Mueller indicts 13 Russian nationals over 2016 election interference

[Phantasman]

I couldn't care less what politicians think. I have my own spine. When I see staff meeting with Russians and the Russians tampering with elections, it angers me. If it doesn't anger you then you have chosen a side. It's really that simple.

I hear ya. I hope it all comes out and justice issued to all the culprits.

"Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels of American culture and government," Buchanan wrote.

"As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?"


Buchanan said the Mueller probe apparently hasn't probed Democratic collusion with Russia despite evidence that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid former British spy Christopher Steele, to collude "with Kremlin agents" to produce a "scurrilous" dossier designed to derail the Trump candidacy.


"Why is this conspiracy and collusion with Russians less worthy of Mueller's attention than a troll farm in St. Petersburg?" Buchanan concluded.- Newsmax Jan 8, 2018

All of it sickens me. Which side colluded more or illegally? What a mess.

 

[Falvlun]

I hear ya. I hope it all comes out and justice issued to all the culprits.

"Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels of American culture and government," Buchanan wrote.

"As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?"


Buchanan said the Mueller probe apparently hasn't probed Democratic collusion with Russia despite evidence that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid former British spy Christopher Steele, to collude "with Kremlin agents" to produce a "scurrilous" dossier designed to derail the Trump candidacy.


"Why is this conspiracy and collusion with Russians less worthy of Mueller's attention than a troll farm in St. Petersburg?" Buchanan concluded.- Newsmax Jan 8, 2018

All of it sickens me.

Sigh. Well guess not.

You’re back to claiming that Steele and Russian collusion are comparable.

And you still think that it’s ok for foreign governments to meddle in our elections because the US has done it too.

 

[idav]

I hear ya. I hope it all comes out and justice issued to all the culprits.

"Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels of American culture and government," Buchanan wrote.

"As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?"


Buchanan said the Mueller probe apparently hasn't probed Democratic collusion with Russia despite evidence that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid former British spy Christopher Steele, to collude "with Kremlin agents" to produce a "scurrilous" dossier designed to derail the Trump candidacy.


"Why is this conspiracy and collusion with Russians less worthy of Mueller's attention than a troll farm in St. Petersburg?" Buchanan concluded.- Newsmax Jan 8, 2018

All of it sickens me. Which side colluded more or illegally? What a mess.

What about Hillary and What about the DNC etc. are not arguments. FBI already did the investigations on Hillary, its Repubs turn for the investigations which has turned up more in one year than the multiple three year or more investigations against Dems all put together. What isn't illegal is having someone investigate who hacked you. It also is not illegal to endorse a candidate that you favor. What is illegal is foreign espionage, tampering with voter rolls, identity theft, money laundering etc etc.

 

[Phantasman]

Sigh. Well guess not.

You’re back to claiming that Steele and Russian collusion are comparable.

And you still think that it’s ok for foreign governments to meddle in our elections because the US has done it too.

Did I say that? I seem to read that it sickens me and I want "all collusion" exposed and justice applied.

You really are blind to what you read, aren't you. I have never said it's OK. Yet you see that.

 

[Phantasman]

What about Hillary and What about the DNC etc. are not arguments. FBI already did the investigations on Hillary, its Repubs turn for the investigations which has turned up more in one year than the multiple three year or more investigations against Dems all put together. What isn't illegal is having someone investigate who hacked you. It also is not illegal to endorse a candidate that you favor. What is illegal is foreign espionage, tampering with voter rolls, identity theft, money laundering etc etc.

The FBI investigated the server issue. Not the GPS/Steele issue. I want accountability on both sides, not just the side of a unfavorable party.

 

[idav]

The FBI investigated the server issue. Not the GPS/Steele issue. I want accountability on both sides, not just the side of a unfavorable party.

Let me ask something if you don't mind. Lets say hypothetically someone hacked your server for great profit. Is it illegal for you to hire an independent investigator to find out who did it and one step further cause this parts important, is it illegal to use what independent investigators findings and present it to a judge when the regular law enforcement fails to do their jobs? You probably know why I ask, but if you don't like my scenario please clarify what illegal activity the dossier presents exactly?

 

[Falvlun]

Did I say that? I seem to read that it sickens me and I want "all collusion" exposed and justice applied.

You really are blind to what you read, aren't you. I have never said it's OK. Yet you see that.

So please explain your reasoning for posting things like this:

“lol........so what? They have always "meddled" in our elections. Just as we "meddle" in other countries elections. The Obama administration was caught meddling in Israels elections a few years ago.” Post 290

And

“Buchanan wrote.
"As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?” Post 301

 

[idav]

So please explain your reasoning for posting things like this:

“lol........so what? They have always "meddled" in our elections. Just as we "meddle" in other countries elections. The Obama administration was caught meddling in Israels elections a few years ago.” Post 290

And

“Buchanan wrote.
"As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?” Post 301

Whataboutism is so very rampant when people start getting caught red handed. When a person murders someone they should tell the court, "well what about serial killers, what about people who get away based on self defense, what about Hitler".

