Putin - Trump meeting live feed

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's ridiculous and won't ever be considered and there will not be any repercussions because no one would think it's a good idea.
We don't invite spies to see what evidence has been collected. If they want to view discovery then they get a lawyer and answer the indictment. Period.

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.

Do you have any proof that Russia did any of this?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

No trumps book.
The art of the Deal.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: theantediluvian

Your post will be rugswept, ignored and/or ridiculed.

But it is an important one.
You should not stop showing those ignorants that there are not only taints on their heroes, but enourmous $h1t-stains!

Do you have proof russia did anything theantediluvian posted?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

It's ridiculous and won't ever be considered and there will not be any repercussions because no one would think it's a good idea.
We don't invite spies to see what evidence has been collected. If they want to view discovery then they get a lawyer and answer the indictment. Period.

So once again you take facts and produce lies.

Where did Putin refer to discovery? Point out where Putin asked to see evidence?

The only ridiculous part of this is your spin.

While this is a very unexpected development, and not likely to happen, your lies about basic facts overshadow any productive discussion.

a reply to: Lab4Us

Doesn’t your first paragraph contradict the link in your signature? Especially the link title?

Nope. Check the link.

Back on topic...no one should be drummed out until the intelligence agencies are completely cleaned of deep state employees.

When does that happen and how will you know? I mean, we're on Trump-appointed CIA director #2, NSA director #2, Christopher Wray was confirmed FBI director a year ago (in two weeks), Trump appointed Dan Coats became DNI a year ago March. DHS Sec Nielsen has been on the job since December.

And why are they all disagreeing with Trump? Why did DNI Coats release this in a statement today:

The role of the Intelligence Community is to provide the best information and fact-based assessments possible for the President and policymakers. We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security.

Are they all also "Deep State?" Is anyone who doesn't tow the Trump line "Deep State," no matter how divorced from reality that line is?

a reply to: Sillyolme

first LOL at "all out social media assault" bwahahahahaha social media is far from the reason hillary lost but you want to know what we have done over the years and why some members either dont care of think its hilarious karma after all the stuff we pulled on the international stage of election meddling ill even use mostly left wing sources as we know you treat them like gospel

www.npr.org... NPR

This is hardly the first time a country has tried to influence the outcome of another country's election. The U.S. has done it, too, by one expert's count, more than 80 times worldwide between 1946 and 2000. That expert is Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. I asked him to tell me about one election where U.S. intervention likely made a difference in the outcome. DOV LEVIN: One example of that was our intervention in Serbia, Yugoslavia in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milosevic was running for re-election, and we didn't want him to stay in power there due to his tendency, you know, to disrupts the Balkans and his human rights violations. So we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. And we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. And according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win. SHAPIRO: How often are these interventions public versus covert? LEVIN: Well, it's - basically there's about - one-third of them are public, and two-third of them are covert. In other words, they're not known to the voters in the target before the election. SHAPIRO: Your count does not include coups, attempts at regime change. It sounds like depending on the definitions, the tally could actually be much higher. LEVIN: Well, you're right. I don't count and discount covert coup d'etats like the United States did in Iran in 1953 or in Guatemala in 1954. I only took when the United States is trying directly to influence an election for one of the sides. Other types of interventions - I don't discuss. But if we would include those, then of course the number could be larger, yeah. SHAPIRO: How often do other countries like Russia, for example, try to alter the outcome of elections as compared to the United States? LEVIN: Well, for my dataset, the United States is the most common user of this technique. Russia or the Soviet Union since 1945 has used it half as much. My estimate has been 36 cases between 1946 to 2000. We know also that the Chinese have used this technique and the Venezuelans when the late Hugo Chavez was still in power in Venezuela and other countries.

more then 80 times and thats not counting coups or attempted regime change.

www.latimes.com... but its not just our enemies we intefear with but allies like Italy ,coincidentally i wonder how well it would be taken in this age if the us backed Christian democrats over Communists

Italy's 1948 general election is an early example of a race where U.S. actions probably influenced the outcome. "We threw everything, including the kitchen sink" at helping the Christian Democrats beat the Communists in Italy, said Levin, including covertly delivering "bags of money" to cover campaign expenses, sending experts to help run the campaign, subsidizing "pork" projects like land reclamation, and threatening publicly to end U.S. aid to Italy if the Communists were elected. Levin said that U.S. intervention probably played an important role in preventing a Communist Party victory, not just in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections. Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The U.S. didn't want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries," Carothers said. This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period. In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin. The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

the article goes on to talk out our efforts in the balkans as well as south America and Hati where

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology. The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

so actually paying for a juanta to over throw a democratically elected leader hrrm kind of reminds me of a more recent situation........ oh and that time we attepmted to sway an election in russia in 1996 and that does not even touch the middle east.


www.huffingtonpost.com... bd

Lakewood, Colorado, delegate Kim Netherton said it’s beside the point whether agents of Russian President Vladimir Putin hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails, as reported this month. And it may come with a little poetic justice for Hillary Clinton, according to Netherton. “Isn’t it interesting that her campaign is now experiencing the same thing that she perpetrated on other countries,” Netherton told The Huffington Post, as she awaited Sanders’ speech Monday night. “She did this in Haiti, she did this in Honduras, and now it’s coming back on her and she’s all verklempt about it,” Netherton added. “It’s a little bit of her own medicine, but unfortunately I don’t think she’s open minded enough to see that for what it is.” Indeed, meddling in foreign politics is a great American pastime, and one that Clinton has some familiarity with. For more than 100 years, without any significant break, the U.S. has been doing whatever it can to influence the outcome of elections ― up to and including assassinating politicians it has found unfriendly.

kind of ironic the tactics of her and bill came back to haunt her......and may help explain why no one cares even IF they did manage to sway an election with all the crap we have pulled for decades some may even call it karmic justice. oh and then there is this portion of the huffpost article

he phenomenon is so prevalent, there’s even a running joke in Latin America that goes like this: Q: Why has there never been a coup in the United States? A: Because there’s no U.S. embassy in Washington. To get a sense of why that joke gets so many knowing laughs around the world, let’s do a quick run through of a few of America’s greatest hits. Honduras At the beginning of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State in 2009, the Honduran military ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in a coup d’etat. The United Nations condemned the military coup and the Organization of American States suspended Honduras from its membership, calling for Zelaya’s reinstatement. Instead of joining the international effort to isolate the new regime, Clinton’s State Department pushed for a new election and decided not to declare that a military coup had occurred. “If the United States government declares a coup, you immediately have to shut off all aid, including humanitarian aid, the Agency for International Development aid, the support that we were providing at that time for a lot of very poor people,” Clinton said when asked about Honduras in April. “So, our assessment was, we will just make the situation worse by punishing the Honduran people if we declare a coup and we immediately have to stop all aid for the people, but we should slow walk and try to stop anything that the government could take advantage of, without calling it a coup.” Clinton said that she didn’t want Zelaya returning to power. “Zelaya had friends and allies, not just in Honduras, but in some of the neighboring countries, like Nicaragua and that we could have had a terrible civil war that would have been just terrifying in its loss of life.” Emails that have since surfaced show that Clinton and her team worked behind the scenes to fend off efforts by neighboring democracies through the Organization of American States to restore the elected president to power. “The OAS meeting today turned into a non-event ― just as we hoped,” wrote one top State official, celebrating a strategy of slow-walking a restoration. Critics of the decision not to shut off aid said it essentially legitimized the coup government as it cracked down on dissent. And the outcome hasn’t been so great: Since 2009, the country has become increasingly dangerous, contributing significantly to the 2014 surge of unaccompanied minor children fleeing to the U.S.

continues from my last post its highly ironic that clintons actions seem to be one of the causes of the current surge in migrants fleeing their countries over her election interfearance in south america but some how its all trumps fault right?

en.wikipedia.org... and lastly the wiki on forigen election interfearance which i wont quote as it will speak for its self but come on we did this stuff for deccades and the minute some "social media posts" and a phishing scheme against us happens we get all indignant and act like its unthinkable any one would ever do such thing....when we have been doing it for a very very long time . not even sure why im posting this as i dont see you caring about it either way but hey least i tried

edit to add i will quote the wiki as its filled with delicious irony from wiki

During the 2006 Palestinian elections, Israel hoped that Fatah would prevail over Hamas, the latter being a Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist organization. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to halt the elections if Hamas ran candidates. However, U.S. President George W. Bush objected to such election interference, and Hamas won, despite millions of clandestine dollars flowing from the Bush administration to Fatah during the closing weeks of the campaign.[36] Then-Senator Hillary Clinton commented at the time: "we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."[37]

then senator hillary clinton "we SHOULD have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win" guess sanders supporters will understand her thought process on all of that after throwing him under the bus.

