Putin just Blasted Huge Holes Into Mueller's Indictment of t

[idhawkman]

WOW! Per the 1999 teaty agreement the US and Russia will cooperatively work together on criminal cases. He invited Mueller's team to come to Russia and interrogate the 12. He also would have a bilateral team do the forensics on the server and review the facts of the case against the 12. Putin said that in reciprocation, the US officials should be made available to their law enforcement for interrogation on their actions also.

He also said that $400M went to the Hillary campaign without paying taxes on it in Russia or in US. Talk about outside influence. If this is true, the Mueller case is dead.

[burrrton]

I'm just getting online this morning and have literally no idea what was said yet, but I'm seeing Trump get absolutely *blasted* by left and right alike on social media.

I'll reserve judgement for now, but it sounds like he did/said some monumentally stupid things?

[idhawkman]

They are trying to spin it that way but it was not.

[Aseahawkfan]

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.

[idhawkman]

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.

Asea,

Here's the question and the quote. I'll post a link to the entire transcript of the press conference at the bottom.

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.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/full-text-trump-putin-meeting-transcript-724369

[c_hawkbob]

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]

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.

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.

[idhawkman]

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.

He didn't say he trusted the Russians over the Intel community. Go back and read the transcript. He said he trusts the intel community very much but that Putin said that there was no state sponsored meddling. So what do you want him to do at that point? Argue with him and forget about nuclear proliferation, Syrian humanitary crisis, Annexation of Crimea, trade, energy, etc? Do you really think there could be anything other than a worsening of relations if he sat there and told him, "cut it out" like Obama did?

The point has been made. They know our intel will be watching going forward. Time to move past that issue and cover more important issues.

Before you say that our elections are the most sacred thing, watch this video where Obama ridicules the thought of rigging an American election (when his admin knew they were trying) and tells Trump to "quit whining and try to make his case to get some votes." https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/obama-to-trump-stop-whining-election-isn-t-rigged-788741187615

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.

Really? Which allies? The Brits who's former head spy for Russia that has an open bias against Trump and was hired by the DNC to get dirt on Trump and put it in a dossier that he then peddled through Oher to the FBI, through the State Dept, through the media and Through Brennan (CIA Director) to start the Russian probe? Talk about circular reporting. I wonder why Trump doesn't fully trust his intel agencies who have openly and with aggregous bias has worked to prevent his election and once president has worked to try and get him impeached.

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.

Trump didn't ask the question, the media chose to try and entrap him on this one issue. They didn't ask about the issues I pointed out above in reply to Cbob. They tried to pit him against Putin in a no win question. I'll ask you the same question I asked Cbob, what would you have liked him to do to answer that question?

[RiverDog]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

[idhawkman]

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.

Oh, so he didn't give Putin a tongue lashing on national tv. Doesn't change the fact that he has expelled 60 of their diplomats, closed 3 facilities in the US, bombed their airfield in Syria, sold defensive weapons to Ukraine, deploying missles in Poland and raising tens of Billions of $$$$ for NATO. I guess he's just a pushover.

So I'll pose the question again, what would you have liked to see him do?

[NorthHawk]

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.

Part of it is Trump is a bully and bullys more often than not cower when confronted by someone of equal or greater power.
As well, there is a growing concern that Putin might just have something on him. Something like major loans to the Trump Corp or maybe even some type of film evidence.
Putin flat out stated he wanted Trump to win and tried to help him out.
What we as civilians don't know other than the break in and theft of data is to what degree that help from Russia played out in the election and if anyone on the Trump Election team was involved.
We know that when approached by the lawyer who claimed to have dirt on HC, Don Jr. replied he loved it, so there is a reason to investigate whether that attitude was prevalent.
I believe Mueller is keeping those cards (if any) hidden until the final report as good investigators are inclined to do.

[RiverDog]

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

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]

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

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?

I think we have a misunderstanding, Riv. I don't think there was anyway for him to answer the question posed to him that would not have resulted in a bad situation. That's why I called it a gotcha question. What did you want him to do? Stand up there and undermine everything he just talked to Putin about? I think there are so much bigger issues between Russia and the US than whether or not our spies try to undermine their systems and theirs do the same to us. We all know that. Grandstanding would not help the situations of Nukes, energy, Syria, Ukraine, Nato, etc, etc.

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?

[RiverDog]

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?

Yea, you missed most of the entire party that did speak out (some bit their lips). Here's just a sampling:

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, tweeted that she was "deeply troubled" by President Trump's defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies of the U.S. & his suggestion of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia." She's in the House, so she's running for re-election.

Mitt Romney, former R presidential nominee and likely Senator from Utah who IS running for a Senate seat, called it "“disgraceful and detrimental to our democratic principles.”

