Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mr. Ham said:

Actually, let me flip the logic.  CA admits it operates outside of the bounds of laws and ethics, assasinating the character of their clients’ opponents through social and with aid of nefarious eastern Europeans.  To that, one may say, “That’s interesting, because a lot was done outside of the bounds of laws and ethics to assasinate the character of Hillary Clinton on social, and it involved a network of state run bad actors from Russia.  I wonder if they were responsible for any of that?”

If you think this is an unreasonable line of inquiry, you’re simply a fool.  

If you can say definitively that there was “no collusion” or conspiracy, or whatever you want to call it, you are also a fool.

If you believe anything Donald Trump says on the face of it, you’re a fool.

Can we please hear from our regular lineup of fools on this matter?

You had me... up to this final point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • SaintsInDome2006

    10138

  • Henry Ford

    5502

  • Sinn Fein

    3363

  • packersfan

    2921

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I actually don't.  And I've made my feelings on that clear for many, many months.  I don't believe there should be any requirement for investigators to like the people they're investigating.  I don't

The defense being put forth by Trump Levin Dershowitz and our own house Gary Johnson supporters is that a candidate can give unlimited funds to his own campaign.  Therefore Trump can pay off the women

My whole office is almost literally rolling on the floor laughing.  The managing partner of my firm just had to use an inhaler to breathe.

4 hours ago, Workhorse said:

Are “likes” public?

This is a good question. I don't know the answer as I don't have a Facebook account and avoid Facebook. Can someone who has a Facebook account or knows more about Facebook answer this question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Workhorse said:

Are “likes” public?

The Obama app stated it would collect such information.

The key qualification and difference in Obama 2012 facebook app vs. Cambridge...one was an app launched that someone had to install and agree to the terms...of a political app.  The app stating it would use such information as friends, likes and so on.

One was supposed to be for academic purposes only and stated as such.  Not political.

One seems to be perfectly legal (though, may have some privacy issues and if found so...should be prosecuted for any wrongdoing)...one seems to be not so legal and is seeing major pushback and investigations because of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The President has brought in a new attorney Joe Digenova, with a strategy to destroy confidence in the DOJ and the FBI, a Fox News blowhard guest. Their strategy 'if you have the facts(they don't) argue the facts, if you have the law argue the law(they don't) if you don't pound the table.' And this will definitely work with his naive base.

 I have a theory how this nightmare with Trump will end with a loss in 2020. Trump will not fire Mueller, the Russian investigation will find some obvious obstruction of justice violations, the House controlled by the Democrats will vote to impeach in 2019, the Senate still controlled by the Republicans will blow it off reciting the Deep State conspiracy against Trump. Trump will claim the 2020 elections were rigged. Melania will then finally feel free to file for divorce.

Edited by lazyike
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

They collect everything and have rights to use and market around all your activity within their walled garden.  In other words, they can sell advertising based on all of your activity.  Use of data outside of Facebook is determined by your privacy settings.  Outside of Facebook, no one beyond those you authorize to see your posts has access to your data.  

If your profile is public, no restrictions, are your likes visible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

They collect everything and have rights to use and market around all your activity within their walled garden.  In other words, they can sell advertising based on all of your activity.  Use of data outside of Facebook is determined by your privacy settings.  Outside of Facebook, no one beyond those you authorize to see your posts has access to your data.  

I don't go on FB much but when I do it's always in private mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SWC said:

could a few rs come over and with the ds insist that protection for mueller be put in to the next bill needed to keep the government open or what take that to the bank brohans 

the problem with this is Trump would never sign it

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Franknbeans said:

the problem with this is Trump would never sign it

Putting Trump in the position of causing a government shutdown over wanting to fire Mueller would be a great move.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Good article on quitting Facebook.

I have not been on all year as part of a New Year’s resolution.  Only reason I hesitate deleting the account is I have pictures, including of my son who passed away, that I don’t think I have elsewhere and I don’t think I can download them from Facebook.  So they have me for that one reason.  But I will say that life hasn’t been worse without the platform.  Anyone worth staying in touch with, I’ll seek out in real life.  

Escaping Facebook takes more than just deleting your account - Mashable https://apple.news/AIVJclA_SSYamhC0eGGGvNw

 

Settings -> Download a copy of your facebook data -> Start my archive

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Or just right-click on the pics and “Save As...”

But then you have to save each photo individually and hope you haven't missed any.  And you lose your post and the context you posted it in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Putting Trump in the position of causing a government shutdown over wanting to fire Mueller would be a great move.

