“I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t,’” Trump told reporters at the White House, more than 24 hours after his appearance with Putin. “The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.’”
Following Obama's footsteps.
The White House said President Barack Obama misspoke on Tuesday when he referred to a "Polish death camp" while ...
"My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others, they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be."
If he claims that he wanted to say “wouldn’t”, would that make sense in the context of that entire speech? Of course not. Trump just lied about siding w Russia.
That dude wore a beige suit and people were ready to impeach!
Trump gets no pass. He is compromised. He lies. He deflects, gaslights, takes no responsibility and blames everyone else BUT himself.
Support him if you like (and I know you didn’t vote for him Bk). But trump is a walking disaster. The EU just signed a massive trade deal w Japan. China and Russia are gaining alliances as trump isolates us.
But hey who would’ve guessed that the guy from The Apprentice didn’t know crap about foreign affairs? Or domestic affairs for that matter!
Putz, you used to be somewhat amusing, normally just before you were banned, over and over after being exposed in yet another lie..... now you're just sad to see..... it's a shame to see someone with so little self awareness, so little sense of shame.... sad. I hope at some point you find help....
HA/KS's Link
Media: Lying
Comey: Lying
Obama: Lying
Clinton: Lying
Stormy: Lying
Strozk: Lying
Mueller: Lying
Federal Judges: Lying
19 Sexual assault accusers: Lying
Climate change scientists: Lying
17 Intelligence agencies: Lying
Our European Allies: Lying.
Putin: “He means it, I believe him”
Sounds reasonable!
Matt
KPC had it right. Of course the Russians tried to influence the election. And we have tried to influence other elections, such as Obama with Israel. And their efforts have been somewhat amateurish. It would be helpful if the FBI was more concerned about this and other matters in 2016 than stopping Trump. The Mueller investigation has so far not shown there was any reason for a special prosecutor. Everything they have announced is well within the domain of any US attorney.
^This.
Sorry I don't see it that way. If it was meaningless and not effective, then why would countries engage in this criminal behavior? Does anyone truly know if Russia's efforts did, or didn't, coerce some to vote one way or the other? If the US has truly stooped to this level to advance our agenda in other countries, I'm appalled and disappointed in our country.
Matt
It is lonely being the Closet Democrat
And therein lies the rub. We both know many people lack critical thinking skills. The CF is a perfect microcosm example of this. Daily we see posts regurgitating fake news or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as if they are proven facts. They read it, it's fits their narrative, so they believe it without any further research or questioning. If you don't think that behavior affects the way they vote, you're either naive, or being intentionally obtuse.
Russians broke laws attempting to influence our election. That's indisputable at this point. Whether or not they were successful in their attempts matters not to me. I want to see justice served, and want it stopped, now. Arson is no less of a crime just because the building doesn't burn to the ground.
Yes, idiots will be idiots. But, when criminals break laws attempting to influence those idiot's votes, every means should be taken to charge and bring them to justice, IMO.
Matt
Annony Mouse's Link
Interesting choice of words there. Casting guilt without a conviction. Then in the same paragraph wanting justice served.
Yes, I see them, and would like them to face charges, too, if they've broken US laws.
I don't think there should be a double standard to meddling in other country's affairs.
Matt
Kevin,
I see. So we just let their spies do whatever the hell they want here, so we can do the same in their countries? Perfect. Is that the "would" or "wouldn't" side of this argument? It's all so confusing.
Look, I know espionage is a sad reality. I just don't think those who participated should be immune from laws, regardless of what country they are from. I'm surprised you disagree, apparently.
Matt
Please answer yes or no, before moving the goal posts yet again. We aren't talking about terrorist intelligence gathering here. We are talking about meddling in foreign elections by using techniques that are deemed illegal here and in most countries.
Matt
I guess you think we do?
"An analysis showed that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic nomination if it were not for the Super Delegates."
I knew you'd be incapable of a yes or no answer. It's your nature. I never disputed the reality that both sides do it. I asked if you think they/we should do a specific set of illegal activities with immunity.
