What if it was not the Russians?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

"...... Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The U.S. didn’t want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries,” Carothers said.

This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period.

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin. The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

In Czechoslovakia that same year, the U.S. provided training and campaign funding to Vaclav Havel’s party and its Slovak affiliate as they planned for the country’s first democratic election after its transition away from communism.

“The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism was dead and buried,” said Levin.

Even after that, the U.S. continued trying to influence elections in its favor.

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology. The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions. ...."
 
Joe when the US intervenes, it's not really disrupting an election. It's more like a humanitarian effort to prevent the country from electing someone that really doesn't represent their best interests. We just want to stop them from making a mistake. If people have to die, they need to understand it was necessary to bring about freedom from the choice they would have made.
 
Joe when the US intervenes, it's not really disrupting an election. It's more like a humanitarian effort to prevent the country from electing someone that really doesn't represent their best interests. .....

The Russians have a similarly winning argument they were saving us and the rest of the world from Hillsbeans


Besides, not all things Russian are bad

E6yaUqX.jpg


russian-brides-to-date.jpg
 
Here she is sitting with Obama admin folks during a hearing with Obama's ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul ..... There are reports out saying she is sitting here on the front row with Team Obama on an expired visa.

Correction: It now appears Obama made a special exception for her to get into the country with no visa in 2015. LOL

"The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.....
****
The U.S. Attorney’s office in New York confirmed Wednesday to The Hill that it let Veselnitskaya into the country on a grant of immigration parole from October 2015 to early January 2016.
"
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...sian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

My fav line from this^ article 'Justice and State officials could not immediately explain how the Russian lawyer was still in the country in June.' Heh. Can you say "Obama holdovers?

Anyway, from this, it looks like her Obama requested/court granted permission to be in the US expired Jan 2016 which was obviously quite some time before she met with Trump Jr. And s0 it looks like she was here illegally by that time (next CNN headline -- "Trump Jr Meets With Illegal Alien!")

And one last degree of Kevin Bacon -- Preet Bharara (who Trump later fired)'s office processed the enter privilege for her!
 
Last edited:
Not carrying the water for Putin? Really? Every public chance Trump gets he equivocates on Russian involvement in the election.

I'm not happy with a lot of his rhetoric (though he has walked back some of the worst of it). However, my worry has been that the rhetoric would be indicative of policy. I assumed he'd scale back NATO, further cut back on the US military presence in Europe (troop levels, equipment, missile defense capabilities, etc.), recognize the annexation if Crimea, and generally leave the continent open to Russian involvement - facilitating further energy dependence on Russia and even worse, signaling to Putin that if he acts aggressively toward other Eastern European and former Soviet republics, we'll let it slide. Those are the sorts of things a Putin stooge would do. Basically he'd adopt the Musburger agenda.

Trump has, if anything, done the opposite. He has reached a deal to sell the most advanced configuration of Patriot missiles to Poland, deployed more troops to the East, and is beginning preparations to permanently station thousands more troops to Northern Germany. We haven't done anything like that in years. Not only has he not recognized the annexation of Crimea, he has publicly condemned it. He is also pushing deals to sell US coal and LNG to Europe, especially to the East. That's the last thing Putin would want the United States to do.

Certainly the administration's actions haven't quite matched up to Trump's rhetoric but I think that's simply the adults carrying through with the rational plans that were previously in motion.

Perhaps to a point, but ultimately, he's the President. As such, he's the commander in chief and in charge. James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and Mike Pence have taken leadership roles in handling Europe and NATO, and they've done very good work. Furthermore, all three are respected over here. However, they're not in charge. Trump is, and they're not going to be able to implement a radically different policy from what Trump himself favors. He can override override them or ****-can them anytime he wants. (See Michael Flynn.)

