(1/3) Let's make sense of all these Russia claims

[Alexanderful]

One of the big problems with all this Russia business are there are so many different issues and people are trying to combine them into one issue. Liberal media (and far left in general) actually WANT to combine them all into one issue hoping for the smoking gun they need to impeach Trump. Others are just getting confused by everything. So, lets' break these down in a multipart thread over the next few days to sort this out.

Claim #1: Russia meddled in the 2016 election and caused Trump to get elected.

My take...

Likelihood: Highly Probable they meddled...Highly Unlikely they were the reason he was elected.

Discussion: Basically no evidence exists that indicates Russia actually messed with the votes. However, it is the consensus of the Intelligence Community (confirmed by social media outlets) that Russia had a "fake news" media campaign going to influence the election and was working with WikiLeaks to leak things damaging to HRC. Russia wanted Trump to win...why? I think it's simple. Trump's policies lean more toward domestic concerns, he is more pragmatic than ideological, he less globalist, more critical of NATO. These days U.S. is way more of a hegemon than Russia and Russia doesn't like an ideological, globalist hegemon messing around in their backyard and telling them how to live their life.

If True: We should all have bi-partisan concern that another country is meddling with our political process and focus on fixing things for 2020. Not really Trump's fault though so blaming him is just partisan warfare.

 

[Alexanderful]

Claim #2: Trump colluded with Russia in a quid pro quo to win the election

My take...

Likelihood: Very Low.

Discussion: There is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia in a quid pro quo. No evidence exists to show that the Trump team colluded with Russia to hack the DNC or release HRC emails, etc. It does look like Russia may have colluded with WikiLeaks but only as they were pursuing their own agenda. It looks like Kushner responded to a few WikiLeaks private tweets but nothing indicating they were working together. WL was really the one spam tweeting Kushner. No evidence exists that Trump promised to lift sanctions in return for election help. In fact, the sanctions are still in place!

If True: This would be the smoking gun and legitimately bad. If true, Trump should rightfully be impeached. We can't have presidential candidates leveraging foreign govt's to influence our elections. That's just crazy.

 

[Alexanderful]

Claim #3: Trump ordered members of his team to meet with the Russians before he was President

Likelihood: Probable.

Discussion: It appears Flynn is prepared to testify that either Trump or Kushner told him to meet with the Russians and some other foreign ambassadors. One of the topics was the UN Vote to condemn Israeli Settlements that Obama and Trump didn't agree on. Basically, Trump was trying to influence other countries to vote against or delay the vote. Also, sanctions came up as a topic which is what Flynn lied to FBI about. Basically, Flynn was signaling to Russians not respond too harshly to Obama sanctions imposed for election meddling. My opinion (no evidence) is that at this point Trump team truly believes "Russia election meddling" is a liberal strategy to de-legitimize his victory.

If True: Neutral. I think at worst this is a faux pas more than "collusion". It's not so good to have a lame duck President and a President-elect sending different foreign policy signals but there is a reason we have the 20th Amendment...this time period has historically been really awkward. No evidence exists that the Trump team did anything that was against American interests (in terms of the platform Trump was elected on). I think a lot of this is pretty common practice leaning forward to hit the ground running. I think many media outlets are trying to equate this to Trump collusion in the election but no evidence exists for that.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Claim #2: Trump colluded with Russia in a quid pro quo to win the election

My take...

Likelihood: Very Low.

Discussion: There is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia in a quid pro quo. No evidence exists to show that the Trump team colluded with Russia to hack the DNC or release HRC emails, etc. It does look like Russia may have colluded with WikiLeaks but only as they were pursuing their own agenda. It looks like Kushner responded to a few WikiLeaks private tweets but nothing indicating they were working together. WL was really the one spam tweeting Kushner. No evidence exists that Trump promised to lift sanctions in return for election help. In fact, the sanctions are still in place!

If True: This would be the smoking gun and legitimately bad. If true, Trump should rightfully be impeached. We can't have presidential candidates leveraging foreign govt's to influence our elections. That's just crazy.

