🏀 KuBuckets Archive

A concise, brilliant explanation of WHY a BIG LIE is easier to sell with propaganda than a half truth. It has no basis of facts that can be itemized and reinterpreted against it. It's entirely made up. Thus, if repeated often enough it becomes a kind of fact-less, but unimpeachable "truth." The story in turn STRIPS current MSM behavior naked. They don't look good in the nude either.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/20/the-reign-of-propaganda/ ↗

@jaybate-1.0 The guy is an idiot if he thinks after this week that the efforts by Russia to influence the election are a fabrication of deluded liberals. Ask the devoted left-winger Charles Krauthammer. Even so, I know many people who voted for Hillary, not one of whom contends that she really won the election. That is another right-wing myth. A few shrill protestors do not represent typical Hillary voters any more than avid Trump supporters in the KKK represent his base.

@mayjay

Is calling him an idiot an example of a big lie? He doesn't appear to meet any conventional definition of an idiot to me. I'm not sure why you chose to call him one.

@mayjay

Why do you call this guy an idiot? Is not Trump in a box with the Russian issue? If he tries to smooth over relationships with Russia it will be seen as a confirmation that Trump was and is in the bag with Russia.

A myth/thought I might add that the media pounds today, yesterday, everyday and all day long. Granted it is a subject that is under investigation. Yet most already think he's guilty. Yet no true evidence has really came forth. Every little tangent that comes out is viewed as the smoking gun to bring down Trump. Then the sun rises and it starts all over again.

That's not an opinion. That's just what you see when you turn on the Teletube, or while reading a newspaper.

I don't now, but I think this is propaganda at it's best.

@jaybate-1.0 Res ipsa loquitur.

@DoubleDD "No evidence"? Wow! So you don't believe Trump, Jr.'s emails showing the Russians contacted him asking for a meeting to provide dirt on HRC? Even if no one attended a meeting, even if the campaign members had said no dice, it was still an attempt to influence the election by a hostile foreign power. Ask the heads of 11 intelligence agencies, and the Republicans on the Senate committee--they all agree numerous attempts have happened both here and directed at other countries, and that it is a legitimate question to find out whether they succeeded in any attempts.

What is sad is that the right's attacks on MSM have you and millions more not believing anything you read just because it has been reported by the MSM even when it has been reported by Fox, too. You ignore that many Republicans are angry about it, and obviously believe that it is all a Democratic hit job. Why, then, is Congress (controlled by Republicans) investigating it?

Please read Krauthammer's column. If you choose not to read it, you will be willfully avoiding information and might as well be putting on blinders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bungled-collusion-is-still-collusion/2017/07/13/68c7f72a-67f3-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html ↗

Now, what it all means is subject to interpretation. Were I Trump and angry about accusations, I would want to encourage all investigations and get myself cleared. Threatening the Special Counsel isn't a confidence-builder by any means. But, maybe that is just me--oh, and the majority of Americans who believe it should be investigated.

The investigations are aimed at providing more information to guide where this should go. You, on the other hand, seem to have already come to a conclusion that it is all pointless, and I think that reflects the same approach that discounted Watergate as a mere 3rd-rate burglary.

Idea: ignore what Dems say. Just go look at what Republicans on the Committee have been saying. How can you attack them as setting Trump up?

@mayjay

Whao there big dog. I'll fry anybody Rep or Dem if they're doing something wrong. No issue with it.

Yet six months of investigation? And this is all you have? A potential meeting between a Russian lawyer (that received special treatment from Obama and Lynch to get into the country) that may have produced some dirt on Hillary. I'm sorry are you telling me the saint Hillary didn't try to find dirt on Trump? Again so are you telling me that your ok with Obama using tax payer money to influence the Israel elections?

Also as from what I've heard Trump Jr. has broken no laws? Yet I'm not a judge. Sooooooo take it with a grain of salt.

Really my issue in all this is some folks want to find anything to impeach/remove Trump from office. They're just looking. You're an educated man you know as well as I do. You shine the light in someone's closet long enough you find some dirt. Funny how this investigation team is full of Hillary and Bill donors and supporters. Doesn't sound like a fair and balanced investigation to me. Sounds like a hanging to me.

This investigation is never going to end until something is found. Period. This investigation is a witch hunt. I'm fine with bringing the man down if you must, but if you do then you better bring down Hillary too. Having an illegal server, bleaching said server, denying the FBI access to said server, taking a hammer to multiple cell phones, and lets not forget all the donations the Clinton foundation receives from Russian higher ups.

But you don't want to talk about that tough. I know, I know us Average Americans are just supposed to believe the Dem party will be fair and balanced, because they care.

As for the Rep party they're spineless. They promised for 7 years to repeal the ACA, and what do they do when they have the power? nothing but bicker and grand stand while the working American man and woman suffers. And no I don't have much respect for Dems either. All they care about is winning.

Hell yes I want to believe in Trump. Our country is what 16 trillion in debt. It's getting harder and harder for the average man or women to get by. Yet all anybody wants is bigger Government entitlements with no way to pay for them. Please spare me the Rich are going to pay for them.

