Putin - Trump meeting live feed

a reply to: Sillyolme

You know his playbook. Deny deny deny. Never apologize. Never admit a mistake. If you deny something no reason anyone should think you did anything. That's just retarded thinking.

I'm not well versed on which playbook that is, but it's the "two party" playbook right?

The one they both go by?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Translated: We do it, too.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, I'd have to say that that was a first.

A press conference is labeled "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "treason". Interesting.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

The Russians phished an email account at the DCCC. They then infiltrated the DCCC network where they obtained logon credentials for the DNC network. They infiltrated the DNC network. They also phished John Podesta. The exfiltrated documents and emails from all three. They tried their hand at releasing some of what they stole on their own. They provided a GOP operative with gigs of voter data, analysis and strategy documents. That data was later provided to longtime Trump bag man Roger Stone. They published other documents through a website they'd put up (DC Leaks). Then also provided all of the stolen emails to WikiLeaks and coordinated a release which included something like 3 dozen separate releases, chunked up and timed to maximize efficacy.

They used state-controlled media outlets (Sputnik, RT) and a network of social media trolls, many of them well developed with tens of thousands of followers, to push items from the release.

A very small number exposed some corruption in the DNC but the majority were simply taken out of context, misrepresented/mischaracterized to provide propaganda fodder. Some of the latter was promoted not only by the Trump campaign but by Trump himself.

You want to see an example of how effective of a strategy that was? Here's a thread I did:

BREAKING! Proof That Benghazi Was Preventable

So Blumenthal writes a quote. This just came out a little while ago. I have to tell you this.

"One important point has been universally acknowledged by the nine previous reports about Benghazi" — this is Syndey Blumenthal — the only one she was talking to. She wasn't talking to Ambassador Stevens. Even the 600 calls — probably desperation!

"The attack wasn't almost certainly preventable." Benghazi. "Clinton was in charge of the State Department and had failed to protect the United States personnel at an American consulate in Libya" He meant Benghazi. "If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate."

In other words he's now admitted that they could have done something about Benghazi. This just came out a little while ago...

The only problem is that's a complete lie and I wanted to prove a point, so I waited until the end of the thread to reveal the problem. It instantly picked up 100 flags, I surmised from Trump supporters who didn't read to the end.

What was the problem? Sydney Blumenthal hadn't said any such thing. What had actually happened was that Blumenthal had forwarded a newspaper article by Kurt Eichenwald where he'd linked it and copied the text into the email. It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually looked at it.

Nonetheless, the guy who is President of the United States of America currently, ran with the misrepresentation. Told a big fat lie to his adoring supporters who all sucked it down as gospel. That wasn't even an isolated event for that sort of misrepresentation.

Other things that were taken out context/mischaracterized for similar purpose would include John Podesta saying that they should "make an example" out of a leaker in 2015. It was quite clear from the email that he meant that they should fire one of the staffers who was suspected of talking to the media but it was promoted by WikiLeaks this way:



It was immediately seized upon as "evidence" that John Podesta was really talking about having somebody killed. Specifically, since Assange had passive-aggressively promoted the Seth Rich conspiracy a couple months earlier, it was bandied about as "evidence" that Podesta/HRC/the DNC had murdered Seth Rich for leaking.

Another example from the Podesta emails was an exchange between Jennifer Palmieri and John Halpin discussing conservative Catholics. I don't know about Halpin, but Palmieri is herself a Catholic. The email was from *2011* and Podesta (also a Catholic) wasn't even part of the exchange, he was simply copied on it. Yet it was used to create multiple articles about... wait for it... Hillary Clinton's "bigotry" toward Catholics (and Christians in general).

Straight from the Trump campaign:

The emails published by WikiLeaks reveal the depths of the hostility of Hillary Clinton and her campaign toward Catholics, and the open anti-Catholic bigotry of her senior advisors, who attack the deeply held beliefs and theology of Catholics.

