Putin Now Argues Russia Could've Been Framed For Election Meddling By The CIA (nbcnews.com)

In a news magazine show premiering tonight, Megyn Kelly reports that Russian president Vladimir Putin "has denied Russian involvement in the hacking and interference with our U.S. presidential eletion for some time. That changed earlier this week, and the story appears to be evolving yet again." An anonymous reader shared two articles from NBC: "Hackers can be anywhere. They can be in Russia, in Asia...even in America, Latin America," he said. "They can even be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very skillfully and professionally shifted the blame, as we say, onto Russia. Can you imagine something like that? In the midst of a political battle...?" The journalist asked the Russian president about what American intelligence agencies say is evidence that he became personally involved in a covert campaign to harm Hillary Clinton and benefit Donald Trump. "IP addresses can be invented -- a child can do that! Your underage daughter could do that. That is not proof," Putin replied...

Kelly told viewers that Putin -- the former director of Russia's domestic spy agency -- also suggested that the CIA could have been behind the hacking and noted that many people were convinced Russia was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy... Earlier, at a Friday forum moderated by Kelly, Putin likened the U.S. blaming his country for hacking the presidential election to "blaming the Jews"...
"Echoing remarks President Donald Trump made on the campaign trail, Putin also questioned the need for NATO."

Comments

Timeline of Treason

[bit trollent]

Dec. 10, 2015
Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).

Late 2015
British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).

March 19, 2016
Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).

March 21
During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).

March 28
Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could "greatly benefit the Putin Government." His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)

April 27
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).

June
At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).

June 15
A hacker calling himself "Guccifer 2.0" releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).

July
At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).

July 7
Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track PageÃs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).

July 11 or 12
Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).

July 18
At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).

Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's "Lock her up!" chant. "If I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth of what she did," Flynn said, "I would be in jail today" (C-Span, July 18, 2016).

July 22
Wikileaks releases emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (WP, July 22, 2017).

Jul. 27
During his last news conference of the campaign, Trump asks Russia to release emails hacked from Clinton's private server. He later says that he was joking (WP, July, 27, 2016).

Aug. 9
Flynn Intel Group, a consulting firm founded by Flynn, signs a contract with Inovo BV, a firm run by a Turkish businessman close to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for more than $500,000 (Daily Caller, Nov. 11, 2016).

Aug. 15
The New York Times reports on secret ledger

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Not one smoking gun in the whole thing. Speaking to ambassadors is not a crime.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bring an idiot to school, but you can't make him learn...

There are at least 3 smoking guns in the above:

1: Roger Stone predicting Podesta's time in the barrel, a reference to Wikileaks emails before they were released.

2: Jeff Sessions commits perjury.

3: Donald Trump commits obstruction of Justice.

4: The obvious collusion and criminality peppered throughout the timeline.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah man, don't you know you're only supposed to guzzle down things that come from Fox News, Breitbart, or Rush? Jeez!

Re:Timeline of Treason

[king neckbeard]

No, he just knows that WaPo has ties to the CIA, so they should be viewed with similar skepticism as Russia Today.

Re: Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

You have two choices.

1. You can continue to lie on the ground kicking and screaming, writing novellas about Trump and being angry that he's still President.
2. You can go on living your life.

Currently I'm doing the latter, and it's really nice.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bit trollent]

I'm sorry that the CIA detected Donald Trump committing treason, but it's not their fault. Moscow Donald just made things too easy for them. The CIA watches Russian figures like the ones Donald Trump chose to commit treason with.

That doesn't mean the CIA has turned on Donald Trump - they just always watch the Russia spies who compromised Donald Trump and his team.

I for one have much less skepticism from legitimate American news sources like the Washington Post, that I have for a state controlled news outlet like RT. The CIA does not control the Washington Post.

I'm sick of watching turncoats put America on the same very low level as Russia. You are plainly wrong.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Kohath]

Jan 19th: Ivanka orders a salad with Russian dressing.

April 5th: Flynn drinks a beer from Russian River Brewing Company

Re:Timeline of Treason

[epine]

No, he just knows that WaPo has ties to the CIA, so they should be viewed with similar skepticism as Russia Today.

The core ideology here is that all institutions are corrupt and incompetent unless the institution is shadowy, directed by secret strings, and engaged in conspiracy and mass deception, in which case the institution runs as efficiently and flawlessly and smoothly and competently as a German-railroad Seal Team 6.

But no.

Mass-deception conspiracy is hard, and the cracks around the edges usually become evident before long (without the use of tinfoil).

Re:Timeline of Treason

[MightyMartian]

There's going to come a point when just shouting "the Washington Post are poo-poo heads!" won't cut it. The only thing keep the Trump Presidency in place right now is uncertainty among Republicans about the effects on the mid-terms, but with his approval ratings back in decline and growing numbers of Americans clearly no longer buying into the Cult of Personality that people like you so desperately want to propagate, that "guarantee", if you will, won't last that much longer. Pence, if he isn't taken down by all of this (he has his own Russian problem) can do everything the GOP-dominated Congress wants, and what they want more than anything is to keep it GOP-dominated after mid-terms.

So go on, keep spouting the denials.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Your only source is WaPo, a DNC "rag". Nothing in your post is credible as a result.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence" -- Lionel Hutz

4: The obvious collusion and criminality peppered throughout the timeline.

The "Merry Christmas" text was the most insidious item.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[king neckbeard]

I'm sick of naive idiots thinking that US media is above the kind of things that we routinely and accurately suspect from Russia. You have to be a total moron to intrinsically trust them without adequate evidence after they lied us into Iraq. Brian Williams practically jizzed his pants when talking about bombing Syria.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bit trollent]

This is egregious false equivalence.

Brian Williams jizzed his pants over a missile strike because he is a tool.
This is different than:
In Russia, journalists and opposition politicians are imprisoned or killed. The Trump / Russia scandal has left a trail of dead bodies in Russia.

Russian state run media is not the same as the US media, which may report information given by the government, but isn't controlled by it.

Open your fucking eyes and quit this false equivalence that puts free media at the same level as state run media in a place where journalism that embarrassed Putin often results in the Journalist's death.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[king neckbeard]

I'm not saying that they are equally bad in every single way. I'm saying that without solid evidence, neither should be trusted much more than a Magic 8-ball.

Re: Timeline of Treason

[dcollins117]

You have two choices.

We have many more than two choices. For instance, several house and senate committees could initiate investigations and the justice department could appoint a special counsel to conduct criminal investigations and prosecute government officials found to have committed crimes. Oh, snap, that's actually what they did. As it turns out, there are more than the two choices your limited mind could conjure up.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Noble713]

This timeline of significant events leaves out everything associated with Seth Rich. Why? Perhaps because it undermines the "Russia hacked us!" narrative?

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bit trollent]

The problem with treating real news like the Washington Post the same as you'd treat fake news is that you are totally blind when the President of the United States goes on a treasonous crime spree with a hostile foreign adversary...

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Seth Rich narrative is an obvious scam which only distracts uneducated rubes from Russia, while the rest of us roll our eyes at the fraudulent claims made by known liars and scam artists?

Re:Timeline of Treason

[king neckbeard]

I do trust real news, just not WaPo because WaPo is garbage. The Intercept, for example, hires actual journalists.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bongey]

There comes a time when you need something more than an "Anonymous source from the Washington Post". 2 more months and it will be a YEAR and still NO REAL EVIDENCE of anything but a few illegally unmasked phone calls, that really have "nothing burgers" in the conversation.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[king neckbeard]

Your projection is hilarious.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bit trollent]

Donald Trump fears real news like the Washington Post far more than he fears bullshit propaganda like the Intercept or its liberal equivalents.

Real news is powerful. When the Washington Post reports criminality and collusion the FBI is usually close behind, or way ahead of the story.

When The Intercept whines that Rachel Maddow reported on Donald Trump's treasonous behavior, nobody gives a shit. It's just some asshole molding the news to fit his agenda.

The Washington Post is the rough draft of history. Real news matters, even if you ignore it.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the items aren't from the WP, but from other news agencies. All WP did was compile them into one timeline.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[king neckbeard]

Look, I"m all for having him executed for war crimes. I'm just focusing on the things for which there is already enough evidence.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bit trollent]

You are ignoring the evidence, and being smug about it. Give me a break...

You want to claim that your preferred propaganda outlet is true, but we should all ignore real news like the Washington Post.

Then you claim there is no evidence because you ignored the evidence that is sitting right in front of you!

I don't have time for your smug and deceitful nonsense. Open your fucking eyes and read some real news for once.

Re: Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot this one:

Jan 17th: Vitaly Churkin, Russian Ambassador to the United Nations, dies suddenly in New York.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming the press and public have all the possible information available, which of course, they never will. The only thing that matters is that the investigators have all the information THEY need to decide one way or another: what we have here is an awful lot of smoke - the question is whether or not they're small, individual fires, (e.g. the individuals lying for themselves), or are small parts of a much bigger fire we cannot (at least publicly) see at this time...

Re:Timeline of Treason

[acrimonious howard]

Trump fires [Attourney General] Yates after she refuses to enforce his immigration ban[, which was later found to be illegal by the Supreme Court] (NYT, Jan. 30, 2017).

FTFY

I'm surprised you got this comment in before the Russian trolls started, nice.

But you did miss these from the same citation:

April or May
The FBI focuses on Kushner as a person of interest in their investigation as that effort intensifies. (WP, May 25, 2017).

May 10
Trump fires Comey, citing the recommendation of Sessions (WP, May 10, 2017). In the letter firing Comey, Trump includes a line saying that he appreciates Comey telling him “on three separate occasions” that he is not under investigation (May 10, 2017). The president later tells NBC’s Lester Holt that the firing was because “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story” (CNN, May 12, 2017). Sources indicate that Kushner was a prominent voice behind the firing (CBS, May 17, 2017).

May 11
In a private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump reveals classified information shared with the United States by an ally, later reported to be Israel (WP, May 15, 2017). He also reportedly disparages Comey as a “nut job” to Lavrov and Kislyak and says that he “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which was now “taken off” with the firing of Comey (NYT, May 19, 2017).

May 12
Lawyers representing Trump release a statement indicating that the president’s tax returns don’t show income from Russian sources, with a few exceptions (NYT, May 12, 2017).

May 17
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation

And to Anon Ivan's complaint that many of these come from the Post, the answer is that you can find the same information elsewhere too.

Re: Timeline of Treason

[dgatwood]

On the whole, he's arguably slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton, just less authoritarian (which is really saying something, because he's ridiculously authoritarian). The problem is that by world standards, she's so far to the right that you can't even see her from the center, along with almost all other American politicians....

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about Seth Rich

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

There's going to come a point when just shouting "the Washington Post are poo-poo heads!" won't cut it.

You are correct. Given enough time, all propaganda eventually works. The Washington Post, Propornot, the NYT etc will successfully be able to put down an elected president on a nebulous, ill-defined charged of unspecified nature based on no evidence whatsoever.

No evidence. None. Not one document. Not one testimony. Nothing that will stand up for half and hour in any court of law. Just headlines, and innuendo, and ordinary events blown up into hysteria. And libel of course. No court will stand for this so called chain of evidence, at least, not without two years of sustained, concerted propaganda to normalize the assumption that Trump must have been "colluding" or "hacking" with the Russians somehow -- anyhow.

I mean if he wasn't, then everyone will look like fools!

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Your only source is WaPo, a DNC "rag". Nothing in your post is credible as a result.

And your only sources are Breitbart and Fox News. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Re: Timeline of Treason

[sdinfoserv]

If a President is incompetent, committing crimes, dangers the well being being of America - shoving your head in the sand or pretending it isn't happening is just as bad as the buffoon in the oval office. If is not only your right as a citizen, but your responsibility to change that which is wrong. Put down the hookah, get out of your moms basement, and work towards fixing this mess. Otherwise, you're just part of the problem,

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Ryanrule]

you must be getting massive downvotes.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[acrimonious howard]

I like the response to this:

There's going to come a point when just shouting "the Washington Post are poo-poo heads!" won't cut it.

WaPo didn't have to go to any great lengths to find factual information that made Trump look bad, and that info is interesting enough to sell copy, so don't hold your breath for it to stop.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Sassinak]

Not to mention, lets face it.. during an investigation, a lot of cards are being held close to the chest.. so their may be no PUBLIC smoking gun as some may claim, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.. All it means is we have to wait..

But lets also be realistic.. if this was a standard criminal trial, a large amount of circumstantial evidence still can and often does lead to a conviction. And in this case, there is a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence.. especially coming from a group that LOVES to brag "if you have nothing to hide then why can't we look through your life?"

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, the same Washington Post that told us Iraq had WMDs and thinks PewDiePie is a white supremacist? Fact checking is not a part "real news", I guess.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bongey]

Good luck, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats lose ground. Going to far left got you Trump, what have Democrats done? Turn even harder left.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Boronx]

Did you know .... it's possible to look into an issue and find out who's telling the truth?

