Russia claims to have compromise info on Trump
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Essentially? I never stated anything of the sort. I never said or implied that the Russians weren't behind the hack. I did state that the so-called evidence the government published was useless. That much I'll cop to -- and with reason. Cyrillic characters and intercepted messages celebrating Trump's win don't tell us anything.
In fact, I made a point several times to say that it may well be the Russians.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I try not to do that to anybody else and will correct the record if I do so in error. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Trump is an exemplar of indecency. The allegation that Trump behaved in a grotesque manner while in Russia is not unbelievable in the slightest. Indeed, it would be true to form for him. But you know this as well as I. Why don't you just come out and tell the truth that you don't give a s**t whether this is true or not any more than you gave a s**t about the myriad other crap already revealed about Trump.
As for Greenwald, the article you linked is exactly the kind of conspiratorial "deep state" anti-American crap that Noam Chomsky has pushed for decades. Greenwald, stupidly, thinks that behind the scenes elites are part of some secret cabal in the CIA and NSA trying to destroy the forces of good around the world. In reality the big so-called "intelligence failures" are most often the result of stupid and craven policy makers. The people who work in our intelligence agencies are actually incredibly decent and diligent civil servants. They deserve a lot more respect.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Poppycock. You went out of your way to explain that people are fools if they believe the IC without seeing the evidence. This affords you the opportunity to say either "I just said there wasn't enough evidence" when they're right and "I told you so" on the off chance they get it wrong.
What a strong hand with which to deal when speculating on classified material that we won't see for 30 years. This way you can never be wrong! How do I sign up for this dais?
"Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, the law firm advising President-elect Donald Trump on handling his business conflicts, won the Russia Law Firm of the Year award in 2016.
The law firm announced the award in a press release last May, noting it was recognized in the Chambers & Partners' 2016 Chambers Europe guide. According to Morgan Lewis' website, the firm's Moscow office staffs more than 40 lawyers who are well known in the Russian market and "have deep familiarity with the local legislation, practices and key players."
Is there Anything Trump won't lie about?
The irony of folks who labelled HRC a "liar" turning around and voting for Trump.Mindboggling
On another note, I was impressed with Marco Rubio's performance today in questioning Rex Tillerson. It will be important for for him, McCain, and Graham to be the watch dogs of Putin's boys in the White House. Hopefully, he will have the courage to vote against Tillerson as it will only take one or two Republicans to derail this nomination.
Those 3 may be enough to kill the Tillerson nomination. Though I doubt that ends up happening. I actually kind of like Tillerson and what he brings to the table.
Last edited:
Rubio impressed me during the primaries as well. I thought he came across as the most serious, competent candidate by a mile. But, I'm done trying to figure out how we ended up with Orange Menace #1.
Rubio was grandstanding like an asshole. Kept asking Tillerson to condemn countries and leaders and asking him to put specific labels on people. I thought Tillerson did a good job ducking and dodging. Your confirmation hearing is not the right time to start picking fights with Putin, the president of the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, etc.
If TIllerson had given in, it would be front page news. "Tillerson Accuses President Putin of War Crimes". "Tillerson Indicates Desire for U.S. Intervention in the Phillipines". Backs him into a corner before he's even been confirmed.
I don't know how anyone could have watched Tillerson today and been anything but impressed with how he handled himself.
Tillerson handled himself well. He also is the wrong guy to be SOS, with Trump's Russia issue not going away anytime soon. Rubio may have been grandstanding, but we're going to see a lot of that, from a lot of people over the next four years. He did ask some necessary tough questions as well.
How so? The only thing that comforts me about Tillerson, is that Jim Baker vouches for him. Otherwise, him being buddies with Putin gives me pause.
Of course I shouldn't tell you this, but he advocates dirty books.
Chaucer.
Rabelais.
Balzac.
Just bye your view it's plain to see you have never owned a business and had to make payroll or you would be a Trump supporter.
