Classified reports have ‘damning evidence’ of Trump campaign’s coordination with Russ

[HisArpy]

No, with some nations. George Washington felt the same way only more so.



American isolationism did not cause them and non-isolationism would not have prevented them.



Of course they are. It is formal alliance which commits America to defend an ally and precludes circumstantial case-by-case treatment; friendly non-alliance keeps options opens and allows case-by-case treatment. I want friendly American relations with Cuba, but I don't want America to defend its Communist regime unless it is against something even worse, like a fascist or theocratic movement.

This actually illustrates my point. You think locally when trying to describe global events.

AMERICAN isolationism would not have stopped WWI or WWII. However, EUROPEAN isolationism allowed it to occur.

Non-formal alliances mean that whomever's butt is in the hot seat decides who our friends are and who isn't. Not based on need or events but on political expedience.

A political dove will allow atrocities in the name of preventing war. A hawk will create excuses for war in order to use the powers he has if there is political will behind it. Neither is good for a nation or it's people because it sows distrust in the commitment policies of the nation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

AMERICAN isolationism would not have stopped WWI or WWII. However, EUROPEAN isolationism allowed it to occur.

There was never any such thing as European isolationism. The important combatants in both world wars had global colonial empires, even the USSR if we define "colonial empire" broadly.

Non-formal alliances . . .

I'm not talking about those.

. . . mean that whomever's butt is in the hot seat decides who our friends are and who isn't.

Exactly, and as it should be.

Not based on need or events but on political expedience.

There is no difference between the two.

A political dove will allow atrocities in the name of preventing war. A hawk will create excuses for war in order to use the powers he has if there is political will behind it. Neither is good for a nation or it's people because it sows distrust in the commitment policies of the nation.

Somewhat partially true, but irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[HisArpy]

*shrug* We believe differently. It's part of the reason why I don't sell used cars.

 

[KingOrfeo]

*shrug* We believe differently. It's part of the reason why I don't sell used cars.

What, you couldn't sell one to someone with different politics?! And if you're talking about honesty, certainly your politics are no more honest than mine, quite the reverse.

 

[renard_ruse]

How can there be "damning evidence" over something that's not illegal or wrong in the first place?

http://rs478.pbsrc.com/albums/rr150/tongan321/picard-facepalm.png~c200

 

[HisArpy]

What, you couldn't sell one to someone with different politics?! And if you're talking about honesty, certainly your politics are no more honest than mine, quite the reverse.

I never said (or intimated) that my politics were honest.

What I said was that we believe differently.

 

[Hard_Rom]

*Trumps lawyer is also representing Sber Bank, Russia biggest state owned bank, in federal court.*

http://www.metro.us/president-trump/trump-lawyer-marc-e-kasowitz-represents-sberbank

Trump, who on the campaign trail promised Americans they would be "tired of winning" with a Trump administration, has not experienced that kind of fatigue with Kasowitz's representation. In 2006, Kasowitz filed a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the author of the book "TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald," which reported that Trump's net worth was $250 million, less than the $10 billion Trump claimed. (The lawsuit was dismissed, and Trump lost on appeal.)

Last year, Kasowitz threatened to sue The New York Times after it published three pages of Trump's tax returns and a story about women who claimed the president sexually assaulted them, if the Times did not retract the story. The Times did not. Kasowitz also assisted in defending Trump against fraud claims involving Trump University, which Trump settled for $25 million shortly before Inauguration Day.

 

[magicalmoments]

What makes an alliance "morally repellent"?

We use our alliances as footprints to show that we have a presence in those areas. We use our alliances as stepping stones to ensure that our military has a place to land or launch from. We use our alliances as a port of safe haven for both military and civilians.

There is nothing "morally repellent" in those things. We are not taking advantage of anyone or any nation.

No material advantage? By being able to fly over Turkey in the event of need, having a base is Saudi Arabia to deploy troops, to port for liberty or fuel or supplies in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Israel we gain an advantage we don't have without the alliance.

All of these things have STRATEGIC material advantages. From preparatory for military actions, to patrolling against piracy, to peacekeeping, to aid in the event of a disaster.

So, tell me again why there is "no good reason" for having an alliance with a foreign nation?

That all sounds very imperialistic! That's morally repellent.

 

[VeraBad]

The important thing is to keep this in the news. Right now everyone is focused on Trump's healthcare failure. That distracts people from the real issue of collusion with Russia.

Comcast (NBC's parent company), Trump supporter and enemy of net neutrality, wants msnbc to be the next Fox News. Pay attention and stay focused.

 

[Rightguide]

Comcast (NBC's parent company), Trump supporter and enemy of net neutrality, wants msnbc to be the next Fox News. Pay attention and stay focused.

MSLSD will never be the next FOX News with a bunch of simpering liberal propagandists ignoring the real news.

 

[KingOrfeo]

How can there be "damning evidence" over something that's not illegal or wrong in the first place?

We know the Russians interfered in the election, and that was wrong and illegal; if the Trump campaign team cooperated with them, that was wrong and illegal too. It was illegal for Flynn to communicate with the Russian ambassador when he did and wrong for him to lie about it. If Trump tried to discourage the FBI from investigating any of this, that was wrong and illegal; if he fired Comey for that purpose, that was wrong and illegal (and quite incredibly stupid). But, more importantly than any of that, as Douglas Blackmon writes in billmoyers.com, if the Russians have this much influence in the WH, that is a great deal worse than wrong and illegal, that is a serious threat to national security and to our government's credibility.

