Forums / Discussion / General

[Better that their identities are protected than exposed for retaliation. Which is what your argument is about. Don’t even try to bullshit me on that.]

No.

My argument is that after nearly a year of investigation, the best "evidence" of collusion or crime is innuendo based on anonymous sources.

You do realize that anonymous sources could be a) people lying or b) people lying about other people existing, right? That right now I could say, "Anonymous sources tell me BrentD15 was involved in a DUI hit and run last night" and that I would have exactly the same amount of evidence as an anonymous source claiming there is evidence behind "Russiagate"?

Now, these leakers do exist. But you know what: they've provided no actual evidence. None. Absolutely zero. Nothing's been leaked but rumors. Comey won't even turn his supposed memos over. So until actual evidence does turn up, none of these stories amounts to anything more than gossip.

Furthermore, you do realize that this is the same exact claim that the same exact media entities got all excited about back in March?

So please consider the following:

-If this evidence is so damning, why wasn't a bigger deal made it about it back then?
-If additional damning evidence has been discovered, why did the media decide to trot out this old news without adding that information?
-If this news is supposed to be so damning, why is the article littered with "howevers"?

"However, Washington Post reporter Adam Entous said there is a chance that Russia could have intentionally exaggerated what happened in the meeting.”

"However, officials told Reuters -- and have previously told CNN -- that so far they have not seen evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the Trump administration and Russia. "There may not have been anything improper about the contacts," the law enforcement official told Reuters."

Seems to me that even the journalists pushing this story realize there's not much to it, and are attempting to backpedal in their own hit pieces.

Incidentally, if Trump wants to set a new standard for punishing whistleblowers, Obama set a pretty high bar to reach.

So please don't lecture me about needing to protect leakers from retaliation.

[You mean this article? Weird how the article never mentioned trying to bypass US systems to use the Russian embassy to establish the covert communications.]

I linked the article I meant.

And your article contains makes the same point that is not only in the article I linked, but which I quoted :

"According to this source, neither of Kushner's meetings -- with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and with Russian banker Sergey Gorkov -- were about sanctions, which Russian banks have been lobbying against since they were imposed in 2014."

And then there is this gem from your link:

"And Kushner never followed up with Kislyak. When the ambassador wanted to meet with Kushner again, Kushner didn't see the purpose in doing it, the source said. His feeling, according to this source, was "*why should [Kushner] meet with a person for the second time who told [him] he's not the right person" to be an intermediary to the Kremlin*. As a result, Kushner sent a young aide to meet with the ambassador instead.

Wow! Kushner was such an integral part of the conspiracy that the Russians told him he wasn't the right person to be a contact. And this is supposed to implicate whom how?

And I hate to keep picking on the Podesta family, but you do know Tony Podesta, John's brother and a super lobbyist for the DNC, received $170,000 during the 2016 campaign from Sberbank, Russia's largest bank and known as the "KGB" bank, to represent it while it was seeking and end to economic sanctions, and that Podesta failed to register as a foreign agent as required by law?

Let me repeat that: Tony Podesta, a DNC donor and brother of the potential chief of staff in a Hillary Clinton Administration, was paid $170,000 to represent Russia's largest bank at a time when that bank was seeking to influence US policy, and broke the law by not reporting this properly.

Had Clinton won, I am sure the media pushing for Trumpeachment would be demanding an investigation, right? And you would be concerned, right?

[Are the officials that reported the collusion to set up this covert espionage op the same that tried to discredit the possibility of it? Do the second set of officials even have access to this information?]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

[Did Mike Flynn discuss about this to the FBI or Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of a plea bargain?]

Wait, I the media's narrative depended on Flynn refusing to cooperate and that this was evidence of guilt. Now he's plea bargaining? More assumptions and speculations without a shred of evidence.

[At this point, I don’t think your intended audience for this remark isn’t me.]

Mostly not, but it is a little if you think about it.

[You mean the money that was already owed to them several years ago? Did Obama try to set up this communication through the Iranian embassy in Washington DC? I’ll answer those for you: yes and no.]

We could go on off a long tangent on this issue, but let's avoid that.

The primary point, irrelevant of details, is that candidate Obama and President-elect Trump both made attempts to establish communications with foreign governments.

Now, I would argue there's more justification for a President-elect to be doing so than a candidate, but that also isn't a big issue here. Why? Because this is a standard operating procedure by every American Presidential candidate since the end of World War II.

We can debate whether this is good or bad behavior, but if we're going to take a position, let's have one standard.

Media which praised Obama for "outreach" and "rapprochement" with Iran, now demand Trump be impeached for "collusion" and "treason" with Russia. We know how Obama dealt with Iran; all we have seen of Trump's dealings with Russia was the bombing of Putin's stooge's air force. Which results suggest cozier back channel relations: Obama with Iran, or Trump with Russia?

And yet no media outcry, because these media groups don't have one standard. They don't have any standard. They have a political agenda. And because of that agenda, I remain skeptical of their anonymously sourced stories.

