RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events From Russia with love

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

Trump’s national security chief denies classified info was shared with Russians: McMaster added that Trump “did not disclose any military operations that weren’t previously known.”

That wasn't what was reported though.

Well,then, that settles it. The liberal media never gets anything wrong.

I'm just pointing out he was denying something that the reporting wasn't charging. And do you really want to make credibility arguments via Trump?

Notes made by former FBI director Comey say Trump pressured him to end Flynn probe

This is the GOP in charge

Well, it's Donald Trump in charge. There are a few holdouts (Graham, McCain, Portman, etc.) but they're the exception rather than the rule...

yeah there are some of the old guard that seem to be not much liked by Trump people. For them Trump is the victim and anything to the contrary is to be attacked.

As is this: House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says he’s ready to subpoena a memo reportedly written by former FBI Director James Comey that, according to multiple sources, details a meeting with President Donald Trump in which the president asked Comey to end the bureau’s investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

And this: “It is important to get to the bottom of it,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee. “We’ve got one standard, and we need to make sure that applies to everybody.”

And this: McConnell Calls for James Comey’s Testimony

You'll note they're ready to issue subpoenas to get to the bottom of this. They aren't running around, crying about a "witch hunt" or any of the stuff the DNC does to circle the wagons when one of theirs gets implicated in something potentially shady (see, eg, a certain airport tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton).

Speaking of witch hunts

And GOP leadership like Paul Ryan still has faith in Trump, at least that is what he's saying publicly

The Vice President Pence has a growing credibility problem

The liberal media is nothing, if not predictable.

Whatever Republican might next be president is invariably "the worst one yet."

It's a witch hunt, lol. It's not the media's job to act as your parties propaganda arm g. The article brings up some legitimate points. How long and many times can Pence be "not informed"? It just isn't credible at this point.

Of course it isn't the media's job to be the GOPs propaganda arm. The media has their hands full being a DNC super PAC

What is unfair in the reporting g? Why should Pence's actions be ignored? I understand why you don't like it due to your political bias but is there anything more than that? A defense for Pence maybe?

Dems: New documents show Flynn lied to investigators about Russian trips

Trump asked DNI, NSA to deny evidence of Russia collusion

Ex-C.I.A. Chief Reveals Mounting Concern Over Trump Campaign and Russia

The slightest whiff of a potential Trump scandal/conspiracy, with no actual evidence.

Clapper, the director of the combined NSA, CIA and FBI, said he has seen no evidence of a Trump collusion with the Russians.

Just today, former CIA Director John Brennan comes out as another high-level intelligence official to say there's no "there" there, regarding Trump collusion with the Russians.

Meanwhile, there's a stack of evidence a mile wide that the Hillary Clinton was in collusion with the Russians, that neither House or Senate Democrats, or the complicit liberal media want to discuss!

1) Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state, signed off on a deal that gives the Russuans at least 20% of U.S. uranium.
2) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that while she was Secretary of State, allowed the Russians and the Chinese to access her e-mails and know in real time what the U.S.'s strategic planning was (both Hillary and the other high-level officials she communicated with, including President Obama, on her server) and to further compromise the internet security of every official she communicated with, for further hacking. One example: following a large Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton was given a $500,000 speaking fee by the same Russian company.
3) Hillary Clinton taking donations from Russia (and many other bad-player nations) at the Clinton Foundation, and using those donations to sell access to officials at the U.S. State Department.
4) Hillary Clinton's treason over Benghazi. We still have no answers, over 4 years later, where Obama and Frau Hitlery were, while Americans were dying at the embassy. And further indications that Benghazi was used to funnel guns and funding to questionably reliable Islamic militant groups in Syria.
5) Hillary and Obama's treason over allowing Russia to invade Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, with absolutely no action.

Would that Democrats or the Destroy-Trump media would give the slightest fair and balanced attention to these PROVEABLE treasonous acts by Hillary and those around her.

Actually Brennan didn't say there was no there there yesterday. Trey Gowdy was trying to get him to say that but instead got answers that made it harder for the GOP to provide cover. Would you have been okay if Obama or any democrat was doing what Trump is doing?

The Plum Line Opinion Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump

Fox News Poll: Trump approval down, voters support special counsel on Russia

Given Trump's antics I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP ends up choosing a special counsel.

It's charming how everyone has such a death grip on this idea that Trump and the Clintons are moral and ideological opposites engaged in a tug-of-war for the soul of America. The inside-outside scam continues.

I see Jared "Fredo" Kusnher is a target of the FBI probe. I wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not. The little sleaze always looked like the exact guy who would be into influence peddling.

Who in America thinks that either Trump or the Clintons are pure and without sin?

