FBI kept Russian Bribery Plot under wraps before Obama Administration approved Nuclear Deal

[Big Dumb Patriot]

[QUOTE=karimatrix;52789633]Well then, as i was saying -
If anything , soo far "investigation" is staggeringly slow and inefficient and most probably won't lead to anything actually significant for those involved.

Cause they will be [I]fucken old[/I] beyond caring.
but yeah, justice, hurrah![/QUOTE]

I just provided an article saying that the rapid fire pace of this investigation has been shocking, and you continue to claim that it's "staggeringly slow and inefficient." You're outright denying reality to suit your biases. It's pathetic, frankly.

[editline]17th October 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52789652]I actually don't doubt that Manafort might be indicted, but I don't see it going much further than that.[/QUOTE]

"It's not Trump who was colluding with hostile foreign agents, just all of his key advisors, most of his family, and the chairman of his campaign. What a Nothing Burger!"

Come on. Mueller is finding Putin's shit on the shoes of every important person surrounding Trump. Your plausible deniability defense is bunk, and you know it. Your partisan squabbling defense is even worse. A hostile foreign nation has committed an act of war against our country, sabotaging our democratic process and installing a man who has come to pose one of the single greatest threats to our democracy that this country has [B]ever[/B] seen, and you're handwaving it because that fact is inconvenient to your worldview. Our democracy is now the tool of a hostile nation. We have lost our sovereignty. That is a [b]big deal.[/b]

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52789739]Come on. Mueller is finding Putin's shit on the shoes of every important person surrounding Trump. Your plausible deniability defense is bunk, and you know it. Your partisan squabbling defense is even worse. A hostile foreign nation has committed an act of war against our country, sabotaging our democratic process and installing a man who has come to pose one of the single greatest threats to our democracy that this country has [B]ever[/B] seen, and you're handwaving it because that fact is inconvenient to your worldview. Our democracy is now the tool of a hostile nation. We have lost our sovereignty. That is a [B]big deal.[/B][/QUOTE]

You are SUPER emotional about this, and it shows. Those last couple sentences are nothing more than the ravings of an ideologue. Our democracy is intact, the people still voted, the process worked as intended, and we will have another election next time around. What has happened isn't even in the top 10 of the greatest threats we've ever seen (You sure would have loved Theodore Roosevelt and his actual war mongering.)

So far, there's some evidence that Manafort had his nose in some shady crap. I don't deny that, but your claim that ALL his advisors had "Putin's shit on their shoes" is just plain fear mongering. That isn't what the evidence has shown.

[Raidyr]

I'm not even really sure what posts from people who clearly don't know anything about the investigation proclaiming that's going nowhere, or that nothing is going to happen, are even supposed to accomplish. Just seems like you are trolling for responses tbh.

As far as details we know, for Trump to not known about the collusion that his family and closest advisors have outright admitted to would be almost as bad as him sanctioning or supporting it himself. It shows that he isn't qualified to run a campaign, let alone a country.

[inaba]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52789786]You are SUPER emotional about this, and it shows. Those last couple sentences are nothing more than the ravings of an ideologue.[/QUOTE]

No, no it isn't. Your current president shits on the media and the free press over and over again simply for reporting on things that he has done. He lies almost daily and when called out either ignores it or calls the media calling him out "fake news". He's a known racist and sexist and it shows in his policies. He's also a climate change denier and bending over to coal companies. The fact that there have never been more millionaiers in the white house. [B]Joe Arpaio[/B] should also be a big red flag.
I could probably come up with more if it weren't so late. But all in all there is a very good reason to be angry

[QUOTE=sgman91;52789786]Our democracy is intact, the people still voted, the process worked as intended, and we will have another election next time around.[/QUOTE]

This is probably the worst prase to come out of 2016 as it is always said by people who vote for the "fuck the poor and disabled" parties.

[editline]aaa[/editline]

[URL="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868"]Also here's three and a half couples of charts about Trumps cabinets connection to Russia[/URL]

[tempcon]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52789786]You are SUPER emotional about this, and it shows. Those last couple sentences are nothing more than the ravings of an ideologue. Our democracy is intact, the people still voted, the process worked as intended, and we will have another election next time around. What has happened isn't even in the top 10 of the greatest threats we've ever seen (You sure would have loved Theodore Roosevelt and his actual war mongering.)

