Forums / Discussion / General

>more evidence of Russia/Trump collusion

Not really, at best it's proof of attempt by the russians to affect the election, any connection with Trump is only what you infer.

[>more evidence of Russia/Trump collusion]

You are the only person talking about the leaker.

You continue to bring it up, while I have already posted about the content of the document.

Since you chose to ignore it the first time, here it is again:

[“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.]

So, to conclude:

1) The document suggests there was an attempt by the Russian government to penetrate voter registration rolls.
2) The attacks may or may not have succeeded.
3) If successful, any attacks had microscopic results.
4) At no point in this document does the name Trump, Kushner, Flynn, Sessions, Ivanka, Barron, Melania, or of any other American citizen appear.
5) At no point does the document suggest Trump or any surrogates aided or was/were aided by the Russian efforts.

If this document is such devastating proof of a conspiracy, why have you chosen to spend the afternoon repeatedly asking why the distraction (the leaker) is important rather than refuting my points and proving your own case (the real story)?

Okay, this'll be fun. Tell me how Russians, who cannot be proven to have been acting under the orders of their government, attempting a phising scam on computers that aren;t actually connected to the election polls, connected to trump?

Becuase all it proves is people from russia did a thing. You cannot prove trump was the one who did a thing with this, nor can you prove trump told russia to do a thing with this. I could equally claim it was Theresa May who ordered the elections tampered with and claim this is more evidence of the Russia/May collusion.

Doesn't make it true. Neither does this. No where in the report does trump come up, at all. So how is this evidence? Honestly you have more evidence linking Trump to the UK terror attacks going on right now then you do Trump and this russian hacking incident. And that's saying something.

More Cold Water on Russiagate- Comey Expected to Not Accuse Trump of Obstruction

"There will be much in former FBI Director James Comey’s upcoming congressional testimony that will make the White House uncomfortable, but he will stop short of saying the president interfered with the agency's probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a source familiar with Comey's thinking told ABC News.

Although Comey has told associates he will not accuse the President of obstructing justice, he will dispute the president’s contention that Comey told him three times he is not under investigation."

poochyena said:

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

What news? We've known since at least October Russia was doing phishing emails, and since August they were targeting vote-related systems. That woman has flushed her who life down the toilet breaking to the world that the NSA's been investigating stuff we've known about for six months.

more evidence of Russia/Trump collusion

I strongly suggest seeing a doctor. These visual hallucinations you're having are making you see things in that article that aren't actually there.

Is there any particular reason you are acting petulant? Or is this just how you handle people with Dissenting opinions and evidence that don't align with your own opinion?

Ladies, ladies, you're both beautiful.

I'm more excited for the UK snap election tomorrow.

So a statement was put out from comey and is being reported by CNN. Within the statement, it seems to indicate a few things.

1. Trump isn't under investigation from the FBI, and did convey without explicitly saying on multiple occasions, that trump wasn't under investigation.

2. Trump tried to win over Comey over a dinner in order to get get him on his side, a scummy move politically but not overtly illegal.

3. Comey began recording his conversations with Trump after this meeting. I don't know if such a thing is illegal myself, but it does speak of there being a divide between the two of them.

4. That stupid buzzfeed story that was put out about trump taking golden showers paid for by russian officials was a cloud, but Comey didn't seem to think that report had much substantial info.

5. Comey wasn't stopped from investigating Russias potential involvement in the election process, but was stopped in regards to Micheal Flynn.

http://www.wmur.com/article/comey-statement-released-ahead-of-senate-intel-panel-hearing/9990089

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336756-comey-will-confirm-trump-asked-him-to-let-flynn-investigation-go

One bit of the report that is interesting.

---

"I did not tell the president that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change," Comey said in the statement.
--

So while there was the potential for an expanding investigation left open, there was nothing at the moment that actually pointed towards trump being involved in russias activities.

It seems likely the real reason Comey was fired, was his reluctance to make this fact known to the public. The same public being told by the media that trump is oh so close to being impeached with tons of investigations closing in on him.

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Damned if you do, definitely damned if you don;t.

You're looking a little rough around the edges. You feeling all right?

