One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Four things we learned from the 13 Russian indictments.
Page <<first <prev 4 of 7 next> last>>
Feb 17, 2018 00:44:30   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
proud republican wrote:
I kind of look like this from the neck down...lol


Well...I begin to believe you're Russian.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 00:49:16   #
acknowledgeurma
 
proud republican wrote:
I kind of look like this from the neck down...lol

But Boris doesn't seem to have much of a neck.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 00:53:33   #
BigMike Loc: yerington nv
 
acknowledgeurma wrote:
But Boris doesn't seem to have much of a neck.


Probably doesn't need much of a neck to look up at (gulp!) those.

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2018 06:22:58   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
moldyoldy wrote:
You are definitely a Russian bot, always stirring up the right wingers. How much is putin paying you?
LOL.

Don't you ever get tired of losing?

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 07:30:13   #
Big Kahuna
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Aaron Blake February 16

We have the first indictment in the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III that actually has to do with Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The special counsel on Friday indicted 13 Russians in connection with a large-scale troll farm effort aimed at influencing the election in violation of U.S. law.

The indictment of the Internet Research Agency comes on top of two Trump advisers having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI — Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos — and two more being indicted on charges of alleged financial crimes that predated the campaign — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Nobody is in custody and Russia does not extradite to the United States, but the document from the secretive Mueller investigation does shed plenty of light where there previously wasn't any.

So what does the new indictment tell us? Here's what we can say right away:

1. It doesn't say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but doesn't rule it out either.

Anybody looking for clues about the collusion investigation into the Trump campaign won't find much to grab hold of. If anything, the indictment may hearten Trump allies in that it doesn't draw a line to the campaign, which suggests there was a large-scale effort independent of any possible collusion. Perhaps that's the real meddling effort, some folks in the White House may be telling themselves right now. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein even specified that Trump campaign officials who were contacted by the Russian nationals “did not know they were communicating with Russians.”

But that's about as much insight as anyone can draw; we simply don't know what else is coming down the pike, and any ties to Trump campaign officials may have been withheld from this indictment to avoid disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The president hasn't even been interviewed yet, so we wouldn't expect any ties to the campaign at this juncture.

Asked whether campaign officials had knowledge of the scheme or were duped, Rosenstein chose his words carefully. “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge,” Rosenstein said.

The words “in this indictment” mean Rosenstein's comments are pretty narrow.

Update: In a statement, Trump and the White House suggested that the announcement "further indicates ... that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia." Again, it doesn't provide any direct indication.

2. It just got a lot harder for Trump to dismiss Mueller's probe as a “witch hunt.”

At one point in the indictment, a price tag is put on the effort: $1.25 million in one month, as of September 2016. To put that in perspective, that's as much as some entire presidential campaigns were spending monthly during the primaries. And that lends credence to the idea that this was a large-scale effort connected to the Russian government.

President Trump has often sought to downplay the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election — even suggesting he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin's assurances that it didn't happen. This document lays it out in extensive detail.

The argument that this is a “witch hunt,” which Trump has argued and more than 8 in 10 Republicans believe, just became much more difficult to make. And the document would seem to make pretty clear that the Mueller investigation isn't just targeted at taking down Trump, either.

3. We still have no idea whether Russia flipped the 2016 election (despite Pence's claim).

In his remarks to reporters, Rosenstein also specified that the indictment doesn't determine whether Russia's interference effort changed the results of the 2016 election. He said there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.”

Some Trump allies quickly got excited about that, thinking that it meant Russia didn't win the race for Trump. But that's not what Rosenstein said. He was merely saying that the indictment doesn't make a determination — just as the intelligence community's report back in January 2017 made no determination. (Nor would we expect either the special counsel or the intelligence community to make such a determination, given that it's almost completely unknowable what impact Russian interference had.)

Some in the White House have misrepresented that intelligence community report, up to and including Trump, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Vice President Pence. Even this week, Pence said at an Axios event that it was “the universal conclusion of out intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.”

That's just flat wrong. And you can bet that bogus claim will be repeated following Rosenstein's comments today. The good news: Now, you know better.

Update: Sure enough, the White House also claims in a new statement that the indictment "further indicates ... that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected." This is a bogus claim.

4. The effort wasn’t just pro-Trump or anti-Clinton.

The troll farm wasn't just focused on Trump and Hillary Clinton. In fact, it picked sides in both primaries and opposed and supported multiple other candidates.

“They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” the indictment says. It says the troll farm had decided whom it was supporting by February 2016, when the primaries were getting off the ground, and it instructed its specialists to "use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them.)”

