Putin invites Trump to Moscow for a second meeting

""The only thing that remains, is for them to take up arms against the country."

Why do you far right wingers keep bringing this up????

I have asked this question before. Predictably, the very right wingers who post this sort of thing deniedthat they do it.

For some reason, this is arecurring right wing fantasy."

Firstly, I am not "you right wingers".

Secondly, I think that you have an over-active imagination. It appears that you read something, in my post, that's not there.

If you could step outside of your conspiracy theory bubble for a moment, you would clearly see that I set no expectations. I merely named the only possible escalation from where we are now. As a metaphor, I only stated that 10 is the next level above 9. I never said that 10 might be reached.

You tell me. After the constant smears, slanders, harrassments, and physical assaults; what else is there?

 

You may not be "you right wingers", but you made no attempt to cite where liberals were guilty of any of this sort of talk.

And I am not interested in being lured into a discussion of some imaginary event just because it is popular with right wingers.

Since no one on the left is talking about taking "up arms against the country", and the only person in this conversation who is talking about it is you, perhaps you can tell me?

Nor, do I know what conspiracy theory you are talking about.

 

The scary thing is that almost all the commenters were enamored and gushing about what a swell guy Putin is and trashing Wallace for asking him pertainent questions. Those Fox News posters were at least claiming to be Americans and they were idolizing Putin....WOW!!

 

"You may not be "you right wingers", but you made no attempt to cite where liberals were guilty of any of this sort of talk."

What "sort of talk"?

"Since no one on the left is talking about taking "up arms against the country", and the only person in this conversation who is talking about it is you, perhaps you can tell me?"

I think I'm being clear. Maybe, I'm mistaken.

The left (and other globalists) is doing everything they can, short of armed insurrection, to overthrow the executive branch. There're actively trying to trigger some nutjob into an assassination. The only thing that I can see, beyond what they're doing already, is an armed insurrection. I do not see that happening.

 

What do You Want From Life?

 

You read my post. I listed several right wing paranoid myths that were actively promoted in the right wing trash blogs and parroted by right wingers here on this forum and on right wing talk radio.

I noted that there was no similar pattern on the left. A fact you made no attempt to dispute.

Contrary to your attempt to create false meme about liberals taking up arms, it is the right wing that constantly brings these fantasies up.

You know that., You're just playing games.

Your last sentence, complete with buzzwords, is straight Trumsptersism.

So spare us your protests about being labelled far right wing.

No one is taking about armed insurrection but you.

 

LOL, you simply crushed it .

 

Funny, but the only person on this thread talking about war with Russia is you.

But then, you're playing the either/or fallacy game, which Trumpsters like to play,.

Not being at war with Russia does not mean that the President of the United States has to grovel before Putin.

And trying to make an assertion like that is a pathetic attempt to divert the discussion and excuse Trump.

 

What's with Progressive Liberals today, patting each other on the backs? Has Trump resigned his presidency, or, at least, has Mueller indicted another batch of russkies?

 

I generally like Chris Wallace. I do feel as though the interruptions are not a great way for a conversation period(Can you imagine political shouting back and forth? Yeah, it generally doesn't tend to end well.). I also liked the idea of hearing from Putin, because despite what one may think of the Russian Kleptocracy, the Russian Federation exists.

You're not going to nuke them(Or at least, I hope not. Civilian casualties aside, such a war would inflict massive losses on our end as well.). So you might as well make as much peace with them as you can, acknowledging their underhanded tactics in our country.

I also have to agree with him on the issue of Kompromat. It seems rather unlikely that of all of the businesspersons in Russia at 2013, they would just so happen to be able to neatly pick out Donald Trump and have him as a political patsy for a political run 3 years later, knowing HRC would be a politically vulnerable candidate.

And to be sure, they predicted the 16-person campaign field(and the RNC should learn from that, if it wants to maintain a pro-corporate party position) that would allow him to win. Sure, I'll go with all of that. )

And even from Rosenstein's indictment, one thing has remained consistent: The Russians did not expect Trump to win, but initially aimed to create a civil war between HRC/Sanders.

So far from a political patsy connected to the Russians, the Russians pursued every possible avenue to attack America's domestic politics.
We got even more confirmation from Deripaska on just how utterly stupid we've been in the past two years: He mentioned that should the US involve the judicial courts, it would give Russia a major propaganda victory.

