So basically 'Nothing to see here move along'

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa

Why would O'Connell call for more sanction on Russia for nothing?

Because eh has a interest in Ukraine most likely.

a reply to: yuppa


So, Obama goes to Mitch MConnell and other leading Republican's about Russian Interference, asking them to stand by him in united condemnation, they refuse, they decide to nothing except threaten Obama, but Trump claims Obama knew about Russian interference and did nothing.

you know we have heard so much outrage over Russia/Putin trying to influence the election. yet so far i have seen nothing but speculation, that they did so. speculation that Russia was involved in releasing information and damaging the reputation of Hillary. yet for most people that made no real difference as they either blindly follow the democrat party. or they were already against Hillary because she was so bad for the job. and even worse, it seems it was true anyway. so the outrage is over the truth about Hilary being made more well known? where is the outrage against Hillary?

then to top it off. where is all the outrage over so many other world leaders that we know for a fact tried to influence the election? "known", because they came right out and begged and pleaded that people vote for Hillary and/or against Trump. that was certainly trying to influence the election. yet more liberal double standards at work? it's apparently OK to try to influence the election if it is for their side, but not OK if it is in opposition to them?

A Saudi prince has urged Americans not to vote for Donald Trump in the upcoming general election.Turki al-Faisal, who served as Saudia Arabia's ambassador to the US from 2005 to 2007, spoke against the presumptive Republican nominee during a foreign policy dinner in Washington, DC on Thursday.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Mexico's ex-president warns US voters against Trump as president

www.dw.com...

in fact it seemed that world leaders all over the world were openly criticizing Trump every day. several compared him to Hitler or Mussolini. some even praised him. yet ALL of them were actively trying to influence the election by their comments. so why was that fine, while the conjectured releasing of true information is not fine? the truth of the matter is that almost every world leader was in fact trying to influence the election. so why is only Trump and Putin/Russia a problem? so if this supposed Russian thing is such a big problem, why are all these other blatant attempts to influence the election ignored? if one is a problem, they all are.

originally posted by: generik
if this supposed Russian thing is such a big problem, why are all these other blatant attempts to influence the election ignored? if one is a problem, they all are.

I don't think they were all involved in hacking, though.

They exercised "free speech", saying what they thought openly and freely.

But, Russia did things in secret, to undermine the US democracy.

All those secret meetings, and covert activity regarding computer data, was a bit more than just verbal support or verbal opposition.

Russia didn't hack the elections. GET OVER IT.

Nothing short of hacking the election is criminal. GET OVER IT.

It's a soap opera. GET OVER IT.

Getting dirt on an candidate you dont like. What's the crime. SHOW ME THE CRIME behind an attack campaign,or dirt digging. "Trump steals money from kids with cancer." is that a crime? The liberal propaganda no one cares about?

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
SHOW ME THE CRIME

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position. The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

Source

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails. Even so, it seems that Logan's actions were not the primary cause of the Directory's actions; instead, Logan had merely provided convenient timing for the implementation of a decision that had already been made.
Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist Party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was that Rep. Roger Griswold introduced the Logan Act.[6] It was pushed through by the Federalist majority in Congress by votes of 58–36 in the House, and 18–2 in the Senate.

a reply to: alphabetaone

yeah
no one has been indicted for that since 1803
good luck

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


So, Obama goes to Mitch MConnell and other leading Republican's about Russian Interference, asking them to stand by him in united condemnation, they refuse, they decide to nothing except threaten Obama, but Trump claims Obama knew about Russian interference and did nothing.

Well i seem to remember some documents do tell the president did know about it but didnt do anything. Still this is just their way of stopping this way of investigation.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Russia likely supported a lot of people in the election. Kislyak knows everyone in DC. Everyone.

a reply to: yuppa

Well i seem to remember some documents do tell the president did know about it but didnt do anything.

That's not a true statement. Obama went to the Republicans for help. The public was informed that Russian were responsible for DNC hacking. Obama ordered all (17) of US intel offices share all their intel on the subject, creating a paper trail to protect against sabotage. He ordered the development of a "cyber bomb" which is now in Trump's hands, expelled Russian ambassadors, seized 2 of their compounds and levied economic sanction on Russia.

It may not have been enough, but that's not nothing!

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, first of all, the USA does try to influence the elections in Russia and many other countries. That is not even a conspiracy, it is everyday business. As for the Russians attempting to influence our election, the FBI said they do it all the time but it rarely if ever makes a difference on our US elections. They stated it did not have that much influence on our last presidential election, it is easy to see that Hillary did way too much wrong stuff and did not need any help to lose that election. If anything, Russia just made people know of the things she did wrong, what....they get blasted for telling the truth?

I suppose, choosing our president is choosing the best deceiver, we can not have anyone promoting truth in presidential elections. We had many hackers and whistleblowers getting information out to the public in the last election, most were not Russians. I mentioned I thought Hillary was unworthy of that job...I am not Russian, in fact I am a democrat voter most times.

Trump and Putin probably couldn't hold a straight face during their talks. They both know what is going on continuously in the political zoo and they are both aware that we and they are hacking and trying to influence elections. That is part of what governments around the world do. Do people think Japan and China do not try to influence things? Do people think that Saudi Arabia does not try to influence our elections? Look at France, Obama tried successfully to influence their election even after he was out of office. Everyone does it. It is just much easier now because of the internet. What is our government going to do, punish anyone who tells the truth about things?

