Trump/Putin Debacle

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Rixaroo

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Jun 16, 2011
1,079
1,300
1,743
OKC
www.weekendwatchguide.com
#1
Serious question for the Trump backers here. How is it justifiable for Trump to publicly state -while the WHOLE world is watching no less- that he believes Putin's word above the work done by our intelligence force? I mean, what the hell is going on here?
 
May 22, 2005
2,531
1,432
1,743
Behind Enemy Lines
#2
Putin was asked by a reported whether he would be willing to cooperate with the Mueller investigation and a request for extradition of the 12 named intelligence agents accused of infiltrating and manipulation of the US election process.

Putin declared that his government would be willing to allow Mueller investigators access to the 12 Russians in exchange for American cooperation in bringing to justice Clinton associates, including Mueller cohorts involved in illegal business transactions that allegedly took place in Russia, involving, according to Putin's statement, over $400 million dollars that was taken out of the Russia illegally
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,786
3,893
1,743
#3
Trump has stated the entire time that he thinks that this is a witch hunt and that he doesn't believe that they meddled in the election. I'm not surprised at all that he said the same thing again today.

I don't doubt that Russia did things to try to influence our election. I don't doubt that we've done the same thing before as well. But what I really want to know is what the evidence is that Russia did the things they claim. A hacker can easily use an offshore server to make their internet traffic look like it's coming from anywhere in the world. I want to know if the intelligence agencies have actual hardcore evidence that these things came from Russia, or if they're simply looking at metadata and saying that they appear to have originated from Russia.
 

Rixaroo

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Jun 16, 2011
1,079
1,300
1,743
OKC
www.weekendwatchguide.com
#4
Putin was asked by a reported whether he would be willing to cooperate with the Mueller investigation and a request for extradition of the 12 named intelligence agents accused of infiltrating and manipulation of the US election process.

Putin declared that his government would be willing to allow Mueller investigators access to the 12 Russians in exchange for American cooperation in bringing to justice Clinton associates, including Mueller cohorts involved in illegal business transactions that allegedly took place in Russia, involving, according to Putin's statement, over $400 million dollars that was taken out of the Russia illegally
This is not an answer to the question.
 

Pokit N

Gent of Good Intent
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
8,105
4,687
1,743
42
Lily Lake, IL
#5
Trump believes that if he acknowledges that Russia tampered w/ our election the media will claim that by his own admission he is illegitimate. I think that's stupid...Rosenstien himself said they had no proof that the russian hacking had any affect on the election.

IMO-he should have simultaneously slammed Putin to his face for messing w/ our Elections and The media/DEMS, who have turned a small unsuccessful ruskie operation into a winning lottery ticket for Putin by their refusal to accept the results of the 2016 Election.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,399
17,124
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#6
Liberal Logic 101:
Trump saying he believes what the Russian leader says = the worst thing ever
Obama telling the Russian leader he'll have more flexibility after the election = no big deal

Also keep in mind regarding this whole Russia thing. Regardless of if you think Trump is handling the response to it in an incompetent manner, please remember that it was somebody else's incompetence that allowed it to happen in the first place.
This is not to excuse Trump, this is the kind of embarrassment we unfortunately should expect when electing such a narcissistic amateur to the White House. But I will take stuff like this over Clinton who would have had no public embarrassment but would have quietly stabbed us all in the back any time Russian money found it's way to her foundation.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,208
3,532
1,743
Florida
#7
I want to know if the intelligence agencies have actual hardcore evidence that these things came from Russia, or if they're simply looking at metadata and saying that they appear to have originated from Russia.
The short answer is, yes, they have hardcore evidence. If you want a longer answer you can look at the link below. Then maybe take a look at some of the other articles that describe intelligence gathered from our allies.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment
 
Nov 26, 2006
892
203
1,593
#8
Trump has stated the entire time that he thinks that this is a witch hunt and that he doesn't believe that they meddled in the election. I'm not surprised at all that he said the same thing again today.