Eleven months and counting, and still nothing but anonymous allegations peppered with "howevers" and admissions of "no evidence."

[Do you even understand how anonymous sources work?]

Asking this

[Do you really think I’m that stupid?]

Then asking this.

[Anonymous sources ask to remain anonymous when talking to reporters.]

Correct. And then journalists and media organizations which care about their credibility and integrity try to verify those sources, acknowledge there is no physical proof if there is none, and don't draft speculative narratives about what might have happened, then report on this speculation as news.

Agenda-driven media entities, however, go beyond this. They construct speculative narratives with no evidence, then report on other media reports quoting the same sources and engaging in the same speculation in order to create a false impression there is widespread evidence to back up their political slash fiction.

[Just like how Donald Trump had a “very credible source” when discussing Obama’s birth certificate, right? Don’t make me laugh.]

Where have I defended that behavior? Oh, I never have? Because I'm not a blinded ideologue who has to defend a political figure or movement on all points? Thank you for letting me point that out.

Since you brought it up, this is a perfect example of why not to trust claims based on anonymous sources which have no evidence backing them up.

[“If I don’t see it….

That’s your argument? If you don’t see the evidence yourself, it doesn’t exist? And if you do see the evidence (which could take months or years for it to be made public, if we’re lucky), who’s to say you wouldn’t just discard it as fake? Patience is key towards this counter-intelligence investigation.]

My argument is assuming there will be an impeachment and removal from office based on current evidence available to the public, which is nothing but rumors, anonymous sources, and conjectures, is wildly premature.

I will give you credit on this point, because AFAIK you haven't said impeachment is a foregone conclusion. However, you do seem to be leaning in this direction. You're not saying there's a fire, but you sniffing the air as if you smell smoke.

Based on how this story has unfolded, in particular the lack of empirical evidence despite numerous and unfriendly leaks regarding the Trump campaign, as well as the desperation of certain media outlets to make any information as damaging as possible, as well as the length of time which has passed, I have a pretty good hunch that there is nothing to Russiagate, because Russiagate only occurred in the boardrooms of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

But I can admit it's only a hunch. A strong one, but still a hunch.

[Also, Comey’s memos are being handled the the Special Counsel, so Congress has to go to him.]

Congress has contacted the FBI, and the FBI has refused

"On Thursday, the FBI denied Representative Jason Chaffetz’s request to see the memos, which are thought to include Comey’s description of Trump asking him to drop the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In denying the request, the FBI cited the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to run the probe into Russia’s election tampering.

Chaffetz, the House Oversight Committee chairman, did not respond well to the denial. In a letter to acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, he wrote that the purpose of the Congressional investigation is different from Mueller’s. While the special counsel is conducting a criminal investigation, Congress is conducting oversight of the Executive branch.

Again, note the word "thought." The only reason everyone assumes these memos are relevant is because of an anonymous leak. Maybe they are relevant. Maybe not. I'm not going to get worked up about it.

[And you still haven’t discussed the possibility of these “officials” you speak of not having access to the information itself.]

I have no idea what you're referring to.

[The article I linked is to the March article you referred. And yet, he still left those communications out from his SF-86 form. Each instance of withholding these contacts is a felony which can result in 5 years prison sentence. Every. Single. Instance.
And I ask again: Why set up the secret communications through the Russian embassy and not the State Department? It’s not like Kerry would have said no since they would be monitored and have nothing nefarious or incriminating about them, right?
Please…

Obama did it through the US State Department under Dubyah’s administration. Jared sought to bypass the US government altogether and run them straight through the Russian embassy. Which is extremely shady, if not incriminating.]

You’re trying to make candidate Obama/Iran thing sound worse than it actually is, while downplaying the espionage charges Jared could face. Straight-up deza.]

First of all. "Back channel" and "informal" does not equal "secret." You're using loaded language to make a point.

Secondly, the Obama channels I am talking about go back to 2008, when he was a candidate. He would not have had State Department access then. Don't believe me? Here's a piece from the Huffington Post

"A lot of the coverage implies that the use of secret back channels is something new. It isn't. There have been secret talks with the leaders of the Islamic Republic ever since the Revolution of 1979, and they have continued ever since. In the case of Obama, the secret contacts began during the election campaign of 2008, when William Miller, a former diplomat and staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, flew back and forth between Washington and Tehran. He was an ideal choice: an Obama loyalist, a believer in the possibility of a US-Iranian modus vivendi, and a trained diplomat, as he happily discussed his role with me a few years ago. Oddly, with all the current attention to the secret back channels, his name hasn't surfaced."

So the period I referred to, correctly, was the period when Obama was still just a candidate. Anything which happened afterwards through the State Department is irrelevant: both Obama and Trump used unofficial channels.

Thirdly, are you asking why Trump might want to avoid using the Obama State Department, whom Trump correctly suspected was spying on his campaign, if he was doing nothing wrong? Could it possibly have something to do with Trump wanting to avoid having phone calls transcripts leaked in order to embarrass his administration and undermine relations?

