President Trump Signs Sanction Bill

[Revoltingest]

I don't. But can you honestly say you believe his son, who thought this could be a game changing meeting, would not tell him?

And how anyone on this planet can say they trust a word coming out of these peoples anymore is beyond me. I think they lie more than they tell the truth. They make the political establishment look good, and that is saying something.

I don't trust them at all.
But neither do I know more than investigations have revealed.

 

[Underhill]

Oh, you sooOOOoooOOOooo don't understand.
The Trump v Hillary situation is far more complicated than your simplistic view that people
who voted for him wanted him President, & support him. I didn't want him. I oppose much
of his agenda. He just didn't seem as bad as Hillary. This is not support.

Your delusion is the certainty that he conspired with Russians. You say there's evidence,
but you offer nothing which clearly supports the claim...only bias confirming news tidbits.
I chalk it up to HLDS (Hillary Loss Derangement Syndome). There's medication for that now.

A problem with Trump opponents like you is that you're fixated on personal problems which
seem ripe for attack, eg, the Russian connection. But you don't so vigorously oppose actual
policy horrors he advocates, eg, ramping up the War On Drugs. Tis almost as though you
enable him by distracting from policy efforts.

Oh, no, I've complained about those too.

You certainly haven't behaved like a person who dislikes Trump.

There is evidence that his campaign colluded. Both his son and his chief of staff. So either he had incompetent staff who broke the law, or he knew about it and broke the law himself. Either way, it is a massive mark against him.

 

[Revoltingest]

You certainly haven't behaved like a person who dislikes Trump.

Should I wave my hands more?

There is evidence that his campaign colluded. Both his son and his chief of staff. So either he had incompetent staff who broke the law, or he knew about it and broke the law himself. Either way, it is a massive mark against him.

There is evidence for creationism too.
The problem is that it's not convincing.
So I'll stick with the best default, ie, don't believe in claims which aren't yet cromulent.

 

[Underhill]

Should I wave my hands more?

There is evidence for creationism too.
The problem is that it's not convincing.
So I'll stick with the best default, ie, don't believe in claims which aren't yet cromulent.

So, the fact that Trumps son admitted he went to the meeting knowing it was with a Russian insider and knowing that they claimed to have dirt isn't evidence enough?

This goes beyond a bit of circumstantial evidence. He's admitted to it and released the emails. He claims they didn't have anything he wants. Okay, but even if we chose to believe him (and why would you?) that doesn't change the fact that he went into that meeting with every intention of colluding with the Russians.

 

[esmith]

So, the fact that Trumps son admitted he went to the meeting knowing it was with a Russian insider and knowing that they claimed to have dirt isn't evidence enough?

This goes beyond a bit of circumstantial evidence. He's admitted to it and released the emails. He claims they didn't have anything he wants. Okay, but even if we chose to believe him (and why would you?) that doesn't change the fact that he went into that meeting with every intention of colluding with the Russians.

Would you say that the Clinton campaign indirectly or directly collude with the Ukraine?
From: Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?

So what happened with the Clinton campaign and Ukraine?
It wasn't so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort's extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C.

The Democratic National Committee denies that it was ever in contact with the Ukrainian government.

 

[metis]

What blows my mind is when people look at the total picture, from the lies about Russia, the obvious wrongdoing of his staff, Trumps tweets, the Comey firing, the complete lack of anything resembling cohesive policy... how can anyone still support this guy?

I think at this point there are many who only stick with Trump because they can't bring themselves to the point whereas they can even admit to themselves that they made a colossal mistake. Couple that with "confirmation bias", and I think this explains why they would stick with this guy with all that he has said and done. We have never had a president who was anywhere near this terrible, and we've had some pretty bad ones before.

 

[metis]

Would you say that the Clinton campaign indirectly or directly collude with the Ukraine?
From: Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?

Did you actually read your own link? You actually might give it a go.

 

[esmith]

Did you actually read your own link? You actually might give it a go.

I'm asking a question not making a point.

 

[metis]

I'm asking a question not making a point.

OK, let's take a look:

If the broad outlines are similar, some key elements distinguish these episodes from each other.

The Politico article highlighted a major one.

"Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin (and) involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services," the article said. "There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine."

So, according to American intelligence agencies, the Kremlin shaped and directed the email hacking of Democrats and subsequent distribution. In contrast, a variety of actors on the Ukrainian side responded to American queries and provided public documents.

Which leads to the other big distinction: The Russians got their materials through cyber-attacks, while the only telling document revealed by a Ukrainian lawmaker was the product of an official investigation.

"There’s a difference between dealing with the embassy and dealing with a covert intelligence operation," Wittes said. "Are you dealing with government records, or are you dealing in stolen dirt?"

To be clear, we do not know if the hacked emails had any ties to contacts the Trump campaign did or didn’t have with Russians. But hacked emails are different from the results of a public investigation.

Taking that difference one step further, there was nothing inherently illegal in the quest for information on Manafort and how that might link Donald Trump to Russia. Wittes noted that from a research perspective, since Manafort’s work took place in Ukraine, "you pretty much have to go to the Ukrainians to get that."