I don't doubt that Russia did things to try to influence our election. I don't doubt that we've done the same thing before as well. But what I really want to know is what the evidence is that Russia did the things they claim. A hacker can easily use an offshore server to make their internet traffic look like it's coming from anywhere in the world. I want to know if the intelligence agencies have actual hardcore evidence that these things came from Russia, or if they're simply looking at metadata and saying that they appear to have originated from Russia.
In case you have been missing current news...

https://www.axios.com/muellers-map-...us--7f9d178a-9e31-494a-8ab3-2c46c4a9ab2d.html

Or feel free to read Mueller's most recent indictment that involves names, dates, and facts about the 12 Russian Agents who actively meddled in our election.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,786
3,893
1,743
#9
The short answer is, yes, they have hardcore evidence. If you want a longer answer you can look at the link below. Then maybe take a look at some of the other articles that describe intelligence gathered from our allies.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment
Thanks for the the link. I read and skimmed though both the article and the indictment. I'm seeing a lot of allegations presented as facts, but I'm missing the evidence being presented to prove them as facts. It seems most of what they're presenting would be based off of fragmented metadata. Metadata is nothing more than residue of internet traffic. It can give you a decent idea of what happened, but it can also be manipulated.

I must've missed it. What hardcore evidence are you referring to?
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,208
3,532
1,743
Florida
#10
Thanks for the the link. I read and skimmed though both the article and the indictment. I'm seeing a lot of allegations presented as facts, but I'm missing the evidence being presented to prove them as facts. It seems most of what they're presenting would be based off of fragmented metadata. Metadata is nothing more than residue of internet traffic. It can give you a decent idea of what happened, but it can also be manipulated.

I must've missed it. What hardcore evidence are you referring to?
The things they alleged can't be gathered just from metadata. They have actual names, dates, and locations of these people at the times of these incidents. One guy was even logged into google when he was sending his spearphishing emails. So they have all of that account information from google.

A grand jury saw the evidence and said it was enough to indict. The DOJ brought the charges because they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

They also have all of the evidence gathered as part of this intelligence operation. Way more than is mentioned in the article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hackers/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eee2a8d5980a
 
Nov 26, 2006
892
203
1,593
#12
Thanks for the the link. I read and skimmed though both the article and the indictment. I'm seeing a lot of allegations presented as facts, but I'm missing the evidence being presented to prove them as facts. It seems most of what they're presenting would be based off of fragmented metadata. Metadata is nothing more than residue of internet traffic. It can give you a decent idea of what happened, but it can also be manipulated.

I must've missed it. What hardcore evidence are you referring to?
Does 32 guilty pleas not constitute hardcore evidence to you? Because I'm not sure what better evidence you would like then people admitting to their parts in interfering with our election.
 
Jul 7, 2004
4,281
2,748
1,743
#14
The things they alleged can't be gathered just from metadata. They have actual names, dates, and locations of these people at the times of these incidents. One guy was even logged into google when he was sending his spearphishing emails. So they have all of that account information from google.

A grand jury saw the evidence and said it was enough to indict. The DOJ brought the charges because they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

They also have all of the evidence gathered as part of this intelligence operation. Way more than is mentioned in the article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hackers/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eee2a8d5980a
Or maybe they know they won't have to prove anything since these people won't come to USA and appear in court.
 
Jul 7, 2004
4,281
2,748
1,743
#16
I wish someone would explain that to dear leader.

Even assuming the collusion part is a witch-hunt. That is still TBD.
Trying to prove a crime that doesn't exist is the witch hunt. Collusion is not a crime and was apparently the basis for appointing a special counsel.
 
Nov 26, 2006
892
203
1,593
#17
The witch hunt is the collusion part not the meddling part.
So let's say for argument sake there was no collusion. Does it bother you that our president, on a global stage, is protecting the country that actively tried to (and succeeded) in meddling with our election?
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,208
3,532
1,743
Florida
#18
Trying to prove a crime that doesn't exist is the witch hunt. Collusion is not a crime and was apparently the basis for appointing a special counsel.
The actual charge wouldn't be collusion. Conspiracy more than likely. Dealing with stolen documents. None of which was the sole basis for the special counsel.
 

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
157
113
93
57
Wisconsin
#19
Serious question for the Trump backers here. How is it justifiable for Trump to publicly state -while the WHOLE world is watching no less- that he believes Putin's word above the work done by our intelligence force? I mean, what the hell is going on here?
Do you mean the intelligence force that took a dossier full of unverified, made up BS to a FISA court to get authorization to spy on the his campaign? Is that the intelligence force that he is supposed to trust? If it happened to you, would YOU be able to trust them?
 
Nov 26, 2006
892
203
1,593
#20
No one is answering the question... I just see a bunch of excuses and side stepping.
I don't care about Clinton, or collusion, or the dossier...

Our president just defended a man (over countless reports from US intelligence, special counsel, and house investigations that NEITHER party denies) who actively disrupted our election.

How do you feel/what do you think about that? And why?