I have time now.

 

1.) It's possible. We do know that General Flynn illegally spoke to Russia about lifting sanctions placed on them by Obama and he also lied to or misled VP Pence about his relationship with Russia and what he discussed. That is why Flynn resigned from the Trump administration. For now it appears there is an ongoing investigation into the Trump's administration and their Russian ties and some news outlets say the investigation began in July 2016. The FBI, House & Senate Intelligence committees are who is said to be investigating the Trump administration and their Russian ties.

 

2.) From what I have read everything points to deliberate communication with Russia with intent to win the election.

 

3.) From what I have read it is possible Russia is behind the hacking of the DNC and gave that information to the Trump administration in an effort to help win the election. However, it is important to note that as of today no one knows the truth and no one knows if there is an investigation taking place by our government. Some say there is others say there isn't and fake news is everywhere. We do know that members of congress have formed an investigation committee like they did for Benghazi and Hillary's emails and that Flynn has offered his testimony to them in exchange for immunity. As of now immunity isn't on the table for Flynn.

 

4.) I'm not sure. For the past 8 years everyone said Obama didn't have a spine when it came to Russia and now all of a sudden it appears like Russia could be controlling our POTUS and his administration and everyone seems fine with that so I'm kind of confused at this point.

 

According to Clapper, there is no evidence that shows Trump colluding with Russia. Don't you think the Obama admin searched high and low to find something? This Russia nonsense is about obstruction. Republicans have been guilty of obstruction in the past, too. It is what's wrong with our government. Both parties are party and wallet before the people.

There are, at best, conflicting stories of what was 'offered' or sought. Still say the Russians did not cause the longest lines ever at our voting place in November. And still not sure what 'influence' in elections means. Either someone hacked or not - and so far the only hackers of state's systems (including Kentucky's) seem to have come from the DHS under direction of the previous administration.

 

This whole subject seems to be a smoke screen without much smoke, much less fire.

 

 

I have yet to see anything from Mike Flynn or his lawyer saying that the media is lying about their reports of him offering a testimony against the Trump administration immunity and I don't think Donald Trump has seen that either as he tweeted out it is correct for Flynn to ask for immunity.

 

It could be a smoke screen and that is why I am interested in the investigation results as well as if Flynn testifies for immunity one day.

According to the New York Times, Mike Flynn's lawyer and a congressional official.

 

 

Michael Flynn Offers to Testify Before Congress in Exchange for Immunity - NYTimes.com

 

 

WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, has offered to be interviewed by House and Senate investigators who are examining the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in exchange for immunity from prosecution, according to his lawyer and a congressional official.

 

 

The article does not say that. It doesn't even reference that.

According to Clapper, there is no evidence that shows Trump colluding with Russia. Don't you think the Obama admin searched high and low to find something? This Russia nonsense is about obstruction. Republicans have been guilty of obstruction in the past, too. It is what's wrong with our government. Both parties are party and wallet before the people.

 

They most certainly are about party and wallet but what exactly is an investigation obstructing? Every day is business as usual for America regardless of the investigation. One day it will end much like the Benghazi and Hillary emails investigations ended and people will be left with their own beliefs of what happened or didn't happen.

The article does not say that. It doesn't even reference that.

 

I guess we each interpret that first paragraph differently.

They most certainly are about party and wallet but what exactly is an investigation obstructing? Every day is business as usual for America regardless of the investigation. One day it will end much like the Benghazi and Hillary emails investigations ended and people will be left with their own beliefs of what happened or didn't happen.

 

Obstructing doing actual work.

I guess we each interpret that first paragraph differently.

I guess. I didn't interpret it. I read what it says.

I have yet to see anything from Mike Flynn or his lawyer saying that the media is lying about their reports of him offering a testimony against the Trump administration immunity and I don't think Donald Trump has seen that either as he tweeted out it is correct for Flynn to ask for immunity.

 

It could be a smoke screen and that is why I am interested in the investigation results as well as if Flynn testifies for immunity one day.

 

Transparency and sunlight are good. If there is something to be concerned about - it should be found.

 

But one has to ask - if the Russians did not directly hack and change voting results - and there are no accusations of that level of direct action - what did they 'influence'? Did they run commercials? Did they take people out to dinner? Did they pay $35M to people (other than Podesta)?

 

Yes, the 'Russian' angle was used to at first attempt to get FISA warrents to basically spy on the Trump campaign. The first warrents were turned down - and FISA has only turned down a handful of warrents ever. It feels more like the Russian angle was excuse to political itellegence gathering. And now, it has to be played out since Watergate 2.0 would not be good.

