You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
Just curious Flagg, do you think Manafort, Flynn, and Carter Page will likely be found guilty of some form of Russian connections/shady contacts from the past year?
I'm totally just wondering if you're playing semantics and word games when saying "Trump won't be found guilty" or if you believe the entire campaign will be found innocent? Not saying whether they goto jail or not, but at least be found of some form of 'innapropriate contacts' from a Presidential campaign.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Just curious Flagg, do you think Manafort, Flynn, and Carter Page will likely be found guilty of some form of Russian connections/shady contacts from the past year?
I'm totally just wondering if you're playing semantics and word games when saying "Trump won't be found guilty" or if you believe the entire campaign will be found innocent? Not saying whether they goto jail or not, but at least be found of some form of 'innapropriate contacts' from a Presidential campaign.
Manafort was gone before the leaks, so I don't see how he's connected to collusion. I'm
Not going to say never because I don't know what I don't know.
I have no doubt someone will be found guilty of a crime. That's what happens when you turn over every rock. But if Flynn is caught taking money illegally for speeches, it has nothing to do with the election.
So no, my money is no one will be found guilty of coordinating with Russia. But that won't stop certain people from stretching the imagination to try to fabricate a connection Mueller never puts forth. For some, they're as confident in wrong doing as the pope is God is real.
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:Just curious Flagg, do you think Manafort, Flynn, and Carter Page will likely be found guilty of some form of Russian connections/shady contacts from the past year?
I'm totally just wondering if you're playing semantics and word games when saying "Trump won't be found guilty" or if you believe the entire campaign will be found innocent? Not saying whether they goto jail or not, but at least be found of some form of 'innapropriate contacts' from a Presidential campaign.
Manafort was gone before the leaks, so I don't see how he's connected to collusion. I'm
Not going to say never because I don't know what I don't know.I have no doubt someone will be found guilty of a crime. That's what happens when you turn over every rock. But if Flynn is caught taking money illegally for speeches, it has nothing to do with the election.
So no, my money is no one will be found guilty of coordinating with Russia. But that won't stop certain people from stretching the imagination to try to fabricate a connection Mueller never puts forth. For some, they're as confident in wrong doing as the pope is God is real.
There you go again, no one is using their imagination, making things up or fabricating. There are real investigations going on based off of real intelligence, enough for Mueller to even look into it.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:I called it bullshit from the start. Are you looking to pick a fight or just upset that attention has deviated from your "gut feelings" to actual issues plaguing the west. I called it a stupid fucking story, no different than your hardon for Trump. I wonder if MSNBC will run a retraction when Mueller comes back and says Trump didn't collude with Russia. Probably not, the goal post will be moved further by then.
See, you're missing the point. My beliefs are based on facts, real articles, not conspiracy theories that even a right wing shill of a news source has to retract. Your comparison was ridiculous and a clear attempt to undermine what's happening. MSNBC has never stated there was definite collusion. There's an actual investigation going on by Mueller to investigate collusion. This isn't made up, this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's real and is taking place because of real intelligence.
No, there's not. There's an investigation into Russia's involvement in influencing our election. Part of that is also verifying that no one in Trump's team colluded with Russia, but the primary purpose of the investigation isn't, and never was about Trump. This is something you have failed to grasp from day one.
Nothing you have argued is based on fact. It's been entirely hearsay and opinions from discredited or anonymous sources. You've ignored that Obama called the "piss tapes" absurd, that our own intelligence agencies dismissed them, but because some piece of that entire dossier may have been remotely true, you give credence to everything else. There is no objectivity with you. You can't even be honest about the nature of the investigation, calling for impeachment and making absurd accusations that have never been substantiated or supported. You're blind to your own blindness and partisan hatred.
I told you weeks ago that I'm not interested in debating the collusion shit, because nothing new has manifested and nothing either of us will type will change the opinion of the others. I'm not interested in trading insults back and forth, which is all it will become.
But don't kid yourself and act like you have any evidence or facts to support your claims. You know that Flynn and a couple other guys probably took money from Russia or Turkey in matters completely unrelated and years before the election. That's what you "know". Anything beyond that is mere speculation and you can't point to a single document to support your conspiracy theories. That's why you've backed down from saying Trump jerked Putin off to "well, someone in Trump's camp betrayed their country." And let's not forget you were arguing Pence is going to invoke the 25th Amendment a couple days ago.
