President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

demfad

It was Sherri Dillon.
She was the lawyer who stood on the podium with a load of empty folders. That was the time Trump insisted no dealings with Russia. She works for law firm that was named "Russia Law Firm of the Year, last year.

Anyway, as pointed out previously: Sales of property are not included in the 'ne dealings with Russia' column. Neither are loans/debts.

Billy86

ThisRegard wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AP/status/863032385029451777

Well ok then, none whatsoever, apart from this, this and this.....

(apparently some of the exceptions are property sales, beauty pageants and the likes. What about the years prior?)

The time to stop taking anything Trump or Trump associates say at face value was a long while ago. He might as well say Trump's taxes show he gives 80% of his income to Amnesty International. Until they actually show them it means nothing, given the never ending list of bullsh** to this point.

EDIT: case in point in the post above mine - demfad beat me to it by seconds.

wonderfullife

hmmm wrote: »

It couldn't be more clearly a threat. The guy has lost all sense of what position he is in - he still thinks he's CEO of some Casino company and is lecturing his staff.

I genuinely, wholeheartedly believe he never had any sense of what the position meant in the first place.

Trump ran as a publicity stunt. When elected he saw it as an opportunity to change tax laws to make his family richer.

That's the start and end of this. He'd much rather not be President and be off playing golf and back in Trump Tower.

As for the Russia collusion, I think that'll prove rather simple too. At some point, the likes of Manafort, Page, Flynn probably accepted Russian hacking help and co-ordinated with them on when to leak damaging stuff on Hillary.

Trump was probably told about it and said "yeah whatever just do it". He cheats at golf. He cheats in business. He cheats on his wives.

He's a cheat. In his mind, it's not collusion or treason it's just cheating.

His entire life he's used to not facing consequences to cheating and being able to spin, threaten and sue his way out of it. Today he's trying the same thing. Spin the problem, threaten witnesses (Yates, Comey), except he can't use his ultimate go-to-ploy of suing his way out of it.

James Comey can't sing like a canary just yet. If the investigation is ongoing and the FBI want revenge, he will keep his mouth shut and let the FBI nail Team Trump. Then, he can come out and make his millions from writing a book.

Water John

So Trump threatens Comey not to divulge what was said between them.
But its fine for Trump to tell us.
That's wierd.

namloc1980

The firm that wrote the Trump tax letter stating nothing to see here as regards his interactions with Russian money were named "Russia Law firm of the year" in 2016. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Link

demfad

wonderfullife wrote: »

As for the Russia collusion, I think that'll prove rather simple too. At some point, the likes of Manafort, Page, Flynn probably accepted Russian hacking help and co-ordinated with them on when to leak damaging stuff on Hillary.

To be fair at this stage you need to look into it before speculating.
There has been plenty to massively contradict that position in this thread.

Sources say that there are 42 sealed indictments with the Grand Juries assembled alone.
You have to look at this in terms of an International conspiracy involving money laundering, data laundering, big data companies, hybrid warfare, election manipulation and hacking. Flynn for example had an intelligence company which seems to have been helping Russian efforts with RW groups in Europe. Manafort too managed Russian worldwide interests for Putin via Deprisaska. Money has been laundered into all these campaigns, into any corrupt party officials.

3 thousand people were hacked in the US alone. How many politicians blackmailed?
By the time this is over there will be over 100 US residents in jail. More in UK, Europe etc.

THis video explains the Trump angle alone:

https://www.themoscowproject.org/

Kitsunegari

demfad wrote: »

Yep. This is the Steele dossier re Cohen.






Also, He was up to his neck giving four stories of this bizarre meeting with Felix Sater (Bayrock, Trump Soho) and a Ukranian politician (now under investigation for trason at home) with a peace plan for Mike Flynn delivered by sealed parcel to his desk. Flynn never got it (fired the day before)

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-delivered-michael-flynn-plan-to-lift-sanctions-on-russia-2017-2?r=US&IR=T

Cohen swore he never went to Europe to meet Russians. His plane records show otherwise. It was revealed 2 days ago he uses two names..so the passport records might be interesting for Micheal Hacking.

You mean the Steele dossier that was compiled by a man working for the DNC? You really couldn't make it up at this point. Stop posting misinformation. It's an absolute garbage document that has already been debunked. The fact that they used Steele's dossier shows how completely inept this whole investigation has been from the start.

