Why is Trump not doing anything about the Russians meddling.

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 56 discussions (211 posts)
  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 9 months ago

    With all of Trump's  Intel agencies testifying before congress that the Russians meddled in the Presidential election, he has done nothing to prevent this from happening in the future. I cannot imagine any past POTUS ignoring this threat to our country. I realize he doesn't want to bring attention to this subject, but this is a real threat to our election system.

    It's known Russian has also meddled in the French elections and even the Brexit vote. How do you feel about the problem?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I am disturbed that our president chooses to believe Putin over his intelligence professionals. I am bothered that our president will readily attack fellow Americans like John McCain but will say nary a negative word about Putin. And, yes, it is highly disturbing that he has taken no actions to protect the integrity of future elections.

      I do hope that the good men and women in our intelligence agencies are doing what they can on their own.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        "... but will say nary a negative word about Putin."

        ?? And yet, when he says bad things about Kim everybody shushes him as trying to cause a war.  How does that work?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Who is "everybody"? I'm who you are replying to and I've never complained once about what Trump says about Kim.

          It's not relevant to the point, anyway. Something is off. Why does our president believe Putin over our own intelligence professionals? Why does a a guy who readily insults his allies go out of his way to flatter Putin?

          1. Paul Winngert profile image60
            Paul Winngertposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Putin is tRump's "daddy".

        2. Sharlee01 profile image88
          Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I have one Question. What would you have Trump do? It is funny you do not ask the same question but ask why Obama did nothing?  It may be time you realize, hacking is not something that can easily be stopped or we most certainly would have stopped it many years ago. Trump can not be blamed for the out of control hacking that is prevalent around the world.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Our Intel is the best, Pretty Panther! It's sad the right has resorted to attacking them, as well as. trying to blame the media for Trump's misadventures. The first thing a dictator does is to shut down the press!!

      3. dianetrotter profile image69
        dianetrotterposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        I'm following a discussion that indicates that possibly Russian money has been involved in the elections of several people.  No one questioned Julie (?) Stein about why she was sitting at the table with Flynn ... in Russia.  Now they are.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Have you all not been listening to the intelligence committee , the Mueller team ?THERE IS NO TRUMP / RUSSIAN COLLUSION to date ,    No I expect not .  It would take a Russian invasion to convince the left that Trump loves America more , even than the left HERE does !    Foreign influence in elections ?   Foreign money in politics?

          Look....... only as far as your Clinton's !

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Fox News watchers probably don't know this and/or think it's more fake news, Diane. Watch for more Fox Talking Points from the cons.

          Meanwhile, Trump Jr. cannot keep his mouth shut and is asking for trouble. Reminds me of someone...

          The nut doesn't fall far from the tree....

          1. dianetrotter profile image69
            dianetrotterposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            It's amazing how polarizing this is.  The congressional group that is investigating the investigation is something I never heard of before.  Don't those investigations have to be approved.  Are they doing it in their spare time?  Why can't it be part of the ongoing investigation.

            sigh

        3. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Do you mean like Jill Stein ? Hilary Clinton ?

    2. GA Anderson profile image81
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Hi there Randy. Let's see if we can agree on what the known Russian meddling was. It would make it easier to offer an answer to your question.

      I know that there are suspected, and, claimed, collusion charges, but to date there is no accepted proof of that. The other meddling that I have seen in the news is the Russian's, (or pro-Russian actors), use of Social Media, fake blog posts, fake "news" articles, and agenda driven advertising - by both humans and bots. There seems to be general acceptance of the "facts" of the latter. Is that the meddling you are speaking of?

      If you are speaking of the suspected, claimed, and in some cases documented hacking attempts - then, from what I have read, our cyber security efforts in governmental, military, and private enterprises has been, or is being,  ramped up  to combat these activities.

      So, what is the Russian meddling you are talking about?

      It's hard to talk about why the President isn't doing something about something, without knowing what that something is.

      GA

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Hey GA, I was speaking about the known meddling, internet propaganda, and the like. Trump hasn't made the prevention of such a priority before the next elections in 2018. There is a noticeable lack of effort on his part to acknowledge it happened at all.

        If nothing else, this is making him appear guilty of colluding with the Russians when any past POTUS would be on the attack against them for simply trying.

        1. GA Anderson profile image81
          GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I am glad to hear that Randy. I think that would be a  good discussion.

          I have read about some of the identified pro-Russian efforts - and some of the Google and Facebook measures to combat them. My first thoughts concerned censorship. I have heard tales, (and my shallow knowledge regards them as no more than tales), of Google, Facebook and Twitter filtering.of some types of pro-Russian publications. And in Google's case, some search results censoring.

          Of course killing bot publishments makes easy sense, but I must wonder how any other banning or censoring could pass legal muster. For instance, and a wide instance I hope it is... what if I truly believed some U.S. activity was bad for my nation, and some Russian perspective was the correct way to address it. Should I be banned from publishing a website about it, or have Google decide not to show my site in search listings?

          What about those full-page political newspaper ads paid for by private citizens, (or groups)? Would a group of Russians be barred from buying one? A group of Russian U.S. citizens?

          See where I am going with this... just what would you expect our president do?

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            May I offer a suggestion of what Trump could do? Have intelligence and internet experts, and other relevant experts, work together to identity ways to protect us from foreign interference while also protecting our freedoms.  I don't have the expertise to evaluate and identify exactly what should be done. That is why we should let experts from all relevant fields work together to  figure it out and make recommendations.

            All that said, the question was, why hasn't Trump done anything to prevent future meddling, not what should he do.

            1. GA Anderson profile image81
              GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              PrettyPanther, you are right about the OP's question, but how can you expect an answer without knowing what the meddling is that the Op mentions?

              Even without the fanfare of some public proclamation, I would be very surprised if such actions as you mention haven't been pursued since the very first hint of "meddling."

              Would a JFK-type "To the Moon" speech do the job for the OP's question?

              GA

          2. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Smarter, and more internet savvy people than I, have suggested there's much we can do to prevent or somehow expose the Russian propaganda. I certainly do not wish we simply ignore the attacks, do you?

            1. GA Anderson profile image81
              GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Of course I don't want to ignore the issue Randy. But I don't want a broad brush censorship solution either.

              As I mentioned to PrettyPanther, and relative to what those savvy internet folks you refer to say - I expect that such actions are already being taken. And I don't think it takes a Presidential proclamation to legitimize those security functions.

              I don't think either of us can know what actions have or haven't been taken. I think some folks just want a speech or proclamation for the purposes of assurance.

              GA

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Okay, can you imagine a former president going against his Intel agencies or being sorry for suggesting "Russia probably had something to do with it" in a previous interview, GA? I realize you're trying to be objective in most of these discussions, but I think you're going above and beyond the call of duty on this one.

                1. GA Anderson profile image81
                  GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Randy, It would only be "beyond the call..." if you thought my comments were in defense of Pres. Trump. They weren't.

                  GA

                  1. profile image0
                    ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Ten - Twenty Million Dollars =Collusion Evidence ----0%
                    No wonder the left doesn't want a tax cut ?    That might end the waste in government spending .
                    We all know that the left actually IS government waste !

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    That would be odd for you GA, because you never take up for Trump. tongue

              2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Okay, you can "suspect" or even "assume" actions are already being taken Maybe they are, but Trump has made it clear he believes Putin when he says Russia did not meddle in our election. He also continues to malign and disparage his own intelligence agencies 

                What would make me happy? A serious speech by Trump acknowledging that his intelligence agencies uncovered the meddling, describing its scope (to the extent he can given security considerations), and outlining a plan to protect us from future meddling (again, to the extent he can).

                That would make me happy.

                1. GA Anderson profile image81
                  GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  PrettyPanther,. I think that would make quite a few people happy. Myself included.

