Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

aloyisious

If you accept that it's a fact that the Russian Govt, through it's agencies and agents, interfered directly with the US voting system, one has to ask was it to get one candidate into office over the other. Asking for a reason to the Russian Govt's decision point's toward what people say about HRC, she was a hawk that Russia realised it couldn't make sweetheart deals with, leaving Russia with no choice, it had to be the GOP candidate.

Don, the "I know ho to make deals" businessman, enters the electoral stage and, with the assist of the GOP nominee system, win's the nomination. For Russia, whatever choice it had up til then, it was a one-horse race after that. The gift was that Don was, and still is, solely interested in making deals, the thing he still think's he's the best in the USA at. Russia screwed over the US all the way to the bank with Don and the GOP as patsies into the bargain.

The Dems could well make their electoral slogan for 2020 "We're the party with the American Candidate" and keep pushing the angle that the GOP put it's interests first, not the U.S. interests, by promo-ing a friend of Russia.

Leroy42

aloyisious wrote: »

The Dems could well make their electoral slogan for 2020 "We're the party with the American Candidate" and keep pushing the angle that the GOP put it's interests first, not the U.S. interests, by promo-ing a friend of Russia.

Thats a very good idea. Rather than go down the route of "Trump=collusion", which is always going to be hard to nail down (if indeed it happened at all), point to the fact that the GOP stood by whilst their GOP POTUS refused to enact the sanctions passed by both houses.

Point to the fact that he has (to date) taken no action against Russia or even put in place anything to stop it happening again. Remove the "Anti-Trump" rhetoric, and make it a Pro-USA stance.

Don't get bogged down in specifics, taking about the wall, or the dossier, or his (at present counting) 2 affairs. Or even the Comey affair etc. They will have easy and well rehearsed talking points to get around these. Much harder to be able to fight back against a claim of being Pro-Russia

demfad

aloyisious wrote: »

If you accept that it's a fact that the Russian Govt, through it's agencies and agents, interfered directly with the US voting system, one has to ask was it to get one candidate into office over the other. Asking for a reason to the Russian Govt's decision point's toward what people say about HRC, she was a hawk that Russia realised it couldn't make sweetheart deals with, leaving Russia with no choice, it had to be the GOP candidate.

Don, the "I know ho to make deals" businessman, enters the electoral stage and, with the assist of the GOP nominee system, win's the nomination. For Russia, whatever choice it had up til then, it was a one-horse race after that. The gift was that Don was, and still is, solely interested in making deals, the thing he still think's he's the best in the USA at. Russia screwed over the US all the way to the bank with Don and the GOP as patsies into the bargain.

The Dems could well make their electoral slogan for 2020 "We're the party with the American Candidate" and keep pushing the angle that the GOP put it's interests first, not the U.S. interests, by promo-ing a friend of Russia.

The indictments say that Russia helped Donald Trump in the primaries as well as the presidential election.
Trump patented "Make America Great again" in 2012 and had declared his interest via Twitter and otherwise many times since then and before 2014.
It was NOT a case of back the GOP nominee no matter who that is. They were backing Donald Trump and clearly the operation was setup with Trump in mind.

Leroy42

How do you explain the support for Saunders? Whilst I think Trump winning was the perfect outcome from a Russia POV, even more so since he is showing himself to be even less capable than many thought and is actively widening the cracks in American society, I think the overall goal was to sow discord into the system.

To polarise the country and make it increasingly ungovernable. The first step was not to allow HC to get in, as they feared her hardline stance and, this is my guess, saw that she was probably pushing for tougher reactions to Russia than Obama ever did.

Which GOP actually got in was less of an issue that stopping HC from getting in. Of course they saw Trump as the perfect patsie, a man clearly more worried about himself and his family/fortune, than anything to do with US. And so when he got the nomination, or had the potential to, it made sense to row in fully behind him.