 

The FISA warrents, the leaks, the EO allowing sharing of unvetted and unfiltered raw intellegence gathering in January, etc. all cloud the simplistic case of 'the Russians helped Trump'.

 

And a reasonable question is - if they did - how did they help him?

I guess. I didn't interpret it. I read what it says.

 

I've read the article three times now. I still come away with the same thoughts every time.

Transparency and sunlight are good. If there is something to be concerned about - it should be found.

 

But one has to ask - if the Russians did not directly hack and change voting results - and there are no accusations of that level of direct action - what did they 'influence'? Did they run commercials? Did they take people out to dinner? Did they pay $35M to people (other than Podesta)?

 

Yes, the 'Russian' angle was used to at first attempt to get FISA warrents to basically spy on the Trump campaign. The first warrents were turned down - and FISA has only turned down a handful of warrents ever. It feels more like the Russian angle was excuse to political itellegence gathering. And now, it has to be played out since Watergate 2.0 would not be good.

 

The FISA warrents, the leaks, the EO allowing sharing of unvetted and unfiltered raw intellegence gathering in January, etc. all cloud the simplistic case of 'the Russians helped Trump'.

 

And a reasonable question is - if they did - how did they help him?

 

Has it been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the Russians had nothing to do with hacking the DNC? There have been numerous stories out and I posted a link to one earlier in this thread about the Russian internet banks that helped with the spread of fake news and propaganda against Hillary Clinton and her supporters. There are people who still believe the Clinton supporter is running a child prostitution ring out of a pizza joint in DC even though he was investigated and cleared. We've all seen fake news influence millions of people and we all watched Comey use useless information to influence people as well. You may be able to brush off Russian interference in our election but IMO it sets a new precedent that I'm not certain is a good thing for our country going forward.

 

If they did hack the DNC what did they do with that information? Who did they give it to and how did Roger Stone know about this information before anyone else? As Lipton Bash and I discussed the leaks are an issue but seems like the content of the leaks is also an issue as well.

 

The question I have is if they did help him why did they help him?

 

And again, Hillary lost the election because of her arrogance, the email scandal and her inability to reach voters in the Rust States. I am very aware of this. However, I can't turn a blind eye to the known Russian involvement in the election(and what we know they did is perfectly legal) but if that is what we know they did and don't hide it then did they do anything that we don't know about? I think that is a fair investigation to have based on things Trump has said, tweeted and how members of his administration have been proven to have lied or misspoke about their contact with Russia.

If the worst is true...

 

We had a candidate corroborate with a foreign superpower to spread fake news and hack an opponents' communications to win.

 

It's not acceptable and a terrible precedent for American elections.

 

If that's not true MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! :clap:

If the worst is true...

 

We had a candidate corroborate with a foreign superpower to spread fake news and hack an opponents' communications to win.

 

It's not acceptable and a terrible precedent for American elections.

 

If that's not true MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! :clap:

 

This is Russia, not the old Soviet Union, who can't even operate their lone aircraft carrier without a tugboat just in case it breaks down again (and it had to suspend operations in Syria because of it's technical problems), let's not call them a superpower just because they have nukes. If that is the case then there are a bunch of superpowers out there.

This is Russia, not the old Soviet Union, who can't even operate their lone aircraft carrier without a tugboat just in case it breaks down again (and it had to suspend operations in Syria because of it's technical problems), let's not call them a superpower just because they have nukes. If that is the case then there are a bunch of superpowers out there.

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

They have more nukes than us. Maybe more of their defense budget goes in Putin's pocket than ours, but with a push of a button we don't exist.

 

I call that super power.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

They have more nukes than us. Maybe more of their defense budget goes in Putin's pocket than ours, but with a push of a button we don't exist.

 

I call that super power.

 

So you would put the U.K, China, France, Israel, India, and Pakistan in the superpower boat too?

 

Superpower entails more than nukes. As far as more than we have that is irrelevant since most nations that have them have enough to wipe out most other nations that have then. That's a wash.

 

A superpower is a country that can exert infleunce on other nations through technological, cultural, military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic international relations and soft power influence.

 

Russia, the EU, the UK and China have many but not all of those. The US currently is the only country with all of those methods effectively at our disposal. If Russia's economy weren't still tanking then I would be willing to potentially cede your point, but that is not the case.

 

Is Putin's Russia a relevant power? Yes but they are not a superpower.

The question I have is if they did help him why did they help him?

 

 

In short, I think Putin hates Clinton. If Russia helped in anyway it wasn't so Trump would win as much as that she would lose...just my opinion.

 

Just like you didn't really want UNC to win, but you really wanted UK to lose...so you put up your MJ Mojo Avatar!