And yes, some of what has happened carried out plans that were previously in motion. The Obama Administration did increase rotational forces into Eastern Europe, and there was at least talk of selling LNG to Europe, though it was tepid. However, Obama's people specifically took permanently stationing more troops off the table (more because he didn't want to fund it than that he had a philosophical problem with it) and withdrew missile defense programs from Poland and the Czech Republic. The bottom line is that Trump has gone in the right direction. He has accelerated what Obama was doing right and reversed what he was doing wrong. In short, he's not behaving like a Putin stooge in practice.
 
I'm not happy with a lot of his rhetoric (though he has walked back some of the worst of it). However, my worry has been that the rhetoric would be indicative of policy. I assumed he'd scale back NATO, further cut back on the US military presence in Europe (troop levels, equipment, missile defense capabilities, etc.), recognize the annexation if Crimea, and generally leave the continent open to Russian involvement - facilitating further energy dependence on Russia and even worse, signaling to Putin that if he acts aggressively toward other Eastern European and former Soviet republics, we'll let it slide. Those are the sorts of things a Putin stooge would do. Basically he'd adopt the Musburger agenda.

Trump has, if anything, done the opposite. He has reached a deal to sell the most advanced configuration of Patriot missiles to Poland, deployed more troops to the East, and is beginning preparations to permanently station thousands more troops to Northern Germany. We haven't done anything like that in years. Not only has he not recognized the annexation of Crimea, he has publicly condemned it. He is also pushing deals to sell US coal and LNG to Europe, especially to the East. That's the last thing Putin would want the United States to do.



Perhaps to a point, but ultimately, he's the President. As such, he's the commander in chief and in charge. James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and Mike Pence have taken leadership roles in handling Europe and NATO, and they've done very good work. Furthermore, all three are respected over here. However, they're not in charge. Trump is, and they're not going to be able to implement a radically different policy from what Trump himself favors. He can override override them or ****-can them anytime he wants. (See Michael Flynn.)

And yes, some of what has happened carried out plans that were previously in motion. The Obama Administration did increase rotational forces into Eastern Europe, and there was at least talk of selling LNG to Europe, though it was tepid. However, Obama's people specifically took permanently stationing more troops off the table (more because he didn't want to fund it than that he had a philosophical problem with it) and withdrew missile defense programs from Poland and the Czech Republic. The bottom line is that Trump has gone in the right direction. He has accelerated what Obama was doing right and reversed what he was doing wrong. In short, he's not behaving like a Putin stooge in practice.
Deez rationalizing his 2020 vote for Trump.
 
I'm not happy with a lot of his rhetoric (though he has walked back some of the worst of it). However, my worry has been that the rhetoric would be indicative of policy. I assumed he'd scale back NATO, further cut back on the US military presence in Europe (troop levels, equipment, missile defense capabilities, etc.), recognize the annexation if Crimea, and generally leave the continent open to Russian involvement - facilitating further energy dependence on Russia and even worse, signaling to Putin that if he acts aggressively toward other Eastern European and former Soviet republics, we'll let it slide. Those are the sorts of things a Putin stooge would do. Basically he'd adopt the Musburger agenda.

Trump has, if anything, done the opposite. He has reached a deal to sell the most advanced configuration of Patriot missiles to Poland, deployed more troops to the East, and is beginning preparations to permanently station thousands more troops to Northern Germany. We haven't done anything like that in years. Not only has he not recognized the annexation of Crimea, he has publicly condemned it. He is also pushing deals to sell US coal and LNG to Europe, especially to the East. That's the last thing Putin would want the United States to do.



Perhaps to a point, but ultimately, he's the President. As such, he's the commander in chief and in charge. James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and Mike Pence have taken leadership roles in handling Europe and NATO, and they've done very good work. Furthermore, all three are respected over here. However, they're not in charge. Trump is, and they're not going to be able to implement a radically different policy from what Trump himself favors. He can override override them or ****-can them anytime he wants. (See Michael Flynn.)