                  Just because I don't believe our cyber security folks are sitting on their hands waiting for a presidential directive, or that I don't believe there is a presidential solution to my censorship concerns regarding dealing with Randy's defined meddling, doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome, or think it a proper reaction to expect, a word from our president that indicated he recognizes the problem.

                  GA

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    I might be going out on a shaky limb here, but I think we are in agreement.

                    Sorta? Kinda?  big_smile

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Could it be in the definition of "meddling"?  I ask because it took me a long time to understand that the TDS crowd included advertisements, comments and such as "meddling".  I assumed it meant voter fraud, improper vote counting as such, but it has come clear that that isn't even on the menu.  Just Russian (any Russian) comments about any part of the election that insinuated, however slightly, that Trump would make a better president.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Have you seen any of these comments, Dan? Are they all so innocuous as you think? So you don't think Russian propaganda directed by Putin himself on the net is bad for our country or elections? Get real, dude!

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Lol, I think you are intentionally misrepresenting what is commonly considered to be "meddling" to make it sound more trivial than it is. My hope is that when the investigation is complete we will have a clear picture of exactly what the Russians did.

          3. profile image60
            skyfallingyetposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            GA Anderson,

            5 days ago you ended your post saying: See where I am going with this... just what would you expect our president do?

            We have an answer already.  MSNBC'S host Chris Mathews interviewing
            Jon Heilemann said that the Trump people are saying that FBI, the press corp, anybody, the courts- that everybody is trying to overthrow the republic to get rid of the results of the 2016 election. Essentially that the public is trying to have a coup against him. Jon Heilmann says that this is dangerous talk that leads to stirring up violence.   Here is the link:    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-john … dangerous/

            1. GA Anderson profile image81
              GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Hi there skyfallingyet,

              My closing question; as you quoted, was directed to the demands that Pres. Trump do something about the Russian Social Media postings,

              Your link doesn't seem to address that point.

              GA

    3. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah, makes you wonder why the previous president did nothing when he was warned about it in 2014. 

      https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ … nce-241547

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        And he didn't get personally warned like Trump did from the previous POTUS.

    4. Sharlee01 profile image88
      Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Randy - First you are assuming our Homeland Security as well as the FBI are not doing anything about hacking. Do you think either organization is doing nothing ? Do you believe either would announce what they are doing to prevent hacking? I am sure you are aware hacking has been going on for many years. We hack other nations...  "I cannot imagine any past POTUS ignoring this threat to our country." Can you imagine why Obama did nothing or Bush? I am sure both did what could be done, as Trump is doing. 

      It is clear that Hacking is a big problem. I problem that will not be easy to solve.  It has not in any way been proved that Russian hacking  affected the vote.Yes, it's clear they put out  social media posts. But it is also clear that the Clinton's ran a very dirty campaign. I give the American people credit for seeing through both.  I voted for Trump,for one reason, his agenda. Clinton had no agenda....

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Trump doesn't trust the agencies you mentioned, Shar. He's said the FBI was in tatters and doesn't believe what they are telling him. He gets angry if anyone even mentions the hacking during his daily briefing so his staff puts the report in writing so it won't be brought up orally. You can't have it both ways, either he believes the news is fake or he already knows the truth himself.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Obstructionists don't know Hacking from Influencing  , Or they'd get a clue .

        2. Sharlee01 profile image88
          Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Hi Randy, He has made it very clear that he believes there are great problems with the FBI. have you been following the reports of clear bias with some of the agents? It very much appears there are problems within the FBI.  I have followed the different posts on Gov.org in regards to arrests on Russian hackers, in the past few months there has been two. This leads me to believe or hope Homeland Security and the FBI continue to do their best.  Trump has made many statement in regards to not "letting the other guy know hat we are doing".  It is very clear he does not feel it in our best interest to  tell the other guys what we are doing.   He certainly knows much more than we do about what is happening, as well as what id being done.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            As I stated Shar, Trump is giving mixed messages. He criticized the FBI on the way to Quantico and praised them at the speech. Mueller got rid of the offending agent when he heard about the emails. And besides that, most of the agents are republican, as is Mueller himself. Perhaps we need to have more democrats in the Mueller investigation and you wouldn't complain about that either, eh?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image88
              Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Actually  it has been well published that Mulliers team are mostly made up of Dem's, Dem's that donated to Hillary's campaign?  I don't think it fair to count them bias.  The one agent that was demoted certainly was a bad apple. In regards to Trump's comments on the FBI, with all the past weeks news on how they handled the Clinton email case. It's clear there is a problem within the FBI, starting with "Comey" on down. This is the mess Trump has been referring to.  He has stated hi support for th FBI in resent weeks, but did bad mouth the job of some. I think Mullier   is doing is job, his reputation proceeds him. I will trust he will be fair.  I await his outcome.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Give me a link to the political makeup of Mueller's team, Shar. If you have one, that is. smile

                1. Sharlee01 profile image88
                  Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Hi Randy,  Business Insider is a good source, and has an article that  gives good history of  the Muller team.  All fourteen are Dem's and many actually donated to the Democratic party for Obama and Clinton. As I stated, I don;t believe this team are all bias. But it does appear they could be due to being long time Democrats. It's a bit odd that there are non Republicans on his team?  I again will reiterate, I  feel Muller"s reputation is good, and I am willing at this point to accept what he comes up with.  I have done a lot of research into Muller's team, some are very political, One worked for the Clinton Foundation. One has been life long friends with the Clinton's. You can see some would tend to see bias.  My own feeling is that this investigation is further dividing the country, and at the end of it all many won't be happy one way or the other.  If the result show nothing connecting Trump to the Russians, the Dem's will not accept it. On he other hand if the opposite ha[pens, and  there is evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, many Rep won't except it...  Due to feeling the investigation showed bias.  I feel the sooner this is over the better one way or the other.
                  Here is the link you requested.  http://www.businessinsider.com/lawyers- … -dreeben-1

                  1. profile image0
                    ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Sharlee , of what I've read, any investigative group of sixteen lawyers that has individually donated $63,000 to Dems and only $2,700 to Republicans and has worked on Clinton 's team is already polluted !

                    Fire them all Trump.

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Thanks for the link, Shar. Although it didn't really go into why this group is against Trump as you claimed.

    5. Ewent profile image85
      Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Trump's constant phone calls every week to Putin are collusion with a known US adversary. He has never spoken to any other world leader as often. Why?

      The US cannot condone the murders, assassins and poisonings Putin ordered on 21 journalists, nor his marching in Chechin territory to take control of it like he is doing in the Ukraine.

      When Putin rigged his own election, Russians, always the revolutionaries in their own history, photographed piles of their ballots hidden in polling place bathrooms, ballots shoved into ballot boxes before polls opened or polling clerks using erasable pens to change ballots, all caught on cell phone cameras that went viral.

      Putin blamed Hillary and Obama for outing him rigging his election. Their only statement back in 2012 was what at least 7 of the last presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have said, "The people deserve to have their voices heard." If you have a problem with that, you condone silencing voters and allowing election rigging to become the ONLY method by which a party in power continues to win?

      That is why Trump won't put those sanctions in place on Russia. Neither will the Republicans. They NEED to keep their party in power. They can't do it by popular vote as the 2016 election proved. So they do it by deleting voting districts like in TX, VA and NC or they overlap Dem voters into GOP districts to increase the number of Electoral College votes. The SC is calling that "extreme gerrymandering."

      The reality of Trump's collusion with Putin goes back to Trump's deal to build a hotel in Azerbajan with the help of the notorious Russian crime family, the Mammadovs. Trump is a wheeler dealer albeit not very successful at it. He really is "not" the billionaire he claims to be. Ergo his need to pass the tax legislation that will earn him $2 billion a year and make inherited Trump profits tax free to his kids for the next 5 generations.

      Is this what the Founding Fathers intended? A Republican Party as guilty as Trump of election meddling with Russian help?

