[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[tres borrachos]

Re: Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges | TheHill

Collusion bombshell: DNC lawyers met with FBI on Russia allegations before surveillance warrant | TheHill

There's a lot more and it will becoming out shortly.

What do your opinion pieces by well known conservative fraud John Solomon have to do with what I asked you to post evidence of? I'll give you a hint. Nothing.

How do you know what there is a lot of? Do you work for the federal government? Obviously you do. Does your boss know you're on here sharing information?

 

[Ouroboros]

Putin has denied any sort of interfering in the election-- hacking the DNC ECT.
Do you believe him?

I don't believe him if he says he didn't interfere, nor do I believe when he says he favored Trump.

Everything he says is structured to sow discord. He was a fricking KGB officer for 16 years, that's what they do for a living.

 

[tres borrachos]

So, when she hired Fusion, Fusion then worked for HER. It's like when you hire a maid, she works for YOU. Hillary is 100% responsible for what Fusion did. She's guilty. And, she knew what Fusion and the DNC were doing. She knew what Steele was doing also. She knew he was conspiring and colluding with the Russians. And, even if she didn't, she paid for Steele to do so. She is still part of the conspiracy. And, Conspiracies are illegal. Lock her up!!! :sword:

You Trump fans have been jawing about Clinton for 3 years. Trump is President now. He's in charge of the DOJ. Why hasn't he locked her up, like he promised you and the drooling morons at his rallies that he would do?

If Trump pays you by the word to make arguments for him, he isn't getting his money's worth. Unless he's paying you to make him and his supporters look like fools. Then your posts are succeeding admirably.

 

[pamak]

On the matter of intelligence:



Returning to my supposition that the Russians simply wanted to sow discord no matter which party benefited in the short term, it's entirely possible that whatever "information" the Russians got from hacking the RNC was simply nothing worth bruiting about. In any case, they didn't need to undermine the RNC that much, since Democrats were trying to find as much dirt on Trump as they could.

I've seen a lot of rhetorical opinions about how Russia supposedly believed that Trump would be more conciliatory to their interests, and very little hard evidence. Given that I've also seen other rhetorical opinions to the effect that Barack Obama was already extremely conciliatory to Russia, why would Russia necessarily think Hillary would become their mortal enemy? Yes, I'm sure she made her share of "tough on Russia" speeches, but she's contradicted herself on many occasions, so I have strong doubts that Russian policy-makers would assume that they couldn't work around her as they did around Obama.

It suits the Left's narrative that everything Russia did was to benefit Trump, because the Left wants to find some way to invalidate Trump's election. This narrative works only if we assume that Russia believed that their attempted hacks of the election would never be detected. That's not impossible, but it seems naive for practiced spies to assume that their hacking is just that good. So, given that Mueller was unable to demonstrate collusion, I think it's more probable that Russia knew that their hacking WOULD be detected, and that the Left would pick up on it and weaken the nation with endless legitimacy quarrels.

I suspect that's not a possibility you'll countenance, however.

Your explanations do not make sense. The fact that the US intelligence report said that the Russians spent considering way more effort to hack the DNC than the republicans which started even before Steele was hired does not fit with your scenario. Also, when one does not spend a lot of effort to hack a particular party, it should be expected that the results he will get will reflect the amount of effort he put in the operation. Finally, Hillary was already getting a beating by the FBI's investigation. So why did the Russians decide that this was not enough but they concluded that Hillary's opposition research was somehow giving the Republican party and Trump "enough" of a beating.

AS for Obama and his supposedly "conciliatory" attitude towards Russia, it is a very misleading claim which comes from the right wing-media based on the manipulation of the time frame they use to judge behaviors. Most of them try to use this hot mike comment when Obama was caught saying that he would be more flexible after the elections to argue that somehow Obama was pro-Russian or something. This makes no sense because this happened in 2012 before Obama's second election. At the time Russia had not annexed Crimea and had not intervened militarily in Ukraine. Comparing the attitude of a US president in 2012 to the conditions and attitudes of candidates in 2016 makes no sense. There is no doubt (and even republican believed it) that Trump campaigned by using a CLEAR conciliatory tone for better relations with Russia AFTER the latter had already invaded Crimea. It was also clear that Clinton was quite more hostile to Russia.

 

[Ouroboros]

Worse still, this entire dog whistle the left is running with is BS. The President never said he would accept info from foreign operatives.

Transcript:

Stephanopolous:
"Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?"

President Trump:
"I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. There's nothing wrong with listening, If somebody called from a country – Norway – 'we have information on your opponent.' Oh. I think I'd want to hear it."