And yes, some of what has happened carried out plans that were previously in motion. The Obama Administration did increase rotational forces into Eastern Europe, and there was at least talk of selling LNG to Europe, though it was tepid. However, Obama's people specifically took permanently stationing more troops off the table (more because he didn't want to fund it than that he had a philosophical problem with it) and withdrew missile defense programs from Poland and the Czech Republic. The bottom line is that Trump has gone in the right direction. He has accelerated what Obama was doing right and reversed what he was doing wrong. In short, he's not behaving like a Putin stooge in practice.
In other words, Trump has yielded much of the agenda to the warmongering neocons and you are surprised, but pleased. Keep smiling once the Russians deliver a first strike into Eastern Europe in response to the ever increasing escalations. We will have shown them how tough we are even as Europe is obliterated.
 
The Russians have a similarly winning argument they were saving us and the rest of the world from Hillsbeans


Besides, not all things Russian are bad

E6yaUqX.jpg


russian-brides-to-date.jpg

Why do you think Mus is willing to be a poor man's Joseph Goebbels for Putin. It's the chicks.
 
In other words, Trump has yielded much of the agenda to the warmongering neocons and you are surprised, but pleased. Keep smiling once the Russians deliver a first strike into Eastern Europe in response to the ever increasing escalations. We will have shown them how tough we are even as Europe is obliterated.


No, I think what he is saying is that there is no quid pro quo.
 
What is he afraid of?

"Co-founder of firm behind Trump-Russia dossier will not testify before Senate next week"

"....The committee on Wednesday announced a July 19 hearing that listed Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal investigative reporter, as a witness. ......

But the request for Simpson to appear was voluntary, and it’s unclear whether the committee will seek to compel his testimony.
****
During the 2016 campaign, Simpson’s firm hired the British spy Christopher Steele ....
"​

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ll-not-testify-before-senate-next-week-240525
 
So there is a new Russian-American who was at the Trump Jr meeting.
He was granted citizenship in Obama 2009.
Anyone want to guess who he has worked for?


*

*

*


Did you guess GPS Fusion?

DEs42f6XgAAga30.jpg




DEs42fOW0AAOt5w.jpg
 
Last edited:
Seems kinda big, if true

There are allegations out there what was going on here is that Loretta Lynch had ordered Manafort’s phone tapped during the Veselnitskaya meeting. And that this was part of a wider setup to achieve a FISA warrant to wiretap the phones of the Trump 2016 campaign. Some also say there are transcripts of this meeting.

Remember it was Lynch who maneuvered to let Veselnitskaya into the US without a visa (see above)

Back in May, Reuters reported the FBI was investigating 18 undisclosed meetings between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and individuals who may be associated with Russia. So, .....


 
Last edited:
Here is the timeline for Natalia Veselnitskaya being in the US

According to the timeline released by the Department of Homeland Security, the Obama Justice and Homeland Security departments granted her a special type of “parole” to be in the U.S. from September 2015 through February 2016 to work on a court case in New York.

This was Preet Bharara (who was very unhappy he was later fired by Trump/Sessions). After that permission expired, Bharara's Office denied her request for an extension.

So how did she then remain in the country?

After that expired, according to DHS, the State Department issued her a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa in June 2016, according to DHS, just in time for her meeting with Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort

Remember that it was State who has initially denied to grant Veselnitskaya an entry visa. Why did Obama's State Dept change their minds? Lynch intervened directly through the State Dept is how.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-lawyer-got-into-us-for-trump-jr-meeting.html
 
Last edited:
Here is the timeline for Natalia Veselnitskaya being in the US

According to the timeline released by the Department of Homeland Security, the Obama Justice and Homeland Security departments granted her a special type of “parole” to be in the U.S. from September 2015 through February 2016 to work on a court case in New York.

After that expired, according to DHS, the State Department issued her a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa in June 2016, according to DHS, just in time for her meeting with Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort

* * *

DHS officials also said that it was their agency “in concurrence with the U.S. Attorney's Office of Southern District of New York” (aka Preet Bharara)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-lawyer-got-into-us-for-trump-jr-meeting.html
I think this is where SeattleHusker jumps in and pronounces this new evidence as conspiracy theory and insists what really matters is that Putin orchestrated everything and Trump is his puppet.
 