Trump Approval Rating Low, but Averages at 39

"President Donald Trump is by no means popular--compared with his predecessors, his approval rating has been remarkably low during his time in the White House. But there's some small solace for the president this week: His approval rating is, at least for the moment, a hair better than where President Bill Clinton stood at the same point in his first term.

Different polling outfits put Trump at varying levels of approval, but the RealClearPolitics average had him at 39.8 percent Tuesday, while the weighted average from FiveThirtyEight had him at exactly 39 percent. Not great numbers, but still better than Clinton. On Day 138 of his presidency, just 37.8 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing, according to FiveThirtyEight."

Flashback: Quinnipiac's Final Battleground Polls Weren't Quite On Target

FLORIDA: Clinton 46 – Trump 45, Johnson 2
NORTH CAROLINA: Clinton 47 – Trump 44, Johnson 3
OHIO: Trump 46 – Clinton 41, Johnson 5
PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 48 – Trump 43, Johnson 3

Hmmm. Trump won all of those states by getting about 4-5 more points than Quinnipiac predicted, and that happens to be the same difference Quinnipiac is off by according to the RCP average. Guess Quinnipiac hasn't refined their polling since November.

[3. Comey began recording his conversations with Trump after this meeting. I don’t know if such a thing is illegal myself, but it does speak of there being a divide between the two of them.]

Depends on the circumstances.

In Washington, D.C. you cannot tape conversations without both parties' consent. Comey would have had to inform Trump of any recordings, unless it was part of an investigation, which Trump (according to Comey himself, wasn't the target of.

And now, in "I can't believe it's not Onion" news, a legal group is threatening to sue Trump for violating Twitter users' first amendment rights because he blocked them.

I'm gonna have an aneurysm next time someone cites a single poll.

It makes no sense to look at a single poll when there's a ton of polls. Seriously. 538 is logging 1-3 approval polls a day, so why would anyone think a single, isolated poll trumps all that? Just, use this. 538 has the most accurate mainstream forecasting model for 2016, and did excellently in 2012 and 2008. They're like, top of the pack in polls. Listen to them.

538 has it that Trump is roughly as approved as Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford were at this point. That means he ranks something like 11/13 in approval out of all the presidents we have approval ratings for. His approval ratings also have continued to drop, and disapproval rise, in general, since the end of Week 2 of his presidency. Not a good sign.

In other news, all signs say Democrats are gonna roar in the midterms, at least if the signs keep going the way they are. Generic ballot is excellent for the Democrats and special elections are just as spectacular for them. If things keep up like this, it's a near-certain Democrat surge. Possibly take back the House, possibly hold steady in the Senate.

---

Meanwhile, the UK snap election is tomorrow. Polls aren't looking great for them. TL;DR of the link, the Conservative margin has significantly narrowed, and if the polling average is even just a few points too high it could mean Conservatives may actually lose their majority. This is what YouGov is predicting.

---

And now, in “I can’t believe it’s not Onion” news, a legal group is threatening to sue Trump for violating Twitter users’ first amendment rights because he blocked them.

This Reuters article suggests that the law is actually on their side.

Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University law professor who focuses on internet law, said that previous cases involving politicians blocking users on Facebook (FB.O) supported the Knight Institute's position.

As weird as it is, it's what we've been led to.

In blocking them on Twitter, users are no longer able to comment on things Trump says, which directly influence politics, on the very medium Trump uses (and doesn't own) to leave statements that may not be directly repeated by Trump elsewhere. When you become a politician, different rules apply to you. Even weird ones, apparently.

I don't know if they'd win, but the case for it doesn't seem all that out there.

Black Graphic T said:

Comey began recording his conversations with Trump after this meeting. I don’t know if such a thing is illegal myself, but it does speak of there being a divide between the two of them.

From what I read, it doesn't seem like Comey was actually recording the conversation as it happened, but was writing down what happened after the meetings, while they were still fresh in his memory.

That stupid buzzfeed story that was put out about trump taking golden showers paid for by russian officials was a cloud, but Comey didn’t seem to think that report had much substantial info.

The "cloud" that President Trump was referring to was the admission of the counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russian government officials. I didn't see any reference to the Steele Dossier in any of the links you provided.

