Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Jared Kushner has released a statement denying he colluded with russia. That's hardly a shock.

He's submitting details of four meetings. Probably talking about the weather.

Itssoeasy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Jared Kushner has released a statement denying he colluded with russia. That's hardly a shock.

He's submitting details of four meetings. Probably talking about the weather.

Four meetings ? With Russians ? And yet the usual suspects will continue to say that the Russia story is a hoax and the investigation is a witch hunt.

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Four meetings ? With Russians ? And yet the usual suspects will continue to say that the Russia story is a hoax and the investigation is a witch hunt.

Were these 4 meetings already known about?

Sessions already stated that no one in the campaign had any meetings. Now Jared has stated he had 4.

Had he indicated these prior to the statement? If not, how do we know that this is all of them? Is he, like Trump JR, being totally transparent at this stage?

Ipse dixit

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Four meetings ? With Russians ? And yet the usual suspects will continue to say that the Russia story is a hoax and the investigation is a witch hunt.

You do realise that you can meet Russians without conspiring to rig the elections? You seem to be saying that becuase he met Russians everyone should believe the story. Bizarre.

seamus

david75 wrote: »

Yeah. Can't see this happening somehow.

https://twitter.com/newstalkfm/status/889440937583267840

Yeah, Mr Scarramucci is going to find out what happens when you try to talk on Trump's behalf, just like poor Spicer did many times before.

Trump himself promised that he would be doing very little Tweeting if he was elected. See how that worked out.

Professor Moriarty

Ipse dixit wrote: »

You do realise that you can meet Russians without conspiring to rig the elections? You seem to be saying that becuase he met Russians everyone should believe the story. Bizarre.

Sure. Russians interfered with US elections. Confirmed. Trump's son and son-in-law had meetings with very dodgy Russians and Russian ex-spooks. Confirmed. Massive coincidence. Nothing to see here. Fake news. Move along.

Itssoeasy

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Four meetings ? With Russians ? And yet the usual suspects will continue to say that the Russia story is a hoax and the investigation is a witch hunt.

You do realise that you can meet Russians without conspiring to rig the elections? You seem to be saying that because he met Russians everyone should believe the story. Bizarre.

No I'm saying the line that the trump campaign/ administration seemed to have never had any connections/meetings with Russian people is completely false. If you've nothing to hide then why maintain this line that they never happened.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Were these 4 meetings already known about?

Sessions already stated that no one in the campaign had any meetings. Now Jared has stated he had 4.

Had he indicated these prior to the statement? If not, how do we know that this is all of them? Is he, like Trump JR, being totally transparent at this stage?

Reuters seem to think that the FBI may have a lot more on Jared than he's admitting to.

seamus

Ipse dixit wrote: »

You do realise that you can meet Russians without conspiring to rig the elections?

Of course you can.

We know that the Russian Government was providing support to Donald Trump's election campaign.
Kushner was Trump's de facto campaign manager for all or at least part of the campaign.
He met with Russians four times during the campaign.

You seem to be saying that there's no reason to assume anything untoward went on in those meetings.

There's plenty of reason to assume it. We should assume that all contacts between anyone in Trump's campaign and anyone with even the most tenuous links to the Russian Government, were potentially criminal.

Because Trump's own campaign has provided evidence that they had the support of the Russian Government. There is no longer a question of whether collusion took place. The question now is what kind of collusion?

Leroy42

Ipse dixit wrote: »

You do realise that you can meet Russians without conspiring to rig the elections? You seem to be saying that becuase he met Russians everyone should believe the story. Bizarre.

Of course you can.

But when you are asked if you had any dealings and you continually provide false and incomplete information then it starts to look like a deliberate act to hide such meetings.

Why hide the meetings? The argument that there is nothing wrong with it would have been as plausible at the time as it is now. So why not simply divulge the information when originally asked about it?