I'm obviously a Trump supporter, but even so, I don't see him as an ideological pole on one side of the spectrum, conservative or otherwise. Hillary, on the other hand, is a deceitful America-hating Alinsky-trained cultural Marxist who, like Obama, wants to radically transform America. And Hillary even more so than Obama is a tool of George Soros, who would like to enslave the United States to global government.

I also have no idea what you mean by the "inside-outside scam".

I was wondering what Cap meant too. Is it both sides are really the same type argument? Not sure if that is the case with Trump. Even his supporters see him as being different. The budget he came out with for example is something even a segment of republicans had issues with. It's something that takes us back to thinking prior to WW2. Personally I think we learned some lessons after that but as that generation has died off we're forgetting. The globalization that was built up than is a stabilizing force that is being taken apart.

Kushner Is Said to Have Discussed a Secret Channel to Talk to Russia

I think we all know better than to assume anyone's hands are clean. What I'm getting at is that everyone talks about DJT as though this shitshow was his grand plan all along, that he and the Clintons have been opponents for years and years, and that they don't all ultimately drink from the same financial-sector wells. The Donald was the Clintons' BFF for years, an important DNC donor, who wanted to try something as a stunt and kind of fell backwards into this whole Presidential misadventure. It just so happened that along the way, the wrong people realized how incredibly useful he could be under the right circumstances. I don't know why some folks can chant "Hillary for prison!" and others can chant "Trump for prison!" as though they're mutually exclusive. Minimum-security isn't where the overpopulation is; there's plenty of room for both of them.

What the fuck does that even mean? In what context are you going to apply the "everybody's corrupt!" meme when Trump didn't have a hand in any political fuckery like Hilldog did?

The telling aspect of your disingenuous screed is that you don't expand upon any tacit claims of corruption, but rather you just cast aspersions, comfortable in the perception that it attributes to your character a form of pseudo-enlightenment that no one could possibly contradict because "everybody's corrupt".

And, of course, you have even less evidence that he was never serious about running in the first place, but you'll run with that narrative to justify your critique, and general dislike, of the ilk that supported and campaigned for him. It seems a far more realistic conclusion that you're still simply bitter about his win, which has permanently muddled your--and Iggy's--ability to bandy about the word "corrupt" and take for granted it's credibility in the context of politics. Unfortunately for your (and Iggy's) ego(s), Trump's private citizen status--juxtaposed with the incomparably evil character of the Clintons--nullifies the feasibility of your premises: "Hi! I'm Donald Trump. And I'm gonna run for president against the world's most powerful crime family--and win--while risking death, disgrace, and slander in the process because they and I were allies all along. Impressive scheme don't you think?"

I don't want to throw too much up at once for you, Sammitch, I don't assume, either with or without clarification on your part, that you intend any kind of deception. It's just frustrating when you (I think for intended brevity) lay down conspiracies so briefly described that we honestly have no clue what you mean!

I've laid out in multiple posts SPECIFICALLY how Hillary Clinton and her inner circle (partially including Obama through his knowing communication with her on the illegal private email server) are guilty of at least 4 different kinds of treason, that is fully documented if there is any will to prosecute.


In contrast, while Trump may have said and done some inappropriate things with women, while Trump has done some questionably ethical things in the decades of his real estate and financial/business investments, while Trump had some degree of communication with the Russians (I think ANY new administration would have such communication, in an effort to negotiate a resolution to rifted diplomatic relations, WHILE GUARANTEEING THE RUSSIANS NOTHING, just exploring the negotiable possibilities).

But in 7 months of barrage by the liberal media and beltway Democrats, in Trumps case there is no evidence, absolutely nothing, to warrant the accusations let alone an indictment of Trump. And while I think it is warranted to investigate any possible impropriety with the Russians by the Trump administration, I find it an infuriating double standard when Trump is under investigation to the hilt, and despite the mountain of incriminating evidence that is RIGHT THERE for the prosecuting Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama, no one accusing Trump wants to look at or even discuss it.


The media and liberals adored Trump before he made his presidential bid. Trump was a strong supporter of Bill and Hillary during their time in the white house, yes.
But he was also an equally strong supporter of Reagan.
For the Nth time, for whatever other flaws, what I like about Trump is he's a pragmatist who isn't ideologically anchored to either party. And at his best, he offers a pragmatist's business sense and efficiency to reforming Washington. And it definitely needs the reforming, and has for at least 20 years. That kind of reform was not offered during or since by any other candidate in the 2016 race. During or after.

About Trump and the Clintons (and the broader Washington elites of both parties) who "ultimately drink from the same financial-sector wells", that may have been true in the past before Trump broke the establishment stranglehold on both parties. But since he has been elected, I read that he has lost about 700 million in business for his defiance. When he broke from his support of Democrats, they turned on him. He was part of the club, but no longer is.

