The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread? [Archive] - Page 18

husaberg

26th July 2018, 12:50

That's barely half of it. From an IT perspective - using a cloud-based Email service for official communication is frowned upon, the reality of those setups are is that as cloud-based services, their internal security is often top notch - the only vector for attack is a weak password. This combined with the fact that a lot of email communication these days is on a mobile device, where often a user might have their corporate and personal email accounts loaded on the same device tends to lead to the occasional email sent from the wrong account - and as such, a blind eye is often turned.

However, setting up a Private Email server is an entirely different scenario - for starters - what is your security policy on that server? Is the Server configured with the latest security patches? Are you following various security standards (such as PCI DSS, IETF recommendations etc.) What is your auditing policy on the server? What about Backups?

The fact that 30,000 emails have been permanently deleted means at the very least the Auditing and Backup policy was not very robust (if a small group of people can erase all the data).

Reading the article you posted - all I can say (as an IT admin) is that the article is Horse Shit. And I'll give you a very simple scenario - if I email you from my private email address, to your private email address but I do so in an official capacity - that will be logged Nowhere.

In effect it's trying to claim that Email headers that will be stored on the recipient end is sufficient for official use - Considering that headers are added sequentially by each email server in the chain - it's piss easy to forge a set of headers - so that article is laughable in it's defence "oh if you email someone official, then it's stored on that end and is a sufficient audit trail"

TL;DR - if Hilary worked at any company I've worked at - She'd have been hauled up in front of the CEO for serious breach of IT policy and summarily dismissed,

In regards to the claim that in the Trump administration, that private email servers are "reportably" alive and well (with no evidence backing that up) - and for the Trump phone claims - He had a personal Twitter account and a personal Mobile phone predating his role as POTUS, this is just an attempt to deflect.

Going on and on about the security of her own server use is rather stupid as i have aready said its an important issue
One thing you missed however is its perfectly acceptable to have a private email account for private emails.
As i clearly stated the members of the trump administration were it seems also sending state department emails over their own private email accounts so for you to say its different is naive in its extreme. Because its the exact same problem. Only it is rather worse considering their own administrations publicity of Hilary's alleged indiscretions.
The FBI went through the emails sent from Hilary and found no evidence of official emails or state secrets being passed on to other parties.
It appears the email server was only hacked after Trump asked publicly that it should be hacked.

Documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in connection with the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers, claim the hackers targeted a domain used by Ms Clinton’s personal office “on or about July 27 2016”.

The indictment alleges the hackers also on that day, targeted 76 email accounts belonging to the Clinton campaign by means of so-called spear phishing – a technique used to try and access specific addresses.
As i clearly stated any official state department emails are still able to be tracked at the state department end. Are you suggesting this is not true?
Note saying she would be fired if it was a private company is rather stupid because it was not in the state department rules to do so.

As i have said the Trump administration is intending to do its own investigation odd that the FBI did the investigation into the Clinton use but Trumps administration plans to conduct its own which is hardly transparent.
Also as has been stated Trump actually refuses to have his phone security checked as per protocols so to even infer its an attempted deflection is rather stupid.
The deflection would be you ignoring that this is also genuine grounds for dismissal in a lot of firms also.
Here is a classic Trump deflection.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/11/donald-trump/did-john-podesta-deny-cia-and-fbi-access-dnc-serve/

What is rather interesting about this whole debacle is the IT security never apparently realised her emails were not going to the state department official email address in the first place.
How is it possible that so many official emails were routed to the outside without anyone in IT ever even noticing or raising concerns?

Katman

26th July 2018, 12:53

The FBI went through the emails sent from Hilary and found no evidence of official emails or state secrets being passed on to other parties.

Maybe they were in the 30,000 emails that were erased.

pritch

26th July 2018, 13:11

In case anybody here has reservations about my reference to Republican nut jobs may I offer a news item? The politician that Sacha Baron Cohen duped into baring his arse while shouting 'Nigger' on TV, after initially saying he would not resign, has overnight announced his resignation.

I recorded the first episode of the show but the cringe factor was just too high. Interest in the show has surged after this latest casualty but...

For those with stronger stomachs - Who is America? Mondays 10:30PM on SOHO.

husaberg

26th July 2018, 13:11

Maybe they were in the 30,000 emails that were erased.

Maybe is not a fact. ps emails on server are never really instantly erased.

Where this claim came from was a presidential debate.
Trump claimed Clinton deserved to be thoroughly investigated — and elsewhere in the debate, jailed — because of the 33,000 emails she allegedly deleted in violation of a congressional subpoena.

Trump’s accusation that is flat-out incorrect. FBI Director James Comey has repeatedly said that there’s “no evidence” Clinton’s emails were deleted in an attempt to hide them, and all of the documents released by the FBI’s investigation since then have backed that up that conclusion.

But like many wild accusations, Trump’s claim is built around a true fact: Somewhere around 33,000 emails from Clinton’s time as secretary of state really were deleted. Trump, however, omitted the most crucial fact about these emails — Clinton’s team ordered them to be deleted before any subpoenas had been issued.

husaberg

26th July 2018, 13:37

Katman

26th July 2018, 13:49

....because of the 33,000 emails she allegedly deleted in violation of a congressional subpoena.

Maybe she was smart enough to get rid of them before the subpoena was issued.

husaberg

26th July 2018, 14:09

Maybe she was smart enough to get rid of them before the subpoena was issued.
Maybe really..is that the best you can do.
being smart doesnt make her guilty of anything though does it.
Its interesting you infer she is guilty yet everyone, else even when they plead guilty and confess could still be innocent in your eyes.
Also rather interesting that despite Trumps rather long standing highly dubious record or not telling the truth, you chose to focus your sole attention on her.
It must be because that despite 40 odd years in the spotlight there has only been a few scandals involving her.
Yet trump has a new one that comes to light almost every day.

Katman

26th July 2018, 14:40

.....you chose to focus your sole attention on her.

Really?

You clearly haven't been paying enough attention.

TheDemonLord

26th July 2018, 14:49

Going on and on about the security of her own server use is rather stupid as i have aready said its an important issue

It's not JUST security, Audit policy, Backup Policy - these are all rather important things.

One thing you missed however is its perfectly acceptable to have a private email account for private emails.

I've never said anything to the contrary.

As i clearly stated the members of the trump administration were it seems also sending state department emails over their own private email accounts so for you to say its different is naive in its extreme.

It really isn't. Firstly - you've not provided any definitive evidence about the Trump administration using private emails, but furthermore:

Private Emails =/= having a Private server.

If someone were to use a Gmail address (as an example), which is a private email address - Google are generally one of the leading authorities when it comes to IT Security - Many of their senior members are also contributors to the IETF - in short, whilst it's bad and shouldn't be done it's leaps and bounds more secure than having your own privately managed server.

To give you an idea - I had to implement the Security standard that we use at my company - and I used the CIS document as a reference: https://www.cisecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CIS_Microsoft_Windows_Server_2012_R2_Benchmark_v2. 2.0.pdf That's 700+ pages of configuration settings just for the Windows OS, not the Networking gear, Not the Mail Platform - just Windows.

With a public mail offering (such as Outlook, Gmail etc.) they strictly conform to the various standards, with a private server - there is no way to be certain.

Because its the exact same problem.

It really isn't - it's worse by orders of Magnitude.

As i clearly stated any official state department emails are still able to be tracked at the state department end. Are you suggesting this is not true?
Note saying she would be fired if it was a private company is rather stupid because it was not in the state department rules to do so.

Email security is one of the things I'm actually quite experienced in - I'll give a brief run down:

When you send an email, it passes through various servers as an example:

Outlook on your Local PC > Your outbound SMTP server > Outbound Mail filter > Recipient Inbound Mail filter > Recipient Mail store > Recipient Mailbox.

At each stage, each server writes a header which looks something like this:

recieved from (server name) by (server name); Time and date stamp

This gives you the trail of the email. There can be additional things - for example if the email has been scanned by SpamAssassin (or derived mail scanner) there will be a log for the score and any rules that were tripped. There may also be an SPF check result in the header and if the sender uses DKIM signing of emails.

The administer of a mail system will typically look at the headers to determine where a Mail has come from, if it was delayed and why etc. etc. BUT! The only control the Administrator has is over the records that have been written by the mail system that they manage.

Things get extra complicated when you use a vanity domain (such as user@kiwibiker.co.nz) as by default the Email protocol doesn't define any security or checking on the sender address (unless you use SPF or DMARC/DKIM) I could send an email proporting to be from admin@kiwibiker.co.nz, with spoofed headers and it would appear to you as completely legit.

Spoofing the IP addresses is a little trickier (especially if you want to have the session recorded as being from a specific IP address) but not completely impossible (especially if the discussion is regarding 'professional' hackers, as opposed to Script Kiddies).

The long and short of it, is that there is little to no authentication or verification done during an email transaction which makes it rather easy to spoof and manipulate and since this can all be done BEFORE the email reaches the Government servers: No - It's not true, hence my statement that the Article (and the defence) was Horseshit.

What is rather interesting about this whole debacle is the IT security never apparently realised her emails were not going to the state department official email address in the first place.
How is it possible that so many official emails were routed to the outside without anyone in IT ever even noticing or raising concerns?

I've managed multiple email systems (some with up to 100,000 users) - the only time I've ever "realised" something was amiss was when I was asked to look. To give you a sense of Scale - on one platform alone (just over 2000 domains) in a 24 hour period has a total over about 30,000 emails - do you think an Admin has time to look that closely? And that is a relatively small mail platform - and nowhere near the size and scale of what the US Government must have.

Furthermore - ya ever heard of the phrase "Biting the hand that feeds">

Banditbandit

26th July 2018, 15:18

By the way, if you want to be taken seriously, don't post links to Fox and Friends. Or Infowars. They cater to fuckwits.

That's got quite interesting really - Fox News is coming out against Trump - it is interesting to see what the crazy Right are saying about him.

Like this ..

https://www.thewrap.com/11-times-fox-news-criticized-trump/

I like this one - Fox News calls Trump 'disgusting' ..

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-putin-summit-fox-news-helsinki-neil-cavuto-a8450746.html

Neil Cavuto is really harsh on him ...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fox-news-criticizes-trump-twitter-rants-against-news-media-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

Cavuto to Trump: 'How Can You Drain the Swamp If You Keep Muddying the Waters?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/03/neil-cavuto-rips-donald-trump-statements-michael-cohen-raid-bannon-polls

Fox News host rips Trump: You're the president, why don't you act like it? (Cavuto again)

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/361308-fox-news-host-rips-trump-youre-the-president-why-dont-you-act-like-it

jasonu

26th July 2018, 15:27

[QUOTE=Banditbandit;1131104604]Fox news
:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme

husaberg

26th July 2018, 16:20

Private Emails =/= having a Private server.
AS I have pointed out they members of the trump administration were sending what should have been secure government emails on their own accounts
I don't know why it is you three times now have ignored this and tried to down play it as being totally different.

The long and short of it, is that there is little to no authentication or verification done during an email transaction which makes it rather easy to spoof and manipulate and since this can all be done BEFORE the email reaches the Government servers: No - It's not true, hence my statement that the Article (and the defence) was Horseshit.

I've managed multiple email systems (some with up to 100,000 users) - the only time I've ever "realised" something was amiss was when I was asked to look. To give you a sense of Scale - on one platform alone (just over 2000 domains) in a 24 hour period has a total over about 30,000 emails - do you think an Admin has time to look that closely? And that is a relatively small mail platform - and nowhere near the size and scale of what the US Government must have.

Furthermore - ya ever heard of the phrase "Biting the hand that feeds">

All the rest while interesting is not at all what transpired all of Hillary emails were going not to some disguised proxy but to an email addressed simply as clintonemail.com.
now to suggest that the US state departments IT department could somehow not notice that 50000-1000000+ emails were being addressed and going to a outside address is rather simplistic.
Hillary although secretary of state never had or ever used a state.gov email account.
It turns out she never even used a desktop PC all her correspondence was on a blackberry. Scary.

yokel

26th July 2018, 16:21

So that's why Trump singles out CNN as fake news.

https://youtu.be/WM_guk9LC8g

A little more on the "Deep State".

https://youtu.be/KSJUrHzIRmI

yokel

26th July 2018, 16:57

Yep, the supervisor signed it on the 8th of july and he was born the following month. As I said, an obvious american fake.
Actually I can't be bothered with this. If anything, you will be even further entrenched in your belief, as you will be convinced that someone is still trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Sadly, they already have and there is nothing that could be done, said or shown that would change your mind.

No you muppet, they used the USA date format.
Does that mean this document is a fake??
Guess would need to know who runs this hospital.

TheDemonLord

26th July 2018, 17:38

AS I have pointed out they members of the trump administration were sending what should have been secure government emails on their own accounts
I don't know why it is you three times now have ignored this and tried to down play it as being totally different.

I've ignored it because as I've pointed out - this is rather relevant to what I do for a day job - and whilst private (but secure) cloud services is bad - a private Server is much Much MUCH worse.

To put in context - if someone happened to be using a personal address for Emailing in general, whilst they could be fired on the spot - they would most likely be given a wrap across the knuckles and told not to do it again.

Someone taking the time to build a server, install and configure an MTA on it With the sole purpose, intentional or otherwise, of bypassing current IT security Policy would be kicked out of the door in a second.

All the rest while interesting is not at all what transpired all of Hillary emails were going not to some disguised proxy but to an email addressed simply as clintonemail.com.

You are using the word Proxy, I don't think you are using it correctly. You are talking about an inbound email - which, with the exception of SPF and DKIM/DMARC - there is no authentication or verification done on Email.

This ties back to your point about the audit log of email sent TO the official accounts of other officials as being sufficient - it really isn't.

now to suggest that the US state departments IT department could somehow not notice that 50000-1000000+ emails were being addressed and going to a outside address is rather realistic.

Fixed.

(based on over a decade worth of experience administering Mail systems)

Hillary although secretary of state never had or ever used a state.gov email account.
It turns out she never even used a desktop PC all her correspondence was on a blackberry. Scary.

Although I don't know the US Government IT setup - I'd posit a series of educated guesses - it's probably Microsoft, backed by AD and with an Exchange server. I'd be very surprised if she didn't automatically have a domain email account.

Blackberries are interesting because they don't support Activesync - you need to use the very homosexual BES - which does require a server to run... BUT! BES is a bit of middleware - it's backed by something like an Exchange server (or other compatible Mail platform) - which again, makes me skeptical that she didn't have an official email address.

yokel

26th July 2018, 17:55

I've ignored it because as I've pointed out - this is rather relevant to what I do for a day job - and whilst private (but secure) cloud services is bad - a private Server is much Much MUCH worse.

To put in context - if someone happened to be using a personal address for Emailing in general, whilst they could be fired on the spot - they would most likely be given a wrap across the knuckles and told not to do it again.

Someone taking the time to build a server, install and configure an MTA on it With the sole purpose, intentional or otherwise, of bypassing current IT security Policy would be kicked out of the door in a second.

You are using the word Proxy, I don't think you are using it correctly. You are talking about an inbound email - which, with the exception of SPF and DKIM/DMARC - there is no authentication or verification done on Email.

This ties back to your point about the audit log of email sent TO the official accounts of other officials as being sufficient - it really isn't.

Fixed.

(based on over a decade worth of experience administering Mail systems)

Although I don't know the US Government IT setup - I'd posit a series of educated guesses - it's probably Microsoft, backed by AD and with an Exchange server. I'd be very surprised if she didn't automatically have a domain email account.

Blackberries are interesting because they don't support Activesync - you need to use the very homosexual BES - which does require a server to run... BUT! BES is a bit of middleware - it's backed by something like an Exchange server (or other compatible Mail platform) - which again, makes me skeptical that she didn't have an official email address.

The NSA/military has it all. https://youtu.be/y8cp1KvZKPo?t=8m44s
The internet is almost god like, it's watching and tracking everything you do, this is why the Shadow Government and their media are panicking.

husaberg

26th July 2018, 18:31

I've ignored it because as I've pointed out - this is rather relevant to what I do for a day job - and whilst private (but secure) cloud services is bad - a private Server is much Much MUCH worse.

To put in context - if someone happened to be using a personal address for Emailing in general, whilst they could be fired on the spot - they would most likely be given a wrap across the knuckles and told not to do it again.

Someone taking the time to build a server, install and configure an MTA on it With the sole purpose, intentional or otherwise, of bypassing current IT security Policy would be kicked out of the door in a second.

You are using the word Proxy, I don't think you are using it correctly. You are talking about an inbound email - which, with the exception of SPF and DKIM/DMARC - there is no authentication or verification done on Email.

This ties back to your point about the audit log of email sent TO the official accounts of other officials as being sufficient - it really isn't.

Fixed.

(based on over a decade worth of experience administering Mail systems)

Although I don't know the US Government IT setup - I'd posit a series of educated guesses - it's probably Microsoft, backed by AD and with an Exchange server. I'd be very surprised if she didn't automatically have a domain email account.

Blackberries are interesting because they don't support Activesync - you need to use the very homosexual BES - which does require a server to run... BUT! BES is a bit of middleware - it's backed by something like an Exchange server (or other compatible Mail platform) - which again, makes me skeptical that she didn't have an official email address.
You ignore it as it doesnt suit your agenda, same way as Katman does with all sorts of his conspiracies.
I will give you a hint all official American goverment emails addresses are state .govt no one has any different one, its the same here in NZ.
All goverment departments have a email address .govt.nz all local body employees here are govt.nz
Lets be very clear, she never once had a state.gov email address, anyone sending her an email would instantly see this.
I even posted what her email address was.
So what top level international goverment or state department did you work for again?
100,00's of state department emails from thousands of people and no one noticed, you are just being stupid.
Your opinion about the mater counts for little, you dont seem to fathom, that normal people take the opinion of the FBI over yours when it comes to both legal maters and criminal wrong doing.
You don't even take on board that she was 3 times cleared on criminal charges.

Katman

26th July 2018, 18:33

I will give you a hint all officcial american goverment emails are .govt no one has any different its the same here in NZ.
Lets be very clear she never once had a .gov email address anyone sending her an email would instantly see this.
I even posted what her emai address was.
So what top level international goverment or state department did you work for again?
100,000 of thousands of stat departement emails and no one noticed you are just being stupid.
Your opinion Aabout the mater counts for little, you dont seem to fathom that normal people take the opinion of the FBI over yours when it comes to both legal maters and criminLal wrong doing.
You don't even take on board that she was 3 times cleared on criminal chargess

For fuck's sake, what language is that?

:weird:

Katman

26th July 2018, 18:49

yokel

26th July 2018, 18:54

Your edited version is no better.

Pillock.

:facepalm:

What about that Russian collusion conspiracy theory??
Haha.

Here's a conspiracy fact on the sinking of the Lusitania.

https://youtu.be/iYO_gK3P2ls

Laava

26th July 2018, 20:20

No you muppet, they used the USA date format.
Does that mean this document is a fake??
Guess would need to know who runs this hospital.

Now you're starting to catch on! Yes of course that means it is fake!

Katman

26th July 2018, 20:31

Now you're starting to catch on! Yes of course that means it is fake!

Dude, I've never been particularly bothered about the birth certificate business (yesterday's news, and all that), but unless you can show other birth certificates from the same hospital, around the same time, that show the date recorded differently, then your date theory counts for shit.

Laava

26th July 2018, 20:38

Dude, I've never been particularly bothered about the birth certificate business (yesterday's news, and all that), but unless you can show other birth certificates from the same hospital, around the same time, that show the date recorded differently, then your date theory counts for shit.

Don't be fuckin lazy, do your own research!

Laava

26th July 2018, 20:40

(yesterday's news, and all that).

And yet, this would be the basis of all your conspiracy threads?

Katman

26th July 2018, 20:45

Don't be fuckin lazy, do your own research!

Like I said - not really interested.

I'm just pointing things out that you don't seem to have figured out for yourself yet.

oldrider

26th July 2018, 20:46

Something closer to the real deal perhaps? :corn:

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1bNaupemo1g" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Katman

26th July 2018, 21:12

And yet, this would be the basis of all your conspiracy threads?

You should google photoshop.

You can make a version of one - if you can't be bothered looking for a real one.

TheDemonLord

26th July 2018, 21:17

You ignore it as it doesnt suit your agenda, same way as Katman does with all sorts of his conspiracies.
I will give you a hint all official American goverment emails addresses are state .govt no one has any different one, its the same here in NZ.
All goverment departments have a email address .govt.nz all local body employees here are govt.nz
Lets be very clear, she never once had a state.gov email address, anyone sending her an email would instantly see this.
I even posted what her email address was.
So what top level international goverment or state department did you work for again?
100,00's of state department emails from thousands of people and no one noticed, you are just being stupid.
Your opinion about the mater counts for little, you dont seem to fathom, that normal people take the opinion of the FBI over yours when it comes to both legal maters and criminal wrong doing.
You don't even take on board that she was 3 times cleared on criminal charges.

No, I've ignored it because I've got the experience to back up what I'm saying. A cloud based email account has less risk than a private server. There's no Agenda there, that's just the fact of IT.

I've dealt with multiple compromised Virtual Machines and Private Servers in my time, I've dealt with individual compromised Mail accounts due to weak passwords - I've never dealt with a full-scale intrusion into a Mail Platform.

And I'm aware of how TLDs work - you don't seem to be aware of how Active Directory or Exchange works.

As for international Government - I've managed Enterprise grade Mail platforms for 10+ years, Including one or 2 household names in NZ.

You don't appreciate how much mail volume even a relatively small Mail setup will generate - there might be 100,000 emails - but they will be a fraction of a percentage. And that is why no one would have noticed.

Hell, I can even give you instances where I have had to investigate individuals mail activity - for a single user, it's normally several hours of trawling through logs - and that's presuming it's a relatively simple setup. Complex setup with multiple internal servers, relays, filters, Firewalls etc. take ever longer.

Your notion that someone would be able to pick that up is Laughable - mostly because this is an area where I happen to have quite a bit of experience, and I'm willing to bet you have none.

Then you have the scenario - assume you are a Mail Administrator and you do pick up that Hilary Clinton is doing something suspicious - without going into conspiracy land of assasination and 'suspicious deaths' - are you really going to rock the boat for arguably one of the most powerful women in America? The phrase "That's above my Pay grade" is applicable here.

Finally the FBI - that would be the same FBI that was "investigating" Conservative interest groups? The Same FBI who had Peter Strozk and Lisa Page vowing to actively stop Trump? The same FBI that failed to act on the Anthony Weiner Laptop?

The problem here - is that once your law enforcement starts picking sides, any facade of objectivity is lost.

As for your last point - I'll simply repeat my foundational statement - In every organization that I've worked in, What Hillary did would be grounds for instant dismissal. Is it Against US Law? I personally suspect it is, but no one has the balls to nail her to the wall, however even if it IS legal, at the very least should should have been summarily booted out of Politics for it and declared Persona non Grata.

husaberg

26th July 2018, 21:34

No, I've ignored it because I've got the experience to back up what I'm saying. A cloud based email account has less risk than a private server. There's no Agenda there, that's just the fact of IT.

I've dealt with multiple compromised Virtual Machines and Private Servers in my time, I've dealt with individual compromised Mail accounts due to weak passwords - I've never dealt with a full-scale intrusion into a Mail Platform.

And I'm aware of how TLDs work - you don't seem to be aware of how Active Directory or Exchange works.

As for international Government - I've managed Enterprise grade Mail platforms for 10+ years, Including one or 2 household names in NZ.