Re:Timeline of Treason

[gl4ss]

he WaPo has had it out for Trump ever since he threatened to cancel their press credentials.

..yeah and uh, you think it's actually hard to dig up shit on a dude who threatens to do that?

besides from the actual what the fuck of what the fuck does it even mean to "cancel their press credentials"? stop inviting them to the white house dinners? it doesn't mean jack shit but it shows that trump is both stupid and .. well, thinks such bullying could work, which makes him extra stupid.

I mean he is just doing one stupid thing after another so whats there to not be critical about.

furthermore, about the Russian connection - probably he was just having business dealings with some rich Russians who were doing some lobbying - but the way things are in Russia you're not a rich Russian for a long time if you're not in Putins good books so it's arguable then if Trumps lackeys were dealing with Russia as a country or not.

whats even more stupider is that Trump seems to think that the russkies are as important as they were in the 70s, because that two big powers thinking fits his head well - but the truth of the matter is that Trump would have no actual need to have any Russian connections and they would not really help him with doing politics or business all that much at all - but since Trump is pretty stupid(and a shitty business partner for everyone) he just might as well.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

There's going to come a point when just shouting "the Washington Post are poo-poo heads!" won't cut it.

Agreed. I saw the other day something like, well even if there was collusion, we still won, as if winning the presidency in such a manner is perfectly fine. They make such a big deal about Hillary having made poor decisions about email hosting and possibly not enough care to separate potentially classified material and then they defend as if it is absolutely nothing all of this. It make me sick. Hypocrisy, thy name is the republican party.

Even the better ones will tend to shut-up and do nothing more times than not until after they have won. Some have said that Trump is the sickness that will somehow make us stronger, that will somehow make us wiser to see underneath the underneath. To spot the lies in the noise, or at least to look for them.

I hope that is true but am afraid it is not. Oh there may be a Trump backlash, but TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM NOR IS PUTIN or at least not the primary ones! They are playing with the balls we left in the playground. In a democracy the citizen who refuses to search for truth is the problem. Garbage in. Garbage out. The citizens can't demand the government filter the news so they receive truth, though they may of course set some standards. It is in the end their responsibility not only to demand truth, but to use the brain grace has given them to determine it and the harder it gets to accomplish that the more important and more dear the fight is.

If a democracy as old as the United States's is so easily influenced by fake news on facebook, then we have problems. Sure it may self correct, eventually, but the damage done in the mean time is hardly something we can be happy about, and if the damage goes too far the self correction itself is endangered.

Please for the love of truth encourage people to check multiple sources, and not all in the same ecosystem. Hell, currently just typing "subject fact check" in a decent search engine will usually turn up some decent hits, but check the validity of all those sources. If all else fails, buy a decent newspaper subscription, but make sure it is something reputable.

Re: Timeline of Treason

[Bartles]

You already used that cliche on someone else.

Re: Timeline of Treason

[drinkypoo]

On the whole, he's arguably slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton, just less authoritarian

Uh no. Liberals (leftists) want control of corporations, and not control of bedroom behavior. Conservatives (the "right") want corporations unfettered, and they want the government to decide who you are allowed to fuck. Trump wants corporations to be uncontrolled, and he wants to be able to rape women in his bedroom. Trump is an anarchist.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[merky1]

Maybe 5 years ago. I use to subscribe to WaPo, and there has been a significant decline in their reporting to the point where the current output is primarily "opinion" pieces meant to scoop sources like buzzfeed.

It used to be that you could read the actual facts about an article in the 2nd paragraph. But recently (even before DJT), I had to go back to google to find an AP/UPI feed to find any kind of facts. If I need to do research on the article, then what is the point?

Re:Timeline of Treason

[johanw]

The only thing that got Trump elected in the first place was the fact that the alternative was even worse.I'm curious about the next elections, Trump and Bernie are probably too old then and with Hillary's poor health shen might not even be alive then. Who's next in line in the Royal Court, eh, I mean DNC?

Re:Timeline of Treason

[johanw]

The main problem was that there were 2 choices who to elect, bad and worse. Which candidate played which role was for the voyer to decide.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[argStyopa]

"Trump Organization lawyer Michael Cohen and business associate Felix Sater partner with a Ukrainian lawmaker on a proposal for easing Russian-Ukrainian tensions, which is delivered to FlynnÃfs office. (NYT, Feb. 19, 2017)."

And this is treasonous how, again? It made your (exhaustive) list of events, yet seems to be the sort of thing we'd like to see an administration actually doing.

Do you feel the same ire and suspicion for the uranium rights sale during Ms Clintons stint as secretary of state, for which there is an actual transfer of million$ to the Clinton foundation? If not, why not?

What's still missing for me in this laundry list is why? What's the actually treasonous act that was or is to be the result of all this communication? Are we selling Alaska back? Did Trump get some massive payment? Collusion implies an act or result as the product of such collusion: what is that product here? Simply getting Trump elected?

Re:Timeline of Treason

[naubol]

Everyone reported that Iraq had WMDs, at first, because the administration lied to us and it was so bald-faced and self-assured that it was believed. It took some time for the media to figure out the truth.

Regarding PewDiePie, I think you're thinking of the WSJ, not WAPO.

Are you one of those low-information voters I keep hearing about?

Re:Timeline of Treason

[WhiplashII]

Everyone, please consider the following:

Is your standard of accepting evidence of Trumps guilt the same as your standard of accepting evidence of Hillary's guilt?

Hillary was not charged. Trump was not charged.

Lots of "dirt" was found on Hillary. Lots of "dirt" was found on Trump.

The only difference here is your politics. If Trump committed treason with the Russians, Hillary committed treason with every country that paid Bill $200K per talk. If Trump interfered with the election, Hillary interfered with the election.

If anything, the evidence against Hillary is stronger than the evidence against Trump. Trump's advisors have circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing, while Hillary's husband provides the evidence against her case.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[naubol]

AHCA, climate change, tax cuts for the wealthy: three reasons that are incontrovertibly true that are collectively angering Americans. A President doesn't have to be impeached to lose effective power, and it isn't necessarily the Russian issue that is hurting him the most. There's a growing list of policy decisions that are anti-consumer or undemocratic that is doing the job of undermining his support well enough.

Regarding the Russian issue, the potential for Russian collusion is one thing, yet we can set that aside and ask what DJT's public role has been in the affair. Here are three things that are true: He publicly condoned their hacks right after it came out. He has yet to acknowledge the breach of sovereignty and condemn Russia for the hacks. He has not called for an investigation of the Russian hacking or otherwise sought to uncover the extent of their meddling in our election.

How are these three things not sufficient to call for his scalp? On what planet is it patriotic to suggest that information warfare in the middle of an election is not a violation of our sovereignty?

If it's such a great thing that Russia made HRC's campaign more transparent, why don't we pass a law allowing any entity anywhere to hack into campaign computers to post whatever it is they want? Why not require all campaigns to turn over all emails, letters, memos, correspondence, as it happens to be published in massive data dumps every week? Maybe we can even turn it into a full panopticon and require every person drawing a salary from a political campaign to be wired and wear a body cam 24x7, with all data setup as a torrent?

The other argument, that it probably didn't affect the campaign enough to matter, suffers from several problems. Less than 100k votes could have changed the outcome of the election. The RNC wasn't lining up to dump their emails and if they had been challenged to do so they would have vigorously opposed it. DJT's public comments at the time makes it clear that he was gloating, which implies he knows how debilitating it was to the HRC campaign. The timing of the releases by wikileaks, with a steady release of small portions, also makes it clear that it was meant to do political harm.

DJT's public behavior regarding Russia should be sufficient to indict him in the court of public opinion. The persistent whining that no hard evidence has been discovered of collusion between DJT and Russia itself (since we have such evidence for Manafort and Flynn), is a massive distraction. We don't need to prove criminality of a President for us to collectively decide he's unfit for office and we have enough incontrovertible evidence to do just that.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[jbengt]

You've got that backwards. Trump has had it out for the WaPa ever since they started to run true stories critical of him and his campaign.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[PrimaryConsult]

And given how everyone who believes this election conspiracy is also calling Trump a buffoon,

Mass-deception conspiracy is hard, and the cracks around the edges usually become evident before long (without the use of tinfoil).

Do people seriously think he has the competence and discipline to pull something on this scale off without solid evidence having come out by now? If he were truly aware of election meddling he'd have tweeted "grabbed Hill by the pussay, thx Vlad!" on Nov 9th. He cannot keep his mouth shut. And if he is not aware of election meddling, then this circus is pointless and the most substantial outcome will be nameless bureaucrats getting token jail sentences.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[HornWumpus]

Known liars and scam artists...like the WaPo?

Re:Timeline of Treason

[slack_justyb]

2 more months and it will be a YEAR and still NO REAL EVIDENCE

Now in all fairness, investigations can take years to conduct. Real evidence belongs in that court of law thing and so citing a lack of it to dismiss allegations brought by news media is a bit apples and oranges. However, on the flip side of that coin, we have to remember that what the media is putting forth are only allegations. Loose threads that may or may not piece together toward anything bigger. How and even if they do piece together is all just a mental process for each reader. It whets the appetite for criminal acts, but only a court of law or in this case an impeachment, actually bring that to the sense of "REAL" as you would have it. Perhaps in good time we will see the outcome of these events into something real or not.

I will say this though, Trump sure hasn't done any favors for himself. If I, myself, were in his shoes I would be looking for some new legal counsel and pretty much hang up the Twitter account. His current array of lawyers do not seem up to task on keeping their client up-to-date on how law functions, creating ideas for programs that are worded so as to work with law as opposed to just how the President feels it should work, recommending bills or legal text that his own party can broadly agree with, how the judicial system works, or more importantly from shooting himself in the foot using his 50 caliber Twitter account. Ultimately it might not be criminal acts that are his undoing but just poor handling of the issues that swirl around his entire administration. There's been lots of points where someone at some time could have just stopped, addressed the issues, and a whole bevvy of other things to cool the flames. Instead, we've only seen Trump ask for more gasoline, double down on his arrogance, and stoke animosity between his office and the other two branches of government, not to mention other international actors and nations.

If we're going to beat up on biased media, then I'm all for it. However, at same time we need to at least partially recognize that some part of this maelstrom is Trump's own creation. The man is a walking PR catastrophe and the media are seizing on it to kill him in a court of public opinion. I'm not sure if he feels that he just doesn't need to address these issues, feels the issues are beneath him, or just simply doesn't have a clue on how serious the situation is and how much he really needs to pull back on the daily diatribe. I mean, c'mon there's seriously a limit to how often a single person can use a public platform to cry victim before we all start getting to the point of thinking it's mostly self inflicted. At least option one and three can be partly blamed on crappy lawyers. There's no fix if number two is the full or partly the truth behind everything wrong that just keeps happening. If the man just refuses to address anything or just keeps shifting the blame to someone that's not him, there's just no course correction that's going to save this man's political appeal. He's not showing strength by his bullish disregard for the political process, he's just goading more people to question him and that's an aphrodisiac for the press. Thinking they would not seize the bountiful opportunity Trump provides daily to crucify himself would be like some billionaire of group of billionaires not taking a tax write off named after themselves.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like that anonymous source called "Deep Throat"?

Investigations take time.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, Hillary was incompetent cold-hearted Trump is collusion with a foreign power

Re:Timeline of Treason

[NetNed]

So where is this trail of dead bodies? I am sure there are lots on here that would like to know where you got this info from.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[WolfgangVL]

why don't we pass a law allowing any entity anywhere to hack into campaign computers to post whatever it is they want? Why not require all campaigns to turn over all emails, letters, memos, correspondence, as it happens to be published in massive data dumps every week? Maybe we can even turn it into a full panopticon and require every person drawing a salary from a political campaign to be wired and wear a body cam 24x7, with all data setup as a torrent?

Reads like your trying to be cute, but considering the extreme amount of power and trust we place in our elected officials, considering the wide opportunity and historic precedent of our elected politicians betraying their constituents for cash and power, I'd say this is a pretty swell idea. I didn't see much resistance to police body cams last year....

I don't think its would be best for EVERYBODY to have access to this data dump, but perhaps a panel comprised of the other team and a few independents and peers, that changes every few weeks/months/years/whatever. The more bitter the enemies, the better. Our politicians need to stroll on some eggshells for a while.

I would add a zero tolerance policy in regards to things like corruption and graft, as well as heavy mandatory minimum sentences (in big boy no golf course jail) and forfeiture of assets to a coffer meant to pay the salary of the panel members. We can charge the assets themselves, so these guys can't even afford a lawyer or bail while they rot waiting for court that never comes. We can call it civil-civil-forfeiture.

