unwitting" - then the onus falls on the Congress (read GOP) to provide checks and balances.

And, if we are being honest here - the GOP should be vilified for failing to uphold that constitutional duty.  Significantly, not only not providing checks and balances - but people like Nunes who are actively encouraging Trump to act in Russia's best interests instead of America's.

GOP should have a mass resignation for allowing/enabling/making this to happen on their watch.

 
Even if fully unwitting, he still made all the decisions to surround himself with the players needed to carry out Russia’s desires in the face of scrutiny and warnings from our own intelligence community.  His entire orbit is comprised of pro-Russia individuals and while he may not have known he was getting played, he certainly had to know he was working to play others for his benefit by way of this grouping 

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
Dedfin said:
I haven't but I don't believe he's a russian troll farm worker, although I admit it would be fun to dismiss people like that. I think he bought into a set of news media sources that make sense to his anti-authortarian perspective and the more he reads the further away he gets from the rest of us. It can happen to normal people.
Click to expand...
My ex business partner in Peru was like that. We had some fun, drunken escapades (and discussions). That said, ren is almost inhumanly capable of not agreeing with anything other than his chosen narrative

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The President of the United States is a Russian asset.

I've believed that the campaign was guilty of some kind of collusion from the start, but two years later it's still completely surreal to type that sentence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Okay.  Type Obama and Pawn into google. 
Click to expand...
Congress wouldn't have such an impeachment take place because the conservative treehouse says so. They would do it because of fact finding by the OSC and the IC.

If you're looking for distinguishing facts, why not reference hiding meetings and notes from the intelligence, diplomatic and intelligence communities, such as what Sinn noted above? "Unwitting" does get harder at that point and with every act by the president, I'll grant that.

 
The only thing "unwitting" about Trump and Russia IMO is that this nitwit doesn't know or care what the repercussions would entail for the US or the rest of the world.

Like everything else, it's all about getting what he wants. So if he has to soften up on Russia a bit in order to become President? No biggie. Small price to pay for finally being the most popular person on earth.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Congress wouldn't have such an impeachment take place because the conservative treehouse says so. They would do it because of fact finding by the OSC and the IC.

If you're looking for distinguishing facts, why not reference hiding meetings and notes from the intelligence, diplomatic and intelligence communities, such as what Sinn noted above? "Unwitting" does get harder at that point and with every act by the president, I'll grant that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean, that stuff is all good evidence that it isn’t unwitting.  Which I don’t think it is.  I’m just saying that fully unwittingly being manipulated wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment in my opinion.

 
That one guy said:
Even if fully unwitting, he still made all the decisions to surround himself with the players needed to carry out Russia’s desires in the face of scrutiny and warnings from our own intelligence community.  His entire orbit is comprised of pro-Russia individuals and while he may not have known he was getting played, he certainly had to know he was working to play others for his benefit by way of this grouping 
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this also.  It makes all of this seem so much worse.

 
The Commish said:
Ignorance is a defense with a lot of people and it was further solidified in Comey's opinion on Clinton where he essentially said, "Yeah, she did obviously stupid things and was completely careless, but she didn't know what she was doing or at the very least wasn't doing it with the intent to hurt anyone/anything".  It's the one thing that came from Comey that disgusted me.
Click to expand...
Putting aside the specifics about Hillary- I really don’t want to get into that again- it doesn’t disgust me. Ignorance is a defense with me, and always has been, long before Comey made that argument. 

I think impeachment should be reserved for deliberate actions of wrongdoing. That being said, Trump committed an impeachable offense, IMO, when he asked Comey to go easy on Flynn. To me that would be enough to remove him. But it won’t be for Congress. 

 
bananafish said:
We have to be careful that we don't lose our own sense of normalcy and right and wrong just because the President doesn't believe in such things, no matter how tempting the ends-justify-the-means reasoning may be. Going to be a tough row to hoe.
Click to expand...
I think it's going to be harder to maintain our norms and rule of law because ~25% of the country doesn't care and is willing to defend him no matter what.  They're going to scream "witch hunt" and corruption regardless.