Bottom line we have a broken government that is running amuck. Hate him or like him Trump is a message sent to the nation and this government. We still have a voice.

@DoubleDD Different issue. I never have said those investigations should not be done. But did you read the article I suggested? Did you peruse what Republicans have been saying about Russia?

@mayjay

Mayjay I read everything. Hell I even watch the view. Yes the view.

@DoubleDD Are you saying that after 6 months this is what you expected or wanted? You're not even slightly disappointed?

@ParisHawk

Actually I thought there would be more. I'm not a millennial, in that I actually like listening to different points of views of the major media outlets. But man this investigation is becoming a joke. Even Comey said after he was fired that Trump wasn't being investigated. Yet now he is?

I think we are starting to reach that point were statue of limitations should be kicking in.

When Mueller was appointed it was said that this investigation could take well over a year, maybe 18 months before conclusion. Dispiriting as it is that the Russia Issue seems to have curtailed the agendas of Congress and the Senate, much of the public focus would recede if the president would back off from his ceaseless attacks on the media and truth. The guy is a showman who chooses to dominate the limelight and to try to dominate his sphere. As for the health care agenda, does anyone doubt that he knows very little about the current details considered by the legislature? He just wants a victory. If that is too difficult or far reaching, then he would prefer to engage any and all opponents in weekly attention gaining battles of his own personal creations and psychological urgings. The guy is not designed for his current position and brazenly disregards the work and maneuverings necessary to move our nation forward. I would assume that his faithful fan base, for the most part, are the same folk who got swept up in his amusing hire 'em/fire 'em TV spectacle. Mr. Mueller and team appear to be moving forward with focus upon FOLLOWING THE DOLLAR.

@DoubleDD Comey also explained why he didn't want to say publicly that Trump wasn't being investigated: he thought there might be such an investigation later, and if so he would have to admit it publicly.

He testified before the Senate that, while he was FBI chief, he thought possible an eventual investigation of Trump.

So don't say that Comey cleared Trump.

@ParisHawk

Whatever? To bad you didn't have the same passion for hanging Hillary as you do Trump. No need to reply I get it.

This thread is a little out of control. We can do better.

First, an article was presented that could be discussed on the merits, even if you disagree.

Second, while you may be in disbelief that someone can have a totally different set of facts than you, I think maybe it is best to operate from an assumption that they have not been presented with the same information, or that while they may have encountered part of the same information, it is the outlier to their core set of information, so is discarded or devalued to fit into a consistent belief set and narrative. This is a natural human process that we all do, though it is counterintuitive to fact finding missions.

So I suggest we focus as much as we can upon facts and proof, and as little as possible on feelings and how these facts fit into belief or value sets.

Remember, these emotional and side-taking stances are what we have been conditioned to do our whole lives when discussing politics. Let's recognize partisanism as being arbitrary to our collaborative pursuit of the truth.

Partisan politics is like living with parents who hate each other.

@approxinfinity You're the one with the can o' worms bro ... careful whatcha wish for ...

@globaljaybird I think things have gone well so far.

We are not these two broken parties.

My point is that like being a kid in a house with parents that hate each other, the parties are "keeping the family together" but it's not healthy for anyone. The kids (us) are there watching the madness, and maybe emulating the parents. But it's just going through the motions.

Let's get out of that sad house and try our best to see the world for what it is.

Dave Brat came to my work this week. I thought of you guys when some of co-workers worked from home in response. The fact is he wasn't there to speak to us, just to learn something about the bigger businesses in his district. And representatives should do that.

@mayjay

I told myself that I would not get involved in politics in this forum but you make several points that are factually incorrect and skip over the facts.

First. your post indicates that Trump jr met with the Russians with the clear implication that it was Russian officials. Trump Jr met with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and no one has shown that she has any ties to the Russian government, none . zero. zilch.

She was able to set up the meeting by indicating she had damaging information on Hillary Clinton that turned out not be true; her objective was to lobby for overturning the Magnitsky Act, a US law targeting Russians linked to the 2009 murder of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was allegedly killed in prison. Trump Jr. is a neophyte when it comes to politics and thought it would be a good thing. It was not, and although foolish it was not illegal and the Krauthammer article you cited indicates this much.

Now, the Russian attorney in question was allowed in this country by the Obama administration, apparently with the blessing of then AG Loretta Lynch, and had close ties to it. When the US ambassador to Russia testified in congress, she sat in the front row and right behind the ambassador, a position hat is reserved for guest of the individual testifying. As it turn out, Natalia Veselnitskaya has ties to Fusion GPS, the group that is responsible the infamous and discredited "Trump dossier." This group has also done work for the Democratic Party and thus it looks like a setup that Trump Jr. did not see coming. Her ties are not to the Russians but to the Democratic Party.

This is the equivalent of an individual with ties to the UK program calling the KU Athletic Department and offering information on how Calipari is getting all the recruits illegally and at the meeting indicating that the real objective is to have Coach Self endorse a product he is peddling.