Trump and is associates have been found wanting in terms of being fulsome with information, and thus they have little credibility on which to base any benign explanations.

And if you want to take the route that these meetings were not about collusion, then a valid explanation as to why the Trump campaign, fighting as it was against the biased media, lack of support from the GOP and behind in the polls, would take time out to meet with Russians for nothing more than a chit-chat.

Campaigns are extremely stressful and you are on the go constantly, and you need to be able to allocate your time to those things that either aid your campaign or reduce the damage. It seems very strange that on 4 separate occasions, that we know now about, Kushner would take time out of managing the campaign to hold nothing meetings which were a waste of everyone's time.

And what were the Russians expectations going into these meetings? These are all busy people. THey are not simply going to turn up to meet the campaign manager for sh1ts and giggles

Quin_Dub

Ipse dixit wrote: »

You do realise that you can meet Russians without conspiring to rig the elections? You seem to be saying that becuase he met Russians everyone should believe the story. Bizarre.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course you can.

But when you are asked if you had any dealings and you continually provide false and incomplete information then it starts to look like a deliberate act to hide such meetings.

Why hide the meetings? The argument that there is nothing wrong with it would have been as plausible at the time as it is now. So why not simply divulge the information when originally asked about it?

Trump and is associates have been found wanting in terms of being fulsome with information, and thus they have little credibility on which to base any benign explanations.

And if you want to take the route that these meetings were not about collusion, then a valid explanation as to why the Trump campaign, fighting as it was against the biased media, lack of support from the GOP and behind in the polls, would take time out to meet with Russians for nothing more than a chit-chat.

Campaigns are extremely stressful and you are on the go constantly, and you need to be able to allocate your time to those things that either aid your campaign or reduce the damage. It seems very strange that on 4 separate occasions, that we know now about, Kushner would take time out of managing the campaign to hold nothing meetings which were a waste of everyone's time.

And what were the Russians expectations going into these meetings? These are all busy people. THey are not simply going to turn up to meet the campaign manager for sh1ts and giggles

This is the point really.

The Russians they were meeting were not "incidental Russians" , by that I mean it's not like they were meeting local community or Union leaders that just happened to be of Russian descent. They were meeting members of the Russian government or known confidantes/proxies for the Russian Government.

The fact that they have denied any meetings until faced with irrefutable evidence to the contrary is very very suspicious.

How could you meet with Sergei Kislyak and not talk about US-Russian relations , which given the environment would mean talking about Sanctions?

What valid , non-collusory reason is there for the Trump campaign to meet with the Russian Ambassador?

demfad

Really Interested wrote: »

Was Trump not at the Intrepid in New York in May?

He was in New Jersey for that (just). He was on a float I believe.

Ipse dixit

seamus wrote: »

Of course you can.

We know that the Russian Government was providing support to Donald Trump's election campaign.
Kushner was Trump's de facto campaign manager for all or at least part of the campaign.
He met with Russians four times during the campaign.

You seem to be saying that there's no reason to assume anything untoward went on in those meetings.

There's plenty of reason to assume it. We should assume that all contacts between anyone in Trump's campaign and anyone with even the most tenuous links to the Russian Government, were potentially criminal.

Because Trump's own campaign has provided evidence that they had the support of the Russian Government. There is no longer a question of whether collusion took place. The question now is what kind of collusion?

This thread is more assumption and innuendo than fact. I'm not saying that. Why are you making that up? I said that you can't make the argument that because he met the Russians; we all have to accept the innuendo and stop denying the Russian collusion narrative.

You and others should be reminded that no factual evidence of collusion has been released to date. If you want to assume things that's fine but others will hold the truth to a higher standard than an assumption.

Really Interested

demfad wrote: »

He was in New Jersey for that (just). He was on a float I believe.

http://www.amny.com/news/politics/trump-returns-to-nyc-for-intrepid-museum-event-1.13522161

Really Interested

Ipse dixit wrote: »

This thread is more assumption and innuendo than fact. I'm not saying that. Why are you making that up? I said that you can't make the argument that because he met the Russians; we all have to accept the innuendo and stop denying the Russian collusion narrative.