I get it. You hate that your party is in shambles and can't connect in the majority of governorships, congressional districts and senate seats. That the best they could put forth is a nutjob who honeymooned in the most oppressive regime of the 20th century and praised Venezuela and Chavez or an egomaniac who was more connected to Wall Street and was more hawkish than any Republican since Reagan. It's a terrible time to be a Democrat. To go from complete control over congress with the most likable and charming president since Kennedy at the helm to being a party with absolutely no authority is quite the change. But maybe take a deep breath and let the rage subside before you post nonsense that no one is claiming there is a shred of evidence of. "Smoke and fire" isn't an argument. It's an intellectually lazy way to justify partisan bickering and outrage. You can go with Biden or Warren, but only one of them is going to help rebuild your party. There won't be a Leftist Tea Party, you guys tried that already. It was the Occupy Wall Street crowd. They didn't do anything besides camp out in Manhattan and attract homeless and the mentally ill.
Trump is your President. If all you and your cohorts can offer is manufactured outrage (TRUMP TOLD DUERTE THE LOCATION OF 2 SUBMARINES ARE OUTSIDE OF NK!!! [meanwhile the NYTimes already ran an article where they announced the fleet is moving into position]) and conspiracy, you'll quickly lose the public's confidence. Being Anti-Trump isn't a policy position. It's not offering solutions. Your party and its politics provided us with ISIS, refugees and a failing ACA. Yelling about Trump isn't going to win you seats when the Republicans are able to ask a simple question of "what's your plan?"
What am I arguing? That I said I have a gut feeling there was some collusion between his campaign and Russia? Have I said it definitely happened? How has my hate dictated my opinions on *President Trump? What am I basing my opinion on that's been discredited, exactly? I never said the pee tapes were real, ever, I said the dossier was not discredited when you wrongly stated it was. I didn't say Pence was going to use the 25th amendment, I posted it after you said there was no legal way Trump could be stripped of his presidency. What insults have I made against you? I'm not saying you're going "full retard" or anything close.
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:misterID wrote:See, you're missing the point. My beliefs are based on facts, real articles, not conspiracy theories that even a right wing shill of a news source has to retract. Your comparison was ridiculous and a clear attempt to undermine what's happening. MSNBC has never stated there was definite collusion. There's an actual investigation going on by Mueller to investigate collusion. This isn't made up, this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's real and is taking place because of real intelligence.
No, there's not. There's an investigation into Russia's involvement in influencing our election. Part of that is also verifying that no one in Trump's team colluded with Russia, but the primary purpose of the investigation isn't, and never was about Trump. This is something you have failed to grasp from day one.
Nothing you have argued is based on fact. It's been entirely hearsay and opinions from discredited or anonymous sources. You've ignored that Obama called the "piss tapes" absurd, that our own intelligence agencies dismissed them, but because some piece of that entire dossier may have been remotely true, you give credence to everything else. There is no objectivity with you. You can't even be honest about the nature of the investigation, calling for impeachment and making absurd accusations that have never been substantiated or supported. You're blind to your own blindness and partisan hatred.
I told you weeks ago that I'm not interested in debating the collusion shit, because nothing new has manifested and nothing either of us will type will change the opinion of the others. I'm not interested in trading insults back and forth, which is all it will become.
But don't kid yourself and act like you have any evidence or facts to support your claims. You know that Flynn and a couple other guys probably took money from Russia or Turkey in matters completely unrelated and years before the election. That's what you "know". Anything beyond that is mere speculation and you can't point to a single document to support your conspiracy theories. That's why you've backed down from saying Trump jerked Putin off to "well, someone in Trump's camp betrayed their country." And let's not forget you were arguing Pence is going to invoke the 25th Amendment a couple days ago.
I get it. You hate that your party is in shambles and can't connect in the majority of governorships, congressional districts and senate seats. That the best they could put forth is a nutjob who honeymooned in the most oppressive regime of the 20th century and praised Venezuela and Chavez or an egomaniac who was more connected to Wall Street and was more hawkish than any Republican since Reagan. It's a terrible time to be a Democrat. To go from complete control over congress with the most likable and charming president since Kennedy at the helm to being a party with absolutely no authority is quite the change. But maybe take a deep breath and let the rage subside before you post nonsense that no one is claiming there is a shred of evidence of. "Smoke and fire" isn't an argument. It's an intellectually lazy way to justify partisan bickering and outrage. You can go with Biden or Warren, but only one of them is going to help rebuild your party. There won't be a Leftist Tea Party, you guys tried that already. It was the Occupy Wall Street crowd. They didn't do anything besides camp out in Manhattan and attract homeless and the mentally ill.
