HawkShack.com

Aseahawkfan wrote:The media was just waiting to hop on Trump meeting with Putin.

Did Putin say all that? Do you have a link? I would love to see Mueller go to Russia. If Putin really did offer his full cooperation, it would kill Mueller's case and make him look stupid.

I believe this whole Russia election tampering case is to punish Putin for Crimea and manufacture an enemy to maintain military spending. Election tampering of the kind being reported so far happens every election for both candidates. I need to see some exchange of favors and hacking of voting machines on a level higher than normal for an election. I'm not getting this yet. If Trump's some Kremlin Candidate after 71 years in America leading a very pubic life, I'd like to see proof of it. Not just a bunch of insinuations about a rich guy that travels a lot.

QUESTION: For President Putin if I could follow up as well. Why should Americans and why should President Trump believe your statement that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election given the evidence that U.S. Intelligence agencies have provided? Will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a U.S. grand jury.

TRUMP: I’m going to let the president answer the second part of that question. As you know, the concept of that came up perhaps a little before, but it came out as a reason why the Democrats lost an election, which frankly, they should have been able to win, because the Electoral College is much more advantageous for Democrats, as you know, than it is to Republicans. We won the Electoral College by a lot. 306 to 223 I believe. That was a well-fought battle. We did a great job. Frankly, I'm going to let the president speak to the second part of your question. Just to say it one time again, and I say it all the time, there was no collusion. I didn't know the president. There was nobody to collude with. There was no collusion with the campaign. Every time you hear all of these 12 and 14 — it's stuff that has nothing to do — and frankly, they admit, these are not people involved in the campaign. But to the average reader out there, they are saying, maybe that does. It doesn't. Even the people involved, some perhaps told mis-stories. In one case the FBI said there was no lie. There was no lie. Somebody else said there was. We ran a brilliant campaign. That's why I'm president. Thank you.

PUTIN: As to who is to be believed, who is not to be believed, you can trust no one. Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends the interests of the United States of America. I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation. We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact. There are issues where our postures diverge and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences, how to make our effort more meaningful. We should not proceed from the immediate political interests that guide certain political powers in our countries. We should be guided by facts. Could you name a single fact of that would definitively prove the collusion? This is utter nonsense. Just like the president recently mentioned, yes, the public at large in the United States had a certain perceived opinion of the candidates during the campaign. But there's nothing particularly extraordinary about it. That's usual thing. President Trump, when he was a candidate, he mentioned the need to restore the Russia-U.S. relationship and it's clear that certain parts of American society felt sympathetic about it and different people could express their sympathy in different ways. But isn't that natural? Isn't it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country, who wants to work with us? We heard the accusations about it [inaudible]. As far as I know, this company hired American lawyers and the accusations doesn't — doesn't have a fighting chance in the American courts. There's no evidence when it comes to the actual facts. We have to be guided by facts, not by rumors.

Let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I will look into it. So far, I can say the following. Things that [are] off the top of my head. We have an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full affect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states. For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The appropriate commission headed by special attorney Mueller, he can use this as a solid foundation and send a formal and official request to us so that we would interrogate, hold questioning of this individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They will be present at questioning. In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe — who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement. For instance, we can bring up the — Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. And yet, the money escape the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. That's their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. The way the money was earned was illegal. We have a solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can extend it. Options abound. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

c_hawkbob wrote:You guys keep fawning over him all you want but what i saw of that summit was an absolute embarrassment, especially afterwards when he as said he trusts the Russians version of events more than his own country's intelligence and as much as called Putin a god.

Jeezus, wipe your chin Mr President.

He's got no problem calling out and publicly embarrassing our allies, but Mr Putin is "strong and powerful" ... Don't tell me there's no compramant.

c_hawkbob wrote:You guys keep fawning over him all you want but what i saw of that summit was an absolute embarrassment, especially afterwards when he as said he trusts the Russians version of events more than his own country's intelligence and as much as called Putin a god.

Jeezus, wipe your chin Mr President.

He's got no problem calling out and publicly embarrassing our allies, but Mr Putin is "strong and powerful" ... Don't tell me there's no compramant.

RiverDog wrote:
It's not just our intelligence he's not trusting, it's that of our allies as they're saying the same thing that our intel community has said, that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election.

What bothers me is that Trump is taking what is a domestic dispute overseas with him. He complains about Mueller's investigation being a witch hunt, yet Trump has the power to fire him. If it's as bad as he says it is, rather than b**** about it, grow some balls and do something.