This whole election interference crap is nothing but something to try to divide our people and try to get back at Trump and his supporters because Trump won. The Liberals have called Trump supporters anything from uneducated to idiots, they are the ones who are not wise, change needs to be slow and gradual and in the right direction, the liberals are being steered in the wrong direction by some powerful influences. They need to step back and observe what just happened and try to understand why it happened. Trump should have never won this election, the Democrats policies are not correct. This past election shows that to be true. Obamacare is going to bankrupt our country, you cannot just give doctors a blank check. ten percent of the patients are using over half the healthcare money. Much of this is getting wasted on unneeded tests and procedures that are not feasable, you need to stop unnecessary tests, not promote them.

That is worth repeating.

How does the proverb go? "In a world full of liars the honest man will be ridiculed."

Do I recall correctly that some Chinese DNC operator, funds collector or some such title, got sent to the crossbar hotel for illegal campaign donations?

I still think Trump may have a few cards to turn yet in this whole affair. People who have known him for many years say he is smarter than the average bear when it comes to reading people and understanding them. I don't think he could have possibly imagined the complete breakdown of the opposition in the wake of his victory but at the same time I don't think he could have imagined the levels of malice being displayed by those who oppose him. The Democrats and msm have become a laughingstock in their epic meltdown.
Mainstream Dems are taking names and, at least the ones I know personally are sending messages to their leadership that they had better try to get with the program and start acting like adults instead of spoiled children. Everyday working Dems are incensed because its not hard for them to see why their party lost. What is hard for them to witness is that they are losing more on a daily basis because of the antics of the ones who like face time on tv.

I'll say it again---we'll never have real and fair elections until we go back to paper ballots that can be hand-counted and verified. That's the only way we'll get term limits. As long as we are using electronic voting machines we can never be sure that an election wasn't hacked. And no, I don't think the Russians are responsible for hacking elections but just the threat of such a thing should unite the parties in an honest effort to make elections as tamper-proof as humanly possible. Surely we can agree that preventing election fraud should be a priority.

originally posted by: yuppa

Well i seem to remember some documents do tell the president did know about it but didnt do anything.

He didn't do nothing, but he surely didn't do enough.

Care to delve into why it is he said he didn't do as much as he should have?

Still this is just their way of stopping this way of investigation.

So, you think investigation has absolutely no merit? Are you condoning the dogma of Great Leader President Trump without any checks or balances?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: yuppa

Well i seem to remember some documents do tell the president did know about it but didnt do anything.

He didn't do nothing, but he surely didn't do enough.

Care to delve into why it is he said he didn't do as much as he should have?

Still this is just their way of stopping this way of investigation.

So, you think investigation has absolutely no merit? Are you condoning the dogma of Great Leader President Trump without any checks or balances?

I dont like anyone actually in power. but i dislike washington dems especially. So anything that they hate is great to me.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: yuppa

Well i seem to remember some documents do tell the president did know about it but didnt do anything.

He didn't do nothing, but he surely didn't do enough.

Care to delve into why it is he said he didn't do as much as he should have?

Still this is just their way of stopping this way of investigation.

So, you think investigation has absolutely no merit? Are you condoning the dogma of Great Leader President Trump without any checks or balances?

I dont like anyone actually in power. but i dislike washington dems especially. So anything that they hate is great to me.

So you opt for what then? Anarchy?

Sorry, but to me simply putting a stigma on someone because theyre a democrat even if theyre imminently qualified to do a job is a real narrow way to live life. It ensures that you've completely limited options, and coming from my background the last thing in the world I want to do is limit options.

a reply to: alphabetaone

At what point does an investigation that yields no evidence become without merit?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alphabetaone

At what point does an investigation that yields no evidence become without merit?

I think I am out of the loop on that one....which investigation has yielded no evidence? If we're talking about attempted Russian influence we have evidence up the yinyang....

What bothers me is the constant nomenclature of 'collusion', especially with regard to the media because they should know better. There is no law which cites collusion as any type of infraction. I think we should start calling it what it is conspiracy to commit a crime...that is prosecutable.

a reply to: alphabetaone

What bothers me is the constant nomenclature of 'collusion', especially with regard to the media because they should know better. There is no law which cites collusion as any type of infraction. I think we should start calling it what it is conspiracy to commit a crime...that is prosecutable.

That would be a great help to this mess.
The media will not do that it wont sell ads.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Please fill me in on where the investigation turned up wrongdoing by Trump.

We have democrats working with the Kremlin and getting information from Kremlin sources to undermine Trump. The entire dossier is put together from supposed Russian sources.

Please fill me in on the Trump evidence. While you are at it you can fill me in on the evidence linking Russia and wikileaks.

The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews.

This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.

Just five days after meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower with Trump Jr., Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya showed up in Washington in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Russia policy, video footage of the hearing shows.

She also engaged in a pro-Russia lobbying campaign and attended an event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., where Russian supporters showed a movie that challenged the underpinnings of the U.S. human rights law known as the Magnitsky Act, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has reviled and tried to reverse.

thehill.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Please fill me in on where the investigation turned up wrongdoing by Trump.

Sure. Right after you fill me in on where I said that supporting evidence is tantamount to "wrongdoing by Trump". Evidence does not necessarily favor wrongdoing any more than (it sometimes seems) evolution favors intellect.

We have democrats working with the Kremlin and getting information from Kremlin sources to undermine Trump.

Really? You want to refute me with "i know you are but what am I?" This is a story about how President Trump is embracing Russia more than the American people themselves and the best you can do is Democrats are working with the Kremlin to undermine Trump....well, lets suppose that is true for a moment, then GOOD....if it gets him to start caring more about the US citizens, then I'm all for it.

Please fill me in on the Trump evidence. While you are at it you can fill me in on the evidence linking Russia and wikileaks.

Nah. It's in the news every single day, most often from the President himself and my re-hashing it time after time after time is becoming laborious....if you choose to ignore it is your issue, not mine.