Trump is your President. If all you and your cohorts can offer is manufactured outrage (TRUMP TOLD DUERTE THE LOCATION OF 2 SUBMARINES ARE OUTSIDE OF NK!!! [meanwhile the NYTimes already ran an article where they announced the fleet is moving into position]) and conspiracy, you'll quickly lose the public's confidence. Being Anti-Trump isn't a policy position. It's not offering solutions. Your party and its politics provided us with ISIS, refugees and a failing ACA. Yelling about Trump isn't going to win you seats when the Republicans are able to ask a simple question of "what's your plan?"
What am I arguing? That I said I have a gut feeling there was some collusion between his campaign and Russia? Have I said it definitely happened? How has my hate dictated my opinions on *President Trump? What am I basing my opinion on that's been discredited, exactly? I never said the pee tapes were real, ever, I said the dossier was not discredited when you wrongly stated it was. I didn't say Pence was going to use the 25th amendment, I posted it after you said there was no legal way Trump could be stripped of his presidency. What insults have I made against you? I'm not saying you're going "full retard" or anything close.
I've given up on anything that might resemble some form of reasonable discourse with RF....he's chosen his side and made up his mind. I can't follow his logic...he recently posted another blog as proof of one of his talking points.
I'm not sure if I'm just missing something in the way he communicates on or what...I just can't follow what his point is....ever....
I just know a lot of conservative pundits parroting the exact same shit.
It's as though they feel the FBI or CIA should be CC'ing him on their investigation and showing him whatever proof they have.
Even then...RF made up his mind about all of this a long time ago. Regardless of what evidence is eventually presented, it won't change his mind.
There are still people who believe today that Nixon never did anything wrong.
Obstruction of justice is the real crime at hand here now....if Nixon hadn't obstructed justice, he would never have been impeached.
Re: US Politics Thread
I've given up on anything that might resemble some form of reasonable discourse with RF....he's chosen his side and made up his mind.
Yeah like you haven't made up your mind. You're completely neutral on political issues.
YOu've been spewing venom at Trump since before he was president and even said a couple months ago that you hope he fails as president and hope the republican congress fails. That doesn't sound like someone interested in anything remotely positive happening in this country.
You want partisan gridlock for 4-8 years because "that's what they did to Obama".
If you(or anyone) doesn't like what Trump is doing, where are the alternatives? Begging for failure isn't an alternative.
Re: US Politics Thread
Mitch actually liked his tax plan. We all agreed with some of his stances on trade, mostly against current trade deals. I loved his pledge to make big pharma begin negotiating drug prices and cap them along with medical expenses, and to protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Also his infrastructure pledge. Problem is, he's basically lied about all of that. He criticized Hillary and Cruz with Goldman Sachs connections, promised to drain the swamp, yet filled his cabinet with GS executives.
But yeah, pretty much think he's a vile human being.
Re: US Politics Thread
Mitch actually liked his tax plan. We all agreed with some of his stances on trade, mostly against current trade deals. I loved his pledge to make big pharma begin negotiating drug prices and cap them along with medical expenses, and to protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Also his infrastructure pledge. Problem is, he's basically lied about all of that. He criticized Hillary and Cruz with Goldman Sachs connections, promised to drain the swamp, yet filled his cabinet with GS executives.
But yeah, pretty much think he's a vile human being.
I did like his tax plan...but like everything else...it's a lie...
He's proposing cutting Medicaid and is in favor of things he said he was against.
James...if republicans vied to make Obama a failure as president then I can do the same to trump.
I see no redeemable qualities in him. He's fucking over the people who voted him and I take great pleasure in that...even if his supporters are too dumb to realize
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Mitch actually liked his tax plan. We all agreed with some of his stances on trade, mostly against current trade deals. I loved his pledge to make big pharma begin negotiating drug prices and cap them along with medical expenses, and to protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Also his infrastructure pledge. Problem is, he's basically lied about all of that. He criticized Hillary and Cruz with Goldman Sachs connections, promised to drain the swamp, yet filled his cabinet with GS executives.
But yeah, pretty much think he's a vile human being.
I did like his tax plan...but like everything else...it's a lie...
