Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think that it is very unlikely that the Russians "stole" the election, although since there hasn't been a thorough audit of their penetration into state voter databases, I can't say that with certainty, in that the election could have swung on tens of thousands of votes in a couple of states. I think that needs to be fully explored, not necessarily because of the 2016 angle but for the security of future elections. Relevant disclaimers about HRC ****ty candidacy and campaign apply, of course.
Is Trump a patsy? Almost certainly not in the "Manchurian candidate" sense that you mean. A patsy, though? An un-or-barely-witting subject of manipulation? That's still an open question, though I lean to "no." I think that his bizarre sucking up to Putin was more attributable to the TT Moscow project rather than to blackmail. His subsequent softsoap approach to Russia--and to Putin specifically--is genuinely troubling and I understand why it breeds suspicion.
I've always thought there was a distinct possibility that there was some kind of conspiratorial angle with Russia involving the campaign, at least a coin-flip's chance that there was active collusion (though I thought, and still do, that it would be difficult to prove) and a small but significant non-zero chance that Trump himself was aware of either.
My bottom line is that it needs to see the light of day, if for no other reason than that the obfuscation and untruths about the campaign/Russia have piled up into a garbage fire that can't be ignored.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
And, just as a matter of interest, I'd like to ask the board at large that if you were Oleg Deripaska and you received Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's offer of a "briefing," what would be your next move?
Ignore it?
Keep it to yourself?
Share it with the boss?
Ignore it?
Keep it to yourself?
Share it with the boss?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Where do the Russians allies the Iranians fall in this divide. And our own allies the House of Saud.
Insofar as it draws into question the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, yes.
I called the DJT Jr. 'adoption' e-mail/meeting/coverup (or whatever it was - honestly, I lose track) the Joe Arpaio goes to Hawaii stage of the "Russia!" conspiratorial fantasy because I don't see coherency between that instance of Russian 'collusion' and the Paul Manafort thread or the Trump Tower Moscow thread or the money-laundering at Deutsche Bank thread or the Ivanka Trump sitting at Putin's desk thread or the Kushner (or, for that matter, Flynn through Turkey) illicit back-channeling thread.
I see a body of evidence (and to use that word is . . . charitable) that has evolved in its slimy coagulation a great deal like birtherism did. A piece here and a thread there that don't altogether mean much of anything, but are conveniently and constantly lumped in slipshod presentation as definitive proof of the entire election and this entire Presidency being an illegitimate sham.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I ask, as I did months ago, what bit of of "evidence" do you equate to the birtherism issue.
At this point, we know, in the public domain, that DJTJ (+Kushner and Manafort) met with Russians ostensibly to receive dirt on HRC. We know that Paul Manafort, campaign manager, offered to brief Oleg Deripaska. What fruits of Sherrif Joe's trip to Hawaii do you equate to that?
PS, that was not the first or only time you acquitted the Russia investigation to birtherism.
For the sake of brevity, let's just suppose there was back-channel between Manafort/Trump via Deripaska to the Kremlin (hell, directly to Volodya).
What do you think that reveals?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government?
I listed 7 different evidentiary threads in my post.
Conspiring to do what?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It seems to me there is quid pro quo (or the potential for quid pro quo) at many levels. Financial. Policy on Ukraine. Sanctions relief. Coordination of efforts to defeat Hillary. Not of it is cut and dried yet. And all of this might yet turn out to be "innocent." But I think there is enough to warrant the expenditure of significant investigative resources.
It's funny, I think most of the things you noted are, at the very least, plausible. It's when you list them all together that I find them borderline farcical.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Conspiracy to move goalposts?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
At this point it bears repeating that, Hawk, you have repeatedly stated that it is not worth the investigative expenditure.
And that you considered the hacking itself similarly farcical. Your credibility on this issue is nil.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Would you do me a favor and link it for me?