Will Republicans Sanction Russia or Prove Their Treason with Inaction

a reply to: Cassi3l

Yes like Putin's Russia or any third world banana republic the leaders family is elevated above the laws & norms of the country.

K~

Another day another attack against the Free Press.

Still not a bad word against his benefactor in the Kremlin who violated our country.

Bad ratings @CNN & @MSNBC got scammed when they covered the anti-Trump Russia rally wall-to-wall.

They probably knew it was Fake News but, because it was a rally against me, they pushed it hard anyway.

Two really dishonest newscasters, but the public is wise! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2018

K~

originally posted by: aethertek
Another day another attack against the Free Press.

Still not a bad word against his benefactor in the Kremlin who violated our country.

Bad ratings @CNN & @MSNBC got scammed when they covered the anti-Trump Russia rally wall-to-wall.

They probably knew it was Fake News but, because it was a rally against me, they pushed it hard anyway.

Two really dishonest newscasters, but the public is wise! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2018

K~

and yet Trump is right with his comments. The 1st amendment allows people to criticize government officials and that same amendment allows government officials to criticize the media. It allows everyone else the same ability.

When the media attacks Trump I dont see you or others talking about the attack yet for some reason its an attack on the media when he dishes back out to them.

Do you not see your blatant hypocrisy?

Nearly a week since Mueller brought charges against the Russian agents & of course traitor in training Devin Nunes mocks America with his treachery.

Catch up on mainstream media Russian conspiracy theories in this piece by @FDRLST

PS-If you are a Russian Bot please make this go viral

PSS-If you’re not a Russian Bot you will become one if you retweet t.co... — Devin Nunes (@DevinNunes) February 21, 2018

My my isn't the little Putin pet just so witty, I wonder if he'll be so flippant when Mueller gets around to his "interview".

K~

a reply to: aethertek


Wow, another week with no results.

Yet, your precious liberal Vox.com now admits the chances of Trump facing charges is very slim. Trying to let you "true believers" down easily.

More false predictions from a bitter clinger. Yawn.

a reply to: aethertek


"New" sanctions, yes. They were sanctioned before this. Their embassies were closed.

It is you, the notorious hyperbolic liar, posting lies. You peddle your BS opinion around like its settled fact.

The sanctions were voted on & approved last year but the derp fuhrer wont initiate them for fear of angering his banker in the Kremlin.

Too bad. Congress doesn't have the authority to implement unilateral sanctions. They need POTUS to do it. And that is SOLEY at POTUS's discretion since diplomacy is also POTUS' discretion - because separation of powers.

Russia's already been punished for their very minor and very common information operations.

Besides, we've done the same to them/many other nations (Bush/Obama has, not Trump)

Get over it. He won't be impeached, he won't be convicted. Teflon Don walks again...and it eats you up inside.

a reply to: aethertek


Here's one about your hero Obama.

www.washingtoninstitute.org...

Not only did Obama unilaterally ease sanctions on terrorist radical Islamic Iran, but they also allowed terrorist Hezbollah's drugs to pass through our borders.

Why was this legal? Because POTUS is responsible for diplomacy/foreign relations. Same for Trump. He may apply whatever sanctions he chooses for any reason he chooses (or not apply them). 13 social media trolls do not warrant sanctioning an entire nation. That isn't warfare or terrorism, it is barely a nuisance. Get over it. It happened. It will happen again.

Democrats should stop doing so many illegal/immoral things if they don't want their dirty laundry exposed to the world.

I personally reposted/shared the leaked DNC emails several times a day. The intent was to deal maximum damage to Clinton/Democrats. No one here needed help from "the russians" we hate Hillary enough to ruin her campaign on our own.

Besides, in the end it was her historically low popularity rating and even lower "trustworthiness" rating. She was dull, boring and "establishment" with no real vision, other than "I'm not Trump, vote for me! Duhh, deplorables! Uhhh *cough* *pass out at 9/11 memorial* RUSSIA RUSSIA!! Vast right wing conspiracy! It's a conspiracy! They're all out to get me! 50 points ahead, my pretties."

And you wonder why she lost so bad to a non-politician candidate who started running as a joke. A joke candidate beat Hillary Clinton and the entire GOP/DNC/DEEPSTATE establishment. How sad does that look for her?

Very sad. Like every other single election she failed miserably. Fact is too many people see the phrase "Hillary Clinton" as a swear word. And rightfully so.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: aethertek


Wow, another week with no results.

