Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2013-2014

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2013-2014

    2013-2014 seems to be the watershed timeframe when Trump and his associates went from openly talking about their relationship with Putin and his oligarchs and then suddenly claiming they had nothing to do with them.

    "I was with the top level people, both oligarchs and generals and top-of-the-government people. I can't go further than that, but I will tell you I met the top people," Trump said.

    https://www.npr.org/2017/07/17/53727...h-and-powerful

    Starting at the 14:40 mark, Trump states “I’ve done a lot of business with the Russians”. When asked by Letterman if he ever met Putin Trump answers “He’s a tough guy, I met him once”…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR_SoJpWzOA

    If anyone has anything that shows Trump talking about his association with Russia after 2014 please post.

    Now what may have caused this reversal? Court documents that were released in 2018 show that Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Carter Page were all interviewed by the FBI during 2013-2014 based upon their surveillance of the Russians starting around 2012.

    Carter Page Touted Kremlin Contacts in 2013 Letter…
    https://time.com/5132126/carter-page...a-2013-letter/

    Former Trump Aide Carter Page was on US Counterintelligence Radar before Russia Dossier…
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-...ier-1517486401

    Manafort Interviewed Twice by FBI Prior to Joining Trump Campaign…
    https://thehill.com/policy/national-...trump-campaign
    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...pposition.html

    From in or about 2012, up to and including the present, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," IGOR SPORYSHEV, and VICTOR PODOBNYY, the defendants, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly, did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, Title 18, United States Code, Section 951.

    This court filing makes some really good reading. It has the actual conversations between the Russians that were legally obtained. Male-1 is Carter Page…”He got hooked on Gazprom (Russian energy company)…its obvious he wants to earn lots of money. You get the docs and tell him to go f*** himself.”[/quote]

    Sounds like they really held him in high regard. LOL

    https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-cont...omplaint-2.pdf

    So where is any mention of Trump being interviewed by the FBI prior to June 2015 when Trump announced his candidacy? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. A safe assumption though would be that it is covered under those redacted bits from the Mueller Report. And since Barr misrepresented what was in that Report it would be another safe assumption to believe he’s going to keep a tight lid on all those remaining trials. Trump’s mentor Roger Stone’s conviction on all charges is the only one which has come to light.

    Here’s Stone with Manafort well before 2013-2014…


    Oh btw, Trump was advised by FBI to be wary of Michael Flynn but he brought him on board anyways.

    Amazing how Trump wasn't aware of those investigations and managed to stay above the fray isn’t it.
    Last edited by Canuckster; 27 Jan 20, 12:30.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Canuckster View Post
    2013-2014 seems to be the watershed timeframe when Trump and his associates went from openly talking about their relationship with Putin and his oligarchs and then suddenly claiming they had nothing to do with them.
    With that timeline and what you posted.....it looks like Trump was going by what the Obama administration was saying.......reset button.....the cold war is calling you.....wait till after the election..... from 2009-2012. Then this happened:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...bb4_story.html
    Last edited by Nichols; 27 Jan 20, 13:08.
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #3
      Does mean the Mueller investigation was wrong when it concluded there was no collusion?
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
        Does mean the Mueller investigation was wrong when it concluded there was no collusion?
        I think it shows that Trump was following the lead of the Obama administration up until he decided to run for president. At that point of time it appears the only ones still colluding with the Russians was Clinton and the DNC with the Trump dossier......
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
          Does mean the Mueller investigation was wrong when it concluded there was no collusion?
          No what it says is they couldn't prove collusion because of Obstruction of Justice and provides examples except because of Barr he couldn't charge OofJ. Since he couldn't charge he couldn't state anything beyond that.

          Read it again please (the report, not Barr's 4 page misrepresentation) and let me know where I'm wrong.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Canuckster View Post

            No what it says is they couldn't prove collusion because of Obstruction of Justice and provides examples except because of Barr he couldn't charge OofJ. Since he couldn't charge he couldn't state anything beyond that.
            Could it be that they couldn't prove collusion because the Obama administration would also be found guilty?

            The timeline that you posted in the OP and looking at what the Obama administration was saying during that time frame shows that Trump was parroting what the administration was saying....
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nichols View Post

              Could it be that they couldn't prove collusion because the Obama administration would also be found guilty?
              No, that's a conspiracy theory. Obama's administration had republicans controlling congress. If this were true, the republicans would have investigated it. Republicans loved investigating Obama and Hillary. Every investigation proved to be a nothing bergder.. No charges, no indictments.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

                No, that's a conspiracy theory. Obama's administration had republicans controlling congress. If this were true, the republicans would have investigated it. Republicans loved investigating Obama and Hillary. Every investigation proved to be a nothing bergder.. No charges, no indictments.
                Not for the first two years he was in office. Democrats controlled Congress for those years, overwhelmingly controlled it. Then came the mid terms and the Democrats were swept out of office by a tsunami of backlash against the idiot policies and massive expansion of government the Democrats (and Obama) were pushing.
                Thankfully, Congress is always plodding in their ability to do anything, while Obama was simply incompetent. That prevented much of the worst of their excesses from actually being implemented. Instead, they wasted their effort on that massive failure called Obamacare and squandered a trillion dollars on a stimulus that didn't stimulate anything.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

                  No, that's a conspiracy theory. Obama's administration had republicans controlling congress. If this were true, the republicans would have investigated it. Republicans loved investigating Obama and Hillary. Every investigation proved to be a nothing bergder.. No charges, no indictments.
                  You should look up what "conspiracy theory" means.

                  Are you saying that the reset button never happened?

                  Are you saying that Obama didn't ask Russia to hold off on missile talk until after the election?

                  Are you saying that Clinton didn't write that memo at the end of 2012?
                  "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Canuckster View Post

                    No what it says is they couldn't prove collusion because of Obstruction of Justice and provides examples except because of Barr he couldn't charge OofJ. Since he couldn't charge he couldn't state anything beyond that.

                    Read it again please (the report, not Barr's 4 page misrepresentation) and let me know where I'm wrong.


                    Mueller conlcuded there was no evidence of collusion with the russians. That meant there was no evidence of collusion with the russians.
                    I could mine the report and convince myself there really are nuggets of proof in there, but Mueller already did that and concluded there was no evidence of collusion.

                    Saying they couldn't prove collusion because of trump's obstruction of justice honestly makes no sense.
                    At least from a legal perspective. I could be missing something, but I will attempt to explain my point.

                    If trump is withholding evidence (obstruction of justice) or denying access to it, that means the DOJ can only speculate as to what that evidence actually shows because they haven't seen or heard it.
                    Your argument is akin to my saying I could prove you are guilty of any crime I can think of if you will only tell us.
                    The fact that you haven't told us you didn't commit crimes isn't proof of your guilt nor does it create a presumption that an investigation will provide evidence of guilt. If I need to rely on you to prove the crime I accuse you of, that is pretty much an admission I have no evidence to support my accusation.

                    Claiming that trump's "obstruction" is the only reason he wasn't convicted of "collusion" (conspiracy actually) is pretty much proof that the entire russia story was a hoax. In order for the investigation to start there had to be probable cause to believe trump had commited a crime. That means sources other than trump. What happened to all that evidence? Why was trump suddenly needed to prove what they already claimed he did?
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

                      No, that's a conspiracy theory. Obama's administration had republicans controlling congress. If this were true, the republicans would have investigated it. Republicans loved investigating Obama and Hillary. Every investigation proved to be a nothing bergder.. No charges, no indictments.
                      Not republicans, but RINOS controlled Congress and they did nothing to stop Obama.
                      Bush used 12 vetoes, 4 of which were overridden
                      Obama used 12 vetoes, only one was overridden ,and it was a special case .
                      This also indicates that a GOP congress is more independent to a GOP president than a Democratic Congress to a Democratic president .
                      Last edited by ljadw; 27 Jan 20, 15:50.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You know the Democrats made up Russian Collusion, right?
                        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                          Not republicans, but RINOS controlled Congress and they did nothing to stop Obama.
                          Bush used 12 vetoes, 4 of which were overridden
                          Obama used 12 vetoes, only one was overridden ,and it was a special case .
                          This also indicates that a GOP congress is more independent to a GOP president than a Democratic Congress to a Democratic president .
                          How convenient. If you don't like what a fellow republican says, you conveniently dismiss anything ithey say by calling them a RINO. What sort of education do you have?

                          The economy is always better under democratic leadership. Just look at red states and their middle class to see how well capitalist policies work.

                          Take Texas for example, explosions killing people all over the place and frequently. That's what you get with capitalist policies. Safety laws? Bah! Those hurt profits!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                            Take Texas for example, explosions killing people all over the place and frequently. That's what you get with capitalist policies. Safety laws? Bah! Those hurt profits!
                            Question(s): How safe is safe enough? How much pollution should we allow?

                            What you get with the Left and bureaucratic Socialism is so much regulation that little gets done and what does get done is grossly expensive. For example, the ban on DDT has killed tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people through not controlling the mosquito population based on false research that caused the ban.

                            https://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

                            https://spectator.org/48925_ddt-fraud-and-tragedy/



                            That label on 5 gallon buckets is the result of safety regulators run amok. The safety freaks at the CPSC wanted to put little crossed sticks on the lips of buckets that would have cost over $10 billion a year to install and raised the price of buckets sufficiently to increase inflation by almost 1% all to "save" 5 to 9 children's lives a year from falling into these buckets and drowning. Never the adult's responsibility to act in a safe an reasonable manner, the bureaucrats wanted it to be automatic. They further were going to make it illegal to remove the sticks, something unacceptable to a wide swath of commercial and industrial processes and companies.
                            In the end, they got the extra label and 5 to 9 children a year drown in buckets.

                            So, how safe is safe enough? How much pollution do we allow?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              How safe is safe enough? How much pollution should we allow?
                              The bottom line is that presently with the reduction in pollution standards we are less safe than we were before Trump began abolishing anything to do with Obama.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X