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        You sure can go on with the Russian propaganda  , you sure you're not in collusion with Russia  ? That's certainly the spook story of the decade .To date ;  Not ONE illegal iota  of Trump  collusion ! But the left already has him convicted .  What an alternative reality that you live in .

        I disproved all that in one paragraph.

    6. moviesreviews profile image74
      moviesreviewsposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      With all of the intelligence that America possesses,wouldn't it be the intelligence communities fault for not intercepting the Russians from meddling with the Election.

      When America meddles with other elections like out in Iraq, it is not as big of a story here in the U.S.

      This is just cold war propaganda. Back in the 60's America was truly afraid of the Russians and Communism taking over the world. Two of the biggest countries in the world are communists. Usually what starts wars are Land, Money, and Resources... Not elections. I doubt we truly have anything to worry about unless we have a new resource or something that people need.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        So all of the intel agencies are lying then? If so, then why, and to what end? Do you have anything to support your views?

        Which two countries are you referring to, as I hope you don't mean Russia and China as they've changed their views on capitalism in the past few decades, Bill.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          What Intel agencies say that the Russians manually Interfered in our election , by effecting one vote , other than by B.S. propaganda that the left sucks up like a hoover vacuum cleaner .  Where are the  Russian altered  voting machines ? What election ballots were switched ?  Other than supplying those like your alt-left  with Face --Book adds and your "Big Bad Wolf" crayon political mentality that is ?

          You got Flynn and maybe one more for lying to an FBI  interviewer .......ah , that's about it .

  2. Angel Guzman profile image88
    Angel Guzmanposted 9 months ago

    Why would he? He won and clearly has no integrity. Its a damn shame it happened but we deserved it all the bad we did installing leaders we wanted decades ago. Nevertheless this hurt sad

  3. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    Does Trump do anything or make any policy that isn't self-serving?

  4. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Wow , there's  a ton of foreign intelligence going on HERE , don't anyone under fifty read a history book anymore ?    The Russian and the western world including America have had ongoing clandestine operations against each other from almost America's beginning ,  the U.S and the USSR  against each other , both countries against other countries   ,  both nations inside each others countries ,   You guys need to sit down and watch Charlie Wilson's War , you need to review --or begin to learn anything about the Cuban missile crisis , Viet-Nam ,  Korea ,  WWII , .........

    Are you guys so shallow  that your first clue of Russian intervention in clandestine operations against the US is the Obama's / Clinton's and Uranium one ? 

    A clue , there was an entire world of history before you graduated  high school . It didn't all happen because CNN told you Trump lied !

    Jees! Shut off your "smart phones " and read a book , people.

  5. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Putin has become the "Big Bad Wolf " only since the Clinton loss   And only to an entire and completely uninformed generation of liberal voters .

    Interesting that the Clinton's had such deep ties to Putin though ?

    Liberals , need to read a history book !

  6. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 9 months ago

    Notice the pro-Trump posters do not address the question of why Trump isn't doing anything to protect our future elections and simply try to distract and blame Obama and the Clintons. Try again. guys!

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Perhaps he figures precedent has been set, normal operations are the way to go, at least for the time being, so copies the actions of prior presidents?  Isn't that they way of conservatives - no change from past practices?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, I'm certain that's it, Dan. It's not like Trump to do anything differently than past presidents. tongue

  7. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    Ahorseback, there you go again spouting false information.  The Magnitsky Act was put in place back in 2012.  That's long before this past election.  Putin was the "Big Bad Wolf" for much longer than you care to admit.  So when you try to lecture us liberals on history, try and have some accurate information yourself.

    1. GA Anderson profile image81
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I agree with you Valeant, Russia has been a cyber threat for a lot longer than the Obama administration. I recall reading that they created a specific Cyber Operations Division/Directorate - as well funded and prioritized as their entire human espionage divisions - back in 1995.

      But I am wondering what point you want to make with the Magnitsky Act reference?

      GA

  8. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 9 months ago

    New York Times-Obama lied 18 times in 8 years.  Trump lied 103 times in his first 10 months in office.  lol

  9. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    That was in reference to the claim that Putin has only become the "Big Bad Wolf" since the Clinton loss, as AHorseback claimed.

    1. GA Anderson profile image81
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Got it. And speaking to that same reference of "reading-up on history," I would recommend a Google search about that Russian special Cyber division I mentioned. As I recall, the information was about the Russians making a conscious decision to focus their main "action" efforts in the cyber realm.

      That was 20+ years ago. There shouldn't be any surprise that their efforts to effect our elections have matured to the sophistication of the 2016 "meddling" being discussed.

      GA

  10. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    The Mueller Investigators are comprised of  a minimum of seven people who either worked   indirectly or directly for the Clinton's campaigns and /Or investigate Trump on his campaign  against Hilary .

    At the top level of these FBI , DOJ  investigators , they are supposed to VOLUNTARILY recuse themselves if the feel a political conflict of interest .    As partisan players on the Clinton ---Obama team . Surely they must" feel it "?Wrong !


    Trump , Fire Mueller now !

  11. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    I'd be happy if for the price of ten or fifteen million dollars someone could say more than  Mueller's ?
    "This guy lied to me ."
    Obstructionists Dreamers Unite !  Ten million dollars for one lie is politically profitable.

    No wonder liberals can't fiscally run anything .

  12. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 9 months ago

    Some unrealistic Trump fans do not understand investigations or how they work. It's not smart for an investigator to inform criminals about the case while it's being developed. Of course, Trump fans for the most part don't understand legal issues or the law.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      It is the entire personality of Trump obstructionists and your media to simply insinuate ,  false accuse , adjudicate by media broadcast , conduct trial by popular wish ,   Especially given the general political immaturity   and  ideological  evolution by age .

      I'm just glad that as our political age increases so do the majority of people  evolve to conservative thought .

      That say's it all .

  13. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    False would be spending the money and getting no convictions, which is what happens when conservatives run investigations against democrats.

    And again with the immaturity issue, while your side argues that Soros bussed 20,000 black people in to Alabama from Mississippi to help defeat Moore.  Yeah, that's pretty mature.

  14. Kathleen Cochran profile image81
    Kathleen Cochranposted 9 months ago

    BECAUSE HE BENEFITED FROM IT.

  15. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    How shallow these politic  obstructionist's ,   Do any of you not realize that the presidents position , BY DESIGN , isn't well enough insulated  from ideological meddling as to place him so far above the operators of this supposed collusion and election "meddling " .
    AND SO the resulting impeachment possibilities.
     

    Sometimes I think each of these reasons for obstruction are surely originated by high school lightweights  ,    from Nixon's Watergate  , Clinton's perjury , sexual tryst's and escapades  ,  Obama's corruption in the State dept. , IRS , DOJ....etc.?,       How high do you on the left really believe these charges will reach towards Trump , his shadow?

    So far Flynn ? oh wow .............dream on.

  16. GA Anderson profile image81
    GA Andersonposted 9 months ago

    "Oh lordy..." (ala Comey) - It just dawned on me.

    You don't suppose folks are looking for a 2017-modified version of a Sedition Act do you?

    GA

  17. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    The absurdity of these threads is that if , IF The US did something about ANY foreign influence  over US 's  internal political policies , elections , media output ,   The arsenal  of atom bombs would have been dropped and depleted  how many times since the first ones  ?  England , France , Russia , China , Japan  ...........its very sophomoric politically to assume that Russian meddling is all that has happened .

    Of  course , Its just one more handful of crap thrown at the Trump Wall  to see if anything  .......................God ! Please Let anything ......Sooommmeeethhhiingg Stick !

    Do I smell the  scent of liberal desperation ?

  18. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    Chris Wray has donated over $50,000 to GOP campaigns.  Does this mean he should be fired as Director of the FBI?  Are you saying those that donate to campaigns can no longer set aside their politics to do their jobs?  Or should someone of Mexican heritage no be allowed to try cases involving race?  Because I thought we've gone down this discriminatory road before and it didn't end well for Trump supporters.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      How quickly a response to racism to the threat of firing Mueller ?
      Sick !

