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 (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter whoknew
- Start date
Henry Ford
Footballguy
"Who are eight Republicans who didn't have enough influence to get out of it, Alex?"Finally.
Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand 12m12 minutes ago
New:
The Republican members of House Intel have been named, which will allow House Intel to be constituted by the end of next week. The members are: Mike Conaway, Mike Turner, Brad Wenstrup, Chris Stewart, Rick Crawford, Elise Stefanik, Will Hurd and John Ratcliffe.
prefontaine
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Because I don’t view foreign policy through Russia lens- I think NATO is entangling the US and driving aggression where there really doesn’t have to be any. It’s not outlandish to prefer a peaceful dynamic with a nuclear superpower. It really isn’t.
Trump has taken actions that are diametrically opposed to Russian interests and undercut collusion narrative- bombing Syria, a coup in Venezuela, nuking the Iran Deal and INF Treaty, trying to sink Euro/Russian Nordstream 2 pipeline for US energy interests, prosecuting Assange, driving up overall NATO military expenditure, arming Ukraine. If there was “ kompromat “ on Trump, it would have come out a long time ago. The administration is packed with Russia hawks.
I don’t think it’s all that uncommon for heads of state to meet with just translators present. He’s also the President of the United States and reserves the right to conduct foreign policy on his own terms. But who knows.
That's a who's who of 'who?'.Finally.
Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand 12m12 minutes ago
New:
The Republican members of House Intel have been named, which will allow House Intel to be constituted by the end of next week. The members are: Mike Conaway, Mike Turner, Brad Wenstrup, Chris Stewart, Rick Crawford, Elise Stefanik, Will Hurd and John Ratcliffe.
I think he was asking why, in your view, Trump has been careful to make sure that there's no record of what he and Putin discussed.
Sorry if I'm missing it, but I don't see an answer to that question in your post.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Trump wasn't committing crimes fast enough so they figured they better pitch in to keep Mueller from catching up.
ren hoek
Footballguy
No, that’s fair. My guess is he wanted to avoid a situation where his staff leaks on him and the media reports it in a sensational way, as they have been for 2 years. Part of it could be that he wants to have a private conversation with a foreign head of state without having to answer to people who are operating in bad faith. Part of it is just privacy itself; it’s reasonable to expect that such a dialogue would veer into sensitive areas. They make mountains out of molehills in their TrumpRussia reporting regularly.
I wouldn’t mind knowing how those dialogues go either. But I don’t confer a sinister motive on it anymore than if he met with like, Japan or something, either.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
bombing Syria: was a strike we warned them about where and when it would happen, the airfield that was struck was being used the next morning, and there were no casualties.
a coup in Venezuela: Which we have done nothing in.
nuking the Iran Deal: This is in Russia's interest
and INF Treaty: Hasn't been nuked yet, but this is absolutely in Russia's interest, as sea- and air-based missiles are 100% a U.S. advantage.
trying to sink Euro/Russian Nordstream 2 pipeline for US energy interests: How'd that go?
prosecuting Assange: There has been no prosecution of Assange
driving up overall NATO military expenditure: By threatening not to support and defend NATO countries. That's not a bad thing for Russia
arming Ukraine: You mean that deal that went through after Ukraine stopped cooperating with Mueller and ended its investigation into Paul Manafort?
That one guy
Footballguy
Almost all foreign policy initiatives must go through the Senate for actual approval, correct? Interactions with other heads of states are important, then, as a means to convey desired and/or proposed actions?
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
You're comparing an ally to our biggest enemy.
I don't think Trump meeting with Putin like this is normal? @Maurile Tremblay
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Trump has met with Putin 5 times; what was said is a mystery
“What’s disconcerting is the desire to hide information from your own team,” said Andrew S. Weiss, who was a Russia adviser to President Bill Clinton. “The fact that Trump didn’t want the State Department or members of the White House team to know what he was talking with Putin about suggests it was not about advancing our country’s national interest but something more problematic.”
“What’s disconcerting is the desire to hide information from your own team,” said Andrew S. Weiss, who was a Russia adviser to President Bill Clinton. “The fact that Trump didn’t want the State Department or members of the White House team to know what he was talking with Putin about suggests it was not about advancing our country’s national interest but something more problematic.”
