When this Trump russia stuff eventually shows to be a complete fabrication are you still going to see the Russians as a central enemy of the US?
Key word : central
If Trump contends the election was never hacked and Russia played no part in his campaign, how does it hurt him to drop sanctions against Russia?
Why on earth would you not seek to improve relations with another super power?
Sorry, I forgot you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to make an inference. Let me spell this out more clearly.
-
I do not know precisely what degree of connection there is between Trump / the Trump team and Russia, nor whether such connections are sufficently nefarious to be worrisome.
-
I do believe that there is sufficient noise related to this issue that it warrants investigation.
-
I do believe that the investigation will take time, as usmc alluded to already. You’ve stated several times that the investigation needs to publicly disclose what they’re finding as they go to justify the continuation of the investigation, which is frankly ludicrous and merely shows how little you understand the conduct of investigations.
-
Re: the tangent about Ken Starr, I addressed that specific point because you brought it up. Your postulation was, essentially - “Hey look folks, Kenneth Starr said there’s nothing to see here, we can all forget about this Trump obstruction of justice now.” I merely pointed out the tremendous irony in that position, given that Starr was recently dismissed from a position of leadership for being complicit in several years’ worth of covering up and/or discouraging police investigations (you know, obstructing justice, to turn a phrase) in accusations against Baylor athletes, so of all people you can bring up who could make a “nothing to see here” statement regarding the obstruction of justice, Ken Starr is quite a humorous one to cite.
5 Likes
What Trump " contends" is irrelevent - what actually happened is. And there’s little upside to trying to improve relations with a belligerent power.
2 Likes
[quote=“ActivitiesGuy, post:1806, topic:226860, full:true”]
Sorry, I forgot you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to make an inference. Let me spell this out more clearly. [/quote]
My critical thinking skills have lead me to believe that you avoid stating your stance because you want to insulate yourself from criticism. That or you don’t have confidence in yourself to form opinions outside of statistics.
[quote=“ActivitiesGuy, post:1806, topic:226860, full:true”]
- I do not know precisely what degree of connection there is between Trump / the Trump team and Russia, nor whether such connections are sufficently nefarious to be worrisome.[/quote]
Well duh no one here knows. In case you haven’t noticed, tyler23, ED have high confidence Trump engaged in serious wrongdoing, thunderbolt leans in that direction while Zeb and I are firmly in the camp of this whole ordeal being one big hoax.
[quote=“ActivitiesGuy, post:1806, topic:226860, full:true”]
2. I do believe that there is sufficient noise related to this issue that it warrants investigation. [/quote]
Congrats on taking a position, I think?
[quote=“ActivitiesGuy, post:1806, topic:226860, full:true”]
3. I do believe that the investigation will take time, as usmc alluded to already. You’ve stated several times that the investigation needs to publicly disclose what they’re finding as they go to justify the continuation of the investigation, which is frankly ludicrous and merely shows how little you understand the conduct of investigations.[/quote]
Comey started looking into connections between the Trump campaign and Russia starting July 2016. What I’m saying is completely reasonable.
First of all I didn’t know about his Baylor incident until you posted it. If you want to discredit his opinion as an authority fine, but if he has no dogs in this fight, what reason would he need to lie?
This has been explained to you plenty of times already. Watergate took years. Iran Contra took years. Those two absolutely pale in comparison to the magnitude of the investigations that are underway now. This isn’t some purse-snatching case.
Ken Starr was offering his opinion, which he is entitled to. It doesn’t mean he’s right. I doubt Trump will be charged with obstruction; it’s extremely hard to prove since it’s all about intent.
However, intelligent people, such as Robert Mueller, see smoke, so they go looking for fire. And that’s exactly what he’s doing now. And the more Trump flaps his gums and goes off on twitter, the more questions Mueller wants answered. So now he’s diving into everything in Trump’s present and past.
As I’ve said before, Mueller is crawling up Trump’s ass with a microscope. Everything he’s done is under scrutiny. And that’s got Donald pretty damn worried.
2 Likes
Why do so many members of Trumps own party think sanctions are necessary? It’s not like the vote was close.