Well, look what it's exactly done! Way to go. We have a disenfranchised President, a Congress that is utterly devoid of purpose beyond #resistance. And half of Americans(or more) personally loathing the executive head.

If the goal was to help Putin, the resisters have done a wonderful job. If the goal on the other hand was to protect the goodwill of American voters, and to protect the historic value of America's elections then they fell oh so short.

One of the major reasons their 'effort' to protect our voters and elections fell so miserably short, is if you're going to claim interference you need to do much more than facebook ads or RT or Sputnik(and the combined views may amount to maybe Wisconsin's total population. Nation-wide that is....)

But the intelligence community was unwilling to collaborate its story. Instead saying effectively "Trust us." To a country that historically has been groomed not to trust the government. That's why I commend the proposal I recently heard on the Senate, to quantify what interference actually is, and what it isn't.

If you can point to me what interference is, then its quantifiable and thus believable. But internet trolls cannot make a person change their minds, or to hold a position. Some people may be swayed by the first thing they see, but many people seek confirmation of that first thing.

And if they do get confirmation, just because the first advertiser was a foreigner or was politically compromised, doesn't change their position on the issue.

The only thing pointing to facebook ads, RT and Sputnik accomplished, was to create further doubt. When Americans heard 'interference', they heard infiltration. They didn't hear ads or network television or websites they may not have heard, read or visited.

And whether we like it or not, agree with it or not. One point is sadly true: It took illegal actions by a foreign actor(Russia), for us to learn about party corruption. Putin is absolutely right on that, and it was a big weakness in American politics for him to exploit.

If we can't be honest with each other, then corruption is a seed buried deep within that. We needed that expose, it would've been better if it came from a domestic source, rather than a foreign one.

It'd be even better if we can just be honest. Does that mean getting rid of Citizens United, banning corporate shadow foreign money from American Politics? Yes it does. It also means being out in the open and honest with each other. If we can do that, no foreign country can successfully interfere in our elections.

 

Together, making America great again!!!

 

You failed, spectacularly, to understand my post.

I honestly don't care about any "right wing paranoid myths" you choose to list. They have nothing to do with me.

You might do better to concentrate on the left's own paranoid Trump/Putin delusions.

 

Not likely but this type of response is typical of the shuck & jive blast off.

 

Hillary said Russia had to be stopped. How are you going to stop Russia... without a war...? More sanctions that lead to more aggression?

Yes, Hillary would already have us deployed to Moscow. You Hillary loyalists can deny it all you want. Every General from every country differs your views.

 

Mueller indicts “an unidentified candidate for U.S. Congress requested and received” dirt from a hack, allegedly by these Russians, from Guccifer to whom they’d given the hacked material.

Trey Gowdy has demanded that Sessions hand over all the documentation respecting the identity of this person. I doubt he exists except in the imagination of the prosecution, or his name surely would have been leaked by now. And it’s indisputable that the government has never examined the “hacked” servers and technical experts insist that the speed of downloaded material makes certain it was not removed by a hack, but was an inside job by someone using a thumb drive.

 

"I also have to agree with him on the issue of Kompromat. It seems rather unlikely that of all of the businesspersons in Russia at 2013, they would just so happen to be able to neatly pick out Donald Trump and have him as a political patsy for a political run 3 years later, knowing HRC would be a politically vulnerable candidate."

If that is what you think people are saying what happened, you are seriously missing the point, and have a very simplistic view of how the world works!

The Russians never "neatly picked out Donald Trump in 2013"

They have owned him for far longer than that. I'm quite sure that the Russians own several shady guys in big cities around the US.

The Russian campaign to influence US domestic politics is quite apart from the Presidential election. It has far more general objectives. It seeks to divide Americans against each other, to make Americans question their government and their institutions, and make Americans question the existance of truth and the social contract/

Fortunately for them, the template for these objectives was already being worked by conseravative media in the United States, and had been for over two decades. Division, racism, resentment, isolationism and appeals to ignorance and fear are all core messages on right wing talk radio and Fox. Roger Ailes never made a secret of it, either.

