|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 15 2018 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing. You saying "none of this is true" isn't really convincing anyone. Your unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn't really mean anything.
GH: *points out a specific reporting error*
Mohdoo: *sees GH write "none of this is true"*
I wouldn't be so sure about me not convincing anyone either...
On February 15 2018 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:Breaking: Thing everyone knew would happen is indeed happening.
Announcements confirming previous announcements about future announcements are the worst.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On February 15 2018 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing. You saying "none of this is true" isn't really convincing anyone. Your unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn't really mean anything. Eh, seems like the only thing that really does convince you is validation of the position you would have held anyways.
|
Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election.
|
On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. Show nested quote +NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing. Jesus, dude. The article isn't even slightly rhetorical. In fact, it isn't even an article at all. It just pretty much presents the documents and leaves it at that. The accounts, their tweets, their follower numbers. You call that propaganda or sloppy reporting? It's actual reporting, for once. Very simple and dry.
There is a propaganda problem, in today's social-media culture. There were millions of Americans listening to people pretending to be Americans, but were actually listening to state-run propaganda from a country and culture that inherently and blindly dislikes America.
What part of that is propaganda to you? The actual state-run propaganda, or the fact that someone in our media, however dryly, presents it to you for what it is?
Yes, GH, your offended reaction to something as dry as that "article" is revealing. It is.
|
On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election.
While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election.
But that's not what was even being discussed.
On February 15 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing. Jesus, dude. The article isn't even slightly rhetorical. In fact, it isn't even an article at all. It just pretty much presents the documents and leaves it at that. The accounts, their tweets, their follower numbers. You call that propaganda or sloppy reporting? It's actual reporting, for once. Very simple and dry. There is a propaganda problem, in today's social-media culture. There were millions of Americans listening to people pretending to be Americans, but were actually listening to state-run propaganda from a country and culture that inherently and blindly dislikes America. What part of that is propaganda to you? The actual state-run propaganda, or the fact that someone in our media, however dryly, presents it to you for what it is? Yes, GH, your offended reaction to something as dry as that "article" is revealing. It is.
I'm not going to lie and say this isn't tiresome for me.
How about you engage with the very specific inaccuracy I pointed out to start with and you didn't acknowledge at all and we can go from there.
|
On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed.
Okay, this is total bullshit.
The DNC hacks revealed what? What did the "hacks" do?
Nothing.
The only reason the hack mattered was because of the Russian propaganda campaign. Wikileaks - internet, social-media "reporting" of the hacks making something out of nothing.
You can't separate the two. Why are you trying?
|
Another day another scandal, the week isn't even over yet.
+ Show Spoiler +Veterans Affairs Secretary David J. Shulkin’s chief of staff doctored an email and made false statements to create a pretext for taxpayers to cover expenses for the secretary’s wife on a 10-day trip to Europe last summer, the agency’s inspector general has found.
Vivieca Wright Simpson, VA’s third-most senior official, altered language in an email from an aide coordinating the trip to make it appear that Shulkin was receiving an award from the Danish government — then used the award to justify paying for his wife’s travel, Inspector General Michael J. Missal said in a report released Wednesday. VA paid more than $4,300 for her airfare.
The account of how the government paid travel expenses for the secretary’s wife is one finding in an unsparing investigation that concluded that Shulkin and his staff misled agency ethics officials and the public about key details of the trip. Shulkin also improperly accepted a gift of tickets to a Wimbledon tennis match worth thousands of dollars, the investigation found, and directed an aide coordinating the trip to act as what the report called a “personal travel concierge” to him and his wife.
“Although the [inspector general’s office] cannot determine the value VA gained from the Secretary and his delegation’s three and a half days of meetings in Copenhagen and London at a cost of at least $122,334, the investigation revealed serious derelictions by VA personnel,” the watchdog concluded.
Shulkin is one of five current and former Trump administration Cabinet members under investigation by agency inspectors general over their travel expenses, an issue that forced Tom Price to resign as Health and Human Services secretary in the fall. Shulkin and other Cabinet officials have said their travel, often on private and military planes or to speak at political events, was approved by agency ethics officials.
The Washington Post first raised questions about Shulkin’s Europe trip — in particular the Wimbledon tickets and his wife’s expenses — in a story in September.