Well, to me that it sounds like someone has been watching too many episodes of Bullwinkle.That they believes that there are Russians spies every where. Even in their dreams.;

 

[MarathonMike]

A very even minded analysis. Welcome to the board BTW

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Threads merged.

There's no need to start multiple threads for each of your claims. One thread will do.

 

[DarkFury]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

 

[playtime]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

obama warned trump on november 10, 2016.... in person....... to not take flynn on in any capacity whatsoever due to his employ with a foreign government & erratic behavior.

trump ignored it.

elijah cummings, who is on the house judicial oversight committee & currently investigating russian interference with the election.... informed mike pence... via letter.... whilst pence was head of the transition team.... about flynn's employ with a foreign government.

pence ignored it.

they BOTH knew. yet did nothing but to assign flynn to the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE 'PRESIDENT'.

 

[miketx]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

Yeah, yesterday I posted the fact the Trump fired Flynn and these morons are in total denial. No he hired him, he hired he hired him! LOL, Of course he hired him, how else could have fired him? LOL@ at these idiots.

 

[easyt65]

Regarding TRUMP

Over 1 year of multiple investigations
A stacked Special Counsel
Led by a man who hid Russian crimes

No crime having been committed
No evidence of a crime committed
No evidence of 'Collusion'

2 indictments of tax evasion dating back to 2006

1 'indictment' of a 'mole' who wore a wire and shopped a book deal

1 indictment for lying to the FBU, who was told to contact the Russians diring the campaign by Trump ADVISORS, not Trump...about how to work better regarding FIGHTING ISIS

No crime, no evidence, no case...

ABC just destroyed what credibility it had left, if any...

Proven evidence regarding liberal crimes is lying right out in the open, being ignored by the witch hunterswho continue to dig for and try to manufacture evidence against Trump...

This is tyrning out to be the largest, most seditious, exposed political witch hunt in this nation's history.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One of the big problems with all this Russia business are there are so many different issues and people are trying to combine them into one issue. Liberal media (and far left in general) actually WANT to combine them all into one issue hoping for the smoking gun they need to impeach Trump. Others are just getting confused by everything. So, lets' break these down in a multipart thread over the next few days to sort this out.

Claim #1: Russia meddled in the 2016 election and caused Trump to get elected.

My take...

Likelihood: Highly Probable they meddled...Highly Unlikely they were the reason he was elected.

Discussion: Basically no evidence exists that indicates Russia actually messed with the votes. However, it is the consensus of the Intelligence Community (confirmed by social media outlets) that Russia had a "fake news" media campaign going to influence the election and was working with WikiLeaks to leak things damaging to HRC. Russia wanted Trump to win...why? I think it's simple. Trump's policies lean more toward domestic concerns, he is more pragmatic than ideological, he less globalist, more critical of NATO. These days U.S. is way more of a hegemon than Russia and Russia doesn't like an ideological, globalist hegemon messing around in their backyard and telling them how to live their life.

If True: We should all have bi-partisan concern that another country is meddling with our political process and focus on fixing things for 2020. Not really Trump's fault though so blaming him is just partisan warfare.

Russia meddled in the 2016 election

This^ is what seems to be beyond question. What's also apparent is that Trump seems not of a mind to do something about it. That he is insouciant about the fact that Russia meddled in our election (1) is highly disturbing insofar as he is POTUS and (2) necessarily calls one to ask why is he so glib about it.

• If the meddling indeed abetted his election win and he knows that to be so, it's obvious why he's indifferent about it. Indeed, it's likely he'd want them to do it again.
• If the meddling didn't abet his election win and he knows that to be so, then addressing and preempting any such future successful meddling efforts -- realizing that meddling of the sort observed, no matter the election outcome, is in and of itself a successful endeavor merely because it was done and not interdicted or prevented -- why have so many people on his team denied having and withheld the details of their various interactions with Russian state actors and surrogates?
• Is it possible that Trump was clueless about what was going on within his campaign organization and members of his campaign organization were willing to countenance Russian interference of any sort so long as it aided Trump's election prospects? Yes.
• Is it possible that Trump was not clueless about was going on within his campaign organization and he and members of his campaign organization were willing to countenance Russian interference of any sort so long as it aided Trump's election prospects? Yes.