and then this

Israeli elections 2016 election (U.S.) During the administration of President Barack Obama, the U.S. State Department sent $350,000 to an Israeli organization, OneVoice, which used the funds to try to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[30] 1996 election (U.S.) U.S. President Bill Clinton later acknowledged that, in the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Clinton interfered on behalf of Shimon Perez against Benjamin Netanyahu. Clinton later said that he “tried to do it in a way that didn't overtly involve me”.[31]

and us interfearing with russia

The first Russian president Boris Yeltsin won his second term in 1996 Presidential elections thanks to the extensive assistance provided by the team of media and PR experts from the US.[39] According to the cover story in the Time magazine,[40] these were Steven Moore, Joe Shumate, Felix Braynin, George Gorton and Richard Dresner, who worked in Russia four months and received $250.000, plus payment of all costs and unlimited budget to conduct surveys and other activities. Simultaneously the US administration ensured a US$10.2 billion IMF loan to Russia[41] as it was drowning in the economic and social disaster, to keep the national economy and pro-Western liberal government afloat.[42] The loan funds were fraudulently misused by Yeltsin's inner circle, and the IMF knowingly turned a blind eye to these facts.[43] Although the aggressive pro-Yeltsin campaign boosted his approval rate from initial 6%[44] to 35% that he got during the first round of elections, and later made him win the second round against the left-wing competitor with 54% to 40%, there were wide speculations about the rigged nature of the official results.[45]

wonder how Putin felt about that one when it happened

1996 election (China) Main article: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy In February 1997, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced they had uncovered evidence that the government of China had sought to make illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee.[67] Both the presidential administration and the Chinese government denied any wrongdoing.[68][69]

did we impose sanctions on china for this? sorry for so many quotes but its a pretty long wiki just trying to expand on my points made earlier

en.wikipedia.org...

I tried googling proof of russian election meddling and this is the best i got. It mentions crowdstrikes conclusion but also doesnt offer proof. In fact the link on wikipedia that they use to verify proof of russias involvement is a vice news article.

Honest question here. Is Robert Mueller the one who is going to show the American people the actual proof of Russian meddling? Are we never going to see it and have to take other peoples word for it?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Lab4Us

Doesn’t your first paragraph contradict the link in your signature? Especially the link title?

Nope. Check the link.

Back on topic...no one should be drummed out until the intelligence agencies are completely cleaned of deep state employees.

When does that happen and how will you know? I mean, we're on Trump-appointed CIA director #2, NSA director #2, Christopher Wray was confirmed FBI director a year ago (in two weeks), Trump appointed Dan Coats became DNI a year ago March. DHS Sec Nielsen has been on the job since December.

And why are they all disagreeing with Trump? Why did DNI Coats release this in a statement today:

The role of the Intelligence Community is to provide the best information and fact-based assessments possible for the President and policymakers. We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security.

Are they all also "Deep State?" Is anyone who doesn't tow the Trump line "Deep State," no matter how divorced from reality that line is?

Would be very easy to do with a few apolitical polygraphers and an apolitical question drafter. Wouldn’t be 100%, but would certainly do some deep cleaning.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
en.wikipedia.org...

I tried googling proof of russian election meddling and this is the best i got. It mentions crowdstrikes conclusion but also doesnt offer proof. In fact the link on wikipedia that they use to verify proof of russias involvement is a vice news article.

Honest question here. Is Robert Mueller the one who is going to show the American people the actual proof of Russian meddling? Are we never going to see it and have to take other peoples word for it?

That’s really the crux of it. “They” keep claiming it, yet share zero evidence of it, as if we’re all suppsed to be good liitle sheep. Cause, you know, there has never been derelict intelligence officers...

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
en.wikipedia.org...

I tried googling proof of russian election meddling and this is the best i got. It mentions crowdstrikes conclusion but also doesnt offer proof. In fact the link on wikipedia that they use to verify proof of russias involvement is a vice news article.