Whenever it's decided that some scum DID betray his office, ALL of his/her data gets scrubbed for national secrets (by the panel of enemies and peers) and dumped on the betrayed portion of public. If innocent, well, time in the clink was paid public service, I bet prisons will see quick reform as well.

Damn fine idea. Feels like this particular shoe has been on the other foot for a while now... Might just fix the whole damn apple.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[Noble713]

1. Wikileaks offered a $130,000 reward for information regarding Seth Rich's murder. It's unprecedented in their history. Why would they do that? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
2. The OANN requested information leading to the doctor who treated Seth Rich. Their website was immediately DDOS'd. Who most stands to gain from such an action? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
3. This former DC Detective/PI says his "insider sources" suggest that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks and that the DCPD was told to stand down on their murder investigation. Why are his sources considered any less reputable than WaPo "sources", which have a VERY well-known and demonstrable political bias and agenda? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

Re:Timeline of Treason

[david_thornley]

Clinton's mishandling of data was investigated, and was found to be the sort of thing that is never prosecuted. Where should the FBI have gone from there? The collusion of the DNC was the private actions of a private organization, and involved nothing illegal.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bongey]

Point to one thing that Trump has done, that has hard evidence that shows Trump breaking the law? (Hint there is nothing, with solid evidence)
HRC issues point pack to tons of items that can be link to specific law that was broken. The laws she has broken has sent others to prison for the exact reason, James Comey's reasoning for not prosecuting her was because her name is Clinton and she is going to have shit load of lawyers. I mean she brought more than 6 lawyers to her FBI interview, she should have been allowed only ONE.

Re:Timeline of Treason

[bongey]

TLDR the entire "may or may not be" a big deal , they have been saying that since July 2016. You need at least ONE THING that needs to turn into something, so far it is just the MSM going "OMG TRUMP" and it's getting old.

Re: Timeline of Treason

[Brockmire]

You've gone full retard.

covfefe

[Anonymous Coward]

covfefe

Sure thing, Vlad!!

[haruchai]

The CIA also faked all those meetings & communications between Russians & Flynn, Manafort, Kushner too

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there are 17 intel agencies agreed on the issue of Russian hacks and meddling, based on direct transcripts.

Whereas in the case of W. Bush misleading about WMD's, there was a singular source being trumped-up by a singular agency into a "compelling" case for emergency military action.

Comparing the two is a Fox News level of analysis.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a Greek, that i like/love both Russia and USA, so i will try to answer you as a Greek to a barbarian (please excuse any semi-humorous characterization(s)): NO, CIA did NOT "faked all those meetings & communications between Russians & Flynn, Manafort, Kushner too" (most probably) - no need to do such a thing since YOU (singular AND plural) are dumb enough to be convinced that such -normal at any time, even at war between enemies- "meeting & communications" (if happened) are suspicious... by the fake news media that dare to try to manipulate you AND me...

Oh... you are insulted by a Greek who called you a dumb barbarian... but will you feel insulted by the "official" video with Megyn Kelly and Vladimir Putin from the NBC channel, that mistranslates and -maybe most importantly- deletes the important parts of Putins's answers? I leave it to you (or to any fellow slashdoter that may want to help - especially if he is a JEW!) to discover the parts of the video that are missing, and a true translation.

Sorry for my "French" but when i, a Greek, with only his native Greek and his bad English, can understand Russian, YOU are inexcusably dumb, even for a barbarian!

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[MightyMartian]

A good deal of the monitoring of Russia extends beyond the United States, and certainly the British intelligence community has its own suspicions about Trump.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[MightyMartian]

Oh for fuck's sakes, have you ever heard of Five Eyes? Britain in the US in particular have many points of contact, which is why Britain was so pissed off about pictures of evidence from the Manchester suicide attack ending up splashed on the cover of US newspapers.

These spurious objections could snapshotted and used as an illustration of proverbial ostriches with their heads in the sand.

Slashdot isn't (yet) an Alt-right safe space. Head on over to Breitbart if that's what you're looking for.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[skids]

Which is interesting because the U.S. does not HAVE 17 intelligence agencies which would all have any knowledge or expertise

Gah the idiocy of this comment: 17 intellegence agencies reached a consensus after pooling their collective knowledge of the individual bits and peices.. and yes, every one of them has "expertise" in their own particular areas, which is why they were consulted. Is it that hard to understand?

Stop being a sophomore and realize these agencies do more than you know... because they are fucking intellegence agencies and you're not supposed to know everything they do.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[king neckbeard]

So, what did the DEA add to the conversation? Coast Guard Intel? Department of Energy? Did nobody pay attention to the Patriot Act? We have the conclusion of "17 agencies" because James Clapper made a statement. You know, that guy that blatantly lied to congress about the NSA.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[king neckbeard]

The 17 agencies isn't Five Eyes, it's Homeland Security. There weren't 17 independent investigations. James Clapper said something, and that counts as 17 agencies because he's technically over all of them. Did you not READ even the outline of the Patriot Act?

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[TheRealMindChild]

Whereas in the case of W. Bush misleading about WMD's, there was a singular source being trumped-up by a singular agency into a "compelling" case for emergency military action.

I see what you did there

Re: Sure thing, Vlad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's comical to hear you brag about being a Greek, when your people have produced essentially nothing meaningful in the way of art, science, philosophy, technical progress, or innovative thought of any kind in 2000 years, and you only "rediscovered" your ethnic identity when British and German classicists convinced you in the 19th centuries that you weren't Romans.

If anything, modern Greeks are distinguished by their utter lack of achievement in intellectual endeavors, their chauvinism and bigotry, and their ability to drive banking systems governments, including the EU, into dissolution through ubiquitous cheating and malfeasance.

In the meantime, "JEWS," regardless of ethnicity or national origin, have dominated the ranks of Nobel Laureates and have had a major hand in creating nearly every aspect of the modern technological world we live in, despite systematic, nation state-backed attempts at their annihilation.

Go back to your hell-hole in Athens and weep as the Parthenon, along with what's left of any relevance you have to modern society, crumbles into dust.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[Wizardess]

Please explain to me in simple terms what is illegal about this alleged activity? Regardless of whether we can prove it or not there is nothing that makes this activity illegal at the "treason" level so many people are screaming about.

And if it is illegal, perhaps Barack H. Obama should be tried for messing with Israeli election politics and Thai politics among others. If WE do it to others, what right do we have to complain when others do it to us?

This "thing" is a huge nothing-burger.

{o.o}

Re: Sure thing, Vlad!!

[Bartles]

There is no crime. Not even an allegation of a crime. Just innuendo created by nebulous contacts illegally leaked by anonymous sources.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that the "17 intelligence agencies" were supposedly U.S. agencies according to the "news" articles.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[unixisc]

The only 3 data collection agencies are the CIA, FBI and the NSA. All the other agencies just analyze the data from different scopes. So one would have to look at the raw data and determine whether Russia hacked, or whether Wikileaks hacked and passed on the info to Russia

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[unixisc]

A good deal of the monitoring of Russia extends beyond the United States, and certainly the British intelligence community has its own suspicions about Trump.

That British agency that was thought to spy on Trump denied it to the point that even FNC retracted the story & benched Judge Neopolitano for a few days. In fact, if they did do anything like it, the Trump administration would be well within its rights to embargo the UK for interfering in the domestic affairs of the US. After all, there is nothing in the statutes that says that it's not okay for hostile countries like Russia to interfere, but okay for friendly countries like Britain to do it. So the same aggressiveness that's shown against Lt Gen Michael Flynn can just as legitimately be used by whoever the Obama administration's contact was w/ the British spy agency

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[unixisc]

I would trust Putin over Obama's intel agents, given what they've tried to do to him every step of the way - from leaking his private conversations w/ leaders of Australia & Mexico to leaking the intel on the Manchester bombers. Trump needs to purge all these agencies of Obamaniks. There was nothing illegal in what Michael Flynn did in talking to the Russians: the only issues post facto was him retroactively registering as a lobbyist for Turkey, which was deplorable. The intel agencies had no business leaking what Flynn was up to.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[unixisc]

Not just that, the secret lines of communications that Obama opened w/ Iran and having a flight ship unmarked bank notes there as ransom for hostages would be more akin to treason than anything Michael Flynn did, including his lobbying for Turkey

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[haruchai]

"I would trust Putin over Obama's intel agents"

There's no hope for you. What Trump's cronies didn't learn from Nixon was that the coverup & trying to defeat the investigation can be more damaging than the crime.

"the only issues post facto was him retroactively registering as a lobbyist for Turkey, which was deplorable"
About that "Turkish" work of his....seems it also is tied back to Russia. Just how many layers of Russian dolls are there in the Trump administration?

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[haruchai]

If the GOP wants to have an investigation into that money, that's okay with me. The fact that they haven't when they were so eager to have multiple Benghazi investigations repeatedly covering the same ground convinces me that there's a whole lot of nothing there

https://www.mediamatters.org/r...

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[cyberchondriac]

Slashdot isn't (yet) an Alt-right safe space. Head on over to Breitbart if that's what you're looking for.

You Dems should really stop with the silly attempt at turning the tables with the "safe space" thing. It's really lame, unoriginal.. even immature. I don't see the trump supporters or defenders (not necessarily the same group) claiming trauma, or feeling threatened and unsafe by dissenting comments, or needing counseling because someone wrote, "Trump colluded with Russia" somewhere in chalk.
The overreaction at Emory was ridiculous. In contrast, had a couple of ISIS supporters run over and killed half a dozen students with a truck in the quad, I suspect they and the faculty would have been only marginally more upset at best.
What I see here is normal debate, aback and forth over debated issues and points, questioning of sources, the normal stuff we've always seen.
Try something else.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[bongey]

And how was that illegal? You do realize Clinton talked to Russians during the campaign also. The real question is whether Clinton's folks were unmasked, if they weren't then Obama's Administration is guilty of far worse crimes than anything Trump might have done.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[bongey]

Maybe one or two out of the 17 intelligence agencies were consulted you idiot. The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote and signed off the report from the CIA. Just because the 17 organizations report to the DNI doesn't mean 17 contribute to a report.

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[haruchai]

"I don't see the trump supporters or defenders (not necessarily the same group) claiming trauma, or feeling threatened and unsafe by dissenting comments, or needing counseling because someone wrote"

Izzat sew??

From the Great & Golden One himself:
"Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
  The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!"

https://twitter.com/connorfran...

Re:Sure thing, Vlad!!

[haruchai]

And how was that illegal? You do realize Clinton talked to Russians during the campaign also. The real question is whether Clinton's folks were unmasked, if they weren't then Obama's Administration is guilty of far worse crimes than anything Trump might have done.

Clinton made a point of badmouthing Putin whereas Trump, who didn't hesitate to call the Chinese "motherfuckers", wouldn't say a single unflattering thing about Vlad & has conducted a public bromance with him up until the Syria bombing.
Also, the ties between Trump, his staffers & campaigners far outweighs any relation between Clinton & same even though she's been in politics for 50 years and has been 1st Lady & Sec of State.

A sterling character witness...

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

"The defense calls Vladimir Putin..."

Re:A sterling character witness...

[Black Parrot]

I don't know why it's considered news when a politician, accused criminal, participant in a scandal, etc., says something that's utterly predictable without regard to the facts.

Re:A sterling character witness...

[ghoul]

Sounds more credible than the defense calling Hillary. Lock her up . Lock her up.

It's like listening to a Creationist

[smooth wombat]

"But you see, Evolution can't be right because. . ."

"No, you're wrong. We've gone over this dozens of times before."

"Well then, there's this which means. . ."

"No, it doesn't. You're wrong again. I just explained why you're wrong."

"But that doesn't include this which. . ."

"Yes, it does. You're wrong. Get over it. You're plain, flat out wrong. Nothing you say makes sense. All of it's been shown to be false."

"Nuh uh. I still have. . . . my imagination."

Re:It's like listening to a Creationist

[Fire_Wraith]

Or on Climate Change. Or on really anything else that doesn't fit with their preferred outcome - they'll ignore the facts and focus on any reed no matter how thin to cling to. If you manage to knock that away, they'll shift to something else. They can't possibly admit they just might be wrong. It's a dogmatic, as opposed to scientific, approach. "The earth is flat and the sun revolves around it because clearly it does, and that's what I've always believed, so I always will."

Re:It's like listening to a Creationist

[bongey]

Point to some hard evidence that Russian hacked anything. The only evidence links back to a Russian VPN service IP address, which means anyone could have been hacker.

Re: It's like listening to a Creationist

[Bartles]

This is it. The only evidence of a hacking ever presented was some software that any enterprising 12 year old could have downloaded and a Ukrainian ip address. All collected by a firm paid by the DNC, while the FBI was not allowed to examine the servers. It's all bullshit.

Re:It's like listening to a Creationist

[pellik]

Creationists are a poor example. You can't argue with them based on facts or logic like your posts implies because they have dismissed such things before coming to the table. The idea that you can present a back and forth argument with a fictional creationist even feels absurd.