So far, there's some evidence that Manafort had his nose in some shady crap. I don't deny that, but your claim that ALL his advisors had "Putin's shit on their shoes" is just plain fear mongering. That isn't what the evidence has shown.[/QUOTE]

It's useless talking to him, he has massive double standards and is probably the most hysterical ideologue in an echo chamber of a discussion forum. He is incapable of nuance on this issue, his goal mostly being painting Trump and populism as a danger to democracy (of the wealthy) and transferring the existential threat to elitist, bicoastal liberalism it represents (in contrast to declining conservatism) to various identity groups.

The fact is we played a renewed hand in the politics of all countries in the former USSR especially after Russia went through what became a miserable failure of liberalization in the 90s, and Putin (to the ire of SoS Hillary Clinton) came back to power in 2011, turned on the Russian liberals (a hated pet project of ours only relevant in the most stratified of cities) in favor of being more of a countryside populist, and took issue with Libya. That's the roots of today's East-West divide: money and power, their's and our's. The only difference is rhetoric, ours is humanitarian whereas theirs is anti-globalization because they don't like our unipolarity, the power of our media, our policy of regime change, and feel eschewed from the EU project (an impression probably given in our eye on German-Russian relations). Neither side is consistent in this, evidenced by Putin's offer of a common market with europe and I think (especially after Iraq) everyone knows how bullshit the humanitarian aspect of our foreign policy is

The current hysteria about the connections of middle American populist movements to Putin is literally no different from Russian hysteria about our connections to Ukrainian nationalists or motions towards including them or Georgia in a NATO membership action plan.

This post-election strategy by the dems is ultimately motivated by neither concern for democracy or the country, that is actually the domain of the anti-establishment right and some members of the left who do not hold the reigns in their party, because liberals represent a cosmopolitan party of the wealthy. This Russian deflection is rooted in the fact that Hillary blew what the Democrats thought would be an easy election and they are frustrated they've lost so much power despite feeling so empowered by Obama (some actually thought they'd have [url=https://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/1416569898]control of whole coming generations[/url] after 2008), and wonder how and why (especially white) working class and lower-middle class people abandoned Hillary in droves. So, they blame racism and Russia, and draw parallels to euroskeptic nationalist connections to Russian oligarchs. This is in part inspired by Hillary's own speech on the alt-right, where she claimed it was an import of far right trends in europe and that Trump is as well.

It's a pathetic outburst arising from a post-election existential crisis and the massive campaign embarrassment coming from leaks exposing how Hillary actually thought in speeches with business leaders (that got her and her husband rich) as well as the actions of Comey.

In the end, it seems likely that the Democratic party will go down in history as being so painfully detached from what people actually thought of their candidate and confused how she failed to carry the Obama coalition (and got such a small white vote), who as Secretary of State was unnecessarily a warhawk that destabilized the middle east and gave Russia the impression the US was going to take issue with the re-election of Putin and the marginalization of pro-Western Russian liberal oligarchs. This precipitates the whole business with the refugee crisis, breakdown of Russia-West relations, and this Cold War 2.0 where we support color revolutionaries and nationalists through NGOs and federal funding, and they support nationalist anti-globalization movements arising from a declining middle class and frustrated working class through hacking and leaking things that make them more pissed off at their elite.

But rather than reform their broken party that combines identity politics with the economic programs that working class american dislike, they dig their heels in and blame Russia, racism/fascism, Comey, and ignorant blue collar plebs for collapsing the blue wall and ~[i]voting against their interests[/i]~

Relevant:
[video]https://youtu.be/0-XNX8dv0e0[/video]

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52790023]No, no it isn't. Your current president shits on the media and the free press over and over again simply for reporting on things that he has done. He lies almost daily and when called out either ignores it or calls the media calling him out "fake news". He's a known racist and sexist and it shows in his policies. He's also a climate change denier and bending over to coal companies. The fact that there have never been more millionaiers in the white house. [B]Joe Arpaio[/B] should also be a big red flag.
I could probably come up with more if it weren't so late. But all in all there is a very good reason to be angry[/QUOTE]

Not liking someone doesn't mean democracy is falling apart, even if you REALLY don't like him. We will have another election. People can choose if they want to get rid of him or not.