These Clinton advisors, viciously mocking Catholics as they have, turn the clock back to the days of the 20th century "No Catholics Need Apply" type of discrimination.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign should be ashamed of themselves and should immediately apologize to all Catholics and people of good will in the United States.

That's of course all bull#. It was also promoted by RT, Russian trolls on social media and if I look, probably by WikiLeaks as well. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. While it's impossible to say what would have happened without Russian interference, in an election that ultimately came down to a few tens of thousands of people in a few key areas, it's also impossible to say that it had no significant effect.

More generally, airing even the *actual* dirty laundry from one side while ignoring the other is clearly a viable tactic of information warfare. Out of tens of thousands of emails, there's always going to be some idiot saying something off the cuff that they wouldn't have said publicly. There's always going to be things that can be cherry-picked to create a false narrative. There's always going to be some level of juicy dirt. Anyone who thinks that the Republicans are somehow better is deluded but with dirt (real or not) on one side in hand and nothing from the other, it's easy to bolster a impression that one side is uniquely bad.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If he doesn't follow up on this, Mueller reveals himself to be an incompetent idiot who should be drummed out of govt. service.

You go where the evidence takes you. Period. ...and if the offer has been made for him to be present at questioning of these twelve indictees--then he'd best get his passport ready.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

So Russians posted something on twitter, and that stole the election from Clinton how ??!?

(I know you don't subscribe to that, so don't read this as you being yelled at)

Some of us have actual, legitimate complaints about Trump or a policy decision of his. But we don't get heard, THOSE ISSUES get no attention because of crap like "twitter collusion" or "OMG 2 scoops" being propagated by the media ! And yes, it's annoying as hell ! It's like having to take time to arbitrate an argument between 5 year old's, while the house is burning down ! Gee should we call the fire department, should we file out side ? No lets bicker and call names while we all cook to death....

That's the going narrative. They believe some tweets "influenced" the election more than either candidate's politics and platforms. Either they are projecting their own willingness to believe such propaganda, are merely repeating what they've been told, or they believe Twitter is an accurate sample of the populace. All of the above is so divorced from reality that we should immediately suspect the motives of those who push the narrative.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Great post Ante

Is this not a bit of a embarrassment now for the American people.

Your president just stood next to the President of the old enemy, the Russians, and proclaimed that actually in his view he trusts the Russian President in his denials of any kind of interference with the 2016 election over the opinions of his own intelligence people. The same intelligence people who have been saying for years now that in their assessment Russia sought to interfere with that very election.

Then he also repeated his "no collusion" line.

I personally feel that the best thing that Trump could have done was really early one just take a hardcore line of not commenting on anything regarding Russian interference in the election until all inquiries had finished their reports. Sure the press would have flamed him for not speaking out or whatever but I think that would be better than the current state of affairs whereby almost any time he makes a comment on Russia he just seems to dig himself a ever deeper hole.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Is this not a bit of a embarrassment now for the American people.

Your president just stood next to the President of the old enemy, the Russians, and proclaimed that actually in his view he trusts the Russian President in his denials of any kind of interference with the 2016 election over the opinions of his own intelligence people. The same intelligence people who have been saying for years now that in their assessment Russia sought to interfere with that very election.

I think it is an embarrassment for the press and their parrots. It's such a non-issue, yet the press and their parrots have ramped up the posturing and jingoism to the threat of peace and diplomacy.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Do you believe Putin?

Any American should believe him until evidence is presented otherwise. Unless you don’t believe in those American tenants of “innocent until proven guilty” or “due process”?

Is it likely? Sure. Where’s the evidence to confirm it?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Is this not a bit of a embarrassment now for the American people.

Your president just stood next to the President of the old enemy, the Russians, and proclaimed that actually in his view he trusts the Russian President in his denials of any kind of interference with the 2016 election over the opinions of his own intelligence people. The same intelligence people who have been saying for years now that in their assessment Russia sought to interfere with that very election.

I think it is an embarrassment for the press and their parrots. It's such a non-issue, yet the press and their parrots have ramped up the posturing and jingoism to the threat of peace and diplomacy.