Comey wasn’t stopped from investigating Russias potential involvement in the election process, but was stopped in regards to Micheal Flynn.

Where did you read this? Comey states that Trump asked him, repeatedly, to drop the investigation into Mike Flynn. He then ignored these requests.

If I may pull the disscussion from US politics, who do you think is going to take the UK election

^ It's too close to call IMO.

If I had to pick, I'd say Conservative will take it barely. Polling errors in the UK are nearly always in their favor, and they're sliding barely by in the average.

I don't know, it really comes down to if the 18-24 year old demographic actually gives a shit this time, that and the whole "dementia tax" may piss of the tories core voter base

Well, regardless of your politics, I think we can all agree on one thing:
The bars are opening up early tomorrow for "Comey Hour". :P

Also, from this morning's hearing:
Andrew McCabe confirms to Sen. Jack Reed that conversations between Trump and Comey can be part of the Special Counsel's investigation.

The Telegraph's polling average puts the conservatives in a clear lead, though at an embarrassing margine in comparison to the landslide they would have gotten without May's cock ups.

The problem with this is whether there was a warrant for these conversations to be recorded, a court order for them, or if trump gave consent for these conversations to be recorded. Because short of citing the Patriot Act against the president of the united states, these would be highly illegal. There's a reason the original deep throat used a code name for his leaks, and even then im pretty sure he didn't give transcripts of his talks with the president to the public, that was something done later during the investigations into the presidents actions when said tapes were found by the investigation team, though i.may be wrong.

I also do not believe that having someone in the fbi van typing out the words during or immediately after meetings and conversations with the president is enough of a difference to not be considered recordings of someone and thus require a warrant or some form of legal justification to do. If it is different then we must assume the accuracy of these written logs may be questionable, if they do not fall under the umbrella of a recording and do not require legal authorization to do so and then distribute to the public.

according the twitter, the post-comey hearing will include "THATS NOT ILLEGAL IS ITS OK GUYS, IT MEANS NOTHING."

Maybe, and this a big maybe, that's because there was a) nothing illegal b) was ok and c) means nothing.

Perhaps if you use bold type and bigger font with all caps, you might conjure enough meme magic to make it illegal and not ok and meaningful.

However, I would recommend moving on. For your own good. Time to put faith into another conspiracy theory such the emoluments clause or the 25th Amendment.

Comey did tell the panel that he experienced political pressure regarding an investigation… only that pressure came from Loretta Lynch, and the investigation was into the HRC's private server.

"For the first time, former FBI Director James Comey, who is testifying today before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that President Obama's Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to call the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email scandal a "matter" and not an "investigation…"

"He told lawmakers "a number of things had gone on which I can’t talk about yet, that made me worry that the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”

In related developments, a news organization issued a major correction. Once again, FoxNews Breitbart, CNN is forced to backtrack after inaccurate reporting

""CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement," it reads above the original Tuesday story. "The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published."

But CNN isn't the only media organization with egg on its face

"“In the main, it was not true,” former FBI Director James Comey told Congress on Thursday.

He was talking about a February 14 New York Times report titled, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.”

---

1) Trump was correct when he tweeted that Comey had told him he wasn't under investigation.
2) Trump's "tapes" tweet was about Comey's recording of their conversations, not Trump pulling a Nixon.
3) Comey didn't accuse Trump of obstructing justice, though Trump's approach on the issue made him uncomfortable.
4) Comey shot down media reports about connections between the Trump campaign and Russians.

This case helped to provide evidence against Micheal Flynn. A man who was already fired and therefore won't really be affecting the trump administration should he be convicted.

The Sleeping Cells are awakening:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-men-arrested-terrorist-activities-behalf-hizballahs-islamic-jihad-organization

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230779

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2164821-analysis-hamas-and-hezbollah-sleeper-cells-in.html

Hello Iran: https://twitter.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/872401808559394816

[The Sleeping Cells are awakening]

Most of the reasoning behind recent Qatar's diplomatic isolation has to do with its tolerance/support of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and Shiite Iranian-backed terrorist organizations.