It doesn't mean they weren't aligned, and certainly the Trump Tower meeting with Trump Jr is becoming ever more serious by the day, but neither does any of this mean that they actually were.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Another issue that seems not to have been discussed is the public's responsibility in all of this Russian interference.

Voters need to ask themselves how it was so easy for the Russians to be able to interfere? Not from a technical POV, but just how easily they well led. There is little doubt that the Russians were able to interfere to the extend that they were because of the acceptance of many of these items at face value by many supporters.

So well apart from whether Trump was involved, what this episode has shown is that it is relatively easy and cheap to manipulate a sufficient amount of voters.

The FBI etc can do all they can, but in the end interference will, and I suppose always has been, a part of any democracy. So what systems are you going to put in place to limit any potential outcomes?

Based on the current state of the political system in the US, it won't be them who come up with any solutions, as they both hope that they will gain the advantage next time.

The main method is to invigorate, radicalise and activate the base. That is a huge step towards winning an election.
Russian interference also agressively targetted anyone openly supporting Clinton. Many Clinton groups had to be 'members' only on Facebook to protect the aggressive, threatening attacks led by Russian trolls (which they assumed were US Trump supporters).
What can be done about it?
Immediate sanctions against Vladimir Putin where it hurts: freeze his money and that of anyone associated with his activities.
Social media companies to remove trolls/bots or face shutdown.
Same for Fake/news amplification, algorithm gaming.
New electoral laws with massive penalties for anyone caught using bots trolls.
Coordinate with Europe to combat the current Russian led Cyber world war.
Revise money laundering detection and laws. This is where Russia succeeded in corrupting and creating a powerful group of sympathetic billionaires.
Look at other angles of Russian interest and collusion set up to influence the American right: 'World family of religions', 'the right to bear arms'.
Set up a 9/11 style commission to investigate the attack on US.
Long term, education, media reform to tackle information going to electorate.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

It doesn't mean they weren't aligned, and certainly the Trump Tower meeting with Trump Jr is becoming ever more serious by the day, but neither does any of this mean that they actually were.

Do you still believe that the Trump campaign did not knowingly collude with Russia?

Leroy42

demfad wrote: »

Do you still believe that the Trump campaign did not knowingly collude with Russia?

I doesn't really matter what I believe, as Tom Cruise once said as Lt Kaffee "It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove." and at the present time there is no proof.

I would certainly be of the view that the Russia's were very much in Trump's corner, that Trump has significant ties with Russia and that the timing of those ties are deeply suspicious to say the least

Water John

It was a personal animosity for Hillary Clinton by Putin that was the initial driving force.

david75

Water John wrote: »

It was a personal animosity for Hillary Clinton by Putin that was the initial driving force.

I do not remember where I read it but in the earliest days of the campaign someone said ‘if it’s Clinton, it’s war. Putin loathes her and she isn’t intimidated by him.’ Paraphrasing and can’t remember the source but that was the gist.

notobtuse

I've been reading this site on the comments regarding US politics for some time.

Special Counsel Mueller's indictment of foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election seems rather far reaching and now IMO poses potential problems for sites like this. The indictments of the 13 Russians, regarding US politics, were because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission.

I don't see anything the Russians did to be substantially different from what I read here.

So the question is posed: Should this site now be limited to only countries outside the United States for comment? Should everyone here who posts comments about US politics, who is not a US citizen, now be required to register in the US as a foreign citizen under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; and list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission? Or does boards.ie ignore this recent indictment and flaunt US laws? Boards seems to avoid running afoul of laws, but will the laws of the US be different?

listermint

notobtuse wrote: »

I've been reading this site on the comments regarding US politics for some time.

Special Counsel Mueller's indictment of foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election seems rather far reaching and now IMO poses potential problems for sites like this. The indictments of the 13 Russians, regarding US politics, were because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission.

I don't see anything the Russians did to be substantially different from what I read here.