I dont think the press are helping, I think there reporting has at times just been conducted in such a way so as to get a rise out of Trump.

I would disagree though on the idea that the issue of Russian interference is a "non-issue" however I don't really expect that you and I will ever really agree on that.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Is this not a bit of a embarrassment now for the American people.

Your president just stood next to the President of the old enemy, the Russians, and proclaimed that actually in his view he trusts the Russian President in his denials of any kind of interference with the 2016 election over the opinions of his own intelligence people. The same intelligence people who have been saying for years now that in their assessment Russia sought to interfere with that very election.

I think it is an embarrassment for the press and their parrots. It's such a non-issue, yet the press and their parrots have ramped up the posturing and jingoism to the threat of peace and diplomacy.

I dont think the press are helping, I think there reporting has at times just been conducted in such a way so as to get a rise out of Trump.

I would disagree though on the idea that the issue of Russian interference is a "non-issue" however I don't really expect that you and I will ever really agree on that.

I even disagree with the terms "election interference". Election interference suggest interference in an election, not interference in someone's emails or posting nonsense on Twitter. We could call it Twitter or facebook interference, but no election occurred on Twitter or Facebook. The real election interference was delivered by domestic actors.

a reply to: seagull

If he doesn't follow up on this, Mueller reveals himself to be an incompetent idiot who should be drummed out of govt. service.

That's how I feel about Trump. See, I have never believed that Trump conspired with the Russian government as part of their interference campaign but what he continues to do is sow doubt.

I believe that his motivation for doing so is primarily that he has never wanted to admit that the Russians meddled in the election to benefit him because he feels that it delegitimizes his election victory. I also wonder if he isn't fearful that there was some level of conspiracy between somebody in his campaign and the Kremlin that he isn't aware of. I think that's a perfectly rational fear considering some of what has come out since the election.

He fought tooth and nail to derail any investigation at all and he, his team and his supporters in Congress and the media have spent an amazing amount of time trying to discredit the FBI, the IC, Mueller, etc and create doubt about even the existence of Russian influence during the election.

It's really rather amazing when you consider the chasm between what Trump espouses and what his own IC and administration have said:

Trump's former CIA Director and now Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has confirmed Russian meddling. As has his replacement at the CIA, Gina Haspel. (and for that matter, the man Pompeo replaced as SoS, Rex Tillerson) So did former NSA and Central Security Service director Mike Rogers. So has the new NSA Director, Paul Nakasone. We know from Trump's own mouth that DNI Dan Coats told him it was the Russians. Trump appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray has also confirmed Russian meddling. DHS Sec Neilsen confirmed it. Head of DHS's cybersecurity division, Jeanette Manfra, even confirmed Russian hacking of election related servers which, if not a failed attempt at more direct meddling were at the very least some serious scouting to see what could be achieved remotely.

Now we have Robert Mueller dropping indictments.

All of the top people that Trump has appointed and that his appointees have appointed are all saying the same thing. The only people in the federal government who are intent on creating this air of uncertainty are Donald Trump and a small cadre of his most loyal supporters in Congress, mostly House Republicans (Nunes, Gaetz, Gohmert, Meadows, DeSantis, etc). Even then, their focus is more on discrediting the FBI and the Mueller investigation than outright denying Russian interference.

My opinion? They're worse than incompetent idiots — although that could also apply to a number of them — they're casting doubt about an attack on our country's election out of political expediency.

They should all be drummed out of government by the voters at the earliest opportunity.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Translated: We do it, too.

I see what you did there!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seagull

If he doesn't follow up on this, Mueller reveals himself to be an incompetent idiot who should be drummed out of govt. service.

That's how I feel about Trump. See, I have never believed that Trump conspired with the Russian government as part of their interference campaign but what he continues to do is sow doubt.

I believe that his motivation for doing so is primarily that he has never wanted to admit that the Russians meddled in the election to benefit him because he feels that it delegitimizes his election victory. I also wonder if he isn't fearful that there was some level of conspiracy between somebody in his campaign and the Kremlin that he isn't aware of. I think that's a perfectly rational fear considering some of what has come out since the election.