  19. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Of sixteen lawyers , 13 have donated , supported , worked for Clinton ,supported democratic causes or are voting democrats ?
    per......American Thinker.
    Fire them Trump.

  20. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    I'm simply drawing a comparison that you seem to feel that only those who support Trump, or look like Trump, can adequately sit in judgment of him and his campaign's actions.  Which makes no sense at all.

    Especially since every other independent counsel has come from the opposite party to those being investigated.  But since it's Trump, it must be bias if some of the lawyers are democrats. 

    Your partisan outrage, even though history is not on your side here, is laughable.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      And your lack of political knowledge and integrity is laughable , would you have a convicted  bank robber investigate a bank president for crimes ?

      By your reasoning ; Why don't we just let democrats investigate Trump , republicans  investigate Hilary ?  Wouldn't that make sense ?

    2. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Ha! I suppose only Trump fans should investigate him. What a joke some of these posters are!

  21. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Sharlee ,You must  be nice , we are still apparently dealing with Hilary guilters ,  they become quite sensitive at Trump defenders , after all apparently ,to them , we all have orange hair .

  22. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    You're defending the guy who endorsed a likely child molester and have the nerve to mention the word integrity.  That's rich.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I know this integrity thing escapes you and your kind  but I'd rather have a president that waits for the evidence from a court and not from the media ? Is there any way in the world that would make sense to you ?

      I didn't think so.

  23. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    The hypocrisy of that statement must elude you.  If he was so interested in waiting for evidence, he would let the Mueller investigation play itself out.  You don't even see how rose-colored your own statements are.  Wait with the child molester, pull the trigger on the election investigation.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      There is no Evidence of either's charges to date just the corruption of both investigations . Election , nothing ,Moore allegations only ...........All the Mueller investigation has shown so far is HOW corrupted the agents are ?

      The hypocrisy is yours not mine.

  24. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    Corrupted for having an opinion on what an idiot Trump is, or corrupted because they are from a different political party.  This country is becoming a fascist nation if only those from the ruling party are believed to be credible.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      How about this :
      Right as we speak a second special council is being advised by senate  oversight to investigate and move on the Strok e-mails , ... Now HE was instrumental with Comey in watering down and "adjusting " the whole Hilary e mail scandal to a "action " instead of a investigation , at the same time while WITH  the Obama administration conspiring with Obama administration  AND  the Hilary Campaign AGAINST--- Trumps campaign .

      Can you not see where your party corruption is headed ?

      Your  "credible and corrupted ruling party " was Obama / Clinton , Comey , Strok etc.......

      Watch what happens now.

  25. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Prediction ; the Trump people ARE  being investigated for Russian collusion ?  Shortly however the investigation will be expanded to include ALL collusion .
    -Obama
    -Clinton
    -Comey
    -Strok and asst. girlfriends ...........
    This was one active  Obama administration AGAINST a legitimate political campaign  .
    Treason.

    1. Valeant profile image98
      Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13828873.jpg

      A little Christmas humor in there.

  26. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 9 months ago

    Once again, in today's speech DT failed to mention the Russian meddling--which was mentioned in the documents--in our elections. Why is he so afraid of condemning Putin as all of our intelligent agencies know Putin is behind these cyber attacks? CIA operatives already have recorded orders from Putin himself during the online campaign to discredit Hillary and to help Trump win.

    Why is he avoiding confronting Putin? Perhaps it's because he admires Putin as  being wealthier and more powerful than he. Not to mention, Putin can simply kill anyone who criticizes him. This seems like it would appeal to The Don and his adherents.

    On the other hand, it may be due to a certain hold Putin has on Trump. Robert Mueller is looking at certain loans in Europe taken out by Trump, so we'll see.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Those that are so politically shallow understand  little about the diplomacy that likely goes on especially behind closed doors .     Admit it , You don't know what he's told the Russians

      Kind of leaves the  most successful diplomacy to real leaders. Not social workers like Obama.

  27. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    Because it's utterly puerile, made-up nonsense. Here you go: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-1 … nce-policy

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      You know when Mueller IS done , there had better be some serious a$$ kicking going on with the disastrous Obama -Mao regime ,   Every corruption known to politics in the last five decades lay in that administration , from one end of his deptartments to another . Lois Lerner , Loretta Lynch ,  Eric Holder , The  Emanual's ,The  Podesta's , Hilary , where does it end ?

      I think Muellers people are  at least as corrupted , but  I also  believe there is always hope . Collusion ?  The Obama regime would make the Russian Mafia look a like girl scouts jamboree .

      I believe Trump will be exonerated .

    2. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Go ahead and believe these nonsense sites and Faux News, BH!  lol As my grandmother used to say, "It'll all come out in the wash."  tongue

      Did you even read the manifesto on the site you linked? Try again with a site not anonymous in nature or simply keep the crappy websites to yourself. It's your choice whether to be considered taken seriously.

  28. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Trump and Putin  and Face - Book  , And the left is now making this an "international incident "  , Somebody bring out the missiles ,  I am incredibly impressed with that ,    it is no wonder that the left is in such a political disarray in their DNC ,  house seats losses , party disassociation  . leadership loss.

    I just may switch to liberal voting ..............

  29. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    Come on over, we at least have clean drinking water.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      No , the difference in water quality is this  , liberals legislate with dreams of cleaner water , conservatives actually clean it .

      Much like the Paris Accords.

  30. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    Yeah, it worked out so well in Flint.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      That's democratic leadership for you .

      1. Valeant profile image98
        Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Except that it was an emergency manager appointed by GOP Governor Rick Snyder who made the decision to change the city's water supply to the Flint River.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Governors do not control local politics and water systems and you know that ,  lousy spending gluts  , antiquated democratic leadership does .


          Good example of out of control cities ? For the third time THIS WEEK  human organs were found in the Detroit sewage treatment plant waters , Is that then the distant Rep. Governors fault or the local Democratic" leadership's "?

          Silence ?

          1. Misfit Chick profile image73
            Misfit Chickposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            <snipped> Dems, the left, liberals, blah blah blah. <snipped> How's that for silence? LoL!

            1. Valeant profile image98
              Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Not silent, just busy basking in the sun in Florida.  Let me come back to you with some facts.

              The person who decided to use the river as a water source was one of a succession of emergency managers in Flint, Darnell Earley. Earley was appointed by Snyder under a controversial law that allows the governor to install managers whose power trumps that of elected officials.

              For nearly 50 years, the city bought its water from Detroit, which pumped it out of Lake Huron. But in 2013, the city voted to join a new pipeline being built to the lake, prompting Detroit to cancel its agreement. Rather than agree to a new short-term contract with Detroit, Earley decided to use the river that runs through the heart of the cash-strapped city. The state treasurer signed off on the move.

              The switch has been described as an effort to save money, but Flint’s water system hadn’t been a drain on the budget. In fact, the water paid for itself and then some, paying out about $1.5 million annually to the city’s general fund in the years leading up to the switch.

              1. profile image0
                ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                You still cannot blame a republican governor for such an ongoing local infrastructure issue , Yet in the Obama era , everyone could weaponize race or party politics for general purpose  AND did !   In fact ,no president  has ever racialized social issues as much as Obama AND his followers have .

                I would only agree that as governor , all ultimate blame ends up on his desk .  In spite of the horrible local political and in fact democratic oversight .

            2. profile image0
              ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Gee that's nice language , how about a fact and not a personal attack ?
              Isn't that a flaggable offense ?

              1. Valeant profile image98
                Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                You do realize that by generalizing and saying all liberals are inferior, that that can be construed as a personal attack too?  Which you do in almost every post.