Now, there is zero evidence that the Russians "hacked" the election or that a single vote was changed. There is plenty of evidence that the Russians "meddled" in elections going back several years as far back as 2014 and that the government was aware of that...you know, the Obama administration...and did absolutely nothing. If you have an issue with the Russians getting involved in American politics, the blame falls squarely in the Obama administration; Trump had no authority to do anything about it because at the time he was just a plain citizen like the rest of us, the Obama administration should have acted years ago and chose not to, mostly because it thought there was no way Hillary Clinton could lose the elections...I guess they underestimated the incompetence of her campaign.

Let's talk about James Comey. According to his own testimony he held private meeting with President Trump which by its own nature would be considered confidential. On FBI's time, at his FBI office using a FBI computer he wrote his version of the meetings which he then he proceeded to leak to a friend with the stated purpose of getting a special prosecutor appointed.

According to the FBI, those memos are property of the FBI and Comey had no authority to take them outside the FBI and leak them considering that some contain classified information. According to people familiar with the case, his actions involve multiple serious violation of the law...where is the outrage? Instead he got a huge book deal.

Now, he did accomplish what he set out to do, the appointment of a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who happens to be Comey's mentor and who proceeded to appoint several attorneys, all big time donors to the Democratic Party...talk about a set up and a stacked deck.

Enough for one post.

@approxinfinity

Hey I've tried to throw out and state my case with many posts. Yet all I'm getting is how dare I back Trump. Sorry to offend but I do.

I can state the reasons but I already have. It's just becoming redundant at this point.

If your ire is directed at me. Then let me know. I'm more than happy to let it go and move on.

@REHawk

You speak of health care? Yet you lame blast Trump as not knowing much. Well my friend the ACA aka Obama Care isn't working either. So I guess the Obama and the Dem party don't know much either? Right? I'll throw arrows at anybody you want. Yet I'm fair.

You want to throw some arrows at Trump cool. Yet lets throw some at Hillary, Obama, and the Dem party? I'm guessing you're not interested in that though.

@DoubleDD I'm a republican, for now, I have Obamacare, it's working great for me. Stay tuned, something new happens every day.

@DoubleDD so I believe @REHawk said "does anyone doubt that Trump knows very little about the health care legislation?" If we are going to be able to talk about Trump, who is possibly the most volatile topic we could address, I don't think it can happen unless people make a concerted effort not to escalate. A response that would not escalate here while still making your point might be "yes, I don't think he's uninformed about the health care legislation, and here's why" or "what proof do you have that he is uninformed about it?". Telling @REHawk he's lame blasting is going the emotional route. I wasnt trying to throw shade earlier. My point earlier was specifically toward @mayjay who seemed to be assuming that you were operating on the same set of facts.

The point here is that this isn't the place to get emotional and berate one another. We shouldn't be talking about each other's behavior ( I fully recognize that I'm talking about behavior here but I'm doing so in an effort to moderate). We should be focusing on theories and facts and identifying corroborating and conflicting evidence.

@DoubleDD I'm one of these convoluted duplicitous persons, a guy who thinks liberally but lives very conservatively. Not particularly a democrat or republican; although I will add that republican behaviors caught my very negative attention back in the days when Ken Starr was running his nasty special prosecutor attack on Clinton's reprobate actions. Even so, I voted for Dubya Bush in his first election. I have grown very tired of party divisions affecting the forward mobility of this great nation. And yeah, I view Donald Trump as an absolute tramp in his current position of national prominence. I was/am not particularly fond of Hillary, either; but I do feel that she possesses the experience and know-how to have set political wheels in forward motion from Day 1, but for probable obstructions by opposing forces in the House and Senate. As I see it, the problem with Trump is that he wallows enthusiastically in the desire to throw monkey wrenches into the wheels of forward progress; and is consumed with promoting his own family fortunes offered up by the forces which helped him gain power. He claims that he has pen in hand, waiting and prepared to sign any health care bill which the legislature places before him. A mean spirited bill or whatever....

@DoubleDD I am rooting for Our President for the following main reasons

1. Drain The Swamp

2. Kill ObamaCare

3. Make America Great Again

I hear you about the whole Russia witch hunt thing, who cares. Right. I mean why don't the Fake News talks about President Draining the damn Swamp.

And Obamacare. What a Disaster. He will get us the Healthcare we need. Only if our own Republican Senators can help him. I wonder if they their own agendas.

And its just a matter of time when he will Make America Great Again. What a mess it has been in since 2008.

@AsadZ I think the hard part about those goals are that they are very qualitative. How can one identify success re: draining the swamp or making America great? What is the specific criteria for identifying someone as part of the swamp? I believe it's possible to identify a standard criteria for people or policies thst must go, and targeting people or policies who meet those criteria. Making America great seems entirely subjective no matter how you slice it.