He fought tooth and nail to derail any investigation at all and he, his team and his supporters in Congress and the media have spent an amazing amount of time trying to discredit the FBI, the IC, Mueller, etc and create doubt about even the existence of Russian influence during the election.

It's really rather amazing when you consider the chasm between what Trump espouses and what his own IC and administration have said:

Trump's former CIA Director and now Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has confirmed Russian meddling. As has his replacement at the CIA, Gina Haspel. (and for that matter, the man Pompeo replaced as SoS, Rex Tillerson) So did former NSA and Central Security Service director Mike Rogers. So has the new NSA Director, Paul Nakasone. We know from Trump's own mouth that DNI Dan Coats told him it was the Russians. Trump appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray has also confirmed Russian meddling. DHS Sec Neilsen confirmed it. Head of DHS's cybersecurity division, Jeanette Manfra, even confirmed Russian hacking of election related servers which, if not a failed attempt at more direct meddling were at the very least some serious scouting to see what could be achieved remotely.

Now we have Robert Mueller dropping indictments.

All of the top people that Trump has appointed and that his appointees have appointed are all saying the same thing. The only people in the federal government who are intent on creating this air of uncertainty are Donald Trump and a small cadre of his most loyal supporters in Congress, mostly House Republicans (Nunes, Gaetz, Gohmert, Meadows, DeSantis, etc). Even then, their focus is more on discrediting the FBI and the Mueller investigation than outright denying Russian interference.

My opinion? They're worse than incompetent idiots — although that could also apply to a number of them — they're casting doubt about an attack on our country's election out of political expediency.

They should all be drummed out of government by the voters at the earliest opportunity.

Doesn’t your first paragraph contradict the link in your signature? Especially the link title?
Back on topic...no one should be drummed out until the intelligence agencies are completely cleaned of deep state employees.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

The Russians phished an email account at the DCCC. They then infiltrated the DCCC network where they obtained logon credentials for the DNC network. They infiltrated the DNC network. They also phished John Podesta. The exfiltrated documents and emails from all three. They tried their hand at releasing some of what they stole on their own. They provided a GOP operative with gigs of voter data, analysis and strategy documents. That data was later provided to longtime Trump bag man Roger Stone. They published other documents through a website they'd put up (DC Leaks). Then also provided all of the stolen emails to WikiLeaks and coordinated a release which included something like 3 dozen separate releases, chunked up and timed to maximize efficacy.

They used state-controlled media outlets (Sputnik, RT) and a network of social media trolls, many of them well developed with tens of thousands of followers, to push items from the release.

A very small number exposed some corruption in the DNC but the majority were simply taken out of context, misrepresented/mischaracterized to provide propaganda fodder. Some of the latter was promoted not only by the Trump campaign but by Trump himself.

You want to see an example of how effective of a strategy that was? Here's a thread I did:

BREAKING! Proof That Benghazi Was Preventable

So Blumenthal writes a quote. This just came out a little while ago. I have to tell you this.

"One important point has been universally acknowledged by the nine previous reports about Benghazi" — this is Syndey Blumenthal — the only one she was talking to. She wasn't talking to Ambassador Stevens. Even the 600 calls — probably desperation!

"The attack wasn't almost certainly preventable." Benghazi. "Clinton was in charge of the State Department and had failed to protect the United States personnel at an American consulate in Libya" He meant Benghazi. "If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate."

In other words he's now admitted that they could have done something about Benghazi. This just came out a little while ago...

The only problem is that's a complete lie and I wanted to prove a point, so I waited until the end of the thread to reveal the problem. It instantly picked up 100 flags, I surmised from Trump supporters who didn't read to the end.

What was the problem? Sydney Blumenthal hadn't said any such thing. What had actually happened was that Blumenthal had forwarded a newspaper article by Kurt Eichenwald where he'd linked it and copied the text into the email. It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually looked at it.