Re:It's like listening to a Creationist

[sl3xd]

Let's not forget the oldies but goodies:

* Tobacco is a healthy activity everybody can enjoy
* Tobacco is not addictive at all, how dare you suggest it is?
* OK, maybe Tobacco is addictive, but it's not harmful
* OK, maybe Tobacco is harmful, but it's not hurting others
* So we were caught adding additional nicotine to make it as addictive as possible -- how does that make us the bad guys? We haven't done anything wrong

* tetraethyl lead (leaded gasoline) is not harmful, and it makes our cars run great
* Maybe the safety standards were not ideal at the factory, but leaded gas really poses no danger to anyone else
* Just because we detect significant amounts of lead in children's bloodstream does not mean we're at fault - kids must be eating paint chips!
* What do you mean lead paint was banned, and levels of lead in the blood are still rising? That mountain of research over several decades means NOTHING! We're the victim here! Why should everybody suffer poor automotive performance?
* Just because you got one car - which you've spent trillions of dollars to create - run great without tetraethyl lead does not mean banning it is a solution!

At the end of the day, there are always going to be a lot of folks that will try to discredit any sort of new knowledge, especially if it makes their interests look bad.

Re:It's like listening to a Creationist

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

"But but.. humans can't possibly affect the environment! It would be so arrogant to think man could do that!" (Tosses on 30 spf sunscreen to counter the hole in the ozone layer caused by manmade cfcs)

Re: It's like listening to a Creationist

[sl3xd]

By all accounts, the DNC, and the Democratic sitting President were very willing to let the FBI investigate, and it was widely published that the FBI did get access to the servers. (Which are not the same thing as the Clinton's private server, which is I think where your confusion lies).

The dose of reality is that the FBI does not release evidence in any open investigation - or to closed investigations they didn't prosecute.

The FBI loves to collect evidence of all kinds -- even if it's not used. When dealing with organized crime, or foreign interference, non-actionable evidence can still be quite useful for other investigations, even if it is years down the road.

But the facts we know:

* There has been no evidence that's been published.
* At this point, we have are some anonymous tips - which doesn't make the accusation true or false.
* We also have well-published behavior in the white house that smacks to seasoned reporters as "doth protest too much, methinks".

Reporters are naturally cynical, and rightfully so - the best known method to know a politician is lying is if his lips are moving. Given the choice between believing a source (that the reporter knows, though we do not), versus a politician making a scene far larger than is typical... the press isn't going to favor the politician.

Re: It's like listening to a Creationist

[Bartles]

Show me where you saw that the FBI was granted access to examine the DNC servers.

Re: It's like listening to a Creationist

[bongey]

Nice try , Comey in Jan said the DNC DENIED direct access to the servers, multiple times and the FBI never got access. http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

Re: It's like listening to a Creationist

[sl3xd]

Which is a different story than the DNC tells - they claim that the FBI hired a 3rd party to look at the servers.

So we're stuck with 'he said, she said' between parties that have a history of obfuscation and CYA

Foundations of Geopolitics

[Tenebrousedge]

Any timeline of these events should probably start with this book. So far things are proceeding as planned, and ultimate success seems likely.

Re:Foundations of Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

You *do* know that the Elder Protocols of Zion was debunked as a fabrication, right?

Re: Foundations of Geopolitics

[Boronx]

The elections wasn't rigged, it was influenced, which is nothing new in general, but rare for the U.S. Certainly undesirable. "Distant" Foreign leader? WTH does that mean? If Putin is stooping to make fake posts on Slashdot, he's doing a thorough job of it.

Re: Foundations of Geopolitics

[dbIII]

Good to know that throwing an election isn't as bad as having a private email server. Maybe Hillary should have tried that instead?

Re: Foundations of Geopolitics

[Kiuas]

If Putin is stooping to make fake posts on Slashdot, he's doing a thorough job of it.

Oh you can be sure he is. How do I know? There are Russian professional trolls even in Finnish news articles and forums which have a readership that's a fraction of Slashdot's. The estimates on how many people are actively working for the so called troll brigades vary, but we're probably talking at least a couple hundred. It's an extremely well orchestrated global operation:

Today, FAN forms the core of a media empire consisting of 16 news websites. Collectively, they employ over 200 full-time journalists and editors whose content attracts more that 30 million pageviews every month.

The monthly cost of running FAN and its sister sites is in the area of 20 million rubles ($350,000), RBC estimates. The source of the funding is unclear too, but most of the websites in the empire attract little if any ad revenue. Allegedly, the group has a mysterious sponsor, believed to be Yevgeni Prigozhin, who also known as “Putin’s Cook.”

Everyday, the sites churn out dozens of articles every day that praise Putin, cast Ukraine as a failed nazi state and expose the nefarious machinations of the United States. Still, FAN stands out. It exploits the unstable media labor market to lure in journalists from other publications with salaries above the market average. FAN even employs foreign reporters — RBC reports they are the most likely to be sent to Syria to provide coverage.

- -

At least one popular pro-Trump, anti-Clinton Facebook group called Secured Borders, says RBC, is managed from the St. Petersburg troll factory.

RBC claims it obtained a screenshot of the group’s advertisement statistics (available only to a Facebook group’s administrator) from someone who claims to be its owner, which confirmed that the group is managed from St. Petersburg.

Secured Borders boasts 140 thousand subscribers, and just one of its posts published at the height of the election campaign and heavily advertised on Facebook, reached 4 million people on Facebook, was “liked” more than 300 thousand times and shared more than 80 thousand times. RBC also reported that a right-wing Twitter account called Tea Party News, which is followed by 22 thousand other accounts, is also run from the St. Petersburg hub.

All in all, RBC’s sources say that at the zenith of the U.S. election campaign, the troll factory’s accounts across different social media platforms would churn out as many as 50 million posts a month, with anti-Clinton messages getting the most attention.

The Russians have an upper hand in this struggle of propaganda at the moment because they can generate any number of conspiratorial blog posts and 'alternative news' and then circulate them throughout social media through different fronts and groups as well as bot-accounts. The thing that makes this so effective is the level of precision in targeting that modern social media platforms allow them to have: you can craft several entirely different or even contradictory attack ads about someone and then target those so that they're only shown to people who're most likely to be influenced by said points.

So for example you can target people for whom gun rights are important and run ,material saying the opposing candidate is going to take your guns away. Meanwhile for the liberal crowd that doesn't care as much about gun rights you can use the 'in bed with bankers' card Etc.

It doesn't have to be true. The point is to flood the key areas/states with enough disinformation and misinformation to tip the balance over to the preferred side. And if you look at the amount of voters that secured him the win in the key states, we're talking about

Re: Foundations of Geopolitics

[WhiplashII]

What makes you say she didn't? The evidence of Hillary's election interference is far stronger than the evidence of Trump's interference (ironically, due to the alleged interference).

Neither got caught, to the extent that both are not in prison. Both certainly pushed as hard as they thought they could. It is unknown who went further.

Re: Foundations of Geopolitics

[dbIII]

The evidence of Hillary's election interference is far stronger

Do you really like having people laugh at you?

Re: Foundations of Geopolitics

[bongey]

Yep all of us are Russian FSB employees , we all voted Trump in the election too. Watch out , we are already in your house, QUICK check your closet right now.

Telling the truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling the truth about Democrats is now called "election meddling".

Inventing IP addresses

[Minupla]

I'm going to assume he's talking about spoofing, or the technique of inserting a packet stream into the internet and making it appear like it's come from somewhere else.

This is in fact easily done if what you're attempting to do is DDOS a system. Doing it in such a way as to hack a system is NOT childsplay.

Here's one problem. You're typically (in the childs play scenario. State actor level games are NOT child's play) transmitting in the blind. TCP requires a three-way handshake. Assuming no one involved in the internet today is dumb enough to allow source routing packets, and that everyone is using decent random number generators for their sequence numbers, you can't see the SYN/ACK response from the host (since that'll have gone to the IP you're impersonating)

Add in ANY type of cryptography and you're totally hosed, as even the oldest version of SSL required you to exchange secrets, and since you're transmitting in the blind you won't see the response secret and it's game over.

There was a time when it was possible, because TCP sequence numbers were guessable due to poor randomness in a number of TCP stacks. You could make an intelligence guess as to what the next sequence number would be and send some bracketing packets in the hopes of getting lucky (more likely on a slow system then on a busy one).

And if you take your waybackmachine to the 90s, you'd find that source routing packets were honoured. It's been awhile since I ran into a version of anything that had that turned on by default.

So unless you can get into the ISP that the victim machine is connected to, not happening for any real world situation. And pawning an ISP is decidedly not childs-play.

So I give this claim 4-CRC errors out of 5.

Min

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[king neckbeard]

Given the low evidentiary standards used for blame attribution in these kinds of things, all that was needed to flag Russia is using a Russian based TOR exit node. IIRC, a large number of IPs associated with "Russian hackers" were just TOR exit nodes. The other evidence is activity times and Cyrillic characters and usernames. All stuff accessible to a moderately competent 4channer.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[Fire_Wraith]

Not all attribution is equal, just like not all evidence is equal. A lot of evidence cited in attribution is definitely circumstantial. Reuse of malware is just one example I've seen cited. But that's not all there is - there's also a number of other things to look at, such as means and motive.

That said, it's one thing to spoof your IP. It's another to try and convincingly plant enough evidence that someone else did a complex attack, especially after that code has been picked over by experts. That's not to say people don't try it - but when even advanced nation state actors make code errors that cause entire malware campaigns to get caught and unravel (see the programming error that caused Stuxnet to be discovered, for instance), it's hard to think that someone could perfectly fake all the evidence. Not impossible, certainly, but far from easy.

And we've seen at least one recent example of someone trying it and failing. The Lazarus group (commonly linked to North Korea) tried to put in a bunch of Russian/Cyrillic into some of their malware, only to have it pointed out as nothing like what a native Russian speaker would use. (See http://baesystemsai.blogspot.c... )

Ultimately, if someone wants to make an accusation that an attack was a false flag, I'd like to see proof of that. I'm not going to believe some crazy wild Rube-Goldberg-esque scenario over a seemingly straightforward and obvious one, especially when the arguments for the former are coming from the very people who stand most to gain from the attack, or from deflecting blame, or even just sowing confusion about it.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[king neckbeard]

But I've seen no evidence of a complex attack. We've only seen super-obvious phishing, and nothing that couldn't be covered by using Russian malware over TOR.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[PopeRatzo]

So I give this claim 4-CRC errors out of 5.

My friend, you better start checking your food for polonium.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[bongey]

VPN idiot, and those were exactly the "russian ip" addresses were coming from.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[Sarten-X]

You're not looking in (or being shown) the right places. As one example, I'll explain the Podesta "hack". Everything I say here comes from a particular thread on Twitter, which does a far better analysis than I will attempt here, or sources linked therein.

Yes, it was phishing. I wouldn't call the phish email "super-obvious", as it matches Google's style pretty much exactly. The key detail is that the phish link went to a bit.ly site, notably created via the bit.ly API, which requires creating an account. From information leaked from that account by researchers at the time, the same phishing campaign went to about 1800 people, individually targeted but using a common framework.

It's primarily from that mass of targets that we can determine motive, and from that we can attribute who had that motive. Almost two thirds of the targets were either military personnel or authors. Of the authors, about half were experts on Russia or the Ukraine. Of the military and government personnel, two thirds were U.S.-based, 14% were linked to NATO, and a few key Syrian rebel personnel were targeted as well.

Basically, the campaign that hit Podesta also targeted a lot of other folks, and the common thread is that Russia would want intelligence on them. There was no malware involved to be dissected, and no attempt to hide the origin of the campaign. In fact, the only way the analysis was possible was because the attackers had not set their bit.ly account private before they were discovered (though they did later). If the account were private, tracing a single victim's attack would have led only to a probably-hijacked server with a .tk domain.

(end citing the Twitter thread)

Similarly, other attacks can be attributed by the infrastructure they use. Some recent attacks on election committees, for example, used C&C servers that had previously been used in other attacks against Turkish and Ukranian governments, strongly indicating that the perpetrators of all the attacks were adversarial to Turkey and Ukraine.

In other attacks where malware and persistence are involved (like the DNC hack), expert analysis usually relies on identifying precisely which APT group is responsible for the attack. Each APT typically operates independently, using their own in-house-developed tools and preferred techniques. That's perfectly reasonable, because when the goal is stealth, an attacker will use the techniques they're most comfortable with to avoid costly mistakes. Once they are identified, though, that becomes a weakness, as the same pattern can be identified in other victim systems.

It is easy to spoof identifiers. Names, strings, and addresses can all be manipulated. What is more difficult to fake are behavior patterns. When a server starts seeing access requests for files starting every day at 2AM and ending at 10AM, it's a decent indicator that somebody with a seven-hour time zone difference is poking at your systems. Yes, that can be manipulated by having the attack teams work at odd hours, but it's just another bit of data. Then there's the localization of tools, exempted targets, and even the order in which tools are deployed.