I'm not sure whether or not there's a connection between the Qatari isolation and this uptick in Shiite-focused activities, but it's important to remember Hamas and Hezbollah are both arms of the Shiite regime in Tehran.

Trump's foreign policy hasn't received much attention, but it seems as if he is trying to work with regional powers (China, the Sunni Gulf States) to isolate the regional bad apples (North Korea, the Iranian-backed Shiite Block) before they become powers with nuclear-strike capabilities, and in the Iran's case, in order to stop its destabilizing support of terrorism.

And on top of that, ISIS is really on its way out. It controls a couple of city blocks in Mosul, is now fighting in the streets of Raqqa, and is losing larges chunks of the countryside daily. Good news, but it means that the world is going to have to figure out how to untangle the mess in Syria which involves the US, the Kurds, Turkey, various Syrian rebels, Al Qaeda, the Assad regime, Russia, Iran, and the Iranian backed "militias" all still controlling territory. It's not going to be pretty even with ISIS eliminated as a state player.

>Most of the reasoning behind recent Qatar’s diplomatic isolation has to do with its tolerance/support of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and Shiite Iranian-backed terrorist organizations.

I think the gas pipe line and them being a bit too big for their breeches from the point of view of Saudi Arabia has to do with it as well. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-06/saudi-arabia-s-feud-with-qatar-has-22-year-history-rooted-in-gas

I think there is a strong connection, Qatari is drifting into Iran's sphere of influence, it is a grounds for a proxy battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. An energy-rich, gas exporter – one that is intimately tied to both Saudi Arabia and Iran?

Unfortunately, the current crisis in middle east is too complex for American journalism to delve too deeply into, to understand the bigger battle, and the bigger picture of this Iran vs Arabia conflict. Not to mention all the neighboring players are constantly double dealing, it goes against the American ability to grasp the kind of conflict we're dealing with and who or why we are supporting them. So I am not surprised they aren't focusing much on Trump's foreign policy when it comes outside of dealing with Europeans and / or the UN.

Absolutely spot on with the last paragraph about ISIS too. I'd like to add what the power-vacuum would look like, on top of the largely emptied out countries. And what's really not talked about to any realistic extent: A lot of ISIS fighters have EU passports. And many of them are going to flood back into Europe. Those fighters will be going to go somewhere, and I dread where that somewhere is.

Now in political news we all care about:

Newcastle beat Sunderland to report the first UK seat

As someone who wanted brexit to go through, seeing the exit polls means it's likely worst case scenario for me, but thats democracy so whatever happens I shall respect the outcome

Forget this Comey testimony, I more intrigued at the comedy of errors generating in Britain.

Conservative majority leader calling an election to get more seats to her majority…proceeds to lose a ton of seats and have their majority at risk. All during a time when a country is in the process of leaving the EU.

Listening to Sargon's livestream. Sounds like the exit polls were a bit off and the Conservatives might hold onto a slim majority despite May's terrible campaigning.

As much as the UK vote has importance, and it does, I don't live in the UK and it has less of an impact to me as what is Happening in my home state of Virginia. This Tuesday (June the 13) we will have our primaries for the governorship, Lt. governorship and Attorney general spots.

Why I bring this up is mostly due to my observation of how (figuratively) bloody the infighting between the two Democrat Candidates has become. The party's ensconced elite favorite Ralph Northam (current Lt gov) is the face of the Dem's Hillary wing state wide. From out of nowhere, his rival Tom Perriello jumped into the race several months ago and devastated Ralph's lead. Tom has openly sided with the Burnie Sanders wing of the Democrat party and that alone might be the force surging him forward.

I have not seen the early voting/absentee voting turn out this high for this situation ever for the Democrat side.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run/articles/2017-04-26/virginia-governors-race-features-proxy-wars-for-democrats

That isn't to say the Republican candidates don't have it easy either. Between Ed Gillespie, Corey Stewart, and Frank Wagner this appears to be changing to a duel between Ed and Corey. Ed has name recognition, but a lot of political baggage to carry around. Corey is a new comer but more youthful energy. I can't say how this primary will turn out for them right now.