 

[Phantasman]

Let me ask something if you don't mind. Lets say hypothetically someone hacked your server for great profit. Is it illegal for you to hire an independent investigator to find out who did it and one step further cause this parts important, is it illegal to use what independent investigators findings and present it to a judge when the regular law enforcement fails to do their jobs? You probably know why I ask, but if you don't like my scenario please clarify what illegal activity the dossier presents exactly?

It's a hypothetical. Your saying "if".

So my answer to "if" is, I would want to obtain a solution from the facts gained by an investigation. I cannot prosecute an "if". I need facts to back it up as "did".

On the dossier, "if" the dossier was from a Russian source, and "if" the dossier is a set of lies to look like "truth" and "if" it was presented to toe the FISA court for the purpose of spying without being verified, and "if" the men who presented did so to change election results in favor of a candidate that they wanted, then I would classify that as an antitrust act punishable by prison.

We have two sides here. Not one. One side see's "their" candidate as holy without blemish. The other side see's the same for their candidate.

I keep saying, I want a deep investigative process on "both" sides. Not just one. As an Independent voter, I choose to not side on one or the other, but full discretion on both.

In the end, I "hope". and I say "hope", Trump didn't do anything against the voting process illegally that got hiom elected. It's not about liking Trump, it's about the office and the strength it holds. It would make our country look like a third world dictatorship rather than the American people duly electing a President. To me it's not about party, because I am neither party. It about our country and it's Constitutional process. To lose faith in it, is what many in the world want. But it shouldn't come from within.

So I want ALL the facts, which the investigative process is digging into, and hasn't yet come to a conclusion. When it does, only then can I say "off with his head", "off with her head", "off with their heads". Until then, I say none of those.

 

[Phantasman]

So please explain your reasoning for posting things like this:

“lol........so what? They have always "meddled" in our elections. Just as we "meddle" in other countries elections. The Obama administration was caught meddling in Israels elections a few years ago.” Post 290

And

“Buchanan wrote.
"As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?” Post 301

It was an answer, I'm sure, to you acting like the Russians meddling in our election process was a big surprise. It's a common issue, has been for many cycles. But they never effected the election results before. Did they in 2016?

Ask the left, they did. Ask the right, they didn't. Huffington Post says yes, Foxnews says no. Ask Clapper and he says " I don''t know, there's no way to prove they did or they didn't as we have no way to gauge such an act"

Surely, a divided country. Right down the fricken middle.

 

[idav]

It's a hypothetical. Your saying "if".

So my answer to "if" is, I would want to obtain a solution from the facts gained by an investigation. I cannot prosecute an "if". I need facts to back it up as "did".

On the dossier, "if" the dossier was from a Russian source, and "if" the dossier is a set of lies to look like "truth" and "if" it was presented to toe the FISA court for the purpose of spying without being verified, and "if" the men who presented did so to change election results in favor of a candidate that they wanted, then I would classify that as an antitrust act punishable by prison.

We have two sides here. Not one. One side see's "their" candidate as holy without blemish. The other side see's the same for their candidate.

I keep saying, I want a deep investigative process on "both" sides. Not just one. As an Independent voter, I choose to not side on one or the other, but full discretion on both.

In the end, I "hope". and I say "hope", Trump didn't do anything against the voting process illegally that got hiom elected. It's not about liking Trump, it's about the office and the strength it holds. It would make our country look like a third world dictatorship rather than the American people duly electing a President. To me it's not about party, because I am neither party. It about our country and it's Constitutional process. To lose faith in it, is what many in the world want. But it shouldn't come from within.

So I want ALL the facts, which the investigative process is digging into, and hasn't yet come to a conclusion. When it does, only then can I say "off with his head", "off with her head", "off with their heads". Until then, I say none of those.

Your talking about ifs yet you come up with a dozen conspiracy theories. My example was simple. If there is a crime being committed he court has legal recourse for an investigation, there is no “if” it wa to change an election result or Obama would have been forthcoming before the election happened. Even Trump himself recently tried to blame Obama for not saying anything. I don’t deny the right of lawyers to try and throw out warrants or whatever, it certainly isn’t undheard but that is also why law enforcement do it legit. The facts simply don’t go with some Democrat conspiracy, they were the ones being hacked and spies on not true other way around. Getting wire tapped because your doing something illegal is not being spied on. But I appreciate your lawyering type arguments for trump and staff, that doesn’t change their corruption or the legality of finding out who was doing the hacking and why.

