Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

This is the kind of **** that you send in the FBI and start tossing over tables and freezing bank accounts... NYT should not be able to get away with a lie like this!

---

May not be a lie, so let's keep the jackboots from tossing the place, m'kay?

News story says Trump was briefed but didn't find the Intel credible. Which is his way of saying it didn't fit his Putin is da bomb narrative.

---

Or that part of the IC didn't find it credible

---

I can't tell from the news reports. Did Trump get briefed and the briefing said it was not credible? Or did Trump get briefed and decided on his own that it was not credible?

How much fake news can they attempt in a week?

Herron2 said:

---

HuMcK when you cite the NYT as a credible source you expose your ignorance. You're obviously (hopefully, for your sake) unaware that the NYT buried the Jewish Holocaust in the early 1940s, if not earlier.

This entertainment outlet has been ignoring and distorting facts for decades. Google this assertion and you'll find plenty of examples of distortions, lies and misstatements by the NYT, again for decades.

The last source you want to cite as authoritative or accurate is the NYT, Huk. If you're an attorney, or, for that matter, if you're a person of basic reasoning capability, the NYT is the last source you would cite as accurate. History is not on the NYT's side. If you were so naive or foolish to present the NYT as a credible source of information in a courtroom, you and your client would be absolutely massacred by any half-witted attorney. The fact that you continue to cite the NYT as a reliable source of information is truly staggering. Do yourself a favor, H. If you're attempting to make a compelling, or even rational, argument...don't cite the NYT.

---

LOL. The NYT is still one of the most reliable sources out there. And it's status is buttressed by the fine-tooth comb critics use to double-check what they print. When the Times is wrong somebody will surely point it out. People don't waste the effort with WND, RT, OAN etc. Those are among the "the last source you want to cite".

You left off the shilling for war in Iraq by getting the WMD part wrong.

Doc Holliday said:

---

How much fake news can they attempt in a week?

---

Dunno. How many stories does Fox report in a week...

Herron2 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

What could Russia possibly gain from offering bounties?

---

Revenge. It's well documented that the US armed the Taliban during Russia's occupation of Afghanistan. I'd be surprised if there were no Russian military commanders who aren't still a little bitter about that.

Other motivators might include demoralizing our troops and dividing the US from the Afghan leadership.

---

That seems like a massive stretch to me.

Herron2 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

What could Russia possibly gain from offering bounties?

---

Revenge. It's well documented that the US armed the Taliban during Russia's occupation of Afghanistan. I'd be surprised if there were no Russian military commanders who aren't still a little bitter about that.

Other motivators might include demoralizing our troops and dividing the US from the Afghan leadership.

---

In 2002 Russia built a field hospital in Afghanistan. To treat US soldiers.

Pompeo now saying we took this seriously and responded appropriately.

Not sure how you can do that when the President hasnt been briefed.

Again, just incompetence and boobery at every level.

These people should literally drive to the WH every day in a clown car.

The president is halfway there with his orange makeup.

Herron2 said:

---

Booray said:

---

sombear said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

It is incredibly so, and we are at the tip of the iceberg. This WH is also using some wordsmithing...they are saying he was never briefed...and I imagine to them, they are talking about an oral briefing since he cannot or will not read. I guarantee you it was in a written briefing that he never paid attention to - and they are hanging their defense on that.

Anyway, more will continue to come out and everyone that drapes themselves in the American flag will not care. It is fake news, we are all out to get this great man, deep state...etc.

---

I'm more in the middle on this one so far. If this was included in just one written daily briefing and the intelligence was/is conflicting, I don't see what the big deal is. And, I'm guessing that's the case, because if the intelligence was verified, it would have been in more than a written daily briefing. Of course, Trump isn't the most honest guy around . . . so he could be flat out lying. But, knowing a fair amount about Washington and the intelligence community, I'm guessing this is much ado about nothing - the political controversy, not the Russian bounty issues, which if true, should result in a serious response.

---

I don't see how you can be "in the middle" based on that.

First, having a President who will not read is unacceptable. To operate the Executive branch one must ingest and act on an incredible amount of information. Information is more efficiently conveyed by the written word. When you have a President who spends his time tweeting, watching cable news and golfing rather than reading what his intelligence community has written, you have the wrong president.

