Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Dude looks like Al Franken.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
Look for some more scrutiny for Wilbur Ross. Deutsche Bank > Russian Oligarch money laundering > Deutsche Cypress Branch > Wilbur Ross > boom.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/27/wilbur-ross-is-still-
another-trump-cabinet-pick-with-underexamined-russian-ties.html

"After Ross and his team invested more than $1 billion in the troubled Bank of Cyprus, he became one of its two vice chairmen. Putin appointed the other.
DCREPORT.ORG
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
02.27.17 2:36 PM ET
A study prepared exclusively for DCReport.org by James S. Henry reveals deep financial ties between Donald Trump’s nominee for Commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, and three Russian oligarchs, whose lives and fortunes depend on staying in the good graces of Vladimir Putin.
These connections raise many new questions about Trump’s reliance on the Putin regime, which all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies say interfered in the presidential election on Trump’s behalf, but which Trump disputes.
These relationships between nominee Ross and the oligarchs involve ownership and management of a European bank with a reputation for laundering Russian money and making bad loans."

You wonder if *any* of his picks don't have Russian connections - f*cksake.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
"I'm good enough, and I'm smart enough, and dog gone it... people like me" ~Stuart Smalley

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Glad to hear that Jack, and thanks for the bump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Glad to hear that Jack, and thanks for the bump.

---

No probs on the bump. BTW... you do recognize that quote, don't you? Saturday Night Live has been a pretty terrible show after the original cast left, but I figured if you're near retirement age you had to remember that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Glad to hear that Jack, and thanks for the bump.

---

No probs on the bump. BTW... you do recognize that quote, don't you? Saturday Night Live has been a pretty terrible show after the original cast left, but I figured if you're near retirement age you had to remember that.

---

No, afraid not.

---------------------

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The other 25 senators on Jeff Sessions's committee say they had no meetings with Russian ambassador in 2016. A strange coincidence if the meeting wasn’t about Trump. Obviously that doesn’t prove anything on its own. But the timing of Sessions’s meetings with Kislyak also call Sessions’s story into question. One was a chat after a Heritage Foundation event held concurrently with the Republican National Convention in Cleveland — the whole point of conventions is to talk about the campaign. The other happened on September 8 — the day after Trump delivered widely panned remarks praising Vladimir Putin at an NBC forum hosted by Matt Lauer.

Trump maintains that he has full confidence in Sessions, but Trump also professed full confidence in Michael Flynn just hours before Flynn was fired for lying about his own talks with Kislyak.

www.vox.com/2017/3/2/14794646/sessions-kislyak-senate-armed-services

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I forget which one SECOND, happened 3 days after Obama read Putin the riot act for his behavior. I believe that took place face to face but I forget where.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I forget which one SECOND, happened 3 days after Obama read Putin the riot act for his behavior. I believe that took place face to face but I forget where.

---

Face to face. Was Putin standing on a bucket?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, much ado about nothing. Trump gave a good speech and ... as sure as night follows day ... the deep state comes up with yet another pointless reason to crank up the old BUT RUSSIA! meme. Good grief.

I was trying to imagine a similar scenario (shoe on other foot) to put this in context for myself.

Imagine that Hillary won.

---

Quote:

---

How about you stop imagining and join with those of us here who live in the world of reality. Hillary didn't win.

---

Quote:

---

Fact, once again one of Trumps cabinet is caught lying about having contact with the Russians during the campaign. Fact, he did it while under oath.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

T

How about you stop imagining and join with those of us here who live in the world of reality. Hillary didn't win.

---

quote SIG

THUGR, I'm just trying to separate my EMOTIONAL response from my ethical one, by imagining someone I truly dislike in the same situation to see whether I'm being even-handed. Like the thread where I was trying to draw a direct comparison between the Syrian situation and the Ukrainian one, but nobody wanted to engage in that. But you should try it sometime, it really does clarify things.

---

Quote:

---

Fact, he didn't do that when he was testifying.- THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Oh, much ado about nothing. Trump gave a good speech and ... as sure as night follows day ... the deep state comes up with yet another pointless reason to crank up the old BUT RUSSIA! meme. Good grief.

I was trying to imagine a similar scenario (shoe on other foot) to put this in context for myself.