 

[Rightguide]

We know the Russians interfered in the election, and that was wrong and illegal; if the Trump campaign team cooperated with them, that was wrong and illegal too. It was illegal for Flynn to communicate with the Russian ambassador when he did and wrong for him to lie about it. If Trump tried to discourage the FBI from investigating any of this, that was wrong and illegal; if he fired Comey for that purpose, that was wrong and illegal (and quite incredibly stupid). But, more importantly than any of that, as Douglas Blackmon writes in billmoyers.com, if the Russians have this much influence in the WH, that is a great deal worse than wrong and illegal, that is a serious threat to national security and to our government's credibility.

More uninformed bullshit.

 

[KingOrfeo]

More uninformed bullshit.

How so? Every word is true.

 

[Rightguide]

How so? Every word is true.

"It was illegal for Flynn to communicate with the Russian ambassador"

I already told you is wasn't illegal for Flynn or any other American to talk to the Russian ambassador.

 

[KingOrfeo]

"It was illegal for Flynn to communicate with the Russian ambassador"

I already told you is wasn't illegal for Flynn or any other American to talk to the Russian ambassador.

Than why did he offer to testify in exchange for immunity?

 

[HisArpy]

We know the Russians interfered in the election, and that was wrong and illegal; if the Trump campaign team cooperated with them, that was wrong and illegal too. It was illegal for Flynn to communicate with the Russian ambassador when he did and wrong for him to lie about it. If Trump tried to discourage the FBI from investigating any of this, that was wrong and illegal; if he fired Comey for that purpose, that was wrong and illegal (and quite incredibly stupid). But, more importantly than any of that, as Douglas Blackmon writes in billmoyers.com, if the Russians have this much influence in the WH, that is a great deal worse than wrong and illegal, that is a serious threat to national security and to our government's credibility.

Total and absolute fail.

We DO NOT "know" the Russians "interfered" with the election. What we know is that some intelligence reports suggest that a Russian hacking group hacked the DNC server and gave it to Wikileaks who published it online. There is NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION between that and the election results. it is CONFIRMED that no votes were changed or totals altered in the election.

We also know that, even if they did communicate with the Russians, that is NOT "illegal".

Nor is Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador "illegal".

There is NO EVIDENCE that Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation (as of yet). Or that his firing of Comey had anything to do with the investigation. It's all pure speculation at this point by people who have NO EVIDENCE of anything. In fact, Comey's refusal to testify may indicate that HIS VERSION of events (via the memo) MAY NOT BE truthful.

Finally, some journalist with a Trump hard on writes some propaganda about how the Russians have influence in the white house and you take that as FACT without proof?

 

[HisArpy]

Than why did he offer to testify in exchange for immunity?

United States Constitution, Amendment the Fifth. Copyright 1787. All rights reserved.

 

[KingOrfeo]

United States Constitution, Amendment the Fifth, Copyright 1776, all rights reserved.

That has nothing to do with immunity deals; and the Constitution dates from no earlier than 1787 and the BoR later.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I don't think this is a forum where any government would plant leaks, so most of us just know what we get from the media.

'Plant leaks...'

I guess I can understand that in the mind of many people the government 'might plant leaks' or possibly want to 'plant leaks.' These wouldn't be actual 'leaks' though, would they - they would be 'planted narratives.'

As far as I thought, 'leaks' were when people inside government released information they were not meant to.

A 'leaker' is a bad guy. Unless he/she is thinking of themselves as a whistleblower who has decided the usual internal systems are not being effective.

 

[HisArpy]

That has nothing to do with immunity deals; and the Constitution dates from no earlier than 1787 and the BoR later.

HA HA HA HA HA.....!

The Fifth Amendment exists to protect people from being forced to testify, or admit, to criminal behavior. You think testimony before Congress on the record is exempt?

Au contraire.

People have been convicted and imprisoned for saying just a few wrong words before Congress. Flynn, being the current target for the zealots in DC is smart for refusing to testify without immunity.

**edited to note that I changed the copyright date of the Constitution in my original post**

 

[slutindianwife]

amazing

 

[KingOrfeo]

We DO NOT "know" the Russians "interfered" with the election.

That is one thing we do know. There is absolutely no reasonable doubt remaining on that point.

There is NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION between that and the election results. it is CONFIRMED that no votes were changed or totals altered in the election.

That is irrelevant. They did interfere illegally regardless of whether they interfered effectually.

We also know that, even if they did communicate with the Russians, that is NOT "illegal".

Of course it was, if that communication involved collusion with the Russian's efforts; it makes them accessories, and guilty of criminal conspiracy.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation (as of yet). Or that his firing of Comey had anything to do with the investigation.

Of course there is. We know he tried to talk Comey into blocking the Flynn investigation and the Russia investigation; we know he fired Comey and, based not only on Comey's notes but Trump's own brag to the Russians, we know why.

Finally, some journalist with a Trump hard on writes some propaganda about how the Russians have influence in the white house and you take that as FACT without proof?

Blackmon wrote:

No, this is an investigation about one thing: the now-undeniable fact that a Russian espionage conspiracy accomplished an objective that has never previously occurred in American history — compromising the highest levels of US government, penetrating the White House, establishing influence and leverage over the president’s national security adviser and planting false information with the vice president of the United States — who then, wittingly or unwittingly, repeated those fictions to the American people.

And all of that is now undeniable.

 

[hashtag34]

amazing

I don't mean in an offensive way - on the contrary, I think you're quite a character.
But your name and av crack me up!
Plus the way you keep occasionally cruising the uptight and n00b- unfriendly GB, and your tongue - in cheeks.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

This person 'KingOrfeo' is quite inspiring.

He speaks with a great passion on behalf of vast swathes of outrageous and silly propaganda.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

This person 'KingOrfeo' is quite inspiring.

He speaks with a great passion on behalf of vast swathes of outrageous and silly propaganda.