Second, about 99.99% of intelligence reports have conflicting information or less than absolute certainty. That is the inherent nature of intelligence work. Ultimately, the president has to act or not act with a degree of risk that the intelligence was wrong.

If the story from the White House was "after reading the briefing, President Trump was concerned about the allegations but not convinced that allegations were correct. Given the multitude of factors involved, including relationships with Russia and Afghanistan, the President directed re-doubled efforts to verify the allegations and began to structure an appropriate response in the event the allegations were substantiated" all would be ok.

But hat sort of normal, professional response is impossible with this President. Don't ask me. Ask Rex Tillerson. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, John Bolton, Dan Coats or a myriad of other former senior Trump officials.

"In the middle" means you don't like the idea of Trump selling out to Russia but you are ok with basic incompetence.

---

I agree with most if not all of what you're saying, Booray. Unfortunately, we've reportedly had this type of behavior in the Whitehouse for a number of administrations. Obama faced almost identical accusations during his terms, though Trump's use of social media is particularly heinous.

That said, why is this intelligence even out there? Why are we showing our cards to our adversaries? Isn't it feasible that Trump is downplaying this in a last ditch effort to protect sources and means?

---

Great question. My guess is someone in the intel community was bothered enough by this to leak it.

I don't think Trump is trying to protect sources; his lifelong pattern is to only protect himself. Today could be different, but it would surprise me.

Except in this one instance

Kayleigh McEnany says Trump is 'most informed person on planet Earth' about threats to US

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kayleigh-mcenany-trump-most-informed-person-threats-to-us

quash said:

---

Herron2 said:

---

HuMcK when you cite the NYT as a credible source you expose your ignorance. You're obviously (hopefully, for your sake) unaware that the NYT buried the Jewish Holocaust in the early 1940s, if not earlier.

This entertainment outlet has been ignoring and distorting facts for decades. Google this assertion and you'll find plenty of examples of distortions, lies and misstatements by the NYT, again for decades.

The last source you want to cite as authoritative or accurate is the NYT, Huk. If you're an attorney, or, for that matter, if you're a person of basic reasoning capability, the NYT is the last source you would cite as accurate. History is not on the NYT's side. If you were so naive or foolish to present the NYT as a credible source of information in a courtroom, you and your client would be absolutely massacred by any half-witted attorney. The fact that you continue to cite the NYT as a reliable source of information is truly staggering. Do yourself a favor, H. If you're attempting to make a compelling, or even rational, argument...don't cite the NYT.

---

LOL. The NYT is still one of the most reliable sources out there. And it's status is buttressed by the fine-tooth comb critics use to double-check what they print. When the Times is wrong somebody will surely point it out. People don't waste the effort with WND, RT, OAN etc. Those are among the "the last source you want to cite".

You left off the shilling for war in Iraq by getting the WMD part wrong.

---

That's really not a high bar Quash. "Most reliable in this day and age" can still be highly unreliable. I doubt you'd generally cite the NYT as a generally credible source in a legal brief. That was my point (NYT has a long history of inaccuracies, half-truths and lies), but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Just as you wouldn't write something in a brief along the lines of "according to the New York Times....", I wouldn't write "According to Fox News/OAN (just learned about them thanks to Gundy's insensitive fishing trip)/WND (who?)/RT (again, who?)/etc."

Yeah, I also left off the 1619 Project and probably quite a few others.

I will admit, I occasionally listen to some of the conservative radio hosts and NPR. I live in a rural area and don't have XM so my choices are pretty limited. I probably listen more to NPR because it's not endless repetition of the same mantra day after day after day........And NPR ("All Things Considered") has some fascinating human interest stories that have little or nothing to do with US politics.

Booray said:

---

sombear said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

It is incredibly so, and we are at the tip of the iceberg. This WH is also using some wordsmithing...they are saying he was never briefed...and I imagine to them, they are talking about an oral briefing since he cannot or will not read. I guarantee you it was in a written briefing that he never paid attention to - and they are hanging their defense on that.

Anyway, more will continue to come out and everyone that drapes themselves in the American flag will not care. It is fake news, we are all out to get this great man, deep state...etc.

