Russia - Trump connection (Page 2)

When I do watch CNN its for pure entertainment value and not for their news coverage, but you gotta admit they're no worse than Fox.

The posts in the "Is Journalism Dead" thread have nailed it.  I have become so jaded by the 24 hour news networks crying wolf and trying to create a scandal out of nothing, that I don't start to pay attention until a reputable source reports on it.

Maybe you can help me with my fake news facts. 

Did we sell 20% of our Uranium to a Russian company?
Was Hillary in charge of the State Department and Obama President when this transaction occurred?
Did the Hillary and Bill foundation receive $140M from a Russian businessman before, during, and after the Uranium transaction?

If these are all false, then I'll agree with you that it's fake news.

The irony of the desperate left wing, is that there is zero evidence of Trump colluding with Russia and everybody is off the rails, but there's blatant evidence of Hillary and Bill (Obama too) practically working for the Kremlin and it's totally no big deal.  

Personally I love the Russia narrative because the more it gets pushed the more comes out about how corrupt the DNC is and America sees the true Democratic party.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved that transfer - it was not solely Hillary's decision to make.

To be fair, no evidence that has been released publicly. 

But doesn't it set off any alarms that Flynn is asking for immunity to testify?

My view is that nothing will stick to Trump personally.  If anyone from his team is implicated, then they will be thrown under the bus as a rogue operating without Trump's knowledge.

Read what Flynn's lawyer wrote.  he called it a "witch hunt" and then talked about immunity from "UNFAIR prosecution".  Flynn did nothing wrong......but who can trust anybody under this climate?  I wouldn't tell them chit without a lawyer and a promise of immunity from whatever crap they wanted to come up with.

This whole thing is a joke.  The Democrats, in their behavior after losing the election, disgust me.

I can tell you this.....if there was even the perception that a crime may have been committed anywhere near where I was and someone was investigating that idea I wouldn't talk to ANYONE.....not the police, prosecutor, special investigator, congress, my wife, your wife, my best friend......NOBODY.  You'd just have to base your case on evidence that I did something wrong......and if I didn't then I would have no worries that you'd find evidence.  But I'll be damned if I'd talk and let some pea brain turn my own words against me in some circumstantial case.

Remember this........I have a very keen awareness of this......NEVER talk to the police or other investigating officials about anything that has to do with the possibility of criminal prosecution.  NEVER!

Oh please.  Contrast that to the Republicans going on and on about Benghazi for how many years *before* the election?

They're two sides of the same coin.

Benghazi was real and people died.  It's quite different than a made up collusion to hide spying on political opponents and attempting to subvert the duly elected President.
If you recall the Democrats made up the stupid video garbage about Benghazi in order to deflect blame.

And what is a "proper response"?  You could send a team and maybe they save everyone.  Or maybe someone else dies like Trump's raid in Yemen.

Step back from the partisanship for 5 minutes and be objective.

I thought Benghazi warranted investigation, but it should've been an independent investigator -- and I think the same about the situation this year.  Partisanship just drags these things out for years because the goal is headlines and not real answers.

Dude you can't possibly be serious.  This entire campaign by the Democrats and Liberals to find ANYTHING on Trump is forking ridiculous beyond words.  NOTHING the Republicans did could possibly match the whining masses of today's Democrats. LMAO

My opinion is there are two very different issues with Benghazi.  There's the actual attack and the response we took and on that accord I tend to agree with you because it's the fog of war and mistakes were made.  Anyone could have made mistakes and I give them a big benefit of the doubt looking back.  
However with the second part of Benghazi, which was the blatant attempt to cover up the failed response by lying to the American people is where I have a HUGE problem.  It shows that the Democratic leadership cares more about politics and perception than they do about the lives that were lost.  When you can't truthfully analyze what happened you can't improve upon what went wrong for next time.  

If transparency is your goal, you should want it now also.

The questions being asked are pretty much:

- Did Russia attempt to influence our election (this is pretty clear from our intel services, and from computer forensics).
- How?  The extent of their actions is not clear, nor their involvement with Wikileaks.
- Why?  If the answer is "because Putin hates Hillary" fine, so be it.  The more detail we get, the better we can secure our systems, the end.  If the answer is "because Trump owes Russia money" or something along those lines, we should also know about it.  I wouldn't call for impeachment but rather want the government to erase the liabilities and have him divest.  If it's "because Trump was working directly with Russia", then we have a problem.

