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 (7 Viewers)

Trump criticized China for secretly supplying NK with oil. Now that Russia has also been caught doing it, will Trump call out Russia for this?

 
ren hoek said:
At least with the dress we could see enough to show our work.  There wasn't some empirical 17 agencies telling us what color it was and just trust them. 
Click to expand...
The color was irrelevant.  Did you test the DNA or did you trust the agencies that did to arrive at a conclusion?

 
Henry Ford said:
Also, the FBI (intelligence in general) skews heavily Mormon compared to percent of the population. Hoover famously started that. 
Click to expand...
I've never heard that - interesting.  I wonder if that's a relic of old fashioned alcohol/drug/moral standards in campus recruiting?

 
Coffee boy:

11/ The nature of the contact that Papadopoulos revealed in March 2016 to Trump and his team was that he was a *legal* agent—in the law we'd say "special agent"—of the Kremlin. He was authorized to represent the Kremlin's interests in setting up a clandestine Trump-Putin meeting.

17/ So when Trump said, in July 2016, "Russia, if you're listening..." let's be clear—he a) knew they were listening, b) knew they'd stolen the emails he was urging them to release, and c)—this is key—had already promised, *via Papadopoulos*, to reward them for being good to him.

 
dozer said:
Seth Abramson Twitter thread on the NYT article
Click to expand...
On September 22—40 days before we learned Papadopoulos was cooperating with the Mueller probe—I said that he had directly identified himself to Trump as a Kremlin agent in March 2016. This led to major-media coverage of the now-infamous "TIHDC meeting."
Click to expand...
Seth Abramson‏Verified account @SethAbramson Sep 22

10/ But on March 24, Papadopoulos had revealed himself to be "acting as an intermediary for the Russian government."
Click to expand...
Less than a decade out of college, Papadopoulos appeared to hold little sway within the campaign, and it is unclear whether he was acting as an intermediary for the Russian government, although he told campaign officials he was.
Click to expand...
- WaPo

- I guess this is where Abramson is coming from. Papadopoulas wasn't an emissary from the campaign to Russia, he was an emissary from Russia to the campaign. That's how he got on the campaign in the first place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
randall146 said:
I've never heard that - interesting.  I wonder if that's a relic of old fashioned alcohol/drug/moral standards in campus recruiting?
Click to expand...
It’s a combination of things.  First, Mormons go on a mission, often to a country that speaks a non-English language, which gives them foreign language skills and foreign contacts with a non-intelligence background for their knowing each other.  Second, they pass background checks really easily (part of this is the booze and drugs thing.). Third, their whole culture brings them up to “serve.”   

 
Seth Abramson‏Verified account @SethAbramson 10h10 hours ago

99/ Given today's NYT report, claims there was no collusion between Trump and Russia need to stop—they're irresponsible and deceitful, based on the information we have. You can claim—wrongly—that collusion isn't clear yet, but *no one* can assert a *lack* of collusion is evident.

 
I really wish we could fast forward 3 years, so I can just read the book about all of this. It's hard to keep everything straight in my head. 

 
I also wish there was a way to gamble on how this all ends. The smart money has to be that Trump lies to the FBI during his interview, right? I'm not sure whether that will actually lead to any sort of impeachment proceedings, but the odds would be decent enough to plunk a unit or so down. Hypothetically. 

 
Rirruto said:
I also wish there was a way to gamble on how this all ends. The smart money has to be that Trump lies to the FBI during his interview, right? I'm not sure whether that will actually lead to any sort of impeachment proceedings, but the odds would be decent enough to plunk a unit or so down. Hypothetically. 
Click to expand...
I will also put money on the sun rising that day. 

 
WILBUR ROSS AND RUSSIA  

By https://twitter.com/@ironstowe

Wilbur Ross has a ownership stake in  Bank of Cyprus, on which he still serves as vice chairman of the board of directors and has a personal relationship with Viktor Vekselberg  

THE RUSSIAN CONNECTIONS

Viktor Vekselberg:  Bank of Cyprus board member and largest single shareholder (9.3 percent stake); Russian aluminum tsar, reportedly worth $11-$17 billion.