BigJim®
Footballguy
It's not about whether you (Joe citizen) knows... it's whether national advisors know, and reportedly they do not. Again reportedly, our intelligence agencies need to rely on info gathering to gather what our own president was discussing in these meetings, and that's just wrong. I heard a good point last night that Trump can't conceivably be acting on behalf of the U.S. Interests if there is not a soul in the American Government who knows what was discussed, agreed, promised, etc. If he discusses Syria with Putin (which was learned only through intel), and then proclaims a decision to leave Syria without so much as conferring with national advisors, allies, etc. that is insanity.
Dickies
Footballguy
If he conducted himself with an ounce of professionalism and wasn't constantly trying to do illegal ####, the leaks would stop. Of course there's 0% chance of that happening.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Nixon sometimes met with leaders without a translator
He didn’t trust State, and was worried about leaks.
The difference between his meetings and Trump is he always had someone else there taking notes - often his then National Security advisor, Henry Kissinger. At any rate, those meetings still have some kind of record at the State Department.
As far as State goes in the Trump administration, Putin has never met with 45 - no record exists.
He didn’t trust State, and was worried about leaks.
The difference between his meetings and Trump is he always had someone else there taking notes - often his then National Security advisor, Henry Kissinger. At any rate, those meetings still have some kind of record at the State Department.
As far as State goes in the Trump administration, Putin has never met with 45 - no record exists.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Hmm, where is Nunes?Finally.
Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand 12m12 minutes ago
New:
The Republican members of House Intel have been named, which will allow House Intel to be constituted by the end of next week. The members are: Mike Conaway, Mike Turner, Brad Wenstrup, Chris Stewart, Rick Crawford, Elise Stefanik, Will Hurd and John Ratcliffe.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
He's on there.
Full list.
Republicans:
Rep. Devin Nunes (Ranking member)
Rep. Mike Conaway
Rep. Mike Turner
Rep. Brad Wenstrup
Rep. Chris Stewart
Rep. Rick Crawford
Rep. Elise Stefanik
Rep. Will Hurd
Rep. John Ratcliffe
Democrats:
Rep. Adam Schiff (Chairman)
Rep. Jim Himes
Rep. Terri Sewell
Rep. André Carson
Rep. Jackie Speier
Rep. Mike Quigley
Rep. Eric Swalwell
Rep. Joaquin Castro
Rep. Denny Heck
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney
Rep. Val Demings
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. Devin Nunes (Ranking member)
Rep. Mike Conaway
Rep. Mike Turner
Rep. Brad Wenstrup
Rep. Chris Stewart
Rep. Rick Crawford
Rep. Elise Stefanik
Rep. Will Hurd
Rep. John Ratcliffe
Democrats:
Rep. Adam Schiff (Chairman)
Rep. Jim Himes
Rep. Terri Sewell
Rep. André Carson
Rep. Jackie Speier
Rep. Mike Quigley
Rep. Eric Swalwell
Rep. Joaquin Castro
Rep. Denny Heck
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney
Rep. Val Demings
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi
Rep. Peter Welch
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
CNN
- I'm perplexed by the reporting. I thought leaking the material would be absolutely forbidden and so it should be sanctioned. It was inevitable and the judge really screwed up here by allowing the release in the first place.
ren hoek
Footballguy
You would have preferred them running the risk of incidentally killing some Russians? Are you suggesting it was a fake attack because there weren't any dead Syrians? UK and France joined in with the strikes as well. Reports said many missiles were intercepted by air defenses. Were those also token missile attacks?
US sanctions have crushed Venezuelan people to force Maduro's hand. Read the UN report linked in the Venezuela thread. They have hired the guy who backed Latin American death squads in El Salvador to "restore democracy" and "human rights" to VZ.
That's debatable at best. This (scrapping JCPOA) was about pleasing Israel more than anything else. Also sets stage for Bolton and his MEK backers for regime change in Iran.
Ok, so you think getting rid of INF treaty is in Russia's interest because they are disadvantaged vs. the US. You really think this is about Trump softening up the arms agreement for Russia, and not about building up for an arms race? Why would he ever in a million years do that?
Looks like it pissed off German business groups pretty good. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-russia/german-business-group-says-u-s-mustnt-sanction-europes-use-of-russian-gas-idUSKCN1P50SR
There is an indictment against Assange according to Trump DOJ's own court filings. The USG and several congressmen have applied inordinate amount of pressure towards Ecuadorean embassy to turn over Assange.
The net effect is that NATO military expenditure has gone up in Trump era.