As to Kushner, I will wait to see what actually happened rather than make assumptions based on unverified sources.

[I don’t doubt some media outlets have political agendas (just look at Fox News and Breitbart over the past 5-8 years). ]

We're back to Fox and Breitbart bashing despite the fact I never used either as a source. It's like a Tourettes tick…

I'll ask again:

*Provide an example where Breitbart has issued a major retraction, as when the NY Times used a fake Michael Flynn Twitter account as a source, or when the WP reported the Russians hacked the VT electrical grid and falsely reported about fake Russian propaganda

[And yet to accuse them all of having “no standard” because some just report things you don’t like is intellectual dishonesty.

No.

Intellectual dishonesty is intellectual dishonesty, whether I like the messaging or not.

Since I've already covered this, and I am beginning to smell straw, I am not going back into this topic.

[Also, you said so yourself: it’s standard operating procedures…]

Already covered above.

[Especially when that nation is engaging cyber-warfare against the United States of America, which can be considered an act of war. A war that Russia isn’t prepared to fight.]

Again, an assumption based on an eleven month investigation that has yeilded nothing beyond anonymous sources.

[Maybe you can become a journalist yourself one day? Gain some knowledge about how journalists act in regards to sourcing.]

That's getting personal, so there's no need to respond.

[And also, since you keep bringing up “no evidence”: what would you know about Congressional/Federal investigations regarding classified material or intelligence? Nothing. Neither do I, but at least I don’t try to procclaim I know more than the investigators do.]

Whether you believe your doing it or not, that is exactly how you're coming across.

All I can react to and form an opinion on is what is the in public domain, and that is a) anonymous sources, b) conjecture and c) rumors.

The conclusion I draw from this being all there is eleven months into an investigation, during most of which the Obama Administration was using the full power of the American government to spy on the Trump campaign, is that there is nothing else.

[You get everything spoonfed to you via Wikileaks, Guccifer, or ShadowBrokers.]

I don't know what ShadowBrokers is.

I've never Guccifer except a third part re-tweet.

Wikileaks has never issued a retraction or been proven wrong. That is beside the point, because as with ShadowBrokers and Guccifer, I never brought it up or used it as a source in this discussion.

Your making an attempt to discredit my opinion based on what sources you're incorrectly assuming I use, when if fact, my argument is based on the same sources you're relying on. Rather than implicitly trust them, however, I am viewing their sources and their behavior critically.

[Dasvidaniya.]

BrentD15 said:

…set up this covert espionage op…

What are you talking about? Not even Huffpost or Daily Kos are saying stuff like that. You really need to start lowering your expectations if you think that's what the Russia investigation's going to reveal.

That’s your argument? If you don’t see the evidence yourself, it doesn’t exist?

Guess the DNC really did assassinate Seth Rich and Clinton murdered Vince Foster. I mean, there's no publicly released evidence to prove it, but who knows what the FBI or Washington Police has in their evidence lockers.

Each instance of withholding these contacts is a felony which can result in 5 years prison sentence. Every. Single. Instance.

The key phrasing in Title 18, section 1001 is "knowingly and willfully." If Kushner intentionally left out that info, then yes, it is a felony, but if he or one of his lawyers happened to forget to add a line to the 127 page form then it is not. It's all about the mens rea.

Why set up the secret communications through the Russian embassy and not the State Department?

1) They wanted to set things up on their own, without involving the previous administration that had a less than ideal relationship with Russia. 2) Kushner wanted to start developing a rapport with the Russian government to help facilitate closer relations. That's better accomplished at and through their embassy than the State Dept. 3) He was already talking with Russian businessmen and saw an opportunity to quickly have some conversations with Russian officials. Rather than wait for the bureaucracy of the State Department, he opted to do the meetings quickly and get right to the point. 4) It was a fuck you to the Obama administration. 5) The reptilian aliens need to shed their skin periodically and he couldn't wait for the State Dept to clear it.

These are just a few of the possible explanations I made up after thinking about the question for two minutes. I'm curious as to what your theory is?

"Except when they tried to paint Robert Mueller as selling highly-enriched Uranium to Russia, when he was actually part of a sting operation against Uranium smugglers.
They didn’t even apologize or retract their misleading statement. "

The proof your page links to has dissapeared.

Here, does this one work out?

A private channel isn't illegal, back channel or otherwise. And even if it was, kushner would be the one punished for it, not trump. Trump didn't make the channel, so how can this be used as a means of impeaching trump?

Since this is a wave of our more conservative political posters, I'm only suggesting keeping downvotes to a minimum so as not to bury the few more liberal posters. No one honestly has to, but don't expect there to be any back and forth if the blue voices are voted into being convered up. Just above where the burying threshold is if you could (unless we want to say the tone is breaking rules.)

The arguments and quality will speak for themselves.

BrentD15 said:

and just went straight to the Russian embassy to set up a private line of communication with the Russian government.