Imagine that Hillary won. Imagine that there is an investigation of SAUDI influence on the campaign. There are all of those Saudi contributions to the Foundation. There is her history of advocating foreign policies in the Mideast which really didn't benefit the USA or the EU, but benefited the Saudis quite a bit! There is her aide (Abedin) and supporter (Brennan) who have had decades-long, CLOSE ties with Saudi Arabia.

So her AG ... let's assume its (one of my least favorite Senators) Dianne Feinstein ... is heading an investigation into the Saudi's possible influence on the election. But she is a former Senator, and Defense Appropriations Committee member, and during that time she met with the Saudi Ambassador twice ... once at a weapons conference where she met with many other Ambassadors, and once in an in-office meeting. And she had testified that as an early supporter of Hillary she had not met with the Saudi Ambassador.

What would be my response?

Well, I would HOPE that I would be objective enough look at the context and content of the meetings. That conference ... is irrelevant. There's no time or opportunity to meet with anyone longer than to say "Hi, good to see you" and "'Bye, see you later", and if you DO step aside to have a lengthy private chat, well.... everybody notices.

The in-office meeting is more troubling. How long was it? Did the Ambassador have other business in the area, or did this seem to be a single-purpose visit? Did anyone else attend, or was it really private? Were there any other items to be discussed at the time involving Dianne as a member of the Defense Subcommittee - weapons purchases, for example?

Was there any opportunity for Senator Feinstein to actually influence the campaign in any meaningful way?

More importantly, what should Dianne do? Resign?

Now, I personally feel that occasional or incidental meetings with Ambassadors of other countries couldn't possibly influence an election. I would be more concerned about Hillary's very visible record of benefiting the Saudis, plus the enduring ties between some of her top supporters with Saudi Arabia, plus those Foundation contributions. Feinstein seems to be a unimportant piece in this particular scenario, but just to avoid the impression of a conflict of interest recusal would really help.

That's what happened, and I'm good with that.

All this huffing and puffing by Democraps is just propaganda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Fact, he didn't do that when he was testifying.- THUGR

---

Fact is, he did. In fact, Al Franken's entire question itself mentioned "surrogate". Geez, stop being such a hysteric, you deep-state troll, you.

---

Quote:

---

... The Cleveland event, the "Global Partners in Diplomacy" conference, was attended by many foreign ambassadors to the US. A Cleveland Plain Dealer story from July 20 reported 80 ambassadors were invited to the event's reception, during which Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave an address.

As a State Department spokesperson told Business Insider in an email, the State Department has invited foreign ambassadors to both the DNC and RNC "as observers of our democratic process" since the 1980s. The State Department manages invitations, logistics, and security, and ambassadors are responsible for their own expenses, including flight and hotel accomodations. The convention committees develop the programming the ambassadors participate in or attend ...

Sessions provided a keynote address at a defense and national-security luncheon attended by roughly 100 individuals. The spokesperson said, "I believe he was speaking as a senator on Armed Services" during his address, not as a Trump campaign surrogate.

---

Quote:

---

The second conversation between Sessions and Kislyak reportedly took place in September at the senator's office, according to The Washington Post. US investigators examined the conversations, the Journal reported, as part of an investigation into communications between Trump's campaign operatives and Russian officials.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Jeff Sessions's 2016 Day Planner

---------------------

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As usual SECOND, you're lying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND ... I knew, as did you . . .

---

Quote:

---

California Supreme Court Says Officials’ Emails Are Public Records

Government employees in California cannot hide from the public work-related emails and texts on personal devices and private accounts, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday, closing a loophole justices said could allow the "most sensitive, and potentially damning" communications to be shielded.

California now joins a growing list of states that treat public business on private accounts as public records.

The ruling came in a lawsuit against the city of San Jose. San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle said he was not surprised by the decision and did not plan to challenge it.

---

Quote:

---

But in the actual universe, the number one most-covered story of the 2016 presidential election campaign — by far — was a pseudo-scandal over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account to conduct official State Department business.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Meh, Jeff Sessions has ben a dead weight in congress for years. Here's hoping he has to resign early and is out of govt.

T, I agree he should be gone, but I don't think Russia has anything to do with it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, much ado about nothing. Trump gave a good speech and ... as sure as night follows day ... the deep state comes up with yet another pointless reason to crank up the old BUT RUSSIA! meme. Good grief.

I was trying to imagine a similar scenario (shoe on other foot) to put this in context for myself.