In a response to Missal, Shulkin called his portrayal of the trip “entirely inaccurate” and said it “reeks of an agenda.”
“It is outrageous that you would portray my wife and me as attempting to take advantage of the government,” he wrote.
Shulkin also wrote that VA staff suggested his wife’s travel be paid by the agency and that he “had nothing to do with the process of obtaining approval.” He delegated day-to-day trip planning to his staff, he wrote.
In an interview with investigators, Wright Simpson said she did not recall whether she altered the email, Missal wrote. In a second interview, he wrote, she did not directly respond to questions about the email, repeatedly saying “I responded appropriately to the email.”
She did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment from The Post.
Shulkin, a physician and former hospital administrator who served as VA’s undersecretary of health from July 2015 until last January, is the administration’s lone holdover from the Obama administration. He leads the second-largest federal agency and is a favorite of President Trump, who made improving care for veterans a centerpiece of his campaign.
On the trip to Europe last July, Shulkin and his wife, Merle Bari, were accompanied by Wright Simpson and Poonam Alaigh, then the acting undersecretary of health, as well as an aide and a six-person security detail. The group spent three-and-a-half days meeting with Danish and British officials to discuss veterans’ health issues. Sightseeing occupied the other days, including tours of Westminster Abbey and Denmark’s Rosenborg Castle, a cruise along the Thames and shopping in Sweden.
In September, in response to The Post’s questions about the trip, VA issued a statement that said “all of Shulkin’s activities on the Europe trip, including his attendance at Wimbledon, were reviewed and approved by ethics counsel.”
That statement was not accurate, Missal found.
Before the trip, in response to a request from Shulkin, ethics officials reviewed only whether VA could pay his wife’s expenses, Missal found. After The Post’s inquiries, Shulkin asked for an expedited ethics review of the gift of Wimbledon tickets. When The Post story was published, ethics officials complained internally that VA’s statement had misrepresented their role and cast them in a poor light, Missal wrote.
John Ullyot, VA’s assistant secretary for public and intergovernmental affairs, told investigators that Shulkin dictated the language saying that all of his activities on the trip were reviewed, Missal wrote. Shulkin told investigators he had “no idea” where the statement originated.
In a separate response to Missal, private attorneys for Shulkin wrote that, “to the extent the statement could have been drafted more clearly, it is apparent that the statement was the result of haste, not an intentional effort to mislead.”
In addition, at a Washington Post Live event in November, where he rebuked The Post for what he called “poor reporting,” Shulkin said he had purchased the Wimbledon tickets, Missal wrote. Asked by a moderator if they were given to him “by folks from the Invictus Games or anything like that,” Shulkin said they were not.
That statement also was not accurate, Missal found.
As he planned the trip, Shulkin contacted Victoria Gosling, chief executive for the 2016 Invictus Games, a sports tournament for wounded veterans founded by Prince Harry. Gosling was a strategic adviser to the games at the time, according to the report.
Gosling offered Shulkin two tickets and a grounds pass to the July 15 women’s finals tennis match at Wimbledon, Missal wrote. She also treated Shulkin, Bari and their son to lunch before the match — which Venus Williams lost — in a private, members-only dining room. The tickets for the same match in the 2018 Wimbledon are selling for a minimum of $1,700 apiece, the report says, though Shulkin’s attorneys said the tickets cost $450 in total.
In their response to Missal, Shulkin’s attorneys wrote that the inspector general had misinterpreted his remarks.
As part of the review he sought after The Post’s inquiries in September, Shulkin told an ethics official that Gosling and his wife were friends, Missal wrote. The official concluded that Shulkin could accept the tickets based on a “personal friendship” exception to rules prohibiting the acceptance of gifts, he wrote.
But the inspector general found the evidence of a friendship thin. When investigators interviewed Gosling last week, she could not recall Bari’s first name, according to the report.
The findings were presented to the ethics official, who then reversed herself, concluding that “the documents totally indicate that they’re not friends, as represented in [Secretary Shulkin’s] response to me.”
Shulkin told Missal’s investigators he and his wife had offered to pay for the tickets before the trip, but that Gosling “insisted on taking us as friends,” the report says.
Shulkin also told investigators he did not seek an ethics review before accepting the tickets because the tennis event “had absolutely no business connection whatsoever,” the report says. “I wouldn’t think about clearing it with ethics,” Shulkin said.
