Trump’s ’Russian hoax’ not ‘fake news’ after all...

HAL9000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43092085

13 Russian indicted for trying to influence US election. As yet no evidence of collusion but Mueller, despite attempts by Trump to discredit his investigation, certainly seems to be closing in. 

JezWynd

Smart move by Mueller. Establishing the fact of the interference, something Trump has poo pooed all along.

RaymondLin

So there was Electoral fraud !!! Trump was right, except he got the benefit …. bet he won't come out and say that.

seany65

This 'investigation' was done just 'cos Hilliary couldn'tt admit that she was the reason she lost.

I'm still not sure I believe it, and I'd be more inclined to have sympathy for the yanks if they didn't interfere in so many elections around the world, nor let their private citizens like George  Soros interfere in elections and referenda all over the world...

Samgb

HAL9000

I’d struggle to believe that there wasn’t collusion. In the early stages of Trump’s presidency hardly a week went by without one of his team having to admit to meetings with Russians that had previously somehow slipped their minds.

As things stand...

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign and is cooperating with the Mueller investigation.

Former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign and is cooperating with the Mueller investigation.

Former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates is reportedly on the verge of signing a plea agreement and cooperating with Mueller. Gates faces a variety of charges, including money laundering and other financial crimes.

Paul Mannafort. Trump's campaign chairman. Had worked as a political consultant in Ukraine before being forced to resign in August 2016, after he was accused of having links to pro-Russian groups there. He also sat in on a crucial meeting with a Russian lawyer who may have been trying to feed the Trump team classified information. Like Gates, he is currently facing charges of money laundering and other financial crimes.

Donald Trump Junior. Admitted to meeting with Russians hoping to get dirt on the Clinton campaign.

Still believe there was no collusion eh?

blobb

Sorry, remind me again who's using 'social' media to influence political thought?

Heartfeltdawn

seany65 said:

This 'investigation' was done just 'cos Hilliary couldn'tt admit that she was the reason she lost.

I'm still not sure I believe it, and I'd be more inclined to have sympathy for the yanks if they didn't interfere in so many elections around the world, nor let their private citizens like George  Soros interfere in elections and referenda all over the world...

Soros has a legit interest in EU issues, given his place of birth and childhood Hungarian residence. And if you bristle at him being involved as a foreigner, then bristle at folk like Facebook techie guy and Uncle Rupert M, both of which can be said to be involved in the political process through their respective media empires. 

Ho hum.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-17/how-britain-tried-influence-us-election-1940

Adam_MD

blobb said:

Sorry, remind me again who's using 'social' media to influence political thought?

You sure you want that?  It’ll be a long fucking list

JezWynd

HAL9000 said:

Still believe there was no collusion eh?

There's little doubt that there were Russian influences around his campaign but I doubt that Trump knowingly took their help. In Trump's world he is the guy with all the best ideas. It wouldn't occur to him that some of those ideas were planted in his mind by people with hidden agendas.

The real smoking gun would/will be the revelation that Trump's empire was financed with money stolen from the Russian people by oligarchs/gangsters laundering in the NY housing market. Mueller took on a lot of people with expertise in this area so it's definitely something he's looking into. Whether that turns Trump's base away from him is doubtful. They'll likely see it as another example of Trump's smarts.

Nothing sums up modern america so clearly as Trump. The acquisition of wealth in it's most gaudy forms, the relentless bragging, the faux godliness and the outrageous cynicism, all wrapped up in a cheap suit. It's not a pretty sight.

ICBM

The good news, if there is some, is that the idea that ‘Americans voted for Trump’ is wrong. He only won the election because of the electoral college system and because the turnout was so low - and because Hillary was intolerable to middle America. Only a quarter of them voted for him. It’s a fairly substantial minority, but it only takes a small re-engagement by some of the almost half of the people who didn’t vote, and/or a less unpalatable alternative, and he’ll be gone. The bad news is that the Democrats don’t really seem to be getting their act together... but two years is a long time, and they still can.