You and others should be reminded that no factual evidence of collusion has been released to date. If you want to assume things that's fine but others will hold the truth to a higher standard than an assumption.

Why then tell repeated lies about meeting, I agree that proves nothing but if nothing to hide in meetings why lie about them, it raises a suspicion that is now been investigated.

demfad

eagle eye wrote: »

All this impeachment talk is far too early.

And as I keep saying, if Trump gets impeached then Pence becomes President which is a very scary thought.

Pence is already getting all of his and the Council for National Agenda (Christian Statists) policies through. Many of the policies are already Pence. With Trump we have a potential authoritarian POTUS who looks more and more like an agent of Russia. The liklihood of war with Russia is vastly increased as is a future global conflict as a result of the repositioning of the world order while the USA is without a State department and has a puppet president.

Pence is unlikely to be POTUS anyway. He was chosen by Manafort, and may have lied about his knowledge of Flynn. He also refuses to clarify potential contacts with Russia.

demfad

Ipse dixit wrote: »

This thread is more assumption and innuendo than fact. I'm not saying that. Why are you making that up? I said that you can't make the argument that because he met the Russians; we all have to accept the innuendo and stop denying the Russian collusion narrative.

You and others should be reminded that no factual evidence of collusion has been released to date. If you want to assume things that's fine but others will hold the truth to a higher standard than an assumption.

Aren't you following this? The meeting was in order for representatives of the Government and Prosecutor general of Russia to give dirt to one presidential candidate on another presidential candidate in order to subvert the result of the election.

It is all in that email. It is not denied.

This is proof of collusion.

Ipse dixit

Really Interested wrote: »

Why then tell repeated lies about meeting, I agree that proves nothing but if nothing to hide in meetings why lie about them, it raises a suspicion that is now been investigated.

I don't know. My point was that you can't suggest that because he met with the Russians; that proves Trump et all colluded with the Russians.

Itssoeasy

Ipse dixit wrote: »

This thread is more assumption and innuendo than fact. I'm not saying that. Why are you making that up? I said that you can't make the argument that because he met the Russians; we all have to accept the innuendo and stop denying the Russian collusion narrative.

You and others should be reminded that no factual evidence of collusion has been released to date. If you want to assume things that's fine but others will hold the truth to a higher standard than an assumption.

No the narrative that the trump campaign kept shouting about them having no connection to russia and never meet with the russians has to stop, as any rational person looking at the facts would have to agree that Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner were at the least less than forthcoming with the truth.

Professor Moriarty

Ipse dixit wrote: »

This thread is more assumption and innuendo than fact. I'm not saying that. Why are you making that up? I said that you can't make the argument that because he met the Russians; we all have to accept the innuendo and stop denying the Russian collusion narrative.

You and others should be reminded that no factual evidence of collusion has been released to date. If you want to assume things that's fine but others will hold the truth to a higher standard than an assumption.

Let's indulge ourselves.

'Collusion' definition:
Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.


Why do you think that Junior secretly met with a Russian lawyer with close ties to the Russian government and with an Russian ex-spook? Why do you think he met with them specifically with the intention of getting dirt on his father's rival candidate?

demfad

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/889217183930351621?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boards.ie%2Fvbulletin%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D104171694%26posted%3D1

Massive Freudian slip here was pointed elsewhere on Twitter:

It might be even reasonable for him to expect their support.
But the use of the protect here means something else entirely given the subject is Russian collusion.

I wonder did Trump get a message from the GOP that the firing of Mueller would not be tolerated under any circumstances?

Ipse dixit

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No the narrative that the trump campaign kept shouting about them having no connection to russia and never meet with the russians has to stop, as any rational person looking at the facts would have to agree that Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner were at the least less than forthcoming with the truth.