Inquitus

Kitsunegari wrote: »

You mean the Steele dossier that was compiled by a man working for the DNC? You really couldn't make it up at this point. Stop posting misinformation. It's an absolute garbage document that has already been debunked. The fact that they used Steele's dossier shows how completely inept this whole investigation has been from the start.

A lot of the dossier has since been corroborated, it's certainly not absolute garbage.

Calina

Also as I undersrand it he did business with some GOP candidate first. Cant remember which one. Bit misleading to taint it by association with the DNC if the GOP was also paying.

mcmoustache

Kitsunegari wrote: »

You mean the Steele dossier that was compiled by a man working for the DNC? You really couldn't make it up at this point. Stop posting misinformation. It's an absolute garbage document that has already been debunked. The fact that they used Steele's dossier shows how completely inept this whole investigation has been from the start.

I thought it was 4chan. I presume you're aware that a lot of info in the document was corroborated. It would be unlikely for everything in there to be correct since it was sourced from other intelligence agents, some of whom came to a sudden end after the release of the dossier, but the dossier was good enough to be useful as a roadmap for the FBI.

mcmoustache

Inquitus wrote: »

A lot of the dossier has since been corroborated, it's certainly not absolute garbage.

He knows. I see this a lot from Trump supporters - a desire to deceive.

demfad

Kitsunegari wrote: »

You mean the Steele dossier that was compiled by a man working for the DNC?

No. I mean the Steele dossier that was complied by the man who broke FIFA and and the Litvinenko case with two decades of experience in Russian counter espionage. He was hired by Jeb Bush. When the Republicans lost the primary, Democrats paid him to continue (not the Clintons). After the election he worked for free, even though the FBI offerred to pay him.
Your claim that he worked for the DNC appears to be misinformation.

You really couldn't make it up at this point. Stop posting misinformation. It's an absolute garbage document that has already been debunked. The fact that they used Steele's dossier shows how completely inept this whole investigation has been from the start.

This type of intel is called 'Raw intelligence'. It means that the intelligence in it has not been verified by an intelligence agencies. Information is almost always presented to them in this way. The intel agency then works on verifying it with their own intel: sigint, humint. Some of it will be verified, some of it will be wrong, some may be disinformation planted by Russians.

Parts of the dossier leaked as verified by US intel to date.
All Russian on Russian communications.
Role of Kalugin.
Role of Carter page.
Quite a lot verified to date.

Trump used the fact that the dossier was unverified to lie and call it 'garbage'.
Can you give any substantiation why this dossier is 'garbage' to offset the obvious conclusion that once again you are saying things you know not to be true to confuse this thread?

PopePalpatine

mcmoustache wrote: »

He knows. I see this a lot from Trump supporters - a desire to deceive.

Who else could come up with the phrase "alternative facts"? :rolleyes:

Water John

If the FBI have gone after Mercer et al, it will be a good day for democracy.

Kitsunegari

demfad wrote: »

Parts of the dossier leaked as verified by US intel to date.
All Russian on Russian communications.
Role of Kalugin.
Role of Carter page.
Quite a lot verified to date.

Trump used the fact that the dossier was unverified to lie and call it 'garbage'.
Can you give any substantiation why this dossier is 'garbage' to offset the obvious conclusion that once again you are saying things you know not to be true to confuse this thread?

The dossier is garbage. Using an unverified document in an argument is a pretty rubbish argument. Did you even read the CNN link that you provided? It doesn't back up anything you've said and again doesn't name any sources and none of the information can be verified. Do you have any sources that actually back any of your points up?

Sir Tony Brenton has said on numerous occasions that the document just doesn't add up either but you believe 'Fake News' CNN.

Some people are better than believing everything they read. Your BBC link backs up a name in the document, albeit a poorly misspelled name. Are these the sources you're using to try and prove a point?

At least can we have some standards about how we source information?

Phonehead

@Kitsunegari I recall you being asked earlier what you deemed as valid traditional news outlets, I don't recall an answer. Just so we can all debate on a level playing field, what outlets do you source your information from?

Overheal

Kitsunegari wrote: »

However, it's generally accepted that Russia hacked the DNC server but there is no evidence linking any of Trump's campaign team to collude with Russia.

There is not?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282

Some Republicans want an independent investigation now too. If the current investigation hasn't discovered any evidence what possible additional evidence could be obtained under a new investigation?

It just feels like a waste of time to be pursuing an investigation that the intelligence community is already failing to uncover tangible evidence from. Trump and Putin collusion belongs in the conspiracy theories forum at this point.

Oh, if only they had thought about that before 20 Benghazi investigations.