Yet, your precious liberal Vox.com now admits the chances of Trump facing charges is very slim. Trying to let you "true believers" down easily.

More false predictions from a bitter clinger. Yawn.

Wrong. From 2 days ago in Vox. www.vox.com...

Text

The articles that have come out stating that he may not face charges have said that it would be bc Mueller is a conservative and would be reluctant to indict a co-equal branch, rather refer it to congress. This is the non-Fox media, IOW real media are saying he may not charge trump out of concern for the system.

There were plenty of results this week btw. Several new indictments, a new guilty plea. Also, the investigation would be much further ahead if Trump hadn't fired Comey to end the investigation.


But, your hatred for fellow Americans (Dems, liberals) is duly noted. Seems pretty obviously you have far less issue with Russian owning our White House. Anyway, just wanted you to know you've got the Vox thing dead wrong, and "no indictment" doesn't mean "no crime. It can be referred to congress"

a reply to: Scrubdog

This is the non-Fox media, IOW real media are saying he may not charge trump out of concern for the system.

No, this is the propaganda media letting you in on something conservatives have been telling you fools for a year. Trump cannot be indicted. There is one mechanism in place to take care of a law breaking president, impeachment. Here, I'll let you in on some more not so secret, secrets: Trump didn't do anything illegal in the 2016 election, Hillary just lost because she sucked. The mueller investigation will be over by end of summer, with no recommendation of impeachment. Russia didn't have any effect on the outcome of the election. Republicans are on track to pick up seats in the mid terms.

Also, the investigation would be much further ahead if Trump hadn't fired Comey to end the investigation.

The time between comey's firing and a SC being appointed was two weeks. During that two weeks the investigation continued at the FBI, so it quite literally didn't affect the investigation.

But, your hatred for fellow Americans (Dems, liberals) is duly noted.

It's not that we hate you, we hate that you are so ill informed and you run around acting like you're all so smart and have all of the answers, when it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of critical thought that you don't have answers.

ETA:

Wrong. From 2 days ago in Vox. www.vox.com...

OMG do you even know what you were responding to? That article, LOL! Talk about conspiracy theories... this guy takes the approach of mccarthyism to a whole new level. Do you know why people laughed at mccarthy in the end?

a reply to: Scrubdog

That article really deserves it's own response because it jumps to so many conclusions, it's rather shocking. I'm going to go to the elements of the case and give you some questions or responses to consider.

Many of the Russian government’s political interventions abroad are clumsy and inept (see the anti-Macron stuff from the 2017 French presidential election and the bulk of the “troll farm” stuff). But the WikiLeaks email drops of 2016 were very well-executed and well-timed to step on two major stories: first the Democratic National Convention and later the Access Hollywood tape. Perhaps the Russians got lucky (twice) or they executed well because they were helped by an expert American political operative.

Where's the proof? Where is the proof that russia gave the info to wikileaks. Why was the macron stuff considered ham handed? The emails were leaked on april 24th and not released for another three months, that's basically the same time frame as the DNC hack and the podesta emails. By the time they released the emails he was already president, so if they wanted to damage macron they would have known it needed to be done long before that. Is the author really contending that the russians had no idea when the macron election waas? The author forgets that assange has a personal hatred of hillary clinton and doesn't need any russia motive to ruin her ambitions. So again, where is the evidence that russia gave the emails to wikileaks?

As it happens, the expertise of Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort, is in American and foreign electioneering. Manafort helped Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush win presidential elections before he moved into lobbying and took his political skills abroad. He spent a decade dispensing expert political advice (for a steep price) to a Russian proxy party in Ukraine. So it’s not like the Russians would have no idea whom to ask, or that nobody on the Trump team was comfortable, broadly speaking, with the idea of working with Moscow.

Manafort was a delegate wrangler. He was a bad place to hang your hat if you were russia, he was always going to be gone after the conventions were through. Why would trump fire the guy who was helping him collude?

We also know specifically, due to Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous “if it’s what you say I love it” email, that not only Manafort but also Trump’s son and his son-in-law were eager to collaborate with the Russian government on the 2016 election.

Yes, the opposing campaign was open to getting dirt on their political opponents. How does this prove collusion? Last I heard this meeting was pretty useless.

Trump spent more than a year on the campaign trail consistently praising Vladimir Putin and defending him from critics, incurring political risks with no obvious upside for himself.