The Republican establishment simultaneously tries to make the best of his winning and work with him, while at the exact same time large Republican factions and "deep state" bureaucrats sabotage his every move.
For example, when Trump wanted to begin with tax reform, and Paul Ryan convinced Trump to go with repeal/replace Obamacare first, then pulled out the rug on Trump and humiliated Trump with a failure to rally Republican a consensus vote on the bill that it was Ryan's job to assure!

There is beyond question a collective effort to destroy Trump's presidency, I don't understand the logic of trying to say he's still part of the club that is trying to destroy him.

Whatever Trump's egotism and indulgences, I see him as a guy who has been one of the U.S.'s richest men, who is now 70, and wants to leave a greater legacy for his life than success in real estate. He is a patriot who has said for 35-plus years that he didn't want to run for political office, but that if no one else stepped up, he wouldn't rule out a white house run. And he finally did. At 70, he wants saving America to be his legacy. And like other presidents before him, he's made a few mis-steps his first year. I'd just like to see him stay on message and get the job done.

That's the outline of my prespective Sammitch. I'd be interested to see the clarification of yours.

Or, maybe, the establishment is going after him because he is so openly flaunting what they would prefer to remain hidden. It all reminds me of Rome in the lead up to the collapse of the Republic.

I ultimately think it's a mistake to attribute too much intentionality to decisions with this many moving parts. A lot of compromises are made and backroom deals are struck, and we'll never know the full details of them all. Regardless, I don't think we're looking at conspiracies so much as at the interaction of faceless systems which have run for decades on interchangeable functionaries, functionaries distinguished by party affiliations which mean increasingly less. The chaos we're seeing right now isn't, I don't think, a deliberate effort at subverting the system as much as a collision between the system and an 'outsider' who is less unwilling than unable to play the game.

Imagine you're at a wedding reception and it's still kinda fun, cringey white-people dancing but no angry drunks so it's at least entertaining to watch. A whole bunch of people decide to bust out line-dance standards and a relatively coordinated Electric Slide breaks out. But there's this dude who's been there the whole time, family member on the groom's side, maybe. Well-dressed, looks like he's got decent money, but visibly uncomfortable whenever he's not the center of attention. Everyone's watching and laughing and having a good time and he's out there on the periphery of it all, increasingly discontent with being left out. Eventually he charges in, hellbent on having every last fragment of your attention, and plants himself dead center in the middle of the group. Looking on from the edge of the dance floor, you almost immediately realize "Holy shit, this guy doesn't know the steps at all!" But he's gonna dance, dammit, whether he matches the others or not. Only problem is, everyone else has done these same steps at, like, dozens of weddings and parties, and they know exactly where they've stepped next every time before. However, our would-be protagonist is doing his own thing in the middle, and there's no such thing to him as negative attention. The dancers can't avoid tripping over the guy and keep in step with the person on either side and know what the guy two people away is gonna do, and the result is a hilarious human pileup that renders it utterly impossible for anyone to dance.

Now, I'm more or less indifferent to the Electric Slide. Maybe the rich guy's possibly inebriated, unarguably uncoordinated dancing would be a hell of a lot more entertaining to watch, if he were out there by himself. But everyone else on that floor, bride's side or groom's side, knew the steps - even if they weren't the best steps - and they would've been able to keep their dance up for a while had they not been interrupted. And it ultimately doesn't matter whether the rich white guy's dance was better than the Electric Slide everyone else has been doing since forever, because when the pileup happens and everyone flops to the dance floor, nobody is dancing anymore.

Now imagine, if you will, that the guy who pushed his way to the middle of the floor is just the loudest and most visible of a number of somewhat drunk dudes who would rather do their own thing than follow the steps, and there are smaller pileups going on at least once or twice a song because these guys feel the need to express their dissatisfaction with the established dance moves from the middle of the floor. Nothing's gonna get done. And those guys have their own agendas - they didn't come with the rich guy in the middle - and they've got their own alternate alternate dance moves. That, to me, is what's going on in Washington right now.

At the risk of misjudging the man's character (though I at least won't insistently refer to him as a 'piece of shit' as others are wont to do), I feel it's relatively safe to say that the central figure of Donald J. Trump's ideology, his political philosophy, and his ontological construction of existence is none other than Donald J. Trump. I think many wealthy individuals, most sufficiently famous people, and damn near all politicians have at least a touch of clinical narcissism, but DJT the man seems to have been entirely subsumed by The Donald and the Trump brand. I think whatever he does at this point is aimed at the advancement of his image, or more accurately the advancement of the persona he's constructed through which to interact with the world. I'm not sure there's any real intent to create or destroy anything, just a compulsion to be the smartest guy who made the most final decisions about the most important issues. I'm sure, Wondy, that DJT would dearly love to be known as the guy who 'saved America' even if he's not really sure how to go about that. But at the moment he's a guy in the middle of the dance floor doing his own thing.

