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 (5 Viewers)

Juxtatarot said:
I'm not convinced this is a scandal.  I hope we learn more about how credible the intel was. 
Click to expand...
I think it's useful or helpful to try to think of normative explanations why or how this may not be a big deal. It could have been a report based on low or no confidence. Possible.

The Trump/Herridge dump is awfully weird though, they claim they had to search their files for this? This didn't ring a bell, at all, and then having done so found nothing?

And so far we have one instance of briefing the Senate / House (I guess Intel committee, Nunes) and at least two instances of reports from UK, Nato and Europe about their militaries/IC's being briefed on it.

Seems like a lot of activity on a not real thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it deserves its own thread, that was my thought. Basically the only thrust for purposes here is the idea that Trump is bent or compromised for Putin and so there is that as a possible explanation for non-action on this and then also other similar other behaviors like this, starting but not ending with Helsinki.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot said:
I'm not convinced this is a scandal.  I hope we learn more about how credible the intel was. 
Click to expand...
honestly, I don't think it's that big of a deal in the grand scheme.  It's about on the level of Benghazi.  Actually, I think Benghazi is a pretty good allegory: here we had Hillary mis-characterizing an uprising as a spontaneous attack, a response to a youtube video.  No one believed that it wasn't the administration downplaying the event, due to an upcoming election.  At it's core, that's what the Benghazi was all about - the house Republicans smelled blood in the water and went after Hillary to make her (and Obama) look bad in the upcoming election.

In this case, we have insurgents and Russia doing what they do.  The administration downplays (by not informing the public  as well as pretending the president wasn't briefed), IMO because the president continues to have a really weird Russia fetish.  I think the House will do the same - holding Bounty hearings.

Is it all politics?  Just trying to make the other side look bad?  I don't know.  Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal that Russia was doing this; that's kind of what I expect them to do.  What is a big deal is that Trump has continued to cozy up to Russia even [allegedly] knowing about the bounties.  HTF can he justify trying to bring them into G7 if they are paying for American scalps?

Yes Ren, Russiaphobia.  I want to like Russia too, but I want a Russia that doesn't pay for dead Americans.

 
ren hoek said:
@dwdavison
Assuming this Russian bounty story is true, and fwiw the sourcing seems very thin at this point, I for one am shocked at the notion that a nation would arm and incentivize Afghan extremists to kill the soldiers of a rival nation. Such depravity has never before been seen, surely.

Glad to see that Zbigniew Brzezinski’s daughter and I are on the same page here https://twitter.com/davidklion/status/1276981641794203649?s=21
Click to expand...
This is an example of moral relativism rearing it’s ugly head. Our presence in Afghanistan may have been a strategic mistake but we did not come as conquerors, and we never treated the Afghan people as subjects. The former Soviet Union did both. We were right to help out those who fought against them. It was morally justifiable to help Afghan rebels to kill Soviet soldiers in 1980. It is morally reprehensible for Putin to pay the Taliban to kill our soldiers. There is no hypocrisy here, no double standard whatsoever. 

 
ren hoek said:
the notion that a nation would arm and incentivize Afghan extremists to kill the soldiers of a rival nation.
Click to expand...
Fwiw this is an explanation of possible motive for what Russia/GRU is accused of doing. I also don't think it's novel either to suggest that revanchist, nationalist types in the Kremlin have felt more than a slight desire for revenge as to what happened in the 80s. The claims here are totally in keeping with Russian/RIS/GRU behavior under Putin but what you're stating here is just further reason to believe it's going on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
ren hoek said:
the notion that a nation would arm and incentivize Afghan extremists to kill the soldiers of a rival nation.
Click to expand...
Fwiw this is an explanation of possible motive for what Russia/GRU is accused of doing. I also don't think it's novel either to suggest that revanchist, nationalist types in the Kremlin have felt more than a slight desire for revenge as to what happened in the 80s. The claims here are totally in keeping with Russian/RIS/GRU behavior under Putin but what you're stating here is just further reason to believe it's going on.
Click to expand...
Which btw raises this ol' nugget from the reservoir of 'Things Trump Says that Only Would be Heard in the Kremlin.'

Trump says Soviets were 'right' to invade Afghanistan. His State Department very much disagrees.

In a broad attempt to justify withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan during a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, Trump ended up saying the Soviet Union was "right" to invade Afghanistan in 1979. According to the president's version of history, the Soviet Union turned into Russia because it "went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan." 
Click to expand...
Vidyo

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
This is an example of moral relativism rearing it’s ugly head. Our presence in Afghanistan may have been a strategic mistake but we did not come as conquerors, and we never treated the Afghan people as subjects. The former Soviet Union did both. We were right to help out those who fought against them. It was morally justifiable to help Afghan rebels to kill Soviet soldiers in 1980. It is morally reprehensible for Putin to pay the Taliban to kill our soldiers. There is no hypocrisy here, no double standard whatsoever. 
Click to expand...
The "war on terror" was contrived to be a neverending war for war profiteers.  For 19 years, the US has had no idea what its mission is, who its friends or enemies are, or why it is still in Afghanistan. 