You don't appreciate how much mail volume even a relatively small Mail setup will generate - there might be 100,000 emails - but they will be a fraction of a percentage. And that is why no one would have noticed.

Hell, I can even give you instances where I have had to investigate individuals mail activity - for a single user, it's normally several hours of trawling through logs - and that's presuming it's a relatively simple setup. Complex setup with multiple internal servers, relays, filters, Firewalls etc. take ever longer.

Your notion that someone would be able to pick that up is Laughable - mostly because this is an area where I happen to have quite a bit of experience, and I'm willing to bet you have none.

Then you have the scenario - assume you are a Mail Administrator and you do pick up that Hilary Clinton is doing something suspicious - without going into conspiracy land of assasination and 'suspicious deaths' - are you really going to rock the boat for arguably one of the most powerful women in America? The phrase "That's above my Pay grade" is applicable here.

Finally the FBI - that would be the same FBI that was "investigating" Conservative interest groups? The Same FBI who had Peter Strozk and Lisa Page vowing to actively stop Trump? The same FBI that failed to act on the Anthony Weiner Laptop?

The problem here - is that once your law enforcement starts picking sides, any facade of objectivity is lost.

As for your last point - I'll simply repeat my foundational statement - In every organization that I've worked in, What Hillary did would be grounds for instant dismissal. Is it Against US Law? I personally suspect it is, but no one has the balls to nail her to the wall, however even if it IS legal, at the very least should should have been summarily booted out of Politics for it and declared Persona non Grata.
As i have attempted to point out to you what 5 times now its irelevent what server was used if it was not the State departments one that is sending the state departments information.
What you are a bit blind to is that after the whole Clinton debacle the state department realised they needed to put some rules in place one of those rules is no one is allowed to be sending state department emails on anything other that the state department server.
Really my job is to fix (for a SOE) and close loopholes find information and interpret data and make sure people are held accountable for their time and actions.
In my last My SOE job i managed to find a rather large attempt to pervert justice and fixed it.
The job before that i managed to find a rather simple hole in the email system where i was able to send emails from anyone's account including the ceo.
That one was rather fun. Plus also useful.
As for not knowing how a directory exchanges works i will point it out again Hillary never ever had a .state email address and who is it who loads the information for the directory exchange in the first place?
The FBI is impartial even when trump fires people and threatens them they still do their job.
Case in point.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/comeys-infamous-dinner-where-trump-asked-loyalty-threatened-to-fire-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

No one in the state department is above the law or rules even if they are the secretary of state or the president.
No statement the Secretary of state makes or directive that is issued by her is not vetted.
You have to wonder given your point of view regarding security of information how does any spy or anyone guilty of industrial espionage ever gets caught.
I dont care for your legal opinion as i trust the state department and the FBI is a better versed than you are.

Katman

26th July 2018, 21:42

....pervert justice.....

Is that some sort of sick porn?

Katman

26th July 2018, 21:46

The job before that i managed to find a rather simple hole in the email system.

Lucky it was simple.

I bet your mother was proud though.

pritch

27th July 2018, 06:52

yokel

27th July 2018, 07:20

It has been reported that YouTube have banned Alex Jones from live streaming and that all Infowars videos have been removed from the site. Later today I’ll check, and if true I will definitely drink to that.

Why, because you're stupid fucking fascist?
The shits going to hit the fan.

https://youtu.be/l03WVdgXBPw

https://youtu.be/VD0d2G3RKWQ

TheDemonLord

27th July 2018, 07:33

As i have attempted to point out to you what 5 times now its irelevent what server was used if it was not the State departments one that is sending the state departments information.

And I shall disprove that statement in a minute...

The job before that i managed to find a rather simple hole in the email system where i was able to send emails from anyone's account including the ceo.

Was that a cloud based email platform? Such as Outlook.com, Office365 or Gmail? Or was it a poorly setup local Exchange server which didn't have the correct Permissions for users?

And therein lies the difference - Cloud platforms are by default Secure, now you can grant impersonate permissions within Office365 for example, but that requires a conscious action on the part of the user/administrator.

Whereas a private server has all sorts of pitfalls that a lazy/inept configuration can cause.

As for not knowing how a directory exchanges works i will point it out again Hillary never ever had a .state email address and who is it who loads the information for the directory exchange in the first place?

Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange - two separate technologies. For example - did you know what by default, a domain user will automatically get an email address for their domain login (which is most likely .state.govt) - now, with Exchange policy, you can make that address so that it's not routeable externally.

The FBI is impartial even when trump fires people and threatens them they still do their job.
Case in point.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/comeys-infamous-dinner-where-trump-asked-loyalty-threatened-to-fire-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

I'm referring to the IG Report - and it shows that senior staff within the FBI had a definitive bias and that they had a conflict of interest between their personal political beliefs and the investigation they were carrying out.

You have to wonder given your point of view regarding security of information how does any spy or anyone guilty of industrial espionage ever gets caught.
I dont care for your legal opinion as i trust the state department and the FBI is a better versed than you are.

A quick review of Spycraft shows the 2 most common causes of Spies getting caught:

1: The Spy makes a mistake (complacency, over-confidence etc.)
2: A Double agent outs them.

Email logs are almost always something that gets looked at after the fact - namely when an investigation has been raised or suspicion has been aired.

yokel

27th July 2018, 08:14

As i have attempted to point out to you what 5 times now its irelevent what server was used if it was not the State departments one that is sending the state departments information.
What you are a bit blind to is that after the whole Clinton debacle the state department realised they needed to put some rules in place one of those rules is no one is allowed to be sending state department emails on anything other that the state department server.
Really my job is to fix (for a SOE) and close loopholes find information and interpret data and make sure people are held accountable for their time and actions.
In my last My SOE job i managed to find a rather large attempt to pervert justice and fixed it.
The job before that i managed to find a rather simple hole in the email system where i was able to send emails from anyone's account including the ceo.
That one was rather fun. Plus also useful.
As for not knowing how a directory exchanges works i will point it out again Hillary never ever had a .state email address and who is it who loads the information for the directory exchange in the first place?
The FBI is impartial even when trump fires people and threatens them they still do their job.
Case in point.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/comeys-infamous-dinner-where-trump-asked-loyalty-threatened-to-fire-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

No one in the state department is above the law or rules even if they are the secretary of state or the president.
No statement the Secretary of state makes or directive that is issued by her is not vetted.
You have to wonder given your point of view regarding security of information how does any spy or anyone guilty of industrial espionage ever gets caught.
I dont care for your legal opinion as i trust the state department and the FBI is a better versed than you are.

Obviously Hillary is not the only one engaged in this criminal activity.

Down they go......

https://youtu.be/y-KAWyu9KdM

Banditbandit

27th July 2018, 10:24

pritch

27th July 2018, 12:03

Why, because you're stupid fucking fascist?
The shits going to hit the fan.

What shit? What fan? I saw that Trump tweet calling Twitter's shadow banning illegal. The clown knows nothing of the US Constitution which he swore to uphold and protect. The First Amendment covers the right to free speech, basically the right to criticise the government, particularly for the press. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how Twitter decides to act, they are not part of the government..

I don't, however, expect you to understand any of that. Trump is an ignoramus, but compared to you he is indeed a stable genius. You have a unique gift though, you have it in your power to raise the avarege IQ of posts on Kiwibiker. You could do that by simply fucking off.

husaberg

27th July 2018, 12:24

And I shall disprove that statement in a minute...
Only you don't, all you say further comfirms you are not actually getting that the state department has clear rules now and it seems trumps own administration is not following them.
Regardless of whether you think you know more about what the state departments policies and rules should be you don't make the rules of the state departments.

Was that a cloud based email platform? Such as Outlook.com, Office365 or Gmail? Or was it a poorly setup local Exchange server which didn't have the correct Permissions for users?

And therein lies the difference - Cloud platforms are by default Secure, now you can grant impersonate permissions within Office365 for example, but that requires a conscious action on the part of the user/administrator.

Whereas a private server has all sorts of pitfalls that a lazy/inept configuration can cause.
As i have said now 6 times the rules off the state department are real clear now. No state department emails on non state department server. all the rest of what you say is irrelevant.
Ezpecially considering that despite your protestations that her server was not secure, When it turns out it actually was.

Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange - two separate technologies. For example - did you know what by default, a domain user will automatically get an email address for their domain login (which is most likely .state.govt) - now, with Exchange policy, you can make that address so that it's not routeable externally.
Again who is it who loads the information for the user i will spell it out for you, its not the user
Note she never hid the email address she was using, it was not hid behind any naming conventions at all. Nor was it succesfully hacked according the FBI, but others were that exposed emails from her that wiki leaks published.
note this from wiki leaks if you don't think it was perfectly clear and obvious to anyone she corrosponded with she was not using the .state server you are completely wrong.
337710337711
But nothing new there. All your clumsy attempts to make it out to be something else have failed so why stop now.

I'm referring to the IG Report - and it shows that senior staff within the FBI had a definitive bias and that they had a conflict of interest between their personal political beliefs and the investigation they were carrying out.
You you are referring to official reports, but only when it suits you. while ignoring all information in official investigations when it doesn't,
They have a name for that, its called steveing.....

A quick review of Spycraft shows the 2 most common causes of Spies getting caught:

1: The Spy makes a mistake (complacency, over-confidence etc.)
2: A Double agent outs them.

Email logs are almost always something that gets looked at after the fact - namely when an investigation has been raised or suspicion has been aired.

au contraire The most common spying and espionage these days is performed electronically and remotely by malware and phishing.

If you actually want to prevent it. its far more effective to look at the potential targets weak areas, than wait until after they are victims.
You seem to forget where are talking about the US government here, not a nationwide shoe store.
If you don't think the US state department takes security seriously now due to this incident you are a bit dim.

husaberg

27th July 2018, 14:45

Fox news
:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fox-and-friends_us_58e22eb3e4b0ba3595964399

President Donald Trump on Monday touted a “Fox & Friends” report that the previous administration spied on him during the election ― an idea that has been widely debunked.

As Trump congratulated “Fox & Friends” on its “amazing reporting,” he was ignoring analysis from his own intelligence officials that there’s no evidence such surveillance occurred.

jasonu

27th July 2018, 16:09

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fox-and-friends_us_58e22eb3e4b0ba3595964399

Have you ever seen it? Fox news is a total joke.

I used to watch MSNBC, Rachel Maddow in particular but lately she has also jumped on the 'slag Trump and the Republican party no matter what' wagon. If he invented a cure for cancer they (and certain cunts on here) would still find a way to say he is shit. It has all gotten very old and boring.

TheDemonLord

27th July 2018, 16:44

Only you don't, all you say further comfirms you are not actually getting that the state department has clear rules now and it seems trumps own administration is not following them.
Regardless of whether you think you know more about what the state departments policies and rules should be you don't make the rules of the state departments.

I'm talking purely in terms of IT security and IT policy.

As i have said now 6 times the rules off the state department are real clear now. No state department emails on non state department server. all the rest of what you say is irrelevant.
Ezpecially considering that despite your protestations that her server was not secure, When it turns out it actually was.

I didn't say it was insecure, I said that there was no way to prove or verify it's security.

I did say that the fact 30,000 odd emails were able to be permanently deleted means that the Backup, Audit and Security practices were not sufficient.

Again who is it who loads the information for the user i will spell it out for you, its not the user
Note she never hid the email address she was using, it was not hid behind any naming conventions at all. Nor was it succesfully hacked according the FBI, but others were that exposed emails from her that wiki leaks published.
note this from wiki leaks if you don't think it was perfectly clear and obvious to anyone she corrosponded with she was not using the .state server you are completely wrong.

I don't think you understand the point I'm making, since your rebuttal has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

But nothing new there. All your clumsy attempts to make it out to be something else have failed so why stop now.

Again, my comments here have purely been about IT security and IT policy (with some inferences)

You you are referring to official reports, but only when it suits you. while ignoring all information in official investigations when it doesn't,
They have a name for that, its called steveing.....

I've not ignored any official investigation. The IG report shows that at a senior level, FBI personnel weren't being unbiased. This happened after the reports you are referring to. Timelines happen to be a thing.

au contraire The most common spying and espionage these days is performed electronically and remotely by malware and phishing.

If you actually want to prevent it. its far more effective to look at the potential targets weak areas, than wait until after they are victims.
You seem to forget where are talking about the US government here, not a nationwide shoe store.
If you don't think the US state department takes security seriously now due to this incident you are a bit dim.

Completely Different Attack Vectors - this is where you are conflating things for which you clearly don't have the in-depth knowledge to differentiate between.

a Phishing attack is inbound - is dealt with by using a combination heuristics and rules on your inbound mail filtering system AND by having clear security guidelines for staff.
Malware is a running process on the machine - is dealt with by using a continuous scanning tool, file level fingerprints/hashes.

husaberg

27th July 2018, 17:04

I'm talking purely in terms of IT security and IT policy.

I didn't say it was insecure, I said that there was no way to prove or verify it's security.

I did say that the fact 30,000 odd emails were able to be permanently deleted means that the Backup, Audit and Security practices were not sufficient.

I don't think you understand the point I'm making, since your rebuttal has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

Again, my comments here have purely been about IT security and IT policy (with some inferences)

I've not ignored any official investigation. The IG report shows that at a senior level, FBI personnel weren't being unbiased. This happened after the reports you are referring to. Timelines happen to be a thing.

Completely Different Attack Vectors - this is where you are conflating things for which you clearly don't have the in-depth knowledge to differentiate between.

a Phishing attack is inbound - is dealt with by using a combination heuristics and rules on your inbound mail filtering system AND by having clear security guidelines for staff.
Malware is a running process on the machine - is dealt with by using a continuous scanning tool, file level fingerprints/hashes.
No you can talk of anything you like, but dont attempt to pass it off a a reply to something i have pointed out to you multiple times as being the US state departments rules.
I will go for 7th and final time.
You are not actually responding to what is in the quotes. You are just trying to put your own spin in it. A spin that has nothing to do with what i have written.
As i know you are smart enough to understand what is written. Unlke Steve.
i can only take it that you are attempting to change the reference.
So feel free just keep spouting the same old crap that has nothing to do with the actual point i made, Because i have lost total interest in anything you say.

husaberg

27th July 2018, 17:11

Have you ever seen it? Fox news is a total joke.

I used to watch MSNBC, Rachel Maddow in particular but lately she has also jumped on the 'slag Trump and the Republican party no matter what' wagon. If he invented a cure for cancer they (and certain cunts on here) would still find a way to say he is shit. It has all gotten very old and boring.
Yeah i have seen it it is a joke, but the point i was making is your President thinks its actually credible.;)
Then again he cant figure out what words mean either in prepared speeches, would/wouldn't is pretty obvious to most people.
I am pretty sure Trump watches it for the abundance of the T&A rather the the quality of the Q&A.
http://images.dailykos.com/images/123522/large/the-blondes-of-fox-news.jpg?1420799361

pritch

28th July 2018, 18:29

I trust y'all are aware another dude has attacked Donald Trump's star of Hollywood's walk of fame with a pick axe. So today it was guarded by two "Russians".

They'd need to be well hydrated to stand there in that kit.

yokel

29th July 2018, 20:41

What shit? What fan? I saw that Trump tweet calling Twitter's shadow banning illegal. The clown knows nothing of the US Constitution which he swore to uphold and protect. The First Amendment covers the right to free speech, basically the right to criticise the government, particularly for the press. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how Twitter decides to act, they are not part of the government..

I don't, however, expect you to understand any of that. Trump is an ignoramus, but compared to you he is indeed a stable genius. You have a unique gift though, you have it in your power to raise the avarege IQ of posts on Kiwibiker. You could do that by simply fucking off.

Did he say what law was broken?
Trump is an "ignoramus"??
Is that what the talking heads on the idiot box and all the deranged leftists lead you to believe?
Trump is crushing it, and he will continue to do so.

But they will try to put a spanner in the works, looks like they're failing so far.

https://youtu.be/351jc0_J5b4

pritch

30th July 2018, 13:18

Nine angry/panicked tweets today and counting, he knows we know he’s guilty, and he knows they’re coming for him.

As a matter of interest, what colour is the sky on your planet?

TheDemonLord

30th July 2018, 14:45

No you can talk of anything you like, but dont attempt to pass it off a a reply to something i have pointed out to you multiple times as being the US state departments rules.
I will go for 7th and final time.
You are not actually responding to what is in the quotes. You are just trying to put your own spin in it. A spin that has nothing to do with what i have written.
As i know you are smart enough to understand what is written. Unlke Steve.
i can only take it that you are attempting to change the reference.
So feel free just keep spouting the same old crap that has nothing to do with the actual point i made, Because i have lost total interest in anything you say.

You are rebutting something I've not said - Whilst it may be a breach of current US state policy (which I've not said anything in reference to) in pure IT Security terms - a cloud based email service is more secure than a private server that is not properly configured.

The evidence for the improper configuration is that a large amount of data was able to be permanently deleted.

Looking at the IG report, it shows that previous investigative efforts and reports were headed by people who had political biases and were vocal about these and made statements that show their work was not of an unbiased nature.

The rest comes down to you making lay-person assumptions about details, whereas I happen to have 10+ years real world experience in this area and can make inferences (based on experience) on those details.

Viking01

30th July 2018, 16:49

Nine angry/panicked tweets today and counting, he knows we know he’s guilty, and he knows they’re coming for him.

As a matter of interest, what colour is the sky on your planet?

Answer to your second question first : Blue (with a little
high cloud).

Seems like Donald has been busy tweeting as you said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/29/trump-tweets-cohen-immigration-polls-747473

but just out of curiosity, exactly what law(s) is/are it that
Trump has been proven (or seen) to have broken ?

I'm not defending the person. I may not like him nor some of
what he has done to date, but before I go paint my "Impeach
Trump" placard and consider marching in the streets, I'd like
to understand just what crime(s) he has committed (apart
from his hair style).

There has certainly been plenty of "noise " in the US media. But
I'm struggling to find any real "substance".

He has been accused of sexual misbehaviour (unbecoming of a
President), but he would not the first. A number of them - say
from FDR Roosevelt days onwards - would be "guilty". Were his
accusers seriously offended at the time, or have they now seen
some financial opportunity ?

Did he accept some bribes, or negotiate some illegal loans (to
support his business empire) ?

He has chosen to talk with Putin, but yet again, it seems that
every US President since FDR Roosevelt days also chose to talk
with their Russian counter-part. Most of them also talked of
"peace", and some even followed up by agreeing to and signing
arms treaties restricting proliferation of nuclear weapons.

He has helped to promote an increase in NATO membership within
Eastern European countries, and deployment of missiles to keep
Putin in check.

He has supported the sale of conventional weapons to all USA's
"current friends". And he has made sure that the US has been
involved in one or two small Middle Eastern wars (just enough
to keep demand stimulated, as well as the Russians distracted).

He has tried to persuade the Chinese they should "play the trade
game" by US rules, even if they don't like the rules. And he has
also given those hapless Europeans a "serve", so that they now
feel compelled to offer the US some better business terms.

He has even sweetened the deal for the US 1% along the way
by providing them some decent tax cuts. And pump up the US
stock market.

It seems that he's done all that a "traditional US President"
could be expected to do (whether Red or Blue).

So, I'm struggling to see what his liberal US "haters" are
getting so worked up about.

Is the argument over "how" it is being done ? Or is he doing
"too good a job" ?

This is obviously a tough crowd to please.

Maybe some-one could clarify the situation for me ?

pritch

30th July 2018, 17:46

yokel

30th July 2018, 18:59

Answer to your second question first : Blue (with a little
high cloud).

Seems like Donald has been busy tweeting as you said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/29/trump-tweets-cohen-immigration-polls-747473

but just out of curiosity, exactly what law(s) is/are it that
Trump has been proven (or seen) to have broken ?

I'm not defending the person. I may not like him nor some of
what he has done to date, but before I go paint my "Impeach
Trump" placard and consider marching in the streets, I'd like
to understand just what crime(s) he has committed (apart
from his hair style).

There has certainly been plenty of "noise " in the US media. But
I'm struggling to find any real "substance".

He has been accused of sexual misbehaviour (unbecoming of a
President), but he would not the first. A number of them - say
from FDR Roosevelt days onwards - would be "guilty". Were his
accusers seriously offended at the time, or have they now seen
some financial opportunity ?

Did he accept some bribes, or negotiate some illegal loans (to
support his business empire) ?

He has chosen to talk with Putin, but yet again, it seems that
every US President since FDR Roosevelt days also chose to talk
with their Russian counter-part. Most of them also talked of
"peace", and some even followed up by agreeing to and signing
arms treaties restricting proliferation of nuclear weapons.

He has helped to promote an increase in NATO membership within
Eastern European countries, and deployment of missiles to keep
Putin in check.

He has supported the sale of conventional weapons to all USA's
"current friends". And he has made sure that the US has been
involved in one or two small Middle Eastern wars (just enough
to keep demand stimulated, as well as the Russians distracted).

He has tried to persuade the Chinese they should "play the trade
game" by US rules, even if they don't like the rules. And he has
also given those hapless Europeans a "serve", so that they now
feel compelled to offer the US some better business terms.

He has even sweetened the deal for the US 1% along the way
by providing them some decent tax cuts. And pump up the US
stock market.

It seems that he's done all that a "traditional US President"
could be expected to do (whether Red or Blue).

So, I'm struggling to see what his liberal US "haters" are
getting so worked up about.

Is the argument over "how" it is being done ? Or is he doing
"too good a job" ?

This is obviously a tough crowd to please.

Maybe some-one could clarify the situation for me ?

The Russian collusion delusion conspiracy theory is a weird one, based on nonsignificant events some might call an "nothing burger"

https://youtu.be/yMHCd7LO4ug

What really happened was the Clinton campaign colluding with the civil service/deep state.

Check out @FoxNews’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1023586696196247552?s=09

Donald Trump was obviously well aware of what they were up to post election.

https://youtu.be/UdvHQl6ZVhc

oldrider

30th July 2018, 19:51

The presidential bullshit is just a distraction (a circus) to keep attention away from the real issues basically just like magicians use to safeguard their tricks! :brick: (dirty tricks in this case)

Viking01

30th July 2018, 20:05

I sarted thinking about a reply: the number of indictments, the number of people behind bars, and the fact that Trump's campaign chief goes on trial this week.
But no, I can recognise a 'sealion' when I see one.

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, many in his political vicinity has been indicted, and there
have been several convictions. But did that necessarily make
Trump responsible?

His campaign chief may be going on trial next week (charged
with what ?).

Trump's previous attorney has chosen to "betray his client's
confidence". For whatever reason.

But I'm still none the wiser what it is that Trump himself has
been proven to have done in the way of breaking laws.

I'm not saying that he is necessarily innocent - I'd just like to
know what he has been found guilty of.

It's just that some of his accusers may not have a squeaky clean
history themselves, and I'm struggling to give them the benefit
of the doubt.

And while they may not have been prosecuted, I'm not sure that
makes them any less "guilty".

e.g.

- Hillary Clinton : Endorsing the NATO overthrow of Gaddafi and
the existing Libyan regime, where international law rejects the
right to overthrow the governing regime of a sovereign country

http://theduran.com/julian-assange-exposes-hillary-clintons-libya-tick-tock-list-a-step-by-step-guide-to-destroy-libya/

- Barack Obama : Authorisation of drone assassinations ; his
failure to (honour his campaign pledge to) close Guantanamo Bay
prison and to release inmates (not even presented for trial during
Obama's two terms in power)

- Robert Mueller (FBI) : Iraqi supposed weapons of mass destruction
prior to 2003 Iraq invasion

https://www.rt.com/usa/421838-mueller-iraq-wmd-trump/

- James Clapper (NSA) : Testifying before Congress regarding the
monitoring of US citizen communication and collection of personal
data

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/22/james-clapper-just-lied-again-about-his-previous-lies-about-nsa-spying/

- John Brennan (CIA) : Investigation into CIA's techniques for
interrogation ; Accusation of treason against Trump following the
Helsinki summit with Putin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.caed5fb5dab5
https://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-foreign-policy-and-the-campaign-to-destabilize-the-trump-presidency/5565825

I'll keep a weather eye out for "sealions" .... ;)

husaberg

30th July 2018, 20:27

You are rebutting something I've not said - Whilst it may be a breach of current US state policy (which I've not said anything in reference to) in pure IT Security terms - a cloud based email service is more secure than a private server that is not properly configured.

The evidence for the improper configuration is that a large amount of data was able to be permanently deleted.

Looking at the IG report, it shows that previous investigative efforts and reports were headed by people who had political biases and were vocal about these and made statements that show their work was not of an unbiased nature.

The rest comes down to you making lay-person assumptions about details, whereas I happen to have 10+ years real world experience in this area and can make inferences (based on experience) on those details.
refer to the first paragraph of my reply.

- I'd be willing to bet that there is a similar provision - that deliberately bypassing IT Security Policy is grounds for severe action(s)

All I'm going to say is this:

Regardless of what may or may not have been on the Clinton private email server, in ANY corporate Organization that I have worked in - deliberately bypassing the Corporate IT security Policy is grounds for instant dismissal (and I have been involved a couple of times in gathering the proof of such things that has directly results in people having their employment terminated).

As i have pointed out to you It wasn't in the rules but it sure as shit is now.
As i have pointed out to you multiple times it is against state department rules for anyone now to send official state department emails on their own email.......anyone.
No mater what you think about it this, these are the rules.
But feel free to ignore what i have clearly spelled out to you 8 times and waffle on how your vast experience somehow overrides state department rules.
Because the only person you will convice is yourself.
In regards to Hilary's server Unless you know more or a a better authority about state department rules than the FBI. or the US inspector general The choice is you either accept the ruling or prove them to be wrong.
You endless waffle about what you think as a IT administrator does not do this.

A hotly anticipated inspector general report about then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation is finally complete. It was released publicly Thursday afternoon — and is guaranteed to become a lightning rod in President Trump’s clashes with his own Justice Department.

The report contradicts President Trump’s often-expressed belief that the investigation was rigged to get Clinton off the hook. Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz found little affirmative evidence on the whole that political bias affected officials’ handling of the probe itself. (You can read the full text at this link.)https://www.vox.com/2018/6/14/17455544/read-inspector-general-report-comey-clinton

Indeed, FBI director Christopher Wray — appointed by Trump to replace Comey last year — said at a Thursday afternoon press conference that “this report did not find any evidence of political bias or improper considerations actually impacting the investigation under review.”

For you to suggest that the FBI cant investigate hilary as they are biased, is rather stupid, especially considering you have overlooked that trump appointed his own people to the FBI and they still find issues with what he does until he fires them anyway.......
Or did you not notice that.............

Although I don't know the US Government IT setup - I'd posit a series of educated guesses - it's probably Microsoft, backed by AD and with an Exchange server. I'd be very surprised if she didn't automatically have a domain email account.

Blackberries are interesting because they don't support Activesync - you need to use the very homosexual BES - which does require a server to run... BUT! BES is a bit of middleware - it's backed by something like an Exchange server (or other compatible Mail platform) - which again, makes me skeptical that she didn't have an official email address.

As i have pointed out but you chose to ignore and waffle on so that no one notices.
the domain name was clear she did have only one email address and it was clearly displayed onto anyone who responded to her email.
337837337838
she never set up a domain that tried to emulate the official .state address.
Again i will ask you who is it who would have set up her .state email address. thats right the IT department would have.

Note

The report found that while dozens of State Department employees used personal email accounts periodically over the years, including Ms. Mills and Mr. Sullivan, only three officials were found to have used it “exclusively” for day-to-day operations: Mrs. Clinton; Mr. Powell, and Jonathan Scott Gration, who was ambassador to Kenya from 2011 to 2012.

Secretary of State John Kerry also acknowledged to the inspector general that he had used a personal account at times, but “began primarily using his department email account to conduct official business.” Mr. Kerry said that while he still occasionally responded to people who emailed him on his personal account, he would preserve the emails for the record..

Note 2

Department officials never directly told Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Powell that they needed to end their use of personal email, the report found, but in Mr. Gration’s case, they did. In 2011, officials warned him that he was not authorized to use personal email for government business in Kenya. He continued doing so, and the department initiated disciplinary action over “his failure to follow these directions” and several other undisclosed infractions, the report said. He resigned in 2012 before any action was taken.

yokel

30th July 2018, 20:45

"The Storm" is coming.....

Check out @realDonaldTrump’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1023653191974625280?s=09

yokel

30th July 2018, 21:25

Like it or not - yokel called it all the way - not bad for someone that most of you think is stupid! :first: . :nya: bunch of losers! :rolleyes:

Stupid is what stupid does.
I told all the stupids that the MSM polls were all bullshit like brexit.
And after the 9/11 collapse she was finished.

If it wasn't for the MSM Hillary couldn't even be elected local dog catcher.

It's amazing really the number of people now saying they predicted a Trump victory. Some people expressed concerns, but I only know of one "pundit" who predicted the outcome correctly. A professor in the States who didn't use polls, he had his own set of indicators which he said were aligned for Trump. A week or so ago the Washington Post went back to him and asked if he wanted to change his mind, but no, he "doubled down". And he was right.*

Anne Coulter claimed she was right, but she was just spouting her extreme right wing rhetoric, which is different to predicting an outcome. Sort of like Yokel posting a load of clips ranging from the slightly unhinged to the outright insane. That's not a prediction either.

Mike Hosking, Newstalk ZB's resident bimbo referred this morning to "that saying about interesting times".
Actually it is reputedly Chinese although that is unlikely. "May you live in interesting times". It is supposedly a curse.

Whatever, we do seem to be living in interesting times.

*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1

Oh the memories......
You Kunts have no clues what's coming.

Woodman

30th July 2018, 22:27

Oh the memories......
You Kunts have no clues what's coming.

How about you tell us.

pritch

30th July 2018, 23:08

"The Storm" is coming.....

Check out @realDonaldTrump’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1023653191974625280?s=09

That rant, as usual, is rubbish.

The investigators are mostly registered Republicans and have served Republican presidents, some were appointed by Republican presidents. Mueller could not ask the guys he appointed to his team about their political affiliation anyway, that is against the law.

The investigation started weeks before the Steele dossier* came to light. Steele, the author, is a former member of British intelligence and is apparently considered reliable by the allied intelligence community. So calling the dossier fake is a stretch.

The investigation was started when one of Trump's staff, George Papadopolis, boasted to an Australian embassy official while pissed. The Australian diplomat contacted US officials and informed them of the conversation. That was something like two months prior to the Steele dossier surfacing.

Ninety odd indictments, two people jailed, twelve Russians charged - so far. Hell of a "witch hunt". And now Mueller is interviewing Trump's money man which is quite possibly what prompted todays flurry of increasingly desperate tweets.

That's just one investigation though, there are other investigations under way, it's the Southern District of New York prosecutor's office that is investigating Cohen, Trump's former lawyer. The New York State prosecutors are considering charges relating to Trump's allegedly fraudulent charity foundation.

From a justice perspective my money is on Mueller et al. From a political perspective I'm not placing any bets though, because the politicians are bought and paid for.

We'll see.

* In case y'all forgot, that's the golden showers one.

pritch

31st July 2018, 10:42

IIRC Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager goes on trial this week possibly tonight our time. This video explains who he is, his history, and what he has been charged with. At some fifteen minures it not be brief anough for some?

The video is toward top right of the page, but how long for, who knows? "The spectacular rise and fall of Paul Manafort."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Viking01

31st July 2018, 11:24

.....

From a justice perspective my money is on Mueller et al. From a political perspective I'm not placing any bets though, because the politicians are bought and paid for.

We'll see.

* In case y'all forgot, that's the golden showers one.

When you say "justice" perspective, I take it you mean (il)legal ?
As in "having broken the law" ?

I'm not sure you'll be able to separate out the two perspectives,
in the "land of the best justice that money can buy". Or was that
politicians ?

https://russia-insider.com/en/it-begins-nytimes-washpo-guardian-all-start-backpedalling-russiagate/ri23518

Viking01

31st July 2018, 11:48

pritch

31st July 2018, 13:53

When you say "justice" perspective, I take it you mean (il)legal ?
As in "having broken the law" ?

I'm not sure you'll be able to separate out the two perspectives,
in the "land of the best justice that money can buy". Or was that
politicians ?

By "justice" I mean the various investigations be they Justice Dept, a US Attorney's office, or New York State. All of which are in progress.

Problem is the investigators cant begin the impeachment/prosecution process without the approval of the politicians. That would take a two thirds majority vote in the senate, which on current form is exceedingly unlikely.

Something could change, eg Manafort's trial may implicate Trump somehow.

The US press need to upskill on matters legal though, they are missing the fine detail. Manafort (and Flynn) face/d charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The alleged Russion spy is also reported as facing charges under FARA, to be fair her lawyer keeps saying that too. That is not correct. Mariia Butina faces charges under a different section, put simply, she is charged with spying. "Espionage lite." Her trial too could potentially change things.

Oh, and Mariia Butina is the third person to be put behind bars as a result of this "witch hunt".

Katman

31st July 2018, 14:09

Manafort (and Flynn?) faced charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

As should every Jewish lobby group.

pritch

31st July 2018, 14:15

As should every Jewish lobby group.

FARA is about registration, or the lack thereof. Interesting where they draw the line. But yes, there are some US ploiticians who are very well paid to be in Israels corner.

Katman

31st July 2018, 14:22

FARA is about registration, or the lack thereof.

And AIPAC isn't registered.

husaberg

31st July 2018, 15:03

As should every Jewish lobby group.
So What about the other multiple lobby groups for religions? or for abortions? or for conservation? or Animal welfare? or oil companies,or Pharmaceuticals ?
Or is it just one group you are worried about? and they just happen to be Jewish

Katman

31st July 2018, 15:07

So What about the other multiple lobby groups for religions? or for abortions? or for conservation? or Animal welfare? or oil companies,or Pharmaceuticals ?
Or is it just one group you are worried about? and they just happen to be Jewish

Jewish lobby groups don't lobby for Judaism.

They lobby for Israel.

husaberg

31st July 2018, 15:20

Jewish lobby groups don't lobby for Judaism.

They lobby for Israel.
So you are only focused on one lobby group then?
Well in that case they would be a lobby group for Israel then would they not rather than a Jewish lobby group.
It may come as a surprise to you but not all Jewish people live in Israel nor all Israelis are Jewish.

Katman

31st July 2018, 15:56

So you are only focused on one lobby group then?
Well in that case they would be a lobby group for Israel then would they not rather than a Jewish lobby group.
It may come as a surprise to you but not all Jewish people live in Israel nor all Israelis are Jewish.

I don't give a fuck whether you call it a Jewish lobby group or an Israeli lobby group.

You can even call it a Zionist lobby group if it makes you feel better.

pritch

31st July 2018, 16:10

I don't give a fuck whether you call it a Jewish lobby group or an Israeli lobby group.

You can even call it a Zionist lobby group if it makes you feel better.

Such lobby groups, by whatever name, certainly exist. Some time back, long enough to have forgotten his name but he wasn't particularly important, there was detail of a US politician, his salary was $140,000pa but he had received four million dollars from a Jewish lobby, the NRA, and big pharma IIRC.

The question was asked, "Who do you think he is working for?"

Katman

31st July 2018, 16:20

.....he had received four million dollars from a Jewish lobby, the NRA, and big pharma IIRC.

Careful, you'll upset our resident berk.

husaberg

31st July 2018, 17:59

I don't give a fuck whether you call it a Jewish lobby group or an Israeli lobby group.

You can even call it a Zionist lobby group if it makes you feel better.
So as long as its not just racially targeted at one group then aye Katman.
Its pretty funny how you and senile non rider are always running your mouth off and going on how "the jews run the world" yet now you claim they actually don't and have to lobby political groups like all the others do.

Careful, you'll upset our resident berk.

Really will they be telling people to fuck off and to suck your cock and then posting abusive rep messages then......:laugh:
Pritches reply covered the same stuff i had said earlier without the obvious racist connotations so prevalent in your posts.

Maybe you should send a letter to the head of police to get a final solution that you find would solve your Jewish problem
Herman Goering already drafted one up for you to copy

The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich
Commissioner for the Four-Year Plan
Chairman of the Ministerial Council for National Defense
Berlin, July 31st 1941

To: SS-Gruppenführer Heydrich

Complementing the task that was assigned to you on January 24th 1939, which dealt with a solution of the Jewish problem through emigration and evacuation as advantageously as possible, I hereby charge you with making all necessary preparations, with regard to organisational and financial matters, for bringing about a total solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe.

Wherever other governmental agencies are involved, they are to cooperate with you. I charge you furthermore to send me, before long, an overall plan concerning the organisational, factual and material measures necessary for the accomplishment of the desired solution of the Jewish question.

[signed] Goering
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8c/61/ac/8c61ac2d27e8436d60369c7ce4aead4d--july--solution.jpg

yokel

31st July 2018, 18:03

That rant, as usual, is rubbish.

The investigators are mostly registered Republicans and have served Republican presidents, some were appointed by Republican presidents. Mueller could not ask the guys he appointed to his team about their political affiliation anyway, that is against the law.

The investigation started weeks before the Steele dossier* came to light. Steele, the author, is a former member of British intelligence and is apparently considered reliable by the allied intelligence community. So calling the dossier fake is a stretch.

The investigation was started when one of Trump's staff, George Papadopolis, boasted to an Australian embassy official while pissed. The Australian diplomat contacted US officials and informed them of the conversation. That was something like two months prior to the Steele dossier surfacing.

Ninety odd indictments, two people jailed, twelve Russians charged - so far. Hell of a "witch hunt". And now Mueller is interviewing Trump's money man which is quite possibly what prompted todays flurry of increasingly desperate tweets.

That's just one investigation though, there are other investigations under way, it's the Southern District of New York prosecutor's office that is investigating Cohen, Trump's former lawyer. The New York State prosecutors are considering charges relating to Trump's allegedly fraudulent charity foundation.

From a justice perspective my money is on Mueller et al. From a political perspective I'm not placing any bets though, because the politicians are bought and paid for.

We'll see.

* In case y'all forgot, that's the golden showers one.

You mean the ones that let Hillary off the hook found some witches on their witch hunt?

This witch hunt amounts to treason and the Steele dossier is UK and state department collusion.

Heads are going to fucking roll.

yokel

31st July 2018, 18:23

How about you tell us.

what does it mean when the news of a billionaire heiress has to post 100 million dollars in bond and who is a member of the Clinton Global initiative skips the fabricated news cycle?

https://www.healthnutnews.com/rothschild-connected-billionaire-arrested-for-role-in-nxivm-child-trafficking-sex-slave-ring/

And when there's this recent executive order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

You have any clues as to what this is?

https://goo.gl/images/hMcNuz

https://goo.gl/images/hMcNuz

pritch

31st July 2018, 20:11

You mean the ones that let Hillary off the hook found some witches on their witch hunt?

This witch hunt amounts to treason and the Steele dossier is UK and state department collusion.

Heads are going to fucking roll.

The Republicans spent years investigating Hillary and came up blank. Either 'cause they were stupid, or there was nothing to find, or more probably both.

The word treason is bandied about quite a lot but mostly with regard to Trump. Especially after his craven performance at Helsinki. It's a hard sell. The US legal definition of treason is quite tight. Basically there needs to be a war on.

The UK and the USA do 'collude', so to do Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It's called "Five Eyes".

Heads may indeed roll but probably not the ones you have in mind. Like f'rinstance Trump's former campaign manager who goes on trial in less than seven hours from now.

Onward and upward.

Voltaire

31st July 2018, 20:45

Finally a You Tube clip that tells the whole story.:nya:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-LTRwZb35A&feature=youtu.be

husaberg

31st July 2018, 20:55

Heads may indeed roll but probably not the ones you have in mind. Like f'rinstance Trump's former campaign manager who goes on trial in less than seven hours from now.

Onward and upward.
When he said head i am sure he was thinking of Katmans offer to help him out with Stuff.....

Finally a You Tube clip that tells the whole story.:nya:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-LTRwZb35A&feature=youtu.be

That video needs to go in the jokes page
I didn't think the trump sings Havana one could be topped but shit thats as clever as

pritch

31st July 2018, 22:04

Finally a You Tube clip that tells the whole story.:nya:

Gotta share the love but thanks, that is clever stuff.

pritch

1st August 2018, 11:39

Not so long ago I hadn’t even heard of Alexandria, Virginia. Alexandria is where the 'US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia' is situated. The Prosecutor’s office in Alexandria has a number of reasonably high profile cases considering it’s a place nobody much outside of the US of A probably even heard of. That’s where prosecutions are being prepared for Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Kim Dot Com.

Alexandria is a stones throw from Washington DC, just up the road from Alexandria is Langley, headquarters of the CIA. It’s a short drive down the road to Quantico, a big US Marine base and headquarters of the FBI. And so on. What that means is that almost everybody on a jury in Alexandria works for the government. If they don’t, most likely someone in their family does. Unsurprisingly juries in Alexandria tend to arrive at verdicts friendly to the government.

Today the first trial resulting from Mueller’s “witch hunt” got underway in Alexandria. Manafort faces a raft of charges, some serious, some minor. Some of them were just included to apply pressure. And pressure there is. If he is found guilty, being in his sixties, he’ll probably die in prison.

His business partner caved under the pressure and is assisting the inquiry which must make it very difficult for Manafort, but he’s hanging in there. The inference is that he’s doing this to protect somebody or something extremely important. In the coming days or weeks we should get some answers.

oldrider

1st August 2018, 15:45

husaberg

1st August 2018, 17:29

Noam Chomsky: Russian Interference Isn’t Influencing US Elections—But Israel Definitely Is:- :psst: http://taxous.com/2018/07/noam-chomsky-russian-interference-isnt-influencing-us-elections-but-israel-definitely-is/ :corn:

So, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that’s almost a joke. First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies—what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to—calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president?

Lets see what your Link says its a bad thing for a Leader of a country to address the US congress
Okay
Indias PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4DEQFII7_s

Japans PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAsaOKamY3E

Nelson Mandela SA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0xtQ9Cw25U

UK prime Minister
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYiOvW0IS0s

Or the French
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqUc1h7bZQ4

Maybe you should actually check what you post for accuracy before you post it.
The US preseident does not have a say in what other diplomats say to congress.
US congress decides who speaks before it. it has OPENLY stated they would not accept Putin addressing congress.

The leaders of the U.S. Congress, citing Russia's alleged interference in U.S. elections, say they will not invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to address Congress or visit the Capitol if he accepts President Donald Trump's invitation to a second summit in Washington this fall.

On July 24, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell both rejected any friendly outreach to Putin and expressed disagreement with Trump's embrace of the Russian president in the wake of their one-day summit on July 16 in Helsinki.

Noam Chomsky normally fairly astute but i would say hes been misrepresented in that excert
For instance this is what he said about Trump

In a special UpFront interview, renowned US academic and public intellectual Noam Chomsky sits down with Mehdi Hasan to discuss the implications of a Donald Trump presidency, on both domestic and global issues."The most predictable aspect of Trump is unpredictability. I think it's dangerous, very dangerous," says Noam Chomsky.

"He certainly is off the spectrum. There's never been anything like him," says Chomsky, an award-winning author, who is witnessing the 16th president over the course of his lifetime.
"He has no background at all in any political activities. Never held office, been interested in office. He has no known political positions," says Chomsky. "He's basically a showman."
Chomsky, who has spent decades critiquing US presidents, calls Trump an "ignorant, thin-skinned megalomaniac" and a "greater evil" than Hillary Clinton.
"Do you vote against the greater evil if you don't happen to like the other candidate? The answer to that is yes," says Chomsky, on Americans who cast their votes for third party candidates or simply stayed home on election day.
"If you have any moral understanding, you want to keep the greater evil out," says Chomsky. "I didn't like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump's on every issue I can think of."

Views on 9/11 conspiracy theories
Chomsky has dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories, stating that there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the United States government was responsible for the attacks.

I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel.

In addition, Chomsky said he would not be surprised if the conspiracy theory movement is being fueled by the government establishment to distract the public from more pressing matters.

People always ask, 'What can I do?' And then they say, here's something I can do. I can become a qualified civil engineer in an hour, and prove that Bush blew up the World Trade Center. I'm pretty sure that in Washington they must be clapping. A couple of years ago, I came across a Pentagon document that was about declassification procedures. Among other things, it proposed that the government should periodically declassify information about the Kennedy assassination. Let people trace whether Kennedy was killed by the mafia, so activists will go off on a wild goose chase instead of pursuing real problems or getting organized. It wouldn't shock me if thirty years from now we discover in the declassified record that the 9/11 [conspiracy] industry was also being fed by the administration.

NOAM CHOMSKY: [B]Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them.

AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening.

. What do you see as the best solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict?

It depends what time frame we have in mind. In the short term, the only feasible and minimally decent solution is along the lines of the international consensus that the US has unilaterally blocked for the last 30 years: a two-state settlement on the international border (green line), with “minor and mutual adjustments,”

Woodman

1st August 2018, 19:11

what does it mean when the news of a billionaire heiress has to post 100 million dollars in bond and who is a member of the Clinton Global initiative skips the fabricated news cycle?

https://www.healthnutnews.com/rothschild-connected-billionaire-arrested-for-role-in-nxivm-child-trafficking-sex-slave-ring/

And when there's this recent executive order.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/

You have any clues as to what this is?

https://goo.gl/images/hMcNuz

https://goo.gl/images/hMcNuz

Why the fuck would I click on your gay porn links?

Viking01

1st August 2018, 20:26

Lets see what your Link says its a bad thing for a Leader of a country to address the US congress
Okay
Indias PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4DEQFII7_s

Japans PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAsaOKamY3E

Nelson Mandela SA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0xtQ9Cw25U

UK prime Minister
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYiOvW0IS0s

Or the French
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqUc1h7bZQ4

Maybe you should actually check what you post for accuracy before you post it.
The US preseident does not have a say in what other diplomats say to congress.
US congress decides who speaks before it. it has OPENLY stated they would not accept Putin addressing congress.

Noam Chomsky normally fairly astute but i would say hes been misrepresented in that excert
For instance this is what he said about Trump

1. Netanyahu Speech
Think that the important part in the first portion of text you presented was not
that various leaders have spoken to the US Congress, but that in this specific
case:

-Netanyahu went straight to the US Congress (Republican controlled) without
informing the US President (Democrat)
-Netanyahu used the platform to try and undermine Obama on the subject of Iran
(and a then-future agreement with Iran on its nuclear program)

A pity that you didn't (i) include the YouTube clip for the Netanyahu speech
to Congress 2015, or (ii) give a quick summary of the speeches you did list
(e.g. their general thrust; did they contain any contentious topics that might
have embarrassed the ruling US party ?).

Here's a scenario for you:

What if the US happened to "strongly support the Palestinian cause", and a US
President wished to speak in Israel on (say) "the humanitarian situation in Gaza"
or "new settlements continuing to be being constructed on Arab land within the
West Bank") ?

