Putin - Trump meeting live feed

a reply to: Lab4Us

So are they telling everyone how fair and balanced fox news really is?
Unintended consequences...

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.

I read through all of your links to people who have confirmed that Russia did indeed meddle in our 2016 election. As far as I know Trump has even publicly stated that he believes Russia meddles in our elections. However he also has stated publicly that he doesn't believe any votes were changed. None of your links show any proof of anything at all. Just people saying what they believe to be true. I personally question everything until I confirm it myself. Trump asked today about seeing that server. He is the President of the United States of America and apparently no one is willing to show him stone cold proof of any of this russia meddling stuff either. Do you need me to show proof of times officials in the history of our great country have mislead the American people?
If you want to not even wait the 4 years it's going to take Mueller to show us what proof he has before you tar and feather be my guest. Just be honest with yourself that you are taking someone else's word as proof that Trump is up to no good in this Russia meddling situation.

a reply to: Speedtek

Yes, after the vindictive allegations (that are not backed by any actual evidence) and the aggressive actions of the past administration. You seem to forget that Obama's state department (specifically, Nuland/Pyatty - as evidenced by leaked telecom intercepts) actually created the initial problems with Russia RE: Ukraine.

So yes, if they will allow us to move past this incident, we just may be able to do what Obama/Clinton/Bush/etc could never do - establish actual diplomatic relations with Russia and leave the post-cold war era in the past where it belongs.

You seem to forget that while you're all obsessing over the corrupt globalists (like the EU), Russia was also a WW2 ally. It seems some are too quick to forget this. Lack of age/experience/wisdom, I guess.

Want a different answer? Then present some evidence backing up these presently-unfounded allegations. You don't get to make a bunch of claims without providing evidence and expect others to take you at your word. Frankly, you (not just you, the far left in general) have zero credibility after all the now-debunked "collusion" assertions or patently wrong "predictions"

To wit, Russia/Putin has more credibility with me than the radical left.

a reply to: Lab4Us

The funny part is the brainwashed far-left actually believes we're reliant on Fox news (or Faux news, as they put it) for all of our information.

They don't realize they are in fact the ones being manipulated. THEY are the ones who get their information from echo chambers and biased liberal MSM.

They also forget that Mueller himself filed a complaint against LIBERAL MSM for spreading lies about his investigation. Mueller didn't file a complaint against Fox, or Breitbart, or Alex Jones.... he filed a complaint against CNN/MSNBC.

a reply to: xxspockyxx

Trump asked today about seeing that server.

It's a stupid talking point though. If CrowdStrike wanted to fake a hack for the DNC, fabricating forensic evidence on a server would not be a serious impediment.

It's all the stuff that they couldn't fake that is ultimately the most convincing and also, what people who repeat this talking point always ignore. I've debunked shoddy "analyses" until I was blue in the face. I've posted about multiple independent lines of publicly available evidence that CrowdStrike/DNC/etc could not have faked.

he is the President of the United States of America and apparently no one is willing to show him stone cold proof of any of this russia meddling stuff either.

It's clear from the indictment that Mueller has the goods and at least some of that stuff almost certainly came from the USIC/a foreign intel partner so I don't buy that Trump hasn't been briefed on it.

Do you need me to show proof of times officials in the history of our great country have mislead the American people?

Nope. Why do you assume that Trump wouldn't mislead the American people? Do you need me to give you a plethora of examples of him doing just that?

If you want to not even wait the 4 years it's going to take Mueller to show us what proof he has before you tar and feather be my guest.

I expect that the Mueller investigation will be wrapped up sometime in the next couple months personally. At it's conclusion, there will be a report issued and I assume briefings. We'll see what gets shared with the American people.

Just be honest with yourself that you are taking someone else's word as proof that Trump is up to no good in this Russia meddling situation.

Even if that were the case, I would be taking the words of dozens of people versus that of Trump+Putin and I wouldn't trust either as far as I could throw them. However, as I've said, there has in fact been publicly available evidence. What's not conclusive from what I've seen is the attribution but taken as a whole, Russia was by far the most likely culprit.

Add to that the assessments of the relevant parts of the USIC and now the indictments by Mueller and you've got pretty strong confirmation.

And here's the reality. No matter what evidence is presented, we're always in the position of "taking somebody else's word for it" because we have no ability to investigate and collect evidence ourselves. It's not like if somebody tells you the sky is red and you can walk out and see that it's blue.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xxspockyxx

Trump asked today about seeing that server.

It's a stupid talking point though. If CrowdStrike wanted to fake a hack for the DNC, fabricating forensic evidence on a server would not be a serious impediment.

It's all the stuff that they couldn't fake that is ultimately the most convincing and also, what people who repeat this talking point always ignore. I've debunked shoddy "analyses" until I was blue in the face. I've posted about multiple independent lines of publicly available evidence that CrowdStrike/DNC/etc could not have faked.

he is the President of the United States of America and apparently no one is willing to show him stone cold proof of any of this russia meddling stuff either.