So the question is posed: Should this site now be limited to only countries outside the United States for comment? Should everyone here who posts comments about US politics, who is not a US citizen, now be required to register in the US as a foreign citizen under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; and list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission? Or does boards.ie ignore this recent indictment and flaunt US laws? Boards seems to avoid running afoul of laws, but will the laws of the US be different?

You assertion that people posting on a messaging forum is akin to the direct and proven meddling in the US election on US Soil it somewhat erm,, perplexing

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I doesn't really matter what I believe, as Tom Cruise once said as Lt Kaffee "It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove." and at the present time there is no proof.

I would certainly be of the view that the Russia's were very much in Trump's corner, that Trump has significant ties with Russia and that the timing of those ties are deeply suspicious to say the least

There is not going to be any proof until the investigation is over. There is himalayan scale evidence now. There is himalayan scale anecdotal and cirucmstantial pointers. There is himalayan scale guilty acting by the perpetrators. There is himalayan scale obstruction by Trump. You don't have to prove it to be certain of his and his campaigns guilt.
There are 20 indictments and growing. 2 have pleaded guilty and Ricky Gates is about to do the same and testify against Paul Manafort.
The one page of evidence posted here before is now about 3.

I think people are getting fooled by the recent indictments. Mueller is using strategy: he has put Trump into a position where he had to accept that Russia attacked the US in the last election.
Rosenstein said this indictment did not show that the Trump campaign colluded with these indicted Russians.

The indictments were for 1) defrauding the US :hiding the existence of the interference from the Federal Government, undermining their ability to disclose it.
2) Fraud: False names to send money in/out of US.
3) Identity theft: using US names as part of the Fraud in crime 2.

For further charges on Americans based on these crimes it would have to be proven that an American/s helped Russia hide their interference.

Who should be worried now based on this indictment?

Social media/media companies? Cambridge Analytica?

Remember Russia cyber attacked on three fronts: the social media assault, the hack-and-dump operation targeting Democrats, and the penetration of state voting systems. The latter was so serious that Obama rang Putin on the red line and told him to 'knock it off'.

That is not to mention the collusion investigation, obstruction investigation, and potentially an obstruction investigation against members of the GOP.

We haven't mentioned that many of Muellers guys are experts in money laundering. Also of note is that Eric Schneiderman the NYAG is building up a massive case also.

notobtuse

listermint wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I've been reading this site on the comments regarding US politics for some time.

Special Counsel Mueller's indictment of foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election seems rather far reaching and now IMO poses potential problems for sites like this. The indictments of the 13 Russians, regarding US politics, were because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission.

I don't see anything the Russians did to be substantially different from what I read here.

So the question is posed: Should this site now be limited to only countries outside the United States for comment? Should everyone here who posts comments about US politics, who is not a US citizen, now be required to register in the US as a foreign citizen under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; and list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission? Or does boards.ie ignore this recent indictment and flaunt US laws? Boards seems to avoid running afoul of laws, but will the laws of the US be different?

You assertion that people posting on a messaging forum is akin to the direct and proven meddling in the US election on US Soil it somewhat erm,, perplexing

An argument can be made that what is posted here about US political, social and economic situations can be intended to influence political thought to anyone from the US reading them.

Leroy42

demfad wrote: »

There is not going to be any proof until the investigation is over. There is himalayan scale evidence now. There is himalayan scale anecdotal and cirucmstantial pointers. There is himalayan scale guilty acting by the perpetrators. There is himalayan scale obstruction by Trump. You don't have to prove it to be certain of his and his campaigns guilt.
There are 20 indictments and growing. 2 have pleaded guilty and Ricky Gates is about to do the same and testify against Paul Manafort.
The one page of evidence posted here before is now about 3.

I have cut off the rest of the post merely to save space.

I agree with all that you say, I was only saying that in terms of 'proof' (ie tried in court or admitted to) there is nothing on Trump.

And in terms of people that support him, it seems that until he is actually tried and convicted then that 'proves' he is innocent.