Okay, so how is it illegal for a representative of an upcoming administration to discuss with the ambassador of another country a possible means of communication with them? I could see if he was talking with one of the Russian banks about getting a direct line to Trump, or talking about the DNC hack.

It's a repeating issue I'm seeing with the Russia investigation. Every time something relatively minor happens, people and the media freak out like it's Watergate (or should I say hoping it's like Watergate so they can rake in the views and ratings). With regards to the Russia investigation, I've pretty much been disregarding anything that happened after the election because all that's pretty pointless.

If there's going to be another Watergate, an impeachment, whatever--then it pretty much has to connect Trump with the hacks. Directly. That will be challenging even if Flynn or Manaford are holding the smoking gun. But minor disclosure violations? Meetings held in December? That doesn't even link to the hacks, let alone tying Trump to them.

I'll be curious to know if a boy who cried wolf situation arises before the midterms, where most people become so fed up with the constant minor revelations that don't lead anywhere that they end up not caring about the investigation enough to impact their vote.

The issue is that we wouldn't know the purpose of these communications, because would be outside US diplomatic channels, and being used by someone with little to no foreign policy experience.

And why would a Russian bank want to have a direct line to the President of the United States of America? Is it because he's in debt to that bank? Or some other reason?

And the purpose of the investigation is far from pointless. A foreign country committed cyber warfare against the United States. The investigation is to find out how it exactly happened, who was involved, what was the purpose of their involvement, and if anyone will be punished over it.

Even little things can have big impacts, and this snowball is now engulfing the President's inner circle like a Katamari.

Regarding the pace of the investigation: I understand that it can be frustrating with so much happening, and yet nothing being done because Congress is reluctant to get its act together. And since we're bringing up Watergate, remember: the Watergate investigation took about 2 years before Nixon was impeached, so we might be a little ways off before any prosecutions or Congressional action is enacted, let alone impeachment of the President.

In the meantime, we have other issues we can talk about, like healthcare and the budget fraud.

The issue is that we wouldn’t know the purpose of these communications…

We wouldn't anyway, since diplomatic communications are always going to be confidential--unless Wikileaks leaks them or an "anonymous source" does, which gives yet another possible explanation for going through back channels.

The investigation is to find out how it exactly happened.

We already partially know how it happened. They sent a standard phishing email to Podesta. There's still no official word on the cause of the DNC hack, but it appears to have been email-based malware, which seems like a pretty standard hacking job.

…why would a Russian bank…

It'd be incredibly shady and possibly illegal if any bank had a secret direct communication line to the President, what with him controlling the Treasury and Fed. There's no indication he currently owes Russian interests anything.

…is far from pointless

I never said it was. I said most of the revelations we're currently getting are pointless to the investigation. They might be separate issues for the administration, but they have little bearig to the investigation. The Kushner stuff has nothing to do with the hacks, the Flynn stuff has nothing has nothing to do with the hacks. The collusion thing only matters if it relates to the election and none of these revelations have been tied to the election.

It's weird that Manafort's not been brought up nearly at all in all this. Since he was campaign manager and has connections to Russia, he's probably the best bet for getting an actual concrete collusion tie-in, but there's been virtually nothing.

…the Watergate investigation took about 2 years…

Key to this, though, is that it was always a faucet of increasingly convincing evidence. it really got kicked into high gear in October of '72 when the revelation of Nixon's campaign funding the break-in came to light. That was just four months after their initial arrest. The Senate's Select Committee was formed in February, eight months after the initial break-in, and the initial revelation of there being tapes happened about a full year after the break-in.

We're now nearly a year into the Russia investigation, and about five months in since the media really started picking it up and there's been little. No shocking revelation, no slowly winding connection up to Trump. There's been a few possible disclosure violations and Trump botching firing the incredibly unpopular FBI Director.

…before Nixon was impeached…

Nixon was never impeached. He resigned just as the House was beginning impeachment hearings and long before the Senate could hold the trial.

…and the budget fraud.

There's not really much to discuss on the budget front. Congress will never, never pass a budget regardless as to who's in office and who's in control of Congress because it'll mean being held responsible to it and we all know if there's one thing everyone in Congress can agree on, it's covering their own asses and not being held responsible for commitments they make.

It’s weird that Manafort’s not been brought up nearly at all in all this. Since he was campaign manager and has connections to Russia, he’s probably the best bet for getting an actual concrete collusion tie-in, but there’s been virtually nothing.

Manafort has been keeping his head down, and he actually turned in documents requested by Congress, as did Roger Stone Jr.
Flynn, on the other hand, has been rather buggy. Refusing to comply with Congressional request, trying to plead the 5th Amendment regarding his documents, and now just recently has agreed to turn over some documents. I have no idea what his deal is recently, but it doesn't look good.

What did he mean by this?

I think it supposed to be c-o-v-e-r-a-g-e. Going by context that would be the next logical word.

The C-O-V is there. He would have hit F-E instead of E-R, A would not have been registered as tapped, then F-E again instead of G-E, then he accidentally sent out the tweet.

F, E, R, and G are all next to each other in a QWERTY keyboard layout, so this explanation seems more plausible than it does at first glance. Seems like he was typing too fast and/or distracted by something. He tweets a lot, so he might not have been looking at the screen.

It's been 2 hours and the tweet is still up. Usually duds get deleted immediately.

Did he have a stroke in the bathroom or something? Someone ought to check on him.

He trolled Twitter

And predictably, CNN chose to dissect the tweet like it's a Kubrick film they've just watched while high on shrooms

But, remarkably, the New York Times swerved into a deeper truth about what obsessing over and mocking a tweet really says about who uses Twitter.

"Some appeared to temper their whimsy as a more sobering news story dominated the medium: a huge explosion shaking Kabul, leaving dozens dead or wounded.

But the instinct to linger was powerful, for those who had glimpsed the initial post, even if they did not seem entirely sure why they were still awake."

Reminds me of superkid64 and the detonated wam.

Colonel Sandor wrote:

He trolled Twitter

New meme IT ALREADY HAPPENED

Trolling or playing off a typo? I honestly don't think he's that savvy regarding Twitter PR, but I'd prefer to believe he's poking fun at himself, which is better than "trolling the ignorant masses."

Either way, I'll wait for the discussion to come back around to the US's potential withdrawal from the Paris agreement on global climate change.

A non binding "accord" which China and India have until 2030 to begin implementing?

The Paris Agreement is nothing more than virtue signaling on a global diplomatic scale. It has no mechanism for enforcement, no penalty for failure, nothing more than a nod of agreement between nation states to essentially commit 100 billion a year by 2020, to largely assist developing nations adopt climate change solutions?

If you're serious about fighting global warming you should be mad at how toothless this is.

If you're serious about maintaining economic growth you should be mad about how you're getting the raw deal.

@Chewybunny

Yes, the very same.

At the very least, virtue signalling or not, shows support to the cause of slowing global climate change. The withdrawal from something that is merely symbolic, as you say, is just as symbolic.

Unless there is another symbolic action or actual action on the matter (mind you, it would be hard for separate entities to hold each other accountable for much without becoming overly involved, because we don't have a world government,) then withdrawing from an agreement, even a symbolic one, means that the United States' leadership does not believe it is an important issue.

I don't think that is aligned with the majority of the United States' citizens' opinions though.

Honestly, I don't see virtue signaling as any sort of beneficial. It actually does the opposite, I feel. Instead of having people push for actions that would help address the problem, we instead push for publicity stunts that make us feel like we're helping, when really we aren't. And for a lot of people, when they feel like they helped, they don't do any more to actually help. So really, you could say, virtue signaling is worse then straight up denialism, because at least denalism gives people the impression that you're a stuborn jackass, and motivates them to not be that kind of person. Whereas virtue signaling tricks people into inaction by making them think they're doing a lot of action.

And in today's issue of Be Careful What You Wish For Magazine

House Intelligence Panel Issues Subpoenas Over Unmasking

"The House Intelligence Committee issued seven subpoenas on Wednesday, in a sign that its investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election is ramping up in scope and intensity, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Republican-led committee issued four subpoenas related to the Russia investigation. Three subpoenas are related to questions about how and why the names of associates of President Donald Trump were unredacted and distributed within classified reports by Obama administration officials during the transition between administrations.

The committee has subpoenaed the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency for information about what is called “unmasking.” Republicans on the committee have been pushing for a thorough investigation of how the names of Trump campaign officials became exposed in classified intelligence reports based off intelligence community intercepts.

Those subpoenas seek information on requests made by former national security adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power for names to be unmasked in classified material."

It's a symbolic gesture with a 100b price tag each year, (with expectation that the number will grow) with no accountability on whether or not any of that money is spent effectively, or has any actual results.

Because maybe the Paris Climate agreement isn't an important issue and that people are more concerned about symbolic gestures than actually facing up to what would entail to actually tackle on Climate Change – and whether or not it is actually worth the cost that comes with that. And it is even a lesser of an important issue in comparison to the levels of actual pollution that is pumped out by the industries in Europe, US, Asia, etc

The majority of US citizens opinions are that they'd be happy with a symbolic gesture to do something, up until of course, it affects their personal lives.

There's a ton of shit I disagree with Trump on. Getting us out of this Paris Agreement is one.

I also consider myself very environmentalist, but AGW, should not be on the top of the most pressing issues facing ecological disaster.

@BlackGraphicT

Agreed. Why don't these governments just come out and say it: you decided to make CO2, fossil fuels, global warming the thing you want to immediately solve. Okay, let's hear some actual suggestions as to how you're going to tackle that.

Oh, what's that? All your solutions require greater government involvement, more unaccountable regulation, no mean testing, and higher expenditure fighting this dragon? Increased involvement in personal and economic lives of millions of Americans, and billions more in developing countries?