Fortunately, the co-equal Judicial Branch of government hasn't been particularly swayed by bull#### arguments to this point.  And Dems took the House.  And the Senate is at genuine risk for Republicans in 22 months, given the makeup of the seats up for election.

 
My take on where we are and how we got here.

1.  I think Russia preferred Trump to Clinton

2.  I think Russia's primary goals were to eliminate the sanctions that were impacting the Russian economy, and to destabilize Europe/NATO to make it easier for Russia to take certain strategic real estate.

3.  I think Russia looked to leverage Trump's existing financial arrangements with the Oligarchs and also to exploit Trump's ego in building Trump Moscow.

4.  Trump has a predisposition to admire authoritarian leaders - Putin fits that mold.  And, I think Trump has an odd fascination with Putin.

5.  Russia worked behind the scenes to elect Trump.  I think its an open question whether some of Trump's people were knowingly working in concert with the Russians

6.  I think Trump is blind to Putin - and has no idea how Putin is using him to further the Russian agenda.  Putin whispers sweet nothings to Trump, and Trump buys it all hook, line and sinker.

7.  Trump's ego will not allow him to contemplate that he has been played like a cheap banjo.

Trump is a Russian asset.  I think he is an unwitting asset - but one who is also willfully blind.  That makes him dangerous, and at this point, complicit.  I don't believe there was a secret plan that was hatched by Trump and Putin.  I think this was Putin taking advantage of Trump's naiveté, and ego.  Some of the players may be more complicit - i.e. they knew they were working on behalf of Russian interests.  I also think that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice - such that impeachment would be proper.  

I hold the GOP as much, or more, responsible for allowing this to continue.  A proper investigation into Russian interference should have taken place under GOP leadership, and uncovered much of what we are seeing reported now.  Then, even if Trump were an unwitting asset - everyone could act with eyes wide open to whether we were acting in US best interest, or Russia's best interest.  Now those questions will be asked with every decision.

I am also astounded that the GOP will allow Trump to lift the sanctions on  Deripaska's companies - simply because they shifted the ownership a bit.  That is a dereliction in duty, imo.

Certainly, if more information becomes public about what Trump knew, and when he knew it - then I would be up for changing my views here.  For now, he is just an idiot, who deserves to lose his job because he is an idiot.

 
The Z Machine said:
Perhaps that's the true meaning of deep state?  Mueller has informed enough of he right people in order to limit the total catastrophe of this presidency.

Seems unlikely. More likely is that Mueller felt he needs to make a 100% airtight case such that no one can skate due to politics.
Click to expand...
Agree that the former seems unlikely. What leaks have we heard from the OSC? If he's informing people prior to court filings, stuff would be leaking.

 
squistion said:
"Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?"

Trump doesn't directly answer: "I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked. I think it's the most insulting article I've ever had written."

Via Fox

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1084310297039368193
Click to expand...
He answered the question more directly this morning.

- Albeit by claiming that he has lots of meetings with foreign leaders that he doesn't tell his government about and also that (of course): 'hoax.'

 
Skoo said:
The President of the United States is a Russian asset.

I've believed that the campaign was guilty of some kind of collusion from the start, but two years later it's still completely surreal to type that sentence.
Click to expand...
Now type "And the entire GOP is still standing behind him and fighting for him, tooth and nail".  How does that make you feel?

 
Sinn Fein said:
Its funny, because when this was reported in 2017 - nobody took the allegation that Putin was running Trump seriously.

Now, its not funny, because it might be true.
Click to expand...
You know it is, right?  I mean, if it looks like a  duck, and quacks like a duck and all that.  

Using Hoccam's razor here - Trump is a Russian asset.  

The President of the United States is a Russian agent.  That's some Tom Clancy #### right there.  