                1. profile image0
                  ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  No  , politics isn't personal , it's politics .  it's  Only the left that turns politics personal  with the entire collective attacks against any opinion not of their design ,   Pointing out large or small group political hypocrisy isn't personal , especially just because you don't like it .

                  When's the last time you saw republicans ?
                  -burn police cruisers
                  -destroy store fronts
                  -shoot at a cop
                  -stage a "scream in "
                  -scream "pigs in a blanket "
                  -burn American flags
                  -stop highway traffic

  31. profile image60
    skyfallingyetposted 9 months ago

    Isn't totally not following the rules the same as a collapse?

  32. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    The couple of comments about Jill Stein being investigated for possible "Russian connections" are excellent examples of the puerility of just about all of these allegations. "What has brought Russiagate to Jill Stein? The answer is that she attended the 10th Anniversary RT dinner in Moscow as did the notorious 'Russian collaborator' US General Michael Flynn."

    We are to believe that attending an event located somewhere in Russia, conversing with a Russian diplomat (that's what we have foreign embassies for, BTW, so that "our people" can talk with "their people), engaging in a commercial transaction with a Russian entity, or even just talking with a Russian, or talking with someone who talked with a Russian apparently warrants investigation.

    During the past year, I considered ordering some of those Russian piping tips, used for piping cake icing. Good thing I decided I wasn't all that interested in piping!

    Paul Craig Roberts explains his decision not to accept a couple of invitations to attend events in Russia and Kazakhstan: "What is for sure is that if I accept these invitations, the US Establishment will discredit my voice when I write about US/Russia relations. Indeed, that was the intention of the PropOrNot Washington Post story that attacked 200 truth-tellers as Russian agents/dupes....I, too, was invited to RT’s 10th Anniversary celebration in Moscow....But I learned in time that the event was conferences and speeches and decided to forego a Moscow winter. Otherwise I would be in the dock with Trump, Flynn, and Jill Stein and whomever the Washington Gestapo settles on next....How much longer can I give interviews to Russian and Iranian media before the Washington Gestapo gives me a midnight knock on my door. Whatever America is, it is not a free country."

    The Left would have us believe that mere travel to Russia or merely speaking with a Russian is, in itself, a criminal activity. Perhaps unfortunately for them, this notion is more than a bit of a stretch. But it appears to be all they've got.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-2 … -americans

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Absolutely ,  Another important point , in our military upper echelon's for decades ,  officers and political diplomats have traveled to Russia and participated in  cross diplomacy  thereby improving post cold war relations .

      It's only a new thing and a shallow charge  from the left , this "collusion " mentality ,   What the hell does the left think ended the cold war to begin with ?  Perestroika , Glasnost , "Tear down this wall " , Reagan was instrumental in changing US Russian relations forever ,  opening political and  military relations from the dangers of the Cold War.

      The problem today is ; The conservatives lead in diplomacy and the left not only follows but sabotages so much diplomatic progress !

      1. Valeant profile image98
        Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        When 128 nations vote against us and only seven with us, that's some great diplomatic progress right there.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          One more reason to financially exit the U.N. stage right ,  The sitting representative  government officials aren't well representative of OPEN political statements  ! Meaning if they 'openly' support Israel , they  suffer 'open' hostility from her too numerous enemies  . Your "left "ideology  should get a grip on silent and secret diplomatic behavior , especially of that habit in the UN.

  33. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    James Kunstler's summary of the original accusations against Mike Flynn:

    "This is what it comes down to: General Mike Flynn, designated National Security Advisor, conferred with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak after the 2016 election about two pressing matters: a vote in the UN orchestrated against Israel, and sanctions imposed against Russia by outgoing President Obama on December 28, two weeks before the inauguration. Both these matters could be viewed as bits of mischief designed deliberately to create foreign policy problems for the incoming administration.

    "Flynn’s discussions with Ambassador Kislyak amounted to what are called 'back channel talks.' These informal, probing communications occur all the time and everywhere in American foreign policy, especially the transitional months every four or eight years when a new president comes in. They are necessarily secret because they concern issues of high sensitivity. Every incoming presidential staff in my lifetime (going back to Dwight Eisenhower) has conducted back-channel talks with foreign diplomats in order to directly assess where things stand, minus public posturing and bloviating.

    "And so that is what Mike Flynn did, as incoming National Security Advisor, after an eight-year run of worsening relations with Russia under Obama that Trump publicly pledged to improve. And now he’s been charged with lying to the FBI about it. Which raises some enormous and troubling questions well beyond the simple charge, questions that suggest a US government at war against itself.

    "For instance, why exactly might Mike Flynn lie about his discussions with Kislyak? That ought to be self-evident as per what I said above: back channel talks are necessarily secret. But why not let Vice-president Pence or the FBI in on it? As for Pence, not all government officials are in-the-loop for back channel talks for the excellent reason that the fewer people involved the less chance of the talks becoming un-secret.

    "And the FBI? Why, in December of 2016, might Trump and his aides consider the FBI to be an unreliable agency? Because they knew that officials in the FBI under Director James Comey had politicized the agency in favor of his opponent in the election; that the agency had misbehaved in the Clinton e-mail investigation, the meeting at the Phoenix airport between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the Christopher Steele Russian intel file affair. We don’t know whether, at that point, Trump and his staff knew about the FBI’s conduct in the Uranium One deal. But there was plenty of evidence that the permanent bureaucracy of Washington wanted to use a politicized FBI against Trump in any way that it could to get rid of him.

    "And over the weekend, news comes out that Peter Strzok, the top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of collusion between Russia and Trump officials, had been removed from the probe after exchanging anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress, who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. This information was concealed from the congressional oversight committee that had formally subpoenaed emails from the FBI all year long, only to be stonewalled by the agency. So, now the committee is threatening contempt citations against the current FBI Director, Christopher Fry and Rod Rosenstein, his deputy."

    Kunstler's rather bland statement that, "But there was plenty of evidence that the permanent bureaucracy of Washington wanted to use a politicized FBI against Trump in any way that it could to get rid of him," SHOULD inspire outrage.

    What this amounts to is a bunch of government employees (private citizens) working actively to try to overthrow a duly elected president. The right name for such activity is subversion and treason, and indicates utter contempt for the will of the people of the US, democratic elections, and the electoral process.

    http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/what-now-3/

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      So, what about Flynn lying about being a registered agent for a foreign country at the same time he was NSA? And no one can lie to the FBI as if they were above the law, BH. I checked out the link and the guy who wrote the piece has no political experience at all. Just like you, I'd imagine.

      And Flynn knew he was breaking the law as he'd been involved in the Govt. too many years to feign ignorance. Even when Trump was informed of Flynn being compromised by the Russians, Trump waited almost two weeks--weeks when Flynn was still allowed to sit in on secret intel meetings--before the moron fired him. Put the spin on that, BH!

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Trump fired Flynn didn't he ?   I'm sure before he even had a desk at the white house .
        Of course facts cannot ever be used by the left , Most liberal writers here and their talents arise  from writing  children's story books , Is it ten no wonder they're  so good at fantasy politics too  ?

        1. Valeant profile image98
          Valeantposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13835828.jpg

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Wow...........that's so .....well brilliant........ .

            Is that all you got ?

          2. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Ha! Now you're getting smart, Val! lol

  34. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    Now, re that "permanent bureaucracy" and "politicized FBI" wanting to get rid of Trump at any cost--including criminalizing themselves--one may naturally wonder WHY?

    I believe Hillary Clinton summed up the answer to this very well when she ranted to her staff about how, if Trump won the election, "we'll all hang from nooses!" Washington's "permanent bureaucracy" was counting on Hillary's election to keep their own crimes hidden, as well as Hillary's.

    Another reason of almost equal importance is that the MIC wants war with Russia, or at the very least a repeat of the Cold War.