Also, none of the charts are loading in your linked article. So I can't really analyse it. My question would be: What does a "connection" entail? Russia is a pretty big country. I would be willing to bet that most people on the world's stage have had some "connection" to Russia at some point or another.

[elix]

[QUOTE=karimatrix;52789600]interviews, raids, gathering of intel... and anybody under charges yet? Prime suspects?
When anything crosses border beyond accusations, then tell me about it being "shock and awe" tactic.
Soo far it's just a chewing material for press, full of loud words and legal phrases.

"indicments are almost certain"...

Well, Hillary was "almost certainly winning" too.[/QUOTE]
The moment one person is arrested, any remaining evidence in anyone's hands suddenly ends up in fireplaces even if it's the middle of summer. No shit they're not just slapping cuffs on people on the first day.

[srobins]

Hannity and other Republicans and Trump retards have been hyping this story as some way of exonerating Trump for his collusion with Russia by showing that Democrats are bad too (so it's no surprise Tudd posted this immediately). What makes me laugh is that NOW Republicans are willing to say Russia is a bad guy who should not be worked with, in order to paint Obama and Clinton as traitors (I'd say the charge holds for Clinton but I don't see Obama himself implicated in this story). Yet the narrative for months has been that even if Trump worked with Russia, it doesn't matter because Russia isn't a bad guy. Or that Russia is just a democratic boogeyman. So which is it? Is Russia bad, thus painting both Clinton and Trump as bad by association? Or is Russia good? In which case neither Trump nor Clinton need be held responsible? It's such blatant doublethink. I hope Hannity has an aneurysm, that football toting propagandist cunt.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=srobins;52791229]Hannity and other Republicans and Trump retards have been hyping this story as some way of exonerating Trump for his collusion with Russia by showing that Democrats are bad too (so it's no surprise Tudd posted this immediately). What makes me laugh is that NOW Republicans are willing to say Russia is a bad guy who should not be worked with, in order to paint Obama and Clinton as traitors (I'd say the charge holds for Clinton but I don't see Obama himself implicated in this story). [B]Yet the narrative for months has been that even if Trump worked with Russia, it doesn't matter because Russia isn't a bad guy[/B]. Or that Russia is just a democratic boogeyman. So which is it? Is Russia bad, thus painting both Clinton and Trump as bad by association? Or is Russia good? In which case neither Trump nor Clinton need be held responsible? It's such blatant doublethink. I hope Hannity has an aneurysm, that football toting propagandist cunt.[/QUOTE]

Can you quote a Republican saying or suggesting that? I've never heard it.

With that said, Hannity is a hack, no question.

[srobins]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52791234]Can you quote a Republican saying or suggesting that? I've never heard it.

With that said, Hannity is a hack, no question.[/QUOTE]

I can't supply an exhaustive list of people within the pro-Trump camp who have been either explicitly pro-Russia or simply downplaying the negativity and hostility of Russia in order to lighten the weight of Trump's Russia scandal, but here's some examples of Hannity pushing certain narratives and outright lies to further the "Russia isn't that bad" narrative and absolve Trump of guilt. It's a good jumping off point seeing as the pro-Trump camp just sucks what Hannity says up and spits it out in all their other outlets and sounding boards:

[url=https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/06/23/Sean-Hannity-If-Trump-campaign-communicated-with-and-asked-Russia-to-release-hacked-emails/217020]Sean Hannity: If Trump campaign communicated with and asked Russia to release hacked emails, "is that a crime?"[/url]
[url=https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/03/08/sean-hannity-suggests-cia-framed-russian-government-election-interference/215601]Sean Hannity Suggests The CIA Framed The Russian Government For Election Interference[/url]
[url=https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/30/how-sean-hannity-became-champion-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory/216684]How Sean Hannity became the champion of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory[/url]
[url=https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/886019305212706816]Hannity suggesting that the Trump Jr. meeting was a Democratic sting operation[/url]
[url=https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2017/07/13/54848/prn-hannity-20170712-dnc]Hannity claiming the DNC hack was domestic, not the work of Russia[/url]
[url=https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2017/07/27/55136/fnc-hannity-20170725-itstafferwikileaks]Hannity claiming a DNC staffer was the source of the leaks, not Russia[/url]