He's proposing cutting Medicaid and is in favor of things he said he was against.
James...if republicans vied to make Obama a failure as president then I can do the same to trump.
I see no redeemable qualities in him. He's fucking over the people who voted him and I take great pleasure in that...even if his supporters are too dumb to realize
The absurdity of being pissed at Obama for saying you could keep your doctor but not holding Trump accountable is the true Republican color
Re: US Politics Thread
Washington Post - Washington Post The Washington Post
Karoun Demirjian, Devlin Barrett
In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary season, the FBI received a purported Russian intelligence document describing a tacit understanding between the campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Justice Department over the inquiry into whether she intentionally revealed classified information through her use of a private email server.
The Russian document mentioned a supposed email describing how then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had privately assured someone in the Clinton campaign that the email investigation would not push too deeply into the matter — a conversation that if made public would cast doubt on the inquiry’s integrity.
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post.
Current and former officials have said that document played a significant role in the July decision by then-FBI Director James B. Comey to announce on his own, without Justice Department involvement, that the investigation was over. That public announcement — in which he criticized Clinton and made extensive comments about the evidence — set in motion a chain of other FBI moves that Democrats now say helped Trump win the presidential election.
But according to the FBI’s own assessment, the document was bad intelligence — and according to people familiar with its contents, possibly even a fake sent to confuse the bureau. The Americans mentioned in the Russian document insist they do not know each other, do not speak to each other and never had any conversations remotely like the ones described in the document. Investigators have long doubted its veracity, and by August the FBI had concluded it was unreliable.
The document, obtained by the FBI, was a piece of purported analysis by Russian intelligence, the people said. It referred to an email supposedly written by the then-chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and sent to Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by billionaire George Soros and dedicated to promoting democracy.
The Russian document did not contain a copy of the email, but it described some of the contents of the purported message.
In the supposed email, Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in private communication with a senior Clinton campaign staffer named Amanda Renteria during the campaign. The document indicated Lynch had told Renteria that she would not let the FBI investigation into Clinton go too far, according to people familiar with it.
Current and former officials have argued that the secret document gave Comey good reason to take the extraordinary step over the summer of announcing the findings of the Clinton investigation himself without Justice Department involvement.
Comey had little choice, these people have said, because he feared that if Lynch announced no charges against Clinton, and then the secret document leaked, the legitimacy of the entire case would be questioned.
From the moment the bureau received the document from a source in early March 2016, its veracity was the subject of an internal debate at the FBI. Several people familiar with the matter said the bureau’s doubts about the document hardened in August when officials became more certain that there was nothing to substantiate the claims in the Russian document. FBI officials knew the bureau never had the underlying email with the explosive allegation, if it ever existed.
Yet senior officials at the bureau continued to rely on the document before and after the election as part of their justification for how they handled the case.
Wasserman Schultz and Benardo said in separate interviews with The Washington Post that they do not know each other and have never communicated. Renteria, in an interview, and people familiar with Lynch’s account said the two also do not know each other and have never communicated. Lynch declined to comment for this article.
Moreover, Wasserman Schultz, Benardo and Renteria said they have never been interviewed by the FBI about the matter.
Comey’s defenders still insist that there is reason to believe the document is legitimate and that it rightly played a major role in the director’s thinking.
“It was a very powerful factor in the decision to go forward in July with the statement that there shouldn’t be a prosecution,” said a person familiar with the matter. “The point is that the bureau picked up hacked material that hadn’t been dumped by the bad guys [the Russians] involving Lynch. And that would have pulled the rug out of any authoritative announcement.”
Other people familiar with the document disagree sharply, saying such claims are disingenuous because the FBI has known for a long time that the Russian intelligence document is unreliable and based on multiple layers of hearsay.
“It didn’t mean anything to the investigation until after [senior FBI officials] had to defend themselves,” said one person familiar with the matter. “Then they decided it was important. But it’s junk, and they already knew that.”
An FBI spokesman declined to comment. Comey did not respond to requests for comment.
The people familiar with the Russian document spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss its contents. No one familiar with it asked The Post to withhold details about its origins to safeguard the source.
Several of them said they were concerned that revealing details now about the document could be perceived as an effort to justify Trump’s decision to fire Comey, but they argued that the document and Comey’s firing are distinct issues. Most of the people familiar with the document disagree strongly with the decision to fire the director, but they also criticized current and former officials who have privately cited the document as an important factor in the decisions made by Comey and other senior FBI officials. Comey told lawmakers he would discuss it with them only in a classified session.