So that means the Russian allegations are true? Let's not try and change what you said. It's ok to say something and not be correct. I'm not having a go at you I was just saying your logic was bizarre.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's indulge ourselves.

'Collusion' definition:
Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.


Why do you think that Junior secretly met with a Russian lawyer with close ties to the Russian government and with an Russian ex-spook? Why do you think he met with them specifically with the intention of getting dirt on his father's rival candidate?

Again, stop assuming things. I don't know why they met up. Why do you think no evidence of said collusion has been released to date?

I'm not saying collusion didn't happen but I would want to see some evidence of said conclusion before we all jump off the bridge at once. We seem to have learned nothing from the way the media and intelligence community behaved over half-truths and lies in Iraq.

Professor Moriarty

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Again, stop assuming things. I don't know why they met up. Why do you think no evidence of said collusion has been released to date?

I'm not saying collusion didn't happen but I would want to see some evidence of said conclusion before we all jump off the bridge at once. We seem to have learned nothing from the way the media and intelligence community behaved over half-truths and lies in Iraq.

But Junior met secretly with a Russian government lawyer and a Russian ex(?) spook with the specific intention of getting dirt on a US Presidential candidate. Is that not secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others. I.e. collusion?

keane2097

Honestly the main definition we need posted here is one for 'evidence' and one for 'proof' as there seems to be great confusion about the difference between the two.

Leroy42

Ipse dixit wrote: »

So that means the Russian allegations are true? Let's not try and change what you said. It's ok to say something and not be correct. I'm not having a go at you I was just saying your logic was bizarre.



Again, stop assuming things. I don't know why they met up. Why do you think no evidence of said collusion has been released to date?

I'm not saying collusion didn't happen but I would want to see some evidence of said conclusion before we all jump off the bridge at once. We seem to have learned nothing from the way the media and intelligence community behaved over half-truths and lies in Iraq.

But we know that at the very least Trump Jr, as part of the Trump campaign, was open to getting DNC secrets from the Russians and was also told that the Russians were working on helping Trump get elected.

We know all of this because Trump Jr provided it directly.

Had the Russians actually turned up with the e-mails (of which we do not know that they didn't, we only have Trump Jr's word for that) what do you think he would have done?

We also have the fact that shortly after the meeting took place Trump himself started tweeting about 33k e-mails that had been wiped from HC hard-drive. How did he know of that?

We have the fact that Flynn, Sessions, Kushner have all lied about meeting with Russians. This despite a Russian fever taking over Washington which should have meant that any contacts were divulged to get rid of any possible ambiguity.

You have all this, and yet you want to take the position that there is nothing to see? Nobody is claiming that they know collusion happened.

On what basis have you disregarded the meeting of Trump JR as irrelevant?

Zubeneschamali

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Again, stop assuming things. I don't know why they met up.

Donald Trump Jr. told you!

And Jared Kushner has had to resort to pretending he never read the mail from Junior before the meeting.

Apparently, he never even read the Subject of the email in his inbox:
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential

Itssoeasy

Ipse dixit wrote: »

So that means the Russian allegations are true? Let's not try and change what you said. It's ok to say something and not be correct. I'm not having a go at you I was just saying your logic was bizarre.



Again, stop assuming things. I don't know why they met up. Why do you think no evidence of said collusion has been released to date?

I'm not saying collusion didn't happen but I would want to see some evidence of said conclusion before we all jump off the bridge at once. We seem to have learned nothing from the way the media and intelligence community behaved over half-truths and lies in Iraq.

Where did I say that that the allegations were true ? I don't believe I have. What I did say and what quoted is that the line from the then trump campaign about there having been no contact with any russians has been proving by donald trump Jr is demonstrably false.

I don't think what I said was incorrect to be honest. I think what I said is a reasonable conclusion given the facts about the meetings with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower.

