What if it was not the Russians?
- Thread starter Horn6721
- Start date
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Deez , what do you think of this?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/18/in-defense-of-trump-with-putin/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/18/in-defense-of-trump-with-putin/
I've got a few problems with it. First, as I've said multiple times, my primary objection to what Trump did wasn't anything he said to Putin. I didn't like it, but it didn't make my blood boil. What he said on Twitter did. Was it "treason" like the dumbfucks in the media are saying it is? Of course not. Is it one of the most irresponsible and stupid-*** things a President has ever publicly said? Absolutely.
Second, even if we're going to focus on the conference with Putin, Judge Napolitano is confusing the roles of the people involved. He is comparing his role as a trial judge to Trump's role as President, when they aren't similar. A trial judge who sits down with the parties to try to resolve cases isn't like a President. He's essentially acting as a mediator trying to find common ground between litigants. The President isn't a mediator in this scenario. He's an advocate for one side.
Third, the Judge is setting up a straw man. The issue isn't whether or not to be courteous to Putin. Of course he should be. However, there's a difference between courtesy and licking someone's nuts. Reagan was courteous to Gorbachev, but he stood up for his client and didn't let the Soviets push his client around.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
That would be a good argument to say that essentially when Obama said stuff that horrible, it was pre-planned, and likely had some connection to what he actually intended to do.
In Trump's case, it's usually something that either just came out while he was rambling around, or it's something he's been kicking around in his head and hasn't really talked to anyone about yet, and so it ends up sounding really stupid. The good thing is, those things usually don't end up translating into actions. The bad thing is, it's pretty sad when your president doesn't act presidential, doesn't think about what he's saying, and makes more problems for himself than he needs to in a time when people are looking for excuses to fry him.
And yet... it's who he is, and it's not changing. So we either freak out about every WTF press conference moment, or we wait to see how it actually pans out in legislation and the series of follow-up statements.
@ProdigalHorn Yes, but he could speak exactly like Obama and the MSM would still be all over him. It wouldn't matter.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
It wouldn't matter to the media, but it still matters to moderates and swing voters. That's who I care about, and there's enough of them that would really prefer that their president not make up his foreign policy as he goes along. Or at least not appear like he is. I'd have to put myself in that group too, it's just that it's not enough for me to jump ship and vote for someone who's actively trying to destroy our culture.
I didn't consider it Presidential to apologize to the world for our policies supposedly causing all the problems in the world. I think Trump trolls people with his "stupid" comments most of the time.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Someone may want to go inspect his buildings because no one on Earth builds with straw more than our POTUS.
Diplomacy is now a euphemism for "fluffing"?
Strawman? I remember you talking about how you were worried about Trump getting you and your family getting killed due to his approach against Kim. Donald's tweet there is spot on. Now he's fluffing? Trump has been the toughest on Putin since Reagan and that's a fact.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
That's an opinion but you're welcome to supply the supporting facts.
I noticed that you completely skipped what I had just mentioned. Nice dodge. Perhaps you should withdraw that comment about Trump creating a strawman since, you know, you did EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP'S TWEET SAID. Unbelievable.
Last edited:
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...he-gop-platform-and-russia?platform=hootsuite
"When the platform committee met before the GOP convention in Cleveland, one delegate out of the 100 on the committee — a Texas political activist named Diana Denman — proposed an amendment. Denman, who came to the convention as a Ted Cruz delegate but later switched her support to Trump, was interested because she had traveled to Ukraine as an international election observer in 1998 and has ever since "kept an eye on the emerging democracies," she told me in a conversation last March.
Denman's amendment praised the Ukrainian people and said they deserved the greatest U.S. assistance.
"We therefore support maintaining (and, if warranted, increasing) sanctions against Russia until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored," Denman's proposed amendment read. "We also support providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine's armed forces and greater coordination with NATO on defense planning. Simultaneously, we call for increased financial aid for Ukraine, as well as greater assistance in the economic and humanitarian spheres, including government reform and anti-corruption."
Denman's amendment also included an introductory paragraph filled with a lot of generic rhetoric. When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." They left intact Denman's language on NATO, and on continued and possibly tougher sanctions on Russia.
The final, Trump-approved passage read: "We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning." That was the amendment the committee approved.
In the end, nothing was taken out of the party's original draft platform on Russia. At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. It was also made tougher with Denman's reference to "NATO defense planning," which had not been in the original draft.
Finally, Denman's lethal aid suggestion was changed to "appropriate assistance to the armed forces" — a change that put the specific promise of U.S. aid to Ukraine's armed forces in the platform where it had not been originally.
"The platform ended up tougher than it started, compared from the beginning to the end," Denman told me, although she added she still believes her lethal aid provision should have been included in the final document.
So how did the "Trump weakened the GOP platform" meme get started?
Seizing on the Trump campaign's entirely defensible change of Denman's "lethal defensive weapons" to "appropriate assistance to the armed forces" — neither of which was in the original GOP draft platform — some Democrats, Republican NeverTrumpers, and their allies in the press portrayed the platform meeting in Cleveland as Donald Trump selling out the GOP to Putin.
They were helped in their efforts by a July 18, 2016, story in the Washington Post with the headline, "Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine" — a blatantly false description of events.
The narrative spread. "The same month that Trump denied Putin's role in Ukraine, his team weakened the party platform on Ukraine," Democratic Rep. Andre Carson said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing in March."