Tillerson indeed handled himself well. I like Rubio, and most of the time I like what he has to say. But the exchange between Tillerson and Rubio shows why Tillerson was CEO of one of the largest businesses in the world and Rubio is in politics. Rubio was playing small ball. He was playing political ball. Tillerson took major league cuts at difficult pitches. It really shouldn't matter very much whether Putin is a war criminal or Mother Theresa. The point is that Russia and the United States are THE major players in all things important to the world and the people who live in it. Treating Putin like Castro, as Rubio wants to do, is significantly counter productive. That is small ball. Who in the hell cares what Castro thinks or says? Putin, Tillerson and Trump are temperoray characters on the world stage. The dynamics of Russian and US interests will outlast all of them. Dealing with Putin on a level where the table is always set for compromise, negotiations, and advancing mutual best interests is a good thing for all of us. From what little I have seen of Tillerson, he is exactly the right kind of mind and mindset that we need in world affairs.
On a slightly different note, while I only listened to Rubio's questions, I would like to have heard a question about how Tillerson will arrange the office of Secretary of State so he really will know of important events in dangerous diplomatic outposts, that he will be aware of what decisions need to be made, and how he will go about making those decisions.
That's generally they way it works in politics and especially here at the Cooler. One example was the NYT's story that broke the story about HRC's home brew server. In that story they referred to the FBI's "criminal investigation." Well, HRC surrogates immediately went all the news shows and claimed (they lied) that It was a "security review" and not a "criminal investigation" and the FBI, when asked, would not confirm that they were conducting a "criminal investigation" because that's what they do. The surrogates knew that the FBI wouldn't confirm that. That was enough for the HRC apologists to say the NYT story was "debunked" and we subsequently heard that same argument here from nearly everyone on the Democratic side. We had some of our longer arguments here about that one article.
The fact is that the NYT article was entirely accurate then and it's still accurate now, but not to those defending HRC at that time.This is standard political procedure on both sides of the aisle and the Republican side is not an exception. For every negative news story or allegation out there, the first step is to find at least one thing in the article or about an allegation that is false, inaccurate or at least can be claimed to be in accurate and bring that up over and over and declare that this thing, no matter how minor it is, debunks the entire article or allegation.
As to this "dossier" thing, I don't know how much, if any of it, is true, but one thing being incorrect in it doesn't make the entire thing incorrect. Personally, as much as I'd love to see Trump decide he'd rather not deal with this and step down as the President-Elect (which I assume would make Pence President) because at least some of it is true, I think it's likely going to turn out to be all false. However, I could be wrong. We'll see. The problem I see for those that oppose Trump (which includes me to an admittedly lesser extent than you or most of the Democrats here because I don't support him at all, he is a Republican and will probably do some things I agree with) is that jumping on every single stupid thing that Trump says or does and making it out to be the worst thing of all time as I see here and on all over social media, is building up a sort of immunity shield around him. If and when there really is a significant scandal or event for which he should actually be impeached or over which he should resign, it's going to be less likely to happen. People are just going to think it's another wildly exaggerated thing. I'd recommend carefully picking battles when it comes to Trump. But maybe that's just me.
I didn't see any highlights of that one, but I did see some of Sessions' hearing. He handled himself extremely well, better than I thought he would. He has that southern accent which frankly can make people sound a little less intelligent (it's unfair, I know), but he's very, very sharp. I thought Franken's effort to paint Sessions as untruthful and likely racist was sort of disgraceful and a low light for the first day. As an aside, I used to be one of his Franken's listeners (apparently there weren't a lot of us) for his Air America show and he revealed just how mean-spirited he could be back then. I thought the testimony of Senator Booker and of Rep Lewis was both kind of shameful and unconvincing (also unprecedented, I think). I found the testimony in favor of Sessions from the minorities who've known Sessions for many years was quite powerful and some of it moving. Sessions will easily be confirmed with quite a few Democrats voting for him as well.