Will Hurd, R-Texas: Hurd was an outlier, as he has long been within the Texas GOP delegation. The second-term congressman issued a litany of critical comments Monday against the president's public statements. "As a former CIA officer and a Congressman on the House Intelligence Committee, I can affirmatively say there is nothing about agreeing with a thug like Putin that puts America First," Hurd wrote in a series of Monday tweets. "The President is wrong. Russia interfered in the 2016 election and seeks to undermine our democracy"

Lisa Murkowski, R Senator from Alaska: Sadly President Trump did not defend America to the Russian president, and for the world to see. Instead, what I saw today was not “America First,” it was simply a sad diminishment of our great nation"

Alsaka's other Senator, Dan Sullivan: "I disagree w/ President’s remarks following Helsinki Summit. Specifically, do I believe the professional and patriotic men and women of our intelligence community, including the Director of National Intelligence, or a mafia regime leader like Putin? It’s not even a close call."

Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-PA: @POTUS' blindness to Putin’s hostile acts against the US and our allies—election meddling included—is very troubling.'

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-KN: "The president missed an opportunity to publicly condemn Russia for election interference or offer strong support for the NATO alliance. The problem with our relationship is not American actions but rather Russia’s duplicitous behavior."

And that old RINO Newt Gingrich said that it was "the most serious mistake of his (Trump's)presidency.” But I suppose you'll rationalize Newt's comments like you have everyone else's.

I could go on, but you're wearing me out. I'm tired of arguing with you. If Trump's own admission that he "misspoke" isn't good enough to convince you that he botched that summit big time, then you're beyond any kind of rational thought. It doesn't matter what Trump says, you'll find some way to spin it. It's been a long time since I've come across a person that has demonstrated this kind of blind loyalty to a politician.

[burrrton]

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

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 (something I don't entirely excuse you from).

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.

[burrrton]

LOL- coincidentally just stumbled onto two cartoons mirroring my attitude:

HP_TrumpPutinPeel_COLOR.jpg (89.18 KiB) Viewed 4285 times

bg071818dAPR.jpg (124.66 KiB) Viewed 4285 times

[idhawkman]

Thanks for the post River. I didn't want to respond right away after reading it because I wanted to consider what you wrote.

First, I still would like to know what would have made the opposition happy in that situation. My defense of what he was doing in trying to create a relationship with a foreign leader I still support. I think of it this way when looking at what he does with allies and foes like N.K. and Russia. Let's say I have a friend from high school that got off on the wrong track. I nudged him and talked to him to straighten out his act. I continued to do that for a period of time. He's my friend and I don't want to trash the friendship without a fight. At some point I got more and more firm in my interactions with him to try and get him to change. (I equate this situation to what Trump is doing with "allies" who really have been taking advantage of the US's good will for quite a few decades.) Now lets say I meet a new co-worker and they are on the wrong track too. Do I go in guns a blazing when I'm trying to establish a working relationship with him or do I try to work with them without confrontation first? After all, you catch more bees with honey than you do vinegar. (I equate this situation with N.Korean and Russia).

Second, I don't mind those who voiced opposition to what the president said in Helsinki regardless of if he mispoke or not. I would like to know what they would have liked to hear him say though. What I do mind is the over reach and unhinged rebuke of what he said. Treason requires us to be at war with a country to even apply. It is one of two specifically stated crimes in the constitution. Even during the cold war, we were not at "war" with the USSR. That's why the Rosenburgs were not tried and executed on Treason. To hear the former DCI claim treason shows his ignorance. Others calling for shadow govt. and open war is just way over the top regardless of party affiliation.

Criticism of his statements, I get. For the most part, what I saw wasn't criticism and that is more what I was reacting to even though it may not have come across here like that.

I think it is real easy to throw rocks at someone's performance but since most people on this forum have been or are in managerial positions, you know that criticism is no good unless you offer an alternative to what happened. I would ask those who have been in management positions if they've ever had that employee who only criticized every move and never offered a suggestion to change the situation. How do you handle that employee? Ignore him, ask him for recommendations?

[idhawkman]

I thought this might be helpful in refreshing why I might be skeptical on our intel agencies of whom I was employed by at one time in my life.

It's shocking how many people don't know where that whole "17 Intelligence agencies agree" narrative comes from. A Ukraine company called "Crowdstrike" (a company whose own CEO hate Putin and tried to frame him once), examined the DNC server because the DNC refused to let the FBI see it. Crowdstrike then concluded that Russians had hacked the server and sent those conclusions in a report to Jake Clapper, who signed off on it. Clapper never saw the server, or the evidence. Just the report. And since Clapper, technically, "represented" the entire intelligence community, the media and Democrats considered that an agreement from "all 17 intelligence agencies," and that's been the narrative ever since. The agencies themselves never saw or concluded anything. They just took Clapper's word for it, after he took Crowdstrike's word for it.

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?

[RiverDog]

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?

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.

[RiverDog]

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...

There's also never been a politician quite like Donald Trump. He's literally set a new standard amongst pols. How many other POTUS's have you ever seen that fires off tweets like Trump does, or venture an opinion on everything from Rosanne to the NFL's anthem policy? The more he talks, the more people will respond.

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'm not sure what Obama's actions have to do with Trump's summit meeting. The issue here is strictly about Trump's remarks, not any kind of military preparedness.

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

His reckless rhetoric can have real, tangible consequences if we start losing people in the intelligence community over them. Trump is supposed to be on the same team with them, and his rhetoric at times indicates that he considers them the enemy more so than the Russians.

[idhawkman]

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.

There's a lot that I can't say in a public setting or for that matter even in a private setting. I will say this, it is not inconceivable to make something look like it is something that it really isn't. Destroying the server after only the partisan Ukrainian company had inspected it makes me think they don't want in depth inspection to occur on the server. Probably also why they will never take Putin up on his offer to jointly investigate this issue.

That all said, I think politics is like religion in that no one believes EVERYTHING that their religion espouses. Trump has done things I don't like or agree with. However, the resist, never Trump, Media and others who have snipped at his heels the entire time he's made some great policies. Even when he gives the opposition what they want they say no. So even though I don't believe everything my church believes, I will defend it to all ends. Same with Trump. The amount of good as a whole is way more than what I see being offered by the other side which has NO ideas other than resist, abolish ICE and Take back the Tax cuts.

[idhawkman]

River, here's something to think about.

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.

[burrrton]

The more he talks, the more people will respond.

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.

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

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.

[RiverDog]

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.

A lot of people lot their chit over Reagan, too. I have some very good friends that were convinced that he'd get us into a war. Percentage wise, I don't think they were in any greater numbers than the bed wetters we have today, just that today's clan is enabled with social media and 24/7 news coverage whereas the anti Reagan bunch wasn't.

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.

His rhetoric, along with his constant bashing of the EU, Canada, et al, and the trade war he's embarked on, coupled with his coziness with Putin can't help but have a negative effect on our allies of whom we might need someday. Hopefully, they have short memories.

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.

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. And as I said above, I couldn't give two hoots in hell what Chuck Schumer says. I don't even consider it newsworthy.

[RiverDog]

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.

So what's your point?

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.

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.

[burrrton]

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.

Same goes for them- if they bitched and moaned about Obama's Russian pillow-talk, you better not be apologizing for Trump now (at least if you care what I think about you, which, to be fair, I doubt anybody does!).

[idhawkman]

So what's your point?

Just more over reach and feined outrage.

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?

Its not just the Russians. You can lump the Chinese, North Koreans and more into that group, too. But no one seems to care about the Chinese. Remember, they stole 22Million identities from the Office of Personell Management (OPM). It includes my background check which had my name, SSN, Birthdate and all of my siblings, mom and Dad's SSN, Birth date, etc on it. Doesn't seem like anyone wanted to cut off ties with China over it though.

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.

What my point on this is, is that the Chinese, North Koreans or even our own INtel communities could have "spoofed" the hacks to look like Russia. Its not that hard to do especially if you want to cover your tracks and get people chasing their tails.

[Aseahawkfan]

This is also stupid, like we went back 40 years to before the fall of The Soviet Union.

[Aseahawkfan]

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

Who cares what these government puppets have to say.

You listen to liberals diss this country as some kind of oppressive white man's country denigrating America for all its done wrong, Trump speaks the truth about Russia and they try to vilify Trump including BS hypocrites like C-hawkbob who doesn't ever criticize Obama.

Let's look at the report card. Putin interferes in American elections, kills some people, and annexes Crimea.

Obama continues the Patriot Act spying on our people. orders hundreds of drone assassinations, makes a deal with a Iran funneling billions to an enemy, and also separated families at the border, not a peep out of guys like c-hawkbob or other Democratic voters.

G.W. Jr. launches a war under questionable circumstances that most of the Democrats vote for that leads to the killing of far more than Putin ever did. We killed Saddam Hussein and drive out the Taliban installing puppets and we're just doing fine and dandy. Of course there is no moral equivalence because our politicians are so much better at making it appear that we're actually choosing our leaders and what they do.

You want real defiance Riverdog, then show some real balls and stand up for this kind of BS being done by both parties. You think voting Democrat will improve anything? It won't. All it will do is give you a fake feeling of accomplishing some act of defiance while the real propaganda machine that changes faces but keeps on chugging on controlling the world in a fashion that won't be good for us keeps on with business as usual.

Why don't you wake for up real and start encouraging a new push towards different parties and different people. This hypocrisy is going to kill us the slow way. The socialist propaganda machine is pushing you to vote for people that will make life worse for your children and grandchildren by turning this nation into a welfare police state like most other socialist nations.