FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

FWIW, the accuracy of lack thereof of the Times article is largely immaterial at this point. If Trump goes down, it will be because of obstruction of justice and abuse of power in protecting Michael Flynn. I doubt Trump was personally involved in a grand conspiracy with the Russians (he's too stupid and can't keep a secret), but I certainly believe it's possible, if not likely, that Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, Page, Bannon and/or Sessions were.

Yea! The "they're guilty" train continues to roll on the left - bound tracks fueled with your vivid imagination and plenty of "no-evidence" coal.

[Rajoo]

It will be very interesting to see what Jeff Sessions has to say to the Senate Intelligence committee next week and hope it's in public.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yea! The "they're guilty" train continues to roll on the left - bound tracks fueled with your vivid imagination and plenty of "no-evidence" coal.

I said I doubted Trump personally colluded with Russia and it's possible that his minions did and that Trump is likely now under investigation for obstruction of justice for his actions surrounding Flynn. That is an absolutely accurate description of the current state of affairs, whether you like it or not.

[Rajoo]

Trump administration 'had a secret plan to lift Russian sanctions' and cede Ukraine territory to Moscow

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7590441.html

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-...s-putin-619508

Only time would tell how much of this is true and to what extent, but with the amateurs in the Trump administration, anything is possible.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Trump administration 'had a secret plan to lift Russian sanctions' and cede Ukraine territory to Moscow

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7590441.html

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-...s-putin-619508

From the Newsweek story:

According to leaked intelligence reports, Flynn reportedly indicated to Kislyak during a phone call during the transition that Russia could expect a review of the sanctions under the Trump administration.

“We’ve been reviewing all the sanctions—and this is not exclusive to Russia,” a senior White House official told Yahoo News. “All the sanctions regimes have mechanisms built in to alleviate them.” they said, adding they hoped “the Russians would take advantage of that” by returning Crimea to Ukraine.
Only time would tell how much of this is true and to what extent, but with the amateurs in the Trump administration, anything is possible.

I thought the objective WAS to get the Crimea back to the Ukraine even back when Barry was prez, and that Barry would have removed the sanctions in that event. So wasn't JK simply restating policy? Nothing new about "back channel" communication either. That's essentially how Obama got the ball rolling with Iran if memory serves.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

[/I]

I thought the objective WAS to get the Crimea back to the Ukraine even back when Barry was prez, and that Barry would have removed the sanctions in that event. So wasn't JK simply restating policy? Nothing new about "back channel" communication either. That's essentially how Obama got the ball rolling with Iran if memory serves.

You're either slow on the uptake or deliberately mischaracterizing the first article. The first article involved the Trump administration acquiescing to Russian occupation of Crimea, not compelling Russia to give it back to Ukraine (Obama's policy).

As for the second article, all administrations have had a backchannel to Iran (via the Swiss government and their embassy in Iran) because we have no diplomatic mission (front channel) there. We do, however, have diplomatic relations and formal "front channel" communications with Russia. Moreover, when Flynn and Kushner were working on creating this back channel, they were not representing the American government (i.e., the American government was led by Obama at the time).

I often wonder if you even understand what you're typing or you're just repeating right-wing obfuscation of such issues.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You're either slow on the uptake or deliberately mischaracterizing the first article. The first article involved the Trump administration acquiescing to Russian occupation of Crimea, not compelling Russia to give it back to Ukraine (Obama's policy).

As for the second article, all administrations have had a backchannel to Iran (via the Swiss government and their embassy in Iran) because we have no diplomatic mission (front channel) there. We do, however, have diplomatic relations and formal "front channel" communications with Russia. Moreover, when Flynn and Kushner were working on creating this back channel, they were not representing the American government (i.e., the American government was led by Obama at the time).

I often wonder if you even understand what you're typing or you're just repeating right-wing obfuscation of such issues.

I think whell realized long ago that he can't engage like he wants if he argues only when he has a 'good' argument. Instead he has honed skills that enable him to make do without good arguments.

What he understands is therefore to a large extent unknowable, and to a large extent irrelevant.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Yea! The "they're guilty" train continues to roll on the left - bound tracks fueled with your vivid imagination and plenty of "no-evidence" coal.

Everyone knows that trains are run on diesel, silly goose.

As to Trump's merry band of Putinistas led by disgraced former general Flynn, AG Jeffbo Sessions and Plenipotentiary son in law Jared? Time will tell, my friend but there are storm clouds are on the horizon and there are rough seas ahead.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You're either slow on the uptake or deliberately mischaracterizing the first article. The first article involved the Trump administration acquiescing to Russian occupation of Crimea, not compelling Russia to give it back to Ukraine (Obama's policy).

As for the second article, all administrations have had a backchannel to Iran (via the Swiss government and their embassy in Iran) because we have no diplomatic mission (front channel) there. We do, however, have diplomatic relations and formal "front channel" communications with Russia. Moreover, when Flynn and Kushner were working on creating this back channel, they were not representing the American government (i.e., the American government was led by Obama at the time).

I often wonder if you even understand what you're typing or you're just repeating right-wing obfuscation of such issues.

Pretty hard to "obfuscate" when you pull a quote directly from the article, albeit one buried pretty deep in the article.

As to your second point, Obama contacted Iran before taking office, while the government was lead by Bush at the time). And he had plenty of meetings with other country's officials during the transition. So what's your point?

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I think whell realized long ago that he can't engage like he wants if he argues only when he has a 'good' argument. Instead he has honed skills that enable him to make do without good arguments.

What he understands is therefore to a large extent unknowable, and to a large extent irrelevant.

Speaking of irrelevant, how have ya been Donny?