 

[metis]

Gates just confessed and has plead guilty today, so the vultures are circling closer and closer to the Trump camp, and if found guilty, Manafort could spend life in prison. If he "flips", this really could spell doom and gloom for some in the Trump camp, including maybe Kushner, who had lost over $1 billion and was desperately trying to secure loans but being denied by banks in the west.

Stay tuned.

 

[Phantasman]

Your talking about ifs yet you come up with a dozen conspiracy theories. My example was simple. If there is a crime being committed he court has legal recourse for an investigation, there is no “if” it wa to change an election result or Obama would have been forthcoming before the election happened. Even Trump himself recently tried to blame Obama for not saying anything. I don’t deny the right of lawyers to try and throw out warrants or whatever, it certainly isn’t undheard but that is also why law enforcement do it legit. The facts simply don’t go with some Democrat conspiracy, they were the ones being hacked and spies on not true other way around. Getting wire tapped because your doing something illegal is not being spied on. But I appreciate your lawyering type arguments for trump and staff, that doesn’t change their corruption or the legality of finding out who was doing the hacking and why.

I guess we'll find out when we find out, eh?

Obama did come out. Said the rigging of the election was nothing to worry about, and told Trump to quit whining and go out and get votes.

It's so funny how things change when the shoes on the other foot.

 

[idav]

I guess we'll find out when we find out, eh?

Obama did come out. Said the rigging of the election was nothing to worry about, and told Trump to quit whining and go out and get votes.

It's so funny how things change when the shoes on the other foot.

Obama also insinuated he was privy to information about collusion but didn’t want to rig the election. That’s why I said, like Trump said, Obama already knew but unlike republicans Obama kept it “fair” by not being a loose canon.

 

[Phantasman]

Obama also insinuated he was privy to information about collusion but didn’t want to rig the election. That’s why I said, like Trump said, Obama already knew but unlike republicans Obama kept it “fair” by not being a loose canon.

Considering Obama decided to say something and take action "one day" after the election could be the key. Remember, they all thought Hillary would win. If she had, we can only guess if the actions would have been the same.

After Election Day, Obama ordered the U.S. intelligence community to issue a public report about the Russian scheme. Once it had — and concluded Russia's attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton — the United States imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow. In addition to imposing new sanctions, Washington also expelled a number of Russian diplomats and closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York.

So why didn't Obama's administration do more?
That isn't clear. Some former administration officials who have talked about it publicly have reproached themselves for not acting more aggressively. There also was a long-standing criticism of Obama that his foreign-policy making amounted to endless process with no outcomes — hours of meetings that yielded more meetings but no ultimate action.

Plus, the relationship between the United States and Russia is multifaceted and often intensely complicated:

• Obama scaled back missile defense plans in Europe to placate Moscow.
• Obama wanted Russia to play a role in the international agreement under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear program — and Putin went along.
• Obama spent the end of his presidency trying to bring Russia into a multilateral agreement to end the Syrian civil war, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ultimately never committed.

So Obama's team had to manage many spinning plates in addition to the active measures campaign it detected by the middle of 2016. One question Obama may address in his book is why he calibrated his choices in the way he did — whether he looked the other way on election interference to keep open other options elsewhere.

FACT CHECK: Why Didn't Obama Stop Russia's Election Interference In 2016?

 

[idav]

Considering Obama decided to say something and take action "one day" after the election could be the key. Remember, they all thought Hillary would win. If she had, we can only guess if the actions would have been the same.

After Election Day, Obama ordered the U.S. intelligence community to issue a public report about the Russian scheme. Once it had — and concluded Russia's attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton — the United States imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow. In addition to imposing new sanctions, Washington also expelled a number of Russian diplomats and closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York.

So why didn't Obama's administration do more?
That isn't clear. Some former administration officials who have talked about it publicly have reproached themselves for not acting more aggressively. There also was a long-standing criticism of Obama that his foreign-policy making amounted to endless process with no outcomes — hours of meetings that yielded more meetings but no ultimate action.

Plus, the relationship between the United States and Russia is multifaceted and often intensely complicated:

• Obama scaled back missile defense plans in Europe to placate Moscow.
• Obama wanted Russia to play a role in the international agreement under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear program — and Putin went along.
• Obama spent the end of his presidency trying to bring Russia into a multilateral agreement to end the Syrian civil war, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ultimately never committed.

So Obama's team had to manage many spinning plates in addition to the active measures campaign it detected by the middle of 2016. One question Obama may address in his book is why he calibrated his choices in the way he did — whether he looked the other way on election interference to keep open other options elsewhere.

FACT CHECK: Why Didn't Obama Stop Russia's Election Interference In 2016?