Look at Fox etc and Trump reaction to the latest indictments. It was if they were a victory for Trump. The casual sideswatting of the Papadopolous and Flynn bargains and the almost ignoring of the Manafort charges. Unless Mueller finds a letter delivered by hand by Putin, with a video if it, being handed to Trump and Trump reading the letter and stroking a cat whilst laughing about the fall of the US, many will simply pass this all off.

It is truly staggering to me to see the level of questions and conflicts that Trump has and it seems that many people are non-plussed about the whole thing.

Igotadose

notobtuse wrote: »

An argument can be made that what is posted here about US political, social and economic situations can be intended to influence political thought to anyone from the US reading them.

And, that's why what you're saying cannot form the basis of an indictment. Have you read the indictment? The first paragraph should clear up your confusion.

Chips Lovell

Posters on Boards.ie are not agents of a foreign principal and therefore the US Foreign Agents Registration Act doesn't apply to them.

If you have any further questions or concerns about this, please open a thread on the Help Desk and the admins or community managers can answer them.

Now, back on topic.

notobtuse

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Posters on Boards.ie are not agents of a foreign principal and therefore the US Foreign Agents Registration Act doesn't apply to them.

If you have any further questions or concerns about this, please open a thread on the Help Desk and the admins or community managers can answer them.

Now, back on topic.

That makes sense.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have cut off the rest of the post merely to save space.

I agree with all that you say, I was only saying that in terms of 'proof' (ie tried in court or admitted to) there is nothing on Trump.

And in terms of people that support him, it seems that until he is actually tried and convicted then that 'proves' he is innocent.

Look at Fox etc and Trump reaction to the latest indictments. It was if they were a victory for Trump. The casual sideswatting of the Papadopolous and Flynn bargains and the almost ignoring of the Manafort charges. Unless Mueller finds a letter delivered by hand by Putin, with a video if it, being handed to Trump and Trump reading the letter and stroking a cat whilst laughing about the fall of the US, many will simply pass this all off.

It is truly staggering to me to see the level of questions and conflicts that Trump has and it seems that many people are non-plussed about the whole thing.

It is different now. His rabid core is now more understandable. Russian influence via social media was used to radicalise them.

Trump is not claiming Russian interference is false anymore. He is claiming it is real. Now he cannot again pretend it is non existant.

There is a point to be reached where Trump cannot continue the charade without authoritarian control.

How can he not now enact sanctions on Russia, how can he square that circle?

His GOP loyalists can no longer deny Russian interference. All they can do is stay silent.

Also the indictments show communications with Russia. In Papaodolous case they show a quid pro quo. This is evidence.

Look at the level of detail in Muellers indictment.

A pretty accurate take from published articles can be formulated about what happenned, how the collusion was carried and who was involved.

A whole swathe of Trump lies are now cut off from him.
It matters a little less what he says now.

Leroy42

Again, I agree with you and I fail to see how any critical thinking adult can not see that there are huge issues with Trump.

Even putting aside the issue of collusion, I have said a number of times, that Trumps continued inaction, actually strike that, he is seemingly not only against taking any action he seems more exercised in trying to convince people that nothing at all happened which is even more worrying, or at least should be. It is akin to a direct attack on the US and the CiC is standing there proclaiming that its maybe the DNC that are the problem!

Why the likes of the GOP are not going into Trump with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver (as the saying goes not literally) is beyond me. That they are willing to continue to leave the US open to more attacks for the sake of saving face speaks volumes.

This is so serious that Trump shouldn't be allowed to dictate when and how much he will testify, he should be in front of the Senate committee right now to explain how all the separate things we know about (Flynn, Manafort, Trump Jr meeting etc etc) can be anything but a serious case to answer and what exactly he is going to do to sanction Russia and protect the US.

notobtuse

Robert Mueller's indictment seemingly also makes Christopher Steele a criminal.  He is a foreign citizen, he tried to influence an election, he received payments to do so, and he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.