You think that 100 billion a year is going to really pump up the kind of physical and societal infrastructure in third world nations to have green tech…conveniently bought from Germany which stands to be the biggest winner in all this?

SOLD BABY. WHERE DO I SIGN UP!?

BREAKING NEWS: Trump used "you're" instead of "your" in a tweet, anonymous sources told the Washington Post earlier today.

Chewybunny said:

…up until of course, it affects their personal lives.

This, big time. Everyone was pissed here in Michigan when they raised the gas tax to fix the roads. I can't imagine what would happen to Congress during the next election if they raised the tax 20 cents to encourage people to stop driving or shipped the money off to Micronesia to build a seawall.

Congress will really tackle climate change right about the same time they tackle Medicare and Social Security. That is, never, since it means pissing off voters.

Here's one of the biggest things for people in the US, since a lot of focus is on it thanks to paris. If you want to reduce the US greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution, here's what needs to happen.

1. Cut the amount of meat people eat, period. Meat production as it stands in the US is devastating to the environment. The large amount of gases produced by livestock in factory farms produces an equivalent amount, if not more so, then most coal plants and cars do a year. Not to mention run off from solid and liquid waste, is a major water pollutant.

2. Cut down on imported vegetables, and factory farmed veggies. Having to import a ton of greens from around the world puts a lot of planes and jets in the air, dumping their emissions directly into the upper atmosphere. Additionally, its a massive strain on our water supply as a species, having to grow massive fields of plants globally instead of relying on a limited selection of produce made on the local level with local techniques.

3. STOP. GROWING. GRASS. Water is a super scarce resource, and nothing wastes water more then needing to keep a fickle plant like lawn grass alive. Seriously, the reason we're running out of water isn't just that there's more people. It's that there's more people wasting it in stupid ways. Just imagine the amount of water thats wasted on golf courses in the west coast desert regions, every summer. We're talking millions upon millions of gallons just so that you get to look at green grass that's too weak to act as an invasive species.

4. Make plasitc that biodegrades mandatory for stores. It'll ruin the shelf life of a lot of products, but it'll sure as hell make sure that whatever tides do rise doesn't end up being filled with garbage, and that there are actual fish that can be caught out of it, instead of resembling lake erie.

5. Finally, stop using your cellphones all the time. The rare metals within your phone are not only an environmental hazard, but its fueling one of the largest pollution problems in the world, taking place in India and China. Every year, when a new phone gets released, thats million of new strip mines that were made to fuel that demand, and millions of tons of discarded phones going to mega-dumps to be sorted through by little kids to put that crap into other electronics you use.

These would greatly reduce the impact of the Us on the environment globally. They're all super simple solutions to, which really require a tweak to your diet, spending habits, and a small sacrifice of needing to use your phone for 3 to 5 years instead of getting a new one every other year.

Garuntee you the person who'd pass those laws would need to have 24/7 bodyguards to keep from getting killed by an angry mob, and would go down in history as a massive dictator who was worse then the ISIS of Hitlers.

Meanwhile, vaguely promising to "lower emissions by 2024" makes everyone feel like that persons the greatest hero, and so am I for voting for them. Even if said promises never come true.

I agree with the solutions, but I strongly disagree with the means.
Using the power of government to artificially reduce the supply without addressing the demand is a recipe for disaster – as the price of beef, vegetables, and other food would skyrocket being mostly detrimental to the poor. Already, we are subsidizing mass-load of our agricultural sector to keep farmers and suppliers in business. Hell, it's what government cheese is all about, imagine this on a massive scale.

I think, better awareness of the cost of beef on the environment, plus a broader access to variety of proteins, and better dietary standards would go a long way in reducing the demand – which would also reduce the supply. Already consumption of beef in the US has been going down hill for several years, largely for dietary reasons.

Garuntee you the person who’d pass those laws would need to have 24/7 bodyguards to keep from getting killed by an angry mob, and would go down in history as a massive dictator who was worse then the ISIS of Hitlers.

Yep. The person that starved the poor – essentially.

Creating a "tax" of sorts would be ideal, as it would create a price mechanism for companies to work off of (which is why a lot of energy companies are pro carbon-tax) if that tax can be malleable to better reflect the market conditions…The problem is, the US government isn't known to reduce taxes, or remove regulation, unless there is a lot of political will behind it. So I am skeptical.

Ultimately…people power is where I'd throw those 100 billions to. The myriad of innovative go-getters that truly want to help the world with innovative market solutions. Rather than some bureaucrat following an outlined plan made by more bureaucrats with the help of academic think tanks, the real solutions and the real innovation comes from private individuals.

US gov should seriously look at itself and what can it do to better allow innovators to innovate (what legislation can we alter – what taxes can we remove – what regulations can go out the door) rather than arbitrarily pass laws and regulations just for the sake of expediency and good diplomatic image.

James Comey set to testify before Senate Intelligence Comittee on Thursday, June 8th.

