Originally, but that doesn't mean he's not grateful for Putin supporting him. His is a pretty black and white world, you like me, I like you. Maybe there is compromat too. But that's less likely than a combination of gratitude and general love for dictators in my view.

I’m reading some of the coverage - it’s possible that Trump still doesn’t believe that there were Russian agents hacking the process, because he doesn’t want to believe it. And remember, in Trump’s world, ‘what Trump wants’ is far more important than ‘what actually happened’. So the White House is able to say, hand on heart, ‘hey this is all in consistent with what we already know’ and still maintain that really it has no implications for the Trump campaign. It’s because there’s no objective truth, or that the truth doesn’t matter. No matter what Mueller finds out, or what the Russians did, it will always be the fault of ‘the fake news’ and ‘Trump’s political enemies’. Fox will always continue to toe the line, Republican voters will hold firm, and Republican congressmen continue to remain craven. That’s why something explosive will have to happen to change the status quo.

And will President Trump see the writing on the wall, and resign office before impeachment? — 0 thru 9

Ha! He sees himself as supreme ruler. I really think that he doesn't think that impeachment could ever be possible.

My bet is Trump won't even bring it up with Putin. Not because of compromat but because Putin helped him get elected and he's happy about that. He's that simple-minded. — Baden

He knew about it earlier in the week and yet still said on Friday "I would call it the rigged witch hunt, after watching some of the little clips. … I think that really hurts our country, and it really hurts our
relationship with Russia." and "I think I'd have a very good relationship with President Putin if we spend time together."

The indictment of the 12 Russian intel officers brings a few questions to my mind. Apologies if they are premature, exaggerated, or have already been mentioned in this thread. — 0 thru 9

As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich,

In other words, an indictment is not a verdict of guilty.

It's political strategy for sheep-public consumption. Publicity of Strzok testimony needs a distraction. Also the often used strategy of such announcements on Friday for infusing into sheeple brain processes. It is known that critique requires immediacy which is diluted over a weekend when the feeble minds of sheeples are thinking of beer and sports.

As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich, — raza

I'll indict a feta/spinach omelet. Verdict: guilty. Sentence: death by chewing.

I'll indict a feta/spinach omelet. Verdict: guilty. Sentence: death by chewing — frank

It'll just turn to shit in a few days. The same way Mueller is going.

You want fries with that?

We're all going to be worm food before too long. Enjoy the blue sky while you can.

Ha! He sees himself as supreme ruler. I really think that he doesn't think that impeachment could ever be possible — Metaphysician Undercover

Very possibly true! We are only engaging in educated speculation perhaps, at least I am. But that may be the case. Time will tattle. I remember rumors that Obama was not going to ever give up the office of President. Whichever party is in office, the system of checks and balances has become most unbalanced. However, the system of checks (or preferably unmarked 100 dollar bills) buying the officials is better than ever. The bloated and broken two-party system. One hand washes the other, like Lady MacBeth. The tale will go on and on as long as it is allowed to. I have no answers, only vague impressions. But a diagnosis comes before the prescription. :confused:

Though the agency was formed in 2003, the Trump reign has lately made much of ICE. Which makes me get metaphorical. The “ice” comparison really seems to fit Mr. Trump. Hard, cold, and slippery are adjectives are could describe both. He is the cloudy and opaque type of ice, not the clear variety. Very strong, when the temperature is right. But also very brittle. One could imagine Trump giving up the Presidency if he felt cornered, and sick of the whole thing. He has been a politician less then three years. Easy come, easy go. (Or more bluntly... “F*** it all! I don’t need this. I’m retiring to Mar-a-Lago!) I doubt loyalty to the Republican party would prevail IF the heat became inescapable. Right now, it is merely warm. The ice is still hard.

Richard Nixon started his long political career after serving in WWII. He weathered many storms and losses, including the 1960 election. Yet he still understandably surrendered when surrounded. Whether a Trump impeachment or resignation would truly help the USA is debatable. Would it really change anything? Would it just bring on more bitter divisiveness? Would it make the desperate times even more desperate? I am on the fence about it, mortar shells flying overhead from all directions, the wounded groaning and holding on to life...

Very likely Mueller has already discovered. Maybe there are details to be filled - dotting each i, crossing each t. It remains to see what come out of it, and what it means.