 
Bucky86 said:
:goodposting:

But I don't think it's so much an open question whether Trump's people knowingly worked in concert with Russia. The question is mostly did TRUMP know they were.
Click to expand...
I’d go as far to say that several people were in the campaign because of their connections to Russia - Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulos, Page, etc.

I think we will find that the Russian ties are even deeper in that Russian Intelligence and the Kremlin played a big part in identifying Russian friendly people to serve on the campaign, transition and administration as well as identifying others who may be compromised.

 
Maybe I'm being naive, but if the Republicans had actually taken this seriously (assuming some of the leadership isn't involved) and welcomed the investigation and did their part, I would think their current standing would be higher than it currently is.  What better way to campaign than to show they are above partisan lines and simply did what's right.

 
The Commish said:
Ignorance is a defense with a lot of people and it was further solidified in Comey's opinion on Clinton where he essentially said, "Yeah, she did obviously stupid things and was completely careless, but she didn't know what she was doing or at the very least wasn't doing it with the intent to hurt anyone/anything".  It's the one thing that came from Comey that disgusted me.
Click to expand...
Just to tie this in, consider that Trump has been reported as ordering the destruction of records. And I think but I am not sure that an interpreter's notes from a leader to leader foreign policy discussion would be on a very high level of classified, even though unmarked. If this is true he's guilty of that, and the one to one order to the interpreter makes "intent" completely unclouded. And IIRC Omarosa Manigault wrote that she saw Trump actually chewing and swallowing notes. (eta - Also IIRC Woodward reported something similar about Trump tearing up memos, throwing them in the trash can, and his aides scrambling to pick them back up, and piece and tape them back together). It would be crime no. 83 on the list of crimes under consideration but it's suggested by the reporting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Just to tie this in, consider that Trump has been reported as ordering the destruction of records. And I think but I am not sure that an interpreter's notes from a leader to leader foreign policy discussion would be on a very high level of classified, even though unmarked. If this is true he's guilty of that, and the one to one order to the interpreter makes "intent" completely unclouded. And IIRC Omarosa Manigault wrote that she saw Trump actually chewing and swallowing notes. (eta - Also IIRC Woodward reported something similar about Trump tearing up memos, throwing them in the trash can, and his aides scrambling to pick them back up, and piece and tape them back together). It would be crime no. 83 on the list of crimes under consideration but it's suggested by the reporting.
Click to expand...
Does he eat them with salt, some type of hot sauce, ketchup?

Treason is so so tasty.

 
gianmarco said:
We have different definitions of "completely debunked". An opinion piece from the Washington Examiner is hardly that.

I trust this source substantially more. Quite the opposite of completely debunked.

Stop posting falsehoods, please.
Click to expand...
The language wasn’t even in the platform until the Ted Cruz supporter suggested the amendment to it.  They changed ‘lethal defensive weapons’ to ‘appropriate assistance’.  

“In the end, nothing was taken out of the party's original draft platform on Russia. At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. It was also made tougher with Denman's reference to "NATO defense planning," which had not been in the original draft. 

Finally, Denman's lethal aid suggestion was changed to "appropriate assistance to the armed forces" — a change that put the specific promise of U.S. aid to Ukraine's armed forces in the platform where it had not been originally. 

"The platform ended up tougher than it started, compared from the beginning to the end," Denman told me, although she added she still believes her lethal aid provision should have been included in the final document. “

In the international arena, a weak Administration has invited aggression. The results of the Administration’s unilateral approach to disarmament are already clear: An emboldened China in the South China Sea, a resurgent Russia occupying parts of Ukraine and threatening neighbors from the Baltic to the Caucasus, and an aggressive Islamist terror network in the Middle East.

We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning. ..