Do you think that a US president would get an opportunity to talk about those
topics in front of the Knesset ?

2. Noam Chomsky
Chomsky is a very knowledgeable commentator on world politics, but he is only
one of many. And his opinion is not necessarily the be-all and end-all on any
particular subject.

You're quite right in that (in respect to 911) he is not a qualified engineer,
so would not be in a position to comment knowledgeably on likelihood that
the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

Which is quite a separate topic to "who might have instigated and performed
such an act, and why".

Please, don't try and tell me that the buildings came down because of airliners
colliding with them and subsequent fire.

Because the extent to which such buildings were over-engineered (5x), the lack
of an aircraft in the case of WTC7, plus the buildings' unimpeded "free-fall collapse"
make a lie to that story.

husaberg

1st August 2018, 20:46

1. Netanyahu Speech
Think that the important part in the first portion of text you presented was not
that various leaders have spoken to the US Congress, but that in this specific
case:
The fact the Israeli leader spoke to congreess was in what i quoted as being an extraordinary event it was not.

-Netanyahu went straight to the US Congress (Republican controlled) without
informing the US President (Democrat)
-Netanyahu used the platform to try and undermine Obama on the subject of Iran
(and a then-future agreement with Iran on its nuclear program)
The leader of any country if invited to speak to congress is allowed to say what ever thet they like they do not have to gain the US presidents approvial
If you think they do you are an idiot.

A pity that you didn't (i) include the YouTube clip for the Netanyahu speech
to Congress 2015, or (ii) give a quick summary of the speeches you did list
(e.g. their general thrust; did they contain any contentious topics that might
have embarrassed the ruling US party ?).
Why the US congress invited him to speak the US president did not nor does the leader of any country in the world have to have their speech topic or content vetted by the US president nor do they try to.
Do you think a leader needs to ask the US presidents approval for what words he says before US congress.

Here's a scenario for you:

What if the US happened to "strongly support the Palestinian cause", and a US
President wished to speak in Israel on (say) "the humanitarian situation in Gaza"
or "new settlements continuing to be being constructed on Arab land within the
West Bank") ?
The US president can say what ever he likes in Israel or Russia or in NZ

Do you think that a US president would get an opportunity to talk about those
topics in front of the Knesset ?
He would have to be invited to first and if he was he would be able to say what ever he liked its a democracy

Noam Chomsky
Chomsky is a very knowledgeable commentator on world politics, but he is only
one of many. And his opinion is not necessarily the be-all and end-all on any
particular subject.
I never said he was in fact i said something rather different

Noam Chomsky normally fairly astute but i would say hes been misrepresented in that excert

You're quite right in that (in respect to 911) he is not a qualified engineer,
so would not be in a position to comment knowledgeably on likelihood that
the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.
I never said he was i never questioned him or his opinion at all he even mentioned he wasn't an engineer.
But note the people that investigated and reached the conclusions of the WTC building collapses were.
But that will not suit your conspiracy theory will it.........

is quite a separate topic to "who might have instigated and performed
such an act, and why".
See above

, don't try and tell me that the buildings came down because of airliners
colliding with them and subsequent fire.
AS you don't read well i doubt if i told you anything you would understand it.

the extent to which such buildings were over-engineered (5x), the lack
of an aircraft in the case of WTC7, plus the buildings' unimpeded "free-fall collapse"
make a lie to that story.
Thats your opinion one which is not backed by the people that investigated it or who had all the evidence to assess.
#Note i never said anything about 911 Noam did.:msn-wink:

oldrider

2nd August 2018, 08:53

What If Everything We’ve Been Told About Recent History Is a Lie? https://russia-insider.com/en/history/what-if-everything-weve-been-told-about-recent-history-lie/ri24235?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter :shifty: Really?

yokel

2nd August 2018, 10:27

The Republicans spent years investigating Hillary and came up blank. Either 'cause they were stupid, or there was nothing to find, or more probably both.

The word treason is bandied about quite a lot but mostly with regard to Trump. Especially after his craven performance at Helsinki. It's a hard sell. The US legal definition of treason is quite tight. Basically there needs to be a war on.

The UK and the USA do 'collude', so to do Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It's called "Five Eyes".

Heads may indeed roll but probably not the ones you have in mind. Like f'rinstance Trump's former campaign manager who goes on trial in less than seven hours from now.

Onward and upward.

Enjoy your show trial that has little to do with the Russian collusion delusion conspiracy theory.

https://youtu.be/zaknV3FMGow

pritch

2nd August 2018, 12:35

Enjoy your show trial that has little to do with the Russian collusion delusion conspiracy theory.

There's nothing new in that. Unusually though for Fox and Friends it's almost factual. Almost. To accept that as fact you have to accept that the clocks all stopped eight years ago and nothing happened since.

Anyhoo yer a bit slow, we already mentioned that this trial is about applying pressure to Manafort. This trial is about tax evasion and money laundering and the next trial across the river in a few weeks is about breaching the FARA act. That's the bit about acting as an agent for a foreign country. Then there's the part about interfering with witnesses.

Keep watching Fox and Friends though, it's OK as long as you don't actually expect to learn anything.

yokel

2nd August 2018, 17:29

There's nothing new in that. Unusually though for Fox and Friends it's almost factual. Almost. To accept that as fact you have to accept that the clocks all stopped eight years ago and nothing happened since.

Anyhoo yer a bit slow, we already mentioned that this trial is about applying pressure to Manafort. This trial is about tax evasion and money laundering and the next trial across the river in a few weeks is about breaching the FARA act. That's the bit about acting as an agent for a foreign country. Then there's the part about interfering with witnesses.

Keep watching Fox and Friends though, it's OK as long as you don't actually expect to learn anything.

I couldn't care less what those three Fox Muppets sitting on the couch have to say.

Only talking head on the idiot box I don't mind listen to is Tucker Cralson.

Down she goes.......

https://youtu.be/kO32rxh3kPY

yokel

2nd August 2018, 17:38

Hahaha.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/105946449/conspiracy-cult-we-are-q-front-and-centre-at-trumps-florida-tour

Check out @aaron_borgan’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/aaron_borgan/status/1024723004956323840?s=09

https://qanon.pub/

oldrider

8th August 2018, 10:31

Trump's long time history with the banksters. (19 min clip) Adage:- "He who pays the piper calls the tune" - how are we (the world at large) enjoying the concert so far? :violin:

<iframe width="280" height="158" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YW4CvC5IaFI" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

oldrider

11th August 2018, 17:37

So how is the USA doing today? - this guy is not happy with it's political direction - (apparently) - have a listen why he is not a happy chappy. :shifty:

<iframe width="280" height="158" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Nl5NW9KcMt0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

oldrider

13th August 2018, 07:53

US Military Aid to Israel Set to Exceed $3.8B, or $23,000 Per Year for Every Jewish Family Living in Israel https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-military-aid-to-israel-set-to-exceed-3-8b-or-23000-per-year-for-every-jewish-family-living-in-israel/246996/ For "TEN" years?

TheDemonLord

14th August 2018, 08:24

Looks like Peter Strzok has been given the big heave-ho.

It's funny that he claims no bias - and yet in one of his Txt messages to his co-workers in regards to Trump possibly becoming president:

No. No he won't. We'll stop it.

(remembering this man was part of the Russia investigation and the Clinton email server investigation)

Grumph

14th August 2018, 09:09

oldrider

14th August 2018, 09:20

Katman

14th August 2018, 09:28

By any definition, Washington is, in effect, declaring war on Russia.

Just like the Jews did to Germany 85 years ago.

TheDemonLord

14th August 2018, 10:27

Yeah, so ? The quote could just as easily have been referring to what was showing up in the Russia investigation.

It was explicitly about stopping Trump from becoming President. Based on the remark that it was a response to.

Strzok has had nothing to do with any of the investigations for over a year now anyway.

And?

The point being, is that he was a part of the initial round of investigations and was in a position of considerable authority when he was part of said investigations.

Looks to me like you're buying into the Trump/Republican angle that it was a tainted investigation.

Okay - How would you describe an investigation where senior officials, conducting said investigation into both political candidates, declare to their co-workers that they will "stop" one of those candidates from getting into office?

This isn't a mere opinion being espoused - such as "I don't like Trump", nor is it a statement such as "We'll stop him by voting for Hilary", It's a statement of intent, coming from someone with the means, motive and opportunity.

husaberg

14th August 2018, 10:28

Looks like Peter Strzok has been given the big heave-ho.

It's funny that he claims no bias - and yet in one of his Txt messages to his co-workers in regards to Trump possibly becoming president:

(remembering this man was part of the Russia investigation and the Clinton email server investigation)
Only problem is that has been investigated thoroughly and they found no evidence of any bias with regards to his work.
"
After a year-long investigation that included a review of millions of communications and interviews of scores of witnesses, the IG concluded that there is no evidence that the political views of Special Agent Strzok and others in the FBI impacted the handling of the Clinton email investigation," Strzok's attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in a statement to CNBC. "As the Report notes, Special Agent Strzok in particular was consistently thorough and aggressive, sometimes to the point that put him at odds with senior officials at the Department of Justice."
Thursday's watchdog report from the Department of Justice (https://www.cnbc.com/justice-department/)examined Strzok's and Page's actions and found no evidence that "political bias" tainted their work.
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed," the department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, wrote in the conclusion of his report issued Thursday.
The report did find that the pair's messaging "cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation."
Strzok may also have improperly prioritized the Russia probe over the investigation into Clinton toward the end of the 2016 campaign, the report said.
Because of his text messages, "we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation" was free from bias, the report said.
Strzok's possible bias led investigators to search through emails, text messages and other documents to locate evidence that the investigation into Clinton's emails was derailed. There was no evidence found to suggest that it was, according to the report.
Its a shame you dont expect the President to act to the same standard of ethics.......

oldrider

14th August 2018, 10:37

The new round of sanctions this week unleashed by the United States on Russia has only one meaning: the US rulers want to crush Russia’s economy. By any definition, Washington is, in effect, declaring war on Russia. http://theduran.com/us-sanctions-are-pushing-russia-to-war/

Ron Paul: Is Trump Fighting His Own Administration? https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-13/ron-paul-trump-fighting-his-own-administration

TheDemonLord

14th August 2018, 10:58

Only problem is that has been investigated thoroughly and they found no evidence of any bias with regards to his work.

Except, even from what you've quoted - that's not entirely accurate:

Strzok may also have improperly prioritized the Russia probe over the investigation into Clinton toward the end of the 2016 campaign, the report said.
Because of his text messages, "we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation" was free from bias, the report said.

Its a shame you dont expect the President to act to the same standard of ethics.......

Well, so far - he's kept his political promises and he's not started any new wars.

As far as US presidents go, he's acting with the highest set of Ethics...

Grumph

14th August 2018, 12:07

Okay - How would you describe an investigation where senior officials, conducting said investigation into both political candidates, declare to their co-workers that they will "stop" one of those candidates from getting into office?

This isn't a mere opinion being espoused - such as "I don't like Trump", nor is it a statement such as "We'll stop him by voting for Hilary", It's a statement of intent, coming from someone with the means, motive and opportunity.

If the intent was to stop Trump it's an epic fail...More's the pity. Incidentally, I've seen no report that he expressed that opinion to his co-workers - just to his girlfriend who did not work at the same place....

And i'd have prioritised the Trump/Russian meetings over Hilary too. Trump's shit was ongoing at the time wheras Hilary's was historical.

husaberg

14th August 2018, 12:32

Except, even from what you've quoted - that's not entirely accurate:

Well, so far - he's kept his political promises and he's not started any new wars.

As far as US presidents go, he's acting with the highest set of Ethics...

Do you understand that "may" is not a finding of guilt.

There was no evidence found to suggest that it was".
Is the actual finding.
Not to mention that you are overlooking that the investigation into Russian interference has proven this to be true.
People are allowed to have a political opinion and are allowed to express it to their girlfriends in the USA that was one of 4000 text messages,
Its particularly irrelevant as he clearly did nothing to prevent Trump being elected, its just as likely to be an indication of what his voting preference was.
You have a strange definition of ethics, In the case you Trump we have a guy that has threatened state department officials and attempted to undermine and interfere with investigations.
Fired investigators when they refused to do as he wishes.
He lied about his Campain having meetings with Russians regarding information about Hillary.
Not to mention attempting to undermine the state departments position on Russia.
These are ethics if you hold a FBI investigator accountable for his possible bias, how about you apply it the same way to trump.

TheDemonLord

14th August 2018, 13:05

If the intent was to stop Trump it's an epic fail...More's the pity.

And there is the lesson for the Left...

And i'd have prioritised the Trump/Russian meetings over Hilary too. Trump's shit was ongoing at the time wheras Hilary's was historical.

To be frank - I don't buy that. A Security breach by an active politician vs a supposed Collusion by (at that time) a private citizen, the National security concern should have been more pressing given that at the time, every organization was predicting a Hilary landslide victory and so Trump's meeting with the Russians would have been null and void

husaberg

14th August 2018, 13:13

And there is the lesson for the Left...

To be frank - I don't buy that. A Security breach by an active politician vs a supposed Collusion by (at that time) a private citizen, the National security concern should have been more pressing given that at the time, every organization was predicting a Hilary landslide victory and so Trump's meeting with the Russians would have been null and void
Donald Trump was a presidential candidate. At the meeting was.

Donald Trump Jr. , along with Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul J. Manafort, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner — "said the lawyer promised information damaging to Hillary Clinton"

TheDemonLord

14th August 2018, 13:14

Do you understand that "may" is not a finding of guilt.

And have I called for a criminal investigation against him? No...

Not to mention that you are overlooking that the investigation into Russian interference has proven this to be true.

Is that Russian interference under the explicit direction by Donald Trump? Or is that generic Russian interference of the type they do to us and we do to them? Cause those are 2 distinct scenarios...

People are allowed to have a political opinion and are allowed to express it to their girlfriends in the USA that was one of 4000 text messages,

And I've never said that they aren't - the problem is when you express an Intent and have the ability to carry out that intent.

An opinion =/= intent.

Compare the statement: I don't like that person (opinion) and I'm going to do something to that person (intent)

Its particularly irrelevant as he clearly did nothing to prevent Trump being elected, its just as likely to be an indication of what his voting preference was.

Except for prioritizing an investigation of a hot-button issue, during an Election campaign...

You have a strange definition of ethics, In the case you Trump we have a guy that has threatened state department officials and attempted to undermine and interfere with investigations.
Fired investigators when they refused to do as he wishes.
He lied about meetings with Russians regarding information regarding Hillary.
Not to mention undermining the state departments position on Russia.
These are ethics if you hold a FBI investigator accountable for his possible bias apply it the same way to trump.

Still not started any new wars and still has kept his campaign promises - which is better than all the US presidents within my living memory.

TheDemonLord

14th August 2018, 13:17

Donald Trump was a presidential candidate. At the meeting was.

Was he a member of the Senate? Congress? Was he an existing politician with any form of Security Clearance?

No?

Best you put your Strawman back in the field - the Crows are circling.

husaberg

14th August 2018, 13:19

And have I called for a criminal investigation against him? No...

Is that Russian interference under the explicit direction by Donald Trump? Or is that generic Russian interference of the type they do to us and we do to them? Cause those are 2 distinct scenarios...

And I've never said that they aren't - the problem is when you express an Intent and have the ability to carry out that intent.

An opinion =/= intent.

Compare the statement: I don't like that person (opinion) and I'm going to do something to that person (intent)

Except for prioritizing an investigation of a hot-button issue, during an Election campaign...

Still not started any new wars and still has kept his campaign promises - which is better than all the US presidents within my living memory.
You indicated that there was evidence to suggest he was biased yet despite there being no evidence you still make claims knowing thereis no foundation of evidence to support it.
The state departed has been clear there was Russian interference inn the Election Trump has made statements there was not.

A hot button issue really that no one was aware of until after the election. Nice one...

husaberg

14th August 2018, 13:45

Was he a member of the Senate? Congress? Was he an existing politician with any form of Security Clearance?

No?
Best you put your Strawman back in the field - the Crows are circling.
He was a Republican party candidate for the US presidency not a private citizen, his team had a meeting with the express intent to gain information from a foreign source in the hope that that would gain him a political advantage, he then lied about it for a year including the time he was US president if you cant see that this is not ethical you are sadly mistaken.

TheDemonLord

14th August 2018, 14:13

You indicated that there was evidence to suggest he was biased yet despite there being no evidence you still make claims knowing thereis no foundation of evidence to support it.
The state departed has been clear there was Russian interference inn the Election Trump has made statements there was not.

A hot button issue really that no one was aware of until after the election. Nice one...

Except the statement in the IG report - they couldn't be sure that his actions were free from Bias.

Trump made statements in October - before he was Elected about Russia. getting political Dirt on your rival is a different claim to influencing the Voters - are you sure you know exactly what happened?

He was a Republican party candidate for the US presidency his team had a meeting with the express intent to gain information from a foreign source in the hope that that would gain him a political advantage, he then lied about it for a year including the time he was US president if you cant see that this is not ethical you are sadly mistaken.

Getting political Dirt on your rival is a different claim to influencing the Voters - are you sure you know exactly what happened?

And Still - he's not started any new Wars and he's kept his election promises.

husaberg

14th August 2018, 15:14

Except the statement in the IG report - they couldn't be sure that his actions were free from Bias.

Trump made statements in October - before he was Elected about Russia. getting political Dirt on your rival is a different claim to influencing the Voters - are you sure you know exactly what happened?

Getting political Dirt on your rival is a different claim to influencing the Voters - are you sure you know exactly what happened?

And Still - he's not started any new Wars and he's kept his election promises.
Only they found no evidence you act like it was never investigated

Holding meeting and lying about what they were about is lying.

Trump's Moscow project came under further scrutiny following the publication of emails sent by one of Trump's business associates, Felix Sater, about the project.
"Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it," Sater wrote in a 2015 email published by The New York Times. "I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process."
Sater also claimed in the email that he would be able to get Ivanka Trump a seat in Putin's "private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin."
Champion heavyweight weightlifter Dmitry Klokov reportedly offered to set up the meeting to help facilitate the construction of the 100-story Trump World Tower Moscow.

Trump’s son Don Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner and campaign chairman Paul Manafort met at Trump Tower on 9 June 2016 with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, having been told she was offering sensitive information about Clinton from the Russian government.

Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer has claimed the US president knew in advance of a June 2016 meeting in which Russians were expected to offer “dirt” on election rival Hillary Clinton (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hillary-clinton), according to US media reports.

The June 2016 meeting was brokered by a British music promoter, Rob Goldstone, (https://twitter.com/goldstonerob?lang=en) who contacted Trump Jr saying he had (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/donald-trump-jr-emails-full-text-russia-rob-goldstone?CMP=share_btn_tw) “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father”.
He added: “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump ... I can also send this info to your father.”

2017. Trump, his son, his lawyers and other officials have repeatedly claimed the future president did not know about the meeting until details of it were revealed in July last year. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/donald-trump-jr-email-chain-russia-hillary-clinton)
The president told reporters onboard Air Force One at the time: “I only heard about it two or three days ago.”

he New York Times had learned of the meeting’s existence by early July 2017, and asked the White House about it while Trump was attending the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. On July 8, as Air Force One was flying back to the US, Trump and several of his top aides strategized about how Don Jr. should respond. And eventually, Don Jr. sent the Times these comments:

It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared [Kushner] and Paul [Manafort] to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow up.

I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.

Trump’s knowledge or otherwise of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting is a key issue in Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and links between Trump aides and Russia.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, famously told the author Michael Wolff he thought the meeting was “treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit”.
“The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the 26th floor,” Bannon added, “is zero.”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj2HXubUUAAcgok?format=jpg&name=360x360https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj2HXuYU8AAbtLL?format=jpg&name=360x360

Trump’s current lawyer Rudy Giuliani says Trump didn’t know (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17630148/giuliani-trump-tower-cohen-mueller-russia), and both he and Trump have started to say that even if there were some sort of collusion (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17630148/giuliani-trump-tower-cohen-mueller-russia) between the Trump campaign and Russia, that’s not necessarily a crime anyway (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/08/01/trump-says-collusion-isnt-a-crime-hes-right-its-actually-many-crimes/).

Mueller has indicted 31 individuals, including 12 Russian intelligence agents, for hacking computer networks of the Democrats. Trump has repeatedly denounced the investigation as a “rigged witch-hunt” and was widely criticised for appearing to side with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies at a joint press conference in Helsinki earlier this month.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/russian-ivanka-money-laundering/4741/
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/2d/10/712d10b36073efd6d5b6591484d61a9e.jpg

https://pics.me.me/i-have-nothing-to-do-with-russia-no-deals-no-34832203.png

yokel

14th August 2018, 19:52

yokel

14th August 2018, 20:06

Only they found no evidence you act like it was never investigated

Holding meeting and lying about what they were about is lying.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj2HXubUUAAcgok?format=jpg&name=360x360https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj2HXuYU8AAbtLL?format=jpg&name=360x360

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/russian-ivanka-money-laundering/4741/
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/2d/10/712d10b36073efd6d5b6591484d61a9e.jpg

https://pics.me.me/i-have-nothing-to-do-with-russia-no-deals-no-34832203.png

Wow, that's a real nothing burger you got there.
Hope you enjoying it?

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setu p.html

husaberg

14th August 2018, 20:26

Wow, that's a real nothing burger you got there.
Hope you enjoying it?

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setu p.html
A nothing burger would be Trumps promise to release his tax returns which he still has not done yet it must be a long audit as that was the excuse he used last time wasnt it.
Every other President has, but not Trump.....

Mr Trump refused to release his tax returns during the presidential election campaign, claiming he was under audit.

yokel

14th August 2018, 20:40

A nothing burger would be Trumps promise to release his tax returns which he still has not done yet it must be a long audit as that was the excuse he used last time wasnt it.
Every other President has, but not Trump.....

Trump is not every other President....

They never thought she would lose, now they pay.

https://youtu.be/HUQjnBS8F-E

husaberg

14th August 2018, 20:45

Trump is not every other President....

https://youtu.be/HUQjnBS8F-E
You are right
http://www.indusage.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/MW-FE337_approv_20170124114302_NS.jpghttps://pics.me.me/trump-has-the-lowest-approval-rating-of-any-president-elect-since-9425065.pnghttps://pics.me.me/presidential-approval-gniorciusa-todayigallup-76-0-ndon-breaking-news-live-13650117.pnghttp://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/1.24.17.jpg?itok=k9Jrk4ha

yokel

14th August 2018, 20:58

In other fake news, Trump uses the N- word, oh jeez he's surely going down this time......

https://youtu.be/0dP09pHM5M4

pritch

14th August 2018, 21:25

In other fake news, Trump uses the N- word, oh jeez he's surely going down this time......

Hardly. The rednecks that support Trump would support his use of the word - if he actually used it.

Stzrok's firing is considered political. The FBI's internal disciplinary proceedings had recommended a few weeks suspension and a shift sideways (?). It's interesting because he has been responsible for the apprehension of a considerable number of Russian spies. Putin will be pleased with Donny.

husaberg

14th August 2018, 23:15

Hardly. The rednecks that support Trump would support his use of the word - if he actually used it.

Stzrok's firing is considered political. The FBI's internal disciplinary proceedings had recommended a few weeks suspension and a shift sideways (?). It's interesting because he has been responsible for the apprehension of a considerable number of Russian spies. Putin will be pleased with Donny.

Not only that, the FBI indicated they would be sticking with procedure n relation to this, which they haven't.