And if that is the case with Steele, a case can possibly be made that FusionGPS was a criminal co-conspirator.  Also entangled would be the DNC and the Clinton campaign as they might have run afoul of the Federal Election Commission by disguising their payments to Steele as legal expenses through a law firm.  They knew Steele was a foreign citizen, they paid Steele to influence an election, and knew Steele neither registering as a foreign agent. 

It is highly unlikely the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and even Barack Obama will ever be charged, as it would be detrimental to the US system to have an entire party determined to be guilty of illegally trying to influence an election, using governmental agencies to target political opposition and help another, and possibly of sedition. But it will give the GOP political ammunition going into the 2018 and 2020 elections.

demfad

notobtuse wrote: »

Robert Mueller's indictment seemingly also makes Christopher Steele a criminal.  He is a foreign citizen, he tried to influence an election, he received payments to do so, and he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.

Opposition research is allowed under US election Law.
He was working for Fusion GPS who were contracted for the opposition research by Republicans and then by Democrats.

And if that is the case with Steele, a case can possibly be made that FusionGPS was a criminal co-conspirator.

 

It's not.

Also entangled would be the DNC and the Clinton campaign as they might have run afoul of the Federal Election Commission by disguising their payments to Steele as legal expenses through a law firm.  They knew Steele was a foreign citizen, they paid Steele to influence an election, and knew Steele neither registering as a foreign agent. 

It is highly unlikely the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and even Barack Obama will ever be charged, as it would be detrimental to the US system to have an entire party determined to be guilty of illegally trying to influence an election, using governmental agencies to target political opposition and help another, and possibly of sedition. But it will give the GOP political ammunition going into the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Absolute invented waffle. People have been informing themselves to a high degree on this thread. BS like the above won't fly. Try harder.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Robert Mueller's indictment seemingly also makes Christopher Steele a criminal.  He is a foreign citizen, he tried to influence an election, he received payments to do so, and he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.

And if that is the case with Steele, a case can possibly be made that FusionGPS was a criminal co-conspirator.  Also entangled would be the DNC and the Clinton campaign as they might have run afoul of the Federal Election Commission by disguising their payments to Steele as legal expenses through a law firm.  They knew Steele was a foreign citizen, they paid Steele to influence an election, and knew Steele neither registering as a foreign agent. 

It is highly unlikely the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and even Barack Obama will ever be charged, as it would be detrimental to the US system to have an entire party determined to be guilty of illegally trying to influence an election, using governmental agencies to target political opposition and help another, and possibly of sedition. But it will give the GOP political ammunition going into the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Where are you getting your information from? That post looks like it wouldn't be out of place in r/the_donald. There's so much wrong there that I don't even know where to begin in terms of refuting it.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

Where are you getting your information from? That post looks like it wouldn't be out of place in r/the_donald. There's so much wrong there that I don't even know where to begin in terms of refuting it.

I read quite a bit of US political news. I believe unbiased news in the US does not exist, so I read opinions from Left, Right and Center media sources to gain a balanced approach. But I do lean right and my posts naturally would reflect that. I feel we don’t get news anymore, and instead are delivered primarily opinion pieces from media types who trade their journalist hats in favor of activist hats. But in this case I have been searching out opinions from sources that deal with US Constitutional and criminal law.

Quin_Dub

demfad wrote: »

Do you still believe that the Trump campaign did not knowingly collude with Russia?

My view on it is twofold.

I don't really believe that Trump himself actively (and knowingly) colluded with the Russians to influence the Election.

However through a combination of Hubris , ignorance of rules and also Trumps in ability to look at some of his successes through the lens "If it looks to good to be true it probably isn't" they definitely gained from it.

But - His attacks on Mueller and his current lack of willingness to punish Russia for their actions I believe it absolutely down to him not wanting people looking too closely as his connections to Russia and Russian Money in particular.

jobbridge4life

Quin_Dub wrote: »

My view on it is twofold.

I don't really believe that Trump himself actively (and knowingly) colluded with the Russians to influence the Election.

However through a combination of Hubris , ignorance of rules and also Trumps in ability to look at some of his successes through the lens "If it looks to good to be true it probably isn't" they definitely gained from it.

But - His attacks on Mueller and his current lack of willingness to punish Russia for their actions I believe it absolutely down to him not wanting people looking too closely as his connections to Russia and Russian Money in particular.

I'm curious about your statement that I have bolded. What is this based on? I have a similar enough feeling, or maybe the exact same feeling but it has just been battered.

My reasoning was that basically I couldn't comprehend someone doing such a thing, for a variety of reasons. I have to admit though given the last couple of years I don't really know anything.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

I read quite a bit of US political news. I believe unbiased news in the US does not exist, so I read opinions from Left, Right and Center media sources to gain a balanced approach. But I do lean right and my posts naturally would reflect that. I feel we don’t get news anymore, and instead are delivered primarily opinion pieces from media types who trade their journalist hats in favor of activist hats. But in this case I have been searching out opinions from sources that deal with US Constitutional and criminal law.

The bit in bold piqued my interest because because it doesn't square well with the post to which I initially responded. As I said, there was so much wrong there that I didn't know where to begin. It was like sovereign-citizen logic. With that in mind, lets just address the opening paragraph. Here it is as a reminder...

notobtuse wrote: »

Robert Mueller's indictment seemingly also makes Christopher Steele a criminal.  He is a foreign citizen, he tried to influence an election, he received payments to do so, and he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.

This makes so little sense that I'm still at a loss. Steele, a private British citizen, was contracted by Fusion GPS, an American company, to provide some opposition research. That's no more trying to influence an election than the Chinese guy making MAGA hats.

The requirement to register as a foreign agent isn't something that foreign contractors to American companies have to do. FARA statutes refer to agents working on behalf of a foreign government. I'm no legal professional but this is simple stuff.

These people who are informing you about constitutional and criminal law are either full of it or you are greatly misunderstanding them.

UsedToWait

demfad wrote:

Remember Russia cyber attacked on three fronts: ...

and the penetration of state voting systems. The latter was so serious that Obama rang Putin on the red line and told him to 'knock it off'.

Demfad, I've been reading your posts with interest, particularly about Cambridge Analytica and the money trail etc, but I don't recall this point having been made before.

Could you point us to the source?

mcmoustache

Quin_Dub wrote: »

My view on it is twofold.

I don't really believe that Trump himself actively (and knowingly) colluded with the Russians to influence the Election.

However through a combination of Hubris , ignorance of rules and also Trumps in ability to look at some of his successes through the lens "If it looks to good to be true it probably isn't" they definitely gained from it.

But - His attacks on Mueller and his current lack of willingness to punish Russia for their actions I believe it absolutely down to him not wanting people looking too closely as his connections to Russia and Russian Money in particular.

That's fair. It's certainly possible that Trump himself was kept in the dark and that Manafort was the one pulling the strings. I could well believe that Kushner and Junior looked after the digital operation where there may well have been collusion while Trump himself just campaigned and tweeted.

There has been very little to demonstrate direct involvement from Trump himself besides his intervention in the statement about the Trump Tower meeting. The fact that this meeting was initially denied and later poorly spun shows that at a minimum, Trump knew about it and that it was dodgy as hell.

As I said, it's possible that he was kept in the dark but the fact that he intervened in Junior's statement suggests that he knows more than he's letting on.

There's also his lack of action on Russia. Applying the bipartisan sanctions bill would be such an easy political win that his refusal raises a lot of reasonable questions. The main one being "Why?".

mcmoustache

UsedToWait wrote: »

Demfad, I've been reading your posts with interest, particularly about Cambridge Analytica and the money trail etc, but I don't recall this point having been made before.

Could you point us to the source?

DHS had ascertained that Russians were attacking voter registrations prior to the election. I think that this is what demfad was referring to.

Stheno

White house have just made a statement that Trump is supportive of enhanced background checks for those wishing to buy guns