It's clear from the indictment that Mueller has the goods and at least some of that stuff almost certainly came from the USIC/a foreign intel partner so I don't buy that Trump hasn't been briefed on it.

Do you need me to show proof of times officials in the history of our great country have mislead the American people?

Nope. Why do you assume that Trump wouldn't mislead the American people? Do you need me to give you a plethora of examples of him doing just that?

If you want to not even wait the 4 years it's going to take Mueller to show us what proof he has before you tar and feather be my guest.

I expect that the Mueller investigation will be wrapped up sometime in the next couple months personally. At it's conclusion, there will be a report issued and I assume briefings. We'll see what gets shared with the American people.

Just be honest with yourself that you are taking someone else's word as proof that Trump is up to no good in this Russia meddling situation.

Even if that were the case, I would be taking the words of dozens of people versus that of Trump+Putin and I wouldn't trust either as far as I could throw them. However, as I've said, there has in fact been publicly available evidence. What's not conclusive from what I've seen is the attribution but taken as a whole, Russia was by far the most likely culprit.

Add to that the assessments of the relevant parts of the USIC and now the indictments by Mueller and you've got pretty strong confirmation.

And here's the reality. No matter what evidence is presented, we're always in the position of "taking somebody else's word for it" because we have no ability to investigate and collect evidence ourselves. It's not like if somebody tells you the sky is red and you can walk out and see that it's blue.

What you have today was Trump and Putin sitting down together. Trump could have said "did you meddle in our elections?" Putin could have said "no, do you have proof I did?" Trump wondering the same thing himself says "no".
At least you are clear on the fact that you have seen no proof yourself either.
Putin says he didnt do it and the FBI got turned away from the suspected hacked server.
I have not seen any proof either.
Mueller indicted some Russians for hacking last week but my suspicion is that I will not be seeing any proof in those cases either.
Which leads me back to the original question. Will Robert Mueller be the person that will ultimate show us the evidence in all of the Russian meddling involving Trump or are we always going to have to take someone else's word for it that there was indeed proof?
Taking someone's "word" that something happened has never been good enough for guys like me. If you believe everything you heard on this site you would think bill and Loretta were talking about their grandkids and golf...lol

So I am seeing people talking about info Putin provided to Trump that shows the Clinton's received over 400 million in illegal donations to their charity.

Certainly explains why all the usual suspects and former obama admin people are going nuts on twitter.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
So I am seeing people talking about info Putin provided to Trump that shows the Clinton's received over 400 million in illegal donations to their charity.

Certainly explains why all the usual suspects and former obama admin people are going nuts on twitter.

Didnt Trump ask publicly today "where's the server?"
"Where are the 33,000 emails?"
Why can no one show proof of anything?
Why did Mueller indict 12 Russians for meddling just a few days before Trump was to meet with Putin?
Why would anyone do such a thing jeopardizing relations between 2 super powers without showing proof of anything?

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's clear from the indictment that Mueller has the goods and at least some of that stuff almost certainly came from the USIC/a foreign intel partner so I don't buy that Trump hasn't been briefed on it.

I'm sorry but that specific part is not true. According to the HPSCI the initiating intelligence product did not arrive through any official intelligence channel (ie: FVEY)

The indictment is rather confusing for several reasons. Primarily is that Mueller nor any federal agency actually examined the server directly. From a chain of custody perspective, this is a nightmare. The implications of CrowdStrike working as a paid contractor of the DNC alone raises questions of conflicts. However, the most perplexing aspect is the well known relative ease for advanced nation-state level actors at spoofing network addresses/leaving behind "calling cards"/generally falsely implicating another. Part of the CIA tool vault's leak actually specifically contain cyber-weapons designed to falsely implicate another foreign country in a cyber attack.

I don't doubt your knowledge in regard to IT/networking. Judging by my own limited knowledge, I can tell you know what you're talking about. Just consider for one moment what would happen if some of the data (even just a little bit) was exposed to a tool like those seen in CIA vault leak/hack.

I am not asking you to accept the prospect as true. I would like to know what, in your professional/well informed opinion, this could potentially look like and whether such an effort could fool a company like Crowd Strike

Thanks OSOTC, I know we don't usually see eye to eye but I respect your knowledge in this area (one place ATS is strong at is bringing people of different background/skill sets together to solve problems) and would like to hear your take on whether this theory is even technically possible and if so what it could reasonable be expected to look like (without violating any "razors")

so everyone from fox news to republican senators are calling trumps meeting with putin treasonous and appaling? i m no political science major but this doesn't look good for trump.

what does putin have on trump?

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
so everyone from fox news to republican senators are calling trumps meeting with putin treasonous and appaling? i m no political science major but this doesn't look good for trump.

what does putin have on trump?