---

I'm more in the middle on this one so far. If this was included in just one written daily briefing and the intelligence was/is conflicting, I don't see what the big deal is. And, I'm guessing that's the case, because if the intelligence was verified, it would have been in more than a written daily briefing. Of course, Trump isn't the most honest guy around . . . so he could be flat out lying. But, knowing a fair amount about Washington and the intelligence community, I'm guessing this is much ado about nothing - the political controversy, not the Russian bounty issues, which if true, should result in a serious response.

---

I don't see how you can be "in the middle" based on that.

First, having a President who will not read is unacceptable. To operate the Executive branch one must ingest and act on an incredible amount of information. Information is more efficiently conveyed by the written word. When you have a President who spends his time tweeting, watching cable news and golfing rather than reading what his intelligence community has written, you have the wrong president.

Second, about 99.99% of intelligence reports have conflicting information or less than absolute certainty. That is the inherent nature of intelligence work. Ultimately, the president has to act or not act with a degree of risk that the intelligence was wrong.

If the story from the White House was "after reading the briefing, President Trump was concerned about the allegations but not convinced that allegations were correct. Given the multitude of factors involved, including relationships with Russia and Afghanistan, the President directed re-doubled efforts to verify the allegations and began to structure an appropriate response in the event the allegations were substantiated" all would be ok.

But hat sort of normal, professional response is impossible with this President. Don't ask me. Ask Rex Tillerson. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, John Bolton, Dan Coats or a myriad of other former senior Trump officials.

"In the middle" means you don't like the idea of Trump selling out to Russia but you are ok with basic incompetence.

---

You missed my two main points. One, the primary argument the media and opponents are making is he did not act on, that is, let Russia get away with it. I'm saying if the intelligence was solid enough to even consider acting it would have been in more than a 50-page (that's average I'm told) daily written briefing. And, that seems to be consistent with what is coming out now, which is the intelligence remains very much conflicted and is still under review. By the way, it's quite ironic that folks criticized Trump for taking on the Iranian general and for certain air strikes when the intelligence supposedly wasn't 100%.

Two, while certain Presidents may read every daily briefing (although that is unlikely) the briefings prioritize items. So, again, if this were a big deal at the time, it would have been addressed elsewhere, and it would have been a priority item in the daily briefing. I'm withholding judgment because, if it's true it was in one briefing, I'd like to know how it was presented. Educated guess, it was a footnote that said not verified and subject to further review. If so, I'd expect any Pres to blow it off. There likely are numerous references to Russia and Afghanistan in every one. I'm just saying I want to see what else we find out, but based on what I know and suspect, I'm guessing it's nothing.

I don't know either, Booray, and I certainly don't trust the man. With few exceptions, lying is wrong. That said, lying about or simply not disclosing classified information is perfectly acceptable in my book.

At the very least, I suspect sources which were developed at significant cost are now needlessly compromised. I also suspect that the price of on the ground, local intel just went up, again.

I honestly don't want Agent So And So disclosing the latest shocking plot of our adversaries. I suspect it's much better that we and, more importantly, they (the bad guys) don't know.

Perhaps, torture was being used (there have been references to Afghan security sources) and Agent SOS's conscience was shocked, but, again, that doesn't automatically license him, her or it to disclose what they believe is occurring.

I also don't want Repub/Dem/Green/Insert Label Here representative anonymously disclosing classified info. If the leaks are Republican and if they broke federal law by leaking, they deserve just as severe punishment as members of any other party.

Rhetorical question (not directed at you) and a little more speculation that I believe is worthy of consideration: What if the White House, whoever that may have been, had separate meetings with Republicans and Democrats for the sheer purpose of floating slightly different stories to see which version was leaked and, thus, at least narrow down the list of potential leakers? That wouldn't be so outrageous would it? I'm just an attorney and certainly not a security expert, but I have read that this occasionally occurs. That said, the people in those meetings are probably fully aware of the tactic but that's not necessarily an assumption that should be made.

Ok, no worries Goldmind. I don't think it's a stretch at all, but I have no problem with you thinking so. I'm can happily agree to disagree.

quash said:

---

Herron2 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

What could Russia possibly gain from offering bounties?