Other details also separate the two narratives.

Ukraine is seen as an ally to the United States, while Russia is at best a competitor and often called an enemy.

Lastly, the stories from Trump associates have changed over time as more press reports emerge. In the case of Donald Trump Jr., he first said he never represented the campaign in any meetings with Russians. Then he said there was a meeting, but it was about adoption laws. Then he said it was about Clinton, but it represented ordinary opposition research... -- Trump and Russia, Clinton and Ukraine: How do they compare?

 

[Underhill]

I think at this point there are many who only stick with Trump because they can't bring themselves to the point whereas they can even admit to themselves that they made a colossal mistake. Couple that with "confirmation bias", and I think this explains why they would stick with this guy with all that he has said and done. We have never had a president who was anywhere near this terrible, and we've had some pretty bad ones before.

I agree. I never thought I would think Bush was good by comparison but here we are.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, the fact that Trumps son admitted he went to the meeting knowing it was with a Russian insider and knowing that they claimed to have dirt isn't evidence enough?

Not enuf for me to say Donald conspired with Russians.

This goes beyond a bit of circumstantial evidence. He's admitted to it and released the emails. He claims they didn't have anything he wants. Okay, but even if we chose to believe him (and why would you?) that doesn't change the fact that he went into that meeting with every intention of colluding with the Russians.

Some people, when they see weak evidence which confirms a belief,
will trumpet the evidence as proof of certainty of the belief. But before
I leap to certainty of belief, I want to see strong evidence in a cogent
argument. Also, if the evidence were so convincing, why don't I hear
calls for impeachment from major leftish news sources?

 

[Underhill]

Not enuf for me to say Donald conspired with Russians.

Some people, when they see weak evidence which confirms a belief,
will trumpet the evidence as proof of certainty of the belief. But before
I leap to certainty of belief, I want to see strong evidence in a cogent
argument. Also, if the evidence were so convincing, why don't I hear
calls for impeachment from major leftish news sources?

Some have, but it isn't widespread because the evidence still only points to the son and the chief of staff. Not to mention everyone knows it won't happen with republicans running the show.

But that doesn't change the fact that Trumps top two people were trying to collude with the Russians. That alone, even if nothing else is proven, is unbelievably bad. And, evidence of not, odds are Trump knew. After all, if you were Trumps son, and your father thought he was going to lose, of course you would tell him about the meeting.

 

[esmith]

Some have, but it isn't widespread because the evidence still only points to the son and the chief of staff. Not to mention everyone knows it won't happen with republicans running the show.

But that doesn't change the fact that Trumps top two people were trying to collude with the Russians. That alone, even if nothing else is proven, is unbelievably bad. And, evidence of not, odds are Trump knew. After all, if you were Trumps son, and your father thought he was going to lose, of course you would tell him about the meeting.

You seem to take a lot for granted.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some have, but it isn't widespread because the evidence still only points to the son and the chief of staff. Not to mention everyone knows it won't happen with republicans running the show.

But that doesn't change the fact that Trumps top two people were trying to collude with the Russians. That alone, even if nothing else is proven, is unbelievably bad. And, evidence of not, odds are Trump knew. After all, if you were Trumps son, and your father thought he was going to lose, of course you would tell him about the meeting.

Let's see what the investigations reveal before lighting the torches, & sharpening the pitchforks.

 

[Underhill]

You seem to take a lot for granted.

Like what? That a son would tell his father the "good news" that something came along that could swing the vote?

But it really doesn't matter. It speaks to the quality of his staff, his judgement in hiring them, how his son was raised... that all of this happened in the highest echelons of his administration/family. And as I said, this is just the stuff we know about.

 

[Underhill]

Let's see what the investigations reveal before lighting the torches, & sharpening the pitchforks.

Right, because there is no reason to pass judgement even though we already know enough that if it were a democrat in the white house, the republican house and senate would be voting for impeachment....

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, because there is no reason to pass judgement even though we already know enough that if it were a democrat in the white house, the republican house and senate would be voting for impeachment....

Partisan politics is always at play.
What's the purpose of hypothesizing about a Dem in office?

 

[esmith]

Like what? That a son would tell his father the "good news" that something came along that could swing the vote?

Yeah just that, you are making an assumption in that statement.

But it really doesn't matter. It speaks to the quality of his staff, his judgement in hiring them, how his son was raised... that all of this happened in the highest echelons of his administration/family. And as I said, this is just the stuff we know about.

Yes he has had problems with his staff, so what. Judgement in hiring them? A position has to be filled, you hire someone that appears to have what it takes to do the job then you find out you are wrong and you replace them. So what's the problem
Making assumptions again aren't we. How do you know how his son was raised.
When and if more "stuff" comes out that is proven then we make a judgement. Until then nothing be speculation and as the @Revoltingest said "Partisan politics is always at play."

 

[leibowde84]

I recall that the European Union was against the sanctions against Russia, that is why I said indirectly.

Can you provide a source for this claim?

 

[esmith]

Can you provide a source for this claim?

Yep
EU warns US over 'America first' Russia sanctions bill - CNN