The problem is made far worse when you look around and see the other guys on the dance floor out to do their own thing, who've actually been dancing to the same steps as everyone else for years and years but suddenly see a chance to also be smart guys making final decisions about important things. At this point, in the GOP it looks like a split between the old money who care far less about actual Republican principle than just preserving the comfortable slice of the economic pie they've been carving out for themselves, and then the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party holdovers who are blindly but relentlessly driven by their own poorly-translated approximation of "real conservatism" and "traditional values", and would be perfectly content to trip up every single person on this proverbial dance floor just so long as they can stop that damn Electric Slide. Neither of those factions seems to have a coherent plan for how to actually create something new once they've finished pulling down all the shit they don't like, but I don't think even the few who are aware of that are particularly bothered by it. There are a handful who honestly just want to be done with the pointless cross-aisle bickering and are willing to compromise in pursuit of actually accomplishing something on behalf of their constituents, but they're very definitely lost in the shuffle.

So to recap, you've got the DNC and some of the GOP's old guard all over the floor, pissed off that they can't keep doing the dance they've been doing for years. You've got a few moderates trying to help people up and at least get them out of the pile to figure out what to do next. You've got a whole bunch of half-assed paleocon True Believers busting a clumsy yet tasteful and family-friendly move in the path of anyone who's still even attempting to do the previous dance, and then shouting angrily at those they knock over for having the temerity to disrespect their shitty-dancing "heritage". And finally you've got our hero dead-center in the middle of the dance floor, gyrating frantically and flailing his arms to something totally different from every other damn person out there, screaming for you to notice what a magnificent dancer he is and how important he looks with his big hands and totally natural hair.

'Murka.

Getting back on topic...if there had already been a close working relationship between the Trump campaign and the Putin government, then why would it have been necessary to set up a back channel in December?

It makes me laugh that the "Surrender America" party of the Democrats can accuse Trump or anyone else of "collusion" or treason.

Since at least the Pentagon Papers, since the V V A W era of John Kerry throwing his medals over the fence and accusing U.S. soldiers of atrocities and war crimes, since Michael Moore and others calling the beheaders of the Iraqi resistance (led by imported Al Qaida leadership) "freedom fighters", since Senator Dick Durbin (D-MI) comparing U.S. soldiers in Iraq to Nazi storm troopers, since House Democrats in the years of George W. Bush trying to de-fund U.S. troops in Iraq, to force them to withdraw from Iraq.... THESE are the Democrats accusing Donald Trump and his administration of "collusion" or treason?!? Really?

"Collusion"? "Back channel negotiations" ?

That's not even getting into Obama telling Medvedev on a live mike that he "can be much more flexible after the election" (i.e., after he has deceived the American voters regarding his true anti-American goals and treasonous policy).
MEDVEDEV: "I will transmit this information to Vladimir." Well done, Comrade Obama.

And without getting into Obama's utterly flaccid response to Russia's aggression in Crimea, Russia's ongoing invasion of eastern Ukraine, or Russia's aggression and support of genocide in Syria, including their firing on U.S. allies in there like the Kurds.

Or Obama's treasonous back-channel negotiations with Iran, that will enable Iran to get nuclear weapons within 10 years, and ICBM missiles to carry them as well.
That never should have been negotiated, and when the infuriating Iran deal was announced, and THE EXACT SAME DAY was met by chants by a large crowd of "Death to America" with the Ayatollah at the podium, responding "Yes, death to America. Of course." Obama should have shredded that agreement the same day. Instead Obama gave them a generous reward for terrorism, while providing the weapons of destruction to kill us to a government with a ravenous bloodlust to use those weapons on us.

All in addition to the aforementioned 4 different DOCUMENTED and prosecutable kinds of treason that Hillary Clinton and her staff have engaged in, much of it involving Russia.

It is infuriating that the Democrats (with full assistance of the liberal media) can bombard Trump's administration day after day with wild speculation based on absolutely no evidence, and yet simultaneously ignore the Himalayan mountains of treason on the Democrat side, without the slightest shame or integrity.

At some point do you hold Trump responsible for being where he is now? The GOP has control the government and the investigations they're doing.

Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election

From your article: "Intelligence agency leaders say that Russia's attacks did not change any actual votes in the 2016 race,"

Prior to that we didn't know they had tried that though. It makes Trump's actions even more questionable. From Comey's testimony Trump is really trying to cover and protect Flynn. In general he looks guilty as hell trying to obstruct the investigation.