In concluding that the gift was improper, Missal wrote: “Ms. Gosling gave a gift of the Wimbledon tickets, valued at thousands of dollars on the secondary commercial market, because of Secretary Shulkin’s official position.”
Shulkin’s attorney said the secretary was not prohibited from accepting the tickets because Gosling neither does nor seeks to do business with Veterans Affairs.
Even so, they wrote that Gosling and Bari are friends and that Gosling attributed her failure to remember Bari’s first name because she was under pressure from investigators. “The investigators unexpectedly called me on my mobile phone whilst I was driving on a very busy highway,” she wrote in a statement provided by the lawyers. “I felt like the investigators were twisting my words and trying to put words into my mouth.”
Ethics officials initially declined the request to pay travel expenses for Bari, a Philadelphia-area dermatologist, “on the grounds that the available information did not show that her presence would serve a ‘sufficient government interest,’ ” Missal wrote.
Wright Simpson, the chief of staff, became personally involved, Missal wrote. She pressed for Shulkin to receive an award from the Danish government, which she understood to be the criterion that would justify Bari’s status as an “invitational traveler” whose expenses would be covered.
In emails to James “Gabe” Gough, the aide in the traveling party who was coordinating with VA’s European counterparts, Wright Simpson pressed for confirmation of an award. Gough said no award was planned.
“We’re working on having a dinner at the US Ambassador’s Residence in the honor of SECVA, but that has not been confirmed by US Embassy Copenhagen yet,” Gough wrote, using the acronym for the secretary of Veterans Affairs.
According to the report, Wright Simpson then altered the email to make it appear that Gough had written, “We’re having a special recognition dinner at the US Ambassador’s Residence in the honor of SECVA.” With confirmation in hand, she told ethics officials that an award was definite. Bari was approved as an “invitational traveler,” all expenses paid.
Shulkin received no award or special recognition on the trip.
Missal wrote that Wright Simpson’s actions may have violated federal criminal statutes and that he referred the matter to the Justice Department. The Justice Department declined to prosecute, he wrote.
Once his wife was on the official list of participants, Shulkin directed Gough to coordinate with her to schedule meals and visits to tourist attractions. “Boss told me ‘if she’s happy, I’m happy and you’re happy,’ ” Gough told a colleague in an email, according to the report.
Gough told investigators his involvement was necessary to coordinate security coverage for Shulkin.
Investigators came to a different conclusion: At Shulkin’s direction and on official time, they wrote, “Mr. Gough was serving as a de facto personal travel concierge to the Secretary and his wife.”
“Is there earlier flight from Copenhagen? Wimbledon tickets? High tea? Roman baths in [B]ath. Would want to do baths not just tour,” Bari wrote to Gough in June.
In another email she said “ . . . we like to be busy, we often don’t spend too much time at palaces or cathedrals. Secretary agrees that need some time to check in with work answer emails or call back each weekday so can be flexible in later afternoon after we do sightseeing.”
Gough complained to a colleague about Bari’s many requests, writing, “I would have been finished with this a week ago.”
The travelers’ expenses in some cases were inadequately explained or poorly documented, investigators found. A member of the security team’s expense voucher included “an inexplicable $3,825 overpayment for airport parking and a $2,718 overpayment for lodging.”
Last-minute itinerary changes inflated airfare costs by $15,700, bringing the total to $42,230. Much of that covered an upgrade to business class on the return flight for Shulkin, who was suffering from back pain, and a member of his detail. Wright Simpson also modified her ticket to expand a 3½-hour layover by nearly two hours, a change that increased the price to $4,041 from $1,101.
The report mentions another unusual expense: VA had official “Trip Book” itineraries printed for the entourage, 15 copies at a cost of $100 each.
Source
|
On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed.
Sure, this isn't relevant to how impactful the Russian fake news was during the election. However, this and the fake news, even if it had no tangible effect, is still proof of "quid" from the Russians to Trumps benefit. There is also plenty of "quo" from Trump pre and post-election to the obvious benefit of Russia.
These facts are, imo, more than enough to justify the search for a "pro."
|
On February 15 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed. Okay, this is total bullshit. The DNC hacks revealed what? What did the "hacks" do? Nothing. The only reason the "hacks" mattered was because of the Russian propaganda campaign. Wikileaks. You can't separate the two. Why are you trying?
