Fusion GPS
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/o...ht-region&_r=0

Well worth the read.

Interesting read. But other than the conspiracy stuff common all over, this is fairly vanilla. I forget which phrases you (Spence) commonly use to minimize importance of whatever. Sure wish I could use "Enthusiasm Gap" as I love that one :cheers:

I have (and have had for the year up to the election) serious concerns about Trump's connections to Moscow:

Business dealings
Possible money laundering (lots of Russian money in Trump businesses)
Why is he tough on everyone but as weak as Obama when it comes to Putin??

I also have tons of concerns with Russian money in Hillary, Bill, and many of their Party Guard.

Frankly in most areas Putin is running circles around Trump as badly as he did with Obama. My suspicion is because he has crap on Trump. As for Obama wilting to Putin, O thought it would be a foreign policy victory to reduce American influence elsewhere .

And while all this squabble goes on, China has become a peer in the Global Scheme and is essentially a SuperPower now. The Tectonic Plates of the Great Powers Game have shifted much recently, prepare for an earthquake.

John mentioned Hillary and Obama more in discussing the article than the actual article did.

True. An overall balanced look would lay praise and criticism on both parties, where it should lay. But this is an opinion piece which only seeks to protect Fusion GPS (with some likely legitimate claims).

I also mentioned my some of my long standing concerns WRT Trump and Russia. I guess the point I am not properly making with Putin is that he is manipulating / influencing things on the World Stage well above his where he perhaps should be (Mexico GDP with 10k nukes). He is influencing and bribing both sides as well as making both look like fools.

My Enthusiasm Gap (thanks Spence ; ) ) for Trump is well known.

John would rather chase rabbits than hunt bears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ohhh bother, dear Nebe doesn't realize the Bear is out hunting us all and this is a game the Bear has played since pushing back the Mongols.

Meanwhile the rabbits are eating everything in your vegetable garden.

Bears wipe their asses with rabbits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You read my mind and each time I hear Trump state no collusion, I have to think you protest too loudly for that to be true. Even if Trump personally had no involvement, which I find almost impossible to believe for such a control freak; I think he is guilty of obstructing justice.

I think I am misunderstanding you or you are misunderstanding me.

I believe there are issues with Trump WRT Russia.

We don't know for fact (and neither does anyone else here) but I would not be surprised if some of the scuttlebutt is true: Trump Laundered Dirty Russian Money and has been doping it for years - long before any political thing happened.

I have seen good arguments on both sides on whether or not he is/was obstructing justice.

But we need to see if from a just and ethical FBI/Justice Department investigation. Fast and accurate. Additional problem is that the reputation and reliability of the FBI/Justice Department is questionable now (as it was 2 years ago).

To me it's a natural assumption to suspect Trump or his campaign were involved with the Russians to affect the election process, because of his financial ties to Russia; not to mention him applauding Wikileaks for cyber crimes.

Just as natural to assume Hillary or her campaign were involved with the Russians to affect the election process because of her dealings with them with uranium. And why wouldn't Trump applaud Wikileaks for exposing her cyber crimes, it helped him win?

But the FBI needs to find proof of collusion, of actively soliciting help from RUS to change results of election.

Maybe FBI will interview Bannon now (hahahaha)

I haven't seen collusion yet but we certainly know that Don Jr. was willing to collude.

Maybe, maybe not. Did he actually DO something with Russia?

He agreed to meet w/the Russians as they had dirt on Hillary. Who knows what happened after that - maybe Mueller knows?

The question is what was agreed upon that the Trump administration would do in exchange for the dirt on Hillary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I think the answer is to back off on sanctions my
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Proof.

Proof.

Are you saying he didn't meet with Russians?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Before the poo hit the fan trump publicly mentioned easing tensions with Russia and lifting sanctions.
Proof enough for me to know a sleaze bag move was in the works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We know that very senior members of the campaign met with Russians hoping to get dirty emails...

And as for Trump's love fest for mother Russia. Occam's Razor.

Proof. People are talking about impeaching a President of the United States, Congress (one party anyway) is pressing to impeach Trump.

If you do not see real hard concrete everyone agrees proof you will have a Civil War and then Putin really does win. Stakes are to high for anything other than solid, irrefutable proof.

Republicans wanted and impeached Clinton for lying under oath about a BJ let me say again lying about a BJ ...trump lying no big deal ..

But the current Republicans and Trump supporters proclaim where's the proof ... when its Crystal clear they will only wont accept the Truth rather only the truth they want to see ...

it shows here all the time Benghazi, the uranium deal , the Clinton foundation .. over and over... each one has been de bunked at every turn .. but still breath life on the right .. facts dont matter

now Bannon book is out .. this is what happens when you dont pay your bills

I want a fair and very, very thorough investigation.

That being said, if Hilary wasn't actually dirty, there would have been no dirt for Wikileaks to reveal. So while part of the story is looking for evidence of collusion, another part of the story (which no one, especially you, ever talks about), is asking Hilary and the Democrats why they acted so "dirty" in the first place? If liberals claim that finding out what she did changed the outcome of the election, then that necessarily means that what she did, was deeply immoral. No one talks about that. Why is that?

If revealing the truth about what Hilary was doing actually changed the outcome of the election...then to me, the bigger story is what she did and why, and it's secondary to find out how we found out the truth.

What did Wikileaks reveal about Clinton?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is why I am no longer a Democrat; "standards are for thee not for me"

Not much - we already knew she was a horrible candidate, a miserable person, and a not so smart mob boss. But it did put more reference in for the True Believers like you

Not the best candidate I'd agree. I know someone who has worked with her extensively and says she's an amazing leader, more like an elite CEO than a politician. If she's really a mob boss I'd say she must be brilliant to not get pinned down with all the scandals thrown at her.

A Washington Post review pretty much says that it should be read with a grain of salt . . . that a lot of the stuff in it is literally unbelievable. But it will probably have a long breath of life for you.

I'd say he made a very valid comparison. If the standard for impeachment is lying about a consensual (if unethical) little tryst I'd say Trump has likely reached far, far beyond.