I do think you're having a go at me actually, and I think it's your logic that is utterly bizarre.

swampgas

Ipse dixit wrote: »

I'm not saying collusion didn't happen but I would want to see some evidence of said conclusion before we all jump off the bridge at once. We seem to have learned nothing from the way the media and intelligence community behaved over half-truths and lies in Iraq.

Seriously? There are mountains of circumstantial evidence of collusion with Russia. There is certainly enough evidence to justify continued investigation.

IMO Trump and many of his associates are up to their necks in dodgy fiancial deals with very dodgy Russians. Trump is a corrupt business man in hock to the Russians, and he managed to become POTUS with Russian assistance. As a consequence he is totally compromised and completely unfit for office.

The possibility that the POTUS is being influenced by Russia is a real one - and it is an incredibly serious situation if true. And Trump & Co. seem to be hell bent on confirming everyone's suspicions with their evasive behaviour, poor memories and ever changing stories.

Whatever the legal niceties, the Trump White House stinks to high heaven.

seamus

Ipse dixit wrote: »

You and others should be reminded that no factual evidence of collusion has been released to date

Except the emails that Trump's own team released, arranging a meeting with a Russian about "very high level and sensitive information" that was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

That's your collusion right there. That Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government on his election is now an established fact.

Ipse dixit

Congratulations on the strawman effort chaps. I was replying to a post that suggested that we should believe the allegations based on the fact that a meeting took place. These allegations are far to serious to make that leap of faith.

There is no evidence or proof that the president of the US colluded with Russia or that Russia hacked the US election.

Sonics2k

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Congratulations on the strawman effort chaps. I was replying to a post that suggested that we should believe the allegations based on the fact that a meeting took place. These allegations are far to serious to make that leap of faith.

There is no evidence or proof that the president of the US colluded with Russia or that Russia hacked the US election.

Do you know what Trickle Truth is?

It's when someone starts out by telling a lie, an outright and blatant lie. Then they realise they've been caught on the lie, so they tell a spark of the truth, but still have to lie a bit to cover up that lied at the start. Then they get called out on that, and slowly but surely the actual truth slips out.

A few months ago, people adamantly denied that there was even a meeting between Trumps people and the Russians. To tell the truth I believe it.

Then Flynn got fired. Then more was proven, and more and more.

Then Donald JR -himself- admitted to meeting with a Russian for confidential information about Hillary Clinton, which he'd previously denied happening at all.

And now Donald himself is claiming he can pardon himself, which has always been considered a massive sign of guilt.

For Reals

Practically everyone involved in his campaign, including close family, at the highest level, met with Russians of varying degrees and initially kept quiet about it.
Add to that the meeting regarding dirt on Clinton, we are supposed to believe the son, son-in-law and campaign adviser attended, (with an increasing number of others) but nobody told Trump?
If this were a Democrat the Republicans would be foaming at the mouth.
The Republicans have been shown to have no ethics, even by their standard.

Leroy42

What strawman? A senior member of trumps inner circle and campaign, his son, has acknowledged that he attempted to get information from Russian sources which would help the campaign whilst at the same time being told that it (the information) was part of the efforts by the Russian Government to help Trump to win the election.

Just after this meeting, that you seem to think Trump had no knowledge of, he started to tweet about 33k e-mails which HC had wiped off her server. As such the FBI did not know about them but Trump did. Where did he get this information? A lucky guess? So lucky that only a few days later said e-mails started to be leaked.

Trump has done nothing to hold Trump Jr responsibil for what is clearly a very serious matter, in fact one could almost suggest that Trump has tried to limit any potential issues for both his son and himself. This despite his sworn duty to protect the US from all foes.

So why is Trump seemingly turning a blind eye to what must be a shock to him. Up until last week he was adamant that the whole Russia thing was fake news, up until his son admitted that he had been at the centre of it. So at the very least Trumps accusation that the Russia thing is fake news has now been shown to be incorrect.