I can't even imagine the whirlwind in which these are all conflated and intermixed in your mind but I will try.
I point a material and misleading error in a report and you snap that it can't possibly be propaganda without addressing the clearly errant reporting then you charge wikileaks release of 100% accurate and real documents as propaganda. That makes it pretty tough to go much further.
But we weren't talking about wikileaks or the hacks
On February 15 2018 02:22 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed. Sure, this isn't relevant to how impactful the Russian fake news was during the election. However, this and the fake news, even if it had no tangible effect, is still proof of "quid" from the Russians to Trumps benefit. There is also plenty of "quo" from Trump pre and post-election to the obvious benefit of Russia. These facts are, imo, more than enough to justify the search for a "pro."
I honestly don't know the relevance or point of this.
|
On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed. Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing. Jesus, dude. The article isn't even slightly rhetorical. In fact, it isn't even an article at all. It just pretty much presents the documents and leaves it at that. The accounts, their tweets, their follower numbers. You call that propaganda or sloppy reporting? It's actual reporting, for once. Very simple and dry. There is a propaganda problem, in today's social-media culture. There were millions of Americans listening to people pretending to be Americans, but were actually listening to state-run propaganda from a country and culture that inherently and blindly dislikes America. What part of that is propaganda to you? The actual state-run propaganda, or the fact that someone in our media, however dryly, presents it to you for what it is? Yes, GH, your offended reaction to something as dry as that "article" is revealing. It is. I'm not going to lie and say this isn't tiresome for me. How about you engage with the very specific inaccuracy I pointed out to start with and you didn't acknowledge at all and we can go from there. Lets clear something up for everyone before we move on:
Russia was the one who hacked the DNC, correct? Motivations and what they did with what they found aside, all reports have said they hacked the RNC and DNC. Can you agree that took place to the best of our information at this time?
|
On February 15 2018 02:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I honestly don't know the relevance or point of this.
You've been more anti-Mueller investigation than most conservatives I've seen. That same attitude is spilling out in this "The Russians didn't really do shit" argument of yours. I know the Russians helping Trump detracts from the narrative that Hillary lost the election herself, but that doesn't mean we need to ignore basic facts.
My point is that it is painfully obvious that there is a fuck ton of smoke here. Why continue to try and diminish the fire fighters and their supporters looking for the fire?
|
On February 15 2018 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed. On February 15 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing. Jesus, dude. The article isn't even slightly rhetorical. In fact, it isn't even an article at all. It just pretty much presents the documents and leaves it at that. The accounts, their tweets, their follower numbers. You call that propaganda or sloppy reporting? It's actual reporting, for once. Very simple and dry. There is a propaganda problem, in today's social-media culture. There were millions of Americans listening to people pretending to be Americans, but were actually listening to state-run propaganda from a country and culture that inherently and blindly dislikes America. What part of that is propaganda to you? The actual state-run propaganda, or the fact that someone in our media, however dryly, presents it to you for what it is? Yes, GH, your offended reaction to something as dry as that "article" is revealing. It is. I'm not going to lie and say this isn't tiresome for me. How about you engage with the very specific inaccuracy I pointed out to start with and you didn't acknowledge at all and we can go from there. Lets clear something up for everyone before we move on: Russia was the one who hacked the DNC, correct? Motivations and what they did with what they found aside, all reports have said they hacked the RNC and DNC. Can you agree that took place to the best of our information at this time? Interesting you are in a rush to clear this up... while I don't know to my personal satisfaction that Russia (as in Putin) was in fact the one and only group to breach the RNC/DNC, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe they were at least 1 group that did and can move forward under that belief.
On February 15 2018 02:30 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I honestly don't know the relevance or point of this. You've been more anti-Mueller investigation than most conservatives I've seen. That same attitude is spilling out in this "The Russians didn't really do shit" argument of yours. I know the Russians helping Trump detracts from the narrative that Hillary lost the election herself, but that doesn't mean we need to ignore basic facts. My point is that it is painfully obvious that there is a fuck ton of smoke here. Why continue to try and diminish the fire fighters and their supporters looking for the fire?