I know the Mainstream media and the DNC have been pushing the narrative that "it's pretty clear", but when you look at the actual evidence it's not so clear after all:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-25/evidence-russia-hacked-dnc-collapsing

I've seen several reports of "the evidence" and it really boils down to Podesta being hacked by a tool that some Russians use to hack, but it's readily available to anyone.  I'm not saying they didn't hack his emails, but to say that it's clear the Russians did is taking great liberties with the actual evidence. 

I'll even go so far as to say that even if Vlad himself was staying up late hacking Podesta's emails it had absolutely nothing to do with the election.  What impacted the election was what was in those emails and nobody ever contended they were fake.  Hillary and her campaign were seriously F'd up people that were very very sick.  That's what influenced the election.

That all being said, I did see this a little bit ago about Putin released some info on the Russian spies so I need to factor this into my opinion.  

Crowdstrike has a small writeup on some of the code they found, if you want to dive into more technical details:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

And yes you better believe if they were doing this to the DNC, they were also digging around in the RNC (the RNC, to my knowledge, did not ask Crowdstrike to investigate their systems, however).

Edit: btw reading the article you linked -- it's interesting to note that the Ukrainians had a huge ammo depot explode in Kharkiv last week.  Maybe Crowdstrike wasn't that far off the mark...

1) The US didn't sell anything because we didn't own anything. The mines are located in the US, but they were owned and operated by a private Canadian company. A private Russian company then bought up enough stock to become majority shareholders. Free market capitalism at work. And quite frankly, odds are they didn't care about the US mines. They don't have the permits to export our uranium, and the US mines have a fraction of the production of the Kazakhstan mines they also acquired in the buyout.

2) The State Department was one of nine US agencies that reviewed the deal and advised to the President on whether or not the deal posed a risk to US security. Hillary says she had no input in the State Department's review. Maybe that's true, maybe that's 100% horsechit. Doesn't matter. Either way, Hillary could not approve or reject any deal. The only thing she could do is be one of nine recommendations to Obama. None of the other eight opposed the deal, and only Obama had the final authority to stop the free market buyout between two foreign companies. So at the very least, blame Obama. Should be easy enough, it's pretty much been the GOP playbook for the last 8 years.

3) Of the $140 million the Clinton foundation received from Uranium One stock holders, $131 million came from a single guy who donated in 2007-2008 during her presidential run. Was it pay for play? Probably. But has was paying to play with a president that never came to be. And Mr. Giustro quit Uranium One years before the buyout took place, so the guy who accounted for 90% of the donations had nothing to gain from the buyout.

At best you can say Hillary took a few million to strongly urge Obama to not oppose the buyout as long as eight other government agencies also don't object to it. But that just doesn't have the same panache as Hillary sold 20% of our uranium to Russia. This information isn't new, but you have to step away from Breitbart and Trump's twitter feed to find it. 

Hillary is crooked as chit, we all know it. I won't lose a second of sleep if she spends the rest of her life in jail. But when you asked where's the investigations in to these things, well who owns Congress and the White House? What are they waiting for, the Dems to launch an investigation? Didn't Trump pledge to have his AG investigate and lock her up? So do it already. Or maybe realize that Hillary lost and turn your focus on running the country instead of the constant deflections.

I'm so not a liberal and then I get on here and just end up all the way to the left. I need to take a break from this site. Hope you all have injury free seasons full of PR's. I'm out.

Don't take too long of a break Bob, I do enjoy your inputs.  I really do. 

You guys see this story?  lol

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-government-posts-april-fools-day-prank-offering-election-interference/

So right now foxnews.com has major headlines that Susan Rice is the "unmasker" in the Russia surveillance dust up.  There are maybe 10 stories about it and who she may have received orders from....or not, etc. 

MSNBC has "All the President does is watch TV" as one of it's top stories,along with the Dem fillibuster, and whether Ivanka has a conflict of intrerest problem.....not a word on Rice.

CNN is all over the SCOTUS fillibuster, but not a word on Rice.

Are the Dems worried about Russia/Trump connection or nah? LMAO

My wife always watches NBC news and it's been "Muh Russia" "Muh Russia" "Muh Russia" every night for over a month.  However, tonight there wasn't a peep about it.  Nothing about Trump spying or anything.  I just kind of chuckled because it's the closest thing to them saying "oh crap, we were wrong" I could have asked for.  CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC are all desperately pretending Susan Rice's bombshell unmasking of classified information and spying on Trump for over a year is a non-story. 

It's been reported by Susan Rice that the unmasking was a spontaneous reaction sparked by a hateful YouTube video.  Quite likely one of the Donald Trump #THUGLIFE videos. 

"I'll get you my pretty".........que the house falling on her.