In top of this we have his AG lying under oath, another thing that Trump seemingly has no issue with or knowledge of the meetings. He faces the same situation with Kushner and before him Flynn.

All these meetings were going on with no knowledge of the candidate. He never once asked where some of these people were when he tried to contact them or where they were getting information from? Are you really suggesting that a man that runs his companies as a personal fifedom had no control over any of his inner circle during the biggest campaign of his life? That he suddenly cast off all previous traits?

For you need to do that to arrive at anything close to the position that you appear to be suggesting. And even if you can, somehow, come to that conclusion, it still gets you no closer to dealing with the fact that as head of the campaign Trump bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of his team. And you still have to come to a reason why, if these meetings were of some benign import, that they were not disclosed prior to this? Why continue to withhold this information? The WH continues to decry the negative effects this whole Witchhunt is having on the ability to focus on their achievements and agenda, yet time and again we are faced with new information that needs to be dragged out of them.

They could deal with with quickly if they put forth all the information. One has to wonder why they have been so unwilling to do that despite the negative impact it is having on the WH?

Really Interested

Ipse dixit wrote: »

I don't know. My point was that you can't suggest that because he met with the Russians; that proves Trump et all colluded with the Russians.

And the point that everyone else is making is it is suspicious to lie about perfectly legal meetings. If a husband comes home late from the office and tells his wife he had to go to a training meeting but later it turns out he went to dinner with a old flame, it does not prove he was having an affair and there might just might be an explanation, but it would lead the wife to doubt him for ever more,but you can imagine why the wife would look into it further.

Professor Moriarty

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Congratulations on the strawman effort chaps. I was replying to a post that suggested that we should believe the allegations based on the fact that a meeting took place. These allegations are far to serious to make that leap of faith.

There is no evidence or proof that the president of the US colluded with Russia or that Russia hacked the US election.

Not yet. But his son did.:
Junior met secretly with a Russian government lawyer and a Russian ex(?) spook with the specific intention of getting dirt on a US Presidential candidate. That is secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others. I.e. collusion.

The FBI, CIA and NSA have stated that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

True, but it doesn't negate the need for the DNC to actually come up with some coherent plans of their own. Trump seems more than capable of doing himself in, just let him at it. Keep up the pressure, but no need to go overboard.

They have already accepted that ACA is far from perfect, but need to have some real world solutions.

They need to deal with the continued impact on Globalisation on the US. What are they going to do with all these out of work miners? And lost manufacturing jobs. Its all well and good saying these jobs are gone forever, but people need to work.

I would worry that DNC will make Anti-Trump the key plank of any election. No doubt it needs to be a key part of it, but they need more than that. Again though, whilst I'm typing that, it seems that many voters for Trump the key message was simply MAGA and hate HC. Trump never actually detailed anything.

HRC had a plan for free university education which would help break poverty traps and cycles. The "What about the miners?" is Trump facts. 50,000 people work in coal mining in US compared to 10 times the amount (at least) in fast food.
Green energy projects perhaps as en employment continuum in these areas and a way to progress for the next generation.
Should HRC have lied about returning mining jobs just as Trump did?

The single biggest issue in the US is the restoration of sustainable democracy. This is under threat and attack by Trump, the GOP, Russia and big data billionaires. That means fixing the journalistic function and enacting laws to protect against big data.

demfad

Ipse dixit wrote: »

There is no evidence or proof that the president of the US colluded with Russia or that Russia hacked the US election.

That is a false statement. There is plenty of evidence, buckets of it. Proof is something that must be ascertained in a court of Law so NA here (YET).
I can only conclude your comments are an attempt to derail. Plenty of posters here like you before, making false statements to tie up open discussion.

For Reals

Meanwhile...