Remember: These aren't amateurs. The attackers involved are professionals, clocking in and doing a job. There are the good ones, there are the sloppy ones, and there are the managers who make stupid decisions they have to deal with, just like in any other government office. They have their routines they follow to make it through the day, and it's through analysis of those routines that analysts learn about the attackers.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[J Story]

What rings so false about the hacking claims is that a presumed elite hacker or hacking team would be so clumsy as to leave evidence of its true origins. I think that the more valuable question is to ask "who benefits from leaving Russian fingerprints?" The Democrats, obviously, because it feeds into their pre-built narrative, but from all appearances, they're too technologically inept. If it truly was a state actor, then my guess would be China or North Korea, since both have the skill, and both would benefit from the ensuing political chaos, giving them more latitude to advance their interests. More likely, however, is that the Russia connection was simply a by-product of the hackers covering their tracks.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[Boronx]

What rings false are doubters who think residuals from the hack are the only evidence to be had, or who don't believe the NSA is better at the game than the Russians are, that it's impossible they could detect something that the Russians didn't notice.

For example, U.S. intelligence seems to have very good eavesdropping at the highest levels of the Russian state. Using that kind of intelligence they wouldn't need *any* evidence from the actual hack to determine whether the Russian government did it.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[king neckbeard]

Google using a bit.ly link is what makes it "super-obvious." It doesn't take all that much sophistication to copy the style of a page. But, the assessment that there is "moderate confidence" that the Podesta leaks were part of a widespread, relatively low-level phishing attempt by the Russian state is something I can actually buy. The ridiculous hyperbole from far less technical sources was a major fuel for my skepticism. A more realistic assessment is more convincing, but not nearly as scary as they make it out to be (other than the technical incompetence of those around very important people).

Thank you for actually posting an adult explanation that a slashdotter can stomach.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[Boronx]

Thanks for telling us what the NSA knows. Now give us an insider's scoop on the other intelligence agencies.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[MillionthMonkey]

Actually Podesta suspected the email was a phish, but wasn't sure. He sent a screenshot to someone he thought would know (I forget who).

The person wrote him back to tell him the email was illegitimate. Unfortunately he was one of those idiots who types what he hears himself say, so the email said "That's a legitimate email" (i.e. illegitimate), and Podesta clicked on the link.

Re: Inventing IP addresses

[Bartles]

Ok, what does the NSA know?

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[unixisc]

If Podesta's password was 'password', it doesn't take Russian hackers or Wikileaks hackers to break into his email. People argue that Russians can break into accounts just like Russians can slip polonium tablets into somebody's tea. Except that whereas one has to have SVR agents physically there to do the latter, the former can be done by any well informed kid in his mom's basement w/ a good gaming PC.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[Thaelon]

>believe the NSA is better at the game than the Russians are

Why would you think that they are better? National pride? This neo-McCarthysim is just a distraction from the blatant corruption in the DNC.

Russia didn't write the emails, the DNC leadership did. And wikileaks, not Russia exposed them.

Remember, Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia!

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[Boronx]

I'm guessing the NSA is better because they have more money. I'm assuming the level of cleverness is about equal on both sides, although more money equals more clever people. There's an implicit attitude that the Russians are just better at this game than us, but I doubt that's the case. Taken in total, the various news stories suggest that we're better.

Remember that even though Oceania hadn't always been at war with Eurasia, they were at war with Eurasia.

The Ecuadorians shut down Assange's internet because they were convinced that the Russians were using their embassy as a conduit to affect U.S. elections. I'm sure they know more about it than either you or me.

Re:Inventing IP addresses

[bongey]

All your evidence is from a company that sells network harding equipment. Sure they are going to say "it's the Russians" , the Cold War was great for military contractors like the one you linked too. Also they don't list any raw data, all I see is a bunch of meaningless graphs.

The real point

[kelanos]

Our government has absolutely no transparency and our interests are not represented. Our country is essentially occupied by globalists.

Everything else is a distraction, and odds are you fall for it at least once in a while as we all do.

Engaging in the 'left vs. right' war is profoundly unhealthy. No responsible person acts this way.
The real war is 'rational vs. irrational'. We're all being made to pay for the ignorance of philosophy in education.

Instead of unifying with people we have most in common with we are fighting each other on behalf of our 'political leaders' that we have very little in common with and are indeed cruelly exploited by.

The globalist occupation (and every evil thing that goes with it)might seem like too hard of a problem to take on, but it's the condition under which you live. Deal with it or deal with natural selection.

You can't elect some one to live your life for you.
Picking a side is not a valid choice.

Re:The real point

[MightyMartian]

Congress still holds the cards, and you can be sure the moment the GOP begins to legitimately fear loss of one or both houses of Congress due to Trump, they'll give him the toss. Every day, every outburst, demonstrates, apart from any potential collusion with Russia, his complete unsuitability for the position, but the Republicans have to be sure that impeachment and removal won't do them more harm than good. But really, when you look at what is actually happening in Congress, you can see pretty clearly that the Republicans are being obstructionist, in the nicest possible way. Ryan and McConnell act like they're bestest pals of the White House, and yet there's not much happening at all. Oh sure, it will always be blamed on the Freedom Caucus, or the Democrats, or parliamentary procedures, or any ol' convenient excuse, but Trump has few real fans in Congress. They realize they have an infantile halfwit surrounded by some pretty damned questionable people, so they'll obstruct him, but for their own political fortunes, they have to make it look like it's opposition and process, and not them deliberately sabotaging him.

It seems unlikely the replacement health care will be passed, and really Ryan threw it to the Senate with a big pile of money hoping the Senate can turn this shit sandwich into something palatable. It's even possible it will never get to the Senate floor. Then there's tax reform, good luck with that. Let's talk about all that spending Trump committed to, there isn't going to be a wall, and I doubt there'll be any more infrastructure spending.

Trump can cause a lot more trouble on the foreign stage, but thus far other than insulting foreign leaders, about his biggest impact is pulling of the Paris agreement, which probably the majority of Republicans were in favor of anyways. As to Executive Orders, well, we'll see what the Supreme Court says, but the fact that he and his mouthpieces were so dimwitted as to tell the entire world they were going to seek a Muslim ban will likely compromise the whole damned ban a non-starter due to the First Amendment.

I can't imagine Trump will even want the job in a year or so, even if they decide not to remove him.

Re:The real point

[Gravis Zero]

Our government has absolutely no transparency and our interests are not represented.

Agreed. However, what you lack is the why. The reason why this has happened is because...

• * the reductionist election scheme of first-past-the-post has ensured one two parties can survive. After many iterations of tactical voting we have ended up with only truly horrible candidates.
• * hyperpartisanship has proliferated partly as a result of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.
• * the extreme influx of money in politics and the extremely poor state of campaign financing.
• * data driven gerrymandering has resulted in a least representative set of officials in a democracy.

Our country is essentially occupied by globalists.

Seems like "globalists" is the replacement boogeyman for "communists".

The real war is 'rational vs. irrational'.

I agree. It's irrational to allow politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. It's irrational to think one particular ideology is to blame. It's irrational to believe the situation will improve without reforming the system to ensure the fairness of elections.

We're all being made to pay for the ignorance of philosophy in education.

It's not a lack of philosophy that is the problem, it's a lack of basic economics that are based on reality rather than an ideology.

The globalist occupation (and every evil thing that goes with it)might seem like too hard of a problem to take on, but it's the condition under which you live. Deal with it or deal with natural selection.

Replace "globalist" with "communist" and you're a dead ringer for a mccarthyist.

Re:The real point

[buddyglass]

Word salad. Though, this kind of makes me want to print up a T-shirt that says "Proud Globalist" and wear it around town.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

Congress still holds the cards, and you can be sure the moment the GOP begins to legitimately fear loss of one or both houses of Congress due to Trump, they'll give him the toss.

I used to think that, but given the present GOP's spinelessness and lack of organization, they're gonna fuck up that part too.

Re:The real point

[PopeRatzo]

Our government has absolutely no transparency and our interests are not represented. Our country is essentially occupied by globalists.

You could always apply for an H1-B visa. But you better hurry.

Re:The real point

[PopeRatzo]

Congress still holds the cards, and you can be sure the moment the GOP begins to legitimately fear loss of one or both houses of Congress due to Trump, they'll give him the toss.

No, they can't give him the toss, because their base will abandon them. Remember, it's the mainstream GOP that's been courting the Trump voters since Nixon's Southern Strategy. Trump is the poison fruit of the GOP tree.

And because they only hold power in the House of Representatives due to extreme gerrymandering, any loss of base will mean an utter wipeout. Whether they like it or not, Trump will be the hill the GOP has chosen to die on. There is no Plan B.

Re:The real point

[kelanos]

word salad

and some Jeal-O-ous for desert

great criticism though

Re:The real point

[rholtzjr]

They are doing that all by themselves. They do not need Trump to accomplish that task.

I still think we should fire every single Congress critter and never let them hold office again regardless of which side of the political spectrum they are on

Re:The real point

[kelanos]

Your choice to label me "McCarthyist" in reference to a particular interpretation of historical events instead of coming up with a rational description that doesn't require a reference is very telling. You're appealing to authority instead of making your own point. I'm not sure you have a right to talk about rationality since you talk about what is rational and what is not and don't hint as to why.

McCarthy was 100% correct in his claims that the United States was heavily infiltrated by 'communists'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The label 'communist' was chosen because this was most understandable to the general population, but in fact I am talking about the successor faction when I say 'globalists'.

You learned that the "Red Scare" was false in history class and you get stuck on 'labels' thinking you're being smart not falling for a blanket definition for a nebulous enemy presence.

In reality what you're doing is refusing to identify your enemy because your enemy taught you that doing so is bad through their control of the education system, the media, and the banks (which they use to pressure you economically into jumping to a conclusion and resting in one party camp or the other).

It's pretty simple. The victor writes history. And the 'communists' won that war.

Pray tell, who is the enemy then and how can they be described? If you know so much better, can you not enlighten us?

Anyone who does business internationally on the scale of the globalist clique is our enemy in this country. Your hesitance to label them comes from your indoctrination into their political charade.

Time to man up and stand up to the big bully on the playground. Or time to die in a corner alone. Your choice. Things are coming to a head.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

GOP's spinelessness

Now that's funny!

Re:The real point

[Boronx]

Weapons are now too powerful to allow ultra nationalists to have their way. Ever give any thought to what will happen when Putin dies? He can' t safely appoint a successor.

Re:The real point

[Boronx]

"You learned that the "Red Scare" was false in history class and you get stuck on 'labels' thinking you're being smart not falling for a blanket definition for a nebulous enemy presence."

No I didn't. You should go to school instead of just reading about what happens there. Both the communists and the red scare were great. They instilled into the American rich a healthy fear of the working class, which lead to generous concessions.

Your basic error is this: in the US, we allow nebulous enemy presences, because it's a free country. You don't like it, you can leave.

Re:The real point

[kelanos]

Wow, blind combativeness without any argument and glossing over important events with the greatest generalization possible.

You have no idea what freedom is, I'd wager.

Your idea of 'one stroke and done' is beyond ludicrous.
Even if the rich were 'scared' as you say, you think that fear has lasted until today?

generous concessions

like mass surveillance?
like the media bludgeoning everyone with stupidity?
like the federally mandated stripped down public education?
like the constant financial turmoil: bubbles, national debt, inflation, etc?

No, in this country, the true citizens do not tolerate tyranny.
Since you don't like this fact, I insist that you leave.
You're uninformed, lazy, and belligerent. Seriously, get out.

Re:The real point

[dbIII]

Congress still holds the cards

The Senate does. Trump is above the law and above Congress so long as the Senate comes down on his side in any impeachment/s.

Re:The real point

[drinkypoo]

Trump can cause a lot more trouble on the foreign stage, but thus far other than insulting foreign leaders, about his biggest impact is pulling of the Paris agreement,

Nope. Even as far as mere ecological impact goes, hobbling the EPA is worse. Now, I'm not saying that we should have pulled out of the agreement, but it was basically a waste of time and effort. It does rubberstamp pollution by developing nations, including China, which is already doing the most pollution. It allows them to pollute more! Fat fucking waste of time. Should never have existed in the first place, let alone should we have become signatories, because it excuses bad behavior.

Re: The real point

[drinkypoo]

", said the increasingly nervous liberal pussy.

You know, homophobic people are mostly secret queers, and only people who think there's something wrong with a vagina use it as an insult.

Re:The real point

[Gravis Zero]

Pray tell, who is the enemy then and how can they be described?

The mistake is thinking it's any one group that has done this to the US. If it were so clean cut like that then it would be obvious to everyone but it's not. The present state of our nation is a confluence of human efforts to do what they think is best. Read what I listed as the "why" and you may understand that there is plenty of blame to go around.