Be intersting to see what happens as she has a tape..... not that she should have but everyone thats dealing with Trump seems to be taping what he says.

Speaking of tape it turms out the state department has two emplloyesss that have to stick back together all the documents that Trump tears up and throws away.
AS it US policy to keep all documents.
Trumps after it was leaked what was happening sacked these guys as well now.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164

pritch

15th August 2018, 08:42

All this recording. Omarosa recorded a conversation in the situation room. This has horrified a lot of Yanks. The situation room was supposed to be completely secure, but it was a system based on trust. In the Trump Whitehouse trust is non-existent, it seems that the Whitehouse has become a large recording studio. Cohen and Omarosa won't be the only ones, anybody with half a clue will be doing it.

yokel

15th August 2018, 09:45

pritch

15th August 2018, 13:46

Yes she should be prosecuted.
It's almost up there with using an private email server to receive classified government info.

It's about priorities really, first they have to bust Trump for being a Russian agent. Pity they can't charge him with treason though, he's as guilty as sin.

We should find out what happened to his campaign manager Manafort soon, his lawyers offered no defence.

jasonu

15th August 2018, 14:05

his lawyers offered no defence.

Do you know why that is?

pritch

15th August 2018, 14:57

Do you know why that is?

I presume because the defence don't have to prove he's not guilty, it's up to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty.

The more cycnical might conclude he isn't worried because he knows he'll be pardoned anyway. That might be a leap too far though.

Banditbandit

15th August 2018, 15:09

his lawyers offered no defence.

Do you know why that is?

I assume that is because Manaford is taking the fall for his masters - standard practice in criminal organisations ..

jasonu

15th August 2018, 15:55

I presume because the defence don't have to prove he's not guilty, it's up to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty.

The more cycnical might conclude he isn't worried because he knows he'll be pardoned anyway. That might be a leap too far though.

I assume that is because Manaford is taking the fall for his masters - standard practice in criminal organisations ..

Pritch is correct. The defense says the prosecution hasn't met its case so no actual defense necessary.
I doubt that will pan out well.

Banditbandit

15th August 2018, 16:08

Pritch is correct. The defense says the prosecution hasn't met its case so no actual defense necessary.
I doubt that will pan out well.

That will depend on what is presented in court when it comes to trial ... and whether Manaford takes the stand.

pritch

15th August 2018, 16:37

That will depend on what is presented in court when it comes to trial ... and whether Manaford takes the stand.

A trial is in progress. After the prosecution completed their part the defence moved that there was no case to answer. That didn't wash, Manafort told the judge he did not wish to take the stand, his lawyers offered no defence so the trial moves to the summing up phase.

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, there will be another in a few weeks in the District of Columbia on different charges.

Banditbandit

15th August 2018, 16:42

A trial is in progress. After the prosecution completed their part the defence moved that there was no case to answer. That didn't wash, Manafort told the judge he did not wish to take the stand, his lawyers offered no defence so the trial moves to the summing up phase.

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, there will be another in a few weeks in the District of Columbia on different charges.

OK - thanks. I can't be bothered following the bullshit there - apart from its amusement value.

Viking01

15th August 2018, 16:58

https://www.thenation.com/article/if-collusion-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/

jasonu

16th August 2018, 02:29

That will depend on what is presented in court when it comes to trial ... and whether Manaford takes the stand.

The trial (apart for summing up) finished yesterday and the defense chose not to defend.

TheDemonLord

16th August 2018, 09:37

Something interesting to add here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fgK8laWlak

This is a Grilling between Trey Gowdy and Peter Strzok - now you can watch the whole thing if you want (I rather enjoy watching Trey interrogate people) - however the interesting part is if you skip forward to approx 13:00 - He gives a passionate defense of his Txts and claims objectivity - however, when he refers to President Trump's "Horrible and Disgusting behaviour" - his speech full of Vitriol - ask yourself this:

Are those the words of someone who is biased or someone who has maintained Objectivity?

pritch

16th August 2018, 10:38

Are those the words of someone who is biased or someone who has maintained Objectivity?

Which is compeletely and utterly irrelevant. All civil servants have personal opinions, and Trump does tend to provoke strong ones, but they have to keep them separate from their work. Stzrok was the top spy catcher in the FBI, and as such probably scared the shit outa Trump.

Katman

16th August 2018, 10:49

TheDemonLord

16th August 2018, 11:32

Which is compeletely and utterly irrelevant. All civil servants have personal opinions, and Trump does tend to provoke strong ones, but they have to keep them separate from their work. Stzrok was the top spy catcher in the FBI, and as such probably scared the shit outa Trump.

Personal opinions are fine - it's the amount of conviction behind those opinions that's important and whether or not we can be sure that in the macro and micro decisions made by the individual during the course of their work were made without reference to those strong, principled convictions.

He chose to refer to Trump as Horrible and Disgusting, his manner and the way he delivered the words shows the Contempt he has for the President. Now, if he referred to Hilary in the same manner (ie showing an equal level of bias towards her) I'd be fine or if he calmly stated his opinion on Trump as not being his preferred candidate, that would also be fine.

To me, he's exceeded a threshold from mere personal opinion, to something akin to Zealotry - which casts an immovable shadow of doubt over his work and conduct.

pritch

16th August 2018, 12:31

If Peter Stzrok's comments could be seen to imply personal bias (which I think they clearly do) then the exchange in that video is entirely relevant.

It's not. That's not how it works. Most civil servants will probably be required at some point to do things that they may strongly oppose. They either do them or quit. Simple.

Katman

16th August 2018, 12:37

It's not. That's not how it works.

You're entitled to your opinion - just as I'm entitled to mine.

pritch

16th August 2018, 12:42

You're entitled to your opinion - just as I'm entitled to mine.

I know you have trouble with new ideas, but give it a shot. It is nothing to do with opinion. That is how it works - full stop.

Katman

16th August 2018, 12:54

I know you have trouble with new ideas, but give it a shot. It is nothing to do with opinion. That is how it works - full stop.

Trey Gowdy doesn't seem to agree with you.

And neither do I.

husaberg

16th August 2018, 12:55

It's not. That's not how it works. Most civil servants will probably be required at some point to do things that they may strongly oppose. They either do them or quit. Simple.

None of anything changes the facts of the case either no mater what the Trump followers would like.

After a year-long investigation that included a review of millions of communications and interviews of scores of witnesses, the IG concluded that there is no evidence that the political views of Special Agent Strzok and others in the FBI impacted the handling of the Clinton email investigation," Strzok's attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in a statement to CNBC. "As the Report notes, Special Agent Strzok in particular was consistently thorough and aggressive, sometimes to the point that put him at odds with senior officials at the Department of Justice."
Thursday's watchdog report from the Department of Justice examined Strzok's and Page's actions and found no evidence that "political bias" tainted their work.
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed," the department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, wrote in the conclusion of his report issued Thursday.

They also of course have an FBI oath to uphold.
Every federal employee swears an oath (https://archive.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Also

It’s also important to note that Mueller was prevented from considering political affiliation when putting together his team.
Both Justice Department policy and the Civil Service Reform Act "prohibit using political affiliation and may also prohibit using certain ideological affiliations in hiring and taking other personnel actions

“Every FBI agent, and Pete [Strzok] is no different, knows how to investigate and follow the facts,” a former senior official told The Hill. “It’s astonishing. There’s a lack of understanding of how we operate as an organization—one, to think that we could not have political views and conduct impartial investigations, and two, to assume with a complex investigation like this that one person could change the outcome.”

Trump is now attempting to use this as a reason to throw out the investigation into the Russian interference but as soon as the text were discovered Strzok was effectively sidelined from investigations It was a British spy that first suggested Trump might have been ensnared by Russian intelligence.

With regards to Bias Its been alledged that Trumps lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and the FBI’s New York field office, where the ones who reportedly pressed the FBI to revisit the Clinton server investigation after beginning an inquiry into Weiner’s as some of the emails from Weiners wife were sent to Clinton . its also been reported that a former New York field office chief, highly critical of the non-indictment, runs a military charity that has received significant financial donations from Trump.

Robert Mueller’s investigative team has "13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans."
— Donald Trump (https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) on Sunday, March 18th, 2018 in a tweet

https://whatsnew2day.com/wp-content/uploads/1534235268_130_FBI-lover-fired-starts-a-GoFundMe-for-legal-accounts-and-joins-Twitter.jpghttps://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wY6oFzR3H68/WqyJbrpn-KI/AAAAAAAAhog/rXTB8k47l0MUyZ0p416Krh9NtwhiOd7yACLcBGAs/s400/McCabeB.PNGhttps://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MjVAJKQT8ws/WrBM68kGypI/AAAAAAAAhpc/XnhOD_Nq1cYfDGvIyyF25iWLe1bwMft1QCLcBGAs/s640/DoanldTrum180318.PNG
Trump tries also to make out its a Democrat conspiracy but misses out that the fact that its leader is Mueller, who is registered as a Republican in the District of Columbia.

Mueller was appointed to offices by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, as well as by Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. In addition, Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, who was nominated for deputy attorney general by Trump himself, and who previously was appointed as a U.S. Attorney by George W. Bush

pritch

16th August 2018, 13:39

Trey Gowdy doesn't seem to agree with you.

And neither do I.

I doubt I'd agree with Trey Gowdy on a lot but he won't be there much longer anyway. These hearings though are more about theatre than fact finding, it'd be a mistake to take them too seriously.
They can be entertaining though and I did watch some of that one live.

Strangely it bothers me not at all that you don't agree with me. If you suddenly did start agreeing with me I'd find that slightly disconcerting. :innocent:

You must have a motorbike to work on, I have dishes to do, be well.

pritch

16th August 2018, 13:52

It was a British spy that first suggested Trump might have been ensnared by Russian intelligence.

If you will permit me to correct that. The first notification to US authorities was made by an Australian diplomat who had heard drunken boasting by a member of team Trump. That was some two months prior to the FBI receiving the Steele dossier.

husaberg

16th August 2018, 14:02

If you will permit me to correct that. The first notification to US authorities was made by an Australian diplomat who had heard drunken boasting by a member of team Trump. That was some two months prior to the FBI receiving the Steele dossier.
True.......

yokel

16th August 2018, 17:05

It's about priorities really, first they have to bust Trump for being a Russian agent. Pity they can't charge him with treason though, he's as guilty as sin.

We should find out what happened to his campaign manager Manafort soon, his lawyers offered no defence.

Guilty as sin of what and how??
I guess bias is hard to see when you have the same bias yaself.

Speaking of guilty as sin, this popped up in the Qanon posts.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/paul-combetta-computer-specialist-who-deleted-hillary-clinton-emails-may-have-asked-reddit-for-tips

yokel

16th August 2018, 17:18

Can a non pilot baggage handler do barrel rolls??

Where did he crash?

Significant.........

https://youtu.be/hzNRpdLIPU4

pritch

16th August 2018, 17:59

Guilty as sin of what and how??
I guess bias is hard to see when you have the same bias yaself.

Speaking of guilty as sin, this popped up in the Qanon posts.

It's like this, I see Trump as a Russian plant. It's remarkable to me that everybody can't see it. In the fullness of time...

Qanon is a money making scheme hatched by a group of con artists. When you look at Trump supporters it's easy to see where they got the idea.

husaberg

16th August 2018, 18:53

It's like this, I see Trump as a Russian plant. It's remarkable to me that everybody can't see it. In the fullness of time...

Qanon is a money making scheme hatched by a group of con artists. When you look at Trump supporters it's easy to see where they got the idea.
I dont know if i would go that far but hes a pawn of Russian influence but hes a complusive liar.
For instance
He says

“I don’t see any reason why it would be [Russia]” who meddled in the 2016 election,
When he was briefed a week before hand that Russia had interfered.

Then the next week he was asked

"if Russia was still targeting the US"
he said "no"
That same day his spokesperson said this

Sarah Huckabee Sanders "The president and his administration are working very hard to make sure that Russia is unable to meddle in our elections as they have done in the past and as we have stated."

but the next day trump said this

“Let me be totally clear in saying that … I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion,” Trump said, reading from a prepared script. He then added: “It could be other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.”
then this

Russia did meddle in 2016 election & are trying it again. I’ve seen no evidence of collusion, plenty evidence of Russian meddling.
5:00 AM - Jul 17, 2018 (https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1018903094397227008)
But the Intelligence community said this

the [intelligence community’s] conclusions “The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.”

The Rublician house speaker said this

hey did interfere in our elections. It’s really clear. There should be no doubt about that. Russia is trying to undermine democracy itself.
Yet now hes saying this which is the complete opposite

I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
3:50 AM - Jul 25, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021784726217142273)

Then we have this

Trump’s tariffs: “Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It’s as simple as that,” the president tweeted on Tuesday.

The Treasury Department eased sanctions on Russian aluminum producer Rusal and said it would consider lifting them altogether

Rusal was sanctioned earlier in April by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control because of Deripaska's stake in the company. The Russian billionaire is alleged to have conducted a range of illegal activities, including money laundering, extortion and ordering the murder of a businessman, according to Treasury.

Viking01

16th August 2018, 19:35

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-sanctions-rusal/insight-how-rusal-escaped-the-noose-of-u-s-sanctions-idINKCN1IH0KY

husaberg

16th August 2018, 19:55

US tariffs: Steel and aluminium levies slapped on key allies
31 May 2018
The US said a 25% tax on steel and 10% tax on aluminium from the EU, Mexico and Canada will start at midnight
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the tariffs were an "affront" to the longstanding relationship between Canada and the US, especially to the "thousands of Canadian soldiers who fought and died alongside their American comrades-in-arms" in Afghanistan.
Canada, Mexico and the EU combined exported $23bn worth of steel and aluminium to the US last year - nearly half of the $48bn total steel and aluminium imports in 2017.
The tariffs have faced sharp criticism in the US from businesses and lawmakers, including Republicans typically allied with the president.
The US Aluminum Association, which represents major producers, also criticised the US decision, saying tariffs would alienate allies and fail to address oversupply.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44320221

Maybe the comrades in Russia are more important.
Its an intersting contrast.

jasonu

17th August 2018, 02:25

It's like this, I see Trump as a Russian plant. .

Are you somehow related to katman?

pete376403

17th August 2018, 08:34

The US said a 25% tax on steel and 10% tax on aluminium from the EU, Mexico and Canada will start at midnight
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the tariffs were an "affront" to the longstanding relationship between Canada and the US, especially to the "thousands of Canadian soldiers who fought and died alongside their American comrades-in-arms" in Afghanistan.
Canada, Mexico and the EU combined exported $23bn worth of steel and aluminium to the US last year - nearly half of the $48bn total steel and aluminium imports in 2017.
The tariffs have faced sharp criticism in the US from businesses and lawmakers, including Republicans typically allied with the president.
The US Aluminum Association, which represents major producers, also criticised the US decision, saying tariffs would alienate allies and fail to address oversupply.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44320221

Maybe the comrades in Russia are more important.
Its an intersting contrast.

So, no tariff on Russian steel or aluminium? That would be difficult to explain (to rational people, not the Drumpf base)

husaberg

17th August 2018, 11:14

Trump’s lawyers prepare to fight subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court
Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s lead lawyer for the ongoing Russia probe, said Wednesday that he is still awaiting a response from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to the Trump team’s latest terms for a presidential interview, which <g id="55" data-gr-id="55">were</g> made last week in a letter that argued against Trump’s having to answer questions about his possible obstruction of justice.
In the meantime, Trump’s lawyers are preparing to oppose a potential subpoena from Mueller for a Trump sit-down by drafting a rebuttal that could set off a dramatic fight in federal courts.
“We would move to quash the subpoena,” Giuliani said in an interview. “And we’re pretty much finished with our memorandum opposing a subpoena.”
n recent weeks, Giuliani said members of Trump’s team have “had conversations” with Emmet T. Flood, a White House lawyer working on issues related to the federal investigation. He said Flood “would have a big role to play here and would assert presidential privilege” but declined to say more about those discussions.
White House officials have privately said Flood has cautioned Trump and others about the unpredictability of a subpoena fight that could be decided by the Supreme Court. Such a case would be unprecedented.
Mueller, who is heading the federal probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and of Trump’s conduct, has sought a presidential interview for months. The president’s lawyers and Mueller have not reached an agreement.
A letter from Trump’s lawyers sent to Mueller on Aug. 8 significantly lessened the possibility of a voluntary presidential interview, according to two people familiar with the discussions. The multipage response represents what Trump’s lawyers expect to be their last word on Mueller’s request,Mueller told Trump’s lawyers in March that he could issue a subpoena for Trump to appear before a grand jury if Trump declined an interview, according to four people familiar with the encounter.
Giuliani said the Trump legal team, which briefed Trump last week, is mapping out a subpoena battle that could stretch on for months.
Looks Like trump doesn’t want to give evidence or if he does he doesn’t want to answer questions about his obstruction of justice………….

So, no tariff on Russian steel or aluminium? That would be difficult to explain (to rational people, not the Drumpf base)
You would think so.
Odd that they were placed on the EU though.
NZ was not exempted but.
South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Brazil all where.
it seems that Rusal is now at 10% for Aluminium.
Russia have also demanded that the USA pay compensation though
https://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFL8N1RW2RU

Trump’s tariffs: “Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It’s as simple as that,” the president tweeted on Tuesday.

pritch

17th August 2018, 11:43

I particularly liked the news item that states Russian media listed the names of eight people they said should lose their US security clearances, two days before Trump listed the same eight names. It's almost as if they knew something.

One thing that they didn't seem to know was that some of those people no longer have security clearances. Trump didn't know, but a recent comment indicates that he has been informed.

Update: While the detail above is correct as far as it goes, and it has gone viral - Sarah Huckabee Sanders had mentioned the list prior to the Russian publishing it.

Banditbandit

17th August 2018, 13:39

Grumph

17th August 2018, 13:58

For your consideration, LOL.

husaberg

17th August 2018, 17:54

For your consideration, LOL.

Last month, Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, suggested that Trump may pardon Manafort. Giuliani’s framing of terms for pardoning Manafort sparked instant political and legal controversy.

Giuliani first raised the prospect of a presidential pardon the day U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is hearing the Washington case, revoked Manafort’s $10 million bail for what prosecutors said was witness tampering, and ordered him to jail until his trial.
“When the whole thing is over, things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons,” Giuliani told the New York Daily News June 15.
Giuliani elaborated on TV shows June 17, saying Trump’s criteria for issuing a pardon would be whether a defendant had been “treated unfairly.” Two days earlier, Trump had called Manafort’s jailing “very unfair.”

Giuliani’s comments were criticized by former federal prosecutors and legal scholars, with some suggesting that the former New York mayor was complicit in obstructing justice.

“I think there’s no other way to look at that than an invitation or exhortation to Manafort to keep quiet and stay the course and hope for the get-out-of-jail card,” said Harry Litman, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco. “He has no business trying to telegraph to Manafort anything about pardon prospects.”
Giuliani said his comments were not “in any way improper.” In text messages to the Los Angeles Times, he said he did not believe that Manafort could interpret his comments to discourage possible cooperation with Mueller’s team.

pritch

17th August 2018, 18:51

As Grumph's cartoon suggests, Rudy Giuliani has been ranting and raving on TV that collusion is not a crime. He is right, collusion is a journalists' word, the crime is conspiracy.

The theory has been advanced that Trump wants to withdraw the security clearances of the people on his list to get even for their criticism. All of those people though would be witnesses in any impeachment or prosecution prodeedings. Losing their clearances would prevent them going back to review their files prior to making an appearance in court or before congress.

Following the withdrawal of Brennan's security clearance he has written an item in the New York Times. Sadly I can't read that, it's behind a paywall. Reportedly he is not mentioning collusion, he is talking conspiracy, and he's not talking maybe. So it seems the former head of the CIA may be saying a crime took place.

I really don't want to pay the New York Times but...

Viking01

17th August 2018, 19:54

http://www.voltairenet.org/article202140.html

Viking01

17th August 2018, 23:10

The following website might be of interest to a few:

https://theweeklylist.org/weekly-list/

Grumph

18th August 2018, 07:51

I had to cringe a little at this - sorry, I can't post a link - Trump's blaming Canada for at least part of the wildfires in California..."If we didn't import so much lumber from Canada these fallen trees would be logged" - remember he's the one who's increased tariffs on Canadian timber...And the received wisdom on these trees is that a lot are diseased and dying so unsuitable for logging anyway...

Voltaire

18th August 2018, 08:15

And a meeting with Vietnam Vets and he thinks Agent Orange is Napalm based on Apocalypse Now....probably be giving Marlon Brando a posthumous decoration next.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-apocalypse-now-vietnam-vets-row-war-white-house-meeting-a8496626.html

" I love the smell of orange hair dye in the morning" Donald Trumph.

pritch

18th August 2018, 09:59

I note a degree of upset on social media. This millionaire pastor only opened his church to assist with accommodation in the wake of a hurricane after public condemnation for his lack of action. He has now somewhat surprisingly been nominated for an award for his contribution.

https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/08/joel-osteen-refuses-to-open-church-to-hurricane-victims-gets-des/

https://abc13.com/society/joel-osteen-honored-by-city-of-houston-for-post-harvey-help/3957138/

pritch

19th August 2018, 12:48

Mildly amusing, but I see that Trump's proposed parade has been postponed, basically because of cost. So as not to miss out on a parade completely he is heading to France. This will be the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day, I look forward to seeing some coverage of this event as I was at the fiftieth. Time flies when you're having fun.

Meanwhile back home in the US of A a veterans group has organised a 5k run, one k for each of Trump's deferments.

oldrider

19th August 2018, 13:52

What Donald said:- https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1030838520397606912

Voltaire

20th August 2018, 12:40

pritch

20th August 2018, 13:17

Added to Kellyanne Conway's "alternate facts" we now have Rudy Giuliani's "truth isn't truth". What a cast of clowns. I can't figure out if George Orwell is spinning in his grave or pissing himself laughing. IYSWIM

pritch

22nd August 2018, 11:21

It would seem Trump is not having one of his best days. His former campaign manager is found guilty on eight fraud charges. His former lawyer/fixer Cohen has done a deal with Mueller's team admitting to fraud and, more importantly, campaign finance violations which he says were committed at the behest of Trump. Cohen seems bound for jail, how long is yet to be decided.

Some "witch hunt".

Banditbandit

22nd August 2018, 12:01

The trial (apart for summing up) finished yesterday and the defense chose not to defend.

And Manafort has gone - guilty on eight charges ..

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12111301

Sorry Pritch - I didn't see your post .

Banditbandit

22nd August 2018, 13:07

And now Cohen has handed himself in a pleaded guilty

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/trumps-ex-lawyer-michael-cohen-strikes-plea-deal-nbc-news.html

Two of the counts that Cohen pleaded guilty to appear to relate to Trump directly.
Cohen admitted on Tuesday to making payments to two women at the direction of an unidentified candidate for political office who appears to be the president.

Those payments, Cohen said, were made to influence the outcome of the election.

Moving up the tree - Meuller will reach the top soon

pritch

22nd August 2018, 21:49

The luckiest people in the US today have to be this dude and his equally sleazy missus facing charges of sustained fraudulent use of campagn funds. Another crooked Republican, news of his charges will be all but lost amid coverage of Trump's personal den of thieves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/congressman-duncan-hunter-wife-charged-with-spending-campaign-money-on-personal-expenses/2018/08/21/4dba040a-a591-11e8-a656-943eefab5daf_story.html?utm_term=.8bfbea4d2458

Just last week yet another Republican politician was charged with insider trading offences. He says he will fight the charges but his in-laws, who were also involved, have already entered guilty pleas.