Dmitry Rybolovlev Reportedly owned the largest stake in the Bank of Cyprus as of 2010 (9.7%); bought Donald Trump’s Palm Beach house in 2008 for $95 million.

Summary of Wilbur Ross and Russia.

At 79, Wilbur Ross’s energy level and sheer capacity to take on new challenges are impressive. If approved, he would be by far the oldest U.S. Commerce Secretary ever. But his nomination is actually not that surprising.

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Now that the dossier has fallen apart the shills are claiming that an Australian tipped them off about muh Russian CollusionTM

Where has this Australian theory been for the last 18 months?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
Click to expand...
The dossier has not fallen apart and the only people who ever claimed that the dossier spurred the FBI counter-intelligence investigation were those trying to protect Trump. We've known that the FBI received information from a Western intelligence service that prompted the investigation since April.  If you weren't aware of that, that would seem to be the fault of the people working to really hard to muddy the waters. Certainly not the FBI.  BTW,  because Comey briefed Trump on this investigation, Trump HAS to have known this.  But he was still pushing the lie that the dossier led to the investigation last week.  Does it bother you in the slightest that he's so willing to outright lie about this?  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Supposedly non-Fox outlets like CBS and maybe one or two others had access to these and they couldn't provide this kind of context.
Click to expand...
They supplied the context over the comments made after the "**** size" comment in the debate.  I also heard, relatively early, that Strzok favored Kasich.  I'm not sure Strzok is really talking about needing to brief Trump in the insurance policy comment.  A few weeks ago, an article came out with (admittedly anonymous) sources saying exactly what I argued here at the time.  That Strzok was arguing against a suggestion, made by Page in the meeting with McCabe, that a politically inflammatory investigation could probably be avoided because Trump was unlikely to win.  

Like Trump, many of the Republicans pushing this narrative had to know that the FBI had been tipped by several friendly intelligence services.  This had been reported fairly early.  

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
They supplied the context over the comments made after the "**** size" comment in the debate.  I also heard, relatively early, that Strzok favored Kasich.  I'm not sure Strzok is really talking about needing to brief Trump in the insurance policy comment.  A few weeks ago, an article came out with (admittedly anonymous) sources saying exactly what I argued here at the time.  That Strzok was arguing against a suggestion, made by Page in the meeting with McCabe, that a politically inflammatory investigation could probably be avoided because Trump was unlikely to win.  

Like Trump, many of the Republicans pushing this narrative had to know that the FBI had been tipped by several friendly intelligence services.  This had been reported fairly early.  
Click to expand...
I think you and Slap are right and maybe I forgot about that, especially in light of the flurry that Fox has caused around the texts. I do recall the report about the issue being the aggressiveness of the investigation, and the way you put it really makes sense, because inevitably it had to be apparent that pushing the investigation would ultimately be a huge political controversy regardless, which is something the FBI wanted to avoid. - However I do think the press has at times been too passive about reporting the Trump argument about Strzok ("House Republicans say..."), and the context that the briefing was imminent is a really good point, that would have been front and center. Not just how aggressively they should proceed but how much they should discuss with Trump or reveal publicly must have been part of the conversation. - I also think the point about their assuming Hillary would win a '100,000,000 to 0' right after the absurd exchange about d*** size at the GOP debate rings true, because at that point yeah a lot of people did think that he was too ridiculous to win. But that's relevant because it takes the starch out of the claim that the FBI was trying to 'stop Trump'. The FBI had a lot of normal people who just assumed Trump was too absurd to win in the first place, what was there to 'stop'.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think you and Slap are right and maybe I forgot about that, especially in light of the flurry that Fox has caused around the texts. I do recall the report about the issue being the aggressiveness of the investigation, and the way you put it really makes sense, because inevitably it had to be apparent that pushing the investigation would ultimately be a huge political controversy regardless, which is something the FBI wanted to avoid. - However I do think the press has at times been too passive about reporting the Trump argument about Strzok ("House Republicans say..."), and the context that the briefing was imminent is a really good point, that would have been front and center. Not just how aggressively they should proceed but how much they should discuss with Trump or reveal publicly must have been part of the conversation. - I also think the point about their assuming Hillary would win a '100,000,000 to 0' right after the absurd exchange about d*** size at the GOP debate rings true, because at that point yeah a lot of people did think that he was too ridiculous to win. But that's relevant because it takes the starch out of the claim that teh FBI was trying to 'stop Trump'. The FBI had a lot of normal people who just assumed Trump was too absurd to win in the first place, what was there to 'stop'.
Click to expand...
The press has absolutely been too hesitant in calling out obvious spin.  Because they're spooked.  Every mistake is taken as a sign of some "Fake News" conspiracy.  My Dad, who hates Trump, is convinced that the press "is no better."  And he can't really explain how except for some sense that they have an agenda.  