Hank Scorpio wrote:

The media are in bed with the Democrats, ironically enough this was shown to be true with the email leaks during the campaign.

Is it that the 4th Estate loves the Democrats or is fundamentally repelled by the idea of an autocrat whose role models are failed dictators? The media doesn't actually mind reporting against Democrats either, but when the Republicans have the WH, a majority in both chambers and contentious picks to the SCOTUS, does that really leave much room for the Democrats to, you know, **** things up? Given how things shaped up, I'm frankly not surprised the media bent their own rules to favor Clinton in the campaign. I'm pissed, but not as pissed as I am about an inept autocrat trying to run the country like a business - as promised - hellbent on dismantling government agencies, rolling back common sense regulation, violating the emoluments clause, etc. etc.

Let's also forget that during the Bush years particularly that the media was very on-board with lots of things in the Neocon playbook...

But this situation has nothing to do with media bias: the WH can't even keep it's own story straight. Comey was fired for very political reasons, and speaking of "public trust and confidence" (of the FBI), what do they suppose this has done to public trust and confidence of the White House??

Bottom line, Comey was toast when he refused to say Trump wasn't under investigation.

Not commenting on active investigations is terminable now?

Peregrinus wrote:

Wikileak's bias is in favour of openness.

I wouldn't pretend to know their motivation. Within 29 minutes of the Hollywood Access tape hitting the media, Wikileaks dropped the Podesta emails package. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/

So who knows. Maybe they really despise Hillary, or they love Trump, or Wikileaks is controlled by Russian interests. Or it's an *amazing* coincidence. Those kinds of coincidences like 3 buildings collapsing on the same day from 2 events that have not been adequately explained by science. You know?

Hank Scorpio wrote:

If you can run a pay for play operation out of the state department and get away with it, and not even be questioned about it, why should I care about morals in the White house?

Because one has the nuclear codes and the other doesn't? They are both bad. At least a SecDef doesn't claim "Presidential Immunity" from legal ramifications, while painting targets on the pack of circuit judges, or firing attorney generals and agency directors who try to investigate you/your cronies for high crimes against the United States.

Do you think Rachel Meadow claiming that Russian officials were killed because of the election or Chris Matthews of NBC saying that Putin told Assad to gas his own people to cover for Trump is a form of bias?

Before commenting I'd want to know if they actually made those claims as matters of fact or if they were editorial remarks.

He's not under investigation and there's no evidence of any collusion from his campaign aides.

Frankly, I am not convinced he isn't under investigation. Investigating a sitting President who doesn't mind making heads roll would call for a certain level of discretion. Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if he was being investigated at the highest levels in our intelligence community.

demfad wrote:

There were many many articles about Trumps ties to Russian criminals, about the money laundering through Trump Soho and other Trump projects, about campaign manager Paul Manafort's ties to Yanukovitz, Firtash and Putin, about accusations sexual assaults against multiple women and children, about atleast one FISA warrant against the Trump team etc. etc.

It was drowned out by the Hilary email dumps and by Trump and his team using Russian active measures by amplifying those emails real and fake.

Any time big news comes out, you and posters like you deliberatly post disinformation to drown out real debate here. You have said multiple times without substantiation now that no evidence of collusion with Russia exists.

You wont succeed in what you are trying to do on this thread.

This.

demfad

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Did you even read the CNN link that you provided?
It doesn't back up anything you've said and again doesn't name any sources and none of the information can be verified. Do you have any sources that actually back any of your points up?

This is what I said and below followed by what the CNN article said.

demfad wrote: »

Parts of the dossier leaked as verified by US intel to date.
All Russian on Russian communications.

The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.
But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

So I dead read the CNN article. Did you? Or did you just say it wasn't in the article without looking or caring whether what you actually said was true or not?

Overheal

Regarding the Tapes Threat, Spicer will not confirm, nor deny that the Oval Office is bugged.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nothing-further-to-add-spicer-refuses-to-deny-that-trump-is-bugging-people-in-oval-office/

Oh, it's 1974 all over again.

hmmm

Love this headline from Slate "It Appears That Trump May Have Just Falsely Accused Himself of Wiretapping Himself"

Itssoeasy

Overheal wrote: »

Regarding the Tapes Threat, Spicer will not confirm, nor deny that the Oval Office is bugged.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nothing-further-to-add-spicer-refuses-to-deny-that-trump-is-bugging-people-in-oval-office/

Oh, it's 1974 all over again.