Re: The real point

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

No. Yokes thrown over industry wreck it, leaving everyone worse off rather than raising the maples up.

This whole discussion is idiotic, having nothing to do with the OP, and is most likely due to paid astroturfing to inject distracting outrage trollings.

Re:The real point

[kelanos]

Isn't the goal to DEFINE one group based on their behavior?

to do what they think is best

are you kidding? that doesn't mean anything. some people act from morality, some from greed, etc. They have nothing in common, certainly nothing that could be labelled 'best'. That's a gross oversimplification.

Trying to abstract the will to take action as 'blame'?

People are doing very bad things that they clearly couldn't do without the complicity of many others of similar sort.

How can you solve any problem that is caused by a man if you cannot say who that man is? Are you totally resigned to have things go this way for your children or at least for the future generations? In which case, why are you even bothering to respond?

Re:The real point

[MightyMartian]

The point I'm making is that Trump is secure so long as the Republican base is onside. The same situation, for the most part, existed during Watergate. While the Dems controlled Congress at the time, an actual conviction would have required enough Republican Senators to side with the Democratic majority, and what made Nixon finally abandon the presidency was the knowledge that not only was the House going to vote for impeachment, but the loss of support for him among the Republican base meant that there wasn't going to be a Hail Mary pass in the Senate like the one that saved Andrew Johnson (who avoided conviction by one vote).

Trump's approval ratings are sliding again, and sooner or later that's going to start eroding the base. Whether it erodes it enough to convince enough GOP senators to jump ship is impossible to say, but one thing is clear, every day he seems to provide them with the necessary political cover should the time come when Republican lawmakers begin to see Trump as an anchor to their 2018 fortunes.

Re:The real point

[Gravis Zero]

Isn't the goal to DEFINE one group based on their behavior?

No, the goal is to figure out how to correct our political system. Assigning blame will do nothing to fix our present situation.

that doesn't mean anything. some people act from morality, some from greed, etc. They have nothing in common,

And now you understand why defining them as a single group is a foolish effort.

certainly nothing that could be labelled 'best'. That's a gross oversimplification.

Not at all, they are doing what they believe is in their best interest. What their interest is varies wildly. Also, I already wrote that it's irrational to blame any one group, so yeah, it's an oversimplification.

People are doing very bad things that they clearly couldn't do without the complicity of many others of similar sort.

Which is why we need to fix the system to prevent such complicit individuals from being in power.

How can you solve any problem that is caused by a man if you cannot say who that man is?

And that is why it's such a large challenge, because it's no one person or group.

Are you totally resigned to have things go this way for your children or at least for the future generations?

Not at all! I think very small changes in how we pick politicians can have seismic effects. Have you not read the reasons why things are why they are? Changing any of those things will make it easier to enact the others and eventually we'll have real reform. You need to look at the big picture.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

Ironic how easily conservative snowflakes get triggered.

Re:The real point

[Thaelon]

I agree with everything he said except instead of 'globalists' I would have said 'oligarchs'. Whether or not they're globalists or not is immaterial. They're the 0.1% who receive representation by congress when everyone else does not.

That they can be ousted or resisted by picking one of their political parties is laughable. They decide who wins the primaries, then we get to pick from their candidate pool: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawre...

The choice between D and R isn't freedom or representation, but a box to contain us.

Re:The real point

[Quantum gravity]

Our country is essentially occupied by globalists.

I assume then that you are proponent of the of the opposite of globalism, i.e. nationalism, and oppose multiculturalism? Personally the the connection between nationalism with militarism worries me.

Re:The real point

[Gravis Zero]

They're the 0.1% who receive representation by congress when everyone else does not.

Absolutely! This is why we need political campaign finance reform. When you level the playing field with elections, you are more likely to get someone that is more representative of the people.

That they can be ousted or resisted by picking one of their political parties is laughable. They decide who wins the primaries, then we get to pick from their candidate pool

We only need to limit the reach of their influence. It's like cutting the strings on a marionette doll, once cut there is a loss of control.

The choice between D and R isn't freedom or representation, but a box to contain us.

Which is exactly why we need to reform elections to get ranked voting enacted. Ranked voting allows you to vote who you really want while still voting for the lesser evil if who you want doesn't win.

Re:The real point

[kelanos]

But why?

The martial spirit is what has sustained our existence up until now. Why should things have changed so suddenly?

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

LOL! Even funnier! Who are the people protesting against certain types speaking on college campuses? They're certainly not conservatives as defined by your tabloids. On the other hand, the democrats in congress define spinelessness in their show of 'compromise' and appeasement (in reality just more corruption). Just another reason they keep losing more elections.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

That was beautiful. Completely off topic and wonderfully triggered, again.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

Ah, but you brought up the issue of spinelessness, in your usual one sided fashion. You should try to be more *Fair & Balanced*

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

Well, less an issue than an adjective, really. But you've long had a talent for turning gristle into steak.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

But you've long had a talent for turning gristle into steak.

:-) Given that's all you ever offer. Gotta make the best of it...

And your 'adjective' applies to all sides in this business, not just the ones you like to single out.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

And your 'adjective' applies to all sides in this business

See, that's the problem. This thread is talking about impeachment, a process that involves both Houses of Congress, both currently controlled by the GOP.

So, if you'd like to to twist yourself up trying to explain what the Dems have to do with this, by all means, go ahead.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

both currently controlled by the GOP

So what? That's because they won... And when you look at what they were up against, it's easy to see why. And on your impeachment bullshit, where's the admissible evidence?

You're leaning over so far. How do you stay upright?

Re:The real point

[Boronx]

No. The decline in this fear coincides with the decline in the Soviet Union starting in the 1970s. It is almost non-existent today.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

So what? That's because they won

I'll take "shit no one was arguing about" for &100, Alex.

And when you look at what they were up against, it's easy to see why.

I'll take "shit no one was even talking about" for $200, Alex.

And on your impeachment bullshit, where's the admissible evidence?

Beats me, I'm the guy making the point that impeachment isn't going to happen before 2018, not the guy arguing whether it has any merit or not.

How do you stay upright?

Apparently better than you, Don Quixote.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

It won't happen after 2018 either. You're delusional if you think anything is going to change.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

It won't happen after 2018 either.

Not a call worth making until the midterms.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

Pretty easy already. The 95% reelection rate is set in stone. The democrats are still wimps and won't do a thing. All their closets are full of skeletons too. And all their hysteria is not winning them any votes either. In fact it makes good campaign material for the republicans.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

The 95% reelection rate is set in stone.

Nah, Trump's fucking that up as well. Even you are feeling it since you've downgraded from 97% to 95%!

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

In my lifetime it has been as low as 90%. It's not enough to make a difference, and besides, it's still 100% republican and democrat. So in reality that is what the reelection rate actually is. Trump isn't changing anything. That's your tabloid press talking and your wishful thinking. There is nobody putting up any real competent opposition.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

It's not enough to make a difference

Usually. But we're in the Trump era now and the man is nothing if not unique.

That's your tabloid press talking

Actually, I'm using election results.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

Actually, I'm using election results.

Me too, though data is kinda light so far, but so far, everything looks kinda stable. Trump is having much less effect than you would like to think, much less in the direction you would like to think.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

Trump is having much less effect than you would like to think

Actually, he's having a lot more effect than I'd like to think. I hadn't previously appreciated his skills at petulance and disorganization.

much less in the direction you would like to think.

No, I'm fairly certain I have the direction of travel correct.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

No, I'm fairly certain I have the direction of travel correct.

In other words, a circle, and it will lead to the same old nothing that it always has, and then the role reversal will repeat its endless cycle once more.

Call Trump what you want. He is successfully dominating ALL media, worldwide. The effort to dethrone him is even more petulant and disorganized. It is only fortifying him and his fanbois.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

In other words, a circle

More shit we're not arguing about.

Call Trump what you want. He is successfully dominating ALL media, worldwide. The effort to dethrone him is even more petulant and disorganized. It is only fortifying him and his fanbois.

You really can't stay on topic, can you?

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

perfectly on topic to what you posted...

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

We were arguing about the size of swing leans in recent special elections. Your contention was that they weren't going in Democrats favour, I countered with actual evidence and you started moaning about circles, which is your oft-repeated and tedious virtue signaling of how it's all so pointless, maaaan. So, not only off-topic, but unwilling or unable to have a discussion on the merits in good faith of the topic at hand.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

Sounds like you're talking about the Yankees and the Dodgers. I like how you keep up with all the latest buzzwords and internet memes though.

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

I got nothin', so imma ditch

Sounds about right.

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

:-) Got more than you and your favorite witch doctor who couldn't see Trump from miles away..

Re:The real point

[Captain Splendid]

unrelated nonsense

Say again?

Re:The real point

[fustakrakich]

unrelated nonsense

Do tell!

Larger pattern

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's great friendship with Putin is part of a larger pattern. In general, he is very friendly toward authoritarian leaders, and hostile toward democratic ones.

The explanation for this pattern seems to be that he is a would-be authoritarian himself.

Re:Larger pattern

[Boronx]

Not just friendly toward authoritarian rulers, but actively supportive of their attacks on democracy and law.

I don't give a shit.

[BarbaraHudson]

Both the US and Russia (and the former Soviet Union) as well as the UK have a LOOONG history of interfering in the internal politics of other countries by covert and illegal means. You reap what you sow - and that applies equally to everyone.

Re:I don't give a shit.

[Fire_Wraith]

That's a great argument for not interfering in the future. It's not a great argument for what we should do about others doing it to us. The US has bombed lots of countries - does that mean we should just shrug our shoulders if other countries decide to come fire cruise missiles at us? My commute is bad enough without having to add road closures from bomb damage to it.

I can freely say that maybe we shouldn't bomb other countries, while simultaneously saying that we should be stopping them from bombing us.

Re:I don't give a shit.

[king neckbeard]

Here's what we should do about others doing it to us: Hire competent IT instead of awarding contracts to incompetent cronies, and brief important people on basic email security practices, including treating anything sent via email as if it were a public record.

Re:I don't give a shit.

[Boronx]

We can also demand the president reveal his financial entanglements with Russia and cooperate with the investigations.

Re:I don't give a shit.

[king neckbeard]

Yeah, but it'd much quicker to just send him to Nuremberg for his role in war crimes. Any senator that pushes for that will have my support.

Re:I don't give a shit.

[drinkypoo]

That's a great argument for not interfering in the future. It's not a great argument for what we should do about others doing it to us. The US has bombed lots of countries - does that mean we should just shrug our shoulders if other countries decide to come fire cruise missiles at us?

Nobody who wants to bomb us can afford a cruise missile. That's why they keep using suicide bombers, which are a lot cheaper — especially when we have lowered their value on human life by bombing them into radicalization.

Re:I don't give a shit.

[Boronx]

And why should anyone 'cooperate' with a witch-hunt? If the full force of the Federal government came after you for what you knew were totally made up charges would you 'fully cooperate' with such an investigation?

Am I president? Definitely. It worked for Clinton. They eventually got him on the one thing he tried to cover up: a blow job.

"O, I get it, by 'cooperate' you mean "admit guilt for something he didn't do", as I'm sure that's the only thing you'd accept as being 'cooperation'."

He's the president of the United States. If he wants to fight an investigation by his own justice department into other government officials, he should resign first. If he did nothing wrong, then cooperating does not mean admitting guilt.

Re:What difference does it make?

[Hognoxious]

[Russian accent] Vy do you vink zere vill *be* a 2020 election? [/Russian accent]

Re:What difference does it make?

[king neckbeard]

Hell yeah. I want ALL of our politicians dirty laundry aired. And American hackers can do the same to Putin. Then everybody wins.

People forget there are two separate questions

[93 Escort Wagon]

1) Did the Russians meddle in the election?
2) If #1 is true, did the Trump campaign collude with the Russians in their election meddling?

I'm no fan of the guy currently occupying the White House, but given Clinton's statements (while she was Secretary of State) regarding the 2012 Russian election... it's certainly plausible that the Great Bear Wrestler could have directed his hackers to target Clinton without colluding with anyone on the US side of things.

Part of what muddies the waters here is that Trump's narcissistic ego won't allow him to accept that he won the election despite losing the popular vote. In his fantasies he won by a landslide and received a huge mandate from the American populace. So he won't listen to his intelligence agencies who are certain the Russians meddled; he talks about massive voter fraud without the presence of any corraborating evidence whatsoever, and so on. This sort of behavior creates the appearance of guilt in many people's eyes, whether the guilt exists in reality or not.