Do you really think they would come up with all that just one day after the election. If they really wanted to affect the outcome of the election they would have released the info two weeks beforehand. Furthermore people aren't stupid thinking someone will just win or Obama would not have been campaigning so heavily for Hillary. Your conspiracy ideas don't fit the facts. They'd been talking of the issues for a very long time, everyone for months before the election had been talking about Russia and the intelligence committees even debriefed Trump and Hillary on the matters when they were running (which of course we remember Trump being in complete denial). I'm not sure what your trying to get at but simply, there has been an investigation into the issue ever since DNC got hacked and they have been looking at Russian ties for various individuals god knows how long. To me the fact that they waited til just the day after the election to impose sanctions fits perfectly with all I've been saying, they didn't want to affect the election since that was a big part of the investigation. I have no doubt the sanctions would have gone up regardless of who won.

 

[idav]

@Phantasman or for anyone interested, this is a very good timeline of what the Obama administration did during the Russian investigations before the election as well as what the Trump and Clinton sides did/said.
The Post’s new findings in Russia’s bold campaign to influence the U.S. election

 

[Phantasman]

Do you really think they would come up with all that just one day after the election. If they really wanted to affect the outcome of the election they would have released the info two weeks beforehand. Furthermore people aren't stupid thinking someone will just win or Obama would not have been campaigning so heavily for Hillary. Your conspiracy ideas don't fit the facts. They'd been talking of the issues for a very long time, everyone for months before the election had been talking about Russia and the intelligence committees even debriefed Trump and Hillary on the matters when they were running (which of course we remember Trump being in complete denial). I'm not sure what your trying to get at but simply, there has been an investigation into the issue ever since DNC got hacked and they have been looking at Russian ties for various individuals god knows how long. To me the fact that they waited til just the day after the election to impose sanctions fits perfectly with all I've been saying, they didn't want to affect the election since that was a big part of the investigation. I have no doubt the sanctions would have gone up regardless of who won.

Why attack me? Those aren't my words. NPR said that in an article less than a week old. Did you read the link?

Do you think it's possible Obama didn't do anything prior because the poll's said Hillary was going to win? And he didn't want to upset that possibility?

Before the election, there wasn't talk of Trump Russia collusion. That didn't come to light until March 2017. Before that, the investigations were into the DNC hacking, and WIKILeaks documents. The idea of Trump being helped by the Russians in a collusion, came after recounts of votes failed to change the outcome (called for by Jill Stein and Clinton in December 2016).

I hope we find the truth. If we do or don't, I doubt it's going to change those in the "two" parties. Dems will hate Reps and vice versa. There too much high position legalese for anyone to say they were wrong, either side.

 

[idav]

Why attack me? Those aren't my words. NPR said that in an article less than a week old. Did you read the link?

Do you think it's possible Obama didn't do anything prior because the poll's said Hillary was going to win? And he didn't want to upset that possibility?

Before the election, there wasn't talk of Trump Russia collusion. That didn't come to light until March 2017. Before that, the investigations were into the DNC hacking, and WIKILeaks documents. The idea of Trump being helped by the Russians in a collusion, came after recounts of votes failed to change the outcome (called for by Jill Stein and Clinton in December 2016).

I hope we find the truth. If we do or don't, I doubt it's going to change those in the "two" parties. Dems will hate Reps and vice versa. There too much high position legalese for anyone to say they were wrong, either side.

Like I mentioned I didn’t only know what you are really trying to get at but it was an interesting speculation peace. I think the timeline link I gave is pretty informative on the matter and facts we know of.

Edit: BTW there was the Russian talk, Clinton called Trump Putin’s puppet during the debates.

 

[Phantasman]

Like I mentioned I didn’t only know what you are really trying to get at but it was an interesting speculation peace. I think the timeline link I gave is pretty informative on the matter and facts we know of.

Edit: BTW there was the Russian talk, Clinton called Trump Putin’s puppet during the debates.

Ya know. I get conservatives that give me a hard time on my views. So does the liberals. I'm not stupid. I know when I'm talking to each. I am a centrist. You are left, as most that I have talked to in this forum. I have another forum I frequent that almost everyone leans right.

I want this country to work, period. I don't want it left. I don't want it right. There's a lot of good minds out their. But we are gearing up for a civil war, IMO. And you know who will win? Russia. China. Saudi Arabia. Iran. etc. We will work to weaken ourselves. It doesn't matter who is president. One side will work to make sure the other doesn't accomplish anything. I am going to assume you are younger than me. I'm 68. I have had a great life. By D Day is here. The world is changing and it's unforgiving. I thought it was bad in Ft Lauderdale growing up in school having to dive under a desk and cover my head during the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 60s whenever the sirens went off. But kids today have it worse, as they are dodging bullets.

The bottom line is that there is not enough clarity for me to stop backing the President of the United States. I have been that way all my life, even for people who won that I didn't vote for. To punish the country, the American people, who followed all the justified ways to elect the President, does more harm than good. For now, he sits in the oval office. Until he is removed or exonerated, he is still the President. At least to this old timer.

Your world may wind up different.

Good luck.