Rubio, Nelson, Wasserman Schultz Want to Make It a Felony to Boycott Israel
Unfortunately, they've all rallied around violating the First Amendment by making it a felony for people or companies to support a United Nations-led call to boycott certain businesses within the state of Israel. People caught supporting similar Israeli boycotts could face anywhere from a $250,000 fine to 20 years in jail. The bill was reportedly drafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/marco-rubio-bill-nelson-debbie-wasserman-schultz-want-to-criminalize-boycotting-israel-for-human-rights-violations-9507884

So some of the Republicans and Democrats can agree on some issues

Chips Lovell

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Congratulations on the strawman effort chaps. I was replying to a post that suggested that we should believe the allegations based on the fact that a meeting took place. These allegations are far to serious to make that leap of faith.

There is no evidence or proof that the president of the US colluded with Russia or that Russia hacked the US election.

Things have gone relatively well on this thread for a while now, so I don't want to see the same old problems emerges.

You can expect a sanction if you persist in blanket denial of facts.

So let's get things clear, you are correct in saying no proof, since nobody's been convicted, but there' certainly enough evidence to warrant a Special Counsel investigation. Secondly, there was enough evidence for the FBI and Homeland Security to come out and say Russian intelligence was involved in the cyberattack on Democratic Party and subsequent leaks.

Zubeneschamali

Ipse dixit wrote: »

There is no evidence or proof that the president of the US colluded with Russia or that Russia hacked the US election.

There is evidence. We won't know if it reaches the level of proof until a case is brought to court and proven or not proven.

Jrs emails prove that Jr., Manafort (the campaign manager) and Kushner (Trumps son-in-law) agreed to meet Russian GOvernment representatives to aqcuire dirt from Russian spying. Just hours after that meeting was agreed, Trump went on TV and said this:

The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting said that 'probably Monday of next week' he would deliver a 'major speech' featuring a discussion of 'all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.'
'I think you're going to find it very informative and very, very interesting,' he said, sporting an impish grin. 'I wonder if the press wil want to atend. Who knows?'

david75

That's a good question. What if Russia fvcks with the next election?

Surely this all has to be addressed and sorted by then no?

Ipse dixit

david75 wrote: »

That's a good question. What if Russia fvcks with the next election?

Surely this all has to be addressed and sorted by then no?

It depends on how you view the impact on the election. Russia, supposedly, hacked the DNC thereby influencing the election. People are blaiming Russia for the election result when it reality they are potentially only part of the problem. US elections have absolutely no credibility or integrity as the DNC doesn't want to ID voters and the voting machines are easily manipulated, and poor checks and balances exist in the election system in the US.

What can they actually address? Ask Russia to stop interfering in their election? Cripple their communications and stop them getting online? In reality there is nothing that they can do if they deem hacking and releasing information to be 'interfering in the election'.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical considering the influence the US exerts on other foreign elections having supported uprisings and terrorists in the past decade?

The biggest democracy on Earth is an embarrassment. Donald Trump is the reward for years of really terrible representation from both parties. Outside of 2004 Obama it's hard to think of any inspiring individual in US politics over the past 15 years.

But yeah, let's blame Russians.

david75

Ipse dixit wrote: »

It depends on how you view the impact on the election. Russia, supposedly, hacked the DNC thereby influencing the election. People are blaiming Russia for the election result when it reality they are potentially only part of the problem. US elections have absolutely no credibility or integrity as the DNC doesn't want to ID voters and the voting machines are easily manipulated, and poor checks and balances exist in the election system in the US.

What can they actually address? Ask Russia to stop interfering in their election? Cripple their communications and stop them getting online? In reality there is nothing that they can do if they deem hacking and releasing information to be 'interfering in the election'.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical considering the influence the US exerts on other foreign elections having supported uprisings and terrorists in the past decade?

The biggest democracy on Earth is an embarrassment. Donald Trump is the reward for years of really terrible representation from both parties. Outside of 2004 Obama it's hard to think of any inspiring individual in US politics over the past 15 years.