Also why does he love Alex Jones so much? You haven’t answered that question in the thread you started about the media
[quote=“Tyler23, post:1809, topic:226860, full:true”]
This has been explained to you plenty of times already. Watergate took years. Iran Contra took years. [/quote]
Watergate had immediate evidence of wrongdoing. Wiretaps, burglars etc.
They have no evidence for Russia tampering with the election whatsoever
Just look at the links posted - “alleged” “apparent” - they can’t even show us any evidence first hand.
The fact that you believe the above is really just an expression of your hatred of Trump and has little to do with reality.
No, it’s uninformed. Investigations aren’t basketball games - you don’t updates on the score during various parts of the game. The fact that an invesigation has taken some time and nothing has come out damning is meaningless.
Are you and your fellow Trumpkins completely oblivious as to how the justice system works? You don’t show evidence until you reach conclusions on it and decide what to do with it. You have legal and ethical obligations not to.
Seriously, the problem with you and your fellow Trumpkins starts at failing to understand basic civics.
3 Likes
Here is a pertinent question
The accusations have been incessant and accusatory to the point of (if true) deserving a hanging - so when are they going to provide more than he said, he said or political back stabbing?
And l do disagree that trying to improve relations with a nutty regime holding 1000s of nukes is not a bad thing. Fact is, we have done exactly that with China.
Not considering them nutty, but certainly pragmatically bent on world domination.
1 Like
When the investigation is over and a final report is written. And even then, a number of findings may qualify as information that has to stay classified, depending on what happened. [quote=“treco, post:1814, topic:226860”]
And l do disagree that trying to improve relations with a nutty regime holding 1000s of nukes is not a bad thing. Fact is, we have done exactly that with China.
[/quote]
The mistake we made with China doesn’t need to be repeated in Russia - that is, using the gift of fairly normalized relations and trade to legitimize a nation with unsavory ambitions and give them the ability to get a lot richer, a lot faster and begin to arm themselves to the teeth and start projecting power in ways that give us fits.
Why on earth would we duplicate that game plan and give a backwater rogue nation the privilege of doing business with the US when they just took an intentional action of aggression against the US?
Like most things associated with Trump, “America First” appears to be a ruse.
1 Like
To the contrary: They have overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of tampering. You have chosen to dismiss/ignore this evidence.
2 Likes
Then you have very very low standards for what the government owes to the American people.
I already did refute it. The CIA has technology that can make a hack look like it came from anywhere. How do we know these US intelligence reports weren’t fooled by this technology?
Speculation regarding methods by which the intelligence community could possibly have been misled (or by which they could possibly have intentionally conspired to falsify evidence, as you seem to be alleging) does not constitute an actual refutation of anything.
We don’t. But the fact that the reports may have been “fooled by this technology” does not constitute evidence that they were so fooled.
1 Like
No, I don’t, that’s the law, Einstein. The DOJ owes us an exhaustive, non-political review of the facts free of conflict-of-interest when all the relevant information has been collected, collated, and digested.
And don’t be silly - what if the investigation showed a certain individual to be liable for wrongdoing 99% of the investigation, but at the last minute, the investigators learn something that exonerated that individual? If the investigators had reported on an ongoing basis about this individual to the public to keep them “updated”, basically damning him, that could wreck his reputation beyond repair, and no amount of last minute “oh, turns out he’s innocent” can undo the damage.
These things are serious, not just political fodder for morons on Reddit and 4chan, and can ruin people’s lives and affect their Due Process rights. You’re not owed a damn thing until the process has been completed the right way under law.
2 Likes
In the age of hacking, coupled with sheer incompetence of the CIA, it’s a reasonable question. Russia is also a super power, why wouldn’t they have similar technologies to avoid detection?
Also at what point do you call US intelligence incompetent? These people lost millions of dollars in weapons recently.
‘Reasonable questions’ are not evidence of anything. And 16 other IC depts agreed with the CIA.
I would have to refer you to the US IC on that one.
Cherry-picking failures on the part of the US IC does not constitute a global refutation of their competence. Just ask the myriad ISIS and aQ leaders who have died as a result of the efforts on the part of IC community.
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:1820, topic:226860, full:true”]
The Russia Trump scandal has already damaged Trump’s reputation. What the hell are you talking about?