My take is that the Russians - Putin - compromised Trump a long time ago and in ways that endure; i.e., compromised then and for all time. To what end, though? This, I think. The Russians know history. They remember Berlin and Hungary and Czechoslovakia and Poland, that they invaded and re-invaded these countries and the West did nothing. Putin tested the waters and his own techniques more recently in Crimea. I think he's aimed at Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, or any other target of opportunity. I suspect he thinks that he does not have to wage and win a world war. He only has to intrude into their sovereign space in such a way that it is instantly perceived as a fait accompli. in short he relies on his ability to make the West dither, as it did in the 1930s with Hitler, and with the Soviet Union and other dictators since.

Trump plays into this. Trump thinks he's engaged in a business competition, which I think Putin, for his part, has cultivated and encouraged. In this, Trump needn't be a Russian spy or agent or even a Russian stooge. He needs merely be just a stooge. And Trump is just a stooge, but Putin has molded him into a stooge that can and will fit Putin's need for the United States to dither at just exactly the moment when it shouldn't. Fortunately - I hope - there are lot's of smart people who have got this covered. That leaves only the question of how much trouble Trump might cause or create by himself.

Wouldn't an invasion of Lithuania be Europe's problem?

think he's aimed at Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, or any other target of opportunity. I suspect he thinks that he does not have to wage and win a world war. He only has to intrude into their sovereign space in such a way that it is instantly perceived as a fait accompli. in short he relies on his ability to make the West dither, as it did in the 1930s with Hitler, and with the Soviet Union and other dictators since. — tim wood

Putin's aims are simple and well documented. Just start with the official Russian military doctrine. It states the following:

12. The main external military risks are:

a) build-up of the power potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and vesting NATO with global functions carried out in violation of the rules of international law, bringing the military infrastructure of NATO member countries near the borders of the Russian Federation, including by further expansion of the alliance;

Hence the main focus is to weaken the Transatlantic Alliance and also the European Union. Have the European countries deal with Russia on a bilateral basis is the objective. Now Russia has to deal with these countries as part of EU and/or NATO. Any West European country is militarily weak compared to Russia on a bilateral basis. Hence without a working NATO, East European countries will fall under the sphere of influence of Russia. Putin doesn't have to invade them (and risk WW3).

Hence Putin isn't likely to invade a NATO country. He can succeed with his game if NATO becomes as defunct as earlier similar organizations like SEATO and CENTO, which now are in the dustbin of history.

And now he is winning...

Your point? Of course it's a problem for Europe Do you imagine we're immune to the effects of such a thing? If so, yours would be a minority view even in 1776. Worse, it would be the worst kind of head-in-the-sand wishful thinking.

How do you see it impacting the US? I'm sure the US will be happy to sell arms to both sides, but beyond that, how would it be our problem?

I'm asking with an objective tone btw. I'm not selling anything.

My father once explained to me the hazard of sharing a sandwich with a bear. You give it half and you keep half. Unaware of your concept of sharing, the bear gobbles its half and, still hungry, looks around and sees that you still have your half.... The real problem isn't that there is a real chance that the bear gets your half, or even you for dessert, rather it is that you're in that position with the bear at all. After all, the bear is just being a bear.

I have to interpret your question not as, would there be a problem, but rather as what problem would there be. Do you fancy a Russian Europe? Do you imagine, assuming you live in the Western hemisphere, that your life would be secure in such a world? To my way of thinking, if Trump wants walls, he should assure that there is a military equivalent to an electric fence across the Eastern Baltic borders that will administer such a shock on contact that Putin, who can be counted on to test it if he feels he can get away with it, will recoil all the back to Kamchatka (in the very far East).

But Putin and the Russians are too clever to just come that way. First is subversion and confusion and lies - their entire repertoire for getting their camel nose into the tent. For that reason we have to recognize that the hot war is ideological, that it got hot (again) after Gorbachov and Yeltsin, and we can only hope that Putin dies and is replaced by a more globally minded citizen. Just as we can hope, perhaps not for Trump's death - Pence is no president - but for him to be off the world stage and in court or jail as he deserves, as soon as possible.

Short answer to your question: war, sooner or later, probably sooner.

From your local library (or buy), The Road to Unfreedom, Russia, Europe, America, Timothy Snyder. If that doesn't inform you and get your blood moving....

Do you fancy a Russian Europe? — tim wood

Couldn't care less. Just pretend I know the history of the 20th Century.

Russia isn't going to try to invade the US.

Couldn't care less. — frank

I guess that says it all. The grandest fallacy of all human reasoning: I don't know; I don't need to know; you can't tell me; therefore I must be right; go away and don't bother me. QED.

Just being honest. Would you rather I lie?