So much for the party of law and order.

Afterthought: The guy facing insider trading charges was the first congressman to openly support Trump. The second congressman to support Trump was Hunter who was indicted for misusing election funding yesterday. I wonder who was third and how he's sleeping about now?

Banditbandit

23rd August 2018, 12:04

Hmm ... Trump's supporters here are strangely silent ...

Or is that more like stunned silence ??

Viking01

25th August 2018, 10:09

https://www.politico.com/cartoons/2018/08/02/matt-wuerker-cartoons-august-2018-000069?slide=0

pritch

25th August 2018, 10:10

husaberg

25th August 2018, 12:47

Interesting developments in the US of A. The Attorney General of New York State is going after the Trump Foundation. The Foundation was shut down earlier for operating illegally. This raises the possibilities that the trustees could face fraud and tax fraud charges.

The Attorney General for New York looks like a nice old lady. Apparently she was a distinguished student, she clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, she herself has taken twenty cases to the Supreme Court and has taught for years at Harvard. She is not really somebody you'd want coming after you, especially if no competent lawyer will have anything to do with you.

Some things about this:
1 Trumps kids are involved in the Foundation,
2 The president can pardon people convicted of federal crimes, but not those convicted of state crimes,
3 Any convictions arising from this would be for state crimes.

Must get some popcorn in...

The New York Angle is very intersting as it was the New York FBI office that keep pressing the need to keep reopening the multiple Hillary investigations.
AS i posted earlier

With regards to Bias Its been alledged that Trumps lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and the FBI’s New York field office, where the ones who reportedly pressed the FBI to revisit the Clinton server investigation after beginning an inquiry into Weiner’s as some of the emails from Weiners wife were sent to Clinton . its also been reported that a former New York field office chief, highly critical of the non-indictment, runs a military charity that has received significant financial donations from Trump.
I believe the man refered to is James Kallistrom and the charity is the Marine Corps – Law Enforcement Foundation (MC-LEF), a charitable organization of which he is the Chairman of the Board. Trump says he gave them 1 million out of his own pocket and raised a further 6 million.
Although it seems 1 million or so may have went missing........
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/24/four-months-later-donald-trump-says-he-gave-1-million-to-veterans-group/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55b2f6971e10
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/25/recipient-of-trumps-1-million-donation-its-arrived-and-its-in-the-bank/?utm_term=.18280f15642c

But of course there is no bias when you have the recipient of all this cash first pushing as hard as he can to investigate one side and then pushing as hard as he can to influence not investigating another.

Former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom alleged Sunday that there was a conspiracy in Washington to protect Hillary Clinton from indictment. He added that ongoing chaos in Trump’s cabinet may be a symptom of the plot.

Longtime former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom said the investigators probing President Donald Trump are "out of control."
Kallstrom said he would be surprised if there were either a criminal or national security "predicate" to lead FBI agents to storm Paul Manafort's home in a predawn raid in the Russia election-meddling probe.
"That would be preposterous," he said. He also criticized the subsequent raid of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's office in connection with the Stormy Daniels allegations.

Funny enough when you look at what the charities deputy chairman day job guess what he is
https://www.mc-lef.org/our-people/
Gary E. Schweikert Currently, he is Managing Director of the Trump Soho hotel.

pritch

25th August 2018, 13:43

Funny enough when you look at what the charities deputy chairman day job guess what he is
Gary E. Schweikert Currently, he is Managing Director of the Trump Soho hotel.

What a coincidence, but the :Police: don't care much for coincidences.

It's the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York that Prosecuted Trump's lawyer Cohen. That office covers Manhattan. They are Feds though, not NY State.

That SDNY has now granted the Chief Financial Officer of Trump's company immunity from prosecution. Immunity can be granted in respect of a specified range, or it can be unlimited. Mr Weisselberg's immunity is apparently unlimited, which implies that nothing is off the table. He has been with Trump over forty years so he knows everything about Trump's finances that there is to know. Almost. Apparently he was completely unaware that he was listed as Treasurer of the Trump Foundation.

Interesting that he has taken a deal because he, more than anybody, might have been able to expect a presidential pardon. He is almost family. He seems instead to have opted to spill the beans. Perhaps he was worried that Trump might not be around long enough to give him a pardon?

Grumph

25th August 2018, 16:48

Interesting that he has taken a deal because he, more than anybody, might have been able to expect a presidential pardon. He is almost family. He seems instead to have opted to spill the beans. Perhaps he was worried that Trump might not be around long enough to give him a pardon?

There's only around 2 years of his term to run. I wouldn't give you odds on his getting back in - but I didn't think he'd actually get in....
I wonder if dragging the investigation out to the point where the co-conspirators can't see a presidential pardon happening is a deliberate ploy.

Pundits are picking Trump will sack Sessions after the midterm elections. If the Dems do well, that could be the breaking point.

oldrider

26th August 2018, 09:48

jasonu

26th August 2018, 16:57

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12113851
Nice words from Winnie

Katman

26th August 2018, 17:37

https://www.liberationnews.org/john-mccain-war-criminal-not-war-hero/

pete376403

26th August 2018, 19:36

MSM dont seem to think that this topic is newsworthy?:- https://israelpalestinenews.org/time-for-media-to-tell-americans-about-the-bills-in-congress-to-give-israel-38-billion/ Think about that for a moment as if you were an American taxpayer? :scratch:

Interesting web site. Another article on that page had: Palestinian rights groups and local governments have challenged an Israeli law that seeks to the annex of parts of the West Bank. The Israeli government responded to the petition, stating that “the Knesset [is permitted] to legislate laws everywhere in the world” and that it is authorized “to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries via legislation that would be applied to events occurring in their territories.”

Obviously the money and materiel supplied by the US gives Israel the belief that they have these rights, regardless of what the rest of the world may think.

husaberg

26th August 2018, 20:15

Interesting web site. Another article on that page had: Palestinian rights groups and local governments have challenged an Israeli law that seeks to the annex of parts of the West Bank. The Israeli government responded to the petition, stating that “the Knesset [is permitted] to legislate laws everywhere in the world” and that it is authorized “to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries via legislation that would be applied to events occurring in their territories.”

Obviously the money and materiel supplied by the US gives Israel the belief that they have these rights, regardless of what the rest of the world may think.
If you go back to the actual historical events the west bank land was never taken from Palestine by Israel.
What events occurred was that following the creation of the states of Israel and Palestine ,Jordan invaded and anexed the whole west bank area.
What also occurred was that following Israels declaration of independence, Jordan Egypt and Syria invaded both Israel and Palestine
It was not during until the 1967 war between Israel ,Jordan, Egypt and syria that Israel captured the area from Jordan.
The Golan heights at this time was seized from Syria and the Gaza Strip plus the Sinai area were taken from Egypt.

Viking01

26th August 2018, 22:28

https://occupiedpalestine.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/israel-palestine_map_19225_2469.jpg

husaberg

27th August 2018, 14:56

https://shalom.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Map-Lies-ASA-Israel-Palestine-777x437.gifhttp://www.jewishwikipedia.info/wpimages/wp9dcba6e0_05_06.jpg
https://i2.wp.com/www.sharnoffsglobalviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Jordan_annexation_west-bank_1950_318px.jpg?resize=300%2C300
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/9b/58/00/9b5800fa57d518a582c05b09824d5eb9--history-education-united-nations.jpgthttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Palestine_Distribution_of_Population_1947_UN_map_n o_93%28b%29.jpeghe Map that viking showed is utter horse shit as it describes the public land owned by both the Jewish Palestinians as solely being palistinians land. While 47.06 percent of private land in Palestine in 1945 belonged to Arabs and 5.15 percent belonged to Jews, the largest category of land was “Public and Other” at 47.8 percent. This is a rather large minor detail to leave out.”
The British decided to spilt the land into two states it was their land to decide what to do with it.
It also leaves out the fact that Jorden adn Eypt stole the land of Palestine not the Israelis.

Israel gave back lands to Egypt after they reconised the rights of Israel to exist, which is something Palestine refuses to do.

Banditbandit

28th August 2018, 13:58

Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg has been granted immunity by Mueller - you know, the man who knows where the bodies are buried .. this is going to be amusing ..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/26/this-may-be-the-biggest-shoe-to-drop-from-the-trump-michael-cohen-tape/?utm_term=.c2d40f7897c2

husaberg

28th August 2018, 14:09

Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg has been granted immunity by Mueller - you know, the man who knows where the bodies are buried .. his is going to be amusing ..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/26/this-may-be-the-biggest-shoe-to-drop-from-the-trump-michael-cohen-tape/?utm_term=.c2d40f7897c2

Whats even more funny is the publishers of the National enquirer has also been granted imunity.

David Pecker, chief executive of the company that publishes the National Enquirer, the tabloid magazine involved in hush-money deals to women ahead of the 2016 US presidential election, was granted immunity by federal prosecutors as part of the investigation into Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, it emerged on Thursday.
Pecker met with prosecutors to describe the involvement of Cohen and Trump in payoffs to women who alleged affairs in the past with the president, the Wall Street Journal reported. Pecker, a long time friend of Trump, was initially subpoenaed by federal investigators four months ago.
News of the media figure’s help in an investigation that is likely to prove damaging to Trump’s presidency came in the week that also saw Cohen turn on his former boss, as other former acolytes continue to assist the special counsel’s parallel Russia inquiry in Washington, further embattling the White House.
The Enquirer, the often lurid tabloid that reportedly played a key role in shielding Trump from negative stories, has become deeply embroiled in the legal storm engulfing the White House. Experts predicted on Thursday that it could have its press protections stripped away.
On Thursday the Associated Press reported that, according to people familiar with the agreement, the National Enquirer kept a safe of documents related to hush money and other damaging stories “it killed as part of its cozy relationship with Donald Trump”. The safe was emptied prior to Trump’s inauguration, according to the AP.
“The question is, was AMI was acting outside legitimate press function if it purchased a story with the intention of it not becoming public,” Brendan Fischer, federal reform director at the Campaign Legal Center, told the Guardian. “It’s hard to see how that is a legitimate function of the press.”

Trevor Potter, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and current CLC president, told the New York Times that AMI could now be in legal jeopardy. Such activity “is not like the action of a media company deciding what to cover and exercising editorial judgment”, Potter said.
In a follow-up statement on the CLC website, Potter added: “If Trump himself knowingly and willfully violated the law, or engaged in or directed a conspiracy to do so, he too could be facing criminal penalties.”
But Pecker’s apparent decision to corroborate Cohen’s account is an important loss for the president, who had long relied on Pecker as a key media ally.
Pecker regularly flew with Trump on his plane from New York to Florida. Last summer, Pecker reportedly brought an adviser to Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia to meet Trump in the Oval Office to help him expand AMI’s business.
According to the Washington Post, the Enquirer routinely sent stories to Trump to review before publication.
Trump aides were also reportedly a source for Enquirer smear stories, including one that exposed malpractice lawsuits against Ben Carson, who was then running against Trump for the Republican party nomination.
The supermarket carried repeated attacks on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as carrying unusually favorable coverage of Trump and his family.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/23/david-pecker-donald-trump-michael-cohen-immunity
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-fe-zontv-trump-lying-cnn-reliable-sources-20180826-story.html

pritch

28th August 2018, 18:35

Whats even more funny

With the dude being named Pecker the headlines must have almost written themselves. The only one I have seen though, "Trump worried Pecker is leaking".

husaberg

28th August 2018, 18:55

With the dude being named Pecker the headlines must have almost written themselves. The only one I have see though, "Trump worried Pecker is leaking".
Who wood have believed that the rot would set in so quick , Best he stops grasping beavers.

Viking01

28th August 2018, 20:07

The Map that viking showed is utter horse shit as it describes the public land owned by both the Jewish Palestinians as solely being palistinians land. While 47.06 percent of private land in Palestine in 1945 belonged to Arabs and 5.15 percent belonged to Jews, the largest category of land was “Public and Other” at 47.8 percent. This is a rather large minor detail to leave out.”
The British decided to spilt the land into two states it was their land to decide what to do with it.

I'm not aware that the earlier map made any statement as to "Palestinian land ownership".
My understanding is that it related to "Palestinian land occupation".

The following document indicates that the Arab population occupied approx 85% of the
land referred to as Palestine at that stage.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/

I believe that you are incorrect where you say "it was Britain's land to decide what to
do with it."

As the document states, Britain had occupied Palestine during WW1 (1917), and as the
"occupying power", it was granted right to act as an Administrator for the territory.
Britain had no land ownership or disposal rights re Palestine.

A proposal - under the auspices of UNSCOP - was to produce a recommendation on partition
of Palestine, to be presented to the UN General Assembly.

Perhaps UNSCOP's recommendation for land allocation to Arab (45%) and Jewish (55%) - in
stark contrast to then current land occupation - as well as the report's denial of the
right to Palestinian self determination - was a prime source of Arab discontent.

And the paragraph immediately prior to the section heading "The Authority of the U.N.
with Regard to Partition" - and how the state of Israel came to be declared - also gives
another clue as to why the Arabs chose to fight.

As does the Conclusion section of the document.

husaberg

28th August 2018, 20:51

I'm not aware that the earlier map made any statement as to "Palestinian land ownership".
My understanding is that it related to "Palestinian land occupation".

The following document indicates that the Arab population occupied approx 85% of the
land referred to as Palestine at that stage.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/

I believe that you are incorrect where you say "it was Britain's land to decide what to
do with it."

As the document states, Britain had occupied Palestine during WW1 (1917), and as the
"occupying power", it was granted right to act as an Administrator for the territory.
Britain had no land ownership or disposal rights re Palestine.

A proposal - under the auspices of UNSCOP - was to produce a recommendation on partition
of Palestine, to be presented to the UN General Assembly.

Perhaps UNSCOP's recommendation for land allocation to Arab (45%) and Jewish (55%) - in
stark contrast to then current land occupation - as well as the report's denial of the
right to Palestinian self determination - was a prime source of Arab discontent.

And the paragraph immediately prior to the section heading "The Authority of the U.N.
with Regard to Partition" - and how the state of Israel came to be declared - also gives
another clue as to why the Arabs chose to fight.

As does the Conclusion section of the document.

Your not aware of historic facts but you attempt to misrepresent them
You should go work for trump

jasonu

29th August 2018, 12:17

husaberg

29th August 2018, 14:23

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12115437

What a worn out old whore.
I'm surprised that guy Pritch didn't already post this. Right up his ally and in the Harold too.

To be far Jason Trump made Hillarys husbands affairs part of the campaign so its all fair for him to be treated with a dose of his own medicine.

In an interview with The New York Times, he also contended that infidelity was “never a problem” during his three marriages, though his first ended in an ugly divorce after Mr. Trump began a relationship with the woman who became his second wife.
Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, argued that Mrs. Clinton’s support for Ms. Machado was part of a pattern by the Democrat of treating women to suit her own political ends, and raised Mrs. Clinton’s criticism of women who had been involved with her husband, such as Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.

He said he was bringing up Mr. Clinton’s infidelities because he thought they would repulse female voters and turn them away from the Clintons, and because he was eager to unsettle Mrs. Clinton in their next two debates and on the campaign trail.
“She’s nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be,” Mr. Trump said.
“Hillary Clinton was married to the single greatest abuser of women in the history of politics,” he added about Mr. Clinton. “Hillary was an enabler, and she attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward. I think it’s a serious problem for them, and it’s something that I’m considering talking about more in the near future.”

pritch

29th August 2018, 17:16

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12115437

What a worn out old whore.
I'm surprised that guy Pritch didn't already post this. Right up his ally and in the Harold too.

Some of you may have noticed that Trump is often guilty of projection. This is when someone accuses other people of what they are doing themselves. (This is also straight from the playbook of one Adolf Hitler.) Virtually everything that Trump accuses somebody else of doing, is something he is guilty of himself. It's a long list.

Jason is such a Trump fan it seems, that he has adopted the same approach, he evidently spends a shit-load more time reading the Herald than I do.

I have been a fan of Annie Leiboviz's work since the 70s though, back when she worked for Rolling Stone magazine.

pete376403

29th August 2018, 18:05

Nice column in the Dompost this morning by Joe Bennet. He likens Trump to a water buffalo thats been bitten by a Komodo dragon (Mueller) The venom is slowly but surely killing the buffalo, and every time it looks round, there is the Komodo waiting.

husaberg

29th August 2018, 19:25

One other major legal development occurred on last week was the indictment of California congressman Duncan Hunter
Hunter, a five-term congressman was the second member of Congress to endorse Trump's campaign for president. The first was Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), who — incredibly — was also indicted this month on charges of insider trading, prompting him to cancel his re-election campaign.
Hunter’s indictment was the culmination of a year-long FBI criminal investigation into Hunter's reported misuse of over $250,000 in campaign funds on himself, family, and friends. Hunter and his wife Margaret are charged with wire fraud, falsifying records, campaign finance violations, and conspiracy. He has previously denied all wrongdoing.:whistle:

oldrider

30th August 2018, 09:54

Banditbandit

30th August 2018, 11:16

It was never about Russia. The targeting of @RealDonaldTrump serves to protect Hillary Clinton and her enablers/co-conspirators in Obama administration from prosecution. :corn:

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1034901294983667715 - Turn on the sound.

Oh crap ... even if you buy into the idea that Clinton and Obama should be prosecuted - you have to see that Russian engagement in the US elections and US politics in the way that is being suggested is a major issue ...

This speaks to the independence of the USA - their sovereignty - and as Russia is an old enemy, seeks to an enemy undermining the sovereignty of another country and possibly even putting a puppet into the presidency ....

If Russia was NOT trying to influence the US elections for an outcome favourable to Russia why waste time and money, as Russia clearly has, either state-sanctioned or not?

pritch

30th August 2018, 11:22

It was never about Russia. The targeting of @RealDonaldTrump serves to protect Hillary Clinton and her enablers/co-conspirators in Obama administration from prosecution. :corn:

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1034901294983667715 - Turn on the sound.

John, I spent three minutes of my life watching some of that. I want a refund. The Republicans spent years and many millions trying to convict Clinton of something/anything to do with Benghazi and her emails and came up blank. A much shorter investigation of Trump's doings is resulting in indictments and convictions and it's far from over.

I think I'll ask Santa for Trump to be impeached before Christmas.

Katman

30th August 2018, 11:34

- you have to see that Russian engagement in the US elections and US politics in the way that is being suggested is a major issue ...

Why is it any more major than America's interference in other countries elections and politics?

Banditbandit

30th August 2018, 11:58

Why is it any more major than America's interference in other countries elections and politics?

I never suggested it wasn't ...

Katman

30th August 2018, 12:21

I never suggested it wasn't ...

So why aren't we seeing the same degree of outrage when it's America doing the interfering?

....and possibly even putting a puppet into the presidency ....

Have you kept count of the number of puppets that America has installed in foreign countries governments?

Katman

30th August 2018, 12:33

Seriously, all you "Oh my God, Russian interference!" parrots make me fucking laugh.

jasonu

30th August 2018, 13:01

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12116038

I thought this was amusing.

Viking01

30th August 2018, 21:25

Oh crap ... even if you buy into the idea that Clinton and Obama should be prosecuted - you have to see that Russian engagement in the US elections and US politics in the way that is being suggested is a major issue ...

This speaks to the independence of the USA - their sovereignty - and as Russia is an old enemy, seeks to an enemy undermining the sovereignty of another country and possibly even putting a puppet into the presidency ....

If Russia was NOT trying to influence the US elections for an outcome favourable to Russia why waste time and money, as Russia clearly has, either state-sanctioned or not?

To try and address your three points above, and pose a question or two in return.

=======
"Even if you buy into the idea that Clinton and Obama should be prosecuted - you have to see that
Russian engagement in the US elections and US politics in the way that is being suggested is a
major issue ..."
========

Why do I "have" to see this as being obvious ?

I might be persuaded to believe "a major issue", if I could see some good evidence of what
Russian engagement in the 2016 US election has "actually occurred to date". As opposed
to just having "been suggested".

True, the Western MSM has been "shouting to the roof-tops" and "pointing fingers in Russia's
(or Putin's) direction" over recent times. But all I keep hearing is only "meddling". Nothing more
specific.

Does that necessarily make it a "major issue" ?

Western MSM have been quite vocal about a whole range of other events over the past 25 years
e.g.

- Bombing of Yugoslavian Serbia by NATO in the 1990's
- WMD's and the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003
- Accusations of massacres and rape prior to invasion of Libya and over-throw of Gaddafi in 2007
- Accusations of civilian massacres and bombings by Assad during the Syrian conflict since 2009
- Murder of civilians by the regime in Ukraine in 2014

But in many cases, as time passed by, truth slowly filtered out, and accusations carried in the
MSM were later seen to be untrue (or have been presented with a very one-sided view). Never
mind, too late now, it's all in the past. Except that the "historical record" is never corrected.

But more importantly, those publicly aired "accusations" were often used to justify political
decisions at the time. And sometimes accompanied by equally dodgy dossiers of "proof". The
"Iraqi WMD's and missiles 45 minutes away" is particularly memorable:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/08/45-minutes-wmd-taxi-driver

I don't regard much of western MSM to be particularly reliable sources of information today.

Accordingly, I don't quite share your view that media accusations of Russian meddling in the
2016 US election is currently a "major issue." But each our own opinion.

Mueller has been running an investigation for nearly two years to date. I would have expected
much more progress in that time (or at least some definitive schedule of charges against the
Russians).

For accusations supposedly so serious ("treasonable"), this seems to me an awfully leisurely
paced investigation. You'd almost be forgiven for thinking that there is not much evidence
actually in existence. Or that progress is possibly being delayed for political purpose.

If Mueller was really serious about securing a conviction of "Russian meddling", all he needed
to do was go back to 2009, when he (as acting FBI Director) uncovered a Russian bribery plot
(Uranium One) - even if that incident supposedly benefited the Barack Obama administration
and the Clintons.

According to government documents and interviews at the time:

"...before approving the controversial Uranium One deal with Russia, the Obama administration
participated in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering with Russian officials –
all with the aim to expand Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the U.S."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration?amp

Surely, that might have yielded a more positive result (unlike all the recent ones involving
campaign receipts, wire fraud, mis-use of funds). And having to rely on "guilt by association".

It could have saved the country a whole lot of time and money (and "Putin was involved").

Why wait until 2016 ?

Was it that an investigation into the earlier incident in 2009 would have possibly ended up
with an indictment and conviction of the "wrong party" (on the US side of the fence) ?

Or was it because, in spite of all the appropriate "electoral controls" in place in 2016, the
"minority" candidate still won the US election (i.e. the public elected the "wrong person") ?
So now it's time to remedy the situation.

=======
"This speaks to the independence of the USA - their sovereignty - and as Russia is an old enemy,
seeks to an enemy undermining the sovereignty of another country and possibly even putting a puppet
into the presidency .... "
=======

Sovereignty - OK

Russia is the old enemy - OK (though China is actively making a play for 1st place, and Iran
has been making a late surge recently)

Possibly putting a puppet into the Presidency - Hmmm ??

I think you'll find that they've been electing "muppets" or "puppets" to the US Presidency
for a long time (certainly for as long as I've been alive).

The only things that may have changed noticeably within that time window have been:

- The greater degree to which they have been manipulated,
- Who has been more successful in doing the manipulation, and
- How increasingly more obvious it has become.

Consider a few US Presidents:

- Truman: The power of the newspapers and Democrat skulduggery to help him secure his election.

