You're like a dog that keeps sniffing his own ass and the asses of other dogs. You need to get a different view and some fresh air! — tim wood

Tim got wood for dog’s asses.

The “Russia” thing amounts to Facebook ads. That’s it!

Even Rosenstein has had to come out and say no American has been implicated in the “Russsia attempts to influence election” assertion.

Interview With Vladimir Pozner of First Channel Television


Share
Interview
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Moscow, Russia
March 19, 2010


QUESTION: Alexander (inaudible): “What in your view is America’s place in the modern world? Is it a force aimed at supporting the world’s equilibrium? Or is it a force aimed at changing the status quo?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s both in this way, Vladimir. It is a force to sustain an equilibrium that permits countries and individuals to progress, to become more self-realizing. I mean, we want very much to have a strong Russia because a strong, competent, prosperous, stable Russia is, we think, in the interests of the world.

Yeah. 2010 sure wasn't 2018. :lol:

Gotta wonder why Clinton didn't use her future-crime-fighting superpowers to defeat Putin 4 years before he invaded Crimea. Would have solved soooo many problems. :ok:

Yeah. 2010 sure wasn't 2018. :lol:

Gotta wonder why Clinton didn't use her future-crime-fighting superpowers to defeat Putin 4 years before he invaded Crimea. Would have solved soooo many problems — Akanthinos

Clinton is always concerned about other countries she has had a hand in destroying

Pffffft. No one else but the glorious Russian people can claim the honour of having destroyed their country.

There is a difference between warmongering and negotiating.

Gotta wonder why Clinton didn't use her future-crime-fighting superpowers to defeat Putin 4 years before he invaded Crimea. Would have solved soooo many problems. — Akanthinos

That happened under Obama's watch, right?

No positive influence ever from either Obama or his witch.

In that they are two different words.

They are, however, similar in that neither really apply in then context of either Trump's or Clinton's meeting.

Said the guy who decried warmongering before.

But you are right, Obama failed on that one. War was the correct answer. Yall just too soft to ever have a hope to survive the nuclear post-apocalyptic wasteland.

But you are right, Obama failed on that one. War was the correct answer. Yall just too soft to ever have a hope to survive the nuclear post-apocalyptic wasteland. — Akanthinos

Which war was the correct answer?

In that they are two different words. — Akanthinos

That often mean two different things and equate to two different actions.

Words DESCRIBE things, right?

" where is your evidence he did either of those two things? — Baden

The text messages? Corroborating his testimony with that of Lisa Page? "

Are you just assuming there must be a lie in there somewhere because of your negative opinion of the man, or did he say something that strikes you as an intentional falsehood, that is provably so? If the latter, then tell me specifically what these probable falsehoods are.

If the latter, then tell me specifically what these probable falsehoods are. — Relativist

That by "we will stop it" he meant "we" as the "American people", instead of "we" as the FBI.

Even if you're right that he lied, how could it possibly be proven that his benign explanation was a lie? Don't overlook the IG investigation findings.

Very simply, no. Your evidence he has been (or will you be obfuscating)? — raza

I watch the news. And I apply what a famous lawyer called the (his, Louis Nizer) rule of probability. In short, I ask myself what makes sense. I also bring to bear a lot of skepticism.

But let's be clear about your "no." I did not ask you if he was a Russian agent - nor did I define "Russian agent" - I simply asked you whether on the face of it a reasonable person could conclude from available evidence, for most of us the news, that Trump was acting like a Russian agent. Your "no" says that on your assessment, no action of Trump's could be reasonably construed as his acting like a Russian agent.

Reported actions of his that would lead to that conclusion are well known. Many have been presented to you. But you just wave them away disingenuously and, given our topic, ultimately viciously. Why would you do that? And there's no need for you to answer, because your behavior answers for you. And that's what you get, wht you become, with someone like Trump: if you're a decent person, dirty. If you're a person with neither moral compass nor scruples, exposed. Make a list of Trump's people. All are contemptible, some also criminal, excepting maybe Tillerson.

Until and unless you look in the face of the significance of the reports of Trump's behavior and actions, your remarks are of no import, value, or significance. Perhaps some are entertained by them, but the novelty is off. Insofar as they're intended to mislead, to that degree you're immoral and unethical. You can also plead ignorance; after all, that is the universal condition. One can only commend to your consideration that you not make quite such a display of it. If you think you make a virtue of your vices, keep in mind that they're still vices.

Your "no" says that on your assessment, no action of Trump's could be reasonably construed as his acting like a Russian agent. — tim wood

Correct. I don't construe him as having acted as a Russian agent.

It sounds like it is off to the gulag for me, according to your accusations of me.

Oh well. Good luck with that. I just feel grateful I do not live in your brain. It sounds like an awful place.

significance of the reports — tim wood

Not particularly interested in gossip, no.

How do you account for the fact that Mueller (a Republican) was appointed by a Republican (Rosenstein), and Rosenstein was a Trump appointee? I'll certainly grant that Dems have, and will continue to use this politically, but isn't this typical of our political system? Need any reminders about Trump's making political capital out of the negative Hilary news? — Relativist

Trump was not a Washington insider. He was an outsider who needed to take advice from insiders, in terms of the best people to fill key positions. Insiders from both parties had problems with Trump and he was not always given good advice. It appears Trump was set up by the swamp. For example, he never would have hired Session if he told him he would recuse himself and give all the power to the second in charge. However, Trump adapted and is learning who he can trust.