Repealing ACA is a tangible goal. But I won't be in favor of that unless something better is put in place. And again I think it would be beneficial if we had a set of benchmarks that we are attempting to achieve with a new plan that are identified as deficiences in the current plan.

@approxinfinity We have to kill Obamacare, no matter what, its got to go. Our President is working so hard but the damn Senators. Why don't they do it, its not so hard.

Fake News is another distraction. They cant let him do anything, everything about Russia. Its got to stop.

By the way I forgot one point. Not only he will make American great again, he will protect Americans. He will build for us a beautiful Wall. It will be see through.

@AsadZ I honestly can't tell if you're a parody troll or serious. LOL

@AsadZ He has already made America great by getting that Muslim fer'ner Hassein Osama out of the white house.

@mayjay Our President will provide more protection, complete ban of all Muslims, only if fake news can stop the Russia collusion garbage.

@AsadZ it's the responsibility of the Congress to create a bill. Trump isn't involved until they present him with something to sign.

What do you think Trump would accomplish if the Russian election investigation wasn't happening?

Im not really sure of this President's specific agenda once the roadblocks go away.

You mentioned the invisible border wall. I've often wondered if punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants isn't the most direct and immediate approach to hindering illegal immigration. And it has always been my thought that since this has never been the proposed solution, that this issue seems to be more of a political chip than something people want to actually change.

@approxinfinity I think you are missing the facetiousness font....

@mayjay I meant in no part to be facetious. Just trying to be linear and forthright. Isn't it true that punishing the employers for hiring illegal immigrants would be the most direct approach, if in fact legal Americans would take the same jobs in lieu of the illegal immigrants being hired? Are you suggesting that those employers would not be able to operate if they had to hire American citizens legally? Do you agree that many fewer people would stay in the US illegally if there were no employment opportunities for them?

@approxinfinity Ooops, I meant your replies were so serious I figured you didn't see the facetiousness in someone else's post. Ah, the intensity of youth....

I will ponder your questions later when I have more time!

@mayjay ah I see. Right on right on.

I was not sure if he was being facetious. But sarcasm doesn't seem to further solutioneering, it is it's own emotional endpoint, so I'll take his comments at face value; it moves the conversation forward.

@approxinfinity Sarcasm is usually more pointed, and can seem hostile. Facetiousness, in my view, is more light-heartedness. I make facetious comments about both wings of the political spectrum. And about myself.

Puns, too, but is just a character flaw.

@mayjay I use puns all the time. Lol @ character flaw. You're probably right about that, it's also kind of like verbal scent marking isn't it?

I never really had a feel for the difference between sarcasm and facetiousness. :thumbsup: I have a buddy at work that frequently interjects humor everywhere. While it can derail it can also bring levity. Levity is critical too. Its just that when you've got people with belief sets that have been juxtaposed against one another, the punchlines may sometimes be in two different endzones.

mayjay said:

@AsadZ He has already made America great by getting that Muslim fer'ner Hassein Osama out of the white house.

I believe the name is Barak Hussein Obama and no, Trump did not get him out of the White House, the Constitution of our country that prevented him from running for a third term did...not that he would have won a third term.

By the way, what is a fer'ner? I have seen "ferner" but I can't say I have seen that spelling before.

@JayHawkFanToo who is Batak?

@JayHawkFanToo you don't think Obama would have won a 3rd term? I always assumed he would have beaten either of the two candidates handily. Its hard to imagine he would have fallen in the pitfalls Hillary fell into, or neglected the rust belt like she did during the election. He did fail to bail out the auto industry like he did the banks. It seems like that has come back to haunt the Democrats. Please expound how he might have lost if you have some more thoughts about that you don't mind sharing. It's an interesting topic.

All this ceaseless and sustained boot licking of Mr. T in the presence of Mr. P., it has been suggested that their might exist unsightly videos or snapshots of Mr. T capering around in some backstage dressing room or Moscow bordello, nickers dropped to his bony ankles, backalong during Mr. T's Moscow beauty pageant. How about that for a colorful scenario and plausible explanation for the current presidential kowtowing to the sly individuals currently perched in persuasive Soviet power?

@REHawk I've heard rumors of that. Who knows. Until it is proven it seems to be speculation and should be withheld from the court of public opinion. It seems it will be investigated and come up if it holds water.

@REHawk I went back and read the report on BuzzFeed. I'm sure most have probably already read it, but here's the report. Ex MI-6 operative created the report for Trump's opposition, so take it with whatever grain of salt.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html ↗

If the activity you referred to occurred, admitting it as evidence would require proof beyond doubt, without access to the tape. However, the parts of the document regarding potential financial dealings with Chinese and Russian figures seem much more provable and undoubtedly is the angle that Muller's team is taking.

@approxinfinity

So name one Billionaire that hasn't and isn't doing business with China or Russia?

Just name one?

Better yet name me one politician that isn't taking money from a lobbyist? And who do the lobbyist work for? Big business? So now name me one big business that isn't doing business with China or Russia?

Yep Trump is guilty.