It’s possible the primary advocacy was simply meant to boost Trump and hurt Clinton, but it’s notable that the troll farm effort played in those primaries too.
By Aaron Blake February 16 br br We have the fir... (show quote)


The #1 thing we learned from the Russian indictments was that mueller is stIll wasting taxpayer money chasing down a fake story while not chasing down the real story of hillary and ovommits real collusion with the Russians. CASE CLOSED!!

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 07:33:01   #
Big Kahuna
 
slatten49 wrote:
Yeah, I should'a known.

Summarized, it said....1. It doesn't say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but doesn't rule it out either. 2. It just got a lot harder for Trump to dismiss Mueller's probe as a “witch hunt.” 3. We still have no idea whether Russia flipped the 2016 election. 4. The effort wasn’t just pro-Trump or anti-Clinton.
Yeah, I should'a known. img src="https://static.o... (show quote)


Go back home to Moscow, Slatten, and take your Russian to English translation book and dictionary with you.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 07:35:18   #
Big Kahuna
 
slatten49 wrote:
I didn't think you did, Dave, but you were right. I often forget that long threads get ignored.


Long threads and people with low i.q's mostly get ignored!

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2018 08:20:07   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
drlarrygino wrote:
Go back home to Moscow, Slatten, and take your Russian to English translation book and dictionary with you.

You continue to exhibit why it is hard to take you seriously. Dr. Martin Luther King had you pegged when he spoke these words:

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 08:20:52   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
drlarrygino wrote:
Long threads and people with low i.q's mostly get ignored!

Troll, read my posting just above this.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 08:39:15   #
Big Kahuna
 
slatten49 wrote:
You continue to exhibit why it is hard to take you seriously. Dr. Martin Luther King had you pegged when he spoke these words:

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."


Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican and would not have cared for your leftist ideology which is so destructive to our republic today. Quit your bigotry sattan and quit looking at the color of a persons skin, like you lefties always do vs looking at a persons character, which obviously is lacking in your case!!

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 10:01:01   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
drlarrygino wrote:
Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican and would not have cared for your leftist ideology which is so destructive to our republic today. Quit your bigotry sattan and quit looking at the color of a persons skin, like you lefties always do vs looking at a persons character, which obviously is lacking in your case!!

Who or what is "sattan," and who brought up ones color of skin but you? Otherwise, you know little to nothing about me, but...

"Truth is, I'll never know all there is to know about you just as you will never know all there is to know about me. Humans are by nature too complicated to be understood fully. So, we can choose either to approach our fellow human beings with suspicion or to approach them with an open mind, a dash of optimism and a great deal of candour."

I suspect that, as long as we can live with ourselves, we'll each be alright.

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2018 10:04:39   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
drlarrygino wrote:
Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican and would not have cared for your leftist ideology which is so destructive to our republic today. Quit your bigotry sattan and quit looking at the color of a persons skin, like you lefties always do vs looking at a persons character, which obviously is lacking in your case!!

Try reading all of the following, Drlarrygino, although it is a little longer than usual:

“Most people don’t talk about the fact that Martin Luther King was a Republican.”

That’s a quote from Ada Fisher, a Republican National Committeewoman from North Carolina, that was published without qualification or correction by ABC News.

Fisher is wrong on two fronts. First, many people talk about the “fact” that King was a Republican. It is asserted incessantly by conservatives on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet, especially in the lead up to today’s 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. The claim is most prominently advanced by King’s niece, Republican activist Alveda King. Over the years, conservative groups have purchased billboards making the claim.

Second, Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican. Or a Democrat.

In 2008, King’s son Martin Luther King III said “It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican.” Garrow claimed there is little doubt King voted for Kennedy in 1960 and Johnson in 1964.

King was not a partisan and never endorsed any political candidate. In a 1958 interview, King said “I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses … And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.”

King did, however, weigh in on the Republican party during his lifetime. In Chapter 23 of his autobiography, King writes this about the 1964 Republican National Convention:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

King barnstormed the country on behalf on Johnson in 1964, “maintaining only a thin veneer of nonpartisanship,” according to biographer Nick Kotz. King called Johnson’s win a “great victory for the forces of progress and a defeat for the forces of retrogress.”

Here is what King had to say about Ronald Reagan, the hero of modern Republicans:

When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events.

David Garrow, who wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning biography of King, stated “It’s simply incorrect to call Dr. King a Republican.”

King, according to Garrow, did hold some Republicans — including Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller — in high regard. He also was harshly critical of Lyndon Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War.

P.S. King was a political man, influenced by Gandhi and dedicated to social change. But he eschewed American party politics for activism.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 10:25:50   #
kemmer
 
Super Dave wrote:


...What we've learned is that Trump isn't implicated in anything.

Yet. But stay tuned.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 10:26:09   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Aaron Blake February 16

We have the first indictment in the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III that actually has to do with Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The special counsel on Friday indicted 13 Russians in connection with a large-scale troll farm effort aimed at influencing the election in violation of U.S. law.

The indictment of the Internet Research Agency comes on top of two Trump advisers having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI — Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos — and two more being indicted on charges of alleged financial crimes that predated the campaign — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Nobody is in custody and Russia does not extradite to the United States, but the document from the secretive Mueller investigation does shed plenty of light where there previously wasn't any.

So what does the new indictment tell us? Here's what we can say right away:

1. It doesn't say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but doesn't rule it out either.

Anybody looking for clues about the collusion investigation into the Trump campaign won't find much to grab hold of. If anything, the indictment may hearten Trump allies in that it doesn't draw a line to the campaign, which suggests there was a large-scale effort independent of any possible collusion. Perhaps that's the real meddling effort, some folks in the White House may be telling themselves right now. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein even specified that Trump campaign officials who were contacted by the Russian nationals “did not know they were communicating with Russians.”

But that's about as much insight as anyone can draw; we simply don't know what else is coming down the pike, and any ties to Trump campaign officials may have been withheld from this indictment to avoid disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The president hasn't even been interviewed yet, so we wouldn't expect any ties to the campaign at this juncture.

Asked whether campaign officials had knowledge of the scheme or were duped, Rosenstein chose his words carefully. “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge,” Rosenstein said.

The words “in this indictment” mean Rosenstein's comments are pretty narrow.

Update: In a statement, Trump and the White House suggested that the announcement "further indicates ... that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia." Again, it doesn't provide any direct indication.

2. It just got a lot harder for Trump to dismiss Mueller's probe as a “witch hunt.”

At one point in the indictment, a price tag is put on the effort: $1.25 million in one month, as of September 2016. To put that in perspective, that's as much as some entire presidential campaigns were spending monthly during the primaries. And that lends credence to the idea that this was a large-scale effort connected to the Russian government.

President Trump has often sought to downplay the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election — even suggesting he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin's assurances that it didn't happen. This document lays it out in extensive detail.

The argument that this is a “witch hunt,” which Trump has argued and more than 8 in 10 Republicans believe, just became much more difficult to make. And the document would seem to make pretty clear that the Mueller investigation isn't just targeted at taking down Trump, either.

3. We still have no idea whether Russia flipped the 2016 election (despite Pence's claim).

In his remarks to reporters, Rosenstein also specified that the indictment doesn't determine whether Russia's interference effort changed the results of the 2016 election. He said there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.”

Some Trump allies quickly got excited about that, thinking that it meant Russia didn't win the race for Trump. But that's not what Rosenstein said. He was merely saying that the indictment doesn't make a determination — just as the intelligence community's report back in January 2017 made no determination. (Nor would we expect either the special counsel or the intelligence community to make such a determination, given that it's almost completely unknowable what impact Russian interference had.)

Some in the White House have misrepresented that intelligence community report, up to and including Trump, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Vice President Pence. Even this week, Pence said at an Axios event that it was “the universal conclusion of out intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.”

That's just flat wrong. And you can bet that bogus claim will be repeated following Rosenstein's comments today. The good news: Now, you know better.

Update: Sure enough, the White House also claims in a new statement that the indictment "further indicates ... that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected." This is a bogus claim.

4. The effort wasn’t just pro-Trump or anti-Clinton.

The troll farm wasn't just focused on Trump and Hillary Clinton. In fact, it picked sides in both primaries and opposed and supported multiple other candidates.

“They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” the indictment says. It says the troll farm had decided whom it was supporting by February 2016, when the primaries were getting off the ground, and it instructed its specialists to "use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them.)”

It’s possible the primary advocacy was simply meant to boost Trump and hurt Clinton, but it’s notable that the troll farm effort played in those primaries too.
By Aaron Blake February 16 br br We have the fir... (show quote)



There's sure to be a bevy of "alternative facts" created in the next few days/decades. What surprises me are the number of Americans who still believe propaganda - even after proof that it is wrong is presented and proof that the source was an enemy of the State.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 10:45:12   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
kemmer wrote:
Yet. But stay tuned.
I've been hearing that for over a year now.

http://www.grandrapidseliquid.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dreamsicle1.jpg

Keep sucking.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.