We would already have the answers to the questions above were Trump and his cronies to have been forthcoming with all sorts of information that has thus far only come to light after digging here and digging there. The Trump people have said not only that nothing unsavory transpired, but also that there was no interaction with Russians; however, repeatedly arises documentary evidence that some quantity of meetings with highly placed Russian officials, not the least of whom was the Russian Ambassador who the USIC considers the top "spymaster" in the U.S., were undisclosed.

Trump and his people say there was nothing to those interactions, yet they withhold, until it gets discovered some other way, disclosure of the various conversations. The fact of the matter is that whether there was nothing to those interactions isn't the Trump team's decision to make. That decision is the purview of the USIC and Congress, though because of Trump and his team's refusal to be forthcoming has now also made it Mueller's. All Trump and his cohorts had to do was turn over all the emails, meeting notes, financial records, etc. that they had and said, "Here. This is everything we have. Set up interviews with whomever you want and ask them whatever you want. Review and plumb the documentation and testimony to your heart's content, and you'll find that we did nothing wrong."

That is clearly not how the Trump people have handled the matter. That they didn't is why everything they say/do re: Russian meddling is suspect.

 

[miketx]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

obama warned trump on november 10, 2016.... in person....... to not take flynn on in any capacity whatsoever due to his employ with a foreign government & erratic behavior.

trump ignored it.

elijah cummings, who is on the house judicial oversight committee & currently investigating russian interference with the election.... informed mike pence... via letter.... whilst pence was head of the transition team.... about flynn's employ with a foreign government.

pence ignored it.

they BOTH knew. yet did nothing but to assign flynn to the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE 'PRESIDENT'.

He's not going to prison, Trump fired Flynn for lying to Pence. Anyone taking advice from Obama is an idiot.

 

[easyt65]

Russia meddled in the lection.

This^ is what seems to be beyond question.

It has already been proven that, just like in 2009, Barry knew this - he and Comey this time instead of Mueller in 2009- and AGAIN he did NOT do one thing about it.

He and Comey did not even warn the senior Congressional and agency members the Russians were targeting that this was happening.

Why hasn't Mueller called upon Obama and Comey to testify on what they knew, when they knew it, and why didn't they do anything to stop the Russians.

Of course we know why Mueller will never do that, and it's because he did the same thing with with Obama in 2009 as his Protege did in 2016.

 

[Alexanderful]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

obama warned trump on november 10, 2016.... in person....... to not take flynn on in any capacity whatsoever due to his employ with a foreign government & erratic behavior.

trump ignored it.

elijah cummings, who is on the house judicial oversight committee & currently investigating russian interference with the election.... informed mike pence... via letter.... whilst pence was head of the transition team.... about flynn's employ with a foreign government.

pence ignored it.

they BOTH knew. yet did nothing but to assign flynn to the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE 'PRESIDENT'.

I think this is a really good point and Trump is clearly to blame for a VERY bad hiring decision for a VERY important post. It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice. He should have vetted Flynn better and his firing from the DIA and his lobbying for Turkey should have been easy red flags to spot. But, Flynn was critical of Obama and I think that skewed Trump's judgment. On the other hand, his second choice for National Security Advisor (HR McMaster) was a VERY good decision. The optimist in me wants to believe that some of Trump's bad personnel decisions are part of the learning curve for someone who has never worked in politics before...different set of concerns vs hiring for business.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

obama warned trump on november 10, 2016.... in person....... to not take flynn on in any capacity whatsoever due to his employ with a foreign government & erratic behavior.

trump ignored it.

elijah cummings, who is on the house judicial oversight committee & currently investigating russian interference with the election.... informed mike pence... via letter.... whilst pence was head of the transition team.... about flynn's employ with a foreign government.

pence ignored it.

they BOTH knew. yet did nothing but to assign flynn to the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE 'PRESIDENT'.