@REHawk

What I would like to know is why is everybody just focusing on just Trump Jr's meeting with this Russian lawyer? I mean why aren't we looking at the bigger picture?

For instance

Why does a foreign country have so much dirt on Hillary?

Is sharing information actually Collison?

What has Hillary done that some foreign country could have information that could effect her so negatively?

If the FBI Contacts Russia in a fact finding mission is this considered Collison?

Is talking to some one about damning info on another really breaking the law?

Yet we won't get those questions answered. Nah this is all about Trump. Fair and balanced.

@DoubleDD I'm sure there's truth to the fact that other billionaires have business with Russia and China, but the document mentions corrupt business with both, and most specifically, I'm thinking that one of smoking guns would be this claim:

In terms of the substance of their discussion, SECHIN’s associate said that the Rosneft President was so keen to lift personal and corporate western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered PAGE/TRUMP’s associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return. PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted

Focusing on Hillary in response to allegations of corruption on the part of Trump doesn't make sense to me. In no way would her corruption make corruption by Trump okay, right? Are you suggesting that identifying corruption in this presidency is made any less important because a losing candidate in the past election was also corrupt? Or are you suggesting that Trump isn't corrupt? If so, how can you be sure of that?

I don't know what to make of the fact that when Trump met Putin they deliberately had a second private one hour meeting that was only accompanied by Putin's translator, and then he said it was fifteen minutes long when asked about it. That seems pretty sketchy. Not the kind of thing you do when under investigation for collusion with that country.

And I get that you could say that's circumstantial evidence. But that's why an official investigation is important. To examine strictly the facts and not appearances. In May, Trump's team was saying that he welcomes the Russia investigation. What has changed since May that would make the investigation now unwelcome? The truth is the truth, isn't it?

If a billionaire president has business dealings with a foreign power or with megacorps in that country, is it too much to ask to have some transparency and disclosure what those relationships are? I would ask the same if Hillary were president.

@approxinfinity

I think it's quite fair and needed if you going to investigate some one or something.

I would also have to ask why Did Obama, and Lynch go out of their way to get this Russian lawyer into the country. A lawyer that just so happens to have the so called goods on Hillary, and a meeting with Trump Jr.

Lets not forget those that view this issue as very important. Also view this as an impeachable or removal from office type stuff. As if a great travesty has been done. Almost Treason.

I gave this some thought. The topic is Why lies work in Propaganda. Well this Trump investigation is the perfect example. Too many are seeing red. They have been filled with lies of Collison for how long? So it's like a man walking in the desert that has no water. When at last he finds something wet to drink. He doesn't care what It tastes like of even if it's good for him. He drinks.

The media and those on the Dem side have been seeing Red since that wonderful night that Trump turned the tables on Hillary. What a sight it was to see so many media types dazed and confused after realizing their champion had indeed lost.

The thing about lies is two things. One, people start not to trust you. Which would explain the low approval ratings that the media has gotten. Two, even when you might be telling the truth? You've cried wolf so long nobody believes you any way.

Take for instance this so called chance meeting with this Russian lawyer. What is working in the Propaganda of the issue? When those seeing red, they become benevolent to the evidence. All they see is a smoking gun and just can't wait to pile one.

Yet one piece of evidence that any investigator would find interesting. Is this lawyers connection and relationship with Obama and Lynch. I would think if one really cared about justice and not just smearing ones name. Then this question has to be answered or at least looked at. It's like the guy sitting out in the get away car. Hey I didn't rob the place I was just sitting in the car. LOL

Sadly the fervor to get President Trump has reached a point in the Propaganda. That it you went around and asked any joe or moe on the street. They would believe (and this important) that Trump himself set up this meeting with Russian lawyer and attended such meeting. Yet Trump didn't. So in those in the haste to Get Trump are going to take down anybody and everybody that is connected or gets in the way.

This is why the Hillary part of this equation is important. Her server and her inability to turn over said hacked information. Remember everybody said the Russians hacked the DNC.

So what information did the Russians have?

Was the Information from Hillary's server the info that was to be given to Trump Jr?

And were they really going to give that information to Trump Jr?

Also why did Obama do nothing when he knew what the Russians were doing?

Trump very much may need to be investigated, yet why aren't we asking these very valid questions. Because this isn't about justice. This is about beseeching a person and a movement.

This is indeed a Propaganda filled with lies.

@approxinfinity

The report by the former MI6 agent was part of the opposition research dossier generated by the Fusion GPS group whose client was the DNC. The report was leaked to Sen. McCain who turned over to the FBI. The entire dossier was debunked by the FBI who deemed it to be not credible. Interesting that the report indicated that the Russians have been feeding information to the Trump campaign for many years; however Trump did not have a campaign team until after he announced his candidacy in June of 2015. By the way, do you know who has links to the Fusion GPS group? The lawyer that met with a Trump Jr. I understand she has indicated she is available to testify in front of Congress; I would be curious to hear what she has to say.