---

Revenge. It's well documented that the US armed the Taliban during Russia's occupation of Afghanistan. I'd be surprised if there were no Russian military commanders who aren't still a little bitter about that.

Other motivators might include demoralizing our troops and dividing the US from the Afghan leadership.

---

In 2002 Russia built a field hospital in Afghanistan. To treat US soldiers.

---

Yeah, that definitely diminishes my theory. I was really just speculating.

On the other hand, we did arm the Taliban with shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles. Again, just speculating, but maybe there's a well placed Russian individual who lost a son when the son's helicopter was shot down. Or this person had to fight against Afghans that were suddenly better armed and better supplied. Or maybe they lost a bet on the outcome of the occupation. Basically, who knows? I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that some Russians might be using prior US strategy against the US because they're still pissed. Assuming, the intelligence is accurate and bounties were being paid or promoted, I'm not sure the question of motive is really that significant. But again, I freely admit that I don't know.

quash said:

---

Herron2 said:

---

HuMcK when you cite the NYT as a credible source you expose your ignorance. You're obviously (hopefully, for your sake) unaware that the NYT buried the Jewish Holocaust in the early 1940s, if not earlier.

This entertainment outlet has been ignoring and distorting facts for decades. Google this assertion and you'll find plenty of examples of distortions, lies and misstatements by the NYT, again for decades.

The last source you want to cite as authoritative or accurate is the NYT, Huk. If you're an attorney, or, for that matter, if you're a person of basic reasoning capability, the NYT is the last source you would cite as accurate. History is not on the NYT's side. If you were so naive or foolish to present the NYT as a credible source of information in a courtroom, you and your client would be absolutely massacred by any half-witted attorney. The fact that you continue to cite the NYT as a reliable source of information is truly staggering. Do yourself a favor, H. If you're attempting to make a compelling, or even rational, argument...don't cite the NYT.

---

LOL. The NYT is still one of the most reliable sources out there. And it's status is buttressed by the fine-tooth comb critics use to double-check what they print. When the Times is wrong somebody will surely point it out. People don't waste the effort with WND, RT, OAN etc. Those are among the "the last source you want to cite".

You left off the shilling for war in Iraq by getting the WMD part wrong.

---

Really? Not when it comes to Trump.
We won't hold our breath for any apologies for those who jumped to their usual conclusions that Trump was somehow in bed w/ Russia again. How naive are you people?

Lol there it is, throw the briefer under the bus. Just like Trump did with the COVID warnings, blame the messenger for not emphasizing it enough after it was established that he had access to the info. Never mind that the original lie was it never appeared in a briefing at all, now that the original lie isn't tenable, time to blame someone else. Nevermind either that Bolton says he brought it up to Trump's face.

Do you realize your defense of Trump is to paint him as too incompetent to read his PDB? At some point even you have to realize the guy is either too stupid or too malicious to do a good job.

HuMcK said:

---

Lol there it is, throw the briefer under the bus. Just like Trump did with the COVID warnings, blame the messenger for not emphasizing it enough after it was established that he had access to the info. Never mind that the original lie was it never appeared in a briefing at all, now that the original lie isn't tenable, time to blame someone else. Nevermind either that Bolton says he brought it up to Trump's face.

Do you realize your defense of Trump is to paint him as too incompetent to read his PDB? At some point even you have to realize the guy is either too stupid or too malicious to do a good job.

---

What are you talking about?

No one is throwing them under the bus - they literally said I STAND BY HER decision.

What they are doing is confirming that the NYTimes lied and you all still can't admit it. So the intel community says it didn't warrant getting to the POTUS because IT COULD NOT BE PROVEN and they don't think it's true.

It must be fun to live in an alternate universe where you can make up whatever you want and change what words mean.

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

Herron2 said:

---

HuMcK when you cite the NYT as a credible source you expose your ignorance. You're obviously (hopefully, for your sake) unaware that the NYT buried the Jewish Holocaust in the early 1940s, if not earlier.

This entertainment outlet has been ignoring and distorting facts for decades. Google this assertion and you'll find plenty of examples of distortions, lies and misstatements by the NYT, again for decades.