I don't know that I am "anti-Mueller investigation". I'm certainly pretty damn skeptical that any of the stuff most liberals are hoping for will come of it, but not for the same reasons as conservatives. I think Trump is dirty as hell and probably has a multitude of unsavory deals/associations in Russia and with shady people around the world. I have no doubt he's grifting off the presidency, lies incessantly, and so on.
I've been quite critical of the the Russia hysteria but I don't think I've been as reckless as to suggest that "The Russians didn't really do shit" in a categorical/absolute way. I stand by the assertion that their digital presence, especially their ads, are being sensationalized and didn't really do much of anything, but I wouldn't say the entirety of the efforts was nothing. Now in comparison to the budgets, influence, etc a place like the US wields when influencing elections around the world it's pretty insignificant, but for them it was a reasonably big deal, if for no other reason than all the credit liberal media is giving them for manipulating Americans.
|
On February 15 2018 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:28 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed. On February 15 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing. Jesus, dude. The article isn't even slightly rhetorical. In fact, it isn't even an article at all. It just pretty much presents the documents and leaves it at that. The accounts, their tweets, their follower numbers. You call that propaganda or sloppy reporting? It's actual reporting, for once. Very simple and dry. There is a propaganda problem, in today's social-media culture. There were millions of Americans listening to people pretending to be Americans, but were actually listening to state-run propaganda from a country and culture that inherently and blindly dislikes America. What part of that is propaganda to you? The actual state-run propaganda, or the fact that someone in our media, however dryly, presents it to you for what it is? Yes, GH, your offended reaction to something as dry as that "article" is revealing. It is. I'm not going to lie and say this isn't tiresome for me. How about you engage with the very specific inaccuracy I pointed out to start with and you didn't acknowledge at all and we can go from there. Lets clear something up for everyone before we move on: Russia was the one who hacked the DNC, correct? Motivations and what they did with what they found aside, all reports have said they hacked the RNC and DNC. Can you agree that took place to the best of our information at this time? Interesting you are in a rush to clear this up... while I don't know to my personal satisfaction that Russia (as in Putin) was in fact the one and only group to breach the RNC/DNC, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe they were at least 1 group that did and can move forward under that belief. It is important be clear about what facts people are willing to agree on. To further clear up that point, the email hack cause by someone in the DNC clicking on phishing email was reported to have been done by Russia by all sources I have come across. Can we agree that that one specific breach, not precluding any other breaches, was the work of Russia?
|
GH is generally right in that y'all on the left would be better served to ignore the Russia collusion stuff. There's a very good chance that it boomerangs hard against democrats when the IG report comes out, particularly when you consider that pretty much everyone involved at the FBI has been terminated or forced to resign. This all may end up being a political boon to the democrats, but I think that possibility is becoming more remote. When the time comes, don't say I didn't warn you.
|
On February 15 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote: GH is generally right in that y'all on the left would be better served to ignore the Russia collusion stuff. There's a very good chance that it boomerangs hard against democrats when the IG report comes out, particularly when you consider that pretty much everyone involved at the FBI has been terminated or forced to resign. This all may end up being a political boon to the democrats, but I think that possibility is becoming more remote. When the time comes, don't say I didn't warn you.
Also very likely this whole uranium thing blows up, right? Do you remember the language you used when people doubted you then?
|
On February 15 2018 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote: GH is generally right in that y'all on the left would be better served to ignore the Russia collusion stuff. There's a very good chance that it boomerangs hard against democrats when the IG report comes out, particularly when you consider that pretty much everyone involved at the FBI has been terminated or forced to resign. This all may end up being a political boon to the democrats, but I think that possibility is becoming more remote. When the time comes, don't say I didn't warn you. Also very likely this whole uranium thing blows up, right? Do you remember the language you used when people doubted you then? Last I checked, the investigation into Uranium One has continued to escalate since I made those initial posts. And the big difference between Uranium One and the Russia/Trump collusion thing is that we can actually see money changing hands with regards to Uranium One. No such transactions have been surfaced on the Russia/Trump story. All we have are some contacts and a highly questionable dossier. More importantly, the media leaks that we have seeing regarding Mueller investigation have been stating for months that Mueller is more focused on obstruction of justice-type charges than some type of nefarious collusion. Again, we'll see how it shakes out, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
|
Everyone involved at the FBI being fired when the IG’s report comes out sounds like some equally wishful thinking, TBH. But I agree that the whole Russia investigation should be discussed once it completes. The problem is there is an active effort preempt the IG’s report through discrediting the FBI. And the whole endless leaks about Trump looking to fire Mueller.
