Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 40

Thread: The new Director of National Intelligence

  1. #16
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The report does not exonerate which implies he's in the clear.

    First bit matters, no charges brought means he's out of the woods.

    I've heard some of the questions in these inquires and they are 100% fishing where its almost impossible to not appear guilty.

    The bottom line is either side can spin this the way they want and claim a victory.

    I don't buy the reason Mueller could not bring charges against because Trump is president. If there is enough evidence then the best you hope to get is a resignation like happened with Nixon.

    Reason i said i thought it was partisan is because you've had two democrat terms. This means the networks have been oiled for eight years. People would like that to continue but these pesky elections come around and upset the apple cart. For some reason the charges of partisanship are more shrill this time. But think back to any administration that had two terms, you've had several. So this is the norm. I don't recall partisan charges being made previously though or not as loudly as this time.
    Totally wrong on many fronts. So I will now ask you before you commit yourself further have you read the report personally in order to comment? A straight yes or no will suffice.

  2. #17
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    No conspiracy


    Russians doing a hit on the Americans via wikileaks. Diplomatic Cables and then the democrat emails courtesy wikileaks. Hybrid warfare, call it what you want. Democracies under foreign attack.


    Bolded bit, he has by implication said he is not guilty since he cannot bring charges. Put another way, whatever Mueller has is insufficient to bring charges on the basis of obstruction. Same thing.

    The report does not exonerate which implies he's in the clear.

    First bit matters, no charges brought means he's out of the woods.

    I've heard some of the questions in these inquires and they are 100% fishing where its almost impossible to not appear guilty.

    The bottom line is either side can spin this the way they want and claim a victory.

    I don't buy the reason Mueller could not bring charges against because Trump is president. If there is enough evidence then the best you hope to get is a resignation like happened with Nixon.

    Reason i said i thought it was partisan is because you've had two democrat terms. This means the networks have been oiled for eight years. People would like that to continue but these pesky elections come around and upset the apple cart. For some reason the charges of partisanship are more shrill this time. But think back to any administration that had two terms, you've had several. So this is the norm. I don't recall partisan charges being made previously though or not as loudly as this time.
    Yeah I have to agree with tbm...Wrong on so many fronts that I don't even know where to begin.

    Probably good place to start would be what you "don't buy". Seriously?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  3. #18
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Totally wrong on many fronts. So I will now ask you before you commit yourself further have you read the report personally in order to comment? A straight yes or no will suffice.
    heh, where is it wrong ? nah, you just disagree

    Went on what you said. If that is wrong then what you said is wrong.

    No, I don't intend to read the report. What for.

    There is no basis to charge him and that is all that counts.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 31 Jul 19, at 18:16.

  4. #19
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Yeah I have to agree with tbm...Wrong on so many fronts that I don't even know where to begin.

    Probably good place to start would be what you "don't buy". Seriously?
    Unless a charge is brought and sticks its as good as nothing happened.

    Like it or not that's how it works.

    I pay attention to the opposition when they can score.

    They have not.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 31 Jul 19, at 18:17.

  5. #20
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Unless a charge is brought and sticks its as good as nothing happened.
    Ok....and?

    That doesn't mean that an event didn't happen. Or that it was merely "partisan".
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  6. #21
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Ok....and?

    That doesn't mean that an event didn't happen. Or that it was merely "partisan".
    Who cares. The whole point of the exercise was to find something to charge him with.

    There is nothing.

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,456
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    However, there was a considerable Russian involvement in the election. The Russians were feeding Assange information although he was supposedly unaware that the information was coming from Russians. More like looking the other way and saying I don't recall. Donny Jr. was baited with the possibility of obtaining dirt on HRC even though it was a pretense for another purpose. Nonetheless, he took the meeting rather than decline and report it to the FBI. Other lower level people in the campaign also tried to advance certain outside agendas. So they were looking, and were open to help in any manner, without involving the principals.

    One could call it simply a coincidence when Wikileaks came out with news dumps on HRC. Classic one was during the debate where he directly asked if there was more information out there concerning her emails as he would love them. Five hours later a massive dump by Wikileaks. Another, when the tape came out about his groping of women which didn't look good for him at the moment. Moment because not soon after another dump information about HRC on Wikileaks diverting the attention. This is if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is mostly likely a duck even though you never saw the two main ducks together. This was a conspiracy by happenstance with two groups on the same wavelength but never actually conspiring together in a hand shake moment.
    I'm always reminded when anytime someone mentions walks, quacks, looks like a duck scenario. If it is all those things, then it is most likely a duck ... unless it is a decoy. This is intel we're talking about. There are always CYA caveats. Trump is Putin's decoy.

    Again, no one looked closely at Putin's actions. While rightly stated that the two ducks never shook hands, it is OFTEN ignored that Putin is a spymaster. His military background is intel and rule number one of intel, two people knowing ain't a secret. What this essentially means that not only did Trump never knew of Putin's actions, no one else in Trump's campaign ever did. Need-To-Know outright states that no one in the Trump camp ever knew anything. Putin needed none of them to carry out his plans.

    What Putin did do is to put out bait for the Trump camp to bite. Not a single one of Trump camp-Russian meetings ever produce any dirt that the Trump camp was looking for and there was absolutely zero evidence that the Russians in those meetings knew anything about Clinton dirt and yet, the implications of dirt was there. Who put out those implications? Most certainly, not the Russians in those meetings.

    There was no collusion. Trump is Putin's useful idiot. He swallowed Putin's bait hook-line-sinker ... and frankly, so did Mueller.

  8. #23
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    There was no collusion.
    Sir, how would you characterize the intent of the Trump Campaign and Family to (knowingly and eagerly) interact with Russian actors for the purpose of swaying the election?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,456
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Sir, how would you characterize the intent of the Trump Campaign and Family to (knowingly and eagerly) interact with Russian actors for the purpose of swaying the election?
    Exactly that. Intent.

    Since there is no legal definition of collusion, we have to rely on https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

    collusion noun
    col·​lu·​sion | \ kə-ˈlü-zhən
    \
    Definition of collusion

    : secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
    There is no such thing as an agreement of one and, therefore, a meeting of the minds of one.

    The Russians in the meetings with Trump camp certainly did not have a meeting of the minds. And as explained, Putin never had any intention of agreeing with Trump. He was using him.

  10. #25
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Exactly that. Intent.
    Do you consider this intent to be dangerous to the security of the United States, and by extension, her close allies?

    A follow-up: Given the outcry and disgust of non Trump worshippers at these activities, how would you characterize Trump's announced intention to accept further help from foreign countries, in effect putting a "For Sale" sign around his neck, to sway U.S. elections?
    Do you consider this statement by Trump to be dangerous to the safety of the United States, and by extension, her close allies?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  11. #26
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Do you consider this intent to be dangerous to the security of the United States, and by extension, her close allies?

    A follow-up: Given the outcry and disgust of non Trump worshippers at these activities, how would you characterize Trump's announced intention to accept further help from foreign countries, in effect putting a "For Sale" sign around his neck, to sway U.S. elections?
    Do you consider this statement by Trump to be dangerous to the safety of the United States, and by extension, her close allies?
    Maybe if you believe Trump is a Manchurian candidate

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,456
    That line was already crossed in 2016 when Trump asked for Clinton emails from the Russians on National TV. The Russians got nothing in return other than a useful idiot which strategically meant a lot more status quo than anything else. Things did not get any better for Russia but they also didn't get any worst.

    From a strategic standpoint, Trump's re-election is not a given and what the security holes the Russians exploited have been sealed. Both political parties have learned the importance of IT security outside of government controls. Thus, anything that would help Trump would be much harder to get. Do you really want to expose your assets for so little potential return?

    From this perspective, there's very little anyone can offer other than troll farms and Trump ain't paying shit for that.

  13. #28
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,715
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That line was already crossed in 2016 when Trump asked for Clinton emails from the Russians on National TV. The Russians got nothing in return other than a useful idiot which strategically meant a lot more status quo than anything else. Things did not get any better for Russia but they also didn't get any worst.

    From a strategic standpoint, Trump's re-election is not a given and what the security holes the Russians exploited have been sealed. Both political parties have learned the importance of IT security outside of government controls. Thus, anything that would help Trump would be much harder to get. Do you really want to expose your assets for so little potential return?

    From this perspective, there's very little anyone can offer other than troll farms and Trump ain't paying shit for that.
    Thank you, that's exactly the kind of incisive assessment I was hoping for.

    Another question, if you don't mind: Regarding Trump's ongoing willingness to whore himself out as a willing useful idiot, and considering the very good possibility that he will indeed get reelected....Do you see U.S. allies less willing to engage with the US when there is a likelihood of Trump either knowingly or unknowingly spewing secrets out to the world?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  14. #29
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge
    I don't buy the reason Mueller could not bring charges against because Trump is president. If there is enough evidence then the best you hope to get is a resignation like happened with Nixon.
    There's a memo from the 90s in which Clinton's AG at the time wrote that the president couldn't be charged by the DoJ with a crime. This was during the Lewinsky scandal.

    Charges are brought by US Attorneys for federal crimes. They're appointed by the President, as is the Attorney General.

    The memo isn't law, it's a legal opinion. But I suppose as long as AGs continue to stick to that opinion, their subordinates in the executive branch are duty-bound to obey it. After all, the AG is their boss and can quash charges and end investigations for any reason.

    State and district attorneys are free to file charges though. As happened with Spiro Agnew, Nixon's VP, who was charged by the State of Maryland on corruption charges.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  15. #30
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,644
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That line was already crossed in 2016 when Trump asked for Clinton emails from the Russians on National TV. The Russians got nothing in return other than a useful idiot which strategically meant a lot more status quo than anything else. Things did not get any better for Russia but they also didn't get any worst.

    From a strategic standpoint, Trump's re-election is not a given and what the security holes the Russians exploited have been sealed. Both political parties have learned the importance of IT security outside of government controls. Thus, anything that would help Trump would be much harder to get. Do you really want to expose your assets for so little potential return?

    From this perspective, there's very little anyone can offer other than troll farms and Trump ain't paying shit for that.
    There was always the risk with this relationship that Trump would come up short because if he crossed the line Congress would tie his hands.

    What has Vlad got for his trouble.

    An understanding about Ukraine ? no
    Weapons to Poland ? yes
    A reduction of NATO around his frontiers ? no
    Sanctions relief ? no
    Anything else ?

    It must be strange sitting in Moscow listening to American media blame them about this and that and have nothing to show for it.

    Given this dismal record we can conclude the Russians don't have any kompromat on Trump either : )
    Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Aug 19, at 00:11.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Director Comey fired
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 454
    Last Post: 02 Sep 19,, 08:49
  2. Canadian Intelligence Director Repeats Claims of Foreign Influence
    By xinhui in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07 Jul 10,, 15:22
  3. A Chat With ISAF's Director Of Intelligence
    By S2 in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Nov 09,, 16:57

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •