FBI: Russia DID interfere with US election ... now what?

[AnnaH]

tc, not sure if you find Democrats generally more civil than Republicans. If so, I agree to disagree.
Are you saying that the Rice issue should be ignored?
Don't know what Trump thinks now, but at the time he probably thought Flynn was the guy and Democrats were just after his picks. I think he initially made a mistake with Flynn, mostly because of the Turkey money. See? I can say Republicans aren't perfect. It seems to me that Democratic support is far more hardened than that on the other side. Republicans are hardly falling in line behind Trump, as Democrats did with the previous administration. But that's another discussion.
The actions of Rice explain Nunes. He should have known that his comings and goings would have been the story more than Rice. Don't know why he was unaware of that.
Remember President Obama's dismissal of Romney's warning about Russia? Under Obama and Clinton, Russia received a large portion of our uranium. During the campaign there were many Clinton/Russian connections that the Democrats ignored.
Another excerpt from the article I posted:

It was only after the campaign — after Hillary’s baggage no longer mattered, after the Democrats decided that “Russia hacked the election” was a better storyline than “we ran a lousy candidate and have lost touch with Middle America” — that Obama made a show of vigorous action against the same “cyber espionage” he’d pooh-poohed as par for the course seemingly five minutes before. Suddenly, on his way out the door, the president who’d sat on his hands while Putin sacked Crimea, grabbed slices of Eastern Ukraine, and abetted Syrian war crimes was moved to eject Russian diplomats, shutter Russian installations, and impose sanctions for what his administration labeled “Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...residential-election-republicans-donald-trump

Was wondering if you are comfortable with how the previous administration handled Russia.

 

[t-c]

tc, not sure if you find Democrats generally more civil than Republicans. If so, I agree to disagree.

Seriously?! There have been things done by Republicans that have set appallingly bad precedent: senators not even meeting with Merrick Garland, to say nothing of allowing his nomination into committee. Now "the nuclear option" is on the table. Jesus, if they just let Garland's nomination (a centrist moderate, by the way) get through committee, the Republicans had the numbers to reject it. The Democrats then wouldn't have the moral outrage to drive filibuster that they do now -- Gorsuch provided so little detail of his philosophy in his testimony that could have been used for ammo. Crazy what a little good will and civility could have avoided -- now Republicans are ready to destroy the fillibuster. I shake my head.

And then Rep. Joe Wilson calling Obama yelling "you lie" during the State of the Union? Not civil at all. So I laugh at people complaining about a group of Democratic women leaving soon after Trump's speech. At least no one has heckled Trump in Congress yet (even though he arguably deserves that "you lie" more than Obama).

Are you saying that the Rice issue should be ignored?

Remember I said I'd like more than the unsubstantiated accusations from Trump. Outside of partisan Republicans calling this a smoking gun and Trump accusing Susan Rice of criminal wrongdoing while providing no evidence (he likes to do that, doesn't he), intelligence officials who have opined about this have said that what she did is consistent with her job as national security adviser. She asks the intelligence agencies to unmask to get context; those requests are recorded and have to be approved by the intelligence agencies.

Republicans are hardly falling in line behind Trump, as Democrats did with the previous administration.

Trump may have a very low 35% approval rating, but when you drill down into the numbers, Trump has a 65% approval rating among Republicans.

The actions of Rice explain Nunes. He should have known that his comings and goings would have been the story more than Rice. Don't know why he was unaware of that.

You're going to have to walk me step-by-step on how you came to this conclusion.

Remember President Obama's dismissal of Romney's warning about Russia? Under Obama and Clinton, Russia received a large portion of our uranium. During the campaign there were many Clinton/Russian connections that the Democrats ignored.

The Clinton-Uranium deal: It was approved by NINE federal agencies including the State Department. The company Rosatom bought was based in Canada, but had operations in the US. Even with ownership of Uranium One, Rosatom cannot export any of the Uranium mined in the US. This was a deal approved by multiple agencies in the US and multiple countries (Canada, US, Kazakhstan) as a function of Uranium One being a multinational corporation and possible security implications. It was not just the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or one country who approved this deal.

It was only after the campaign — after Hillary’s baggage no longer mattered, after the Democrats decided that “Russia hacked the election” was a better storyline than “we ran a lousy candidate and have lost touch with Middle America” — that Obama made a show of vigorous action against the same “cyber espionage” he’d pooh-poohed as par for the course seemingly five minutes before. Suddenly, on his way out the door, the president who’d sat on his hands while Putin sacked Crimea, grabbed slices of Eastern Ukraine, and abetted Syrian war crimes was moved to eject Russian diplomats, shutter Russian installations, and impose sanctions for what his administration labeled “Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...residential-election-republicans-donald-trump

Was wondering if you are comfortable with how the previous administration handled Russia.