But yeah, let's blame Russians.

And I just read today something like 31 states are voting in restrictions to make registration and voting more difficult. Mainly aimed at targeting blacks and minorities. They're literally trying to kill the democratic system.

Water John

Don't be shoveling rubbish about DNC and elections. The vast majority of districts and states have GOP Governers. They have said 'hands off' to Trump.

Almost everyone, except a few nutters, incl Trump maintain that there isn't widespread fraud in US elections. Gerrymandering yes. Both of these are separate from the Russia attempt.

david75

https://twitter.com/brennancenter/status/888934953332994048

Water John

At present the biggest fraudsters in elections, are the GOP.

Professor Moriarty

Ipse dixit wrote: »

It depends on how you view the impact on the election. Russia, supposedly, hacked the DNC thereby influencing the election. People are blaiming Russia for the election result when it reality they are potentially only part of the problem. US elections have absolutely no credibility or integrity as the DNC doesn't want to ID voters and the voting machines are easily manipulated, and poor checks and balances exist in the election system in the US.

What can they actually address? Ask Russia to stop interfering in their election? Cripple their communications and stop them getting online? In reality there is nothing that they can do if they deem hacking and releasing information to be 'interfering in the election'.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical considering the influence the US exerts on other foreign elections having supported uprisings and terrorists in the past decade?

The biggest democracy on Earth is an embarrassment. Donald Trump is the reward for years of really terrible representation from both parties. Outside of 2004 Obama it's hard to think of any inspiring individual in US politics over the past 15 years.

But yeah, let's blame Russians.

I had a lot of respect for Bill Clinton.

But anyway, you're right. Let's not blame the Russians for doing what they should do, i.e. try to influence a rival power's election. We should blame those who colluded with them.

Ipse dixit

Water John wrote: »

Don't be shoveling rubbish about DNC and elections. The vast majority of districts and states have GOP Governers. They have said 'hands off' to Trump.

Almost everyone, except a few nutters, incl Trump maintain that there isn't widespread fraud in US elections. Gerrymandering yes. Both of these are separate from the Russia attempt.

Do you agree that voters should be ID? The DNC have been involved in Gerrymandering too.

The responsibility for the state of US politics lies with both parties despite how hard that may be to accept for those that want simple answers in Russia and Trump.

I find it hard to believe how anyone, nevermind an Irish person, could take sides in this grandstanding mess.

mcmoustache

Ipse dixit wrote: »

It depends on how you view the impact on the election. Russia, supposedly, hacked the DNC thereby influencing the election. People are blaiming Russia for the election result when it reality they are potentially only part of the problem.

US elections have some serious problems, as you stated but that doesn't mean that Russia's influence can be ignored.

It's well known that they disseminate fake news* stories and propaganda through state run media and social networks in an attempt to destabilise countries. If you want to understand how this works, you should listen to Clint Watts at the Senate Intelligence Committee open hearing from last March or any of the many public statements by current and former heads of US intelligence services. You can also google "Firehose of falsehood" to learn how Russian propaganda works.

Russia's neighbours have been targeted with this strategy previously and this time, the US was targeted. There is also a strong possibility that they had help from the inside. If you don't think this is serious, that's fine but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone other than Trumpers that this isn't serious.


* By fake news, I mean actual fake news. Articles from dubious sources, often completely fabricated, designed to deceive. Trump grossly misuses the term to describe articles and media organisations that he doesn't like. Coincidentally, Putin dies this too.

aloyisious

Ipse dixit wrote: »

I don't know. My point was that you can't suggest that because he met with the Russians; that proves Trump et all colluded with the Russians.

If we go along with what you seem to be suggesting, that there is no smoking gun, do you have any idea why Don et al keep making enough smoke to indicate there is something smoking in the background? Is there a sensible reason behind his various tweeting messages about his disloyal Attorney general, mean Republican Party, disloyal Republican Senators he carried on his back?