The last source you want to cite as authoritative or accurate is the NYT, Huk. If you're an attorney, or, for that matter, if you're a person of basic reasoning capability, the NYT is the last source you would cite as accurate. History is not on the NYT's side. If you were so naive or foolish to present the NYT as a credible source of information in a courtroom, you and your client would be absolutely massacred by any half-witted attorney. The fact that you continue to cite the NYT as a reliable source of information is truly staggering. Do yourself a favor, H. If you're attempting to make a compelling, or even rational, argument...don't cite the NYT.

---

LOL. The NYT is still one of the most reliable sources out there. And it's status is buttressed by the fine-tooth comb critics use to double-check what they print. When the Times is wrong somebody will surely point it out. People don't waste the effort with WND, RT, OAN etc. Those are among the "the last source you want to cite".

You left off the shilling for war in Iraq by getting the WMD part wrong.

---

Really? Not when it comes to Trump.
We won't hold our breath for any apologies for those who jumped to their usual conclusions that Trump was somehow in bed w/ Russia again. How naive are you people?

---

That would be the same Robert O"Brien who once said:

"It's clear that Vladimir Putin just doesn't like [Hillary Clinton], and is going to do what he can to help Donald Trump." Maybe he forgot why Putin was so keen on Trump?

Yeah, I can't figure out why Putin would have favored Trump either, especially since the "Collusion Hoax" was proven just that with ongoing investigations into rogue intelligence elements abusing their positions, at least according to internal communications and notes.

In contrast, Hillary offered the "Russian Reset", the Obama administration sat on their hands as Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump campaigned in part on making sure our troops were once again sufficiently funded after falling into disrepair during the Obama administration and the Obama administration went so far as to send tens of millions of dollars to Iran, a Russian ally, to pay for good behavior.

It's just bizarre to think Putin favored Trump. Maybe Putin hates women or thinks women shouldn't be in leadership positions, but those feelings would have to be pretty strong based on the promises Trump was campaigning on versus the lack of pushback he was getting from the Obama admin which would likely have been continued under Clinton.

Herron2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Herron2 said:

---

HuMcK when you cite the NYT as a credible source you expose your ignorance. You're obviously (hopefully, for your sake) unaware that the NYT buried the Jewish Holocaust in the early 1940s, if not earlier.

This entertainment outlet has been ignoring and distorting facts for decades. Google this assertion and you'll find plenty of examples of distortions, lies and misstatements by the NYT, again for decades.

The last source you want to cite as authoritative or accurate is the NYT, Huk. If you're an attorney, or, for that matter, if you're a person of basic reasoning capability, the NYT is the last source you would cite as accurate. History is not on the NYT's side. If you were so naive or foolish to present the NYT as a credible source of information in a courtroom, you and your client would be absolutely massacred by any half-witted attorney. The fact that you continue to cite the NYT as a reliable source of information is truly staggering. Do yourself a favor, H. If you're attempting to make a compelling, or even rational, argument...don't cite the NYT.

---

LOL. The NYT is still one of the most reliable sources out there. And it's status is buttressed by the fine-tooth comb critics use to double-check what they print. When the Times is wrong somebody will surely point it out. People don't waste the effort with WND, RT, OAN etc. Those are among the "the last source you want to cite".

You left off the shilling for war in Iraq by getting the WMD part wrong.

---

That's really not a high bar Quash. "Most reliable in this day and age" can still be highly unreliable. I doubt you'd generally cite the NYT as a generally credible source in a legal brief. That was my point (NYT has a long history of inaccuracies, half-truths and lies), but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Just as you wouldn't write something in a brief along the lines of "according to the New York Times....", I wouldn't write "According to Fox News/OAN (just learned about them thanks to Gundy's insensitive fishing trip)/WND (who?)/RT (again, who?)/etc."

Yeah, I also left off the 1619 Project and probably quite a few others.

I will admit, I occasionally listen to some of the conservative radio hosts and NPR. I live in a rural area and don't have XM so my choices are pretty limited. I probably listen more to NPR because it's not endless repetition of the same mantra day after day after day........And NPR ("All Things Considered") has some fascinating human interest stories that have little or nothing to do with US politics.

---

Big fan of Fresh Air with Terry Gross! She is the best interviewer in the business.