Trump's actually being honest here, and maybe it's because he knows that there's no way he can pretend he wouldn't do it, given that some of his officials did at least listen to Russian approaches, even if no actual deals were forged. He does lie about various things, but in this case he's admitting that he'd do exactly what the DNC did-- even if the Left won't admit that they too wanted dirt from Russian sources.

 

[ecofarm]

I don't believe him if he says he didn't interfere, nor do I believe when he says he favored Trump.

Everything he says is structured to sow discord. He was a fricking KGB officer for 16 years, that's what they do for a living.

There's a mountain of evidence the Russians wanted Trump because they figured he was in their pocket.

Let's start at Trump Tower...

 

[Ouroboros]

Your explanations do not make sense. The fact that the US intelligence report said that the Russians spent considering way more effort to hack the DNC than the republicans which started even before Steele was hired does not fit with your scenario. Also, when one does not spend a lot of effort to hack a particular party, it should be expected that the results he will get will reflect the amount of effort he put in the operation. Finally, Hillary was already getting a beating by the FBI's investigation. So why did the Russians decide that this was not enough but they concluded that Hillary's opposition research was somehow giving the Republican party and Trump "enough" of a beating.

AS for Obama and his supposedly "conciliatory" attitude towards Russia, it is a very misleading claim which comes from the right wing-media based on the manipulation of the time frame they use to judge behaviors. Most of them try to use this hot mike comment when Obama was caught saying that he would be more flexible after the elections to argue that somehow Obama was pro-Russian or something. This makes no sense because this happened in 2012 before Obama's second election. At the time Russia had not annexed Crimea and had not intervened militarily in Ukraine. Comparing the attitude of a US president in 2012 to the conditions and attitudes of candidates in 2016 makes no sense. There is no doubt (and even republican believed it) that Trump campaigned by using a CLEAR conciliatory tone for better relations with Russia AFTER the latter had already invaded Crimea. It was also clear that Clinton was quite more hostile to Russia.

The point you have yet to address in recent posts:

If the Russians had a will to help Trump at least from the time that he became a serious candidate, then why would they hack the RNC at all?

That's why I find it far more sensible to believe that the Russians were out to mess things up no matter who won the election, as opposed to the narrative that they thought Trump would be their lap-dog. If they really thought that, they must have been severely disappointed by his Presidential actions since then, for I see no evidence that "Tough Hillary" could have done anything tougher than what Trump did in the real world.

And no, I'm not just thinking of the "open mike" incident.

 

[Ouroboros]

There's a mountain of evidence the Russians wanted Trump because they figured he was in their pocket.

Let's start at Trump Tower...

And what evidence did Robert Mueller find?

Hint: the answer starts with the letter "z" and ends with the letter "o."

 

[ecofarm]

And what evidence did Robert Mueller find?

A ton. Read the report.

 

[pamak]

Your explanations do not make sense. The fact that the US intelligence report said that the Russians spent considering way more effort to hack the DNC than the republicans which started even before Steele was hired does not fit with your scenario. Also, when one does not spend a lot of effort to hack a particular party, it should be expected that the results he will get will reflect the amount of effort he put in the operation. Finally, Hillary was already getting a beating by the FBI's investigation. So why did the Russians decide that this was not enough but they concluded that Hillary's opposition research was somehow giving the Republican party and Trump "enough" of a beating.

AS for Obama and his supposedly "conciliatory" attitude towards Russia, it is a very misleading claim which comes from the right wing-media based on the manipulation of the time frame they use to judge behaviors. Most of them try to use this hot mike comment when Obama was caught saying that he would be more flexible after the elections to argue that somehow Obama was pro-Russian or something. This makes no sense because this happened in 2012 before Obama's second election. At the time Russia had not annexed Crimea and had not intervened militarily in Ukraine. Comparing the attitude of a US president in 2012 to the conditions and attitudes of candidates in 2016 makes no sense. There is no doubt (and even republican believed it) that Trump campaigned by using a CLEAR conciliatory tone for better relations with Russia AFTER the latter had already invaded Crimea. It was also clear that Clinton was quite more hostile to Russia.

And in continuation of my previous post, I would like to clear some misconceptions for those who believe that Obama in 2012 and his "flexibility" remarks shows some pro-russian attitude.

It seems that some Americans often do not understand how their actions create a lot of pressure to other countries. I will remind you two USthings that were happening in 2012 (the policies had started actually way before with Bush but Obama CONTINUED these policies) which had put Russia in a tough spot.