    If our Leftist friends commenting here had ever examined the actual facts of the accusations and so far engaged their brains as to consider whether there is any rational basis to them, and if they were to consider the level of criminal and treasonous activity of prior administrations and their sycophants, I would assume they could figure this out.

    I am forced to charitably assume that they have no acquaintance with the facts and that they are strangers to consecutive thought, let alone rational thought.

  35. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    Re the expectation that Flynn be registered as a foreign agent, I would be interested in an explanation as to why this is an issue.

    "Dan Pickard, a partner at Wiley Rein and an expert in the Foreign Agents Registration Act, under which Flynn registered, said it is unusual but not unheard of for a senior campaign official to also be registered as an agent of a foreign government.

    “ 'I’ve been aware of people who are registered under FARA being involved at relatively senior levels of a campaign, but in my experience that’s more the exception than the rule,'’ said Pickard, adding that the legal burden of complying with FARA 'is relatively modest.’

    "FARA was passed in the run-up to World War II as a means of making pro-Germany activists acknowledge whether they were receiving financial support from that country."

    To me this appears to be a non-issue based on legal hair-splitting. Had there been reason to believe that Flynn's activities were detrimental to US interests, the FBI would have gone after him for that. As far as I can tell, Flynn was not engaged in anything illegal or detrimental to US interests, or even particularly uncommon.

    The determination as to whether one is required to register as a foreign agent is a matter that requires expert legal advice. As Sean Spicer put it, "The burden is on the individual to seek the legal advice or professional expertise to decide what they have to file and not....It’s not up to the transition attorney to go through someone’s livelihood and determine what they need to seek,” Spicer said. “They were given the proper legal advice at the time, which was to seek expertise in that matter." So it's pretty much of a bullshit charge. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 458cdb3f02

  36. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 9 months ago

    I'm sorry, he didn't register as a foreign agent although he had been representing a foreign country at the time. He was said to have been planning to register but that would have been a conflict of interest while being the NSA. My bad!

  37. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    Well, what actually happened is that both Russiagate and the Trump dossier were fabrications paid for by Clinton. It has been documented that Clinton paid for the Trump dossier. It has recently come to light that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson fabricated Russiagate and hired Chris Steele. (Glenn's wife bragged about this on Facebook.)

    This fabricated "evidence" was taken to the FBI as a pretext for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump during the campaign. It's also been documented that several actors within the FBI accepted money from Clinton, and attempted to cover up or mitigate her criminal activity.

    So, yes, the intel agencies are hopeless corrupt. To what end? Many of them are implicated in a wide range of crimes, some of them amounting to sedition/treason.  We have, for example, McCabe plotting an "insurance policy" in case Trump got elected. It is not within the purview of the FBI to "select" the US president, let alone plot of remove him.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      The dossier was started by a Republican candidate's campaign member and was continued by one of Hillary's campaign attorneys. Geeze Sharon, you somehow neglected to mention that. Or did you get your info from Fox? tongue

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Clinton paid for this , under the auspices of the  entire Obama administration , Lynch , the Emanual's , Podesta , Comey ,the DNC ...........This is just short of treasonous , under a Governing administration's oversight to have its entire D.O.J. , F.B.I , The entire news  media ,state dept and other candidates participate in such a  internationally colluding  act .

        Why do you think this Trump / Collusion defection ? This is not over yet .

  38. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    "Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump’s background. The Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion’s efforts have not yet been identified.

    "The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion."

    However, "The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous “Trump dossier," which helped inspire the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians."

    So--a little of both, it appears. Though I fail to see how the existence of "an unidentified GOP donor" is material to the point. (The GOP establishment was and is known to be hostile to Trump.)

    While it is rather bad to hire Fusion GPS to fabricate some salacious material against Trump, it's the FBI involvement that carries this activity beyond the realm of dirty politics and into the realm of sedition/treason. The FBI was only too willing to accept this fabrication as a justification for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. In other words, the FBI itself engaged in meddling with the election, based on "evidence" that it knew, or should have known, to be a pure fabrication.

    Further, "The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports." So here we see the FBI entering into a further agreement with Steele to "gather intelligence" (fabricate more material)--right up until their intended source was revealed to be huckster Steele. Here again, the FBI is shown to be acting to try to remove a sitting president.

    "So to summarize:

        "Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
        "In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources, both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
        "Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).

    NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying "Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year", and by folks she ultimately means Hillary Clinton herself.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-2 … mp-dossier

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      This incredible act of sedition should be stapled to the foreheads of the liberals  , of their biased media , after they start hanging  The former director of the FBI,  D.O.J. !
      And  many in the previous administration ,

      Do you think "pardons " will come out of this to protect both parties members ?

    2. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Are you kidding me? The link you furnished is a right wing site. How about a credible link?

      And sorry Sharon, but a lot in the dossier has proven to be true and it's still being investigated.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Like I said , Staple that" Dossier"  to the foreheads of the Clinton MafiIt..............Okay figuratively . 

        It amazes me were hearing 0 for leaks from the Mueller team about any Hilary investigation ,   yet the "love affairs " of Clinton donating  investigators and their ten thousand E mail's  against Trump is just beginning to be in the news  ?

        What a three ring circus , A million $ a month ,  Send in the clowns .

      2. GA Anderson profile image81
        GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Randy, your point that "...a lot in the dossier has proven to be true..." has been addressed before. and I don't recall you providing support for it then either.

        A quick look found this Oct. 25, 2017,Washington Post story,  You should read it. Here is its summary:

        "Conclusion
        The Steele dossier makes a wide range of claims, many of which are rumors that couldn’t be independently verified. Many other claims involve things that would have been publicly known at the time the report was apparently drafted. Although it’s impossible to say that the dossier is entirely inaccurate (there are some glimmers of accurate predictions), it is also impossible to say that it has been broadly validated.


        Read the article and see which specifically Trump related points you can find that have been validated. As I read the article, the only points that might be considered validated would be the geopolitical ones that didn't implicate involvement by Trump, or his campaign at all.

        But here is a caveat: I did find a Nov. 2017 Newsweek article with this headline:
        Trump-Russia Dossier Is Mostly True and I Did Not 'Invent It ..."

        But wait... the subject of the article is Mr. Steele, the dossier author, who has also written a book he is now promoting. It was Steele that claimed the dossier was 80% - 90% true - not NewsWeek reporters.

        Time to step up again Randy, what support do you have for your repeated claim the dossier is true?

        GA

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Stepping up, GA. I did say some of the dossier had been proven true, but not all.

          https://www.yourtango.com/2017307315/wh … -pee-tapes

          http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/ … index.html

          1. GA Anderson profile image81
            GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Well Randy, I would say it looks more like 'half-stepping', than stepping up.

            Yourtango.com? Come one Randy, as many times as I have seen you question someone's else's sources for bias and legitimacy, (as you said to Sharon; "Are you kidding me? The link you furnished is a right wing site. How about a credible link?")  - you offer yourtango.com?

            Look at their header menu choices:
            LOVE - QUOTES - ZODIAC SIGNS & HOROSCOPES - FAMILY - HEARTBREAK - SELF - BUZZ - RADICAL ACCEPTANCE

            Then take a look at their article's first lead;
            "Yes: the Trump pee pee tapes might actually be real."

            That was enough for me, but to be sure I hadn't caught your 'half-stepping flu' I did read the article, and followed most of its deep links.

            I could have saved myself the time. I am surprised you would offer this link as a verification source.

            First, they didn't have the honesty of the Washington Post's story to at least admit they couldn't verify  any of the anti-Trump, and "salacious" Trump allegations - they just plugged them in-between the known geopolitical claims that the Post article addressed, (and admitted could have been known before the dossier's creation), I think the Post called it "The post-Nostradamus" scenario. It's easy to state as revelation when it could have already been known to happen.

            Geesh! But at least your second link did have some credibility. However, all it verified was what the Post story verified; some of the geopolitical claims of the dossier were verifiable, but one; they weren't connected with any Trump actions, (or those of his team), and two; many of them could have been culled from known information, not just secret insider connections.