Herron2 said:

---

Yeah, I can't figure out why Putin would have favored Trump either, especially since the "Collusion Hoax" was proven just that with ongoing investigations into rogue intelligence elements abusing their positions, at least according to internal communications and notes.

In contrast, Hillary offered the "Russian Reset", the Obama administration sat on their hands as Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump campaigned in part on making sure our troops were once again sufficiently funded after falling into disrepair during the Obama administration and the Obama administration went so far as to send tens of millions of dollars to Iran, a Russian ally, to pay for good behavior.

It's just bizarre to think Putin favored Trump. Maybe Putin hates women or thinks women shouldn't be in leadership positions, but those feelings would have to be pretty strong based on the promises Trump was campaigning on versus the lack of pushback he was getting from the Obama admin which would likely have been continued under Clinton.

---

Hillary Clinton was not Barack Obama and Putin knew that.

When your question was put to Russia expert Timothy Frye in 2017, here was his answer:

I recently interviewed Trump supporters about why they didn't believe or care about the Russia conflict. Most of them didn't understand Putin would want Trump to be president instead of Clinton.
There are two levels on which this works. The clear one is the policy level, where Hillary Clinton's policies toward Russia were rather on the hawkish end, and she was determined to stand up (in her mind) to Putin. She was much more willing to support, for example, the sending of defensive weapons to Ukraine, to help the Ukrainian army in the fighting in eastern Ukraine. She was much more willing to speak out on the domestic political situation in Russia. She was a staunch supporter of NATO, a staunch supporter of the sanctions [against Russia], and criticized Putin's annexation of Crimea.

Donald Trump took completely opposite positions on all of these issues. He never talks about domestic policy within Russia, except to praise Putin. He argued that his administration would be willing to review the imposition of sanctions on Russia and said that NATO was obsolete. He said that his administration would be willing to review opposition to the annexation of Crimea.

The second layer is the personal history between Clinton and Putin is remarkably bad. It goes back to her time as secretary of state, her comments around the demonstration in December 2011. She was also in office when the Magnitsky Act was passed, which enacted sanctions on high-level Russian officials who were involved in the death of a Russian whistleblower. This was one of the very few times sanctions had been targeted against specific individuals. The Russians thought they were being singled out by this act. After the Russian annexation of Crimea, Hillary Clinton also said that this is something that Hitler would do, which is not a very solicitous thing to say, particularly given 20 million Russians died in World War II.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8qbbdx/why-putin-hates-clinton-and-helped-trump-win

Herron2 said:

---

Yeah, I can't figure out why Putin would have favored Trump either, especially since the "Collusion Hoax" was proven just that with ongoing investigations into rogue intelligence elements abusing their positions, at least according to internal communications and notes.

In contrast, Hillary offered the "Russian Reset", the Obama administration sat on their hands as Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump campaigned in part on making sure our troops were once again sufficiently funded after falling into disrepair during the Obama administration and the Obama administration went so far as to send tens of millions of dollars to Iran, a Russian ally, to pay for good behavior.

It's just bizarre to think Putin favored Trump. Maybe Putin hates women or thinks women shouldn't be in leadership positions, but those feelings would have to be pretty strong based on the promises Trump was campaigning on versus the lack of pushback he was getting from the Obama admin which would likely have been continued under Clinton.

---

His own Federation council speaker is female.

I for one have been and still am disgusted by the Clinton administrations actions toward Serbia/Bosnia.

To let the terrorists win, and even help them win was absolutely pathetic.

Disgusting.

Money laundering, the answer is money laundering.

In 2008-10 Trump went bust, again, Trump was suing Duetsche Bank to get out of paying loans (calling the 2008 crisis an "act of god) and no other western bank would lend to him. So then Deutsche Bank (which it turns out spent the last decade getting fined for laundering russian money) just up and decides to back Trump Org acquiring about $500mil in golf courses and other real estate. Independent of that, a Russian billionaire bought a Florida mansion from Trump in 2008 at a $50mil profit, it was the largest single home real estate transaction ever at the time, at the height of the housing bust and right as Trump was desperate. The Russian tore down the mansion and never lived in it.