In theory but he has already shown that he will just blame someone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Do you think it's possible that McMasters and Mattis have had some private conversations about actions to take to minimize the damage of Trump's policy decisions? That would seem to qualify as Deep State under the question's definition. 

I agree with you that if "the Deep State" is as defined in the poll could describe a number of legitimate government functions, but Hannity is using a different dictionary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TobiasFunke said:

I can't imagine Olson agreeing to it. He's old, rich and has a sterling reputation buoyed by his work taking down California's gay marriage law. If he does this and ends up having to defend him at an impeachment trial or something, it supersedes all of that in terms of his legacy. What does he possibly have to gain aligning with someone like Donald Trump? 

OTOH it's being reported that he's considering it and looking at conflicts, so maybe I've overestimated him :shrug:

I just don't see Olson working with Sekulow and diGenova. I guess it's possible though like you say and I guess the reason is he is a party man and if he's coming in it's because the party has asked him to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I just don't see Olson working with Sekulow and diGenova. I guess it's possible though like you say and I guess the reason is he is a party man and if he's coming in it's because the party has asked him to.

I hope the after party is better, this one sucks

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bucky86 said:

Ted Boutrous‏Verified account @BoutrousTed

FollowFollow @BoutrousTed

More

I can confirm that @gibsondunn and Theodore B. Olson will not be representing @realDonaldTrump

10:05 AM - 20 Mar 2018

Sane people having a sane reaction.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bucky86 said:

 @SenJohnMcCain on Trump congratulating Putin: “An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.”

Yeah, John, an American President does.  This one.  You probably remember him because your party is the one that put him in office and continues to prop up his insane ideas.  The party you're still a part of.  And haven't left.  Despite the fact that you probably won't be running for office again in 2022, given that you'll be 86.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sweet J said:

Trump wants to hire Ted Olson

 

Christ, if that happened it would have to be first good decision by Trump in a long time.  Because it would be a good decision, I can't imagine he wouldn't end up firing him within months. 

I attended a Q+A session with Ted Olson around a year ago.  I'd be shocked if he agreed to represent Trump.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sweet J said:

Trump wants to hire Ted Olson

 

Christ, if that happened it would have to be first good decision by Trump in a long time.  Because it would be a good decision, I can't imagine he wouldn't end up firing him within months. 

My stars I wonder if this was a pr stunt all along. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SenJohnMcCain: An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections. And by doing so with Vladimir Putin, President Trump insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election. https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=press-releases&id=61F7FD60-671F-4364-8297-1AB43F099405

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

SaintsInDome2006 said:


My stars I wonder if this was a pr stunt all along.


It's not a "PR stunt" in the traditional sense. It's Trump's method of monopolizing the news cycle, creating more chaos, and energizing his supporters.

It's not about the follow-through; it's about the announcement.

How many times has Trump said "We're going to X", followed by his supporters cheering and celebrating? They don't care if "X" actually happens; they just want to be reassured that Trump has the same feelings that they do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:


It's not a "PR stunt" in the traditional sense. It's Trump's method of monopolizing the news cycle, creating more chaos, and energizing his supporters.

It's not about the follow-through; it's about the announcement.

How many times has Trump said "We're going to X", followed by his supporters cheering and celebrating? They don't care if "X" actually happens; they just want to be reassured that Trump has the same feelings that they do.

"I'm going to bang this porn star behind my wife's back"  "HIP HIP... HOORAY!!!"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucky86 said:

Ted Boutrous‏Verified account @BoutrousTed

FollowFollow @BoutrousTed

More

I can confirm that @gibsondunn and Theodore B. Olson will not be representing @realDonaldTrump

10:05 AM - 20 Mar 2018

smart man....it's not worth the fees that you won't get paid.

 

just another real world example that "the best" actually won't work for Trump.

Edited by Banger
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, proninja said:

I gave up booze for lent and now I'm looking forward to getting drunk on Easter but kinda thinking that's not how it's supposed to work. 

I can guarantee you I won't be facebook binging.  I was actually pretty interested in Ham's article about deleting my account.  I don't often look at pictures.  When I do it's mainly to see if a chick I knew way back when is hot or not.  And to be honest, most aren't lol.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mike Dorning‏Verified account @MikeDorning

BREAKING: *CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA SUSPENDS CEO ALEXANDER NIX

11:54 AM - 20 Mar 2018

- I think it was SinnFein, Bucky or Sammy who was pounding the table on Cambridge Analytica early in the thread.. Anyway that has come to fruition.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:


It's not a "PR stunt" in the traditional sense. It's Trump's method of monopolizing the news cycle, creating more chaos, and energizing his supporters.

