Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to echo the "Who cares about Hillary?" sentiment.

I heard Hannity going on and on about this on the radio yesterday and I just found it very odd. She's a has been. She is yesterday's news. She has never been, and never will be, president.

It just made me think that they were pretty desperate to change the subject.

I haven't been following the whole Russia subject all that closely. To be honest, it seemed to me somewhat overblown. Yeah, it looks bad. It makes Donald Trump seem sleazy, underhanded, and generally a rotten person. Yeah? Tell me something I don't know. However, I didn't, and still don't, see anything criminal.

However, what I do see is a lot of scrambling. A lot of weasel words and some outright lies. A desperate need to change the subject.

It really makes me think that what we've seen in the public press so far is just the beginning, and that they are actually hiding something big. So, let the investigations continue, and let the media keep up the pressure. Their reactions lately make me think that there is something here that goes beyond "bad optics".
 
Putting the timeline on here for starters




Adding events pertaining to Roger Stone / Podesta:

My additions in Red
Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank**
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya***
2017-12-07| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case




**Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server

ETA:*** http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-know-why-doj-dismissed-money-laundering-case
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I have to echo the "Who cares about Hillary?" sentiment.

I heard Hannity going on and on about this on the radio yesterday and I just found it very odd. She's a has been. She is yesterday's news. She has never been, and never will be, president.

It just made me think that they were pretty desperate to change the subject.

I haven't been following the whole Russia subject all that closely. To be honest, it seemed to me somewhat overblown. Yeah, it looks bad. It makes Donald Trump seem sleazy, underhanded, and generally a rotten person. Yeah? Tell me something I don't know. However, I didn't, and still don't, see anything criminal.

However, what I do see is a lot of scrambling. A lot of weasel words and some outright lies. A desperate need to change the subject.

It really makes me think that what we've seen in the public press so far is just the beginning, and that they are actually hiding something big. So, let the investigations continue, and let the media keep up the pressure. Their reactions lately make me think that there is something here that goes beyond "bad optics".
Click to expand...
I understand the Hillary stuff as a distraction, but I think there is more to its' use than that.

It seems it is being used as a tacit admission that Trump and his administration is just as bad as many of us expected they would be. Trump was elected on a wave of anti-Clinton sentiment, in spite of it being very obvious that he was about as bad of a choice for President as we could ever expect.

If you voted for him anyway, it now behooves you to show that Clinton was somehow demonstrably worse- or admit your error and weaken your party. I think that is what is driving the Hillary fixation at least as much as the need for a distraction on behalf of the Retrumplicans.
 
Meadmaker said:
I have to echo the "Who cares about Hillary?" sentiment.

I heard Hannity going on and on about this on the radio yesterday and I just found it very odd. She's a has been. She is yesterday's news. She has never been, and never will be, president.

It just made me think that they were pretty desperate to change the subject.

I haven't been following the whole Russia subject all that closely. To be honest, it seemed to me somewhat overblown. Yeah, it looks bad. It makes Donald Trump seem sleazy, underhanded, and generally a rotten person. Yeah? Tell me something I don't know. However, I didn't, and still don't, see anything criminal.

However, what I do see is a lot of scrambling. A lot of weasel words and some outright lies. A desperate need to change the subject.

It really makes me think that what we've seen in the public press so far is just the beginning, and that they are actually hiding something big. So, let the investigations continue, and let the media keep up the pressure. Their reactions lately make me think that there is something here that goes beyond "bad optics".
Click to expand...



https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...c-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#62703a9212ab

When and if the poo hits the fan with this Russia stuff (impeachment) Fox News watchers will believe it is a vast left wing conspiracy with no basis in merit...and they'll continue to chime, "Trump Jr.'s e-mails? What about her e-mails?!"

Fox needs to continue to feed their base what their base wants to hear.

Yesterday CNN's head line was about the Russian KGB (or whatever) operative at the meeting and here is what was on Fox at the same time:
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    51.9 KB · Views: 16
Meadmaker said:
I have to echo the "Who cares about Hillary?" sentiment.

I heard Hannity going on and on about this on the radio yesterday and I just found it very odd. She's a has been. She is yesterday's news. She has never been, and never will be, president.

It just made me think that they were pretty desperate to change the subject.

I haven't been following the whole Russia subject all that closely. To be honest, it seemed to me somewhat overblown. Yeah, it looks bad. It makes Donald Trump seem sleazy, underhanded, and generally a rotten person. Yeah? Tell me something I don't know. However, I didn't, and still don't, see anything criminal.

However, what I do see is a lot of scrambling. A lot of weasel words and some outright lies. A desperate need to change the subject.

It really makes me think that what we've seen in the public press so far is just the beginning, and that they are actually hiding something big. So, let the investigations continue, and let the media keep up the pressure. Their reactions lately make me think that there is something here that goes beyond "bad optics".
Click to expand...