There will definitely be questions regarding his interactions with the President and, of course, the circumstances surrounding his sudden termination (i.e., his office as he was fired, including files and computer hard drives, and who he contacted after hearing the news that he was fired), and no doubt some members of the committee will bring up how he handled the investigation of the DNCs server hacking.

Next Thursday should be quite interesting. ;)

According to the article, Russia might, at most, get use of properties back, but stripped of diplomatic immunity and other privileges.

"Before making a final decision on allowing the Russians to reoccupy the compounds, the administration is examining possible restrictions on Russian activities there, including removing the diplomatic immunity the properties previously enjoyed. Without immunity, the facilities would be treated as any other buildings in the United States and would not be barred to entry by U.S. law enforcement, according to people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters."

So if I follow the logic here, the Russians threw the election for Trump in order to get back two diplomatic compounds that were closed after Trump won.

And this somehow involves a plot to give the Russian ambassador an UN position which doesn't yet exist, and which is filled by the UN Secretary General who is neither Russian nor American, but Portuguese, and which would appear to be due to a Russian official anyways based on the composure of the UN Security Council.

Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, and Jeff Sessions make cameos in this conspiracy as well, though the helpful undisclosed sources fail to explain how.

Yep. Plenty to see here. And point at. And have a good laugh over at the expense of the Washington Post's "journalism."

[It’s becoming ever more clear that our government is acting on behalf of the Russians, probably because they have blackmail on Trump (like his ties to money-laundering through his real estate business).]

TBH, I thought I was over-stating the conspiracy angle to this article and your decision to post it. Then I read this response and realized I wasn't.

So again, what you're trying to argue is:

a) The Russian government is trying to cash its chips in regarding whatever blackmail it has on the Trump Administration.

b) It is trying to do so at a time when the investigation into the collusion is supposedly "closing in" on the conspirators.

c) The big prize the Russians desperately want at this critical moment is the re-opening of two diplomatic compounds (I am not certain they're even consulates, but that is a technicality) which were closed after they decided to help/blackmail Trump.

d) The Trump Admin says it might be willing allow the Russians to reopen them, possibly in exchange for Russian approval of an American consulate expansion in St. Petersburg, and probably with fewer diplomatic privileges.

e) Even though this clearly shows Trump is in their pocket, the Russians decided to issue a public ultimatum threatening counter-measures unless they get what they want.

f) Somehow, the ultimatum is also part of the conspiracy.

g) Based on your response, "As well as the Russian embassy threatening “counter-measures” if the consulates aren’t returned to them last week," you do believe the Portuguese UN Secretary General is also part of a conspiracy to give Russia a currently non-existent counter-terrorism position in the UN, which would by UN procedure go to the Russians anyways.

h) This UN plan is also related to the diplomatic compound conspiracy, which is related to the US election conspiracy.

i) Despite the fact that none of this diabolical plan has happened yet, or that the sequence of events cannot possibly construct a logical timeline regarding this conspiracy, this is more evidence of collusion. Which it is, if we're defining "evidence" as "unsourced allegations," "rumors," and "conjecture" that contradict one another.

[And we weren’t even planning on giving them back anyway before Big Boy Trump came into power.]

You do realize the compounds were closed only on December 30th, right? As in the December 30th after Trump won the election and less than three weeks before he took office. Pointing out we weren't planning on returning them before Trump took office is only a statement of fact designed to imply a conspiracy. There was no time to "plan" on giving them back before Trump's assumption of office because they were only closed after that became an inevitability.

Rather than take the time to go through each situation regarding Flynn, Sessions, and Kushner again (all of which can already be found in this thread), I'll let your position on the compound negotiations speak as to whether or not your interpretation of each man's actions is likely to be grounded in reality or not.

Russia already owns 2/5s of the un, thanks to china. Frankly, any attempt to stop them from influencing the UN is an exercise of yelling at the tide that its illegal to rise, in order to stop it coming towards the shore.

BrentD15 said:

As well as the Russian embassy threatening “counter-measures” if the consulates aren’t returned to them last week.

I wonder what that means. (It's the article the embassy linked to, by the way. You know, providing the context the social media intern was trying to give in 150 characters.)

…Gonchar stated. "Otherwise, we will have to take counter measures against American diplomatic property in Russia, according to the principle of reciprocity.

Oh, so they're finally going to do the tit for tat thing everyone assumed they'd do immediately. Damn, and here I was hoping for that golden shower tape.

It’s sad that I have to keep repeating this…

It's sad I have to bring up mens rea again. "willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true" and "knowingly and willfully." Simply forgetting something is not illegal, hence why prosecutors need evidence for perjury and lying on security forms and don't just play a tape or submit the form and then rest their case.

And now for something completely different …

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain all decided to isolate Qatar.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

"Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept."

I cannot believe the leaker's name is Reality Winner

NSA Contractor Employee Arrested for Leaking Hack Attempt Details

Reality Leigh Winner, a contractor with Pluribus International Corp., who has held a top secret security clearance since at least February, made her first federal court appearance in Augusta, Ga., Monday afternoon.