I certainly think the press is in some ways complicit, but I also think that it's literally impossible in the current news environment to give all the context that certain information needs.  There are a lot of moving pieces to keep in your head, and it's difficult to find an audience when you step back and synthesize what we know and don't know.  It doesn't help that we have the Abramson's and Garlands on Twitter jumping out ahead of what's confirmed at the same time so the press is treating as having reported what they've never reported.  

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
The press has absolutely been too hesitant in calling out obvious spin.  Because they're spooked.  Every mistake is taken as a sign of some "Fake News" conspiracy. 
Click to expand...
It is very hard for the press to fight against such naked propaganda.  I would like to see them more plainly fact-check statements from Trump in real-time though.  They pass them along too willingly.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
The dossier has not fallen apart and the only people who ever claimed that the dossier spurred the FBI counter-intelligence investigation were those trying to protect Trump. We've known that the FBI received information from a Western intelligence service that prompted the investigation since April.  If you weren't aware of that, that would seem to be the fault of the people working to really hard to muddy the waters. Certainly not the FBI.  BTW,  because Comey briefed Trump on this investigation, Trump HAS to have known this.  But he was still pushing the lie that the dossier led to the investigation last week.  Does it bother you in the slightest that he's so willing to outright lie about this?  
Click to expand...
That's a rhetorical question, right? 

 
Slapdash said:
It is very hard for the press to fight against such naked propaganda.  I would like to see them more plainly fact-check statements from Trump in real-time though.  They pass them along too willingly.
Click to expand...
The biggest failing of the media, in my opinion, is their ongoing quest to try and normalize Trump. They still to this day can't call a lie a lie. It's "an untruth" or a "misleading statement."

No, it's a lie.

Call it a lie and more specifically call the person telling the lie a liar.

This isn't difficult. 

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Now that the dossier has fallen apart the shills are claiming that an Australian tipped them off about muh Russian CollusionTM

Where has this Australian theory been for the last 18 months?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
Click to expand...
The dossier hasn’t fallen apart.

Australia was one of seven countries that gave the US IC information about Trump contacts with Russia before the FBI saw the dossier.

We knew all of this back in April at the latest.  

The Steele dossier isn’t what got the Trump-Russia investigation going.  For example, the FISA warrant on Carter Page was acquired on evidence independent of the dossier.  

 
packersfan said:
The biggest failing of the media, in my opinion, is their ongoing quest to try and normalize Trump. They still to this day can't call a lie a lie. It's "an untruth" or a "misleading statement."

No, it's a lie.

Call it a lie and more specifically call the person telling the lie a liar.

This isn't difficult. 
Click to expand...
Catching some of the year-end news recaps has been a reminder of how crazy and dense the news has been.  And like you said, the media as a whole isn’t equipped to call the president a pathological liar even when the evidence is overwhelming.  

That said, the Denial Of Service attack on discourse continues.  Remember “alternative facts”?  Or the Spicer and Mooch eras?

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
Catching some of the year-end news recaps has been a reminder of how crazy and dense the news has been.  And like you said, the media as a whole isn’t equipped to call the president a pathological liar even when the evidence is overwhelming.  

That said, the Denial Of Service attack on discourse continues.  Remember “alternative facts”?  Or the Spicer and Mooch eras?
Click to expand...
I wish I didn't.

 
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
202
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top