Adam_MD

ICBM said:

The good news, if there is some, is that the idea that ‘Americans voted for Trump’ is wrong. He only won the election because of the electoral college system and because the turnout was so low - and because Hillary was intolerable to middle America. Only a quarter of them voted for him. It’s a fairly substantial minority, but it only takes a small re-engagement by some of the almost half of the people who didn’t vote, and/or a less unpalatable alternative, and he’ll be gone. The bad news is that the Democrats don’t really seem to be getting their act together... but two years is a long time, and they still can.

There's a giant grass roots movement at the minute quite a few progressives running as democrats are taking special elections away from the republicans and a record number of republicans are stepping down in the next election cycle.  There have been some pretty big upsets over the last few months.  The one positive aspect of trump is that an awful lot of people have switched on and are getting out to vote.

Medicare for all, wealth inequality and campaign financing reform will be the big battlegrounds over the midterms at the end of 2018 and through to the next presidential election IMO.  I'm hoping the political landscape will look quite different when we get to 2020 and will be amazed if they don't have President Pence by then after Trump steps down over money laundering charges dating back from the 1980s until today.

RaymondLin

Adam_MD said:

ICBM said:

The good news, if there is some, is that the idea that ‘Americans voted for Trump’ is wrong. He only won the election because of the electoral college system and because the turnout was so low - and because Hillary was intolerable to middle America. Only a quarter of them voted for him. It’s a fairly substantial minority, but it only takes a small re-engagement by some of the almost half of the people who didn’t vote, and/or a less unpalatable alternative, and he’ll be gone. The bad news is that the Democrats don’t really seem to be getting their act together... but two years is a long time, and they still can.

There's a giant grass roots movement at the minute quite a few progressives running as democrats are taking special elections away from the republicans and a record number of republicans are stepping down in the next election cycle.  There have been some pretty big upsets over the last few months.  The one positive aspect of trump is that an awful lot of people have switched on and are getting out to vote.

Medicare for all, wealth inequality and campaign financing reform will be the big battlegrounds over the midterms at the end of 2018 and through to the next presidential election IMO.  I'm hoping the political landscape will look quite different when we get to 2020 and will be amazed if they don't have President Pence by then after Trump steps down over money laundering charges dating back from the 1980s until today.

And they divide the district in a way that skew towards the controlling party in the area, there's  even a name for it, gerrymandering.

VimFuego

I would also imagine that the Dems right now are more focussed on the mid terms, then after that they will presumably focus on putting up a candidate. 

Adam_MD

RaymondLin said:

Adam_MD said:

ICBM said:

The good news, if there is some, is that the idea that ‘Americans voted for Trump’ is wrong. He only won the election because of the electoral college system and because the turnout was so low - and because Hillary was intolerable to middle America. Only a quarter of them voted for him. It’s a fairly substantial minority, but it only takes a small re-engagement by some of the almost half of the people who didn’t vote, and/or a less unpalatable alternative, and he’ll be gone. The bad news is that the Democrats don’t really seem to be getting their act together... but two years is a long time, and they still can.

There's a giant grass roots movement at the minute quite a few progressives running as democrats are taking special elections away from the republicans and a record number of republicans are stepping down in the next election cycle.  There have been some pretty big upsets over the last few months.  The one positive aspect of trump is that an awful lot of people have switched on and are getting out to vote.

Medicare for all, wealth inequality and campaign financing reform will be the big battlegrounds over the midterms at the end of 2018 and through to the next presidential election IMO.  I'm hoping the political landscape will look quite different when we get to 2020 and will be amazed if they don't have President Pence by then after Trump steps down over money laundering charges dating back from the 1980s until today.

And they divide the district in a way that skew towards the controlling party in the area, there's  even a name for it, gerrymandering.

That's hardly new though both the republicans and democrats have been doing it for 200 years.

AlexC

Been following this and I don’t see that it goes back to Putin. He wouldn’t be that clumsy if he wanted to engage in under the radar espionage. Which he almost certainly does on a daily basis. For me, the ultimate question is what benefit is it to Russia to have a loose canon such as Trump as US President?
I’m guessing these guys are ‘businessmen’ who somehow would financially make personal gains. 

RaymondLin

Adam_MD said:

RaymondLin said:

Adam_MD said:

ICBM said:

The good news, if there is some, is that the idea that ‘Americans voted for Trump’ is wrong. He only won the election because of the electoral college system and because the turnout was so low - and because Hillary was intolerable to middle America. Only a quarter of them voted for him. It’s a fairly substantial minority, but it only takes a small re-engagement by some of the almost half of the people who didn’t vote, and/or a less unpalatable alternative, and he’ll be gone. The bad news is that the Democrats don’t really seem to be getting their act together... but two years is a long time, and they still can.

There's a giant grass roots movement at the minute quite a few progressives running as democrats are taking special elections away from the republicans and a record number of republicans are stepping down in the next election cycle.  There have been some pretty big upsets over the last few months.  The one positive aspect of trump is that an awful lot of people have switched on and are getting out to vote.

Medicare for all, wealth inequality and campaign financing reform will be the big battlegrounds over the midterms at the end of 2018 and through to the next presidential election IMO.  I'm hoping the political landscape will look quite different when we get to 2020 and will be amazed if they don't have President Pence by then after Trump steps down over money laundering charges dating back from the 1980s until today.

And they divide the district in a way that skew towards the controlling party in the area, there's  even a name for it, gerrymandering.

That's hardly new though both the republicans and democrats have been doing it for 200 years.

I never said it was new and I did say the controlling party, so what are you trying to say? eh?

I am just pointing out it is also one of the reasons why the voting does not truly reflect the population that's all.

ICBM

AlexC said:

Been following this and I don’t see that it goes back to Putin. He wouldn’t be that clumsy if he wanted to engage in under the radar espionage. Which he almost certainly does on a daily basis. For me, the ultimate question is what benefit is it to Russia to have a loose canon such as Trump as US President?
I’m guessing these guys are ‘businessmen’ who somehow would financially make personal gains. 

No, it's geopolitical. Have a look at what the Obama administration - including Hillary when she was Secretary Of State, but also Biden and others still at the top of the Democratic party - were up to in Syria and Ukraine, and you may see why Putin didn't want Hillary as President.

And in fact, why it might be a good thing for the rest of us too...

Having a destabilising loose cannon in charge of your adversary is an advantage - it not only makes it less likely for them to have a coherent strategy to oppose what you want to do, it takes everyone else's eye off the ball as well.

AlexC

@ICBM  Hmmmm... that’s food for thought. Good point.

ICBM

It is quite noticeable - or rather, not noticeable - what's been happening in eastern Ukraine since Trump took office. The war continues, but is barely even news now. The government which was installed by the Obama administration has lost, effectively - after the previous pro-Russian president (democratically elected, don't forget) was deposed, Putin's plan was probably a 'frozen conflict' which blocks Ukrainian admission to either the EU or NATO - and he doesn't need to fully annexe Ukraine, as long as he controls the coal and gas fields in the Donetsk region, and the naval bases on the Black Sea in Crimea. As an aside, it's interesting that Joe Biden's son is a director of a gas company which has interests... guess where?

And Syria - Putin is now quietly winning. Assad's regime is no longer in danger of defeat, and the Americans and Turks are falling out over the Kurds. The war was started in the first place by American backing for the rebellion to overthrow Assad, because on Russia's behalf he had blocked the proposed Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline which would have run across Syria and would have greatly reduced European dependency on Russian gas and hence been a major blow to Putin - so the US decided Assad had to go. Also Assad had switched to selling oil in Euros and not dollars... check what happened to Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi after they did the same thing.

Meanwhile Trump not only appears to have little interest in Ukraine and no coherent plan in Syria, he's taking everyone's attention away by being a buffoon with North Korea. I think it's *very much* in Putin's interests to have him in the White House and not Hillary. And surprisingly, possibly less likely to start a war.

Funkfingers

HAL9000 said:

attempts by Trump to discredit his investigation

Anybody wishing to be cleared, vindicated, validated or any other words ending in -ated would shut up and wait for investigations to be conducted, conclusions reached and for justice to be seen to have been done.

Moving to prevent any investigation getting under way is a guaranteed way to prevent any unwelcome evidence being uncovered. 

The keener a public figure is to block investigation, the more it appears that that public figure wishes to suppress the truth.
This does necessarily not mean that there is anything to suppress. It does, however, make the person in denial look shifty. 

Scotland has a verdict option of Not Proven. Most countries do not. Innocence has to be presumed. A personality as superficial as Trump would claim himself blameless.