It's certainly possible that his campaign is guilty of collusion with the Russians... but the mere existence of Russian meddling does not conflate to that.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[MightyMartian]

It's probable the Russians would have tried to muck things up without any collusion. Certainly they were doing the same thing in recent European elections, and so far as I know, there's no real evidence in those elections that the Kremlin Approved Party was in any kind of contact. The problem with the Trump campaign is that there are some serious smoking guns here, and whether or not Trump himself has been implicated, he seems to have gone out of his way to surround himself with some people with some pretty troubling ties to the Russians.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to 2 is most likely yes. The wheels of justice are slowly and methoically building a case to prove as such since removing a sitting President is a rare and serious affair.

Frankly, team Trump is staffed with a bunch of losers. They are political hack jobs that operate on the fringe and operate unethically since they don't have access to legitimate resources. Seriously look at them. They're ex military or politicians that have been bounced out for being scum.

Worst, most of them are massive egoists and narcissists like Trump himself (Trump likes those like himself). People like those that Russian security services are known to recruit. This is /well/ documented.

It's pretty damn clear that Trump's crew was supported by Russian state security services.. And they happened to catch a lucky break, grab the sails as the winds of change hit, and rode it quite shockingly in to office.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[bongey]

Clinton would have still LOST even without any of Podesta emails, which the MSM buried. Clinton still had the FBI and pediophile Anothony Weiner issue. Trying to make it ALL the hackers fault is just the DNC trying cover there asses.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[hazardPPP]

Part of what muddies the waters here is that Trump's narcissistic ego won't allow him to accept that he won the election despite losing the popular vote. In his fantasies he won by a landslide and received a huge mandate from the American populace.

He won 304:227 - that may not be a landslide but it's pretty convincing. He carried 10 more states than Clinton. It's only slightly less convincing than Obama's win over Romney. When we factor in the fact that everyone was convinced after the primaries that Hillary would mop up and defeat Trump with something like the most convincing electoral vote tally ever, Trump's victory might have very well felt like a landslide to him and his campaign, his ego and penchant for overstatements notwithstanding.

The popular vote is irrelevant. If the popular vote would've been the measure of victory, the campaigns would have looked and acted completely different. Trump might've won in that case too. He might've lost. We just don't know.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[kelanos]

It's the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Anyone and EVERYONE in the whole damn world with money and influence meddles in our elections.

Good god, can we demote everyone who takes stock in this "Russian hacking" propaganda to second class citizens without a vote? They clearly just believe whatever they hear with no critical thought involved.

What did the Russians hack? How did they influence the election? Am I taking crazy pills or has NO ONE ever described any of this?

but the FBI is investigating

that's not evidence....that's not even a strong implication....

Re: People forget there are two separate questions

[gl4ss]

Irrelevant. If he'd won by just 1 vote in each of the close states, he still would have won.

it is actually quite relevant because he keeps insisting he got more actual votes and because of voter fraud he did not win by even more.

which is of course bullshit, but on trumps general level of bullshit quite minor.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[drinkypoo]

In his fantasies he won by a landslide and received a huge mandate from the American populace.

Yes, that's exactly what the last president who lost the popular vote thought, too! And, shock amazement, he was also a Rethuglican.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[moeinvt]

Actually 3 questions.

1.5) If #1 is true, does "Russians" equate to "Russian government"?

Why couldn't it simply be a few Russian citizens with nationalistic motives? This wasn't like Stuxnet where the sophistication of the attack clearly suggested that a nation state was responsible.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[phantomfive]

Reportedly the Soviets spent decades trying to mess with elections during the cold war fwiw. I guess there's no real reason they would stop after the end.

Re:People forget there are two separate questions

[bongey]

"Smoking guns" , yep talking to Russian is smoking gun. I used to have a Russian roommate , guess I am Russian spy now. You do realize HRC talked to more Russians than Trump right?

Re:Putin never drove a truck into pedestrians...

[hey!]

No, he doesn't do DIY; he deals death wholesale.

Of all the candidates...

[Dracos]

Why would the CIA (or any of the alphabet agencies) move to put Trump in the White House? That's ludicrous.

If any sufficiently large group of independent US hackers wanted to get any of the 2016 candidates elected, they probably would have aided Bernie or McMullin.

Re:Of all the candidates...

[king neckbeard]

Who says that they wanted Trump in office? Maybe they wanted a weakened Clinton (who pissed off a lot of the intel community), and underestimated how bad of a campaign she was running.

Re:Of all the candidates...

[bongey]

Hillary Clinton got off for mishandling classified information , which anyone working at the NSA/CIA would have gone to jail for much less than what HRC did. I can specifically someone in the NSA/CIA doing it just for this reason alone.

Re:Of all the candidates...

[bongey]

Actually for this alone, I really think it was someone in the NSA/CIA.

Re:Of all the candidates...

[AHuxley]

The US mil, CIA, NSA, army, navy, intelligence groups are not like the expected clandestine services in most smaller nations.
They have been set up by different parts of the US gov and have to get their funding and present their success in very different ways.
Congress might have oversight and control total funding but operational issues are secret and the results might be long or short term and be very political.
The US army might be tired of having to watch the CIA and MI6 back "moderates" around the world. To find the moderates and "pro democracy forces" just told a few US political leaders and the CIA good story to get US support and funds.
When in power they revert to their true faith as expected.
The NSA might have been listening in to decades of moderates and know of their ability to charm the US for support.
The US mil needs upgrades and funding after years of wars. Changing nations around the world and backing color revolutions is getting to be expensive and drawing US efforts away from its own mil and advanced science.
Other nations do not have an empire to run and civil wars to support. Other nations military gets funds and new equipment all day, everyday. New equipment and advanced new ideas. Other nations spies are spying not taking sides in another civil war. The USA is spending all its wealth backing civil wars and funding freedom fighters that then turn out to be useless as they change sides or spend the US funding and never gain power.
After a few decades the different parts of the US mil and clandestine services start to consider their own funding and budgets rather that ever more support for freedom fighters that then change sides.
Different US political parties also have different tactics. More new funding for the US army, support for the US mil and a policy of winning.
Parts of the US clandestine services still cling to nation building, a lot more regime change, supporting US funded democratic freedom fighters, taking sides in man more civil wars.
A lot of groups in the US mil and clandestine services have to secure political funding and show they are winning.
The USA can only cover its own US mil upgrades or fund more clandestine nation building globally and supporting other nations civil wars.
Some of the clandestine services can only work outside the USA, so if the USA spends on the US army domestically, thats not good for their expanded international war budget.
So some of the really skilled alphabet agencies would like some real domestic funding again. Other alphabet agencies want more work and their contractors moving around the world. Staff vote on many US domestic political considerations.

Propaganda vs counterpropaganda

[manu0601]

Each country is running its own propaganda, with most of its media following the government. In the end, I do not know how I can make an informed opinion on this story.

Re:Propaganda vs counterpropaganda

[Tranzistors]

Each country is running its own propaganda, with most of its media following the government.

And how did you come to this conclusion?

Re:Propaganda vs counterpropaganda

[manu0601]

Putin knows that the western democracies are a chief barrier to his imperialistic ambitions.

Well, in my opinion this sentence is tainted by US propaganda. Except of course if you acknowledge that US also has its own imperialistic ambitions.

People still need something to rally behind

[rsilvergun]

"Let's all be Rational!" just doesn't have much of a ring to it. Elections are decided by the emotional. e.g. voters who can be swayed one way or another. If you push for rationality you'll just lose when the other side uses clear slogans and emotions to get votes. This is one of those "How the sausage is made" aspects of politics.

Globalism isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is abandoning the poor and working class. Everytime anyone's done that a populist like Trump has ridden a wave of fear and discontent to power and bad stuffs happened. If you want things to settle down you'll have to get behind the side that makes sure folks are taken care of. That is and always will be the left. I suppose you could skip the label if it makes you feel better, but it'll make it harder to rally folks to the cause.

Re:People still need something to rally behind

[rholtzjr]

Problem is that BOTH sides have their own nutjobs causing a choice between the lesser of the two evils. I would actually prefer a candidate who is at least not on the evil side.

Re:People still need something to rally behind

[Voyager529]

Ya, both sides are equivalent. Hilary running her own email server is the same as Trump colluding with a foreign adversary (getting Russian sanctions out of Rep platform, and we've probably not scratched the surface yet).

Hillary explicitly using unsecured communications channels for classified data, not turning over the server when the investigation started ("Did you wipe the server?" "with a cloth?" "No, with Bleachbit..."), cherry picking which e-mails get to be submitted as evidence...maybe not *quite* the same, but still thoroughly inexcusable..

Benghazi is the same as Iraq (the cause of 1+million human deaths).

Iraq, the war that Hillary voted in favor of and Trump spoke out against?

"Obamacare", ugly as it was, added millions to the number of insured and got rid of the donut hole

The 2,300 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass to find out what was in it? The bill that wasn't a tax until the question of whether or not it was Constitutional was raised, then it became a tax? That bill? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people got coverage, but has this turned into an ends-justifies-the-means situation?

and that's equivalent to Trump Care, which removes those advantages for the non-rich.

Support for TrumpCare was tough to find, even among Republicans.

Climate change is going to affect the poor way more than the rich,

This is true - the costs of addressing climate change are going to roll downhill until they end up manifesting as price increases for household goods, but let's not pretend that taxing companies into compliance is going to come out of the C-level exec's annual bonuses.

AND green jobs in some states already outnumber fossil fuel jobs,

Absolutely...and in other states, fossil fuels are still economic powerhouses (Pennsylvania and North Dakota, I'm looking at you), turning it into a numbers game.

but getting rid of jobs and sacrificing future prosperity, hey it's all equivalent, I don't know which side to support.

Amongst the reasons Trump won was because he promised that manufacturing and oil drilling and coal mining would end up becoming domestic tasks again. Now yes, to an extent he was just making campaign promises (i.e. he was full of it), but the definition of 'getting rid of jobs' sounds different if you're a career machinist. He tapped into the market for that sort of message.

To be clear, I'm not a Trump fan, and I didn't vote for him, but the false equivalences are of limited utility in this context.

Re:People still need something to rally behind

[acrimonious howard]

Ya, both sides are equivalent. Hilary running her own email server is the same as Trump colluding with a foreign adversary (getting Russian sanctions out of Rep platform, and we've probably not scratched the surface yet).

Hillary explicitly using unsecured communications channels for classified data, not turning over the server when the investigation started ("Did you wipe the server?" "with a cloth?" "No, with Bleachbit..."), cherry picking which e-mails get to be submitted as evidence...maybe not *quite* the same, but still thoroughly inexcusable..

My point stands.

Benghazi is the same as Iraq (the cause of 1+million human deaths).

Iraq, the war that Hillary voted in favor of and Trump spoke out against?

Ha!, no Trump spoke out FOR the Iraq war, and Hillary as a New York politician was politically forced to make a bad decision, one she open admits to regretting - something that honest people do. The vote was for giving the President a big stick, and he abused that power. This is a reason why we should always take all the evidence into consideration. In this case, there was plenty of evidence the White House put forward that would later be proven untrue. Nothing close to as obnixious as the current pres, but lies nonetheless.

"Obamacare", ugly as it was, added millions to the number of insured and got rid of the donut hole and that's equivalent to Trump Care, which removes those advantages for the non-rich.

The 2,300 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass to find out what was in it? The bill that wasn't a tax until the question of whether or not it was Constitutional was raised, then it became a tax? That bill? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people got coverage, but has this turned into an ends-justifies-the-means situation?

Support for TrumpCare was tough to find, even among Republicans.

My point stands.

Climate change is going to affect the poor way more than the rich,

This is true - the costs of addressing climate change are going to roll downhill until they end up manifesting as price increases for household goods, but let's not pretend that taxing companies into compliance is going to come out of the C-level exec's annual bonuses.

Silly. Multiple studies have found a correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth.

AND green jobs in some states already outnumber fossil fuel jobs,

Absolutely...and in other states, fossil fuels are still economic powerhouses (Pennsylvania and North Dakota, I'm looking at you), turning it into a numbers game.

You missed the point - renewables are the economic powerhouse of the [present and] future. Backasswards in coal and oil (I'm looking at you Russia) are in trouble, and are going to miss the boat if you don't start working on it, instead of spending your country's resources on astroturfing the internet.

but getting rid of jobs and sacrificing future prosperity, hey it's all equivalent, I don't know which side to support.

Amongst the reasons Trump won was because he promised that manufacturing and oil drilling and coal mining would end up becoming domestic tasks again. Now yes, to an extent he was just making campaign promises (i.e. he was full of it), but the definition of 'gett

Bogatov's case anyone?

[eSyr]

"IP addresses can be invented -- a child can do that! Your underage daughter could do that. That is not proof" — can he tell this to investigators of the Bogatov's case, as they've built the case (an decide to detain Bogatov for yet another month) solely on the fact that his IP address used for offending postings, despite all other evidences that he didn't make them, maybe they just don't know this.

The Washington Post news story has links.

[Futurepower(R)]

The first comment is copied from a Washington Post news story that gives links to all the stories in the timeline, from all the news agencies.