You're not looking. To start with, there is a clear cut unambiguous case of obstruction of justice against Trump himself with all the things Trump did to try and halt the Russia investigation. The only part of that may have been hard to prove was Trump's intent. It isn't any more with the new revelations.

Then there is the fact that many members of his staff omitted listing meetings with Russian nationals on their security clearance applications. Those are felonies. From Flynn to Sessions to Kushner to Donald Jr. There appears to be many probable cases for money laundering to violations of Intelligence laws. If Muller hasn't hired accountants to go through Trump and Trump corporation financials he isn't doing his job.
 
jimbob said:
Putting the timeline on here for starters




Adding events pertaining to Roger Stone / Podesta:

My additions in Red
Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank**
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct 27| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails*
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya***
2017-12-07| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case

* An hour after pussy-grabbing video released.


**Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server

ETA:*** http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-know-why-doj-dismissed-money-laundering-case
Click to expand...

The pussy-grabbing recording was almost certainly released in early October.
 
A U.S. spy says Russia's approach to Donnie looks like traditional tradecraft:
But everything we know about the meeting — from whom it involved to how it was set up to how it unfolded — is in line with what intelligence analysts would expect an overture in a Russian influence operation to look like. It bears all the hallmarks of a professionally planned, carefully orchestrated intelligence soft pitch designed to gauge receptivity, while leaving room for plausible deniability in case the approach is rejected. And the Trump campaign’s willingness to take the meeting — and, more important, its failure to report the episode to U.S. authorities — may have been exactly the green light Russia was looking for to launch a more aggressive phase of intervention in the U.S. election.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ntrandom_1_na&utm_term=.3a4ea6e216ed#comments
 
acbytesla said:
You're not looking. To start with, there is a clear cut unambiguous case of obstruction of justice against Trump himself with all the things Trump did to try and halt the Russia investigation. The only part of that may have been hard to prove was Trump's intent. It isn't any more with the new revelations.

Then there is the fact that many members of his staff omitted listing meetings with Russian nationals on their security clearance applications. Those are felonies. From Flynn to Sessions to Kushner to Donald Jr. There appears to be many probable cases for money laundering to violations of Intelligence laws. If Muller hasn't hired accountants to go through Trump and Trump corporation financials he isn't doing his job.
Click to expand...

There's sort of a hierarchy of talking heads and pundits in the world. At the bottom are the bloggers. As you move up, you get guests on local radio shows, and columnists, and hot selling authors, and then you work your way up to people who give one on one interviews in major media on prime time.

Right now, the people on the bottom rung are seeing clear evidence of criminal activity and impeachable offenses, but the people at the top of the hierarchy aren't nearly so certain. When Alan Derschowitz (sp?) starts talking about Obstruction of Justice and impeachment, my ears will perk up. For the moment, there's an awful lot of stuff worth investigating, to see if there's more stuff underneath.
 
Meadmaker said:
There's sort of a hierarchy of talking heads and pundits in the world. At the bottom are the bloggers. As you move up, you get guests on local radio shows, and columnists, and hot selling authors, and then you work your way up to people who give one on one interviews in major media on prime time.

Right now, the people on the bottom rung are seeing clear evidence of criminal activity and impeachable offenses, but the people at the top of the hierarchy aren't nearly so certain. When Alan Derschowitz (sp?) starts talking about Obstruction of Justice and impeachment, my ears will perk up. For the moment, there's an awful lot of stuff worth investigating, to see if there's more stuff underneath.
Click to expand...

Why don't you look at the evidence yourself instead of waiting to see what the talking heads are saying?

For the record, there are several top-rung people talking about impeachment and obstruction of justice. The problem is that the GOP controls the means to bring the President to justice, and they ain't budging.
 
Meadmaker said:
Alan Derschowitz (sp?) starts talking about Obstruction of Justice and impeachment, my ears will perk up. For the moment, there's an awful lot of stuff worth investigating, to see if there's more stuff underneath.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Dershowitz is a name I associate with credibility and firm principles.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yes, the date should be Oct 7 for that tape and the Podesta email dump.
Click to expand...