Bugged ? I know Truman had a recording system in the Oval Office and we all know about president Nixon who probably regretted putting one in. But do we know if there is still one in there today ?

Kitsunegari

Phonehead wrote: »

@Kitsunegari I recall you being asked earlier what you deemed as valid traditional news outlets, I don't recall an answer. Just so we can all debate on a level playing field, what outlets do you source your information from?

Fair question, I generally only read the Financial Times and Sunday Business Post but used to read the Guardian for a long time. Probably up to the end of 2015 around about the time they changed their editor in chief and the paper took a different direction.

The BBC still has some fantastic journalists too like Jonathan Marcus.

Overheal

Frankly, I would be surprised if there wasn't. Not even primarily for the purposes of transparency or anything but for the purpose of being an external recall of otherwise important conversations in a very important office.

demfad

Overheal wrote: »

Regarding the Tapes Threat, Spicer will not confirm, nor deny that the Oval Office is bugged.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nothing-further-to-add-spicer-refuses-to-deny-that-trump-is-bugging-people-in-oval-office/

Oh, it's 1974 all over again.

I have a feeling Comey is smiling to himself.

Apparently there is a FISA warrant on Alfabank and SVB bank servers.
Also, confirmed somewhere on Carter Page. There is purportedly 6, so maybe Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Ephstyn.

Trump is not the target of any investigation. That is technically true. Trump is threatening Comey with nothing (recorded illegally in order to obstruct Justice).

In hindsight Trump was actually threatening Comey in his short 'firing' letter when he mentioned 3 occasions. The tweet was to make sure the message got through.

I fancy the Intelligence and IC community in this fight.

That said, Trump has proven he is an authoritarian and will do what it takes to keep power. This would include starting a war or a false flag attack. His threat is very real.

Overheal

I actually don't know that Trump would be a false flag kind of guy. I don't see it? He's not very subtle, and even if he did, there's no way he'd keep his mouth shut about it.

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The dossier is garbage. Using an unverified document in an argument is a pretty rubbish argument. Did you even read the CNN link that you provided? It doesn't back up anything you've said and again doesn't name any sources and none of the information can be verified. Do you have any sources that actually back any of your points up?

Sir Tony Brenton has said on numerous occasions that the document just doesn't add up either but you believe 'Fake News' CNN.

Some people are better than believing everything they read. Your BBC link backs up a name in the document, albeit a poorly misspelled name. Are these the sources you're using to try and prove a point?

At least can we have some standards about how we source information?

This is my third time of asking. As you consider the Guradian, CNN, the WP and the NYT to be unreliable news sources, which news sources do you consider to be reliable?

oscarBravo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

...you believe 'Fake News' CNN.

You do realise that it's physically impossible to take any of your arguments seriously when you mindlessly parrot one of Trump's stupider phrases?

I can understand Trump saying stupid, juvenile things - the man is mentally unwell (that's not just name-calling; I genuinely believe he's not sane). What I can't understand is people who are willing to make themselves look equally psychotic by echoing his drivel.

Kitsunegari

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do realise that it's physically impossible to take any of your arguments seriously when you mindlessly parrot one of Trump's stupider phrases?

I can understand Trump saying stupid, juvenile things - the man is mentally unwell (that's not just name-calling; I genuinely believe he's not sane). What I can't understand is people who are willing to make themselves look equally psychotic by echoing his drivel.

No, writing someone off based on a funny catchphrase is not something that I would subscribe to. Nor would I be mentally unstable enough to attempt to diagnose a complete stranger, on the internet might I add, as psychotic based on one or two things they may have said.

And I'm the psychotic one? You should stop assuming things based on such little information.

demfad

Overheal wrote: »

I actually don't know that Trump would be a false flag kind of guy. I don't see it? He's not very subtle, and even if he did, there's no way he'd keep his mouth shut about it.

I think he is a do whatever it takes to win guy, especially if it means keeping out of jail. Authoritarians generally use the same tactics. He had the Russian foreign minister and Russia's main US spy master Kysliak in the oval office to plan/suggest future strategies.
If there is a false flag attack and he consolidates power via marshall law and media clampdown then it really wont matter what anyone thinks.
IMO these possibilities need to be taken seriously. This is the trajectory the GOP are allowing him to go.

Agree with OscarBravo about mental illness. His poor ratings, rage at being unable to evade his criminality this time, are accelerating his deterioration.

Overheal

Kitsunegari wrote: »

You should stop assuming things based on such little information.

One would suppose it is hypocritical to assume that he's assuming things.