When you continue to cite a discredited report that has been fully debunked by the FBI (who is no friend of Trump) you continue to spread what now is called fake news. While this information has been kept low key by the MSM (big surprise) it is readily available from multiple reputable sources.

As far as your previous question on whether Obama could have won a third term, the answer is no, Hillary was supposed to be Obama's third term and the country rejected her and by extension Obama, who endorsed Hillary, campaigned extensively for her and repeatedly indicated that a vote against Hillary would be a vote against him.

@JayHawkFanToo I have not seen anywhere where the dossier has been debunked in it's entirety. Do you have a link? The report was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump as a nominee, and then Clinton. Regardless, yes, it has ties to the election. The only thing I've heard in this regard is that some of the items in the report have been identified as "unverifiable". If you have something that goes further to actively disprove parts of the report please share.

As far as the other thing, Clinton is not the same as Obama in terms of popularity, and Obama did not have the dirt on him that she had on her. I'd agree that maybe there were groups with whom Obama had worn out his welcome, but it seems there are a lot more factors to Clinton's unsuccessful run that invalidate labeling it as a wholesale rejection of Obama.

@approxinfinity

Here is one from Forbes ↗, a pretty respectable source.

Here is one" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/) ↗
where the author of the dossier admits his charges are unverified.

Here is one ↗ where one the banks implicated is suing the author of the dossier

Here is another ↗ with interesting background information on the links between the author(s) of the dossier and the Democratic Party.

Need more?

@JayHawkFanToo thanks.

The Forbes piece is an op-ed piece of well reasoned speculation, and a decent read. The rest of the cited sources I'm not too keen on and don't seem to add much. In the case of who funded the report, my understanding is that it initially was opposition Republicans, then the Democrats. The bank sued BuzzFeed, who leaked the report, not the author as you indicated, which is an important distinction. The author said that parts of the report were unverified and not meant for MSM. Was it leaked intentionally? Probably?

Anyway, I don't see this as debunked, just unverified, and there is certainly cause for doubt. I am assuming that if any of this information has merit to it, it would be vetted fully before brought forth as evidence. I get that it is damaging to the president's image and it is very frustrating for those who believe it's bogus.

@approxinfinity

I know this wont change your mind. Yet I thought it was an interesting read. As I've been told, " if you isn't got anything to hide then just share it"

Interesting read ↗

Could it be that Hillary and the Dems colluded with the Russians?

http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/03/top-senator-wait-the-firm-behind-trump-dossier-was-funded-by-russia/ ↗

This might get ugly for the Dems. We shall see.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/19/is-russiagate-really-hillarygate/#5e1b2fa05cf6 ↗

@approxinfinity

While the information was made public in January, it has been available to insiders since long before the election. If the information was good, don't you think Hillary would have had it front and center? Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and still working for the ultra liberal Washington Post called the dossier a "garbage document." Enough said.

@DoubleDD I haven't had the opportunity to try to find sources regarding conspiracy around the lawyer that Donald Trump Jr met with and Clinton. I have been meaning to. Do you have a starting place on that angle with a source that doesn't have a strong bias on this? I've admittedly been blind to that angle but would be open minded to a source that didn't smell funny from the gate.

@approxinfinity According to one report last week, she has close ties to both the Russian mob and the government. Russia "experts" say that you can't talk about Russia wiithout understanding how intricately entertwined business and criminal organizations are with the government. I want to read more on the inner workings. It sounds sort of like Tamany Hall or a combo of Mayor Daley and Capone.

One thing we know: journalists don't enjoy the freedom to investigate over there that they do here. They tend, along with government reformers, to get taken out or locked up on spurious charges.

@approxinfinity

I'm afraid I really don't have much accept a bunch or right leaning sites. Some better than others.

Time did a piece on it. It's kind of interesting. It tells a little of the story about her. Yet the interesting part is Time says she set up the meeting. Hear Say? I don't know. Really don't have anything concrete to stand on.

Worth a read ↗

@DoubleDD thanks. I read the piece you linked to. It didn't look like they said anything about Clinton being involved with orchestrating the meeting, as you said.

There is certainly the question of what the Russian attorneys motives were. I get that there could be an agenda here that was possibly trying to harm or get leverage on Trump. But seriously, why did they walk into this trap in the first place? Be it chaos, lack of understanding, or deliberately doing things that are going to get themselves in trouble, it feels like this administration is taking daily jogs through spider webs. This doesn't feel like being fresh and original in their approach. Why can't they avoid these mistakes?

And it seems like maybe the narrative has been shifted to try to incriminate Clinton in being behind the attorney, because it would be more socially acceptable that the Trump cabinet was careless if it was entrapment by Clinton. What if it was entrapment but by Russia instead of Clinton. Doesn't that become a problem when they walk right into it?

@approxinfinity

I don't remember saying Clinton set up the meeting? I did say Obama and Lynch went out of their way to let this lawyer in.

And this isn't an administration fault. This was before Trump was elected. Remember this wasn't Trump senior.

I'm afraid this was a son thinking he could do something good for his father.

