Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless
I haven't been on this threat in several weeks and haven't read all the posts. Someone update me: Does @paulsurovell STILL think "allegations of Russian hacking are baseless"?
I think Paul believes that there is Russian interference - but it's not too different from what we do in other elections.
I think his point of view is very similar to Trumps when Trump said the following:
O’Reilly: “He’s a killer, though…Putin’s a killer.”
Trump: “We got a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”
Just substitute hacker for killer.
I think its a red herring and a trap to even debate what the Russian did and whether there was wrongdoing by someone in the Trump camp regarding the election. The timing of this leaves little doubt, to me, that it was aimed at curbing investigative activity aimed at those questions regardless of the ultimate answers. It's hard to believe that a May 9 firing has something to do with Comey's pre-election faux pas.
Trump cannot be allowed to appoint a compliant puppy dog FBI director. No president, no elected official, can be allowed to shut down law enforcement activity aimed at himself/herself or his/her friends, aides etc.
I would love to see this cleared up by an independent investigation, trial, and conviction.
Russia held a little victory party in the Oval Office today. Only Russian media was allowed to cover it in person.
shoshannah said:
I haven't been on this threat in several weeks and haven't read all the posts. Someone update me: Does @paulsurovell STILL think "allegations of Russian hacking are baseless"?
Shoshanna: Have you seen any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC/Podesta since Comey admitted in March that he didn't know who gave Wikileaks the emails (see below)?
Anyone: Can you tell me what event/evidence caused the FBI to start its investigation on Russian collusion with the Trump campaign?
Paul:
Unless someone in the FBI leaks the bases for its ongoing long term investigation or leaks the evidence that has surfaced (or not) as a result of the investigation, how would we know?
I don't claim to know whether there's a "there" there and you don't know the opposite.
Not sure what you're accomplishing by flogging this subject every five minutes for what seems like months now.
The FBI obviously deems this worthy of an ongoing investigation. The FBI will, hopefully, complete its investigation and if it turns up nothing, you can pat yourself on the back then.
bub said:
Paul:
Unless someone in the FBI leaks the bases for its ongoing long term investigation or leaks the evidence that has surfaced (or not) as a result of the investigation, how would we know?
I don't claim to know whether there's a "there" there and you don't know the opposite.
Not sure what you're accomplishing by flogging this subject every five minutes for what seems like months now.
The FBI obviously deems this worthy of an ongoing investigation. The FBI will, hopefully, complete its investigation and if it turns up nothing, you can pat yourself on the back then.
I would think that if the investigation was based on evidence of collusion then James Clapper and Diane Feinstein, who have access to classified evidence would not have said they haven't seen evidence of collusion.
As far as "flogging this subject every five minutes" a few things:
I don't mind the hyperbole, but the context of this single thread is the real-world flogging of this subject literally every five minutes.
Also, I think if you review my posts, you'll find that at least 75% of them are responses to others as I'm doing now and did earlier this morning. So there's plenty of responsibility for the "flogging" to go around.
And finally, in defense of flogging, haven't many of our great leaders declared that what Russia did was worse than Watergate and that We Are At War?
Despite the best efforts of Trump and his enablers, an investigation is continuing.
Comey Firing Will Not Stop FBI’s Trump-Russia Investigation, Acting Director Says
Acting F.B.I. Chief Contradicts White House on Russia and Comey
Demanding that participants on a local message board provide justification for the investigation doesn't make sense.
Our political atmosphere is more poisonous and over the top than ever. We don't have to be like that. You don't have to get the same last word in in response to the same, in substance, posts that claim the Trump campaign must have done something wrong.
There's been a long term investigation and the just fired FBI director asked for more resources to continue it. The FBI has its own business pressures, if you will. They don't want to look stupid. They want it to appear as if they applied resources wisely in pursuit of real cases. Someone thinks there's something there. Maybe its just Russian wrongdoing, who knows. Or maybe it turns out to be nothing. Let it be.
There is little doubt that Russia interfered with our election. But it's hard to look past the Russian connections which were not properly disclosed: Flynn, Manafort, Page & Stone.
It hard to look past Eric Trump's comment: 'Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.'
We will not know until the investigation is over in regards to colluding - however Trump is definitely doing everything he can to disrupt it.
South_Mountaineer said:
Despite the best efforts of Trump and his enablers, an investigation is continuing.
Comey Firing Will Not Stop FBI’s Trump-Russia Investigation, Acting Director Says
Acting F.B.I. Chief Contradicts White House on Russia and Comey
Demanding that participants on a local message board provide justification for the investigation doesn't make sense.
"Demanding?" I asked if anyone knows.
bub said:
Our political atmosphere is more poisonous and over the top than ever. We don't have to be like that. You don't have to get the same last word in in response to the same, in substance, posts that claim the Trump campaign must have done something wrong.
There's been a long term investigation and the just fired FBI director asked for more resources to continue it. The FBI has its own business pressures, if you will. They don't want to look stupid. They want it to appear as if they applied resources wisely in pursuit of real cases. Someone thinks there's something there. Maybe its just Russian wrongdoing, who knows. Or maybe it turns out to be nothing. Let it be.
McCabe denied that Comey asked for more resources.
I agree that it appears that "Someone thinks there's something there."
I wonder if this triggered an FBI investigation: http://www.politico.com/story/...
jamie said:
There is little doubt that Russia interfered with our election. But it's hard to look past the Russian connections which were not properly disclosed: Flynn, Manafort, Page & Stone.
It hard to look past Eric Trump's comment: 'Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.'
We will not know until the investigation is over in regards to colluding - however Trump is definitely doing everything he can to disrupt it.
But none of those connections have anything to do with the election. Doing business -- legal or otherwise -- does not imply interfering with an election.
Legal or otherwise? You have no issue with the "Otherwise" part? You're completely fine with Manafort being part of the Trump campaign at the beginning? And Carter Page being his Foreign Policy Advisor.
Can you let us in on the classified info that you must have seen to be so sure about your assertions? Right now - there's a ton we as normal citizens are not privy to. We're waiting for the investigation to be carried out.
jamie said:
Right now - there's a ton we as normal citizens are not privy to. We're waiting for the investigation to be carried out.
I'd agree with Paul (if this is, in fact, part of his argument for hammering home contrary points) that there are also a ton of normal citizens who aren't waiting.
DaveSchmidt said:
jamie said:
Right now - there's a ton we as normal citizens are not privy to. We're waiting for the investigation to be carried out.
I'd agree with Paul (if this is, in fact, part of his argument for hammering home contrary points) that there are also a ton of normal citizens who aren't waiting.
If "a ton of normal citizens who aren't waiting" is describing those accepting Trump's denials, then yes that is true.
If "a ton of normal citizens who aren't waiting" is describing those who aren't giving the issue much or any thought right now, then yes that is also true.
I think it's best to let the investigators do their jobs, and not accept any claims of "nothing to see here, no need to investigate anything."
Can you identify any notorious, high profile case where the citizenry waits and refrains from passing judgment until all of the evidence is in? It's our right to mouth off on the internet with our inconsequential opinions. I don't think those opinions are tipping the scale towards an indictment or a conviction.
DaveSchmidt said:
jamie said:
Right now - there's a ton we as normal citizens are not privy to. We're waiting for the investigation to be carried out.
I'd agree with Paul (if this is, in fact, part of his argument for hammering home contrary points) that there are also a ton of normal citizens who aren't waiting.
I was referring to all who have reached their own conclusions before the investigators have done their jobs. For cases like those, I say keep the dissenting views coming, no matter which side they come from. Toes that need to be kept on, and all that -- the opposite of accepting "no need to investigate anything." (A claim that Paul, for one, hasn't made, as far as I can recall.)
bub said:
Can you identify any notorious, high profile case where the citizenry waits and refrains from passing judgment until all of the evidence is in? It's our right to mouth off on the internet with our inconsequential opinions. I don't think those opinions are tipping the scale towards an indictment or a conviction.
Sure it's everybody's right. I'm just partial to expressions of dissent as the closest thing to an antidote.
ETA: On a personal note, the give-and-take here, and in the Syria chemical attack discussion, has helped shape my outlook in ways that I don't think a discussion without Paul's input would have.
jamie said:
Legal or otherwise? You have no issue with the "Otherwise" part? You're completely fine with Manafort being part of the Trump campaign at the beginning? And Carter Page being his Foreign Policy Advisor.
Can you let us in on the classified info that you must have seen to be so sure about your assertions? Right now - there's a ton we as normal citizens are not privy to. We're waiting for the investigation to be carried out.
The investigation, as far as I know, is not about business activities, legal or otherwise, in Russia. My understanding is that it's about whether Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to affect the 2016 Presidential election.
Paul - the investigation is NOT solely about Trump/Russia collusion.
The focus is the Russian interference in the 2016 election - a Trump connection may be part of this. There's little dispute that Russia interfered.
jamie said:
Paul - the investigation is NOT solely about Trump/Russia collusion.
The focus is the Russian interference in the 2016 election - a Trump connection may be part of this. There's little dispute that Russia interfered.
Every major US company, bank, law firm and many universities and non-profits have significant connections with Russia. McDonald's has 517 restaurants in Russia, Ford's joint venture sold 40,000 cars in Russia last year, Citibank has ATMs all over Russia, etc.
It's important to distinguish between "connections to Russia" and "Russian interference in the 2016 elections."
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
Paul - the investigation is NOT solely about Trump/Russia collusion.
The focus is the Russian interference in the 2016 election - a Trump connection may be part of this. There's little dispute that Russia interfered.
Every major US company, bank, law firm and many universities and non-profits have significant connections with Russia. McDonald's has 517 restaurants in Russia, Ford's joint venture sold 40,000 cars in Russia last year, Citibank has ATMs all over Russia, etc.
It's important to distinguish between "connections to Russia" and "Russian interference in the 2016 elections."
Agreed.
Also, Russia totally interfered in the 2016 US election.
paulsurovell said:
It's important to distinguish between "connections to Russia" and "Russian interference in the 2016 elections."
Yes - this investigation is about "Russian interference in the 2016 elections".
If there is a Wikileaks connection to Russia - do you believe this constitutes interference? And if so - what if Trump associates were privy to the leaks before they went public?
DaveSchmidt said:
bub said:
Can you identify any notorious, high profile case where the citizenry waits and refrains from passing judgment until all of the evidence is in? It's our right to mouth off on the internet with our inconsequential opinions. I don't think those opinions are tipping the scale towards an indictment or a conviction.
Sure it's everybody's right. I'm just partial to expressions of dissent as the closest thing to an antidote.
ETA: On a personal note, the give-and-take here, and in the Syria chemical attack discussion, has helped shape my outlook in ways that I don't think a discussion without Paul's input would have.
I agree about dissent and the healthiness of expression of two or three or five sides about an issue. I don't fault Paul for saying, 100 posts ago, that there's no evidence of collusion.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
It's important to distinguish between "connections to Russia" and "Russian interference in the 2016 elections."
Yes - this investigation is about "Russian interference in the 2016 elections".
If there is a Wikileaks connection to Russia - do you believe this constitutes interference? And if so - what if Trump associates were privy to the leaks before they went public?
Is there evidence of this? And if you're talking about Stone, that's been debunked:
Interesting article re: US business Russian "connections" discusses lobbying by US energy firms against legislation on Russian investigations and sanctions. Notes Podesta Group, founded by Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and headed by his brother Tony, represented Russia's largest bank last year.http://www.ibtimes.com/politic...
Selective canarding.