Let's see, as a response to Russia's moves in Ukraine the US government: conducted visits by high-ranking officials to show US political support to the Ukrainian government, financial assistance to encourage rapid democratic reforms including support for development of alternative energy sources so that Ukraine would be less dependent on Russian oil, support for Ukrainian troops in the form of equipment and body armor (although not weapons or training), assisted in the investigation of the financial dealings of the previous Ukrainian government so that assets of those ousted pro-Russian officials could be frozen and the looted funds recovered. On another front, the US government sought to calm the anxiety of neighboring (newly joined) NATO countries, coordinated responses with NATO so that Russia could not drive a wedge between the newbies and established NATO allies, deployed airborne troops into Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to prove US commitment to Ukraine and the Baltic region. And finally, the US led the imposition of sanctions against Russia that caused it to go into recession that it still has not recovered from. So yeah, all in all, I'm fairly comfortable with how the Obama administration handled Russia. They could have been more muscular in their help to Ukraine, but I could understand the reluctance to get more deeply involved in another conflict when we were/are already fighting two wars (hence going into war requires serious consideration because it significantly limits our options when situations arise. Who knows what we could have done re the Russians if we hadn't gone into Iraq based on false information.).

Tell me, what kind of response from the US would you have wanted with regards to Russian actions in Crimea?

 

[ruby59]

My question is what motive did Rice have to step up her surveillance of Trump and his team. And then lie about it, which is something she has done time and time again.

Impeach Trump - for what?
More like call Rice and even Obama for a sit down to determine why they did this? Rice is the one who committed a possible crime. And I doubt Obama had clean hands either. His timing of the changing of the rules for sharing secret info was a bit too convenient.

And what was Nunes thinking - to expose the truth about what was going on.

If this were the other way around and Trump did it to Obama, the Dems would be having hissy fits.

 

[E B]

And what was Nunes thinking - to expose the truth about what was going on.

What was that truth again?

I'm glad you went back on record re: your views on leaking, though. Leaking good when "exposing" truth. Excellent to know going forward!

 

[E B]

At this point, I hope they bring Rice in for questioning. Last I read, Sen. Burr (R) said he saw no need to, and honestly, Team Trump should hope they don't. Rice didn't just get to unmask, she needed it approved. Why was the information on (possible) connections to Team Trump and Russia spread to anyone with proper clearance for fear it'd be buried if it was a bag of nothingburgers? Be careful what you wish for.

 

[ruby59]

At this point, I hope they bring Rice in for questioning. Last I read, Sen. Burr (R) said he saw no need to, and honestly, Team Trump should hope they don't. Rice didn't just get to unmask, she needed it approved. Why was the information on (possible) connections to Team Trump and Russia spread to anyone with proper clearance for fear it'd be buried if it was a bag of nothingburgers? Be careful what you wish for.

Why. I want the truth no matter where it leads.

 

[AnnaH]

tc, Russia is hardly handled. Make all the lists you want, but Russia has had a big hand in even the horror in Syria. As I stated in another thread, there are too many hot spots, and here we are with a depleted military. Obama inherited a mess and made it worse. Trump may do the same. You seem to have a lot more confidence in Democrats than I do in Republicans.
Yes, it wasn't just Clinton who approved the uranium deal, but it certainly took place under the Obama administration.

 

[Calliecake]

Did you happen to see Rubio's remarks today regarding Syria? At least one republican is critizing the Trump administration. He said it is no coincidence that the Syria chemical attack happened after Rex Tillerson's remarks on Assad.

 

[AnnaH]

So, no criticism of Obama regarding Syria, ps liberals? Red line in the sand and all that?
As a citizen, Trump didn't want Obama to go into Syria. I hope he hasn't changed his mind. Hopefully, nations will come together on this.
Tillerson said one thing, then the latest chemical attack and Haley said something different.
Didnt hear what Rubio said. What did he say? He's the only Republican who has criticized Trump? Now that's funny.

 

[ruby59]

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Wednesday said it was no coincidence that a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria followed comments Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made suggesting that Syrian President Bashar Assad can remain in power.

"In this case now, we have very limited options, and look, it's concerning that the secretary of State ... said that the future's up to the people in Syria on what happens with Assad," Rubio said on the radio show "AM Tampa Bay." "In essence, [Tillerson was] almost nodding to the idea that Assad was gonna get to stay in some capacity."

"I don't think it's a coincidence that a few days later we see this," Rubio added during the interview, which was first reported by CNN.

 

[Calliecake]

Thank you for posting Ruby. I happened to hear about this on the news this evening.

 

[Dancing Fire]

So, no criticism of Obama regarding Syria, ps liberals? Red line in the sand and all that?
As a citizen, Trump didn't want Obama to go into Syria. I hope he hasn't changed his mind. Hopefully, nations will come together on this.
Tillerson said one thing, then the latest chemical attack and Haley said something different.
Didnt hear what Rubio said. What did he say? He's the only Republican who has criticized Trump? Now that's funny.

Of course not b/c according to the PS liberals Obama is the greatest Prez. ever. Assad is laughing at Obama.... all bark and no bite.

 

[Dancing Fire]

At this point, I hope they bring Rice in for questioning. Last I read, Sen. Burr (R) said he saw no need to, and honestly, Team Trump should hope they don't. Rice didn't just get to unmask, she needed it approved. Why was the information on (possible) connections to Team Trump and Russia spread to anyone with proper clearance for fear it'd be buried if it was a bag of nothingburgers? Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, and ask who instructed her to lie/cover up about Benghazi so that Obama will have a better chance of being re-elected for his second term.

 

[AGBF]

So, no criticism of Obama regarding Syria, ps liberals? Red line in the sand and all that?

Frankly, I am still not sure exactly what I want to see done. Something. But not bombs dropped all over Syrian civilians. Have you listened to (or, even better, watched) videos of Donald Trump from a couple of years ago ranting about how Obama should NOT get involved in Syria back when Obama was weighing what to do and talking "red line in the sand"? It sure is easy to act as if Trump would have handled it better back then!!! With 20/20 hindsight!

And, as I mentioned before: George W Bush caused this. The invasion of Iraq de-stabilized the Middle East. (Such that it was stable.)

AGBF

 

[Matata]

So, no criticism of Obama regarding Syria, ps liberals? Red line in the sand and all that?
As a citizen, Trump didn't want Obama to go into Syria. I hope he hasn't changed his mind. Hopefully, nations will come together on this.
Tillerson said one thing, then the latest chemical attack and Haley said something different.
Didnt hear what Rubio said. What did he say? He's the only Republican who has criticized Trump? Now that's funny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html
Congress would not give permission to get involved; constituents were not in favor of him taking action; Dems didn't support action in Syria; allies didn't support it. Primary reason for Republican opposition was that the Syrian civil war posed no threat to the US. The US also had few business interests there.

What we forgot in the rhetoric about who is responsible for policing the world and putting America first is that there are generations of people who have lived in horrendous situations in war torn countries, living every single day in fear. They do not know how to live without war. The children who live through that nightmare do no know how to live in peace. They must be deeply emotionally and psychologically damaged and will grow into adults who may not be capable of compassion and they will live in the same world we live in and their behaviors will have an impact on all of us.

 

[AGBF]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

Congress would not give permission to get involved; constituents were not in favor of him taking action; Dems didn't support action in Syria; allies didn't support it. Primary reason for Republican opposition was that the Syrian civil war posed no threat to the US.

That is a great link and your posting was a great reminder, Matata. I have been hoping that if Trump gets carried away with war fervor, that he will stop by at the door of our legislature, that branch where war is declared, and have a little chat with them about whether they want to declare war against Syria. Because only The Congress has the right to declare war.

As I posted elsewhere (whether in this thread or another, I now have no idea), that I also hope that the sight of Assad's atrocities don't lead us blindly into another Iraq War! We do not need to kill off the few remaining Syrian civilians in the name of avenging Assad! We really must have a better strategy than decimating the entire population of Syria, and I hope that Congress demands to hear that strategy from Trump, rather than let him keep it a secret so that "the enemy" doesn't find out! (That man is a one-trick pony. All he does is repeat that that "the enemy" will never find out what he is up to. So he can never tell anyone what he will do. Of course that is great cover if he never knows what he is doing.)
I cannot concentrate anymore.

My daughter is threatening to steal the car. Sorry, folks. Sublime to the ridiculous.

 

[AnnaH]

Oh, my, Deb. Good luck with real life. You may not get back to this, but I'll answer.
Actually, I mentioned that Trump didn't want Obama to go into Syria and that I hoped he didn't change his mind. You just overlooked that.
Deb and Matata, imo Obama spent 8 years making a bad situation worse, and I hope and pray that Trump doesn't do the same. I don't have an answer to this and am afraid that no one does, and I agree that I don't want to see military action.
I do agree with Trump that our depleted military must be restored. We hope to not need it, but it must be available. A strong defense protects us and allies just with its existence.