Then you factor in that Trump's casino ventures got fined for repeated money laundering violations, Mrs. Universe (a Trump property) 2014 was hosted in Moscow, and the connections go on and on. All the way to in 2016 Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian spy to hand over polling data while the Russian military hacked Dems to spy on them and targeted propaganda at US voters (which apparently worked like a charm on you).

Choice topical on the record quotes by Trump children include:

Eric in 2014: "Well, we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia. We've got some guys that really, really love golf, and they're really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time."

And Don Jr in 2008: "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. said at a New York real-estate conference that year. "Say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo, and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

Herron2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Herron2 said:

---

HuMcK when you cite the NYT as a credible source you expose your ignorance. You're obviously (hopefully, for your sake) unaware that the NYT buried the Jewish Holocaust in the early 1940s, if not earlier.

This entertainment outlet has been ignoring and distorting facts for decades. Google this assertion and you'll find plenty of examples of distortions, lies and misstatements by the NYT, again for decades.

The last source you want to cite as authoritative or accurate is the NYT, Huk. If you're an attorney, or, for that matter, if you're a person of basic reasoning capability, the NYT is the last source you would cite as accurate. History is not on the NYT's side. If you were so naive or foolish to present the NYT as a credible source of information in a courtroom, you and your client would be absolutely massacred by any half-witted attorney. The fact that you continue to cite the NYT as a reliable source of information is truly staggering. Do yourself a favor, H. If you're attempting to make a compelling, or even rational, argument...don't cite the NYT.

---

LOL. The NYT is still one of the most reliable sources out there. And it's status is buttressed by the fine-tooth comb critics use to double-check what they print. When the Times is wrong somebody will surely point it out. People don't waste the effort with WND, RT, OAN etc. Those are among the "the last source you want to cite".

You left off the shilling for war in Iraq by getting the WMD part wrong.

---

That's really not a high bar Quash. "Most reliable in this day and age" can still be highly unreliable. I doubt you'd generally cite the NYT as a generally credible source in a legal brief. That was my point (NYT has a long history of inaccuracies, half-truths and lies), but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Just as you wouldn't write something in a brief along the lines of "according to the New York Times....", I wouldn't write "According to Fox News/OAN (just learned about them thanks to Gundy's insensitive fishing trip)/WND (who?)/RT (again, who?)/etc."

Yeah, I also left off the 1619 Project and probably quite a few others.

I will admit, I occasionally listen to some of the conservative radio hosts and NPR. I live in a rural area and don't have XM so my choices are pretty limited. I probably listen more to NPR because it's not endless repetition of the same mantra day after day after day........And NPR ("All Things Considered") has some fascinating human interest stories that have little or nothing to do with US politics.

---

I don't think I've ever cited a news publication in a legal brief.

Journalism has taken some hits over the last couple of decades. I have discussed it at length before but the short version is: infotainment, shrinking budgets, internet, etc.

Part and parcel of that is a responsibility for news consumers to show some discernment. Instead of accepting one source at face value and discounting everything from another source you have to read the actual articles, see how well supported they are, and look for other sources on the same subject. And ignore the 24 hour cycle and simply wait for better reporting. It also helps to recognize fact from opinion, though news sources no longer draw the line like they used to do..

"All Things Considered" is good. While NPR is really good at getting interviews with a broad spectrum some of their interviewers could stand to listen to their colleagues at BBC, who get information by asking for it on the basis of excellent research, not fishing expeditions or whinefests. I also do not like the way NPR will conclude an interview and then have some reporter standing by to get in the last word. Where was that guy during the interview??

Booray said:

---

Herron2 said:

---

Yeah, I can't figure out why Putin would have favored Trump either, especially since the "Collusion Hoax" was proven just that with ongoing investigations into rogue intelligence elements abusing their positions, at least according to internal communications and notes.

In contrast, Hillary offered the "Russian Reset", the Obama administration sat on their hands as Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump campaigned in part on making sure our troops were once again sufficiently funded after falling into disrepair during the Obama administration and the Obama administration went so far as to send tens of millions of dollars to Iran, a Russian ally, to pay for good behavior.