I think this is where SeattleHusker jumps in and pronounces this new evidence as conspiracy theory and insists what really matters is that Putin orchestrated everything and Trump is his puppet.
:lmao: Yep. Having anything more complicated than 2+2=4 for SH is a conspiracy theory unless the mainstream media pushes it, then it must be true.
 
From the same article above on that B1/B2 non-immigrant visa granted Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 2016--

"..... Acting Chief of Media Relations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Gillian Christensen told Fox News on Thursday that a range of DHS agencies would typically deal with parole requests, but USCIS was not involved in this particular case.

The type of parole Veselnitskaya was granted is given “sparingly” and in “extraordinary circumstances,” including urgent humanitarian reasons, such as medical or family emergency. ...."
None of that was present here.
 
Last edited:
The other Russian guy at the meeting who the media calls an "Ex-soviet intel official" was granted US citizenship by Obama 2009. But he would not have been given citizenship if he really were an ex-official.

The news media is claiming this guy had "....ongoing ties to Russian intel" (see below)

If he was suspected of this, why did Obama's DHS give him citizenship in 2009?
Why was he not expelled?

More importantly for the instant purposes, how is it that Donald Trump and his people should have known all this about this guy?

This woman is NBC news
 
Last edited:
How is Lynch not in prison? Simple deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion she did not act alone but is one part of a large conspiracy - a real one. How large and long has it been in place?
 
So this new Russian-American now making the rounds with regard to the Trump, Jr. meeting -- anyone want to guess who he has worked for?


*

*

*


Did you guess GPS Fusion?

DEs42f6XgAAga30.jpg




DEs42fOW0AAOt5w.jpg

This has gotten crazy with how filthy the left has become. Between their politicians, MSM, and their crazy followers, there's nothing out of bounds for them.
 
What's pathetic is Dems compare the phony collusion narratives to Watergate. When in reality their illegal campaign tactics were light years beyond WG.

Bugging, unmasking, and leaking communications of campaign officials (US citizens). Using foreign actors in sting operations. Paying ex and current foreign agents to fabricate allegations. These people are pure evil and scum of the Earth.

America was toast if DT hadn't destroyed HRC's impending reign of corruption.

Hopefully I'll be long gone before Libs succeed in creating socialist MexAMERICAistan
 
Last edited:
What's pathetic is Dems compare the phony collusion narratives to Watergate. When in reality their illegal campaign tactics were light years beyond WG.

Bugging, unmasking, and leaking communications of campaign officials (US citizens). Using foreign actors in sting operations. Paying ex and current foreign agents to fabricate allegations. These people are pure evil and scum of the Earth.

America was toast if DT hadn't destroyed HRC's impending reign of corruption.

Hopefully I'll be long gone before Libs succeed in creating socialist MexAMERICAistan

Watergate today would be just a slap on the wrist to what the standards now set by the Dems.
 
More importantly for the instant purposes, how is it that Donald Trump and his people should have known all this about this guy?

Hmmm...I don't know. Could the email from Rob Goldstone have been a clue?
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump

Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.

Lot's of deflection going on right now. Notice how JoeFan never mentions why the Russian lawyer was given the "parole" visa?

The BS works though, at least for the ever shrinking contingent of Trumpsters. Next you'll all be singing Alex Jones' logic that Donald Trump Jr. is a true patriot whose only goal was to expose Soviet spies.
 
I don't have any reason to deny that the Dems were working with Russians during the election campaign. But that doesn't mean that Trump didn't too.

He is a New York Democrat with a populist streak nothing more. Clinton didn't get elected and that is good. But Trump and/or his associates need to be give a very short leash. DJT Jr. admitted to wanting to collude with Russia whether he did or not. At the very least it is unethical and should be held against him.
 
If you take a look at the timelines I posted above and assuming the allegation that Manafort's phone was bugged is true, then it was bugged BEFORE any FISA warrant was granted. Indeed, this meeting with Manafort, Trump Jr. and the female Russian happened around the time the 1st FISA request one was denied

Could be a big problem for Lynch
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top