So you see conflict with Russia eventually if Europe falls. Where does China fit in this possible future?

Fair enough. I see Russian-European conflict as a possibility. Maybe over supplies of natural resources. War in the case of any Russian invasion. The Chinese are wicked smart, it seems to me. They'll hang back and benefit mainly because they don't have a dog in the fight. But they do have India on their back door, and the rest of SE Asia, and they altogether comprise a lot of folks!

I think Russia is pretty well set in the natural resource department. I'm not sure why they would want much more than Central Europe.

But true about China: as a species were mostly Asian. :)

ndictment alleges Russia "on or about July 27, 2016" started trying to access emails "used by Clinton's personal office."
Notable because that's the same day Trump proclaimed: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," — Michael

Yes. Those 30,000 emails, eh?

Nearly all of Hillary Clinton's emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn't Russia. When this was discovered by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), IG Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Ruckner and an attorney to notify Strzok along with three other people about the "anomaly."

Four separate attempts were also made to notify DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to brief him on the massive security breach, however Horowitz "never returned the call." Recall that Horowitz concluded last month that despite Strzok's extreme bias towards Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump - none of it translated to Strzok's work at the FBI.

In other words; Strzok, while investigating Clinton's email server, completely ignored the fact that most of Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity - while IG Horowitz simply didn't want to know about it.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,” Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok. -Daily Caller

Gohmert continued; “It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.”

Strzok admitted to meeting with Ruckner but said he couldn't remember the "specific" content of their discussion.

“The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that,” Gohmert said, “but you were given that information and you did nothing with it.”

Meanwhile, “Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,” Gohmert said - and Horowitz wouldn't return the call.

And while Peter Strzok couldn't remember the specifics of his meeting with the IG about the giant "foreign entity" bombshell, he texted this to his mistress Lisa Page when the IG discovered the "(C)" classification on several of Clinton's emails - something the FBI overlooked:

“Holy cow ... if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? … Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this.”

Internal Pushback

In November of 2017, IG McCullough - an Obama appointee - revealed to Fox News that he received pushback when he tried to tell former DNI James Clapper about the foreign entity which had Clinton's emails and other anomalies.

Instead of being embraced for trying to expose an illegal act, seven senators including Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) wrote a letter acusing him of politicizing the issue.

"It's absolutely irrelevant whether something is marked classified, it is the character of the information," he said.

McCullough said that from that point forward, he received only criticism and an "adversarial posture" from Congress when he tried to rectify the situation.

"I expected to be embraced and protected," he said, adding that a Hill staffer "chided" him for failing to consider the "political consequences" of the information he was blowing the whistle on.

The indictment of the 12 Russian intel officers brings a few questions to my mind. Apologies if they are premature, exaggerated, or have already been mentioned in this thread. — 0 thru 9

Authord by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

The indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose task it is to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and ‘Russians’, that was released yesterday by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, raises so many questions one has to be picky.

Many people have already stated that the report contains no proof of anything it claims, and that Mueller doesn’t have to prove a thing, because the 12 Russians he accuses will never show up in a US court. Many of course also have at least questioned the timing of the release, 3 days before the Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki, of information Mueller and Rosenstein have allegedly been sitting on for months.

THE MUELLER REPORT: the role of WikiLeaks (labeled “Organization 1”). Mueller very much focuses on both Julian Assange -though he doesn’t get named and is not indicted- and his presumed links to the indicted Russians, who -allegedly- posed as Guccifer 2.0:

Use of Organization 1

47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

a. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to “end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.” On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Conspirators responded, “ok . . . i see.” Organization 1 explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”

b. After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.” The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”

48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not disclose Guccifer 2.0’s role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25, 2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.

49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately thirty-three tranches of documents that had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.

This means Mueller et al claim that WikiLeaks received the DNC files from Russian parties which had hacked into DNC(-related) servers. Something Julian Assange has always denied. Now, remember that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former US intelligence professionals, as well as others, have said that the speed with which the files were downloaded from the server(s) indicates that they were not hacked, but put onto a hard drive.

The person who is supposed to have done that is Seth Rich. Who was murdered on July 10 2016. Kim Dotcom has long claimed to have evidence that Seth Rich was indeed the person who provided the files to Assange. Today he said on Twitter that his lawyers warned him about exposing that evidence, citing his safety and that of his family.

Half a year after Rich’s -never solved- murder, in the first months of 2017, the US Department of Defense was involved in negotiations with Assange in which the latter was offered -temporary- ‘safe passage’ from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he is holed up, in exchange for Assange ‘redacting’ a batch of files on the CIA known as Vault 7.