---

So it's ok if Hillary was a bit crooked for Trump to be the same? You sure have lowered your standards across the board. . . .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm wondering if you guys believe that we just stopped having contact ever since the American's won the olympic hockey gold medal in that Kurt Russel flick?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, much ado about nothing. Trump gave a good speech and ... as sure as night follows day ... the deep state comes up with yet another pointless reason to crank up the old BUT RUSSIA! meme. Good grief.

I was trying to imagine a similar scenario (shoe on other foot) to put this in context for myself.

---

So it's ok if Hillary was a bit crooked for Trump to be the same? You sure have lowered your standards across the board. . . .

---

The "BUT RUSSIA! meme" is Trump's fault. He picked the wrong people. Trump's pro-Russian foreign policy has not emerged because Trump's team members are conventional Russia hawks. The Trump national security team are NOT Russian friendly: James Mattis at Defense, H.R. McMaster as national security adviser, Nikki Haley as UN ambassador, Dan Coats as director of national intelligence, and Mike Pompeo as CIA director. The lone exception, former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson at the State Department, seems to have largely adopted Republican establishment views and is marginalized in the administration anyway.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/23/14712408/secretary-of-state-
rex-tillerson-trump-israel-russia-nato

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Hey... maybe this is just Trump's way of draining the swamp?

I'm certainly under no illusion that Republicans in high up positions are "good guys" just because they're not Democrats.

What better way to get rid of crooks than putting them directly under the microscope you're all looking at now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I mean, everybody is running around shitting their pants with the thought of big bad scary Russia when, really, the Saudis (and their sockpuppets in DC) have done a bigger number on us than Russia ever did. . . .

1) Saudi Arabia
2) Israel . . .

Here you are, cooking up paranoid fantasies ... and I really mean paranoid fantasies ... about Russia, when a real enemy is staring you in the face and you don't even see it.

Strange.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wow, it's like watching greased people wrestling in jello.

No issues, no facts, no logic ... just people being slippery and contorting themselves to come out on top.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Blah blah blah....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Iran War is a real possibility with President Trump

---

Quote:

---

I mean, everybody is running around shitting their pants with the thought of big bad scary Russia when, really, the Saudis (and their sockpuppets in DC) have done a bigger number on us than Russia ever did. . . .
1) Saudi Arabia
2) Israel . . .
Here you are, cooking up paranoid fantasies ... and I really mean paranoid fantasies ... about Russia, when a real enemy is staring you in the face and you don't even see it.

Strange. - SIGNY

This is not a war you asked for, but an Iran War is a real possibility with President Trump:
1) Press Secretary Sean Spicer Falsely Accuses Iran of Attacking U.S. Navy Vessel, an Act of War
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/02/press-secretary-sean-spicer-falsel
y-accuses-iran-of-attacking-u-s-navy-vessel-an-act-of-war/

2) And then there is this about Trump’s Defense Secretary: James Mattis’ 33-Year Grudge Against Iran
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of
-defense-214500
I'm certain Trump knew Mattis' Iranian grudge when he picked him.

3) Ever since Donald Trump told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that his “No. 1 priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” the nuclear agreement has faced frequent predictions of its demise. Trump’s election was seen as heralding the death knell of the deal: On the campaign trail, after all, he said the Islamic Republic was the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, a threat across the Middle East, and a country that has covert cells ready to inflict carnage around the globe. Allowing Iran access to billions of dollars in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program, he argued, was not in America’s or the world’s interests.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/24/trump-can-have-this-iran-deal-or-n
o-iran-deal/

4) Iran could be why Trump's first budget will call for a $54 billion increase in defense spending and a corresponding cut in what his administration deems lower priority programs, White House budget officials told reporters Monday. The defense buildup that Trump repeatedly promised on the campaign trail would mark about a 10 percent spending hike. - SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I mean, everybody is running around shitting their pants with the thought of big bad scary Russia when, really, the Saudis (and their sockpuppets in DC) have done a bigger number on us than Russia ever did

---

Quote:

---

When you perceive people are posting negatively about Russia, you suggest it's because theses people are afraid. I've been down this road with you before. Ain't nobody in this country afraid of Russia. -THUGR

---

Quote:

---

One of the ways I know that Russia is a threat... is because you say they aren't- GSTRING

---