It's not about the follow-through; it's about the announcement.

How many times has Trump said "We're going to X", followed by his supporters cheering and celebrating? They don't care if "X" actually happens; they just want to be reassured that Trump has the same feelings that they do.

He might really be trying to fish a serious lawyer into his boat though. He seems to think he is lacking "star" power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

- I think it was Bucky or Sammy who was pounding the table on Cambridge Analytica early in the thread.. Anyway that has come to fruition.

March 31/April 1, 2017, Louise Mensch:

https://patribotics.blog/2017/04/01/alfa-bank-trump-tower-and-a-social-media-impeachment/

Quote

 

Here is my theory of how Donald Trump will be impeached, and scores of people around him jailed.

It wasn’t just money laundering – it was “data laundering”.

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my fortnightly reminder to everyone that Louise Mensch is brilliant and well connected.  Which obviously doesn't eliminate the fact that she's completely insane, but she's also not completely dismissable.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Louise Mensch:

Mensch was definitely on this. And what I recall was that her theory was, and she did some public corporate database searches, indicates that part of CA's parent's ownership structure was connected to Russia or actually Russian. And there was a MSM news report on the parent company that was very similar to this, though TBH I cannot recall if it was about Russian clients or actual part Russian ownership, so I am not sure if that part specifically has been confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Louise Mensch

Also on Mensch she did reporting on claims about oligarchs meetings via private planes and yachts, and more than one Deripaska story (lane and yachts) has turned up in MSM since then. Credit being due there it is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

- I think it was Bucky or Sammy who was pounding the table on Cambridge Analytica early in the thread.. Anyway that has come to fruition.

Maybe?  

I mean at a minimum, it's been pretty evident that they were up to their eyeballs in this story with Bannon's and Mercer's involvement to say nothing about what they actually did/didn't do.  

I keep saying this, but Facebook and Google (and most of the MIT computer whizzes) are all more or less uber-libertarians (like Thiel) and take the position that this data is there for the taking and as such those two companies have a very hands view of privacy.  Granted I'm too dumb to have made a killing in that realm (one of my 3 best HS friends ran a HFT firm before retiring at the age of 35 bored with it and one of the other three was one of the first Google employees who left and made a killing reselling adwords...they're both down the cryptocurrency rabbit hole now), but the entire culture is basically anything goes.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tom Skerritt said:

Not that any crimes should go unpunished... but how is anyone surprised that your personal information, at FB no less, gets compromised? And further... how is anyone duped by targeted advertising, particularly in the political arena?

Allow me to answer you with a series of representative posts on the platform you're talking about.

1.

2.

3.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Mensch was definitely on this. And what I recall was that her theory was, and she did some public corporate database searches, indicates that part of CA's parent's ownership structure was connected to Russia or actually Russian. And there was a MSM news report on the parent company that was very similar to this, though TBH I cannot recall if it was about Russian clients or actual part Russian ownership, so I am not sure if that part specifically has been confirmed.

My guess is someone from MI-6 wanted the stories out there and with the British liable laws, resorted to using her instead of the British press.  She was too good, too early.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

Maybe?  

I mean at a minimum, it's been pretty evident that they were up to their eyeballs in this story with Bannon's and Mercer's involvement to say nothing about what they actually did/didn't do.  

I keep saying this, but Facebook and Google (and most of the MIT computer whizzes) are all more or less uber-libertarians (like Thiel) and take the position that this data is there for the taking and as such those two companies have a very hands view of privacy.  Granted I'm too dumb to have made a killing in that realm (one of my 3 best HS friends ran a HFT firm before retiring at the age of 35 bored with it and one of the other three was one of the first Google employees who left and made a killing reselling adwords...they're both down the cryptocurrency rabbit hole now), but the entire culture is basically anything goes.  

"They want to fight a culture war in America"...CA was supposed to be the arsenal of weapons to fight that culture war"  Christopher Wylie

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

Maybe?  

I mean at a minimum, it's been pretty evident that they were up to their eyeballs in this story with Bannon's and Mercer's involvement to say nothing about what they actually did/didn't do.  