"When the platform committee met before the GOP convention in Cleveland, one delegate out of the 100 on the committee — a Texas political activist named Diana Denman — proposed an amendment. Denman, who came to the convention as a Ted Cruz delegate but later switched her support to Trump, was interested because she had traveled to Ukraine as an international election observer in 1998 and has ever since "kept an eye on the emerging democracies," she told me in a conversation last March.
Denman's amendment praised the Ukrainian people and said they deserved the greatest U.S. assistance.
"We therefore support maintaining (and, if warranted, increasing) sanctions against Russia until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored," Denman's proposed amendment read. "We also support providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine's armed forces and greater coordination with NATO on defense planning. Simultaneously, we call for increased financial aid for Ukraine, as well as greater assistance in the economic and humanitarian spheres, including government reform and anti-corruption."
Denman's amendment also included an introductory paragraph filled with a lot of generic rhetoric. When she proposed the amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room with the platform committee, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss possible changes.
At the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the throat-clearing introduction and changed Denman's reference from "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine." They left intact Denman's language on NATO, and on continued and possibly tougher sanctions on Russia.
The final, Trump-approved passage read: "We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning." That was the amendment the committee approved.
In the end, nothing was taken out of the party's original draft platform on Russia. At Denman's behest, and with Trump's approval, the platform was made tougher with language pledging ongoing and possibly increased sanctions. It was also made tougher with Denman's reference to "NATO defense planning," which had not been in the original draft.
Finally, Denman's lethal aid suggestion was changed to "appropriate assistance to the armed forces" — a change that put the specific promise of U.S. aid to Ukraine's armed forces in the platform where it had not been originally.
"The platform ended up tougher than it started, compared from the beginning to the end," Denman told me, although she added she still believes her lethal aid provision should have been included in the final document.
So how did the "Trump weakened the GOP platform" meme get started?
Seizing on the Trump campaign's entirely defensible change of Denman's "lethal defensive weapons" to "appropriate assistance to the armed forces" — neither of which was in the original GOP draft platform — some Democrats, Republican NeverTrumpers, and their allies in the press portrayed the platform meeting in Cleveland as Donald Trump selling out the GOP to Putin.
They were helped in their efforts by a July 18, 2016, story in the Washington Post with the headline, "Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine" — a blatantly false description of events.
The narrative spread. "The same month that Trump denied Putin's role in Ukraine, his team weakened the party platform on Ukraine," Democratic Rep. Andre Carson said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing in March."
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Where most of this stuff began and who was behind it
Congress needs to take a serious look at FISC system reform
The issuing judge was a close personal friend of Strzok's, something but for the subsequent foulups, Carter Page would never have known. These people treat the 4thA like toilet paper
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Sorry, am I POTUS? Are Trump and I equals? Do we have the same platform? False equivalence...
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Besides these two responses I gave below, Trump could have also raised the issue of the DNC server which, to this day, has never been examined by the FBI or the IC generally. I dont see how the FBI can draw a firm conclusion about if, how and by whom the servers were "hacked" without ever having seen the servers themselves. It not only defies common sense but it defies good and solid investigative practice.
*sigh* Let's take this one step at a time. What about Trump's statement was a strawman?
I heard that FBI had access to a mirror version of the server - what ever the **** that means.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
As I understand it, the company can take a snapshot of the server, or the server can be accessed remotely. Having said that, I don't know how susceptible those snapshots are to doctoring. I also have to wonder why if that's all true, and there's no risk of compromising the data, why the FBI always seems to want to take the server.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Not necessarily unless you think the server was physically tampered with. The FBI was handed the image that Crowdstrike captured when they arrived on the scene. That image should contain the information in both the physical and temporary RAM. The information in the temporary RAM is lost at the point of powering down the server. The image is the most important aspect of the investigation into hacking because it's a permanent picture of the server at a point in time. It can be installed on any server and analyzed, logs and all.
One other item that doesn't get mentioned in the server discussion...the FBI had warned of the hack attempts months before Crowdstrike was called in. They literally called their helpdesk to warn them and the DNC analyst didn't take the warning serious enough. We don't know how the FBI knew as their methods are not public.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Were the criticisms of Trump that he was "too tough" or that his insults were childish (e.g. "Rocket Man" and "Lil Kim")? I guess that's tough if you are a 2nd grader. Diplomacy can take on many meetings but standing next to Putin and stating you believe him over your own intelligence and calling that "diplomacy" is a stretch.
.
So.......basically you are using your opinions as facts in order to call this a strawman?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
No, I don't call my opinion a "fact". You did so above, not me.
The facts that support my opinion in the post above were that Trump stated he believed Putin over his intelligence community in the PC, Hannity and Tucker Carlson interviews. Only on Day 2 did he alter his statement albeit waffled. It's a fact that he said (paraphrasing) "I don't know why he (Putin) would" hack us. Do you dispute he said that? Do you dispute that he called Russian election interference "all a big hoax" today, despite his NIC Director and Sec of DHS stating Russia definitively interfered and continues to be a threat just last week, between Trump's claims that "would" should have been "wouldn't" yet "it could have been others".
Oh...DJT also did call Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man" and "Lil Kim". Those are facts too.
The strawman was that Trump is claiming the criticisms centered on him being "too tough" on Kim. Tough was the sanctions which I'm not sure anyone criticized. IMHO, the "rocket man" wasn't a tough comment but rather one reminiscent of a cowardly school yard bully. It was non-productive.
Last edited:
Gotta be honest, I laughed at the Lil Kim reference.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Congressional testimony indicated the FBI relied upon the reports of Crowd Strike and never had access.
" .... The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.
The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
.....
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
.....
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