 

[AGBF]

Hi, Anna. I did see-after I had posted-that you mentioned Trump's position about Syria during the Obama administration.

I live in a crazy house. My daughter actually believes impossible things can happen and I cannot wrap my head around that. Because she seems more or less rational at other times. For instance, a man will tell he not to call him on the phone anymore, to stop harassing him. So she will call him from different phones so he will not know it is she calling. If I deny her access to a phone, she gets hysterical, as if I am getting in the way of her communication with her long lost love. (For instance, if I don't let her go into my locked car to use my cell phone to call him.) Then if she manages to call him at night, she may get him to meet her. And if she does, he may desert her anywhere and leave her stranded. And she keeps thinking that someday he will love her.

She is now awake with me. Time for me to return to bed. Dawn respite over.

 

[jaaron]

[QUOTE="AGBF, post:
And, as I mentioned before: George W Bush caused this. The invasion of Iraq de-stabilized the Middle East. (Such that it was stable.)

AGBF[/QUOTE]

I think this is right, in part. More broadly, our dependence on oil and our morally uncomfortable alliances because of it are an awfully big part of the cause, that to be fair, far pre-date Bush. (I won't sidetrack by getting into the stupidity of pouring money in coal mines rather than re-training and fostering innovation for the former mining communities to make America an innovator in green energy technologies that could help us disentangle from these relationships...)

I do think, to give the benefit of the doubt, the question of what to do in Syria is much easier to answer in retrospect. My husband and I had a rare disagreement about intervention- I thought no, he thought yes. Our allies came down on the no side--there was certainly not widespread European support for going in and the US was already involved in too many seemingly endless conflicts. In retrospect, the yeses were probably right.

Going back several years, The Atlantic was doing some really seriously good reporting on Assad basically fomenting the growth of Isis by releasing known Jihadists from jail -- it's in his interests to create and maintain that instability, because without it, the west has no reason to back him. Of course, having a president who has been seen to bolster the Russian support for that regime has emboldened them further.

Definitely no easy answers here, and I think it's an issue that transcends left and right.

 

[AnnaH]

Deb, so sorry for what you and your girl are going through. You are a great mom!

 

[AnnaH]

J, using our own oil is another solution to energy independence, but I agree that other methods should also be developed, just not the Solyndra way.
But that's another topic.

 

[E B]

Nunes is being investigated by House Ethics Committee, has decided to "temporarily step down" as chair of HIC.

 

[t-c]

tc, Russia is hardly handled. Make all the lists you want, but Russia has had a big hand in even the horror in Syria. As I stated in another thread, there are too many hot spots, and here we are with a depleted military. Obama inherited a mess and made it worse. Trump may do the same. You seem to have a lot more confidence in Democrats than I do in Republicans.
Yes, it wasn't just Clinton who approved the uranium deal, but it certainly took place under the Obama administration.

I used the past tense "handled" because the Obama administration is no longer in office therefore no longer handling the situation. I would not expect any geopolitical situation to be solved quickly.

I don't know why you didn't like my list; it was done to answer your question fully (i.e. show the information I was basing my opinion on and to give you a chance to correct any misconceptions I may have -- I'm always open to new facts).

Yes, my opinions and Democratic policies have so far generally aligned. There could come a time when they don't. Democrat and Republican are just labels to me -- if a bleeding heart Republican runs for office promoting a socially progressive agenda that jives with my opinions/beliefs, I would vote for them.

 

[AnnaH]

tc, sorry I didn't give your lists the attention you feel they deserve. I think my eyes glazed over because it is difficult for me to understand how anyone can be so onboard with any party policy/agendas. I don't even always agree with my husband or my bf.
I'm not going to make a list of the rudeness of Democrats, but you know I could.
There's already a thread about the Supreme Court where you can join the discussion. There's also one about Rice. Haven't joined that one as of now.
You think Obama did enough with Russia. I think the lack of success says no. Trump may be no more successful than Obama regarding Russia. As I said, I'm not as confident in either party as you with Dems. One thing I think Trump will do is rebuild the military. Although I'm not hawkish, I think a strong military is a protection just by its existence.

 

[AGBF]

Deb, so sorry for what you and your girl are going through.

Thanks so much for the kind words, AnnaH!

 

[E B]

Huh.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/intelligence-contradicts-nunes-unmasking-claims/index.html

Ooh. Double huh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a742a6e93a7_story.html?utm_term=.1973c2c1d48b

 

[E B]

Huh.

 

[siamese3]

Crazy, right?

 

[E B]

Update on the Susan Rice distraction:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...-dems-republicans-n747406?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Dig up George Washington and start over.