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 (2 Viewers)

Sand said:
The first three sentences - diving Russian economy, American sanctions, etc. are statements of fact.  Not sure why he needs a "position" there.
Click to expand...
Yeah thanks, that wasn't the thrust. His point was questioning whether Putin "won". A Putin "win" doesn't require a snapshot of current conditions. 

 
Sand said:
The first three sentences - diving Russian economy, American sanctions, etc. are statements of fact.  Not sure why he needs a "position" there.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm not defending Trump in any way though. He's comments today were ridiculous, shameful (IMO) and unworthy of a United States President. But I still don't know what Russia really gained from them.

 
As an aside, it was interesting to hear Putin go on and on about a settlement between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights. I have no idea why Russia is so interested in this (why are they so involved in Bashar's regime anyhow? Never really got this.)

 
timschochet said:
I'm not staking out anything; I'm offering opinions that occur to me. Am I wrong about this? Tell me how; I'm open to correction. 
Click to expand...
I shouldn't have used "stake out". I don't see your point though in questioning whether Putin "won" by referencing conditions to this point in time. What is the impact going forward? Is it a Putin "win" to have the President throw his own intelligence services under the bus? Is it a Putin "win" to show the world (including our allies) that the US is no longer a reliable partner? That at the highest level of government we turn a blind eye to a long pattern of Russian misbehavior? I have no idea what you're saying.

 
Ranethe said:
I shouldn't have used "stake out". I don't see your point though in questioning whether Putin "won" by referencing conditions to this point in time. What is the impact going forward? Is it a Putin "win" to have the President throw his own intelligence services under the bus? Is it a Putin "win" to show the world (including our allies) that the US is no longer a reliable partner? That at the highest level of government we turn a blind eye to a long pattern of Russian misbehavior? I have no idea what you're saying.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is this. Putin left that Summit, per reports, celebrating this meeting as a "victory." But I'm not seeing what he gained. That's all. 

 
timschochet said:
Putin is acting like he won today, but did he really?

Russia remains in a terrible situation. Their monetary system is crashing, their economy sucks. There's no relief in sight from American sanctions (arguably the main reason he wanted Trump to be President.) If Russia wants it's Warsaw Pact territories back, it still has to violate NATO to get them, and just because NATO seems in disarray right now that doesn't mean that they would be if, say, Russia walked in Estonia. If I were Putin, I certainly wouldn't take that gamble.

So what did Russia gain from this exactly? Prestige? I guess, but that and a rouble won't buy you a cup of vodka...
Click to expand...
Putin has already invaded Georgia, invaded Ukraine, shot down an airliner coming from NL and filled with Dutch citizens, interfered with the US election, tried an attempted coup in Montenegro, he has supported and gained favorable electoral gains in Austria, Italy and Hungary, he has sold a weapons system to Turkey, and just last week got caught at attempting to create a breakaway province in Macedonia.

Today he basically got a slap on the back from the US President. A few days before he threatened to pull out of Nato and called the EU America's foe and he insisted Russia be let back into the G7. His political party - previously a stalwart foe and arguably a factor in the fall of the USSR - is now very much in favor of Russia or ambivalent to it. I'm not really sure why you think he has any disincentives to continue acting badly. What he has gained is a divided and neutralized USA, a declaration of moral equivalency from the US itself, and as previously mentioned any political opponents at home or in satellites like Syria might as well chuck in the towel as its clear where the Leader of the Free World takes his orders from.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
What I'm saying is this. Putin left that Summit, per reports, celebrating this meeting as a "victory." But I'm not seeing what he gained. That's all. 
Click to expand...
Gosh, I guess I just can't understand this. It seems apparent to me he gained some degree of legitimacy, sowed doubt in the world that there will be accounting-or at least recognition-that Russia has been provocative for years, that there will be any kind of united front going forward. This seems a no-brainer to me.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Putin has already invaded Georgia, invaded Ukraine, shot down an airliner coming from NL and filled with Dutch citizens, interfered with the US election, tried an attempted coup in Montenegro, he has supported and gained favorable electoral gains in Austria, Italy and Hungary, he has sold a weapons system to Turkey, and just last week got caught at attempting to create a breakaway province in Macedonia.

Today he basically got a slap on the back from the US President. A few days before he threatened to pull out of Nato and called the EU America's foe. His political party - previously a stalwart foe and arguably a factor in the fall of the USSR - is now very much in favor of Russia or ambivalent to it. I'm not really sure why you think he has any disincentives. What he has gained is a divided and neutralized USA, a declaration of moral equivalency from the US itself, and as previously mentioned any political opponents at home or in satellites like Syria might as well chuck in the towel as its clear where the Leader of the Free World takes his orders from.
Click to expand...
Good points.

 
Ranethe said:
Gosh, I guess I just can't understand this. It seems apparent to me he gained some degree of legitimacy, sowed doubt in the world that there will be accounting-or at least recognition-that Russia has been provocative for years, that there will be any kind of united front going forward. This seems a no-brainer to me.
Click to expand...
OK, that makes sense. What Saints wrote makes sense too.

It still doesn't put Russia in a better situation long term, but I see your point.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Putin has already invaded Georgia, invaded Ukraine, shot down an airliner coming from NL and filled with Dutch citizens, interfered with the US election, tried an attempted coup in Montenegro, he has supported and gained favorable electoral gains in Austria, Italy and Hungary, he has sold a weapons system to Turkey, and just last week got caught at attempting to create a breakaway province in Macedonia.

Today he basically got a slap on the back from the US President. A few days before he threatened to pull out of Nato and called the EU America's foe and he insisted Russia be let back into the G7. His political party - previously a stalwart foe and arguably a factor in the fall of the USSR - is now very much in favor of Russia or ambivalent to it. I'm not really sure why you think he has any disincentives. What he has gained is a divided and neutralized USA, a declaration of moral equivalency from the US itself, and as previously mentioned any political opponents at home or in satellites like Syria might as well chuck in the towel as its clear where the Leader of the Free World takes his orders from.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Thank you. Add in the constant penetrations of the airspace of other countries, the support of far right nationalistic movements in other countries. Destabilization everywhere.

 
I imagine sanctioning them would be the only war neccessary, the plutocracy was waivering under Obama, it probably would have consumed itself under Hillary especially if we redoubled our efforts as fallout from election meddling - now instead were here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Trump may try to get out of it with something like this:

"Look, naturally I didn't believe Putin when he denied it, but what am I gonna do? Call him a liar? We need to have a better relationship with Russia. So I said what I had to say." etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Not in a million years...at least in front of reporters because the follow up would be asking him if he was saying they DID interfere with the election

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I just want to point out the actual question:

- The question was about election interference, not collusion.

Yet Trump and Putin both jumped to the "collusion".

Trump:

Putin:
Click to expand...
also interesting the term collusion was immediately a strawman of sorts from the republicans/trump as soon as the initial hint of russian interference came out as it doesn't really have a legal definition and in some ways is an intentional red herring.  I think that you posted that article/points recently?

 
Long Ball Larry said:
also interesting the term collusion was immediately a strawman of sorts from the republicans/trump as soon as the initial hint of russian interference came out as it doesn't really have a legal definition and in some ways is an intentional red herring.  I think that you posted that article/points recently?
Click to expand...
I did, it was an article tracing the derivation of the term during the investigation as used in the press. A little like fake news Trump immediately seized upon it, he and his team use it all the time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
But what did Putin win?
Click to expand...
Discord within the USA and within the once-united world democracies and increased influence in world affairs. Although those obviously weren't "achieved" today, this is Russia's long-term goal. And that was ratcheted one step (or more) forward today.

 
And Trump (I mean Gary Johnson) supporters thought it was nuts that the NRA was a conduit.  I’m going to need a scorecard on what hasn’t been charged yet (besides for the “collusion”).

 
TheWellArmedLiberal‏ @HaileyWheelgun

FollowFollow @HaileyWheelgun

More

Replying to @MingGao26

Because in US vs. Mitchell, the opinion states that anyone who knew about the "act of levying war" via the "suppression of public offices" is also a traitor. Note that Friday's indictment names "Political Party 1" collectively.

 
It’s nice to see the Republicans outing out harshly worded statements.  Par for the course, for what happened today.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Putin has already invaded Georgia, invaded Ukraine, shot down an airliner coming from NL and filled with Dutch citizens, interfered with the US election, tried an attempted coup in Montenegro, he has supported and gained favorable electoral gains in Austria, Italy and Hungary, he has sold a weapons system to Turkey, and just last week got caught at attempting to create a breakaway province in Macedonia.

Today he basically got a slap on the back from the US President. A few days before he threatened to pull out of Nato and called the EU America's foe and he insisted Russia be let back into the G7. His political party - previously a stalwart foe and arguably a factor in the fall of the USSR - is now very much in favor of Russia or ambivalent to it. I'm not really sure why you think he has any disincentives to continue acting badly. What he has gained is a divided and neutralized USA, a declaration of moral equivalency from the US itself, and as previously mentioned any political opponents at home or in satellites like Syria might as well chuck in the towel as its clear where the Leader of the Free World takes his orders from.
Click to expand...
All teh likes

 
-fish- said:
It's motions in limine, right?   Lots of judges hear them the day before trial.
Click to expand...
I might be misunderstanding but I think it’s a motion to move and delay the trial. Would the attorneys kill an extra week of prep for trial if there was a chance it might be granted? I guess maybe it’s not going to be granted anyway but still, seems like something you’d want to know a week in advance?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I might be misunderstanding but I think it’s a motion to move and delay the trial. Would the attorneys kill an extra week of prep for trial if there was a chance it might be granted? I guess maybe it’s not going to be granted anyway but still, seems like something you’d want to know a week in advance?
Click to expand...
You'd be prepped already.   The extra time would just let you better deal with how things sit at the beginning of trial.   I haven't followed all of the filings, but there really weren't a lot of motions in limine filed, and a lot were just trying to exclude evidence of the other criminal trial or mention of the investigations of the Trump administration.

 
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
4K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
219
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top