|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
06-11-2017, 09:41 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
06-11-2017, 10:46 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sierras
Posts: 14,209
|
|
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.
__________________
White Christian Nationalism:
Freedom for us, order for everyone else, and violence for those who transgress.
|
06-11-2017, 10:54 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 06-11-2017 at 12:28 PM.
|
06-11-2017, 11:15 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sierras
Posts: 14,209
|
|
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.
__________________
White Christian Nationalism:
Freedom for us, order for everyone else, and violence for those who transgress.
|
06-11-2017, 11:52 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
06-11-2017, 12:40 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
06-11-2017, 01:11 PM
|
|
Ready
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,170
|
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
|
06-11-2017, 01:32 PM
|
|
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,228
|
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
|
06-12-2017, 06:51 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
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?
|
06-12-2017, 06:54 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
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?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 AM.
|