            I can go with the Post's story inference; some of the dossier's Russian politics and political actions could possibly be considered verifiable, but none of the salacious anti-Trump claims have been verified. And in the context of claims made that the dossier's charges have been verified, (like the context of your use), it appears that none have been verified.

            No your didn't "... say some of the dossier had been proven true...." you said ""...a lot in the dossier has proven to be true..."

            So I went back to the Post article, (surely you won't claim the Post has a Right-leaning bias). They addressed the claims in this aspect;
            "...  dossier is composed of 17 “company intelligence reports..."”

            They determined that they could possibly verify three of the "geopolitical" Russian actor claims. 3 out of 17.

            Because I place much more credence in the Post's reporting, over sites like yourtango.com, once more let me offer their conclusion:

            "The Steele dossier makes a wide range of claims, many of which are rumors that couldn’t be independently verified. Many other claims involve things that would have been publicly known at the time the report was apparently drafted. Although it’s impossible to say that the dossier is entirely inaccurate (there are some glimmers of accurate predictions), it is also impossible to say that it has been broadly validated."

            GA

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              I threw that first one in just to see if you'd read it, GA!. And to show BH how it feels to be given such links as proof of anything. I didn't put a tongue on the post because you don't understand emoticons. Geeze!

              The second was serious. I can link more articles showing the veracity of my statement if you like. Only today I heard it repeated several times that parts of the dossier have been proven, despite those naysayers on these forums. yikes

              1. GA Anderson profile image81
                GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Yes Randy, some parts of the dossier do appear to be valid claims, but look which ones they are; the one's about Russia's political moves and intentions. I haven't seen where any of the "salacious" Anti-Trump, or Trump collusion, dossier claims have been validated.

                I tend to believe Washington Post reporting - even when I do have to consider that they generally have a non-conservative political bias. I think their October article about the dossier was probably the most accurate, and truthful, concerning what we currently know about the claims.

                You could find more links about validation claims, as could I, but I doubt you could find any with more credibility, or new information than the Post's article.

                If those claims do get validated, I think you know I won't be defending them, but until then I also won't be accepting of claims that they have been.

                GA

  39. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    Randy Godwin, the source I quoted from is primarily a news aggregator, and the extensive quotes I provided from the article are from the Washington Post. Perhaps you'd like to address the facts rather than the source.

    Further, "In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was “salacious and unverified.” While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ used them in an application to the FISA court." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-2 … nce-policy

    But, hey, maybe you have some citation or link that indicates that the dossier has proven to be true, as you claim. The link provided is from the National Review. I have no idea whether this publication enjoys your imprimatur. Perhaps you have been given the authority to decide this matter of which authors/publications enjoy the official imprimatur. If so please provide a citation on THAT.

    The article (from the National Review) further states, "The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the court with the FBI’s imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign."

    What you want to do here, assuming you'd like to make a plausible argument, is present some facts.

  40. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    I'll try and make a case here.  Fusion was hired, but they subcontracted out to Steele.  Steele was not hired by any campaign, although it's reasonable to make the assumption he knew he was working for opponents of Trump.

    But when you look into the investigation, you come up with things such as:

    How good were Steele's sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” And both of these insiders, after “speaking to a trusted compatriot,” would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.

    Source E was “an ethnic Russian” and “close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

    This individual proved to be a treasure trove of information. “Speaking in confidence to a compatriot,” the talkative Source E “admitted there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.” Then this: “The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the WikiLeaks platform.” And finally: “In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltic and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine.”

    This was noted prior to Trump becoming President, and yet all of his actions towards NATO back up this statement.  His campaign framed arguments to mirror it.  Thinking an investigation might be needed based on this tidbit alone is not only required, but tantamount to national security.

  41. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Newsflash ; Both establishment parties will keep Trump/Russia collusion alive in the media courtroom to monkey-wrench any  Trump progress !  It's already ignored . Americans by party will believe whichever side they will. Sometime after any effective ability to prosecute anyone has passed , ie...Clinton , DNC , Brazzile , Steele , Assange ,  there will be new fake allegations pointing  towards some other impeachment charge or another.

    In the meantime we have skateboarding , backwards ball -cap wearing  morons running the FBI , DOJ ,  and our news media ?

    Where's it all end ?

  42. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    I'd say you've summarized the question, "How good were Steele's sources rather well: None are named; all are anonymous.

    "Normally, such a ludicrous claim – along with the haziness of the sourcing – would demand greater skepticism about the rest of Steele’s feverish charges, but a curious aspect of the investigations into Russia’s alleged “meddling” in Election 2016 is that neither Steele nor the “oppo research” company, Fusion GPS, that hired him – reportedly with funding from Clinton allies – has been summoned to testify.

    "Usually, official investigations begin with testimony from the people who are making the allegations, so their credibility and motives can be tested in an adversarial setting. Plus, some baseline information should be established: Who, for instance, paid for the contract? How much was the total and how much went to Steele? How much did Steele then pay his Russian contacts and did they, in turn, pay the alleged Russian insiders for information? Or are we supposed to believe that these “insiders” risked being identified as spies out of a commitment to the truth?"

    The above would be the normal procedure. There are probably some difficulties involved in summoning Steele, a British national, to testify in a US court.

    However, efforts have been made to obtain testimony from Fusion GPS executives, but, "In October, Fusion executives invoked their constitutional right not to answer questions from the committee." In other words, they invoked their 5th Amendment rights permitting them to refuse to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination.

  43. Valeant profile image98
    Valeantposted 9 months ago

    Instead of self-incrimination, they refused to testify in order to protect the group who initially started the funding, a never-trump republican, according to their own admission.  As for Steele, his fee was disclosed and is out there with a little bit of research.

  44. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    Welp, it says right here that "Fusion GPS partners plead the Fifth." http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/ … index.html

    "Fusion GPS' Peter Fritsch and Thomas Catán invoked their Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions during their closed-door appearance before the committee, according to their attorney Joshua Levy."

    The Fifth Amendment allows a person to refuse to incriminate themselves. It does not allow a person to refuse to answer questions "in order to protect the group who initially started the funding."

    The questions outlined in reference to funding are a matter of normal procedure in an investigation. You ask these questions in part to establish credibility, since people may be amenable to saying certain things, if you pay them to. More importantly, one looks at funding of any operation to find out who's really behind the operation. In this case, Clinton employed several layers of "insulation" to distance herself from the dossier: She paid a law firm, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Steele, who paid his supposed informants.

    Accordingly, Fusion GPS's bank records were subpoenaed. Fusion GPS appealed to a federal judge in Washington to block the subpoena. Later, "Lawyers for Fusion submitted a new request for a temporary restraining order preventing its bank, TD Bank, from producing records requested by the House panel regarding records of its transactions “with any law firm, ‘media company’ or journalist with which it has worked.” As far as I can find out, the House panel is still trying to get those financial records.

  45. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    I think when you say "they refused to testify in order to protect the group who initially started the funding," you are referring to the subpoena of bank records.

  46. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    All of this obstruction , phony charges ,  media warfare , cultural meltdown ,  voter guilt complex , Special investigations ?  In the end , there will come an open ended Mueller  result that half of America will accept and the other half will deny . Half the media will defend and the other half allege further crimes There will be soft shoeing charges against a couple  Trump people and more allegations  against Clinton's mafia.

    Resulting Charges ? nada .............Investigation costs ?  $35 + million dollars .

    While you all fight over invented details of nonexistent crimes and misdemeanors .

  47. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    Here's an interview with William Binney, former head of the NSA, about the supposed Russian hack of the DNC. You can think what you want about Alex Jones (I'm not a fan, myself), but Binney's credentials are impeccable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QRRC2JsNxc

    Long story short: Forensic analysis shows that the leaked material could not possibly have been a hack, because download speeds are incompatible with a hack. But...download speeds ARE a precise match with a thumb drive. Which is to say that the leak was an inside job--which it has been hinted may have been done by Seth Rich.