I think this is a really good point and Trump is clearly to blame for a VERY bad hiring decision for a VERY important post. It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice. He should have vetted Flynn better and his firing from the DIA and his lobbying for Turkey should have been easy red flags to spot. But, Flynn was critical of Obama and I think that skewed Trump's judgment. On the other hand, his second choice for National Security Advisor (HR McMaster) was a VERY good decision. The optimist in me wants to believe that some of Trump's bad personnel decisions are part of the learning curve for someone who has never worked in politics before...different set of concerns vs hiring for business.

It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice.

It also shows that Trump does not understand and ascribe to what every other POTUS before him does: regardless of political differences, the country is more important that the politics and governing well also is more important than politics. Make of that what you will. I make of it that Trump does not understand the big-picture role and importance of the Presidency.

 

[Zander]

Russian interference in our elections is 100% BULLSHIT designed to distract. The notion that spending around $100K on fakebook ads could influence our election is laughable! hiLIARy spent more than that in a single day.

Sorry. That isn't why the Democrats lost. This carpetbagging, ugly, old, liar .....

....is why the Democrats lost. That is it.

It is her fault.

She is a horrible person who ran a lousy campaign.

 

[Alexanderful]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

obama warned trump on november 10, 2016.... in person....... to not take flynn on in any capacity whatsoever due to his employ with a foreign government & erratic behavior.

trump ignored it.

elijah cummings, who is on the house judicial oversight committee & currently investigating russian interference with the election.... informed mike pence... via letter.... whilst pence was head of the transition team.... about flynn's employ with a foreign government.

pence ignored it.

they BOTH knew. yet did nothing but to assign flynn to the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE 'PRESIDENT'.

I think this is a really good point and Trump is clearly to blame for a VERY bad hiring decision for a VERY important post. It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice. He should have vetted Flynn better and his firing from the DIA and his lobbying for Turkey should have been easy red flags to spot. But, Flynn was critical of Obama and I think that skewed Trump's judgment. On the other hand, his second choice for National Security Advisor (HR McMaster) was a VERY good decision. The optimist in me wants to believe that some of Trump's bad personnel decisions are part of the learning curve for someone who has never worked in politics before...different set of concerns vs hiring for business.

It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice.

It also shows that Trump does not understand and ascribe to what every other POTUS before him does: regardless of political differences, the country is more important that the politics and governing well also is more important than politics. Make of that what you will. I make of it that Trump does not understand the big-picture role and importance of the Presidency.

I support Trump because I agree with the policies he is pushing. I agree with you that, as a President, he is not dignifying the position because he is petty. I wish there was a dignified conservative in office but this is what the system gave us.

 

[Lumpy 1]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

obama warned trump on november 10, 2016.... in person....... to not take flynn on in any capacity whatsoever due to his employ with a foreign government & erratic behavior.

trump ignored it.

elijah cummings, who is on the house judicial oversight committee & currently investigating russian interference with the election.... informed mike pence... via letter.... whilst pence was head of the transition team.... about flynn's employ with a foreign government.

pence ignored it.

they BOTH knew. yet did nothing but to assign flynn to the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE 'PRESIDENT'.

I think this is a really good point and Trump is clearly to blame for a VERY bad hiring decision for a VERY important post. It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice. He should have vetted Flynn better and his firing from the DIA and his lobbying for Turkey should have been easy red flags to spot. But, Flynn was critical of Obama and I think that skewed Trump's judgment. On the other hand, his second choice for National Security Advisor (HR McMaster) was a VERY good decision. The optimist in me wants to believe that some of Trump's bad personnel decisions are part of the learning curve for someone who has never worked in politics before...different set of concerns vs hiring for business.

It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice.

It also shows that Trump does not understand and ascribe to what every other POTUS before him does: regardless of political differences, the country is more important that the politics and governing well also is more important than politics. Make of that what you will. I make of it that Trump does not understand the big-picture role and importance of the Presidency.

I support Trump because I agree with the policies he is pushing. I agree with you that, as a President, he is not dignifying the position because he is petty. I wish there was a dignified conservative in office but this is what the system gave us.