Honest question here. Is Robert Mueller the one who is going to show the American people the actual proof of Russian meddling? Are we never going to see it and have to take other peoples word for it?

That’s really the crux of it. “They” keep claiming it, yet share zero evidence of it, as if we’re all suppsed to be good liitle sheep. Cause, you know, there has never been derelict intelligence officers...

Maybe Trump is like me and needs to see evidence first before believing something. He risks making what was going to be a friendly meeting with Putin into a disaster if he walks in there and says "bleep you Putin quit meddling." What if Putin says "bleep you Trump show me some proof?" and hes got nothing to back it up?

Didnt Trump actually say on record today "wheres the server?"

Now even Fox realizes what a cluster +*+* Helsinki was. When Trump loses his Cheerleading channel all he has left is tweets.

a reply to: Sillyolme

www.thestate.com... has moore been convicted? not yet at least

Columbia, SC Whether we like it or not, former Judge Roy Moore is innocent until proven guilty, the standard of justice we and our forebears have relied upon for centuries. This standard is employed generally in a court of law to assure that justice is carried out. Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Alabama, has been accused by several women of despicable behavior extending over several decades. It has been reported that that these acts have been corroborated by other women as well. Political leaders of both parties have thought him guilty. Moore has become at the very least a national embarrassment, though not convicted in any court of law. My personal (and irrelevant) feeling is the Roy Moore is guilty of some or all of the accusations, but the golden thread of common law must presume him innocent, not to be convicted in any court of public opinion. Roger L. Amidon Columbia Read more here: www.thestate.com...=cpy

that may change if there is ever a trial but as of yet i do not think he has been charged with a crime (not a fan of pedos but again he has yet be be proven in a court of law that he is one and if hes guilty throw the book at him but again fan of trials first punishment later)

www.nytimes.com... porter may have resigned but was he charged? has he been found guilty in a court of law? (disclaimer not a fan of wife beaters in the slightest ,just like having trials before we lynch some one for alleged crimes yet to be proven)

Great to see this! Best wishes for US & Russia relations. Hopefully Russia will allow us to put this "meddling" nonsense behind us.

Unless and until the far-left/deep state starts investigating/prosecuting every single last country that has "influenced our elections" I don't give a sh## about the allegations RE: Russia.

Besides, everyone knows the US takes part in the exact same BS. Read: Libya, Egypt, illegal Ukraine coup, Haiti, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum

a reply to: Sillyolme

There's no reason to deny anything RE: Russia. Trump did nothing illegal. He's being a responsible head of state by pursuing diplomatic relationships/alliances with other world class powers (like Russia), rogue states like NoKo and failed states like Venezuela.

Hopefully this meeting results in a strong alliance between the US and Russia. Together we can defeat global radical Islamic terrorism and utterly and totally eradicate socialism in Europe and generally deal the final death-blow to globalism.

originally posted by: JBurns
Great to see this! Best wishes for US & Russia relations. Hopefully Russia will allow us to put this "meddling" nonsense behind us.

Unless and until the far-left/deep state starts investigating/prosecuting every single last country that has "influenced our elections" I don't give a sh## about the allegations RE: Russia.

Besides, everyone knows the US takes part in the exact same BS. Read: Libya, Egypt, illegal Ukraine coup, Haiti, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum

Russia will allow it? ...

originally posted by: olaru12
Now even Fox realizes what a cluster +*+* Helsinki was. When Trump loses his Cheerleading channel all he has left is tweets.

Geraldo disagrees with Trump? Is that what you want us to see? Even he says Mueller should take Putin up on his offer to meet the dudes he indicted earlier last week to show some proof.
You are of the opinion that Trump should have never even met Putin?
Trump gave absolutely nothing to Putin today. Lifted no sanctions, nothing at all.
According to your own foxnews source Trump is significantly harder on Russia in his first 2 years than Obama ever was.
What are you trying to prove with this video?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Brilliant! I thought I heard that during the press conference.

What if they had already planned going after the intel people, before this? And this was the "shot across the bow" public warning?

Because funny how the media is avoiding that point, like the plague.

originally posted by: olaru12
Now even Fox realizes what a cluster +*+* Helsinki was. When Trump loses his Cheerleading channel all he has left is tweets.

Lol, Shep Smith and Neil Cavuto, two of the biggest anti-Trumpers in all of MSM.