The Russians merely copied it, studied its memes and played it back to the same audience via social media.

I could see how the Russians had invaded conservative media right here in this very forum. When the Russians wanted to undermine American support for resisting Bashir Assad, they turned RT and Sputnik loose. Right wing ,media in the US started regularly quoting them, and right wingers here did too (and still are).

The Russian media campaign went unadressed. It did not go unnoticed. In fact, the effort was first documented in the press by the New York Times in the late spring of 2015. I remember that Sunday morning almost as clearly as I do the Sunday morning I read Ambassador Wilson's letter regarding the faked Niger uranium claim the Bush people had tried to sell.

A few liberals here noticed it too.

Although few imagined that the Russians were thinking about how to influence a US Presidential election at the time, it's clear in retrospect that they were thinking of how they could support the candidate of their choice. I doubt that they started the 2016 election cycle with either a candidate in mind, or a serious intention of going all in supporting one.

There was never any doubt that it would be a Republican. Putin's hatred of Hillary Clinton is legendary.

The Russians had several people that they knew could be helpful. Folks like Erik Prince, and Robert Mercer.

As yet, we don't know exactly when, or why the Russians decided to start tentatively supporting Trump.

I suspect it was in March or April of 2016. I suspect it was after the Iowa caucus, a race in which Ted Cruz narrowly beat Trump using a sophisticated voter targeting effort based on algorithms and data supplied by a not very well known consultant named Cambridge Analytica. The Russians knew about Cambridge Analytica. They held a financial interest in the British subsidiary. They also had a cozy relationship with Robert Mercer. During the 2016 campaign Mercer's yacht was reported rafted up with the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. This is the same guy who paid Donald Trump a 100% premium on a piece of real estate in Palm Beach, profits Trump used to cure the default on his loans to Deustch Bank, one of the Russian's favorite money dry cleaners during that period.

I suspect that approach was made through Roger Stone.

And, I suspect that the signal of interest was the installation of Paul Manafort as Trump's campaign manager. Manafort had been Stone's partner and he had been Moscow's man in Kiev. I remember beings shocked by the announcement, because Manafort's pro Russian activities were well known to people who try and keep up with the fixers, bag men, and operators that swirl around Washington. It's always about following the money.

Of course, the next month, the Russians tested the mechanism by having an operative approach Donald Trump Jr. with an offer of "dirt on Hillary".

Any other Presidential campaign would have turned the Russians down flat. The political danger of getting caught doing something that stupid would be atronomical. A patriot would have called the FBI.

Instead, Trump got all hands on deck.

There is no doubt that Trump knew about the meeting in advance. He telegraphed that in public statements days before the meeting, bellowing that he was going to have a press conference to reveal dirt on Hillary.

Then the meeting happened, Trump didn't get what he wanted, and the press conference was quickly forgotten, no doubt submerged in endless parade of trivial antics that make up the Trump act.

The Cohen claim is no surpise.

I still don't think that the Russians were all in, even at that point.

They knew Trump is an idiot. After all, they had just tricked his campaign into seriously compromising themselves.

Of course, they knew Trump was an idiot well before then. They knew Trump very very well, and have their mitts deep into Trump financially. They own him, and he and just about everyone else knows it. Trump's long history of chronic mismanagement and incompetence showed in the way he ran his businesses. Russians found it convenient to launder money through Trump projects and some Trump deals.

They knew TRump was an idiot. The questions was whether he was a useful idiot or not.

As for this: "It'd be even better if we can just be honest. Does that mean getting rid of Citizens United, banning corporate shadow foreign money from American Politics? Yes it does"

That will never happen until we have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President.

 

What idiotic prattle. No one was talking about starting a war anywhere. The idea is ridiculous.

 

All of that influential power the Russians hold and it was only in 2016 that they got their supposed candidate. You'd think they'd have succeeded sooner. And said supposed candidate has indeed acted against the Russians, insofar as enforcing the sanctions that I still think are utterly unconstitutional.

Hell, even a far-left leaning site agreed that the bill was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the President enacted it(albeit, he didn't have much political choice.)

I do agree that no one would've taken up the offer. I do believe it was an error to have gone(to say the least.) I would've indeed called the FBI if it was my campaign. Mostly out of an ego thing, I don't need anybody's help in life. But in of itself, I still think Trump Tower meeting would be a hard case to win in court.