On February 15 2018 02:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote: GH is generally right in that y'all on the left would be better served to ignore the Russia collusion stuff. There's a very good chance that it boomerangs hard against democrats when the IG report comes out, particularly when you consider that pretty much everyone involved at the FBI has been terminated or forced to resign. This all may end up being a political boon to the democrats, but I think that possibility is becoming more remote. When the time comes, don't say I didn't warn you. Also very likely this whole uranium thing blows up, right? Do you remember the language you used when people doubted you then? Last I checked, the investigation into Uranium One has continued to escalate since I made those initial posts. Define escalate. House GOP members interviewed the guy and didn't provide the democrats with the ability to do so. I haven't hears about the senate becoming involved.
|
On February 15 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote: Everyone involved at the FBI being fired when the IG’s report comes out sounds like some equally wishful thinking, TBH. But I agree that the whole Russia investigation should be discussed once it completes. The problem is there is an active effort preempt the IG’s report through discrediting the FBI. And the whole endless leaks about Trump looking to fire Mueller. It's not that everyone will be fired when the IG report comes out. Everyone already has been fired. The only senior guy left is Bill Priestap, whom some believe has been ratting out Comey, McCabe, Strzok, et al.
|
On February 15 2018 02:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 02:28 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 02:10 On_Slaught wrote: Weren't the Russians behind the DNC hack? It was spread by the Russian stooge Assange as well. Seems pretty self evident that the news coming from that event impacted the election. While I don't agree with the entire statement, I don't think anyone doubts that the information released in the DNC hacks impacted the election. But that's not what was even being discussed. On February 15 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:On February 15 2018 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems like more of the same and some remarkably sloppy propaganda reporting to boot. NBC News has already used the data to expose how Russian accounts impersonated everyday Americans and drew hundreds of millions of followers NBC News did no such thing. Jesus, dude. The article isn't even slightly rhetorical. In fact, it isn't even an article at all. It just pretty much presents the documents and leaves it at that. The accounts, their tweets, their follower numbers. You call that propaganda or sloppy reporting? It's actual reporting, for once. Very simple and dry. There is a propaganda problem, in today's social-media culture. There were millions of Americans listening to people pretending to be Americans, but were actually listening to state-run propaganda from a country and culture that inherently and blindly dislikes America. What part of that is propaganda to you? The actual state-run propaganda, or the fact that someone in our media, however dryly, presents it to you for what it is? Yes, GH, your offended reaction to something as dry as that "article" is revealing. It is. I'm not going to lie and say this isn't tiresome for me. How about you engage with the very specific inaccuracy I pointed out to start with and you didn't acknowledge at all and we can go from there. Lets clear something up for everyone before we move on: Russia was the one who hacked the DNC, correct? Motivations and what they did with what they found aside, all reports have said they hacked the RNC and DNC. Can you agree that took place to the best of our information at this time? Interesting you are in a rush to clear this up... while I don't know to my personal satisfaction that Russia (as in Putin) was in fact the one and only group to breach the RNC/DNC, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe they were at least 1 group that did and can move forward under that belief. It is important be clear about what facts people are willing to agree on. To further clear up that point, the email hack cause by someone in the DNC clicking on phishing email was reported to have been done by Russia by all sources I have come across. Can we agree that that one specific breach, not precluding any other breaches, was the work of Russia?
You know what I'm waiting for if we're going to be clearing up what facts people are willing to agree on...
I'd say pretty much the same thing. That while I don't know that it's been confirmed in a way I find personally sufficient that was the only breach/actor I don't think it unreasonable to believe they did breach the account.
|
On February 15 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote: GH is generally right in that y'all on the left would be better served to ignore the Russia collusion stuff. There's a very good chance that it boomerangs hard against democrats when the IG report comes out, particularly when you consider that pretty much everyone involved at the FBI has been terminated or forced to resign. This all may end up being a political boon to the democrats, but I think that possibility is becoming more remote. When the time comes, don't say I didn't warn you. Ok, well since you said so.
|
|
|
|