Nonetheless, the guy who is President of the United States of America currently, ran with the misrepresentation. Told a big fat lie to his adoring supporters who all sucked it down as gospel. That wasn't even an isolated event for that sort of misrepresentation.

Other things that were taken out context/mischaracterized for similar purpose would include John Podesta saying that they should "make an example" out of a leaker in 2015. It was quite clear from the email that he meant that they should fire one of the staffers who was suspected of talking to the media but it was promoted by WikiLeaks this way:

It was immediately seized upon as "evidence" that John Podesta was really talking about having somebody killed. Specifically, since Assange had passive-aggressively promoted the Seth Rich conspiracy a couple months earlier, it was bandied about as "evidence" that Podesta/HRC/the DNC had murdered Seth Rich for leaking.

Another example from the Podesta emails was an exchange between Jennifer Palmieri and John Halpin discussing conservative Catholics. I don't know about Halpin, but Palmieri is herself a Catholic. The email was from *2011* and Podesta (also a Catholic) wasn't even part of the exchange, he was simply copied on it. Yet it was used to create multiple articles about... wait for it... Hillary Clinton's "bigotry" toward Catholics (and Christians in general).

Straight from the Trump campaign:

The emails published by WikiLeaks reveal the depths of the hostility of Hillary Clinton and her campaign toward Catholics, and the open anti-Catholic bigotry of her senior advisors, who attack the deeply held beliefs and theology of Catholics.

These Clinton advisors, viciously mocking Catholics as they have, turn the clock back to the days of the 20th century "No Catholics Need Apply" type of discrimination.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign should be ashamed of themselves and should immediately apologize to all Catholics and people of good will in the United States.

That's of course all bull#. It was also promoted by RT, Russian trolls on social media and if I look, probably by WikiLeaks as well. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. While it's impossible to say what would have happened without Russian interference, in an election that ultimately came down to a few tens of thousands of people in a few key areas, it's also impossible to say that it had no significant effect.

More generally, airing even the *actual* dirty laundry from one side while ignoring the other is clearly a viable tactic of information warfare. Out of tens of thousands of emails, there's always going to be some idiot saying something off the cuff that they wouldn't have said publicly. There's always going to be things that can be cherry-picked to create a false narrative. There's always going to be some level of juicy dirt. Anyone who thinks that the Republicans are somehow better is deluded but with dirt (real or not) on one side in hand and nothing from the other, it's easy to bolster a impression that one side is uniquely bad.

And all that being said, the Dems have never denied the content of their emails. They’re just mad their corruption was exposed like fixing the nomination against Bernie, Donna Brazille feeding Hillary CNN debate questions beforehand, etc.

I found it!

I missed watching the press conference live, but have been listening to it on YouTube. During the Q&A session, Putin clarifies his position on the indictments: He says there is a 1999 treaty that allows for questioning and he is willing to question the indicted Russians. He then said he would also agree to any US interests, even those of Mueller's team or Mueller himself, to observe the questioning directly. All that has already been mentioned in this thread.

But what hasn't been mentioned is the condition he put upon it: Russia will interrogate Russians suspected of US crimes with open observation by US interests, IF America will interrogate Americans accused of Russian crimes with Russian observers welcome. He then went on to say they have information that several members of the US Intel community are accused of illegally laundering money from Russia to contribute to the Clinton campaign!

This is exactly what I was expecting. Those who have been busily trying everything to disrupt any thread about this summit, who have been so anti-Trump and protective of Hillary, well, you just got what you apparently feared most. Putin is going after the corrupt Intel officials, and Trump has to oblige him.... because Mueller indicted Russians!

No wonder the Intel community was so afraid of Trump meeting with Putin. Let the circus begin and the chips fall where they may...

TheRedneck

a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the most ridiculous idea ever and Putin knew it would never be considered.

a reply to: BlueAjah

No it's not just a matter of saying send anyone.
The indictment Has been filed. Russia used the opportunity to view the charges.
They will never send them.
The U.S. Has extradited criminals many many times over so I don't know why you think it's so unusual.