RiverDog wrote:Oh, give it up, Ida! Pols on both sides of the aisle are calling Trump's performance at the summit an embarrassment. And don't give me this bullcrap about Trump being the victim of the media setting him up with questions about the Mueller investigation. He can't go 5 minutes without saying the word "witch hunt."

Here's what Republican Senator Jeff Flake said:

"I never thought I would see the day when our American President would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression," Flake said on Twitter.

And from Republican Sen. Ben Sasse:

Sasse described Trump's comparison between Russia and the US as "bizarre and flat-out wrong." "The United States is not to blame," Sasse said in a statement. "America wants a good relationship with the Russian people, but Vladimir Putin and his thugs are responsible for Soviet-style aggression. When the president plays these moral-equivalence games, he gives Putin a propaganda win he desperately needs."


And it's not just Blake and Sasse. Paul Ryan, Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, even Oren Hatch have expressed reactions from disagreeing with Trump's assessments or blatant outrage at Trump's performance at the summit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-are ... -arizona-1

idhawkman wrote:Yeah, the establishment is not on his side especially the RINOs. That's not a shock. Who is on his side is the voters as I have posted in the other thread about his growing approval ratings.

idhawkman wrote:Yeah, the establishment is not on his side especially the RINOs. That's not a shock. Who is on his side is the voters as I have posted in the other thread about his growing approval ratings.

RiverDog wrote:
Owen Hatch, who's been a Republican Senator since 1977, and Paul Ryan, voted by his Republican collegues to be Speaker of the House, are RINO's? Wow, I knew that you'd come up with some type of outlandish defense, but I didn't think you'd call guys like that RINO's. How about Liz Cheney, Congresswoman from WY and the former VP's daughter? Is she a RINO, too? Here's what she said:

Cheney said on Twitter that Russia posed "a grave threat to our national security" and that she was "deeply troubled by President Trump's defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies."

And as I posted above, Trump's "growing approval ratings" are 5 points lower than earlier this spring.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't have to go back and read the transcript, I watched him say it. When Putin is in the room Trump is suddenly no longer the Alpha he tries so hard to project himself as. He completely subjugates himself to him.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't have to go back and read the transcript, I watched him say it. When Putin is in the room Trump is suddenly no longer the Alpha he tries so hard to project himself as. He completely subjugates himself to him.

idhawkman wrote:Wow Riv, what part of establishment don't you get?

idhawkman wrote:Wow Riv, what part of establishment don't you get?

RiverDog wrote:
Alright, I see now that you were linking both the liberal and conservative wings of the Republican party, and I have to agree with you and I and stand corrected. Neither the establishment (Ryan, Hatch) or the liberal wing (McCain, Collins, Flake) of his party agrees with Trump's assessments. But that doesn't leave a lot left in between, does it?

And as a matter of fact, even Trump himself, after criticism from just about every corner, now admits that he "misspoke" with regard to US intel reports that the Russians meddled in our elections:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

So are you going to continue to defend his behavior or is Trump's own admission not good enough for you?

idhawkman wrote:Now, if you look at who were "outraged" at Trump for his comment it was Never Trump Rinos and the Pro war conservatives. I can't think of a single one of them that is running for their seat again. Flake, nope. Corker, nope. Ryan, nope. Hatch, nope. McCain, nope. Maybe pro war Lindsay Graham but I don't think he's up for election this cycle. Did I miss anyone other than the expected democrats?

It's been a long time since I've come across a person that has demonstrated this kind of blind loyalty to a politician.

idhawkman wrote:So now the DNC trusts the intel community over Putin but they don't trust them for their own server and instead outsources that to the Ukraine? Kind of makes you want to say, "hmmmmmm" don't it?

burrrton wrote:To be fair to ID, it's also been a long time since I've seen so many people literally lose their minds over a politician...

After reading more about what Trump said, I'm not sure why anyone would defend those indefensible statements, but I'm not about to earnestly consider the opinions of people who poo-poo'd Obama spending 8 years yanking missile defense systems out of eastern Europe and telling Russian leaders to be patient, that he'd have more flexibility for them after the election, and so on.

I'll be more worried about Trump re: Russia when his actions begin more closely dovetailing with his reckless rhetoric.