Corrected



Adding events pertaining to Roger Stone / Podesta:

My additions in Red
Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank**
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya***
2017-12-07| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case




**Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server

ETA:*** http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-know-why-doj-dismissed-money-laundering-case
 
Maybe the Trump apologists and sycophants will get some traction by reminding everyone about all the Obama scandals:

 
New additions in Red
Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton
June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya l"] Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt [/COLOR]
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
July-08| Don Jr issues statement* saying the meeting was about orphanages
July-09 | NYT prepares to release story about the meeting supposedly about dirt on Clinton
July-09 | Donald Trump Jr. issues a new statement* changing his story from less than 24 hours earlier, and accepting that it was about getting dirt on clinton but that nothing came of it:
July-10| Don Jr hires lawyer
July-12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case

* " “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up… I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”"


*“I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance. We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting. I interrupted and advised her that my father was not an elected official, but rather a private citizen, and that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office. The meeting lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. As it ended, my acquaintance apologized for taking up our time. That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind. My father knew nothing of the meeting or these events.”
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
There's sort of a hierarchy of talking heads and pundits in the world. At the bottom are the bloggers. As you move up, you get guests on local radio shows, and columnists, and hot selling authors, and then you work your way up to people who give one on one interviews in major media on prime time.

Right now, the people on the bottom rung are seeing clear evidence of criminal activity and impeachable offenses, but the people at the top of the hierarchy aren't nearly so certain. When Alan Derschowitz (sp?) starts talking about Obstruction of Justice and impeachment, my ears will perk up. For the moment, there's an awful lot of stuff worth investigating, to see if there's more stuff underneath.
Click to expand...

Cain said:
Yeah, Dershowitz is a name I associate with credibility and firm principles.
Click to expand...

uke2se said:
Why don't you look at the evidence yourself instead of waiting to see what the talking heads are saying?
For the record, there are several top-rung people talking about impeachment and obstruction of justice. The problem is that the GOP controls the means to bring the President to justice, and they ain't budging.
Click to expand...
Dershowitz is is a publicity whore and a tool. He'd sell his mother if the price was right. He certainly isn't on the top level of talking heads. He's grossly overrated as a legal mind. He was talking out his ass when he was suggesting that Amanda Knox was guilty. He didn't have a clue about the case. He backtracked on that eventually. The man is totally lacking in integrity and like Trump is far more interested in promoting himself than offering any honest legal opinion.
 
Meadmaker said:
There's sort of a hierarchy of talking heads and pundits in the world. At the bottom are the bloggers. As you move up, you get guests on local radio shows, and columnists, and hot selling authors, and then you work your way up to people who give one on one interviews in major media on prime time.

Right now, the people on the bottom rung are seeing clear evidence of criminal activity and impeachable offenses, but the people at the top of the hierarchy aren't nearly so certain.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read fewer blogs, then. The FBI is looking into it. They don't seem to think it's a nothingburger, and neither is the committee overseeing this, or top ethics people.
 
acbytesla said:
Dershowitz is is a publicity whore and a tool. He'd sell his mother if the price was right. He certainly isn't on the top level of talking heads. He's grossly overrated as a legal mind. He was talking out his ass when he was suggesting that Amanda Knox was guilty. He didn't have a clue about the case. He backtracked on that eventually. The man is totally lacking in integrity and like Trump is far more interested in promoting himself than offering any honest legal opinion.
Click to expand...

Which is why it is a good indicator when he changes his tune that the situation has escalated.
 
From my worm's eye view, Richard Painter seems pretty credible

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...on-donald-trump-jr-emails-russians-disturbing

I called up Painter on Tuesday night to delve deeper into why he thinks that, and if the email disclosures had changed his opinions or strengthened them. Opposition research on candidates, Painter explained to me, should never extend to working with foreign powers. “Everybody gets opposition research,” says Painter, “just like everybody gets campaign contributions. But we don't get either one from foreign nationals.”
Click to expand...

Richard Painter

Well, [we have an] understanding of the meaning of the word "treason" as betraying your own country. In the United States, our laws deal with treason in different ways depending on the circumstances. If there's a declared war, we have a separate treason statute, which allows for prosecutions of persons who give comfort to the enemy. But that statute is very rarely used outside the context of declared war.

During the Cold War, and many our most recent wars, we would deal with acts that would constitute treason, or near treason, through other statutes, such as the espionage statute, statutes prohibiting computer crimes, including computer hacking, which is what clearly happened here with the Russians, and also receipt of documents stolen from computers or otherwise, [as well as] conspiracy statutes, and statutes prohibiting false statements to the government. And then also our campaign laws, which prohibit foreign governments from giving financial or other assistance to American political campaigns.
Click to expand...
... continues
 
Hannity Blames Obama And Blackmail For Trump Jr's Meeting With The Russians
HANNITY: Apparently, the Russian lawyer that didn’t give the Trump organization any information whatsoever, according to all these reports, was allowed into the U.S. because of Barack Obama, and that the meeting was set up under false pretenses....

SEKULOW: So, here’s what we should all be asking, the meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and an individual who is a Russian lawyer is not a crime. That’s not—there’s no illegality to that, that’s number one. ...
Click to expand...

So which is it, the Russian attorney only wanted to talk about adoptions, or she was a Kremlin operative that Obama let in the country?

Hannity and Sekulow would have it both ways.
 
jimbob said:
From my worm's eye view, Richard Painter seems pretty credible

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...on-donald-trump-jr-emails-russians-disturbing



... continues
Click to expand...

I liked this very obvious one

And then, third, we have a significant number of inconsistencies in the statements that have been made by Donald Trump Jr., and a number of other people, about their contacts with the Russians. And anyone who has made false statements to the United States government about their contacts with the Russians would be guilty of making false statements, under the false statement statute, 18, United States Code 1001.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Which is why it is a good indicator when he changes his tune that the situation has escalated.
Click to expand...

Huh?


From my view. Trump is clearly guilty of obstruction. It's not even close any more. There is too much there there. That said, I don't think there is a chance in hell he is prosecuted or impeached for this as long as the GOP controls the House. This is a hell of a lot more than what they had on Nixon.

They are going to have to show Trump giving Putin a blow job before people turn against him.
 
Dershowitz is just trying to inject himself into the news cycle, like Gingrich. His position on what was or was not criminal isn't credible.

Heard a good analysis on CNN interviewing people with expertise on how Russia recruits people. It fit the Jr meeting picture perfectly.

FBI documents detail how the Russians try to recruit spies
There is no doubt that the rise of information warfare and cyberespionage has changed the spy game in the years since the Cold War. But the playbook on how to target, recruit and manipulate sources has generally stayed the same.
Click to expand...

And Jr was a perfect dupe. An ex-CIA officer: the Trump Jr. meeting shows how the Russians exploit intelligence targets
reached out by phone to Glenn Carle, a 23-year veteran of the CIA and former deputy officer on the National Intelligence Council. I asked him to walk me through the week’s revelations and to explain Russia’s actions from the perspective of an intelligence officer.

He told me that the meeting with Trump Jr., while unusually brazen, fits a broader pattern of Russian intelligence attempting to engage with the Trump family over the years. “This is how it’s done,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
skyeagle409 said:
Simply amazing that this was on Fox News. Time to dump dumb Trump, the prince of liars.
Click to expand...

Fox has probably realised that they might even look silly amongst their viewers if Don Sr accidentally tweets a confession, or lets it slip some other way.
 
acbytesla said:
Huh?


From my view. Trump is clearly guilty of obstruction. It's not even close any more. There is too much there there. That said, I don't think there is a chance in hell he is prosecuted or impeached for this as long as the GOP controls the House. This is a hell of a lot more than what they had on Nixon.

They are going to have to show Trump giving Putin a blow job before people turn against him.
Click to expand...

Which is why I think Alan jumping on the impeachment train would be a good barometer that impeachment would be possible.
 
Stacko said:
Here's an interesting tidbit in from the most recent FEC filings:
Click to expand...

And then: "The campaign is also paying the Trump Corp. for legal consulting, a new category of campaign-to-Trump company payments as best I can tell"

WTF? $89,561 paid directly to Trump's "blind trust" bank account for... "legal consulting?" Well, this is the guy who charged his own campaign $12.8 million during the election, and I guess you gotta love how that "561" makes it look so much more legitimate than a round number. Back in 2000, Trump said that he could be the first person to make money running for president, and damned if he didn't. Looks like he could be the first to make money getting impeached, too.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Which is why I think Alan jumping on the impeachment train would be a good barometer that impeachment would be possible.
Click to expand...

Yea, but you will know before Dershowitz.

My point is that Trump is unquestionably guilty.But he was guilty of crimes BEFORE he became President. Every day he is breaking the emoluments and nobody gives a damn.

I'm not sure what people expect for evidence. It's like if there's not a canceled check from Putin to Trump for a hundred million dollars with 'for election tampering' on it will his supporters care and I'm not sure even then.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
It's quite possible it could be both ways? You can't really see that can you?
Click to expand...

Usually when people throw into the basket two excuses like that, they're desperate.

"I didn't kill her! But it'd be self-defense if I did!"

Yeah, he killer her and it wasn't self-defense.
 
acbytesla said:
Yea, but you will know before Dershowitz.

My point is that Trump is unquestionably guilty.But he was guilty of crimes BEFORE he became President. Every day he is breaking the emoluments and nobody gives a damn.

I'm not sure what people expect for evidence. It's like if there's not a canceled check from Putin to Trump for a hundred million dollars with 'for election tampering' on it will his supporters care and I'm not sure even then.
Click to expand...

I'm not a trump supporter and I don't think he is unquestionably guilty.
 
logger said:
It's quite possible it could be both ways? You can't really see that can you?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Dems decided on blackmail, and then didn't act on any of the information provided to allow Trump to win the election, so they could float this Nothing Burger a year later. :rolleyes:


I'll admit it has a certain all encompassing CT charm to it. But Frankly, we're just not that good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom