What if it was not the Russians?

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horn6721, Dec 13, 2016.

  1. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    [insert clip of Trump saying "I love Wikileaks!" here]

    GOP also loved them some Patriot Act! The actions taken by Obama were for the ostensible purpose of fighting terrorism and "the cyber". Seems logical.
     
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Did you really just claim Obama wiretapped Trump to fight terrorism?

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    So it turns out Farkas was no longer part of the Obama Admin at the time of the "wiretaps" on Trump. She "quit" or was fired back in Sept 2015.

    Anyone want to guess what she did next?

    She became a "foreign policy advisor" for the Hillary Campaign.

    OK. So, now ask yourself, how did Farkas have access to all this information from inside the US Intelligence Community she says she has access to in 2016 when she no longer worked in the Government?

    (1) At a minimum, Farkas openly admits in the clip to the politicization of intelligence; and
    (2) She comes pretty close to admitting a felony -- the disclosure of classified information

     
  6. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    On 9/12/2001 american's desire to privacy was trumped by security. The patriot act and similar actions are, generally, hailed as safety and security measures. Am I wrong? I mean, every Repub but rand Paul is all for this stuff......until now. Kind of funny.
     
  7. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Yes, you're remarkably wrong. Very few Reps ever supported intel having carte blanche to collect and monitor communications of American citizens without a warrant.

    If intel can't produce probable cause and sell a judge on a warrant, then they have no business monitoring said American citizen. This isn't a new position by any means.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Was the Russian election meddling more effective this time? Fast forward to the 1:10 mark.

    Answer from former-FBI agent and Fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute Clint Watts: Because the Trump campaign used the propaganda against his opponent. He cite Manafort leveraging disinformation put out by RT and Sputnik in interviews. He claims the Russian botnets target Trump during his peak Twitter usage to push conspiracy theories hoping he bites.

     
  9. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

  10. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    I wonder when the investigation into foreign donations to the Clinton foundation will start. Seems that Dems are not so concerned about potential bribery of a Secretary of State.
     
  11. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The fact that Republicans in Congress have never shown a desire to investigate this says a lot. Either there is no "there" there or it's common practice in D.C. circles, neither of which would excuse the behavior if there was a pay for play scheme. I've been on record that there should be an investigation on this topic.
     
  12. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Just as they have zero desire to investigate Russian ties to HRC's campaign staff...compensation and position on board of Russian company (Podesta), and routine, part of job communications with Russian officials just like Trump staff.
     
  13. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    It's the Democrat's fault...except that the R's have all the power to set the agenda. Some of you need to listen hard to today's hearing in which much of the fake news that seems to power many of the conspiracy theories on this board were attributed to Russian propaganda. It wasn't just the D's promoting this notion either but R's and hearing witnesses.
     
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    So this is pretty remarkable
    Which means the media and all the lefties will try and ignore it

    Sen. Chuck Grassley says that Hillary Clinton and 6 of her staffers continued to have access to classified and top-secret documents after she left the State Dept in 2013. And they apparently retained this access even once her campaign began.

    How did this shet happen? Clinton claimed it was needed for "her memoir."

    Grassley says he repeatedly asked the Obama people about this but they refused to answer.

    “I have repeatedly asked the State Department whether Secretary Clinton and her associates had their clearances suspended or revoked to which the Obama Administration refused to respond,”

    He was only able to verify it after Obama left and after Tillerson was confirmed and in office.

    But wait, that's not all, Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan may still have this access, even today!

    These people are sick.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-to-state-defter-left-says-key-lawmaker.html
     
  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Hmmm...can't for the life of me figure out why this was placed in this thread. I have an idea though. :mj:
     
  16. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

  17. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    This supposed bombshell started by the WSJ report and blew up with tons of others just repeating their report.

    Just saw on Lou Dobbs this eve that their sources (from some agency with letters I don't recall) are saying it's false and Flynn didn't offer to testify for immunity.

    Guess we'll see how this shakes out. Call me skeptical as the MSM began floating this Flynn traitor rumor over a week ago and it's just now growing legs.

    Even if the Flynn request is true, I doubt he's seeking immunity in exchange to implicate DT or campaign collusion.

    I recall Flynn saying right after his release that he was eager to testify to clear his name. At that time he said it defiantly to prove he was not involved in collusion.

    Some are pointing out he's likely asking for immunity to avoid prosecution for his testimony implicating him another way unrelated to election collusion.

    His attorney Robert Kelner said in his statement...

    "...certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit."

    But then Kelner's statement followed with this...

    "no reasonable person ... would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution."

    Sounds to me like he wants to clear his name like he stated right after his release, but only if protected against witch hunters trying to unfairly ring him up in the process.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
  18. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    I would be disappointed in the WSJ if this is fake news. You expect fake news from the likes of the Washington Post or NY Times but not WSJ.
     
  19. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    WSJ has been hit and miss the last year. They're more reliable than those others for sure, but during the election they were far from impartial.

    In this case I don't think the news is fake, I think the 'traitor' spin other outlets are attaching to it is fake. Flynn has always wanted to testify since being fired and was adamant about it right after.

    Per his laywer, with the charged, unpredictable environment he doesn't want that testimony to somehow blowback on him so he's covering his bases. Of course the MSM is gonna sensationalize a protective request into a perceived act of betrayal.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
  20. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Okay just saw it on a replay of Lou Dobbs. It was the House Intel Committee spokesperson who said Flynn has not asked the committee to testify.
     
  21. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Long time subscriber, WSJ front page reporting is going down the tubes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  23. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    He also might be privy to important information that's damning to someone higher up than he was but might have done something wrong himself and doesn't want to go to jail. That's the main purpose of an immunity deal.
     
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Willing to wager on that?
    I am

    Flynn's atty knows the Dems are out for a scalp
     
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    We know Flynn was an unregistered paid lobbyist for Turkey while tagging along with Trump and stumping for him during the campaign. That alone may be why he wants immunity. Given his previous missteps (lied to Pence + unregistered lobbyist) he may have more skeletons in his closet as he's proven to not be the most forthcoming of individuals.

    Still, smoke continues to billow from the Trump camp which most rational people would say deserves a special prosecutor to investigate.

    I have to laugh at Flynn though. On Meet the Press in 2016 he stated "when you are given immunity you have probably committed a crime" when discussing the investigation into Hillary's email server. Should he be granted immunity which some Intelligence Committee Members (Rep. Salwell) are already balking at, expect a D to throw that quote in his face.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    This whole thing is a giant nothingburger. Both the US and Russia, along with just about everyone else in the world, engages in espionage. The Russians have been "interfering in elections" around the world ever since Lenin invented the Comintern (“Communist International”) back in 1919.

    The US has been doing it for well over 100 years, especially in Central and South America and the Caribbean Basin. But we obviously did not stop there. For example, we had the entire Japanese Diet on a CIA payroll from 1950–70. In 1963, we backed the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam (bad call as it was). And so on. I am not crying moral equivalence. These are simply the facts. Morally, the Communists were the worst humans ever to walk the earth and had to be opposed.

    But it did not end there. Let us look at what Obama himself did in more recent times. He spent US taxpayer funds to enter directly into an Israeli election over his own personal animus of Netanyahu. How does anyone justify this yet whine about DNC emails at the same time? If you do, you are a hypocrite.

    And look at what he, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, Geoffrey Pyatt and George Soros did to the Ukraine. They are the ones who fomented civil unrest in Ukraine in 2014 which led directly to the Russians taking Crimea and eastern Ukraine. What repercussions does any Ukrainian have against these people for their losses? Who can blame Ukrainians for lobbying US politicians in an attempt to save their country from Obama and Clinton?

    And Obama did not stop there.
    He and Clinton directly interfered with Libyan politics. Just look at their results.
    He and Clinton directly interfered with Egyptian politics. What happened there as a result?
    He and Clinton directly interfered with Syrian politics. Look at the results of that.
    Obama directly interfered with Yemeni politics. His results? Even more human misery.

    We also know Obama via the NSA was spying on every political leader in the world, even our allies. If 'hacking' is our standard now then Obama interfered with the politics of every other country in the world.

    There is a price for this behavior. There always is. From the perspective of any rational person, Americans long ago forfeited their right to complain when over a century of this stuff "comes home to roost."

    So, forgive me, but this manufactured outrage you guys have over whether Russia hacked John Podesta's email is retarded. It is misplaced and diversionary. Russian (or Chinese, or Iranian, or Israeli) hacking of servers is banal. It is mundane. It is every day. It is boring.

    The story, to the extent there is one, is why the Obama administration didn’t do anything about it at the time. They knew about it. Why didnt they just go public with it? Why didnt they take countermeasures? If they had definitive proof, why didnt they impose sanctions?

    The answer is simple enough -- Obama thought Clinton was going to win, and the purported Russian actions did not matter. Oops. So now ordinary, normal, everyday Russian actions are at the center of a media and political storm.

    It is much ado about nothing.

    The worst part of this in my opinion is that it would be in the US' best interests to engage Russia. It is the largest country in the world by size, almost as large as the next two largest (Canada + US) combined. Russia is one of two nuclear weapons superpowers. Russia is the world’s second-largest producer of oil and natty gas, ahead of the Saudis. It has the 12th-largest economy and 9th-largest population. It is too big and important to be ignored. And no matter what politicians/the media may say, it is not going away. In almost any geopolitical balance-of-power scenario you can dream up, the Russians would be a major player. But look where we are because of leftist excuse-making and the Democrats demand for scalps? It is near impossible now for Trump to engage them in any meaningful way.

    Well done people.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  27. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    We're back to everyone does it so we shouldn't care? Clint Watts yesterday stated why we should care pretty clearly in yesterdays testimony. For the first time in our history we had a POTUS candidate that embraced the interference and used it for their own advantage like wind behind their sails.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  28. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not willing to wager, because I don't know and because I'm not hoping he gets into trouble. However, I don't know that he hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't know anything damaging. As he said himself, when someone is granted immunity, they've usually committed a crime.
     
  29. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    My guess is that Flynn probably did nothing illegal, but it appears he was paid a large sum of money by an Israeli gas firm to advise and work with Erdogan. Certainly a conflict of interests in my opinion for someone considered for the position he was going to take in the Trump administration.

    But Flynn is a microcosm for virtually the entire government which is for sell to the highest bidder - both domestically and foreign. And no one is more compromised than Hillary Clinton and her entourage which has managed to avoid or mute serious investigation.
     
  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    So, youre saying, Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Paul Combetta, John Bentel and Heather Samuelson all committed crimes?

    In this matter, as I said above, Flynn does not want to be the next Scooter Libby to be sacrificed on the alter of burning leftist lust. Scooter was sent to the hoosegow despite the fact that he was not guilty of the alleged crime of outing Valerie Plame.

    The second possibility that Flynn may have committed some infraction for not filing the proper registration form. But even if this latter possibility, this is not something that goes up the chain to anyone else. It stops with him.
     

Share This Page