What did Trump do today that seemed even remotely treasonous to anyone? I have been asking for hours now.
Trump said Putin said he didnt do it. Trump asked "wheres the server?".
Mueller can drop his proof anytime now.
The triggered must be tiring themselves out quick because no one seems to have an original thought on what Trump did wrong today

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Strange that Trump asking for evidence is considered by some to be "treasonous"

Remind me what moral high ground you actually think you have? You have no such moral high ground. You criticize Trump for the sake of criticizing him. If you want to talk about embarrassing, ask Obama how much shares in Kleenex went up after he was seen bawling for that dead commie Castro.

a reply to: JBurns

lol defensive much? like i said i am not a political science major and am not as well versed in the nuances of these sort of summits but i find it extremely odd that so many right wing republicans are coming out against trump on this one.

when the left are going after trump for anything and everything i take those criticisms with a grain of salt, now that so many republicans and democrats alike are bashing trump over the summit it raises my attention.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

many right wing republicans

Which ones would that be? The usual suspects? The same ones who "righteously" speak out against every word that comes out of his mouth? Bitter candidates he defeated (and admittedly, humiliated)?

Please be more specific.

when the left are going after trump for anything and everything i take those criticisms with a grain of salt, now that so many republicans and democrats alike are bashing trump over the summit it raises my attention.

I do not see "so many Republicans" bashing Trump over the summit. And Democrats continually assail him regardless of what he does or what position he takes (although even a broken clock is right twice a day)

Regardless, treason is a very specific crime and engaging in standard International diplomacy is not treason. Distrusting the assessment of a minority group of partisan "intelligence" pros is also not treason (especially when they base their analyses on spurious data or data obtained by paid private contractors)

It is unfortunate more people do not have the courage to question the intelligence community. They are not sacro-sanct. They are not above mistakes or intentional deception (history proves that). Look no further than the proposals for Operation Northwoods or the WMD-Iraq fiasco.

To be clear, the vast majority of IC officials are hard working, honest and patriotic Americans. But the initial investigation/evidence/information is clearly tainted. I fully support the investigation of credible allegations of wrong-doing. The problem is that I don't find the allegations in their current state to be credible. (Especially Since Obama himself put them to rest by saying Russia did not engage in any "meddling" - He's the original "meddling" denier)

A new, impartial investigation should be considered if the facts warrant it. But creating a new cold-war with Russia to appease a bunch of political partisan hacks (who are being manipulated by corporate/military industrial complex interests) is not something I have any appetite for.

They were WW2 allies for God's sake.

Another day another meeting with Trump making himself look like an idiot.

It's like if someone broke into your house, stole a bunch of your stuff and then told you, straight to your face, 'it wasn't me.' Then you believe them over your own spouse who was in the house when it happened. 'Sorry dear, he told me it wasn't him and I believe him over you.'

Oh, and to throw the entire US intelligence apparatus under the bus because ex-KGB officer Putin tells you, 'Yeah, no, I didn't do any hacking.'

If it's not the pee tape then this meeting tells me that Trump must owe billions to Putin, so subservient the whole time.

originally posted by: links234
Another day another meeting with Trump making himself look like an idiot.

It's like if someone broke into your house, stole a bunch of your stuff and then told you, straight to your face, 'it wasn't me.' Then you believe them over your own spouse who was in the house when it happened. 'Sorry dear, he told me it wasn't him and I believe him over you.'

Oh, and to throw the entire US intelligence apparatus under the bus because ex-KGB officer Putin tells you, 'Yeah, no, I didn't do any hacking.'

If it's not the pee tape then this meeting tells me that Trump must owe billions to Putin, so subservient the whole time.

Trump met peacefully with Putin today and that has you triggered. What exactly did he do today that has you so upset? Dont say it's like he stole your stuff and then said he didnt do it. That did not happen to you today.

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?

Here is the problem people keep claiming they need "proof" but no one can say exactly what proof is because every time new evidence comes out they change what "proof" is.

originally posted by: Pyle

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?

Here is the problem people keep claiming they need "proof" but no one can say exactly what proof is because every time new evidence comes out they change what "proof" is.

Oh look. You being disingenuous. Again. No surprise.
Can you define your version of "evidence" for us, so we can properly define "proof" for you? You're making the claim. Now back it up.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: JBurns

lol defensive much? like i said i am not a political science major and am not as well versed in the nuances of these sort of summits but i find it extremely odd that so many right wing republicans are coming out against trump on this one.

when the left are going after trump for anything and everything i take those criticisms with a grain of salt, now that so many republicans and democrats alike are bashing trump over the summit it raises my attention.

If one is being disagreed with from both sides of the political spectrum, it might be time to come to terms with they are trying to solve problems, and not playing to partisan politics.

I would rather have a president questioned by both parties than one that has support of one party, in today's political climate.

That is more a censure of our political parties than a Trump support.