The first one was the development of antiballistic defenses near the Russian border which threatened to negate the Russian nuclear deterrence. The second event was the situation in Ukraine where there seemed to be a possibility of having it join the EU. The Russians understandably were not comfortably with seeing western powers start getting influence so close to their borders. I will also remind you that the agreements between the Soviet Union and the West were meant to guarantee that the latter would not expand towards Russia. The Soviets got those guarantees in order to agree to the unification of Germany. So, the Russians were quite irritated by the development s that were taking place during the Bush and Obama years. So, they did things like withdrawing from arms treaties to develop better nuclear weapons to retain their capabilities against the more advanced antiballistic defense of the West. Those Americans who complain today about this Russian actions do not understand the bug picture and how it affects the decisions of rational adversaries. The Russians also wanted to support a clear anti-EU guy at a time when EU was flirting with Ukraine. Te Russians also would like a president who criticizes NATO instead of a more conventional president like Hillary.
It is obvious that the Russians have clear motives to support Trump.

 

[pamak]

The point you have yet to address in recent posts:

If the Russians had a will to help Trump at least from the time that he became a serious candidate, then why would they hack the RNC at all?

That's why I find it far more sensible to believe that the Russians were out to mess things up no matter who won the election, as opposed to the narrative that they thought Trump would be their lap-dog. If they really thought that, they must have been severely disappointed by his Presidential actions since then, for I see no evidence that "Tough Hillary" could have done anything tougher than what Trump did in the real world.

And no, I'm not just thinking of the "open mike" incident.

Because, they would still need to have information about say Trump's real political intentions and because nobody could predict how Trump would really act as a US president. Helping him become president would not mean that Trump would be their puppet to do whatever they wanted. So, their usual intelligence collection would not stop just because Trump would be a president. They still needed to have information which they could potentially exploit in tough negotiations with Trump as a US president.

As for the the Obama attitude, I gave the broad picture in my previous posts which shows that the Russians were actually on the defense and were facing serious military and politic challenges during the Obama's administration. The US was provoking them on many levels, and I explained why in my previous post. Not to mention the fact that because the Clinton administration in the 1990's immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union could do whatever it wanted exploding the weakness of Russia, the name "Clinton" is creating allergies to most Russians . At least this is how I evaluate their attitude.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

Oh, man. This gets SO old, the misrepresentation and laughable pig-ignorance on the right.

If the Trump campaign had sent a private investigator to Moscow to interview people about the utterly absurd Uranium One 'story', nobody would have objected. It's opposition research. Happens all the time.

What Republicans did, and then Democrats later hired Christopher Steele to do, interview people, collect rumors, try and make sense of them, see if there's a narrative, falls into this category.

The quality of Steele's work you can dispute, and yet no one can demonstrate he 'fabricated lies'

He committed no crimes in the course of doing it

There is simply no rational comparison there between what twump did and what Steele did. None.

Why do you insist on repeating the lies of idiots like Hinderaker?

When you think you're able to have a respectful conversation with me--you know, one in which you don't insinuate that I'm "pig-ignorant" and ask asinine, baiting questions, let me know.

 

[SLC]

Neither Manafort nor Flynn disclosed their ties to foreign powers. Flynn was given access to top secret intelligence and the position of NSA. It's not "technically wrong" it's really, really wrong!

They weren't foreign agents they were unregistered lobbyist for foreign countries. Well since it is rarely ever been prosecuted it is done a lot in DC by people from both parties. Tony Podesta a democrat is in trouble for unregistered lobbying right now.

Answer this: With the severe financial troubles Manafort was experiencing why would he agree to be trump's campaign manager with zero compensation? C'mon man - these guys stink to high heaven which is one of the reasons they're both in prison.

Probably for the same reason why Lawyers sometimes take high profile cases for free. They do it for name recognition. Manafort may have done it because of the name recognition it could bring him or for a future high profile job in the administration. Its not like Trump had a hard time finding a campaign manager.

Flynn isn't in prison and won't be going to prison. An Manafort is in prison for income tax fraud and bank fraud not for being an unregistered lobbyist.

 

[j brown's body]

The point you have yet to address in recent posts:

If the Russians had a will to help Trump at least from the time that he became a serious candidate, then why would they hack the RNC at all?

That's why I find it far more sensible to believe that the Russians were out to mess things up no matter who won the election, as opposed to the narrative that they thought Trump would be their lap-dog. If they really thought that, they must have been severely disappointed by his Presidential actions since then, for I see no evidence that "Tough Hillary" could have done anything tougher than what Trump did in the real world.