Email not obtained
After the bureau first received the document, it attempted to use the source to obtain the referenced email but could not do so, these people said. The source that provided the document, they said, had previously supplied other information that the FBI was also unable to corroborate.
While it was conducting the Clinton email investigation, the FBI did not interview anyone mentioned in the Russian document about its claims. At the time, FBI agents were probing numerous hacking cases involving Democrats and other groups, but they never found an email like the one described in the document, these people said.
Then on July 5, Comey decided to announce on his own — without telling Lynch ahead of time — that he was closing the Clinton email case without recommending charges against anyone. Aides to Comey said he decided to act alone after Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton for nearly a half-hour on an airport tarmac in Phoenix about a week earlier — and have since said privately the Russian document was also a factor in that decision.
The appearance of possible conflict arising from the Phoenix meeting led FBI leadership to want to show it had reached the decision independently, without political interference from the Justice Department.
About a month after Comey’s announcement, FBI officials asked to meet privately with the attorney general. At the meeting, they told Lynch about a foreign source suggesting she had told Renteria that Clinton did not have to worry about the email probe, because she would keep the FBI in check, according to people familiar with the matter.
“Just so you know, I don’t know this person and have never communicated with her,’’ Lynch told the FBI officials, according to a person familiar with the discussion. The FBI officials assured her the conversation was not a formal interview and said the document “didn’t have investigative value,’’ the person said.
Nevertheless, the officials said, they wanted to give the attorney general what is sometimes referred to as a “defensive briefing’’ — advising someone of a potential intelligence issue that could come up at some future point.
The agents never mentioned Wasserman Schultz to Lynch but told her there was some uncertainty surrounding the information because of “possible translation issues,” according to a person familiar with the discussion.
Lynch told them they were welcome to speak to her staff and to conduct a formal interview of her, the person said. The FBI declined both offers.
‘I’ve never heard of him’
Renteria, a California Democrat, first heard of the Russian document and its description of her role when a Post reporter called her.
“Wow, that’s kind of weird and out of left field,’’ she said. “I don’t know Loretta Lynch, the attorney general. I haven’t spoken to her.’’
Renteria said she did know a California woman by the same name who specializes in utility issues. The Loretta Lynch in California is a lawyer who also did legal work for the Clintons decades ago involving the Whitewater investigation. Bloggers and others have previously confused the two women, including during Lynch’s nomination to be attorney general.
Wasserman Schultz and Benardo, the alleged emailers, were also perplexed by the Russian document’s claims.
Wasserman Schultz said: “Not only do I not know him — I’ve never heard of him. I don’t know who this is. There’s no truth to this whatsoever. I have never sent an email remotely like what you’re describing.’’
She added that she had met Lynch, the former attorney general, once briefly at a dinner function.
Benardo said of Wasserman Schultz: “I’ve never met her. I’ve only read about her.”
“I’ve never in my lifetime received any correspondence of any variety — correspondence, fax, telephone, from Debbie Wasserman Schultz,’’ he said. “If such documentation exists, it’s of course made up.’’
As for Renteria, Wasserman Schultz said she knew who she was from past political work but had “virtually no interaction” with her during the 2016 campaign. “I was definitely in the same room as her on more than one occasion, but we did not interact, and no email exchange during the campaign, or ever,’’ she said.
When asked, the individuals named in the document struggled to fathom why their identities would have been woven together in a document describing communications they said never happened. But others recognized the dim outlines of aconspiracy theory that would be less surprising in Russia, where Soros — the founder of the organization Benardo works for — and Clinton are both regarded as political enemies of the Kremlin.
“The idea that Russians would tell a story in which the Clinton campaign, Soros and even an Obama administration official are connected — that Russians might tell such a story, that is not at all surprising,” said Matt Rojansky, a Russia expert and director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center. “Because that is part of the Kremlin worldview.”
The secret intelligence document has attracted so much attention recently that Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Comey about it during the director’s final public appearance in Congress as FBI director before he was fired.
Comey said that he had spoken with the heads of the congressional intelligence committees about the document privately but that it was too sensitive to discuss it in public.
“The subject is classified, and in an appropriate forum I’d be happy to brief you on it,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But I can’t do it in an open hearing.”
No such briefing occurred before he was fired.
*sigh*