- Eisenhower: Beware the Military Industrial Complex (spoken to the nation in his farewell speech).

- JF Kennedy: Possible exception. He proposed political reconciliation with both Castro and Krushchev
as well as an indicated Vietnam withdrawal by the US by end 1965 (but his assassination ended those
ambitions).

- Lyndon Johnson: Escalated US involvement in Vietnam on demand before bailing out of politics (for
his "health sake").

- Richard Nixon: Responded to a request by US Big Business to exit Vietnam (following the 1968 Tet
Offensive), and to "make friends with China" in 1972 (to help facilitate that outcome).

- Ronald Reagan: Star Wars (and a true showman in more ways than one).

- Bill Clinton: Managed to scr*w Russia financially in the 1990's, the US public in the 2000's
(due to his revoking of the Glass-Steagall Act) plus one White House intern (collateral damage).

- GW Bush: the Patriot Act, Afghanistan - "An Ongoing Love Story", Iraq - "Mission Accomplished",
Libya - "Liberated" (along with help from friends UK and France).

- Barack Obama: GFC and "Save the Banks", continued globalisation and increased national debt,
Nobel Peace laureate but overseeing Guantanamo and drone assassinations, not to forget NATO
expansion and Syria (again with old friends UK and France).

The issue today may be that under Trump, some of TPTB have possibly lost sight (or control)
of what's written on the new hymn sheet (the one Donald has been singing from). Plus, he may
have gone solo (rogue?) and have started singing off-tune recently (peace? reduced military
spending?).

Heaven forbid a return to the Peace movement of the 1960's, and all those hippies with their
"peace and love". I mean, who'd be left to fight the wars if everyone all thought that way ?

At least, between the CIA in Afghanistan and Asia (looking after drug supply) plus Big Pharma
and the gangs (looking after drug manufacture and distribution), it should still be possible to
keep most of the other inmates under control (what opioid crisis?).

=======
"If Russia was NOT trying to influence the US elections for an outcome favourable to Russia
why waste time and money, as Russia clearly has, either state-sanctioned or not? "
=======

The only explicit "evidence" I've read of has been mention of some Facebook advertisments,
but starting back in 2014 (well before the 2016 election). As per the following article.

https://williamblum.org/aer/read/156

Don't bother reading all the US interventions that he's listed in the body of the article -
I'm sure that it's all just "fake news".

I do have to hand it to Putin. He must be a smart chap, being able to look that far forward
in time and pick out Trump as the obvious (successful) Republican candidiate, then predict
that Trump would also beat the "sure fire winner" Hillary Clinton. And that the US public
would be gullible enough to deliver.

Either that, or those US electronic voting machines must be even less secure and easier to
hack than touted. [ Ignoring Hillary clInton's private email server. ]

Personally, I'd simply just have offered Trump some loan money (confiscated from oligarchs,
of course) to finance purchase of some new land for a golf course or to build a new hotel,
and been done with it. He's a businessman. He'd have accepted in a flash.

Why "meddle" with a US election ? It all just seems so very cumbersome and unnecessary.
And not very smart at all (and I'm not even a "devious master-mind" like Putin).

But, just assuming for a minute that:

- the Russians actually "meddled" in the 2016 election, and
- the Russians had spent considerable time and money (much more than all the other donors
busy "investing in democracy")

Just exactly HOW did YOU envisage Putin (and Russia) would then take advantage of and get
some benefit from all this newly acquired political control over the US President ? How would it
then play out ?

Would Russia :

e.g.
1 - Get Trump to refuse to start a nuclear war ? Or refuse to fight if Russia started one ?
2 - Get Trump to cancel US / European economic sanctions currently in place against Russia ?
3 - Get Trump to change (revoke) some US legislation to be in Russia's favour ? [ Magnitsky Act ? ]
4 - Get Trump to withdraw US weapons and forces from countries around Russia's borders ? [ Shrink NATO ? ]
5 - Get Trump to agree to renew existing strategic arms treaties soon coming due for rollover ?
6 - Get Trump to allow Russia (and/or Iran) to sell oil and gas to Europe ?
7 - Get Trump to spend less Fed money on the MIC [ building / deploying new US weapons systems]?
8 - Get Trump to back off US plans trying to restrict Russian weapon sales to US allies ?
9 - Get Trump to get the CIA to cease starting colour revolutions all around the globe ?
10 - Get Trump to halt wars in certain countries and withdraw US troops ? [ Syria ? Afghanistan ? ]
11 - Some other cunning option I haven't thought of ?

I think we could safely cross off point 1 above, because all players recognise the "nuclear
winter" that would follow a nuclear war could severely damage or contaminate the Earth
and likely kill off all (or most of) mankind.

But I'd be interested in a reply re any of points 2 through 11 above.

Because I'm struggling to see an option that wouldn't result in one of the following:

- A reduction in political or military tensions (or an improvement in political relations)
- A reduction in the risk of unintended conflict
- A reduction in the number of active wars
- A return of refugees to their home countries

Banditbandit

31st August 2018, 13:46

To try and address your three points above, and pose a question or two in return.

of active wars
- A return of refugees to their home countries

Wow ... bnaaa .. could not be bothered .. TLDNR ..

Katman

31st August 2018, 13:50

Wow ... bnaaa .. could not be bothered .. TLDNR ..

And you call yourself an academic?

Viking01

31st August 2018, 14:03

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-russian-interference-in-us-politics/5652101

BB, you just read the last six paragraphs - shouldn't be too long :laugh:

oldrider

1st September 2018, 16:40

Why? - Fair question? :- https://twitter.com/LBF777/status/1035339255457964033/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline% 7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow%7Ctwgr%5E373939313 b636f6e74726f6c&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F 28 years old and politically aware at the time - heard nothing about this "conspiracy theory"?? :confused:

oldrider

2nd September 2018, 10:52

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-welcomes-US-decision-to-cut-UNRWA-funding-566290?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/112267/trump-largest-aid-package-israel/

MAGA? - MAGA - MAGA - maga - maga - maga - MAGA - MAGA - MAGA - maga - maga - maga? . :msn-wink:

pritch

2nd September 2018, 13:22

Peter Stzrok was the FBI's most successful spy catcher, Russian spies that is. He committed an indiscretion while talking to a woman, he wasn't the first and he won't be the last, but that really isn't why the Republicans went after him.

I see Trump was up until recently still banging on about the Justice Department's Bruce Ohr. Ohr has spent years tracking international organised crime, specifically the Russian Mafia. He is apparently the foremost expert on the subject in the USA so it isn't hard to see why Trump doesn't like him. It's reported in the US this weekend that he came within an ace of turning one of Putin's oligarchs. That report may well be the oligarch's death warrant.

The other day a significant development tying illegal Ukrainian money to Trump. Yet another guilty plea, it's not a major yet but Mueller is getting closer.

From the Washington Post:

An American political consultant who is cooperating with federal prosecutors admitted in court Friday that he steered $50,000 from a Ukrainian politician to Donald Trump’s inaugural committee — the first public confirmation that illegal foreign money was used to help fund the January 2017 event.

W. Samuel Patten, 47, pleaded guilty Friday to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist while working on behalf of a Ukrainian political party. He says he was helped by a Russian national who has been linked to Russian intelligence by U.S. prosecutors and who was also an associate of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

As part of his plea deal, Patten agreed to assist prosecutors, including special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

One scary thing though, there are reports that Marco Rubio and others have mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela. This would be following the "Wag The Dog" playbook, which has always been a worry.

The news sure isn't boring.

Banditbandit

3rd September 2018, 12:19

And you call yourself an academic?

No - I don't call myself that at all ...

And Kiwibikerrant is definitely NOT an academic forum ..

husaberg

3rd September 2018, 16:03

I missed this one it turns out the Trump foundation has a bit of a history with the IRS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-pays-irs-a-penalty-for-his-foundation-violating-rules-with-gift-to-florida-attorney-general/?utm_term=.5f34fb5063b5

Donald Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 penalty this year, an official at Trump's company said, after it was revealed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-camp-issues-rare-admission-of-error-charity-donation-to-florida-ag-was-a-mistake/2016/03/22/349c8f8c-efb4-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html) that Trump's charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida's attorney general.
The improper donation, a $25,000 gift from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, was made in 2013. At the time, Attorney General Pam Bondi was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. She decided not to pursue the case.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post and a liberal watchdog group raised new questions about the three-year-old gift. The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (http://www.citizensforethics.org/), filed a complaint with the IRS — noting that, as a registered nonprofit, the Trump Foundation was not allowed to make political donations.In that year's tax filings, The Post reported, the Trump Foundation did not notify the IRS of this political donation. Instead, Trump's foundation listed a donation — also for $25,000 — to a Kansas charity with a name similar to that of Bondi's political group. In fact, Trump's foundation had not given the Kansas group any money.
The prohibited gift was, in effect, replaced with an innocent-sounding but nonexistent donation.

But wait theres more
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-tax-returns-lawsuit-20180622-story.html

Katman

3rd September 2018, 16:37

No - I don't call myself that at all ...

Really?

I could have sworn you've told us you're a teacher of some description.

pritch

3rd September 2018, 18:39

Really?

I could have sworn you've told us you're a teacher of some description.

And you're a mechanic and I'm retired, all of which is relevant to what exactly in this thread?

Katman

3rd September 2018, 19:30

And you're a mechanic and I'm retired, all of which is relevant to what exactly in this thread?

Me being a mechanic or you being retired isn't at all relevant to this thread.

My comment to Banditx2 is relevant only in that I don't consider dismissing a well thought out and presented post (as Viking's post certainly was) with the reply 'to long, didn't read', to be a valid response from someone who claims to be a teacher.

Clear now?

pritch

3rd September 2018, 19:36

Me being a mechanic or you being retired isn't at all relevant to this thread.

My comment to Banditx2 is relevant only in that I don't consider dismissing a well thought out and presented post (as Viking's post certainly was) with the reply 'to long, didn't read', to be a valid response from someone who claims to be a teacher.

Clear now?

Sort of. You complaining about someone else posting tl:dr seems just a bit ironic. Still, the world hasn't stopped turning because of it.

Katman

3rd September 2018, 19:50

You complaining about someone else posting tl:dr seems just a bit ironic.

How so? :scratch:

Banditbandit

4th September 2018, 10:19

Really?

I could have sworn you've told us you're a teacher of some description.

I don't equate 'teacher' with 'academic' .. most of the academics I know are dopey fuckers ..

Banditbandit

4th September 2018, 11:05

OK - I had a bit of time ..

To try and address your three points above, and pose a question or two in return.

=======
"Even if you buy into the idea that Clinton and Obama should be prosecuted - you have to see that
Russian engagement in the US elections and US politics in the way that is being suggested is a
major issue ..."
========

Why do I "have" to see this as being obvious ?

I might be persuaded to believe "a major issue", if I could see some good evidence of what
Russian engagement in the 2016 US election has "actually occurred to date". As opposed
to just having "been suggested".

Yes - that is true .. I was suggesting that, if it is true, it is a major issue. It has yet to be proven true.

True, the Western MSM has been "shouting to the roof-tops" and "pointing fingers in Russia's
(or Putin's) direction" over recent times. But all I keep hearing is only "meddling". Nothing more
specific.

Does that necessarily make it a "major issue" ?

If it is true then yes, it is a major issue.

Western MSM have been quite vocal about a whole range of other events over the past 25 years
e.g.

- Bombing of Yugoslavian Serbia by NATO in the 1990's
- WMD's and the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003
- Accusations of massacres and rape prior to invasion of Libya and over-throw of Gaddafi in 2007
- Accusations of civilian massacres and bombings by Assad during the Syrian conflict since 2009
- Murder of civilians by the regime in Ukraine in 2014

But in many cases, as time passed by, truth slowly filtered out, and accusations carried in the
MSM were later seen to be untrue (or have been presented with a very one-sided view). Never
mind, too late now, it's all in the past. Except that the "historical record" is never corrected.

But more importantly, those publicly aired "accusations" were often used to justify political
decisions at the time. And sometimes accompanied by equally dodgy dossiers of "proof". The
"Iraqi WMD's and missiles 45 minutes away" is particularly memorable:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/08/45-minutes-wmd-taxi-driver

I don't regard much of western MSM to be particularly reliable sources of information today.

Accordingly, I don't quite share your view that media accusations of Russian meddling in the
2016 US election is currently a "major issue." But each our own opinion.

There has been evidence of Russian meddling in the election - whether or not that meddling is linked to any collusion by Trump or his people has yet to be established ..

Mueller has been running an investigation for nearly two years to date. I would have expected
much more progress in that time (or at least some definitive schedule of charges against the
Russians).

12 Russians have so far been charged with meddling in the elections .

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44825345 (Oh hang on it is MSM reporting .. can't rely on them to even report the charges correctly ...)

For accusations supposedly so serious ("treasonable"), this seems to me an awfully leisurely
paced investigation. You'd almost be forgiven for thinking that there is not much evidence
actually in existence. Or that progress is possibly being delayed for political purpose.

12 Russians have been charged already ..

If Mueller was really serious about securing a conviction of "Russian meddling", all he needed
to do was go back to 2009, when he (as acting FBI Director) uncovered a Russian bribery plot
(Uranium One) - even if that incident supposedly benefited the Barack Obama administration
and the Clintons.

According to government documents and interviews at the time:

"...before approving the controversial Uranium One deal with Russia, the Obama administration
participated in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering with Russian officials –
all with the aim to expand Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the U.S."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration?amp

Surely, that might have yielded a more positive result (unlike all the recent ones involving
campaign receipts, wire fraud, mis-use of funds). And having to rely on "guilt by association".

It could have saved the country a whole lot of time and money (and "Putin was involved").

Why wait until 2016 ?

Was it that an investigation into the earlier incident in 2009 would have possibly ended up
with an indictment and conviction of the "wrong party" (on the US side of the fence) ?

Or was it because, in spite of all the appropriate "electoral controls" in place in 2016, the
"minority" candidate still won the US election (i.e. the public elected the "wrong person") ?
So now it's time to remedy the situation.

Uranium One is a Canadian company - wit mining interests in the US .. not a US company. The US got to OK the deal because uranium is a 'security issue".

The approved deal allows Uranium One to mine uranium, but not export it out of the US.

Three years after the deal, Uranium One donated money to Clinton's election campaign .. so what? Many companies contribute to many party's campaign coffers ..

"there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo among Clinton, the State Department, Rosatom and the Clinton Foundation donors with ties to Uranium One. Clinton has repeatedly denied any involvement in the State Department’s approval of the Uranium One sale, insisting that such approval was granted at lower levels of the department and would not have crossed the secretary’s desk.

Jose Fernandez, who was the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs when the Uranium One deal was approved, told the Times that Clinton “never intervened with me on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter."

Beyond the State Department, eight other government agencies approved the Uranium One sale."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895

=======
"If Russia was NOT trying to influence the US elections for an outcome favourable to Russia
why waste time and money, as Russia clearly has, either state-sanctioned or not? "
=======

The only explicit "evidence" I've read of has been mention of some Facebook advertisments,
but starting back in 2014 (well before the 2016 election). As per the following article.

https://williamblum.org/aer/read/156

Don't bother reading all the US interventions that he's listed in the body of the article -
I'm sure that it's all just "fake news".

Nice summary here - you can trace the sources from this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_ele ctions

Or this

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/13/15791744/russia-election-39-states-hack-putin-trump-sessions

I do have to hand it to Putin. He must be a smart chap, being able to look that far forward
in time and pick out Trump as the obvious (successful) Republican candidiate, then predict
that Trump would also beat the "sure fire winner" Hillary Clinton. And that the US public
would be gullible enough to deliver.

Either that, or those US electronic voting machines must be even less secure and easier to
hack than touted. [ Ignoring Hillary clInton's private email server.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvOKWeW_Fog

"Earlier this week the FBI confirmed breaches have been detected in electronic voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. The FBI is now urging states to take new steps to enhance the security of their computer systems ahead of the November election."

Personally, I'd simply just have offered Trump some loan money (confiscated from oligarchs,
of course) to finance purchase of some new land for a golf course or to build a new hotel,
and been done with it. He's a businessman. He'd have accepted in a flash.

Why "meddle" with a US election ? It all just seems so very cumbersome and unnecessary.
And not very smart at all (and I'm not even a "devious master-mind" like Putin).

But, just assuming for a minute that:

- the Russians actually "meddled" in the 2016 election, and
- the Russians had spent considerable time and money (much more than all the other donors
busy "investing in democracy")

Just exactly HOW did YOU envisage Putin (and Russia) would then take advantage of and get
some benefit from all this newly acquired political control over the US President ? How would it
then play out ?

Would Russia :

e.g.
1 - Get Trump to refuse to start a nuclear war ? Or refuse to fight if Russia started one ?

Given that it has been suggested that Clinton was more lilely to start a war tha Trump, it is possibel that Putin dies not want a war - and therefore preferred Trump .

2 - Get Trump to cancel US / European economic sanctions currently in place against Russia ?

Yes - good motive right there.

3 - Get Trump to change (revoke) some US legislation to be in Russia's favour ? [ Magnitsky Act ? ]

Yes - good motive right there

4 - Get Trump to withdraw US weapons and forces from countries around Russia's borders ? [ Shrink NATO ? ]

Yes - and to weaken NATO so someof the former Soviet satellites do not join - and so Nato does not interfer in the Ukraine and other areas.

5 - Get Trump to agree to renew existing strategic arms treaties soon coming due for rollover ?

Yes - or even negotiate a deal more favourable to Russia ..

6 - Get Trump to allow Russia (and/or Iran) to sell oil and gas to Europe ?

Don't they do that already? More to the point woud be the panned pipelines from the Middle east to Europe and Russia ..

7 - Get Trump to spend less Fed money on the MIC [ building / deploying new US weapons systems]?

That's a possiblity - but given Trump's willingness to increase the armed forces, it's not likely

8 - Get Trump to back off US plans trying to restrict Russian weapon sales to US allies ?
[/QUOTE]

Yes ... economic and power motive there ..

9 - Get Trump to get the CIA to cease starting colour revolutions all around the globe ?

Not sure what you mean by this one .

10 - Get Trump to halt wars in certain countries and withdraw US troops ? [ Syria ? Afghanistan ? ]

Yes - good motive there ..

11 - Some other cunning option I haven't thought of ?

Can't answer that speculation ..

See - you can provide all the motives Putin might need yourself ..

I think we could safely cross off point 1 above, because all players recognise the "nuclear
winter" that would follow a nuclear war could severely damage or contaminate the Earth
and likely kill off all (or most of) mankind.

Are you really sure about that or just hopeful? I am not that hopeful .

But I'd be interested in a reply re any of points 2 through 11 above.

Because I'm struggling to see an option that wouldn't result in one of the following:

- A reduction in political or military tensions (or an improvement in political relations)

maybe - but I am not that hopeful ...

- A reduction in the risk of unintended conflict

Trump's style appears to be brinkmanship ... One day he might push that too far ..

- A reduction in the number of active wars

Hmm ... Trump bangs the drum a lot - someone might shoot first - he's a brinkmanship negotiator - and sometimes the other side walks away - and then starts shooting .

- A return of refugees to their home countries

Many refugees are unable to return home - if they do they will be executed ..

Enough for now

pritch

4th September 2018, 13:08

Some people have either very selective, or very short memories. To say that Muellers investigation hasn't acheived much is ridiculous. The Whitewater investigation went on for years and found nothing relevant so they settled for Monica Lewinsky. The Republicans spent years and millions of dollars investigating Hillary over Benghazi and again got nothing. Then came the complete fiction about Uranium One. Even Fox News disowned that, although Hannity and others keep bringing it up as if it was a thing.

Here's a factual account of the Uranium One transaction for those with an attention span of six minutes or so. The thought that I'd be actually posting a link to Fox as a source of facts takes some getting used to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAWtb7McNvQ&frags=pl%2Cwn

Banditbandit

4th September 2018, 14:29

Mueller has tapes ...

Mueller has the tape of Gates confessing to Van Der Zwaan that Gates and Manafort were conspiring with the Russian government intel community during the 2016 election. Gates pleaded guilty soon after Van Der Zwaan. This was likely the final straw that pushed Gates into cooperating and cutting a deal.

http://www.dcdailywire.com/robert-mueller-now-his-hands-on-a-taped-confession-multiple-people-involved/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=PP&utm_campaign=facebook_PP

husaberg

4th September 2018, 19:47

"The meeting" changes in story

1. November 2016: No communications, period
Hope Hicks (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/kremlin-says-russian-experts-met-trump-staff-campaign-denies-it-n682406): “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

2. February 2017: There were no communications, “to the best of our knowledge”
Sarah Huckabee Sanders (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/donald-trump-russia.html): “This is a non-story because, to the best of our knowledge, no contacts took place.”

3. March 2017: There were communications, but no planned meetings with Russians
Donald Trump Jr. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?_r=0): “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I'm sure, I'm sure I did. ... But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.”

<wp-ad aria-hidden="true" id="slug_inline_bb_2" data-slot="politics/blog/the-fix" data-json="{"targeting":{"pos":"inline_bb_2","ctr":["zeus","zeus_inline_bb_2"]},"categoryExclusions":[]}" data-size="[[300,250],"fluid",[620,250]]" data-refresh="on" data-google-query-id="CJ6Dk7jtoN0CFUGDvAodUtALtQ">4. July 8, 2017: There was a planned meeting at Trump Tower, but it was “primarily” about adoption and not the campaign
</wp-ad>Trump Jr. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/14/a-brief-review-of-donald-trump-jr-s-explanations-of-his-meeting-with-a-russian-lawyer/?utm_term=.b187b67503ae): “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow-up.”

5. July 9, 2017: The meeting was planned to discuss the campaign, but the information exchanged wasn't “meaningful”
Trump Jr. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/14/a-brief-review-of-donald-trump-jr-s-explanations-of-his-meeting-with-a-russian-lawyer/?utm_term=.b187b67503ae): “No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

6. December 2017: Collusion isn't even a crime
President Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-excerpts.html): “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”
Jay Sekulow (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/michael-flynns-guilty-plea-sends-donald-trumps-lawyers-scrambling): “For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated. There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.”
<wp-ad aria-hidden="true" id="slug_inline_bb_3" data-slot="politics/blog/the-fix" data-json="{"targeting":{"pos":"inline_bb_3","ctr":["zeus","zeus_inline_bb_3"]},"categoryExclusions":[]}" data-size="[[300,250],"fluid",[620,250]]" data-refresh="on" data-google-query-id="CNfE8KztoN0CFZIGvAodixoBpQ">(Technically speaking, the criminal code doesn't use the word “collusion,” but it's generally understood as a broad term that could encompass more specific, codified crimes. And even special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team has used it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/robert-mueller-just-provided-a-real-window-into-the-russia-investigation-here-are-3-key-takeaways/) in court filings.)