And no, I'm not just thinking of the "open mike" incident.

Trump's and the GOP's support for oligarchy is very much in line with Putin's.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

When you think you're able to have a respectful conversation with me--you know, one in which you don't insinuate that I'm "pig-ignorant" and ask asinine, baiting questions, let me know.

I didn't insinuate anything of the sort. My 'pig-ignorant' comment was in regards to the clown that wrote the article you linked to.

Nor did I ask any baited question.

I don't have any respect, whatsoever, for the absolute tripe that you linked to and refuse to question.

 

[Athanasius68]

There's a mountain of evidence the Russians wanted Trump because they figured he was in their pocket.

Let's start at Trump Tower...

We can start and finish there, and not get very far in between.
It's speculation as to Putin's motives. It's probably more plausable that he thought that by backing the losing candidate he causes more chaos (after all, scarcely anybody thought Trump would win).

 

[Ouroboros]

Because, they would still need to have information about say Trump's real political intentions and because nobody could predict how Trump would really act as a US president. Helping him become president would not mean that Trump would be their puppet to do whatever they wanted. So, their usual intelligence collection would not stop just because Trump would be a president. They still needed to have information which they could potentially exploit in tough negotiations with Trump as a US president.

As for the the Obama attitude, I gave the broad picture in my previous posts which shows that the Russians were actually on the defense and were facing serious military and politic challenges during the Obama's administration. The US was provoking them on many levels, and I explained why in my previous post. Not to mention the fact that because the Clinton administration in the 1990's immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union could do whatever it wanted exploding the weakness of Russia, the name "Clinton" is creating allergies to most Russians . At least this is how I evaluate their attitude.

Then you are admitting that Russian intelligence probably was not counting entirely on Trump's "friendliness to oligarchies" or any of the other rhetorical absudities advanced here?

 

[lurchadams]

They weren't foreign agents they were unregistered lobbyist for foreign countries. Well since it is rarely ever been prosecuted it is done a lot in DC by people from both parties. Tony Podesta a democrat is in trouble for unregistered lobbying right now.


Probably for the same reason why Lawyers sometimes take high profile cases for free. They do it for name recognition. Manafort may have done it because of the name recognition it could bring him or for a future high profile job in the administration. Its not like Trump had a hard time finding a campaign manager.

Flynn isn't in prison and won't be going to prison. An Manafort is in prison for income tax fraud and bank fraud not for being an unregistered lobbyist.

Flynn and Manafort are both criminals. Flynn was conspiring with a foreign power to kidnap and expedite a person living in the U.S. Manafort shilled for a Putin-friendly piece of **** dictator in the Ukraine.

These guys are just two examples of the human sewage that trump surrounds himself with. It's a huge problem and I'm praying the American people are smart enough to vanquish the cartoon mob-boss and his unmerry band of poop stains in 2020.

Hope all is well with you. I get to actually spend my first week at home in 4 weeks. Then it's back to San Antonio the week after next again.

 

[pamak]

Then you are admitting that Russian intelligence probably was not counting entirely on Trump's "friendliness to oligarchies" or any of the other rhetorical absudities advanced here?

I was never among those who thought that Trump was a Russian puppet! Even the scenario of the "pee tapes" being real and could be used to somehow blackmail him did not make sense to me. I mean Trump is NOT the person who can be blackmailed with such scandalous tapes!

 

[ocean515]

Trump's actually being honest here, and maybe it's because he knows that there's no way he can pretend he wouldn't do it, given that some of his officials did at least listen to Russian approaches, even if no actual deals were forged. He does lie about various things, but in this case he's admitting that he'd do exactly what the DNC did-- even if the Left won't admit that they too wanted dirt from Russian sources.

I think you're attempting to read more into the what the President said than he actually did.

But the core point you're making I agree with.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That's a pathetic and old lie.

Steele was not an agent. He had been. But was not. So, not an agent. Nothing illegal.

The RNC commissioned the dossier. The company the RNC paid hired Steele.

And the Russian sources he obtained his information from...what were they?

 

[ecofarm]

And the Russian sources he obtained his information from...what were they?

In the Trump campaign.

 

[OpportunityCost]

In the Trump campaign.

If you are going to outright lie, why bother posting at all?

Steele's sources were Russian in origin per the Mueller report every liberal suddenly finds to hold such weight in their thoughts. So would you care to rephrase or areyou going to continue to go with utter bull****?

 

[ecofarm]

If you are going to outright lie, why bother posting at all?

:2bigcry:

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

Talk about the topic, not each other. Thank you.