I keep saying this, but Facebook and Google (and most of the MIT computer whizzes) are all more or less uber-libertarians (like Thiel) and take the position that this data is there for the taking and as such those two companies have a very hands view of privacy.  Granted I'm too dumb to have made a killing in that realm (one of my 3 best HS friends ran a HFT firm before retiring at the age of 35 bored with it and one of the other three was one of the first Google employees who left and made a killing reselling adwords...they're both down the cryptocurrency rabbit hole now), but the entire culture is basically anything goes.  

I guess like others in this forum I've marked my time in the digital age and one thing I can say is that people's behavior or understanding of the virtual world seems completely disconnected from what we would call the real world in terns of ethics and morality. The corporate aspect though I think will be written about one day like the robber barons of yore came to be.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

My guess is someone from MI-6 wanted the stories out there and with the British liable laws, resorted to using her instead of the British press.  She was too good, too early.

She’s extremely well connected. She was a member of parliament. Nothing she “theorizes” comes out of thin air. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tom Skerritt said:

 how is anyone duped by targeted advertising, particularly in the political arena?

Because they're constantly telling you exactly what you want to hear and believe. That's a tough thing to reject. This isn't a purely technological assault, its very much psychological.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Tuesday’s second instalment of an undercover investigation by Channel 4 News in association with the Observer, Nix said he had a close working relationship with Trump and claimed Cambridge Analytica was pivotal to his successful campaign.

“We did all the research, all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting. We ran all the digital campaign, the digital campaign, the television campaign and our data informed all the strategy,” he told reporters who were posing as potential clients from Sri Lanka.

The company’s head of data, Alex Tayler, added: “When you think about the fact that Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 3m votes but won the electoral college vote that’s down to the data and the research.

“You did your rallies in the right locations, you moved more people out in those key swing states on election day. That’s how he won the election.”

Another executive, Mark Turnbull, managing director of Cambridge Analytica’s political division, was recorded saying: “He won by 40,000 votes in three states. The margins were tiny.”

- Guardian.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mr Nix also belittled representatives on the House Intelligence Committee to whom he gave evidence in 2017. He claims Republican members asked just three questions. “After five minutes – done.”

“They’re politicians, they’re not technical. They don’t understand how it works,” he said.

- Ch. 4.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

Most people are intellectually lazy.  

This explains things like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Breitbart.

Yeah.  There are millions of people in this country who think this guy is the master race ordained by God:

http://www.fullredneck.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/520139.jpg

And this guy isn’t really even the human species:

https://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjE5NDU2Mzc3MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjAwNTE5OQ@@._V1_UY317_CR12,0,214,317_AL_.jpg

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Mr Nix boasted about Cambridge Analytica’s work for Trump, saying: “We did all the research, all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting, we ran all the digital campaign, the television campaign and our data informed all the strategy.”

Separately, Mr Turnbull described how the company could create proxy organisations to discreetly feed negative material about opposition candidates on to the Internet and social media.

He said: “Sometimes you can use proxy organisations who are already there. You feed them. They are civil society organisations.. Charities or activist groups, and we use them – feed them the material and they do the work…

“We just put information into the bloodstream to the internet and then watch it grow, give it a little push every now and again over time to watch it take shape. And so this stuff infiltrates the online community and expands but with no branding – so it’s unattributable, untrackable.”

Cambridge Analytica’s senior executives were also filmed discussing a twin-track strategy to campaigning, putting out positive messages through the official Donald J Trump for President campaign, while negative material was pushed out through outside organisations.

Cambridge Analytica’s chief data scientist Dr Tayler said: “As part of it, sometimes you have to separate it from the political campaign itself. So in America you know there  are independent expenditure groups running behind the campaign… Super pacs. Political action committees.

“So, campaigns are normally subject to limits about how much money they can raise.  Whereas outside groups can raise an unlimited amount. So the campaign will use their finite resources for things like persuasion and mobilisation and then they leave the ‘air war’ they call it, like the negative attack ads to other affiliated groups.”

In a different meeting, Mr Turnbull described how the company created the “Defeat Crooked Hilary” brand of attack ads, that were funded by the Make America Number 1 super-PAC and watched more than 30 million times during the campaign.

Coordination between an official election campaign and any outside groups is illegal under US election law. Cambridge Analytica deny wrongdoing, insisting a strict firewall separated out their activity and that they were transparent about their work on political campaigns and PACs.

‘No paper trail’

In one exchange Alexander Nix revealed the company used a secret self-destructing email system that leaves no trace. He said: “No-one knows we have it, and secondly we set our… emails with a self-destruct timer… So you send them and after they’ve been read, two hours later, they disappear. There’s no evidence, there’s no paper trail, there’s nothing.”

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...