I'm so stunned you'd make a misogynistic response. So very surprising coming from a Trumpster.
Sorry, but one Music Man reference every 12 months is the limit here. And you've already linked Trouble, with a capital P, and that stands for Pool! in the last 6 weeks.
Two weeks in the cooler for you . . .
. . . wait.
Well, Booker was pretty obviously acting out of political ambition.
John Lewis was just being the angry, bitter man that he's always struck me as being -- while, as he long has, using his badge as a civil rights icon as something of a shield.
More about Tillerson's testimony here. The money quote:
Tillerson's approach to Putin (also to the Saudis and others) seems to be one of quiet strength. Don't call names until necessary. Use diplomatic skills to get what you want. After all, once you've called a man a "war criminal," where do you go other than war? That the CEO had significant dealings with Putin in the past is likely an advantage, not the sign of cooptation the more partisan Democrats would have us believe. But whatever his relationship to Vladimir, there's something about Tillerson that projects, unlike anyone else in that hearing room Wednesday, that if he did have to go to war, he would and he'd win. Putin, no doubt, notices that too.
This is an excellent observation. You don't begin a discussion, negotiation, relationship, or mutual beneficial effort by calling the other side of the table names. You don't employ that at all. Name calling is never a sign of strength. It is puerile and guaranteed to be unproductive. Mature and responsible people don't do this. With the exception of the big guy, I'm looking forward to more adults in government.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Can't help but agree. I wonder if Booker has ever spoken to Sessions 1-on-1.
Who? Jesus?
WTF are you rattling about now?
Jeff, I'm starting to be concerned about you.
If winning doesn't change the metric, why, WHILE THEY WERE SURE THEY WERE WINNING... did the Obama/Clinton Administration do nothing, say nothing, hear nothing during the election? Nothing. Because it made no difference to them, UNTIL THEY DIDN'T WIN!.
Pretty obvious. Because they knew what it would look like if they did. Like THEY were trying to influence the election. Some peop,e are actually concerned about that, believe it or not.
Would you care to specify what observable parameters you think will show improvement over the four years of the upcoming administration compared to the Obama administration? Do you predict more jobs will be created? Do you predict more people with have health insurance? Do you predict fewer and less dangerous wars? Do you predict lower budget deficits? Do you predict increases in productivity? Do you predict more competitive elections and greater accountability for elected officials? Do you expect a better functioning press? I expect that we will be objectively worse off in four years than we are now. Do you want to make a prediction about what observable dimensions Trump will perform better than either the Clinton administration or the Obama administration?
Some things I expect:
More professionalism, skill, and hands-on solid management in the State Department.
More effective negotiators on all things international
A military focused on its fundamental purpose instead of social justice and climate change
A Justice Department that will be more focused on ethics, professionalism, and the law instead of advancing the administration political agenda.
A POTUS who will personally participate in negotiating thorny domestic issues and who will not hesitate to reach out to anybody.
Onerous and counterproductive regulations terminated. Regulations focused on costs and benefits.
Less illegal immigration.
A government in general more focused on the core purposes of individual departments and agencies instead of the fashionable and trendy issues of the moment.
Less influence of various well-heeled interests groups in government.
Cringeworthy tweets.
I could go on but that's enough for now.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Good god man. You're out of your mind. Yeah, @CO. Hoosier those of my friends (they're senior officers) that are still in aren't focused on mission, they're walking around preaching political correctness.
Get bent. Your ignorance is insulting. Take your ill-informed rage elsewhere.
I heard the CIC deliver the commencement address at West Point where he said climate change was a national security crisis. That may or may not be true. But it isn't a military matter. That's just one example.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Bullshit. It's clearly a national security issue. The seas changing around the worlds greatest Navy, the transformation of cold weather ports into warm weather ports, and overall energy independence are of utmost importance to national security.
You're wrong and in this case you're insulting. For once in your life, admit it.