So sad that Trump Jr. is going to be fried for his actions. While Hillary and her actions walks away scot free? :(

@approxinfinity

You are forgetting that except for some consultants that were eventually hired, basically the entire Trunp campaign team was new to politics including Trump Jr. and his brother in law; competent business men, no doubt, but complete newbies when it came to politics. They probably saw an opportunity to get some oppo research and jumped to it and did not realize they were being setup until the meeting got underway and the topic was not what they were expecting.

When the full story is told, the Democrats might end up regretting having pushed it when it comes back to bite them in the butt.

@DoubleDD sorry, I misspoke. What I meant was that as you said, it wasn't possible to verify an association beyond that, but I mistakenly said Clinton instead of Obama.

@JayHawkFanToo I get that they're new to politics but it's hard to believe that alarms weren't going off when they were contacted. I'm not a politician but I would know to proceed with extreme caution in that situation. If this was even a reflection of their business acumen it seems to point to carelessness. Not a quality you want in a presidential advisor.

@DoubleDD I read the Forbes article..thanks for that. Good read. One thing I'm curious about is the claim that Fusion was already collecting material on Trump for a republican super PAC. I found this in Steele's Wikipedia page. When I attempted to verify it what I found was that Paul Wood for BBC had reported that it was Jeb Bush's PAC Right to Rise that funded it. The PAC denied it and BBC retracted the story.

I understand where you guys are coming from regarding frustration around the origin, credibility, and intent behind this document.

@approxinfinity

For an individual new to politics getting info on the other party would obviously seem like good news. Keep in mind that there is nothing illegal with what they did; unwise? yes, illegal? No.

And then lying about it is?

@Crimsonorblue22 ....over and over and over again.

@mayjay judge, is that illegal or if you are new just count that as unwise? I didn't know I was lying, I swear!

@Crimsonorblue22 Sort of like the excuse that you accidentally shot someone 12 times with a six-shooter.

@Crimsonorblue22

What exactly was the lie?

@JayHawkFanToo
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/donald-trump-russia-timeline-campaign-denials ↗

The lies were various forms of denial regarding contact with Russia, and I think mostly the person denying it was Trump himself. The Trump team took the easier road to electability by denying all contact, but they persisted with that lie up to the point of undeniable proof to the contrary.

Legally the line is drawn if one testifies and purjures oneself. I don't understand why Kuschner, Jr, and Manifort were allowed to testify in private and not under oath this week, but lying in such a format is still purjury. The transcripts also could be released by Congress with classified information redacted. They should be.

When you so forcibly deny the truth on social media platforms you use to conduct other business, such as executive orders banning transgender people from military service, the legal lines get a little blurry as to the criminality of those false claims. Regardless, a case can be made that no legal lines were crossed, provided that the testimonies of those three admitted contact with Russia, refuting all their prior statements on the matter.

Either way, the president and his team have clearly repeatedly lied to date.

@approxinfinity Tweets have no legal effect whatsoever except as evidence used to show the intent of a later-issued executive order, as has been done with the travel ban(s). The Supremes will be deciding whether that use is okay, but they have used extraneous comments by legislators in the past to void legislation passed with bad motives (e.g., NC voter restrictions) so the same principle might apply.

There are other legal issues, chiefly Jared's security clearance forms that have had to be amended 3 times, I believe, to add these contacts, change dozens of answers, and include over 100 people he had omitted initially. Might be excused as the work of a neophyte, but any ordinary federal employee would be cashiered for those. Obviously, Jared had no way of knowing how to answer and presumably with a net worth of 400 to 600 million, no assets to hire legal help.

@mayjay is that a legal issue? The initial omission of facts on a security clearance, then amendment? Should he have been denied clearance and is the granting of clearance despite these omissions something that can be scrutinized regarding legality? Or is this just really bad form, possibly unethical, but technically not illegal?

@approxinfinity

What contacts with Russia? There is zero evidence of any contact with rusians, which is implied to be the Russian government. There was one contact with one Russian attorney who is it and was not a member of the Russian government and who was personally authorized to enter our country by former AG Loretta Lynch after she was denied entry and led to nowhere.

By your definition, Kim Jon Un, the leader of North Korea must also be colluding with the American government, after all he met with Dennis Rodmam who is a friend of Trump.

@JayHawkFanToo i see what you're saying here, but Trump's language went beyond just dealing with the Russian government in his denials. No deals in Russia, fake news etc. Regardless, being truthful would be to explain the truth not just deny some partial truth by playing word games while going on the offensive espousing your innocence. The whole thing stinks. Illegal? I don't think so with evidence to date. Untruthful? Yes.

@approxinfinity

His disclosure forms clearly outline the level of business involvement he had/has in Russia and by all indications is very limited and I have not seen any evidence that indicates his disclosure forms are incorrect.