“Winner printed and improperly removed classified intelligence reporting, which contained classified national defense information from an intelligence community agency and unlawfully retained it,’’ court documents stated, adding that material was taken May 9. “Approximately a few days later, Winner unlawfully transmitted by mail the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet.’’

She's also a SJW

A 25 year old Caucasian woman- who is almost certainly from a privileged background- facing a minimum of 10 to 20 years in Federal prison. Sounds a like an excellent candidate to flip if there was anyone else leaking with her.

>"She’s also a SJW"

What possible relevance is that?

"quick, find a way to distract from this news!"

[What possible relevance is that?]

It indicates her state of mind and why she chose to act as she did. See the last paragraph.

And as I pointed out, it also suggests that the threat of a long prison sentence may induce her to cooperate if she has information about additional leakers.

[quick, find a way to distract from this news!”]

This comes from someone who chose to report on the leak, but didn't bother reporting that someone was arrested for it.

Considering that the leaking of classified intelligence, which is this, has been a major part of the Russian story, the arrest of a leaker is far from a distraction. It's a big deal and an important part of this story.

But hey, let's look at this smoking gun anyways.

"While the document provides a rare window into the NSA’s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.

Oh, it's not a smoking gun…

"The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

Oh, we don't know what effect, if any, these attempts had…

"According to the Department of Homeland Security, the assessment reported reassuringly, “the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.”

Oh, it wasn't targeting vote counts.

"The NSA, however, is uncertain about the results of the attack, according to the report. “It is unknown,” the NSA notes, “whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised the intended victims, and what potential data could have been accessed by the cyber actor.”

Oh, so the NSA can't even say what, if anything, was compromised.

Do I need to bring up the fact that the NSA has the ability to conduct cyber attacks and make it look like a foreign government was responsible?

Do I need to remind you the Obama Administration itself tried to penetrate the 2016 elections?

I don't buy Putin's claims the Russian government didn't attempt to break into the American voting system, or that it wasn't engaged in espionage.

I don't consider the allegations the document lays out crazy or impossible.

But let's look at what the document is actually indicating, rather than what we want it to point towards. And let's examine it in the full context of what is going on. And the full context demonstrates neither Obama nor Putin are saints in this story.

This is what I see:

A left-wing activist leaked classified intelligence which indicates Russians attempted to penetrate voter registration rolls. This individual was so eager to bring down an administration she hates that she leaked this information despite the fact that it

a) does nothing to advance any hypothesis of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
b) cannot state whether or not the Russian operations succeeded.
c) appears to admit that they did succeed, any potential impact was so negligible as to be undetectable.
d) is, according to an intelligence official, only one piece of intelligence and therefore not definitive.

Seems like an awfully small hill to take a stand on in exchange for a minimum of 10-20 years imprisonment in a Federal prison. Especially if one is a college educated young women privileged enough to worry about her white privilege.

I can't help but think that if she was a rational, thinking person rather than an indoctrinated ideologue she would have at least waited to get her hands on a more damning piece of evidence before imperiling the next two decades of her life.

"@kanyewest you should make a shirt that says, "being white is terrorism"

And instantly my faith in her is gone.

[Could you please just answer me why you think the leaker is so important?]

Did you miss any of this?

"It indicates her state of mind and why she chose to act as she did. See the last paragraph.

And as I pointed out, it also suggests that the threat of a long prison sentence may induce her to cooperate if she has information about additional leakers."

Or this?

"Considering that the leaking of classified intelligence, which is this, has been a major part of the Russian story, the arrest of a leaker is far from a distraction. It’s a big deal and an important part of this story."

Or this?

"Seems like an awfully small hill to take a stand on in exchange for a minimum of 10-20 years imprisonment in a Federal prison. Especially if one is a college educated young women privileged enough to worry about her white privilege."

I can’t help but think that if she was a rational, thinking person rather than an indoctrinated ideologue she would have at least waited to get her hands on a more damning piece of evidence before imperiling the next two decades of her life."

Or this?

"A 25 year old Caucasian woman- who is almost certainly from a privileged background- facing a minimum of 10 to 20 years in Federal prison. Sounds a like an excellent candidate to flip if there was anyone else leaking with her."

I've offered four examples of why I consider it relevant.

If you consider those reasons rubbish I'll listen to any counter opinion.

But let's not continue pretending I haven't answered the question. Not only have I done that, I've also addressed the content of the leak which I was accused of distracting from.

Given all that I have written and which you or anyone else now have an opportunity to respond to, why are you choosing to return to an issue you previously dismissed as a distraction?

[All you have written]

That is not all I've written. And as you've pulled out the fourth example to quote, there is no way you are unaware of this unless you're not reading entire posts or are choosing to respond selectively.

For my part, I'd rather be discussing actual issues than playing "You didn't answer the question" over and over again.

I've offered my point of view. Unless you or someone else chooses to share his or hers, I consider this subject exhausted.

Well she's a real Loser right now.

She's looking at 10 to 20 behind bars for what she done.