Yes, despite the much ballyhooed language that gutted the GOP platform on Russia/Ukraine. Yes, the investigation into Paul Manafort for his lobbying work to bring Ukraine to the West.
shadrap
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Everyone was still in shock after he instituted Sharia law, took all the guns and made whites pay reperations to blacks.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Is this where we talk about how expensive those taxpayer-funded vacations to Hawaii were? Oh, and he never worked, dude was always golfing. Heard they left the WH dump, holes in the dining room wall...
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Barr confirmation vote delayed after Democrats raise Mueller report concerns
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday postponed a vote on attorney general nominee William Barr by one week after Democrats raised concerns about how Barr will handle special counsel Robert Mueller's report once he completes his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
...
And newly released written responses to senators’ questions show how Justice Department regulations could keep some of the special counsel’s findings cloaked in secrecy.
Democrats pressed Barr for written, on the record, answers about what he’ll be willing to share about the probe with Congress and the public. With the investigation now nearing completion, Barr’s answers take on even greater significance.
Barr left open the possibility that he could object to efforts to bring Mueller up to testify before congressional committees. Barr isn’t promising to allow the special counsel to testify before Congress if invited or subpoenaed. In his written responses to senators’ questions, Barr would only say that he would consult with Mueller and “other [Justice] Department officials about the appropriate response to such a request in light of the Special Counsel’s findings and determinations at that time.”
Mueller is required to submit a “confidential” report to the attorney general upon completion of his investigation. What gets released to the public will be almost entirely up to Barr to decide, should he be confirmed. Barr testified during his confirmation hearing that he believes “it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel’s work.” He added that he would “follow the special counsel regulations scrupulously” and that his goal “will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law.”
Those regulations could potentially keep information about uncharged individuals, namely President Trump, from ever reaching Congress or the public.
In written questions, Whitehouse pressed Barr on whether Justice Department regulations would be applied to the Mueller report. In his response, Barr acknowledged that regulations allow the attorney general to publicly release his report “to the extent that release would comply with legal restrictions.” But Barr added that it is “Department policy and practice not to criticize individuals for conduct that does not warrant prosecution.”
Barr went on to explain that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)opinion that it would be unconstitutional to indict or prosecute a sitting president remains operative.
With no charge permitted against the president, Barr seems to indicate that any release of information about Trump from the investigation might be limited.
“If the only reason he is an uncharged person is because OLC’s internal, untested, never signed off on by any judge, policy makes him an uncharged person, we gotta to get to the bottom of that,” Whitehouse said.
Congressional committees have opened numerous investigations into the Trump administration. But Barr says the Justice Department is under no obligation to help Congress conduct those investigations as they relate to people who have not been charged.
“Congress can and does conduct its own investigations, and its right to do so is not precluded by the Department’s decision not to provide certain information about an uncharged individual gathered during the course of a criminal investigation,” Barr writes.
At Tuesday's hearing, Feinstein said that Barr's indication that he would write a separate report that he would provide to Congress instead of Mueller's report is something "that needs to be fleshed out."
"This is the biggest issue facing our country and the American people deserve to know Mueller’s findings and analysis without any filter," Feinstein added.
Regulations that require Mueller to provide a confidential report to the attorney general "do not prohibit him from sharing this report to Congress," she said.
While Barr’s written responses track closely with his hearing testimony, questions about what the public will be able to see at the conclusion of the special counsel’s investigation remain.
...
And newly released written responses to senators’ questions show how Justice Department regulations could keep some of the special counsel’s findings cloaked in secrecy.
Democrats pressed Barr for written, on the record, answers about what he’ll be willing to share about the probe with Congress and the public. With the investigation now nearing completion, Barr’s answers take on even greater significance.
Barr left open the possibility that he could object to efforts to bring Mueller up to testify before congressional committees. Barr isn’t promising to allow the special counsel to testify before Congress if invited or subpoenaed. In his written responses to senators’ questions, Barr would only say that he would consult with Mueller and “other [Justice] Department officials about the appropriate response to such a request in light of the Special Counsel’s findings and determinations at that time.”
Mueller is required to submit a “confidential” report to the attorney general upon completion of his investigation. What gets released to the public will be almost entirely up to Barr to decide, should he be confirmed. Barr testified during his confirmation hearing that he believes “it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel’s work.” He added that he would “follow the special counsel regulations scrupulously” and that his goal “will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law.”
Those regulations could potentially keep information about uncharged individuals, namely President Trump, from ever reaching Congress or the public.
In written questions, Whitehouse pressed Barr on whether Justice Department regulations would be applied to the Mueller report. In his response, Barr acknowledged that regulations allow the attorney general to publicly release his report “to the extent that release would comply with legal restrictions.” But Barr added that it is “Department policy and practice not to criticize individuals for conduct that does not warrant prosecution.”
Barr went on to explain that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)opinion that it would be unconstitutional to indict or prosecute a sitting president remains operative.
With no charge permitted against the president, Barr seems to indicate that any release of information about Trump from the investigation might be limited.
“If the only reason he is an uncharged person is because OLC’s internal, untested, never signed off on by any judge, policy makes him an uncharged person, we gotta to get to the bottom of that,” Whitehouse said.
Congressional committees have opened numerous investigations into the Trump administration. But Barr says the Justice Department is under no obligation to help Congress conduct those investigations as they relate to people who have not been charged.
“Congress can and does conduct its own investigations, and its right to do so is not precluded by the Department’s decision not to provide certain information about an uncharged individual gathered during the course of a criminal investigation,” Barr writes.
At Tuesday's hearing, Feinstein said that Barr's indication that he would write a separate report that he would provide to Congress instead of Mueller's report is something "that needs to be fleshed out."
"This is the biggest issue facing our country and the American people deserve to know Mueller’s findings and analysis without any filter," Feinstein added.
Regulations that require Mueller to provide a confidential report to the attorney general "do not prohibit him from sharing this report to Congress," she said.
While Barr’s written responses track closely with his hearing testimony, questions about what the public will be able to see at the conclusion of the special counsel’s investigation remain.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Great.
Now, next steps - we should be figuring out how to engage Russia.
We have a couple of options:
1. We can simply take them as they are - and accept all of their warts, including a lot of un-American stances of freedoms.
2. We can recognize that they need us, more than we need them. (Our economies are not in the same neighborhood, nor are our militaries at this stage.) And, we can say to Russia - we want to be friends, but to do that we need you to make a few changes. When you embrace individual freedoms - that we hold to be self-evident - then we will welcome you with open arms. We will provide you with whatever support you need to grow your economy.
At this stage - if we truly want to move past an adversarial relationship - it has to be on common ground. I don't want to move towards an authoritative state like Russia - I'd rather Russia modify her behavior to be in-line with our ideals.
Are we still on the same page?
Because I see no benefit to trusting a regime who lacks these fundamental values - authoritative rulers tend to like to take more than they give. I don't want to be in that kind of relationship. I am very happy to engage Russia - just not on Russian terms. We have every conceivable advantage - save one. In theory - we care about people - Russia cares less about people. Putin is less worried about unpopular decisions as he is about losing power. We hold that leverage right now - we hold it via sanctions, via our commitment to NATO, via our massive economy. We need to use that leverage - not piss it away (pardon the pun).
No matter where you come down on the side of "collusion" - we are pretty darn sure Russia hacked the DNC and played an active role in shaping the political discussion around the 2016 election. That must have consequences. Otherwise it just encourages more bad behavior - and you certainly do not reward bad behavior with lifting of sanctions, or with appeasing Russian leaders on policies Russia wants - such as NATO, Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, etc.
Trump is right to pursue thawed relations - he is wrong to give away the house.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Sorry but I can't help but picture you as the exasperated customer trying to get the person at the drive-thru to say "...and a large orange drink"
"Collusion! Collusion! Say it, say it! Collusion!"
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Fake? No. Useless and an actual nothingburger? Yes.
Putin’s greatest dream is to break the US dollar’s hold on the international oil trade. When the US imposes sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, do you suppose they just dump their oil into a big crater, or sell it in a non-dollar market?
Russia moved closer to Iran the day we announced withdrawal
You’re going one step farther than I am. All I said was it’s in Russia’s best interest.
Yeah. Pissed off the Germans. Remind me, are they the Russians, or are they supposed to be our allies?
I thought you said that indictment was from Obama. Probably best to decide which and not bounce back and forth.
So, yes on that last one then?
moleculo
Footballguy
Hmm...Alston & Bird has done some IP work for me. Do I need to fear Mueller knocking on my door @6AM now?
ren hoek
Footballguy
Yes, take them as they are. We already do this with Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's not perfect, but you can't force democracy. It's better to talk and trade than close off communication. And the US really isn't in any position to talk about 'spreading freedoms'. Not credibly anyway. You know that.
What would Russia look like now if the US hadn't helped Yeltsin win? You know, election interference? You can imagine the unreal arrogance of someone telling us how to run our country if the shoe were on the other foot.
Well, I don't either. But one country doesn't have to emulate the other. Part of diplomacy means good faith negotiation and having the courage to start anew. I think what's happened between North & South Korea since Moon took office has been one of the most inspiring things I've ever seen. It really is, to me. I admire it a lot. That's what peace looks like. That's the model we should follow.
It boils down to whether you want the US to be the benevolent empire- with all the oil hegemony and petrodollar wars that entails- or a nation that actually stands for peace and diplomacy. Let's stop acting like NATO did the world some great service in Libya. Or that the EU hasn't benefited from plundering Africa for all its worth. Let's stop pretending that Americans should have a vested interest in going to war over Montenegro. Why does it seem like we can't be friendly with one side without being adversarial to the other? There is no solution picking sides, sanctions, proxy wars, and CIA killing sprees in foreign countries that never so much as blinked at us the wrong way. When we do that, the wars never end.
Imagine looking at all the problems in this country right now, and thinking that the US needs to invest in a ####### military space force. Imagine thinking that that's actually a priority right now. It's like an act of Christ for a sitting congressman to actually oppose a war one time. But that's who these people are. An international crime syndicate whose only solution to anything is violence. The reason I'm an anarchist is because I realized a long time ago that we are ruled by sociopaths. Not your buddy that won his seat in the courthouse but the real rulers of this country. And there seems to be no reliable mechanism for accountability anymore. Nobody but the whistleblowers went to jail for the Iraq War.
We can't live in 2016 forever. Nuclear arms control and de-escalation are too important, and serious. I just want the US to treat everyone evenhandedly. It's not going to happen of course. But it should.
Just want to say, I appreciate your takes here and your legal theorizing is always interesting to read. I appreciate you explaining this stuff without being contentious or lawyersplaining everything.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
BassNBrew
Footballguy
It's on the way out now.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/combustion-engine-cars-peaked-2018
It's only logical that oil is traded in rubles when they sold 144 electric vehicles last year. The only market for oil will be in Russia.
http://rusautonews.com/2019/01/25/russian-new-electric-car-market-has-increased-by-52-in-2018/
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If worldwide consumption of oil drops below 40 million barrels a day on average before I die, I’ll eat my hat. Demand is still rising over a percent per year and is expected to continue to rise for another two decades.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
And as an aside, even if every personal vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine disappeared tomorrow, oil wouldn’t be “out.”
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I just want to point something out. What you describe is not what Trump has done with Russia. Our ambassador is sidelined, our State Dept including the Russia desk has been hollowed out, and our diplomats have little to no role or interaction with Russia today. What Trump does in practice, secret solo meetings with little or no record of what transpired, is not diplomacy. It's anti-diplomacy. Diplomatic structures like the INF, the Minsk accord, and the Vienna Syria negotiations are shelved by Trump. Institutions created to rein in Russia like NATO are attacked and weakened. You're talking about something that goes on elsewhere, in other countries or in every other administration. This administration is abnormal.
You mention NK. Well NK was actually created by Stalin and Lavrenty Beria. They invaded South Korea, which without the US's help would have suffered decades of Stalinism. The handshake was beautiful. However NK is a Russian client state and for over 2 decades they have developed a nuclear weapons program which has under Trump succeeded, grown, and has its sole purpose aiming itself towards the US. Russia continues to help NK, most recently in helping to further develop its nuclear capability.
What you're describing is actually not anarchism. Anarchism is the resistance of governmental or social order. Russia is simply pursuing the reinstitution of an old world order which led to a lot of conflict, death and destruction, that of competing national interests. It's nationalism, not anarchism. We have been there and done that for centuries. You're supporting nationalism, not anarchism, at least in this respect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Banger
Footballguy
I love the faux outrage at the FBI of the Stone arrest...worse than Bin Laden! wore than El Chapo! worse than Benghazi! OMG, the most vicious and violent arrest on record! These guys are just pathetic....
Deflect, deflect, deflect from the collusion/conspiracy/coordination coming into sight right in front of everyone's faces...
Deflect, deflect, deflect from the collusion/conspiracy/coordination coming into sight right in front of everyone's faces...
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I'm old enough to remember when Trump said LEO's shouldn't be too nice to criminals and implied they should be roughed up a little. Everyone cheered. Guess times change.
Banger
Footballguy
great point but that treatment it's totally dependent on who's in the back of the car...rich white guy = outrage!, minority = LOCK THEM UP!!
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Rich white guy = let him turn himself in when its convenient, minority = BANG THEIR HEADS AGAINST THE CAR!!