Mark my words, when it is all said and done, the democrats will end up regretting opening the "Russian" can of worms because it it is becoming more obvious that they had a much greater involvement with the Russian than Trump did; many democrats have already indicated -of the record, of course - that they need to drop the Russian narrative as it leads to nowhere and it will likely backfire. Time will tell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html ↗

If you're a little short on integrity you'll be a lot short on ability to lead. – Steve Keating

@Crimsonorblue22

From the article you cited:

Jamie Gorelick, Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, said that the questionnaire was submitted prematurely on Jan. 18, and that the next day, Mr. Kushner’s office told the F.B.I. that he would provide supplemental information.

Mr. Kushner’s aides said he was compiling that material and would share it when the F.B.I. interviewed him. For now, they said, he has an interim security clearance.

In a statement, Ms. Gorelick said that after learning of the error, Mr. Kushner told the F.B.I.: “During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect. I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity. … I would be happy to provide additional information about these contacts.” No names were disclosed in that correspondence.

So, he made a mistake in his form and the NEXT DAY he told the FBI that he would provide the additional information. When did he have time to lie?

I have seen the form in question and I have visited with FBI agents personally when they were checking the form submitted by a colleague who had worked with me in the past and whose new firm was doing work that required clearance. Based on the questions they asked I can see why it would be so easy to miss details from years back and this is why the forms is routinely amended to include information previously omitted.

@JayHawkFanToo You and Double DD seem to think that the Democrats are leading the investigations. Which Congressional committees exactly do the Dems chair?

@JayHawkFanToo oops I forgot! Sorry!!

@JayHawkFanToo Yes, it is easy to have trouble remembering things from years back. How you can overlook an entire page on which you are expressly required to divulge that meeting you had with the Russian ambassador a whopping one month ago seems to be stretching it just a teensy weensy bit.

Okay, you believe him. A lot of well-meaning people don't. Including a number of conservatives, a point made many times here but to which you consistently fail to respond.

@approxinfinity According to a variety of Trump supporters, if the President does it, it is not illegal because he can pardon people.

@mayjay here's a podcast about it (episode 3):

https://trumpconlaw.com ↗

@mayjay

Please read my post where I quoted from the link @Crimsonorblue22 posyed. The form was submitted prematurely and the next day...yes, the next day they notified the FBI that the missing nformation would be forthcoming; not really a big deal and something that is done routinely. Now, you know that the information on those forms is confidential, right? and leaking it is illegal, right?Any outrage over that?

mayjay said:

@approxinfinity According to a variety of Trump supporters, if the President does it, it is not illegal because he can pardon people.

People that think that are idiots, regardless of affiliation and no person with half a brain would agree with that. However, it is not nearly as idiotic as Maxine Waters, a US Congressman saying that Trump would be impeached and Hillary Clinton would be appointed President since she won the election...really? And I mean REALLY??? Has this loon not heard of the Electoral College and the US Comstitution and the line of succession?...and she is a US congressman. Both sides have their share of morons.

@JayHawkFanToo agreed. Nutjobs fly many different flags. Question though, if (and I'm asking you to answer this hypothetically, strictly hypothetically) a candidate were to tamper with an election and win because of it, what would be the fairest solution? His running mate would have benefited as well, so no go there, so you've already gone to uncharted waters. What is to stop then at the speaker of the house, if they are of the same party, if you've already broken form on the designed line of succession?

@approxinfinity

I see where you are going but that is not what the constitution calls for.,,,and we are still a country of laws and the Constitution still is the final word. The only election rigging that we know was done by the democrats to eliminate Bernie Sanders...who is not even a democrat but was running as one.

BTW, if there was election rigging or foreign meddling it all happened under the Obama administration watch who did absolutely nothing about it and had the ultimate responsibility to have a fair election.

You heard the expression...If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Likewise, if election rigging happened and the administration did nothing about it, did it really happened? Or...if election rigging happened and the administration did nothing about it, who should shoulder the blame? Neither scenario bides well for the democrats.

@JayHawkFanToo if you live in that forest, better come out and see what's going on. Pretty sure nobody can tell you anything.

@JayHawkFanToo I am not saying Trump rigged the election but I'm trying to explain the mind of someone who is coming from that premise.

So what you are saying is that if Clinton had won, and it came to light that she had actively participated in rigging the election, Tim Kaine should become President because the Constitution says that is the line of succession.

@Crimsonorblue22

I live in the real world where facts count and unproven allegations and rumors don't.

Apparently you have an issue with me having opinions of my own and standing by them even (or particularly) when they are at odds with others. I do not tell other posters what to think, I encourage everybody to read up and form their own opinions even if they are different than mine.

@approxinfinity

If Clinton would have rigged the election chances are the VP would have been involved as well and both would be disqualified. Had he not been involved he would be the next in line...this is what the law says or at least my understanding of it. Of course this assumes the results were certified by the electoral college otherwise the process moves to congress who elects the new president, something that I don't believe has happened before.

Too many hypotheticals for election results that are not in doubt except for a few fringe individuals.

"I live in the real world where facts count and unproven allegations and rumors don’t."
@JayHawkFanToo

"I'm right fallacy" violation.