It's just bizarre to think Putin favored Trump. Maybe Putin hates women or thinks women shouldn't be in leadership positions, but those feelings would have to be pretty strong based on the promises Trump was campaigning on versus the lack of pushback he was getting from the Obama admin which would likely have been continued under Clinton.

---

Hillary Clinton was not Barack Obama and Putin knew that.

When your question was put to Russia expert Timothy Frye in 2017, here was his answer:

I recently interviewed Trump supporters about why they didn't believe or care about the Russia conflict. Most of them didn't understand Putin would want Trump to be president instead of Clinton.
There are two levels on which this works. The clear one is the policy level, where Hillary Clinton's policies toward Russia were rather on the hawkish end, and she was determined to stand up (in her mind) to Putin. She was much more willing to support, for example, the sending of defensive weapons to Ukraine, to help the Ukrainian army in the fighting in eastern Ukraine. She was much more willing to speak out on the domestic political situation in Russia. She was a staunch supporter of NATO, a staunch supporter of the sanctions [against Russia], and criticized Putin's annexation of Crimea.

Donald Trump took completely opposite positions on all of these issues. He never talks about domestic policy within Russia, except to praise Putin. He argued that his administration would be willing to review the imposition of sanctions on Russia and said that NATO was obsolete. He said that his administration would be willing to review opposition to the annexation of Crimea.

The second layer is the personal history between Clinton and Putin is remarkably bad. It goes back to her time as secretary of state, her comments around the demonstration in December 2011. She was also in office when the Magnitsky Act was passed, which enacted sanctions on high-level Russian officials who were involved in the death of a Russian whistleblower. This was one of the very few times sanctions had been targeted against specific individuals. The Russians thought they were being singled out by this act. After the Russian annexation of Crimea, Hillary Clinton also said that this is something that Hitler would do, which is not a very solicitous thing to say, particularly given 20 million Russians died in World War II.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8qbbdx/why-putin-hates-clinton-and-helped-trump-win

---

Thanks for the substantive response. I appreciate it.

HuMcK said:

---

You can tell what Trump is scared of doing damage to him by noting what reporting he calls a hoax: his Russian campaign contacts, his corruption with Ukrainian defense aid, COVID, and now this Russian bounty story. All turned our to be supported by solid evidence, which if course he knew was the case to begin with, so he needs his flock of sheep followers to ingest the "hoax" narrative early. It's laughably crude and unsophisticated, but so are his base voters, so it works good enough on them.

---

Remember what I said about Trump calling stuff a hoax...

NYTimes out here naming names...

the drumbeat continues. pompeo's press conference was a disgrace. and lost in all of this is that we are doing nothing in response.

anyone that whines about an obscure nfl player for taking a knee during our anthem, but just looks the other way on this, is an opportunistic hypocrite.

ok so let's follow the timeline here:

he wasn't briefed at all
ok it was in the written briefing
well it was in the briefing but she decided not to read it aloud (since he cannot or will not read)

They don't care. Once it gets beyond the point of deniability they'll just call it a partisan witch-hunt and try to find some other enemy they can pivot to attacking, like they did with Russia (investigate the investigators!) and Ukraine (investigate the whistleblower!).

HuMcK said:

---

They don't care. Once it gets beyond the point of deniability they'll just call it a partisan witch-hunt and try to find some other enemy they can pivot to attacking, like they did with Russia (investigate the investigators!) and Ukraine (investigate the whistleblower!).

---

So take action when most of the intelligence community doubts it? When did the left become such warmongers?

"Most of the Intel Community" doubts it? I think that would come as a surprise to the actual Intel Community, seeing as they've been briefing forces in the field about it for about a year now...

Why do y'all continue to take this administration at their word despite them being caught lying about this story multitude times already? That is what bias looks like: willingness to accept obvious lies from the party out of loyalty.

ScruffyD said:

---

ok so let's follow the timeline here:

he wasn't briefed at all
ok it was in the written briefing
well it was in the briefing but she decided not to read it aloud (since he cannot or will not read)

---

riflebear said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

ok so let's follow the timeline here:

he wasn't briefed at all
ok it was in the written briefing
well it was in the briefing but she decided not to read it aloud (since he cannot or will not read)

---

---

OK, Schiff is equally culpable as a Congressman as Trump is as president. You good with that?