These negotiations were suddenly halted in April 2017 through the interference of James Comey -then FBI chief- and Mark Warner, a US Senator (D-VA). In the talks, Assange had offered to prove that no Russians were involved in the process that led to WikiLeaks receiving the files.

Today, of course, Assange is completely incommunicado in the Ecuador embassy, so he cannot defend himself against the Mueller accusations. Mueller really doesn’t have to prove anything: he can say what he wants. Comey and Warner prevented Assange from providing evidence exonerating ‘the Russians’, and Assange has been shut down.

Let me repeat once again: Assange is fully aware that the smallest bit of non-truth or half-lie would mean the end of WikiLeaks. It is based on ultimate trust. Nobody would ever offer a single file again if they wouldn’t have full confidence that Wikileaks would treat it -and them- with the utmost respect. So the American approach is to smear Assange in any way possible, rape allegations, collusion with Russian agents, anything goes.

And ‘the Russians’ can be ‘freely’ accused in a 29-page indictment released on the eve of the first summit President Trump is supposed to have with his Russian counterpart a year and a half into his presidency, where his predecessors all had such meetings much earlier into their presidencies. With many lawmakers calling on him to cancel it.

(Seeing if I have removed distracting lines)

Half a year after Rich’s -never solved- murder, in the first months of 2017, the US Department of Defense was involved in negotiations with Assange in which the latter was offered -temporary- ‘safe passage’ from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he is holed up, in exchange for Assange ‘redacting’ a batch of files on the CIA known as Vault 7.

These negotiations were suddenly halted in April 2017 through the interference of James Comey -then FBI chief- and Mark Warner, a US Senator (D-VA). In the talks, Assange had offered to prove that no Russians were involved in the process that led to WikiLeaks receiving the files.

Today, of course, Assange is completely incommunicado in the Ecuador embassy, so he cannot defend himself against the Mueller accusations. Mueller really doesn’t have to prove anything: he can say what he wants. Comey and Warner prevented Assange from providing evidence exonerating ‘the Russians’, and Assange has been shut down.

Let me repeat once again: Assange is fully aware that the smallest bit of non-truth or half-lie would mean the end of WikiLeaks. It is based on ultimate trust. Nobody would ever offer a single file again if they wouldn’t have full confidence that Wikileaks would treat it -and them- with the utmost respect. So the American approach is to smear Assange in any way possible, rape allegations, collusion with Russian agents, anything goes.

And ‘the Russians’ can be ‘freely’ accused in a 29-page indictment released on the eve of the first summit President Trump is supposed to have with his Russian counterpart a year and a half into his presidency, where his predecessors all had such meetings much earlier into their presidencies. With many lawmakers calling on him to cancel it.

(Distracting lines removed, although this comes before last post)

This means Mueller et al claim that WikiLeaks received the DNC files from Russian parties which had hacked into DNC(-related) servers. Something Julian Assange has always denied. Now, remember that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former US intelligence professionals, as well as others, have said that the speed with which the files were downloaded from the server(s) indicates that they were not hacked, but put onto a hard drive.

The person who is supposed to have done that is Seth Rich. Who was murdered on July 10 2016. Kim Dotcom has long claimed to have evidence that Seth Rich was indeed the person who provided the files to Assange. Today he said on Twitter that his lawyers warned him about exposing that evidence, citing his safety and that of his family.

(Still existing distracting lines remain stubborn, however. I have no idea why they appeared)

Nearly all of Hillary Clinton's emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn't Russia. — raza

The DNC servers were hacked.

The DNC servers were hacked. — Benkei

Not actually technically possible due the their density. "Leaked" after downloaded to a hard-drive is the greater probability.

British former diplomat, Craig Murray, appears to have may been the go-between (between such a DNC insider, the murdered Seth Rich, and Wikileaks).

Seth Rich was on the Bernie Sanders campaign, which was nefariously derailed by Hillary's lot, and who's donated funds were slipped from their intended destination to the Hillary camp (just for context as to general election corruption)

The private cyber security company, Crowdstrike, which was, and is, employed by the DNC, refused to hand over the server to the FBI.

"The private cyber security company, Crowdstrike, which was, and is, employed by the DNC, refused to hand over the server to the FBI."

The question as to why?

A protection racket.

The indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose task it is to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and ‘Russians’, — raza

That is not correct. Mueller is tasked with investigating the Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 elections. This includes investigating the extent to which the Trump campaign was involved and any other related possible crime.