Yup, many of Trump's tweets and comments have been cringe worthy but the lefty reactions to them way overblown, maniacal and as it ends up, Trump keeps persisting and winning, while the Fake News/Democratic leadership and their idle headed follows lose all credibility.. Yup, fun times.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If Flynn lied to the vice president about the SAME things he lied to the FBI about they have no case against Trump BECAUSE he was fired for doing it. If Flynn is going to be charge over the kidnapping of the cleric that has NO connection to Trump. It does tie to Obama however.

obama warned trump on november 10, 2016.... in person....... to not take flynn on in any capacity whatsoever due to his employ with a foreign government & erratic behavior.

trump ignored it.

elijah cummings, who is on the house judicial oversight committee & currently investigating russian interference with the election.... informed mike pence... via letter.... whilst pence was head of the transition team.... about flynn's employ with a foreign government.

pence ignored it.

they BOTH knew. yet did nothing but to assign flynn to the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE 'PRESIDENT'.

I think this is a really good point and Trump is clearly to blame for a VERY bad hiring decision for a VERY important post. It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice. He should have vetted Flynn better and his firing from the DIA and his lobbying for Turkey should have been easy red flags to spot. But, Flynn was critical of Obama and I think that skewed Trump's judgment. On the other hand, his second choice for National Security Advisor (HR McMaster) was a VERY good decision. The optimist in me wants to believe that some of Trump's bad personnel decisions are part of the learning curve for someone who has never worked in politics before...different set of concerns vs hiring for business.

It shows a weakness of Trump's that (I believe) he is so obsessed against liberals (Obama and HRC in particular) that he was unable to heed good advice.

It also shows that Trump does not understand and ascribe to what every other POTUS before him does: regardless of political differences, the country is more important that the politics and governing well also is more important than politics. Make of that what you will. I make of it that Trump does not understand the big-picture role and importance of the Presidency.

I support Trump because I agree with the policies he is pushing. I agree with you that, as a President, he is not dignifying the position because he is petty. I wish there was a dignified conservative in office but this is what the system gave us.

I agree with the policies he is pushing.

I'm hard pressed to identify any policy he's pushed whereby he's presented enough detail about it for me to tell whether I concur with it or don't. Perhaps that's because I understand the difference between a vision statement and a policy. Indeed, aside from his EOs, I can't say the man has proposed any policy. And like many conservatives, I don't much care for policy by fiat, which about all that an EO is.

 

[Mac1958]

One of the big problems with all this Russia business are there are so many different issues and people are trying to combine them into one issue. Liberal media (and far left in general) actually WANT to combine them all into one issue hoping for the smoking gun they need to impeach Trump. Others are just getting confused by everything. So, lets' break these down in a multipart thread over the next few days to sort this out.

Claim #1: Russia meddled in the 2016 election and caused Trump to get elected.

My take...

Likelihood: Highly Probable they meddled...Highly Unlikely they were the reason he was elected.

Discussion: Basically no evidence exists that indicates Russia actually messed with the votes. However, it is the consensus of the Intelligence Community (confirmed by social media outlets) that Russia had a "fake news" media campaign going to influence the election and was working with WikiLeaks to leak things damaging to HRC. Russia wanted Trump to win...why? I think it's simple. Trump's policies lean more toward domestic concerns, he is more pragmatic than ideological, he less globalist, more critical of NATO. These days U.S. is way more of a hegemon than Russia and Russia doesn't like an ideological, globalist hegemon messing around in their backyard and telling them how to live their life.

If True: We should all have bi-partisan concern that another country is meddling with our political process and focus on fixing things for 2020. Not really Trump's fault though so blaming him is just partisan warfare.

If Russia meddled, it wasn't the first time, but social media-based meddling is a real issue, given how we just love to believe anything we see on the internet.

If Russia meddled, we need to deal with it somehow. But that would take communication and cooperation between parties, so most likely nothing will be done.

Russia's meddling only pertains to Trump if he or one of his people conspired with the Russians to do it. If that can be proven, then it's game over for Trump.

If there was that kind of collusion, it doesn't matter whether it worked or not. The collusion is the issue.

As far as I know, such collusion has not been proven, yet.
.