Meanwhile, they lied to the public.  They said things were 'tough' but we were 'making progress,' we were 'going the right direction'.  We are not the good guys.  We are not the shining city on a hill.  We committed crimes against humanity. 

I'm not really buying the story at this point- the US and Taliban were in the middle of peace negotiations.  It's not like an insurgent army needs much outside incentive to fight an occupying invader anyway.  But if anything this anchors the idea that people should have supported Trump when he talked about getting troops out of Afghanistan in 2019, not badgered him and quibbled over which way we should keep occupying Afghanistan forever.  

 
Catherine Herridge @CBS_Herridge

DEVELOPING: An intelligence official with direct knowledge tells CBS News there was an intel collection report and "NSA assesses Report does not match well established and verifiiable Taliban and Haqqani practices" + "lack sufficient reporting to corroborate any links."

The official said the inteligence collection report reached "low levels" NSC but did not go further, not briefed POTUS, or VP because it was deemed "uncorroborated" and "dissent intelligence community."

 
Mark Ames @MarkAmesExiled

Dubious spy-sourced #BountyGate story getting WAY more traction than WaPo's bombshell Afghanistan Papers last December, exposing DC conspiracy of lies to keep their disastrous war going. That deeply-reported story vanished w/out consequences.

Lesson not lost on ambitious journalists: if you wanna get ahead in this rotten business, flatter Langley & Pentagon. And if a slovenly indy reporter rips you for being a hack, recall the ol American adage: "If you're so smart, why ain't you a full-time reporter with benefits?"

The timing of #BountyGate "intelligence" is, as they say, uncannily uncanny.

 
ren hoek said:
Catherine Herridge @CBS_Herridge

DEVELOPING: An intelligence official with direct knowledge tells CBS News there was an intel collection report and "NSA assesses Report does not match well established and verifiiable Taliban and Haqqani practices" + "lack sufficient reporting to corroborate any links."

The official said the inteligence collection report reached "low levels" NSC but did not go further, not briefed POTUS, or VP because it was deemed "uncorroborated" and "dissent intelligence community."
Click to expand...
This is being contradicted everywhere: the Wall Street Journal, NBC News, Associated Press, the world press- they’re all reporting that there was a major meeting at the NSC to discuss this and that it was considered corroborated. I’m not saying your CBS reporter is wrong (how would I know?) but she certainly seems to be on a ledge by herself. 

 
Workhorse said:
So the White House is holding a briefing for House members this afternoon about this whole Russian bounty thing.

That is. Republican House members only.

Nothing fishy at all here, right?
Click to expand...
Republicans under Trump have been shutting out elected democrats for years.  Is this normal for the party that holds the WH?  Nothing is normal under Trump so I'm guessing it isn't but thought I would at least ask.

 
Green Balloons said:
Republicans under Trump have been shutting out elected democrats for years.  Is this normal for the party that holds the WH?  Nothing is normal under Trump so I'm guessing it isn't but thought I would at least ask.
Click to expand...
Of course it is normal.  Democrat should out Republicans just as much as Republicans shut out Democrats.

After all the nonsense and lies the left has pulled over the last 3 1/2 years I would shut them out too.

 
BladeRunner said:
Of course it is normal.  Democrat should out Republicans just as much as Republicans shut out Democrats.

After all the nonsense and lies the left has pulled over the last 3 1/2 years I would shut them out too.
Click to expand...
Ugh, no. One briefing where everyone got the same information at once would resolve this. Doing it this way immediately turns it into a jabbing contest.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ugh, no. One briefing where everyone got the same information at once would resolve this. Doing it this way immediately turns it into a jabbing contest.
Click to expand...
I mean, I agree with you in principle. but how can you even trust the Democrats after all the stuff they've done the last three and a half years?

They are duplicitous, lying and conniving.  They'll do or say anything to get Trump even if it's lies, half truths and out of context quotes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
I mean, I agree with you in principle. but how can you even trust the Democrats after all the stuff they've done the last three and a half years?

They are duplicitous, lying and conniving.  They'll do or say anything to get Trump even if it's lies, half truths and out of context quotes.
Click to expand...
Say you really believe that, and I'm sure you do - if you're a partisan or moderate Republican, either way, and if you're interested in the correct version of events being reported out, then it's in your best interests to be in the same room as the Dems when they are briefed. This way, you have no idea what was really said in that room.

 
BladeRunner said:
I mean, I agree with you in principle. but how can you even trust the Democrats after all the stuff they've done the last three and a half years?

They are duplicitous, lying and conniving.  They'll do or say anything to get Trump even if it's lies, half truths and out of context quotes.
Click to expand...
What if your entire theory of the case is wrong? 

The way I see it, almost all of the accusations Democrats have lodged against President Trump over the the last 3 and a half years with regard to Russia have had a great deal of credibility. Though some of the evidence was lacking, there was enough there, plus a pattern of behavior that would be inexplicable otherwise. And now here we are again. 

 
timschochet said:
What if your entire theory of the case is wrong? 

The way I see it, almost all of the accusations Democrats have lodged against President Trump over the the last 3 and a half years with regard to Russia have had a great deal of credibility. Though some of the evidence was lacking, there was enough there, plus a pattern of behavior that would be inexplicable otherwise. And now here we are again. 
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I just don't see it that way.

Lots of assumptions and hearsay and outright lies that were presented as facts.

 
Max Power said:
Anyone remember when Iran was offering bounties to the Taliban in the Obama era? 
Click to expand...
No, but not doubting it occurred.  

I also definitely don't remember Obama having a myriad of shady, undisclosed business interests in/with Iran during his 2 terms, nor do I recall him behaving with deference repeatedly toward Iranian leaders. Did those things happen and my memory just sucks? 

 
Max Power said:
Anyone remember when Iran was offering bounties to the Taliban in the Obama era?
Click to expand...
The putative defenses on this thing are all over the place. The Herridge reporting IIRC was the official saying that it didn't merit credibility and here it's suggested that it's normal for the Taliban to take money in support of their attacks on the US from someone on the ground. - We've had Iran sanctioned, we've had Iran down as a state sponsor of foreign terror, heck we just assassinated their leading general because he helped support a foreign militia that killed on of our contractors and we risked war over that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Herb said:
No, but not doubting it occurred.  

I also definitely don't remember Obama having a myriad of shady, undisclosed business interests in/with Iran during his 2 terms, nor do I recall him behaving with deference repeatedly toward Iranian leaders. Did those things happen and my memory just sucks? 
Click to expand...
No, he gave them money out in the open. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The putative defenses on this thing are all over the place. The Herridge reporting IIRC was the official saying that it didn't merit credibility and here it's suggested that it's normal for the Taliban to take money in support of their attacks on the US from someone on the ground. - We've had Iran sanctioned, we've had Iran down as a state sponsor of foreign terror, heck we just assassinated their leading general because he helped support a foreign militia that killed on of our contractors and we risked war over that.
Click to expand...
It's not a defense. Just wanted people to know Obama gave money to a country that confirmed paid bounties on American lives. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Sorry, but I just don't see it that way.

Lots of assumptions and hearsay and outright lies that were presented as facts.
Click to expand...
I know you don’t. But you should probably keep an open mind and I will as well. 
These issues aren’t questions of political ideology, at least they shouldn’t be. They are questions of fact. Someday we will likely know all the facts behind this. If you’re right and the Democrats lied I will be forced to acknowledge that and it will certainly change my opinion of them. If on the other hand it turns out the Dems were right all along perhaps it will cause you to rethink your opinion of Donald Trump. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Sorry, but I just don't see it that way.

Lots of assumptions and hearsay and outright lies that were presented as facts.
Click to expand...
You keep making claims...you keep doing so without ever providing a single credible link or source for any of it.  Please back up the claims that the democrats did all this too.

 
timschochet said:
These issues aren’t questions of political ideology, at least they shouldn’t be. They are questions of fact. Someday we will likely know all the facts behind this.
Click to expand...
I doubt it!  It will be like everything else embarrassing or vaguely controversial and kept classified until no one is left to care.  Except for that two week period when the national archives mistakenly believed that expiration dates established by law actually meant something.

 
What a shocking development. I don't think anyone could see this one coming - 

BREAKING: Undercutting WH claims that Trump was never briefed on suspected Russian bounty operation & info was not solid enough to tell him about, it was in his written briefing (PDB) 4 months ago - likely Feb 27 - & was circulated broadly in IC on May 4.

Link

 
whoknew said:
What a shocking development. I don't think anyone could see this one coming - 

BREAKING: Undercutting WH claims that Trump was never briefed on suspected Russian bounty operation & info was not solid enough to tell him about, it was in his written briefing (PDB) 4 months ago - likely Feb 27 - & was circulated broadly in IC on May 4.

Link
Click to expand...
if it was in the PDB, he most likely didn’t read or hear it

 
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
198
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top