RiverDog wrote:
With all due respects, you're missing the point. Of course, the Dems are playing politics with Trump's performance at the summit meeting. The R's do the same thing when the positions are switched. I pay about as much attention to what comes out of Chuck Schumer's mouth as I do Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, which is to say next to nothing. And you can expect one or two of his frequent Republican critics, like John McCain, to be critical of him.

But when the President's entire party, less just one, Rand Paul, that I could find that actually said something in support, especially in light of the fact that as you pointed out that we're in an election year and the last thing any party wants to show is disunity, comes out with completely different opinions, some expressing outrage, you have to sit up and take notice. And keep in mind that one of those Repubican voices that I quoted, Will Hurd, once worked for the CIA, and he ripped Trump a new one.

I'm glad that Trump is engaging our advasaries like Putin and Kim. It keeps the communication lines open and lessens the chance of an accidental war or misreading of intentions. But the problem I have with Trump is the same one that I have on just about every other aspect of his presidency, and that is that he goes into these things completely unprepared.

A good POTUS will rehearse in advance to a press conference. They know exactly what questions the press is going to ask so they'll get aids to role play and fire off questions at him. If they do it right, there should be none of these "trap" questions that you referred to. He KNOWS that they're going to ask about the Mueller investigation and the Russians he just indicted. Trump should be trotting out his responses to his advisors and fine tuning his remarks. Instead, he goes out and sticks his foot in his mouth. And a lot of what Trump said at the summit that got people fired up was not in response to questions, they were more a statement of his beliefs.

I respect your experience within the government and will listen to your takes as you have a unique perspective that I have not had the opportunity to experience. But you've given me the distinct impression that no matter what the subject is, there's nothing that Trump can or has said or done that would cause you even the slightest discomfort or disagreement, and that tends to bias those takes as purely partisan.

The more he talks, the more people will respond.

The issue here is strictly about Trump's remarks, not any kind of military preparedness.

burrrton wrote:I'm not referring to people merely "responding"- I'm referring to them literally losing their sht over what has been, in the end, nothing but buffoonish rhetoric.

Your point about rhetoric potentially having real-world consequences is valid, but I haven't yet seen anything truly dangerous- just over-the-top caricatures of everything the guy says or does.

I'm joining you in condemning the remarks- I'm just pointing out that I don't want to hear the feigned outrage from people whose opinion on such things depends on whether they voted for the guy.

idhawkman wrote:The POTUS just had a reporter ask him today if the Russian are still meddling in our elections. They blew up because he responded "no" to a different question as to whether he would take more quesitons.

On the broader part of that question though, I have to ask "if Meuller laid out how they were certain about the 12 GRU agents and if they (FBI) are certain that it was the Russians that hacked into the systems they must know how they did it and should by now have put up preventative measures to stop it." So why would the Russians still be meddling in the elections if our intel agencies know what they did and how they did it? Are they so inept they can't stop it? Inquiring minds want to know.

If you read my response to Idahawk, the only reactions I posted were from well respected Republicans like Romney, Hatch, Gingrich, and it didn't include John McCain. Although I can't say for sure, I don't think they voted for Hillary.

RiverDog wrote:
So what's your point?

First off, it's not just our elections that the Russians have been accused of meddling in. Who's to say that they used the same tactics in other elections as they did ours?

Secondly, I'm no expert in information systems, but I know enough to understand that cyber crime is a continous battle, like the kids game when you hit one head with your mallet and another pops up. It's quite possible that the Russians have changed their tactics. After all, it's been nearly two years since our last election.

RiverDog wrote:Oh, give it up, Ida! Pols on both sides of the aisle are calling Trump's performance at the summit an embarrassment. And don't give me this bullcrap about Trump being the victim of the media setting him up with questions about the Mueller investigation. He can't go 5 minutes without saying the word "witch hunt."

Here's what Republican Senator Jeff Flake said:

"I never thought I would see the day when our American President would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression," Flake said on Twitter.

And from Republican Sen. Ben Sasse:

Sasse described Trump's comparison between Russia and the US as "bizarre and flat-out wrong." "The United States is not to blame," Sasse said in a statement. "America wants a good relationship with the Russian people, but Vladimir Putin and his thugs are responsible for Soviet-style aggression. When the president plays these moral-equivalence games, he gives Putin a propaganda win he desperately needs."


And it's not just Blake and Sasse. Paul Ryan, Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, even Oren Hatch have expressed reactions from disagreeing with Trump's assessments or blatant outrage at Trump's performance at the summit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-are ... -arizona-1