Mueller is a Republican. The question I have is why does his team only include lawyers who are Democrat donors? If Mueller goal was to seek truth, a balanced team would work better. If the goal is to appease the swamp, then pick all Democrats. It was never intended to be fair.

Mueller was the head of the FBI under Obama, when he sold the uranium to the Russians and the Clintons got a large foundation donation from the Russians. Mueller did not tell congress of the charges of Russian bribery and racketeering, before the sale. This may have changed the sale. He was in good graces with the swamp.

Mueller was not fully righteous, which is why he put together a biased hit squad. If Trump decides to revisit that nuclear deal, Mueller career could be toast, unless he can get rid of Trump, first. However, Mueller is a career man and places his loyalty where the power is. Trump is maintaining his control so Mueller may well side with Trump in the end; kiss up defense for himself.

Yeah. 2010 sure wasn't 2018. :lol:

Gotta wonder why Clinton didn't use her future-crime-fighting superpowers to defeat Putin 4 years before he invaded Crimea. Would have solved soooo many problems. :ok: — Akanthinos

The Russian invasion of Georgia happened on the eighth of August, 2008.

???

"The Crimean peninsula was annexed from Ukraine by the Russian Federation in February–March 2014. Since then, it has been administered as two Russian federal subjects—the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol.[33] The annexation was accompanied by a military intervention by Russia in Crimea that took place in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and was part of wider unrest across southern and eastern Ukraine.[34][35]"

The “Russia” thing amounts to Facebook ads. That’s it! — raza

Doesn’t sound that bad until you consider the Cambridge Analytica data and the people involved with it.

Why are you quoting that? My point about the Russian invasion of Georgia was in response to your comments about the Russian invasion of Crimea having occurred four years after the interview, which seemed to be intended to excuse her comments. Well, the Russian invasion of Georgia occurred two years before the interview, so what about that?

Well, the Russian invasion of Georgia occurred two years before the interview, so what about that? — Sapientia

You don't have to convince me that something should've been done earlier about Russian expansionism.

But, to be fair, the USA, Canada and the UK did attemp to bring in Georgia into NATO before 2008. On this one it is the French and Germans who did done goofed.

Not particularly interested in gossip, no. — raza

Always careful to side-slip the substance and never, ever meet it openly or address it directly. Because that's not the point, is it?

Correct. I don't construe him as having acted as a Russian agent. — raza

Have you read this? It’s going to be bigger than Nixon or Clinton when the tale is finally told.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html

Don't bother introducing raza to any facts, that's rather pointless.

Meh.

Well, yes, the way Trump keeps saying "There was no collusion" to the extent it's become almost a verbal tick is grounds enough for deep suspicion. Then there's that vague but growing sense of discomfort discernible behind Hannity's customized smirk that seems to extend beyond what must be a base-level understanding that to everyone beyond Trump's hard-core support he's no higher on the level of journalistic evolution than those North Korean TV presenters so drugged up on enforced dictator love they can recount with a straight face stories of Kims past and present almost literally flying over the enemy with bombs dropping out their asses. Or single handedly winning soccer world cups entirely of their imaginations. No, there's something eating Sean and the other Trump sycophants, a growing stink that can't be obscured even by the truckloads of bullshit they shovel over it on a daily basis. I suspect they all know what's coming and that not even their Herculean efforts at turning reality on its head can stop it.

If it is true that Russia managed to entrap Trump as described, then this raises new psychological questions.

How could such a reckless narcissist become so accepting of his captivity? What trick of his psychology are the intelligence agencies managing to exploit?

It is of course important that the suborning started back in 1987 when Trump was cultivated as a useful foreign idiot. Flattery and financial advantage, coupled to Trump's lack of any moral centre, would have made peddling the Russian worldview a costless psychological exercise. It wouldn't conflict with the narcissism as it would be just Trump agreeing with his new friendly pals.

But come the run for President, the entanglements had grown wide and deep. Presumably his case officers did play Trump skillfully - never threatening him with what they could expose, but keeping him focused on what he could gain. In particular, the attention and adulation he craved. Trump would accept anything - breaking up Nato, letting Russia reclaim its territories - for one more Trumpian rally before an adoring, affirming crowd. It is not as if he was emotionally connected to the geopolitical realities of the world in anyway. He lacks the capacity to feel anything about the importance of that.

And now the Russian project is to get Trump re-elected. That raises the stakes in so many ways. How far are they willing to push given the level of scrutiny that exists. Is the US body politic so decapitated that it can't react even as it is being gnawed away?

And if all this is actually true - the most spectacular of conspiracy theories - then what does that say about the usual conspiracy theories that would see Trump being taken out by an "unfortunate accident" - an in-house coup? Are the US intelligence chiefs trusting to due process - Mueller doing his job before real damage gets done?

This is going to be such a terrific story when the truth of it is finally told!

If it is true that Russia managed to entrap Trump as described, then this raises new psychological questions. — apokrisis

I don't think Russia entrapped Trump, he's a willing participant. He was handed the idea by the Russians, you could be president of the USA, he thought it sounded great, and went with it.