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=srobins;52791265]I can't supply an exhaustive list of people within the pro-Trump camp who have been either explicitly pro-Russia or simply downplaying the negativity and hostility of Russia in order to lighten the weight of Trump's Russia scandal, but here's some examples of Hannity pushing certain narratives and outright lies to further the "Russia isn't that bad" narrative and absolve Trump of guilt. It's a good jumping off point seeing as the pro-Trump camp just sucks what Hannity says up and spits it out in all their other outlets and sounding boards:

[URL="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/06/23/Sean-Hannity-If-Trump-campaign-communicated-with-and-asked-Russia-to-release-hacked-emails/217020"]Sean Hannity: If Trump campaign communicated with and asked Russia to release hacked emails, "is that a crime?"[/URL]
[URL="https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/03/08/sean-hannity-suggests-cia-framed-russian-government-election-interference/215601"]Sean Hannity Suggests The CIA Framed The Russian Government For Election Interference[/URL]
[URL="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/30/how-sean-hannity-became-champion-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory/216684"]How Sean Hannity became the champion of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/886019305212706816"]Hannity suggesting that the Trump Jr. meeting was a Democratic sting operation[/URL]
[URL="https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2017/07/13/54848/prn-hannity-20170712-dnc"]Hannity claiming the DNC hack was domestic, not the work of Russia[/URL]
[URL="https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2017/07/27/55136/fnc-hannity-20170725-itstafferwikileaks"]Hannity claiming a DNC staffer was the source of the leaks, not Russia[/URL][/QUOTE]

I don't quite see any of those substantiating your claim. They seem to be arguing that 1) Trump didn't collude with Russia or 2) Russia didn't influence the election.

Those aren't the claim that you made. You said that the Republican, not just Hannity's, narrative was that even if Trump did collude, then it's fine because Russia isn't a bad guy. I would really love to see a Republican, especially a politician, who said they would be fine with Trump colluding with good guy Russia.

[srobins]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52791299]I don't quite see any of those substantiating your claim. They seem to be arguing that 1) Trump didn't collude with Russia or 2) Russia didn't influence the election.

Those aren't the claim that you made. You said that the Republican, not just Hannity's, narrative was that even if Trump did collude, then it's fine because Russia isn't a bad guy. I would really love to see a Republican, especially a politician, who said they would be fine with Trump colluding with good guy Russia.[/QUOTE]

idk, interpret it how you like. Regardless of semantics, I think the Trump camp attempting to shift blame away from Russia as Trump's links to Russia become more and more apparent is the same thing as saying "it's not so bad anyway". Maybe my phrasing is too general but either way, the narrative is moronic and totally contradictory to this new outrage over uranium deals.

[Spazi]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52788791]Russia has been undermining our democracy and interests for far too long. I fear that violent confrontation is the inevitable climax of their continued warfare.[/QUOTE]

If it happens I think it'll be unintended. Russia is similarly messing with every country they absolutely can, which they surely wouldn't do unless they were convinced they can get away with it.

[inaba]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52790372]Not liking someone doesn't mean democracy is falling apart, even if you REALLY don't like him. We will have another election. People can choose if they want to get rid of him or not.[/QUOTE]

This has nothing to do with not liking someone. This has everything to do with his actions being incredibly damaging to the country. Especially the media part because he's over and over again undermining good media outlets that reports on the stuff he does all while championing [URL="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/"]fox news[/URL]. Then there's also the fact that he's been enabling horrible people, like with his Charlottesville response and his pardoning of Joe Arpaio.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52790372]Also, none of the charts are loading in your linked article.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://imgur.com/a/zRLkU[/url]

[editline]18th October 2017[/editline]

Oh yeah, and let's not forget how el naranja grande has been praising autoretarian dictators