I also never questioned the need for gathering intelligence for the sake of national security because that's not what we're talking about here. Again, we are talking about illegally meddling in foreign elections.
I'm going to bow out and allow you the last word, Kevin. I've already wasted too much time on this discussion.
Matt
With regard to the other conservation taking place and recently abandoned by the party that appears to have mis-spoken, but finds it difficult to admit his error...No one working in the espionage field does so with immunity. If they are caught, they are arrested and usually imprisoned. Some are executed. Those in the field know the risks, but they feel compelled to serve their country despite those risks. Just like those Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen that join the armed forces...There is a wall at the CIA headquarters that displays a star for each person killed in the line of duty. In most, if not all cases, there is no name to accompany the star. These are true patriots who gave all for nothing in return, not even the recognition of their efforts...
"Do you think US spies should be able to create fake identities in other countries, open fake bank accounts, use those accounts to secure servers in those countries, and use those servers to influence those country's political elections? All with complete legal immunity from those countries and the US.
That's a specific question with specific criteria. It doesn't encompass the whole realm of foreign espionage. It can be answered with a yes or no.
And to be clear, Kevin, I don't distinguish between cyber-criminals and criminals caught in-person on US, or on other country's soils. It's become far to easy to use the internet to commit crimes from the relative safety of one's own country, or their mother's basements in some cases.
There has to be a standard set, or a line drawn somewhere, on how far these cyber-crimes can go without punishment, IMO. It's only going to get worse and more destructive. I hope world leaders can recognize this and agree on a solution some day.
Matt
The time to take care of it was when it was discovered. The way to take care of it is with covert and overt action against the nation and/or its agents.
Taking it into a court of law is not how this has ever been handled. It gives too many rights to foreigners who do not deserve them.
Well by golly I think we should just all get together as countries and just stop doing it. For whirled peas....
You go first......
"We win, they lose."
What part of "we're NOT talking about the whole realm of foreign espionage" do you not understand, Henry? We're talking about election meddling, not national security.
I asked a specific question about specific illegal techniques used to meddle in foriegn elections. Those crimes can be committed remotely and with apparent immunity from the laws of the country they are committed against. I asked if US agents should be allowed to do the same thing.
So far, nobody has answered my specific question. Kevin has danced around it several times with the same non-answer, but that's it.
Matt
So, your saying the practice of committing cyber-crimes against another country to influence their elections, from the safety of your own country, is acceptable as long as it fits the agenda of your country? Even though those practices are deemed illegal in both countries. Interesting.
Matt
On another thread you point out folks who don't adhere to their own standards. Isn't that what the U.S. is doing with regards to election meddling?
At a minimum a good ethical debate could center on meddling in foreign elections and at what level might the practice be justified with regards to national security. Obviously I would include the actual fairness of any election as a critical factor to consider.
I did not think our attempt to influence Israel's election could be justified, but involvement in Venezuela, Iran, Russia amongst others I gave a pass as these to me were not fair and open. No doubt a differing view could be argued.
I didn't concern myself with what other voters were thinking or Russian meddling during the election, I took the time to listen to Trump during the primaries and his campaign.
How about when he promised to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution upon taking office?
That seems fairly significant. And since he answered affirmatively, it must have simply been a misstatement!
Pete
Thanks, Frank, you stated it better than I have.
How can the US possibly frown upon other countries meddling in our elections when we're doing the same in other countries? It seems like a ethical double standard to me.
Perhaps that's Kevin's point. There is no standard, so it's pointless to discuss one. And it all boils down to which country has the best criminal hackers to advance their goals. That's a disappointing thought, IMO.
Matt
obama owns this but the left refuses to acknowledge that simple fact.
I guess we should have have ended WWII simply by demanding that Germany, Italy, and Japan hand over hitler, mussolini, and tojo for trial.
.
Pete, trump has adhered more closely to the constitution than any president for a long time. For example, he has been more careful to reestablish and follow the separation of powers.
I haven't pointed a finger at Trump or Obama. I think we've established that foreign election meddling pre-dates both of them, from both sides. The question is, should we accept that practice as "necessary and inevitable", as Kevin states, or should there be a standard by which the US holds themselves and other countries to?