For the people of Russia, we affirm our respect and our determination to maintain a friendship beyond the reach of those who wish to divide us. We have common imperatives: Ending terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, promoting trade, and more. We also have a common problem: The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.
Click to expand...
The platform was strengthened with Denman's passage, which was nonexistent in the platform before being passed with Trump's approval.  It was not "gutted" or weakened.  That is absolutely, completely false.  And it didn't matter anyway!  Trump sold anti-tank Javeline missiles to Ukraine in December of 17.  

It's a manufactured crisis based on a brutal mischaracterization of what actually happened.  Please stop perpetuating this disingenuous falsehood clickbait

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek said:
The language wasn’t even in the platform until the Ted Cruz supporter suggested the amendment to it.  They changed ‘lethal defensive weapons’ to ‘appropriate assistance’.  

“In the end, nothing was taken out of the party's original draft platform on Russia. At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. It was also made tougher with Denman's reference to "NATO defense planning," which had not been in the original draft. 

Finally, Denman's lethal aid suggestion was changed to "appropriate assistance to the armed forces" — a change that put the specific promise of U.S. aid to Ukraine's armed forces in the platform where it had not been originally. 

"The platform ended up tougher than it started, compared from the beginning to the end," Denman told me, although she added she still believes her lethal aid provision should have been included in the final document. “
Click to expand...
Why are you quoting my post and then posting quotes from your original link?  I read your link.  It's an OPINION piece and it's from the Washington Examiner, an extremely right leaning publication with bias.

Once again, read the link that I provided from a much more credible source.

STOP.  SPREADING.  FALSEHOODS.

 
gianmarco said:
Why are you quoting my post and then posting quotes from your original link?  I read your link.  It's an OPINION piece and it's from the Washington Examiner, an extremely right leaning publication with bias.

Once again, read the link that I provided from a much more credible source.

STOP.  SPREADING.  FALSEHOODS.
Click to expand...
Because your link analyzed the significance of two words and discards all other context.  York’s piece explains how narrow minded and stupid this hollow talking point is and gives readers real context on the actual formation of the platform.  

If you read the platform, you’ll notice it’s not exactly dovish on Russia.  The truth is that those passages strengthened the platform where they otherwise didn’t exist.  Regardless of what the two words politifact analyzed say. 

I don’t know why people think the gop platform mattered.  Trump sold lethal weaponry to Ukraine and people would still think the GOP is ‘Putin’s poodle’ or whatever anyway.  

 
ren hoek said:
Because your link analyzed the significance of two words and discards all other context.  York’s piece explains how narrow minded and stupid this hollow talking point is and gives readers real context on the actual formation of the platform.  

If you read the platform, you’ll notice it’s not exactly dovish on Russia.  The truth is that those passages strengthened the platform where they otherwise didn’t exist.  Regardless of what the two words politifact analyzed say. 

I don’t know why people think the gop platform mattered.  Trump sold lethal weaponry to Ukraine and people would still think the GOP is ‘Putin’s poodle’ or whatever anyway.  
Click to expand...
“Not exactly” is the new “everyone is saying”.  Your word salad is as tasty as the interpreters ripped up notes.

 
Coming up on two years in office. Sorry fellas but collusion and crime was never a reality for Trump. Better luck next time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Cohen has been called to testify before Congress.

Last night on Fox News, Trump claimed Cohen is “in trouble on some loans and fraud” and also that he “should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at."

Intimidating or attempting to intimidate a congressional witness is a federal crime. If this isn’t an attempt by Trump to intimidate Cohen, I don’t know what is.

If you didn't already know it, the current president of the United States is a criminal.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Pretty sure JD Gordon already said that Trump ordered it via Gordon, or that's been reported.
Click to expand...
I meant all the language in Denman’s proposed amendment (sanctions, NATO cooperation, assistance to Ukrainian forces etc.). It hardlined the platform on Ukraine.  

To suggest that changing those two words gutted the GOP platform and was a personal gift to Vladimir Putin (as it calls for sanctions, NATO collaboration, and further militarizing Ukraine) is about as disingenuous as it gets.  It’s just not true.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
195
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top