Context is key here, we had just suffered from 8 years of obama's "lead from behind" failure. Many in america admired the actual leadership of putin even while recognizing he's not who you would want to run your country. Further, clinton was saber rattling against russia. Trump simply took the opposite position. What was he supposed to do? Why do you think that was what he was supposed to do?

During the transition, Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was very eager to conduct talks with Moscow about a warming of relations. Jared Kushner was trying to create some kind of secure backchannel line of communication to Moscow that would be impenetrable by American intelligence.

Yes, the incoming admin has every right to set up their own foreign policy, being that he ran a more russia friendly campaign than hillary (or the obama admin) one would expect that they would set up more friendly comms. Further, that backchannel has been discussed ad nauseum and found to be typical, not alarming. Obama had these secret comms with iran. This is basically nothing packages in a bright shiny package to get people who don't think critically to buy it.

Trump took the exceptionally risky move of firing FBI Director James Comey. After that backfired, he took repeated stabs at leaning on Attorney General Jeff Sessions and/or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to resign, which would give him more direct control over Mueller.

Comey needed to be fired. It wasn't a risky move. Dems had called for his resignation or firing months prior. Further, we have since learned he lied under oath at least three times, hardly the guy you want in charge of your justice department. If you can't admit comey needed to go, you're being dishonest with yourself. It didn't backfire either. Trump acknowledged that firing him would likely lead to a special counsel but said it was still the right thing to do. Comey and wray both testified that the investigation was unimpeded by comey's firing. The same can be said about sessions. He's a disaster. I was excited about sessions but he's been a huge disappointment. Only interested in drugs. I never recall trump pressuring rosenstein. So basically this whole paragraph is innuendo with a preconceived conclusion. Why was it risky? Why shouldn't sessions be fired?

Trump’s allies on the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee have been trying to help him with various attacks on the FBI, the Justice Department, and the whole idea of an inquiry rather than by constructing some plausible alternative narrative that would explain all the weird # referenced above.

Because the DOJ spied on the trump campaign. You can bet if they're willing to spy on them, they're spying on congress critters. They used someone they knew wasn't a spy to get a fisa warrant. They used a fake dossier to get a fisa warrant. They then used the three step rule to spy on everyone in the campaign. This isn't some fake narrative, or based on wild assumptions, this is what we know from the congressional investigations. Why is an investigation into spying by the obama DOJ simply an attack but the russia investigation is just "good cops" doing their job?

So there you have it, all of the case laid out, destroyed. But the author of the article knows that, which is why the next section is about how bad everything we already know is. But again, what we already know isn't what he thinks he knows.

This line encapsulates exactly how far down the rabbit hole that author is:

Trump appeared on national television and explained to an NBC News audience that he improperly used his powers of office to remove the FBI director in an effort to shield his friends and associates from criminal scrutiny.

Even the disgraced comey has said it was well within the presidents powers to fire him, for any reason! Plus, Trump never said anything of the sort, what he said was that his handling of the russia probe was part of the decision (and if you don't jump to 5000 conclusions, that makes a lot of sense. (Think leaks, think politics, think testimony).

Texas GOP lawmaker: No need to probe Trump’s finances because Deutsche Bank is German, not Russian


So is he complicit or just completely stupid.

Deutsche Bank last year agreed to pay out $630 million in penalties after getting busted for being involved in a $10 billion Russian money laundering scheme that involved its Moscow, New York and London branches.

Deutsche Bank was also the one major bank that was willing to lend Trump money in the late ’90s, after a string of business failures made him toxic for all other Wall Street banks.

In total, Trump has roughly $300 million in outstanding debts to Deutsche Bank.

www.rawstory.com...

K~

a reply to: aethertek

So is he complicit or just completely stupid.

I'll vote for the last. The dude's a dip-sh*t who can't seem to understand that his fractional reserve banking is upheld with Cryptography, then he mandates breaking into Cryptography... Money got stolen? No sh*t! That makes you an official Dip-Sh*t!

Now they're all screaming Russia, Russia, Russia because a load of hackers come along singing "Let's do the ChaCha!"

An the idiots breaking the security of the bank at there intelligence agencies go dark and can't spy wont spy!



Your kids money problems and your own money problems with your failed business model are not our problem.

a reply to: aethertek

Feel free to explain how Trumps finances from pre 2015 are related to Trump Russia collusion?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Russia is a democracy, therefore all Russians deserve to the punished. Russians support their state, therefore, to cause damage to their state, sanctions need to be applied to all Russians. If we can target specific people then good, but if not, simply cause pain to all Russians.