Matt
I know you are left of me, but I did not take your posts as blaming Trump or Obama. Great example IMO of pre-conceived ideas of someone causing an inaccurate conclusion to be drawn. Maybe that's because I know you?
Or maybe it is because of what Kevin has pointed out previously about the CF...any view expressed one degree left of the consensus here earns you the titles of leftist, liberal, commiE etc.
OK. I accept that.
I do hold obama accountable for not doing anything at the time. I will also call trump accountable if it is discovered to still be going on and he takes no action.
Having said all of this, there is not much short of going to war that can be done against Russia. Unless they stop, then yes, it is inevitable because we must keep at it for our own self-defense.
obama tried the do-nothing approach in this matter, but the Russians did not reciprocate, so the dems say it is trump's fault that the Russians tried to interfere in our election.
Trump has taken some actions against Russia in other matters (so, I believe, did obama). The actions have little impact for the most part, but obama was told of this before the election and he had the opportunity to at least stop what was going on at the time.
The history has been to counter with like measures and expel the guilty parties or someone from the guilty country and throw on a few sanctions. That at least has the potential to disrupt the activity of the guilty parties.
Filing charges in a way that can never result in an actual trial is grandstanding for political purposes, nothing else.
The Russians did a lot we did not like while obama was president and for the most part he ignored it. He was in office for 8 years, so a lot happened. Since we don't know all that happened and the reason for our responses and non-responses (more flexibility after the elections for example) our opinions are only opinions.
Have they done anything in the time trump has been in office? Nothing major that we are aware of.
The Russia, Russia, Russia from the left is so disingenuous, fake outrage, and serving the exact purpose of the Russian meddling that it is disgusting.
"As espionage is a practice that is by definition committed in secret, and where states overwhelmingly refuse to admit responsibility for such conduct let alone justify it as acceptable under international law, I have concluded that there is no customary ‘espionage exception’ to the principles of territorial sovereignty and non-intervention."
I agree. Unfortunately, state governments, including the US, don't recognize that conclusion. Instead they take the "end justifies the means"approach and ignore those principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. That needs to change, IMO, and I think the US could start by leading by example.
Matt
Yes, with qualifications. But, why do you continue to move the goal posts? Terrorism intelligence gathering and election meddling are two different subjects, IMO. The ends *can* justify the means with the former, I don't think they ever do with the latter.
Furthermore, by definition in your link, espionage is:
"the consciously deceitful collection of information, ordered by a govern- ment or organisation hostile to or suspicious of those the information concerns, accomplished by humans unauthorised by the target to do the collecting"
Do you really consider election meddling "information gathering"?
Matt
We can agree Iran is one of them. But, the last I checked, terrorism isn't considered a legal state sponsored program, nationally or internationally. So, do principles of sovereignty and non-intervention really apply to terrorism? I say no.
On the other hand, political elections are legal programs under state and international law, so the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention should apply, I believe.
"If we can, do you think it would be acceptable for our government to do whatever needed to be done, via social media, intelligence gathering, cyber espionage, etc., in an attempt to influence the Iranian people to affect a change in their leadership (aka "meddling" in their elections)?"
No, I don't. Either the US should recognize Iran's sovereignty and abide by the international principles of non-intervention, or they should formally denounce that sovereignty and then everything is fair game.
Matt
So, you agree that the obama administration coducted espionage against the trump campaign and preparations for the new administration after the election. :-)
I'm not sure what that's suppose to mean, Kevin.
State sponsored terrorism is illegal in the eyes of international law, so principles of sovereignty and non-invention don't apply to terrorism.Conversely, political elections are legal in the eyes of international law, so those principles do apply.
At least, that's my understanding. I'm certainly no international law expert, so I could be wrong.
I simply don't agree with your "ends justify the means" argument with respect to election meddling in sovereign states, even Iran. I think that's an incredibly slippery and dangerous slope.
But I still respect you. ;-). Good discussion, my friend.
Matt
Good way to end the week