Overall, I don't want to believe in collusion. I don't want to believe our politics, our election was tainted. Did some of the information come from tainted sources? Yes, I'll concede to that. But we all knew Wikileaks was such an operation when it first came onto the scene in 2011. That information was needed, even if it caused political and geopolitical disruptions.

All governments should be honest, and it is in such an open and transparent way that we can truly take down dictators around the world. I'd like to hope that we have a non-politically connected organization that can act like a Wikileaks in legally exposing corruption. We deserve to know.

 

Trump says he believes Putin that Russia didn't interfere in election
Trump says he holds Putin responsible for election meddling, defends Helsinki performance
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-believes-putin-russia-didnt-interfere-election-165339955.html

Which is the tRUMP lie? One he said to the entire world.
The other he said after his arse was getting rung up.

 

Trump is a cuck

 

That is a blatant lie.

 

First of all, it was Obama that imposed the sanctions, not Trump. The President only has power to impose sanctions on a temporary basis, subject to ratification by Congress.

As for "influential power".

No, this is a new approach and the technology is relatively new.

Also, like 9/11 the seeming improbability that a major nation would launch a cyber war against any nation, especially the United States worked strongly in the Russian's favor. It's one of the reasons the Obama administration was so slow to respond.

When the first reports concerning hacking of DNC servers surfaced in the fall of 2015, nobody knew what to make of it.

Even Manafort's appointment, while raising questions, did not raise alarms.

The Trump Tower meeting was a test of Trump. He failed it, by the way. He took the bait, and in so doing exposed his entire senior campaign organization.

The Trump Tower Meeting, I suspect is only a small part of a much larger, and very detailed case. At this point, the Mueller team has a virtual smorgasboard to choose from.

Trump campaign officials regularly met with Russian oligarchs, agents, and operatives throughout the 2016 campaign. This had never happened before in ANY Presidential campaign. What's more they clumsily tried to hide it. It is only a matter of time before we learn who Cohen met with in Prague and whether money changed hands.

I have no doubt that the Russians played a role in getting Trump in bed with Robert Mercer (who I believe will emerge as a pivitol character). Mercer's people, Kellyanne Conway, Bannon and Cambridge Analytica basically became the Trump campaign by the end of August.

The one thread that connects all of the major pieces is Roger Stone.

There wasn't much in Clinton's e-mails.

As for your version of Wikileaks, it was always virulently anti American. They went to great lengths to hack our data and show our not infrequent hypocracy to the world. But they never criticized Russia.....ever.

By the late summer of 2016, the world knew that the Russians were the ones who fed the information from the DNC server. It's likely that the Russians controlled the timing of the leaks all the way through.

We know that the Russians had ties to the front man that Cambridge Analytica used to start vacuuming up people's data so that it could be weaponized in the propaganda campaign that the Russians ran aggressively in US social media in the last four months of the campaign. This was the era of the fake real news site, the ones that popped up and disappeared in a matter of days and sometimes hours, after having laid seeds in the right wing blogosphere.

 

A really great post Tom! Unfortunately, many Trump "supporters" will not take the time to read and digest it factoring in context and timelines but thanks for taking your time to post it nevertheless.

 

It was Congress, this past year passing another new round of sanctions. It's that law that the POTUS called unconstitutional, that Scope called unconstitutional and hell, I called it unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the President has enacted on the sanctions.

Conway was originally on Ben Carson's campaign(so was one George Papadoulous.) Why isn't Mueller investigating whether Carson colluded with the Russians. And it wasn't always just anti-American, it would be anti-British or Canada or whatever. The point to me isn't who they exposed(in 2011 when they started up) or didn't. Just that the service itself is a sad necessity.

Forget the Trump-Russian thing for a moment, transparency is good, right? Shouldn't we want transparency so that next time, we don't need a foreign hacker to get information that we ought to know, that has no baring on national security(inconsistencies of a said political candidate.)

That doesn't absolve or excuse the Russians. It demands us to demand more transparency. We should want more, not less. How can we make government more transparent?

 

Yep. Him making the 2nd statement is definitely a lie. He believes the 1st statement.