    Now to me this seems like an elementary level of forensic analysis--though Binney says his team has found more evidence of one kind or another. Odd that the FBI never did even the most basic forensic analysis.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      I almost suspect that in the  end , The corruption  within the DNC , Clinton / Obama administration is going to be determined so politically corrupted  that we the American public will not be allowed the resulting knowledge from all the investigating .

      Consider it  a J.F. Kennedy-ism , The JFK documents and what they reveal or in fact still hide . That the U.S. government offices themselves are  the evil of this entire  Trump/ Russia  collusion investigation is too sensitive for our eye's.

      Consider too , The Obama administration will eventually be determined the most integrity challenged presidency to come along in our entire history !

    2. GA Anderson profile image81
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Hi BlueHeron,
      It's probably a good thing that you are not a fan of Alex Jones. Just the quick look that I took, (prompted by your video link), found that Binney's theory is disputed by members of his own group.

      The original source of the Binney/Pompeo meeting news, The Intercept also reported that a co-leader of Binney's group, a fellow named Drake, and several other group members had split away from Binney because of disagreements with the conclusions of his memo.

      Seems like a deeper dive might be in order before linking to almost any story associated with Alex Jones. The Binney theory may be a valid one, but for me, at this point, the taint of an Alex Jones association, along with the dispute of his fellow group members, puts me in the skeptics column.

      GA

  48. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    To repeat from the link quoted above, "In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was “salacious and unverified.” While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ used them in an application to the FISA court." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-2 … nce-policy

    Now, I'd say that if James Comey, former FBI director, gave sworn testimony that the dossier was “salacious and unverified,” that pretty much settles it.

    Further, since a FISA warrant against Trump was obtained months earler, using “salacious and unverified”...um..."intelligence," there is a strong appearance of very serious irregularities here, perhaps amounting to sedition, certainly in violation of the Hatch Act, and possibly in violation of RICO (racketeering) statutes.

    Now, if you are aware of some additional information that has been revealed since Comey TESTIFIED as to the “salacious and unverified” nature of this material, please fill us in.

    About all I can see that has happened since that time is Fusion GPS taking the Fifth and stonewalling subpoenas of their financial records. That, and the FBI refusing to allow anyone to see the FISA warrant. In other words, subsequent "developments" have consisted entirely of stonewalling on the part of those under investigation.

  49. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    Randy, your comment, "Only today I heard it repeated several times that parts of the dossier have been proven," is a little unconvincing.

    This is not the way one goes about thinking. The way you go about thinking is by collecting facts, which you have verified to the best of your ability, and then applying reason and logic to these facts.

    Presenting, "Only today I heard it repeated several times," as an argument is...um...highly bizarre.

    Now, being human, I myself sometimes give undue weight to "stuff people say." I sometimes jump to conclusions. Sometimes ad hominems cross my mind. But somewhere along the line I learned that these reactions of the endocrine system are not "thought." Not only should the mind enforce some intellectual rigor to overrule them, it should also strongly caution you about letting stuff like this come out of your mouth.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Did you check out the link I provided, BH? And Comey's statement was early on in the investigation. From what I understand the dossier contained info about Flynn and other Trump cronies meetings with the Russians. Hardly worthless or false info as we now know.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Many here have got to learn to decipher between their  party's  allegations and those of  the whole picture , as the whole things aren't looking good for Clinton either ,
        if Mueller ever get's off his a$$ ?   One begins to see the obstructionist as getting more media leaks in their favor of course .

      2. Ewent profile image85
        Ewentposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        There is a very simple explanation for 1. Why Trump refuses to implement the sanctions against the Russians and 2. Why the Republican Party won't do their legislative jobs and enforce them.

        First of all, the RNC by Trump's own admission in the 2nd campaign debate, "donated $100 million," to his campaign. That means that the $100 million at that point was also being shared by other Republicans running for local or state offices. That is what the RNC's job is...to disperse all campaign donations according to FEC rules and regulations.

        Then, there is the matter of the Republican Party building a wall around Trump to protect "themselves" from being involved in the Special Investigation. If any of them benefited in any way from that $100 million, they aided and abetted Trump's having received that money from Putin. Trump lied when he said he got that $100 million from casino owner Adelson.

        The Republicans want an end to any discovery of how the Russians meddled in our election. They want it all shoved under the rug so like typical recidivists they can revisit hacking in all future elections.

        What does that say about their violations of their oaths of office to protect voting rights in the US Constitution?

        Trump CAN'T do anything about the Russian meddling without offending his chief benefactor. And, if he hopes to be re-elected by rigging the next election, he needs the Russian hackers now.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          The closer Mueller gets to Trump, the more those from the right will fade into the background. For now, they're doing their best to cover for the moron by blaming the intel services. Typical tyrannical desperation!

  50. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 9 months ago

    GA, a ways upthread you stated that "that Binney's theory is disputed by members of his own group." Perhaps you could explain exactly what part of "Binney's theory" is disputed. I don't believe there is any dispute whatsoever that the DNC was not hacked, but was rather an inside job, mostly likely downloaded to a thumb drive. Now if you can provide a citation that disputes that part, I'll be interested. The metadata analysis simply is what it is.

    From the National Review: ""The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

    These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

    What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.

    “A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”

    https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new … -dnc-hack/

    1. GA Anderson profile image81
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Hello again Blue Heron,

      To set the stage, I ask that you remember my response stated that what little I knew came from; 1) your video link, 2)links I followed from a quick Google search, and 3) my past impressions of the BS that is Alex Jones and His InfoWars site.

      I was unaware of the Binney theory/story until I viewed your posted link. And I am still too uninformed to get enter this forensic download speed stuff. But... I did take a shallow dive into the story to judge how I should accept Binney's declarations.

      What I found was that most of the Google search story results were derived from what has been cited as the original TheIntercept.com interview.

      And in that original interview article they stated this:
      "VIPS claimed that speed was “much faster than what is physically possible with a hack,” and so the files had to have been stolen by an insider with direct access to the computer system.

      But this argument led to a tense split within the VIPS group. Among others, Drake, who for so long had been closely associated with Binney, publicly opposed the memo, joining a group of dissenting VIPS members who have attacked it.

      “A number of VIPS members did not sign this problematic memo because of troubling questions about its conclusions, and others who did sign it have raised key concerns since its publication,” states a competing memo written by Drake and other VIPS members and published September 1 on the website of The Nation magazine, which had earlier published a story about the Binney memo.

      Drake and the dissenters complain that the original memo was deeply flawed and came to biased conclusions based only on a sketchy analysis of information ..."


      That was enough to cause me to look a little deeper. So I followed the links to TheNation.com's article concerning the dissenting VIPS faction.

      It appears you are completely accepting of Binney's declarations, but the information I cited above - (and again!), plus the Alex Jones connection, leaves me strongly skeptical of both the theory, and your acceptance of it.

      It doesn't take any kind of "forensic" examination to  understand that when a group dedicated to whistle-blower and exposure-type issues splits over a conspiracy theory pushed by only a faction of that group, that it is probable that the claim at issue isn't as solid as presented.

      I have a perception that I have seen you post replies explaining proper steps in investigations, and such procedural necessities, so I will pose the same thought to you. Like the process that turns a hypothesis into a theory - the act of trying to disprove the hypothesis in order to accept it as a theory...

      Did you see the article's segment about the VIPS dissenters, and did you dig around to see if there was any validity to their claim that Binney was off-base with his leap of faith based on just one "forensic" explanation?  Do you think the info in the links I provided is just soured relationships?

      Did you try to debunk Binney's theory in order to be comfortable accepting it? Or was the video all you needed?

      GA

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)