Officially going to be a hung Parliament, with a Tory-DUP coalition the most likely outcome.

Either way, it looks like the end of May's time as PM, as the Tories were up 22 points when she first called for a snap election.

I'm shocked that Theresa May managed to choke away the Tory majority. The Tories can still form a government with the DUP, but this should never have been required. The collapse of the SNP and UKIP should have made it impossible for the Conservatives to lose their majority. Can't help but be impressed with Labour's massive growth, particularly compared to initial expectations.

Except Comey didn't make a recording.
He's hoping Trump made recordings of their conversations.
From where are you getting transcripts, or that the FBI was typing these memos from inside a van as they were talking?

He just wrote memos about what he witnessed during his meetings, which are his and his alone to publish. He had a feeling that he needed a record of what happened in case he needed to give testimony, which he predicted to be true.

Huck Finn said:

The collapse of the SNP and UKIP should have made it impossible for the Conservatives to lose their majority.

Wouldn't the collapse of the SNP be bad for the Tories since the SNP is what devastated Labour's position in Scotland?

The Tories gobbled up a bunch of SNP seats, more than Labour did.

Here's something interesting:
Mueller was among those listed to replace Comey as FBI Director.

Illinois' impending implosion really feels like it's foreshadowing the future of the country. Decades of poor financial management leading to massive deficits and kicking the can down the road, politicians more interested in their own political future than the good of the state, two political parties stubbornly refusing to budge or compromise with the other for fear that the other side would "win," and voters being apathetic and letting the whole thing continue onward.

Jeff Sessions, orginally set to testify this Tuesday before House and Senate appropriations committees, cancels his appointment.
Instead, he will send Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, because he thinks that we will be questioned on "issues related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election."
Instead, he will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed session.

Not surprising at all honestly.

Trump has canceled his trip to Britain because his fragile little ego can't handle the idea of people protesting him. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/donald-trump-state-visit-to-britain-put-on-hold

Puerto Rico held their referendum today and overwhelmingly (97%) voted for statehood. However, turnout was just 23%, the lowest since 1967, which makes it unlikely Congress will act.

Puerto Rico's governor will be sending two senators and five house representatives to Congress, demanding to be seated, a strategy Tennessee used in 1796 as part of its bid to become a state. The Senate rejected that bid, but the House accepted it and kicked off the process of admission.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-and-maryland-to-sue-president-trump-alleging-breach-of-constitutional-oath/2017/06/11/0059e1f0-4f19-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.81bafd4bcba8&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

"Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House."

" one of the first steps will be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings."

Trump tax returns please

[Time to put faith into another conspiracy theory such the emoluments clause or the 25th Amendment.]

Sometimes when I throw out lines like that, it's not only a response to the immediate situation. It's me looking down the road.

How predictable that a pair of Democratic, Washington-DC area AGs are going to launch yet investigation into another Trump "scandal" days after the rather flat Comey hearings.

For the record, this is the third time the left has tried to drag out the Emoluments Clause. Actually it might be the fourth. Somewhere back in this thread, I've already linked to a press conference where Trump announced his plans to avoid a COI back in January. And when this investigation fails to go anywhere, we'll back to pushing the "Trump is senile, 25th Amendment." story line. And on and on it will go.

And since I'm feeling generous today, I'll save you the trouble and point out the New York AG, another Democratic, is launching an investigation the Eric Trump Foundation. For some reason. Definitely not because he is the son of the President though. Because that would mean that the justice system in this country is politicized. And the would be wrong, right?

>conspiracy theory

What, exactly, is the conspiracy?

That's a good question. Let's apply it to the following allegations:

1) The Trump-Russian collusion hypothesis.
2) Trump's abuse of the Emoluments Clause.
3) Trump supposed being incapable of office due to senility/suffering from dementia/suffering from Alzheimer's.
4) Trump hides his taxes because…

What is the alleged conspiracy in any of these hypothetical scenarios? Who are the conspirators? How is the conspiracy being carried out? What is being gained through its execution? Qui bono?

Is there actually a coherent narrative to one of these allegations, supported by evidence, or are they just accusations designed to undermine the Trump administration?

I'm fairly certain I know the answer.