Re:The Washington Post news story has links.

[Thaelon]

WaPo which cannot be trusted: https://theintercept.com/2017/...

Re:What difference does it make?

[reboot246]

Hillary needs the country to focus on Russia to keep our attention away from the murder of Seth Rich. That's why every other word out of her mouth is "Russia". If she were clean, she would have already shut up and retired.

The other Democrats need the Russia story to keep Trump's agenda from being passed. If his agenda is passed and the country does well, it's the end of the Democrat Party.

Nobody believes the media anymore. That's why newspapers are struggling and the broadcast media's ratings are in the toilet.

Re:If they did meddle...

[AHuxley]

The data was given to the US media by a US insider. This was another domestic event with a trusted insider walking out like with the Pentagon Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections" (July 27, 2016)
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces."
"... they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers" (15 December 2016)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Staff do not later resign over fake files created by another nation.

They have faked evidence before...

[Roger W Moore]

The CIA also faked all those meetings & communications between Russians & Flynn, Manafort, Kushner too

Well, the CIA have faked evidence of weapons of mass destruction before to justify a war. The only reason the above is not believable is that it's not in the interest of those in power in the US for the CIA to fake evidence of such meetings, not because the CIA wouldn't do such a thing.

Re:It was Islamics, of course

[PopeRatzo]

they have to pray five times a day, fuck goats or young boys

I hardly think it's appropriate to bring Texas Republicans into this discussion.

*yawn*

[ArchieBunker]

Let me know when you have evidence that can stand up in court. The dems sabotaged Bernie because he wouldn't take corporate cash. Trump pulled off a victory that nobody predicted. Shut up and vote in 2018.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up and vote in 2018.

Oh, we'll be voting. But we're not shutting up.

repsone

[SkyEagle]

We spend more time assigning blame then fixing the problem

Not how it works

[dbIII]

Let me know when you have evidence that can stand up in court

Due to some utter stupidity the President is above the law and what ultimately matters is if there is enough to convince a large part of the Senate.

Re:Not how it works

[dbIII]

if there is enough to convince a large part of the Senate.

So he's not above the law, then? Seems that the impeachment process is well defined in law.

After impeachment the senate votes.
That's the only thing that can touch him.
A decision by a group of people, just like a medieval bunch of lords, instead of the rule of law.
Guilt or innocence doesn't matter only factional numbers.

Have I dumbed it down enough yet?

Putin & Trump

[WaffleMonster]

I wish some comic would make a cartoon of them lighting each others pants on fire.

Re:Fuck Putin and Fuck Trump

[Tjp($)pjT]

Your attempt to distance yourself and pose as an outsider conclusively proves you are the one at the heart of the deception.

Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[haruchai]

Obama said that to Medvedev not Putin & he was already president.
And he didn't win TWO presidential elections by narrow margins or through the interference of foreign governments.
It's amusing to hear a Trump supporter talking about Obama being "excused" for anything when if he'd ever behaved like Trump has been doing his whole life, he would never have become a senator, let alone president.

Aside from Manafort, there's also Carter Page who was an utter unknown to the general public until Trump mentioned his name as a foreign policy advisor during the campaign. Page has been courted by Russian intelligence for a while but is probably too dumb to be a good spy so has likely been used as a useful idiot.

Re:Left out some bits

[Boronx]

What you mean is that Obama and the CIA wiretapped the Russians to trap Trump when he colluded with them, and Trump walked right into it.

Trump can get out of this easy. All he has to do is explain what happened in those meetings, and why they needed to be kept secret, explain why he hired people known to be compromised, fire anyone who did anything illegal or improper including any cover ups, and reveal any foreign financial entanglements now or in the past.

If he does all that, then he'll be in the clear. He's got to explain himself.

Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[Boronx]

"Liberals are Demonizing Trump" is not a defense. Trump needs to explain himself publicly, cooperate with any investigations, and clean house if necessary. Some people calling him "Putin's puppet" doesn't change that. If he's not Putin's puppet, he can easily do those things.

He should *not* openly fight the investigation. Even if no serious crime was committed WRT Russia, he *will* screw up and commit a serious crime (maybe already has) should he continue to fight.

Creationist == Russian Conspiracy Theorist

[Uberbah]

That's where you were going with this, yes? Because there is zero evidence that Russia hacked anything.

Re:Left out some bits

[SuperKendall]

By "Walked right into it", you mean "did what any president would do because they are supposed to talk to other nations as part of the job".

Oh, you didn't realize the president of the U.S. is actually supposed to talk to other countries? Jesus.

I'll let you have the last response because nut-job conspiracy theorists always have to have the last square of tinfoil.

Re:Putin never drove a truck into pedestrians...

[Boronx]

Jesus. The terrorists would drop a bomb from a jet if they could. Where the hell do you people come from?

Re:Evidence please

[Boronx]

I see you don't know what "colluding" means.

Re:Left out some bits

[Boronx]

"Collusion" means cooperation in order to commit a crime.

Trump's team tried to hide their interactions from U.S. intelligence, but not from Russian intelligence. Trump is in cover up mode. This is not consistent with normal communication between candidates and a foreign government.

Putin benefits from the rumours

[dbIII]

"who benefits from leaving Russian fingerprints?"

Russia, just like they benefit with the very obvious calling card of poisoning people with Polonium.
How do you think the Russian people would react to Putin managing to throw the US election considering that there is so much hate of the USA over there at the moment with sanctions etc? Don't you think they would respect him more for something like that?

little people (as opposite to great)

[Max_W]

Interference or no interference, the fact remains the USA (and many other countries) are in deep existential crisis. Real unemployment is reaching 40-50%, self-destructing obsolet military alliances overheat, moral is in the gutter.

Unfortunately current politicians manifest themselves as little people. There a lot of great projects which could be initiated right now, which could give jobs, prosperity, and future to billions of people. For example, building a high-speed railroad & hi-tech highway between London and New York, via Bering Strait.

Instead they get themselves mired in petty nationalist disputes and personal mercantile interests.

Re: Left out some bits

[Anonymous Coward]

It was normal when Barack Obama did EXACTLY the same thing.

It was not normal when Hillary made millions of dollars selling uranium to the Russians through an offshore shell corporation.

Re: Left out some bits

[Bartles]

Are you telling me we are now required to share interactions with Intelligence? Better yet, are you telling me that the opposition party now is required to allow their communications to be monitored by then Intelligence? Are you insane?

Re: Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[Bartles]

Tell you what. When someone from the IRS and the VA ends up in prison, Trump should cooperate. Until then, go to hell.

Re: What difference does it make?

[Bartles]

You think the reason Hillary lost was because Russia hacked a server?

Re: Who is really responsible?

[Bartles]

When Trump sends Putin a cargo plane full of cash we can talk.

Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[drinkypoo]

First, learn to use paragraph breaks, son. I ignored most of your mad manifesto because I don't read walls of text from ranting children.

Second, "The liberals are demonizing Trump for behavior they excused in Candidate Obama who personally met with Putin, and said on an open mic that he could be more flexible after the election (on matters with Russia)" is a load of shit. Trump is trying to hide everything he's doing with Russia. He continues to claim he has no links to Russia when most of his links are to Russia. So no, kiddo, that's not how it works.

Re:Putin never drove a truck into pedestrians...

[drinkypoo]

Jesus. The terrorists would drop a bomb from a jet if they could. Where the hell do you people come from?

The terrorists mostly come from having bombs dropped on them by jets for economic reasons. HTH you find the real enemy, HAND.

Re:If they did meddle...

[sudon't]

where's the proof? The media keeps talking about this, but hasn't released a single piece of evidence yet. Also, the Obama admin gave Flynn the highest level of security clearance, then renewed it after these stories broke, and didn't revoke it before Obama left office. If there was evidence, wouldn't Obama have done something?

Yeah, just because the smoke is so thick we can barely see, doesn’t mean there’s any fire. Let’s just keep asking for proof that’ll stand up in a court of law, and discrediting the media, and maybe it’ll all go away.

Flynn got his security clearance by lying. Then he got fired when it caught up to him. Obama didn’t want to be seen as interfering with newly-elected Trump. He chose to sanction the Russians instead.

9/11 Truther

[sycodon]

You people remind me of the 9/11 Truthers.

Admit it. You lit a pan of Jet-A on fire underneath some chicken wire and jumped up and down on it, didn't you?

ethnicity of globalists

[unixisc]

Globalists can be anything - Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, et al. Nothing that makes them exclusively Jews

Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[unixisc]

It's important to remember why Trump hired Manafort: it was to deliver him the delegates and prevent Ted Cruz or the GOP establishment from denying him a victory in the primaries by hijacking unpledged delegates. Later, due to the rift w/ Lewandowski, he became the sole campaign head. In this case, in hindsight, Trump would have done well to let go of Manafort when he threatened to leave if Lewandowski didn't, and just add on Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway.

Manafort did have ties w/ Viktor Yanukovich, who was Putin's choice in Kyiv. However, that didn't make Manafort himself a Russian agent, as people allege.

On the Russian disputes w/ Ukraine. Moscow has a legitimate case about Crimea, particularly Sevastopol. It was a part of the Russian Federation until 1964, when Nikita Kryushchyev just gifted it to the Ukraine w/o asking the Crimeans what they wanted. On the Donbass, Russia is more clearly in the wrong: both Donetz and Luhansk have split populations b/w Russian and Ukrainian, so Russia can't legitimately just grab that area, and should resolve w/ Kyiv the aspirations of the people involved. Besides, Russia doesn't have a lebensraum issue, so if there are Russians in Ukraine unhappy about Ukrainian becoming the sole official language, Moscow should relocate them to, say, Western Siberia, since it does have a major population shortage in its Asian part.

Russia, Trump & Flawed Intelligence

[oh_my_080980980]

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2... "But the intelligence report does nothing to clarify the abnormalities of Trump’s campaign and election. Instead, it risks perpetuating the fallacy that Trump is some sort of a foreign agent rather than a home-grown demagogue, while doing further damage to our faith in the electoral system. It also suggests that the US intelligence agencies’ Russia expertise is weak and throws into question their ability to process and present information..."

Duh

[hattable]

No shit--this is like CIA 101. Regardless of actual actions, sometimes someone just needs to be framed for something. In this case who knows which side of the coin CIA is on, but this is _literally_ what we pay them for.

Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[haruchai]

" It was a part of the Russian Federation until 1964, when Nikita Kryushchyev just gifted it to the Ukraine w/o asking the Crimeans what they wanted"
1954, not 1964 by which time he was on his way out.

Trump made a lot of noise about "extreme vetting" and "draining the swamp" but didn't apply that rhetoric to his own campaign which would have turned up a lot about Manafort that would be of concern. Sure, he has done work for campaigns going back to the 70s but also not since 1996.
And he has a long history of lobbying for dictators such as Ferdinand Marcos, Joseph Mobutu & has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's Intelligence Service for running a disinformation campaign.

All of the sense

[StikyPad]

Yes, the Obama-era CIA wanted to hack the DNC so that Trump would win, and then framed Russia for it. Because that makes sense.

Oh, please, the Cold War III has been a while

[WillAffleckUW]

Putin can pretend all he wants, but this Cold War III has been going on for years.

The sad part is those who would become Russia's sheep. Makes me sick.

The full truth isn't known?

[Futurepower(R)]

I think no news agency can be completely trusted. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they are badly managed.

Also, see this Slashdot story, published today: DOJ Charges Federal Contractor With Leaking Classified Info To Media Quote: The Intercept published a top secret NSA report Monday that alleged Russian military intelligence launched a 2016 cyberattack on a voting software company. (June 5, 2017)

The story to which you linked, WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived, criticizes the Washington Post for apparently incorrect stories about Russian destructiveness toward the United States. It seems that the full truth isn't known, because The Intercept discovered more about Russian involvement yesterday.

Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[Boronx]

I agree, but it's different if you're the boss, and it's your own organization investigating itself. In that case, you should be on the side of the investigators. Nobody has implicated Trump personally, and there's no indication anywhere that these investigations are politically motivated. It's not Benghazi! It's not Whitewater.

If he's a private citizen, by all means, clam up. If he's president, and he he is, cooperate or resign.

Re:Left out some bits

[bongey]

Idiots like you are abound. Can you go back to Huffington Post and stop posting here. We get it , you really think Trump works for the FSB and Trump eats polar bear cubs for dinner each night.

Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[bongey]

NOPE the entire investigation needs to end. It's almost been a YEAR and you don't have anything solid at ALL. You cannot hang an endless fishing expedition over the presidents head for 4 years , just because you hate him.

Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!!

[haruchai]

NOPE the entire investigation needs to end. It's almost been a YEAR and you don't have anything solid at ALL. You cannot hang an endless fishing expedition over the presidents head for 4 years , just because you hate him.

Travel back in time & tell that to the GOP.
BENGHAZI!!