</wp-ad>7. May 16, 2018: Even if meaningful information were obtained, it wasn't used
Giuliani (https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/16/us/politics/ap-us-trump-russia-probe-giuliani.html): “And even if it comes from a Russian, or a German, or an American, it doesn’t matter. And they never used it, is the main thing. They never used it. They rejected it. If there was collusion with the Russians, they would have used it.”
[One thing, Rudy Giuliani: The Trump campaign *did* use it. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/17/one-thing-rudy-giuliani-the-trump-campaign-did-use-it/?utm_term=.e2c4f83fce46)]

8. May 19, 2018: There was a *second* planned meeting about foreign help in the election, but nothing came of it either
The New York Times reported Sunday on yet another meeting about getting foreign help (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/us/politics/trump-jr-saudi-uae-nader-prince-zamel.html) with the 2016 election. This one came three months before the election and featured Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary, George Nader, who said the princes who lead Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates wanted to assist Trump.
<wp-ad aria-hidden="true" id="slug_inline_bb_4" data-slot="politics/blog/the-fix" data-json="{"targeting":{"pos":"inline_bb_4","ctr":["zeus","zeus_inline_bb_4"]},"categoryExclusions":[]}" data-size="[[300,250],"fluid",[620,250]]" data-refresh="on" data-google-query-id="CKmvjq_toN0CFdEIvAodg_cNLg">Alan Futerfas (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/us/politics/trump-jr-saudi-uae-nader-prince-zamel.html), Trump Jr.'s attorney: "They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy. He was not interested, and that was the end of it.”

</wp-ad>9. July 16, 2018: Trump couldn't collude, because Trump didn't even know Putin
Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/16/full-text-president-trumps-news-conference-with-russias-putin/?utm_term=.5694449cfd16&wew): "There was no collusion. I didn't know the president. There was nobody to collude with."

10. July 30, 2018: Collusion isn't a crime, and Trump wasn't physically at the Trump Tower meeting
With Michael Cohen alleging that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting in real time (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/30/rudy-giuliani-obliterates-the-goal-posts-on-trump-russia-collusion/?utm_term=.3ed55ce152b0) -- despite many previous denials -- Giuliani told both CNN and Fox News that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting.

June 2016: The Trump Tower meeting
By June 2016, the Republican primaries were over. Kasich and Cruz had dropped out after the early May primary in Indiana, so Trump locked up the nomination. His campaign was planning for the Republican National Convention and preparing a general election game plan.
Other plans were underway as well: a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who was said to have incriminating information about Clinton. At the meeting, Trump Jr. was joined by his brother-in-law Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Kushner joined the Trump administration and did not include the meeting on the first versions of his security clearance forms, which required disclosure of any contact with foreign nationals. The White House senior adviser said in July 2017 he "did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included" on the forms.
When news reports revealed the existence of the meeting in July 2017, a misleading statement was put out in Trump Jr.'s name that claimed the meeting was primarily about Russian adoptions. Trump's lawyers recently acknowledged that the President personally dictated the statement.

Viking01

4th September 2018, 20:03

OK - I had a bit of time ..

Enough for now

Evening. And thanks for the reply.

I have to admit that I seriously thought about just posting "TL-DNR"
in reply as well. :innocent: But since you'd gone to the trouble of doing
a point-by-point reply, that would have been a bit ungracious of me.

1. Meddling - It's such a nice delightfully vague word.

2. Indictments of 12 Russian Individuals - Well, it was no great feat
for the AG (Rosenstein) to lodge indictments, but it might require a
little more effort to actually produce some robust evidence and to
secure a conviction (even in absentia). I wouldn't hold your breath.

3. Uranium One

Damn ! Found out. I'd been saving that link for a while. It sounded
so salacious, and best of all, it had a "Clinton Foundation" link. It
seemed such a pity to waste it.

I read about the Uranium One accusations when they first surfaced,
but took me some time to find most of the relevant dots and manually
join them up (unlike Pritch's FOX video clip).

It was only the last question in that section ("minority candidate",
"elected the wrong person","time to remedy the situation") that I
was really interested in getting reply to.

4. Wikipedia on (alleged) Russian Interference

Thanks for the Wiki link. Yes, I had read it earlier. And when I read
through it again (and look at a few of the references), I still can't
help feeling some of the items in the Wiki have as much substance
and credibility as the Uranium One story (given some of the speakers
involved).

And with so much "smoke" (my opinion), it's hard to see exactly in
which direction it's being blown.

5. Electronic Voter Registration Databases

I'm not sure that the alleged nationality of the "hacker" is all that
relevant to that discussion. Seems any number of parties may have
had a motivation (e.g. theft of identity data for use in illegal financial
transactions).

And would many US voters feel that comforted if the party involved was
found to be a member of the US Intelligence community ("..just doing a
little ethical hacking to make sure that the controls are all working
properly, honest ..")?

6. Possible Russian Motives

Yes, I know the motives listed are all viable options (from a Russian
perspective), but it was reply to the last part of the question I was
interested in ("how did you see it playing out ?").

e.g.
- Would Trump just start issuing some Presidential Signing Orders? And
which of the options would be of particular interest to him?
- Would the military and various US government departments ignore his
instructions, or just simply debate endlessly and seek to delay actual
implementation?
- Would Trump enjoy some partial success (or suffer an unfortunate fall
down the stairs, or alternatively be assessed as being mentally unfit and
be removed from office)?

7. Possible Outcomes

-Nuclear War - Can only hope the MAD concept is still alive and forefront
of US minds. But recent US discussion on development and use of tactical
(low yield) nuclear weapons is not encouraging (i.e. bridging a slippery
slope between use of conventional weapons and high yield nuclear weapons).

-Brinkmanship - Acknowledged. But what if the opponent decides to call
your bluff? Or instead, if one of your allies does something precipitate?
[as per WW1]. Edit: Seems a particularly high risk strategy between
nuclear nations.

It's a possibility we may find out the answer to those questions in Syria
in the coming days or weeks when combat in Idlib ramps up. [Though I'll
still bet on "Russian restraint", even if allied forces launch missile attacks.]

-Refugees - A small number of said "refugees" might well end up jailed
or dead if forcibly returned home (e.g. ISIS members in Germany or Sweden).

but I would argue many refugees (having fled war) would prefer to return
to their home country, and to live with people of similar religion/heritage/
beliefs. Even if their country was home to mixed cultures (e.g. Syria).

The largest issues affecting return of refugees will be the cessation of
hostilities, and establishment of political agreements in their homeland.
Followed by activities such as disarmament and de-mining, and then actual
clearance / reconstruction / restoration of services. Only then will many
be able to return.

husaberg

4th September 2018, 20:56

But wait there is more about Trump either not knowing or meeeting Putin

Trump touted his ties to Putin on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2015, once going so far as to say, "I got to know him very well." But during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump said, "I have no relationship with him" and "I never met Putin – I don't know who Putin is."

Mar 6 2014 Donald Trump Addresses CPAC,
"I was in Moscow a couple of months ago … and they treated me so great. Putin even sent me a present," Mr Trump said in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (C-Pac) in 2014.

Apr. 12, 2014 We just left Moscow. He (Putin)could not have been nicer. He was so nice and so everything," Mr Trump said in a 2014 interview with Fox News' Eric Bolling.
According to Mr Trump, the Russian leader even sent him "a gift".

Oct. 6, 2015: In a conversation with conservative radio host Michael Savage, Trump claims to have met Putin. “Yes, a long time ago. We got along great, by the way.”

May 5, 2016: Trump refuses to answer Fox News’ Bret Baier when asked if he had ever met Putin. “Yeah, I have no comment on that,” he says. Later, he adds, “Yeah, but I don’t want to comment because, let’s assume I did. Perhaps it was personal. You know, I don’t want to hurt his confidence.

July 27, 2016: In an explosive news conference, Trump insists that he had never met Putin and didn’t know who he was: “I never met Putin,” Trump says. “I don’t know who Putin is.

Oct. 19, 2016: In the third presidential debate, Trump responds to Clinton’s charge that he is Putin’s puppet by saying, “No puppet. You’re the puppet.” He again denies having met Putin and argues that Putin had “outsmarted” Clinton and then-President Barack Obama.
Feb. 16, 2017: During a press conference, Trump claims that he had “nothing to do with Russia” and had only spoken to Putin twice. “I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia,” he says.

Here’s what Putin said at the July 16, 2018, press conference, according to the translation provided:
Well, distinguished colleague, let me tell you this: When President Trump was at Moscow back then, I didn't even know that he was in Moscow. I treat President Trump with utmost respect, but back then when he was a private individual, a businessman, nobody informed me that he was in Moscow."

Banditbandit

5th September 2018, 10:09

Woodward's new book is coming out this month (Remember the guy who, with Bernstein destroyed Nixon ... oh hang on many of you were not born then)

Devastating - even more so if true ..

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/bob-woodward-book-donald-trump-fear/index.html

Banditbandit

5th September 2018, 10:32

Evening. And thanks for the reply.

I have to admit that I seriously thought about just posting "TL-DNR"
in reply as well. :innocent: But since you'd gone to the trouble of doing
a point-by-point reply, that would have been a bit ungracious of me.

I was expecting such a response ... My original TL-DNR was only half serious - and more about the timing than any wish to ignore it .. I didn't have time a couple of days ago

At the time I was also thinking about the sound-bite nature of social media ... and it was a bit of a subtle dig at short posts, rather than long posts .. but you would not have known that.

2. Indictments of 12 Russian Individuals - Well, it was no great feat
for the AG (Rosenstein) to lodge indictments, but it might require a
little more effort to actually produce some robust evidence and to
secure a conviction (even in absentia). I wouldn't hold your breath.

The evidence is there. This one outlines the events - with links to other sources.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html

3. Uranium One

Damn ! Found out. I'd been saving that link for a while. It sounded
so salacious, and best of all, it had a "Clinton Foundation" link. It
seemed such a pity to waste it.

I read about the Uranium One accusations when they first surfaced,
but took me some time to find most of the relevant dots and manually
join them up (unlike Pritch's FOX video clip).

It was only the last question in that section ("minority candidate",
"elected the wrong person","time to remedy the situation") that I
was really interested in getting reply to.

Uranium One is the sort of story flung around by Trump supporters making allegations against Clinton - allegations with no substance.

4. Wikipedia on (alleged) Russian Interference

Thanks for the Wiki link. Yes, I had read it earlier. And when I read
through it again (and look at a few of the references), I still can't
help feeling some of the items in the Wiki have as much substance
and credibility as the Uranium One story (given some of the speakers
involved).

And with so much "smoke" (my opinion), it's hard to see exactly in
which direction it's being blown.

Yes.

I'm still trying to find the stuff I have seen before - detailing hacking of specific state machinery ..

This is the best I've found so far https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

I'l keep looking .. Oh - here's one Homeland Security warned specific states they had been hacked - Homeland Security - not a Trump or Clinton supporter https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/22/electronic-voting-state-hacking-russian-government-cyber-actors/

5. Electronic Voter Registration Databases

I'm not sure that the alleged nationality of the "hacker" is all that
relevant to that discussion. Seems any number of parties may have
had a motivation (e.g. theft of identity data for use in illegal financial
transactions).

And would many US voters feel that comforted if the party involved was
found to be a member of the US Intelligence community ("..just doing a
little ethical hacking to make sure that the controls are all working
properly, honest ..")?

Haha ... true ...

Cyber warfare is real - maybe this is the new form of attacking another country ..

6. Possible Russian Motives

Yes, I know the motives listed are all viable options (from a Russian
perspective), but it was reply to the last part of the question I was
interested in ("how did you see it playing out ?").

e.g.
- Would Trump just start issuing some Presidential Signing Orders? And
which of the options would be of particular interest to him?

Clearly has has been signing Presidential orders

I have no idea ... Trump is so erratic - one minute he's friends with Putin, the next he's chucking out Russian diplomats ..

This is worrying .. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/03/29/united-states-russia-cold-war-putin-trump/467806002/

- Would the military and various US government departments ignore his
instructions, or just simply debate endlessly and seek to delay actual
implementation?

THat is the ultimate question - I think the answer is probably about 50/50 .. plenty of indoctrinated followers int eh military - plenty of ones who may well refuse ..

- Would Trump enjoy some partial success (or suffer an unfortunate fall
down the stairs, or alternatively be assessed as being mentally unfit and
be removed from office)?

Sniper in a book repository? I have no idea - I think it will be interesting after the elections - I suspect both houses will have a Democrat majority - anything could happen. If Trump's as crazy as Woodward's new book makes him out to be, then even the Republicans may move against him ..

7. Possible Outcomes

-Nuclear War - Can only hope the MAD concept is still alive and forefront
of US minds. But recent US discussion on development and use of tactical
(low yield) nuclear weapons is not encouraging (i.e. bridging a slippery
slope between use of conventional weapons and high yield nuclear weapons).

-Brinkmanship - Acknowledged. But what if the opponent decides to call
your bluff? Or instead, if one of your allies does something precipitate?
[as per WW1]. Edit: Seems a particularly high risk strategy between
nuclear nations.

Yeah - the worry is someone will cal his bluff - and Trump won't back down ..

It's a possibility we may find out the answer to those questions in Syria
in the coming days or weeks when combat in Idlib ramps up. [Though I'll
still bet on "Russian restraint", even if allied forces launch missile attacks.]

Yes - but Russia is not he only armed and nuclearized participant in that region ..

-Refugees - A small number of said "refugees" might well end up jailed
or dead if forcibly returned home (e.g. ISIS members in Germany or Sweden).

but I would argue many refugees (having fled war) would prefer to return
to their home country, and to live with people of similar religion/heritage/
beliefs. Even if their country was home to mixed cultures (e.g. Syria).

The largest issues affecting return of refugees will be the cessation of
hostilities, and establishment of political agreements in their homeland.
Followed by activities such as disarmament and de-mining, and then actual
clearance / reconstruction / restoration of services. Only then will many
be able to return.

Yes - the majority of refugees may well wish to return home - but having seen life in the west they may well change their minds.

oldrider

5th September 2018, 11:09

Syrians etc may not yet have a home to return to - the war on terror might yet be only just beginning - America and Israel have not forgotten about crushing Iran! :bash:

Viking01

5th September 2018, 18:02

I was expecting such a response ... My original TL-DNR was only half serious - and more about the timing than any wish to ignore it .. I didn't have time a couple of days ago

Evening. Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, it's a complicated world out there at the moment. And it's
getting more so by the day.

Russia has been opposing imperialism (and capitalism) since 1900
at least, so we shouldn't be too surprised to see Russia is still the
"most favoured enemy" of the West.

And even after two world wars and a damn good "financial spanking"
in the 1990's, Russia has still managed to resurrect itself and stage
another comeback (under Putin's guidance). Maybe not as strong
as before, but still a power to be reckoned with.

My tuppence worth in reply to a few points:

1. Russian Indictments - Both Russia and the US will attempt to
conduct penetration and monitoring of each others networks and
computer systems. Have to expect a certain level of background
activity as a given.

Despite the long CNN list of events, still think these indictments are
all just part of the wider political sideshow. Will be surprised if they
ever secure a conviction. Time will tell.

In the end, it matters not (whether they do secure a conviction),
especially when the US can easily sanction Russia on other grounds.

2. Electoral System - Think the US has a more fundamental issue
(one of electoral fairness as a whole). Especially when a certain
portion of the wider electorate (Black, Hispanic, Asian) can in
part be denied opportunity to vote (through use of restrictive
voter enrollment conditions).

Security of voting machines in the US has been an issue since at
least the year 2000 US election. And the situation doesn't seem
to have improved dramatically in the interim.

Four elections since, and still not regarded as very secure ?
Can you imagine a comparable banking system being allowed to
persist in a similar state for so long ? What price electoral
integrity ? [See word that electronic voting systems might
soon be introduced for local government elections here in NZ]

And attempt by the DHS to bring US electoral operation under
its purview does not necessarily add a positive light to the
picture (e.g. given events like DNI Clapper resigning after his
earlier denials of monitoring to an investigating committee).

3. Cyber Warfare - To be expected. Though it might be just a
little hypocritical of the US administration to be "pointing
fingers" and "playing the victim role" (given the loss of
software hacks and hacking tools by NSA - Shadow Brokers).

4. How Will Things Play Out - In terms of "exploitation of
Trump by Russia", personally, I think this has long been a
non-issue.

It would simply not be allowed to happen. One way or another.

Think that TPTB have in the last year realised that Trump is
not a political asset (certainly not one under their control),
and have slowly been engineering his coming exit. With his
unwitting help.

Lacking engagement with and support of his own team (and his
own "maverick" action), he has been lining himself up for a
fall (though not necessarily down the stairs).

The number of "critical" news articles over the past year has
helped to establish a useful background narrative, with more
recent articles saying "just how distanced and disengaged he
has become from his staff". And Bernstein's coming book will
likely only add to that view in the public mind.

Personal decision-making and authorisation by Presidential
Signing Order alone is easily able to be re-cast in a less
flattering political light (e.g. missiles by moonlight over
Syria).

The Republicans may well be prepared to suffer some electoral
losses in the coming mid-term elections - Trump can wear the
responsibility for that outcome.

As well as being held personally responsible for trade wars
once they are more visibly seen to be damaging the US (both
financially and job-wise).

TPTB have both sides of the US electoral house "locked up",
so while they may be slightly inconvenienced (having to deal
with another set of politicians and administrators), they'll still
be in the game and back in control.

Be prepared for a new Republican "leader" to emerge, and for
a vote of no-confidence to remove Trump. Who knows - he
might even negotiate another hotel out of the deal. The price
of silence.

Then be prepared for plenty of political "bridge-building and
re-engagement", be it with the UK, Europe and even China.

Though the Russians and Iranians will still be on the outer
(they won't forgive either the Russians or the Iranians).

Trump will have achieved a few "useful" political outcomes
for certain players along the way (with his "bull in a china
shop" antics). But he better not think he will receive any
thanks or favours from those who have benefited.

The "mask" has well and truly been ripped off, and his time
in office will be seen as having been expensive (in terms of
"capital" consumed and "control" foregone along the way).

Review again in six months time ? In the meantime, feel
free to rip the above comments apart.

Cheers,
Viking

pete376403

5th September 2018, 18:38

Looking forward to the Woodward book :laugh:

Banditbandit

6th September 2018, 09:21

Evening. Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, it's a complicated world out there at the moment. And it's
getting more so by the day.

Review again in six months time ? In the meantime, feel
free to rip the above comments apart.

Cheers,
Viking

Thanks - no I won't be ripping our comments apart - I'm inclined to agree with you .

I think you are right, that a new Republican leader will emerge - I hope it is someone like John McCain ..

But they will not take over if Trump is impeached and toss out - Pence will - and he's potentially worse than Trump. He and his supporters want to see the Apocalypse - and is probably prepared to start it .

husaberg

6th September 2018, 09:28

Michelle Obama had Resting bitch face
But Trumps wife just doesnt seem to like her husband at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dF9damudOg

Banditbandit

6th September 2018, 10:02

Michelle Obama had Resting bitch face
But Trumps wife just doesnt seem to like her husband at all.

Probably doesn't - he sleeps around - most wives dump such husbands

Puts her at risk of catching something like AIDS

Stormy Daniels calls him the "two minute trump" .. http://thesource.com/2018/08/29/president-trump-stormy-daniels/

Can't be very satisfying to be married to a two minute man .

Omarosa says Melania is just waiting for the end so she can divorce him

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1003688/melania-trump-donald-news-latest-divorce-Omarosa

Omarosa also claims Trump is holding Melania hostage .. if she goes he will punish her by deporting her ..

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12109770

And finally - what ever you think of his politics the man is simply unlikable ..

jasonu

6th September 2018, 10:07

Probably doesn't - he sleeps around - most wives dump such husbands

Puts her at risk of catching something like AIDS

Stormy Daniels calls him the "two minute trump" .. http://thesource.com/2018/08/29/president-trump-stormy-daniels/

Can't be very satisfying to be married to a two minute man .

Omarosa says Melania is just waiting for the end so she can divorce him

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1003688/melania-trump-donald-news-latest-divorce-Omarosa

Omarosa also claims Trump is holding Melania hostage .. if she goes he will punish her by deporting her ..

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12109770

And finally - what ever you think of his politics the man is simply unlikable ..

Haha quoting stormy Daniels and omorosa will never improve anyone’s argument .
As for trumps mrs, she looks like a typical eastern block misery guts.

pritch

6th September 2018, 10:21

As for trumps mrs, she looks like a typical eastern block misery guts.

But have you noticed how much bigger her boobs are since she had her "kidney operation"?

Viking01

6th September 2018, 12:17

Thanks - no I won't be ripping our comments apart - I'm inclined to agree with you .

I think you are right, that a new Republican leader will emerge - I hope it is someone like John McCain ..

But they will not take over if Trump is impeached and toss out - Pence will - and he's potentially worse than Trump.
He and his supporters want to see the Apocalypse - and is probably prepared to start it .

Afternoon.

1. John McCain
Another "leader" like McCain ? Where would they find another man
of that calibre ? Probably have to go to the "other" circus (you know,
the one with real clowns) and interview the Cannon Ball Man. ;)

Works well under pressure ? Tick. Used to being in the gun ? Tick.

2. Impeachment
No. Not going to happen. Even if the Democrats happened to gain
control of both Houses. Just being used as a pressure point, and
for catching votes in future elections (mid terms and 2020).

Members of both Houses have more common interest than they
have real differences. [ Who do they both really represent ? ]

Even if some Democrats thought about avenging Bill Clinton (it's
ancient history now), think sensible people realise impeachment
(for payback purpose) is a very poor course of action.

Another impeachment would have much wider consequences. It
would be very damaging to "US democracy" (current US economic
and political structure) as a whole.

Imagine if the "man in the street" started thinking "a pox on both
your houses".

And I'm sure their political sponsors have already been quick to
remind them that "markets do not like volatility !"

The Republicans will just have to slowly clean up their own mess,
and suffer the political fall-out along the way.

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

3. Apocalypse

I have to admit when I was working outside over the week-end,
the thought did happen to cross my mind about our civil defence
preparedness.

And now, as you say, even the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse.

But we have an easement - with a sewer line - across the back
of the property, so even if we built a fall-out shelter in preparation,
I think that we might still end up in the s...

husaberg

6th September 2018, 13:01

Reality....

The Post-ABC poll finds that 72 per cent of adults think the Democrats would seek to impeach the president if they were in power in the House, including 79 per cent of Republicans and 70 per cent of Democrats. However, the country is closely divided on the question of whether Congress should begin such proceedings - 49 per cent are in favour and 46 per cent opposed. The gap between the support for impeachment proceedings and the wider perception that Democrats would undertake them could be a liability for Democratic candidates in November.
This Post-ABC poll was conducted 26-29 August among a national random sample of 1,003 adults, including 879 registered voters. The overall results have an error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, while the sample of registered voters has an error margin of plus or minus four points.

Registered voters say they favour the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate in their district by 52 per cent to 38 per cent.

When asked whether they would rather have Democrats control Congress "as a check on Trump" or a Republican-controlled Congress "to support Trump's agenda," 60 per cent of voters say they prefer having Democrats in control. In July 2017, that figure was 52 per cent, at a time when Mr Trump's job ratings were almost identical to today.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/midterms-2018-democrats-lead-polls-republicans-donald-trump-impeachment-elections-a8522311.html

FiveThirtyEight's forecast for the mid-terms puts the likelihood of Democrats taking the House at more than 70 per cent.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-impeachment-latest-poll-republicans-democrats-midterm-elections-house-senate-a8517961.html

At the end of 2017, polls showed that more than 40 percent of Americans wanted Trump impeached

Latest poll ABC News/Washington Post August 26–29, 2018 want him impeached 49%
https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1200a1TrumpandtheMuellerInvestigation.pdf

If you go back to Clinton
Do you approve of the decision to impeach Clinton?
Impeach
Approve 35% Disapprove 63%
Clintons approval rating was which was over 70% at the time of his impeachment.
Trump's approval rating is much much lower -- 39%

Richard Nixon
President Richard Nixon, who 43% of Americans said should be impeached and removed from office in a March 1974 Harris poll.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/impeach-trump-nixon-support-bill-clinton-poll/index.html