Trump fails at Putin summit, and another Russian operative indicted

[Charles]

I can't help but notice that when I asked for evidence, you've done everything but actually show me the evidence. Don't you find that curious? Because I do.

You did not answer how it would follow. You seem to always want to ignore the questions, MM. Are they too difficult for you? Please answer.

I do not find it curious that I do not put forward evidence based on what the intelligence comminty has said when you say beforehand that you don't trust them. I suppose you don't trust Rod Rosenstein who presented the case of the indicment of 12 Russians either? If you trust Putin over them, there is not much I can do about that. Then we could discuss why Putin is not trustworthy but that is another discussion.

And don't forget to answer the question about logic that you "forgot".

[Mountain Man]

It's like catching my son in a lie, and then when I ask him to explain himself, he says, "Why should I when you're not going to believe me anyway?"

[Charles]

It's like catching my son in a lie, and then when I ask him to explain himself, he says, "Why should I when you're not going to believe me anyway?"

So you forgot to answer again?

And since I am not lying the two situations do not compare. Once again your ad hominem strategy failed.

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28922[/ATTACH]

Yip yip yip yip!

I asked for evidence, Chuck, not excuses.

[Charles]

I asked for evidence, Chuck, not excuses.

And I pointed to the fact that you do not trust your national intelligence services who provided the evidence. I do not suppose you trust Rosenstein. I am more than willing to discuss Putin's trustworthiness over that of USA intelligence services.

And? You are still not going to answer the question. The picture thing is a rather obvious and pathetic exit strategy.

[Mountain Man]

"I won't show you the evidence because you probably wouldn't believe it anyway."

Ever heard the story about the fox and the grapes?

Come on, Chuck, you and I both know that if compelling evidence of Russian "meddling" and "collusion" actually existed then you would present it in a heartbeat and then crow mightily if I refused to accept it. The fact that you're giving us nothing but excuses strongly suggests that you are not aware of any such evidence, and I have no doubt that you've been Googling like mad since early this morning in a desperate attempt to find something, anything, to throw in my face.

[Charles]

"I won't show you the evidence because you probably wouldn't believe it anyway."

Ever heard the story about the fox and the grapes?

Come on, Chuck, you and I both know that if compelling evidence of Russian "meddling" and "collusion" actually existed then you would present it in a heartbeat and then crow mightily if I refused to accept it. The fact that you're giving us nothing but excuses strongly suggests that you are not aware of any such evidence, and I have no doubt that you've been Googling like mad since early this morning in a desperate attempt to find something, anything, to throw in my face.

You ignored the question again. Too hard to answer?

I have not made a single google search so you are completely wrong. I heard Rosenstein, and I know what intelligence services have presented and that they have evidence for 12 indicments. I have followed the statements from inteligence services with great interest during Trump's precidency. Trump associates have repetedly lied about their connections with Russia and we all know how the story goes. But you do not trust intellingence services in the USA and disagree even with Trump who accepts the conclusion that Russia meddled.

Since this is not investigated by private companies but by intelligence services there is not much to do if you do not trust them? Do you trust what Rosenstein said?

[One Bad Pig]

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "meddling". If you mean that some Russians may have posted a handful of memes on Facebook slamming both sides during the election then, sure, they "meddled", but every indication is that their efforts were minimal and largely ineffective.

No, I didn't mean that. I wrote what I meant - and it's been a smashing success, aided and abetted by the Democratic Party/MSM.

Of course that's not what liberals mean when they say "meddling"; they're using the term as a synonym for "criminal conspiracy", and there is zero evidence to support that accusation.

You appear to be suffering from Trump's inability to separate the issues as well.

Source: Byron York

There have always been two parts to the Trump-Russia probe: the what-Russia-did part, which is the investigation into Russia's actions during the campaign, and the get-Trump part, which is the effort to use the investigation to remove him from office.

Trump's problem is that he has always refused, or been unable, to separate the two. One is about national security and international relations, while the other is about Donald Trump.

The president clearly believes if he gives an inch on the what-Russia-did part -- if he concedes that Russia made an effort to disrupt the election -- his adversaries, who want to discredit his election, undermine him and force him from office, will take a mile on the get-Trump part. That's consistent with how Trump approaches other problems; he doesn't admit anything because he knows that his adversaries will never be satisfied and just demand more.

But Trump's approach doesn't work for the Trump-Russia probe. There's no reason he could not accept that Russia tried to interfere in the election. There would be no political loss for Trump to endorse that finding.

At the same time, there is nothing wrong with Trump fighting back hard against the get-Trump part of the investigation. Voters know that Democrats, Resistance and NeverTrump activists have accused Trump of collusion for two years and never proven their case. Mueller has charged lots of people with crimes, but none has involved collusion. That could still change -- no one should claim to know what is coming next from Mueller -- but Trump, as a matter of his own defense, is justified in repeating the "no collusion" and "witch hunt" mantras.

© Copyright Original Source

link

[Mountain Man]

Source: Helsinki Is One of Trump’s Finest Moments

Once again, and this time with the help of that dirty cop, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the establishment media and the Deep State believed they had rigged events to a point where Trump was cornered, where he would have no choice but to publicly berate Putin on the national stage for the sin of “interfering in our elections.”

What the media wanted was to emotionally blackmail Trump into creating an international scene, a YouTube moment with Putin, where the president would violate every diplomatic norm to publicly shame and berate the Russian president.

Why do you think Dirty Cop Mueller dropped his kangaroo indictment (more on this below) just a few days before the Putin summit? It was all coordinated and staged, it was the behavior of spoiled children desperate to get their way.

Wisely, for the good of his country and out respect for the truth, Trump refused to jump in the trap. And now the spoiled children who once again did not get what they want, are having a national tantrum. And moral cowards, like House Speaker Paul Ryan (God bless Rand Paul), are terrified of these spoiled media babies and are seeking only to appease them.

Nevertheless, what really happened is this: Trump showed the gangster Putin that he is his own man, that he cannot be bullied by America’s corrupt political and media establishment into behaving in a certain way, that he is willing to take those flaming arrows to do what he thinks is right, which, in this case, is to never forget the lessons of Iraq.

Keep in mind that what Trump was supposed to do Monday was to drink the Kool-Aid, was to believe our Intelligence Community (IC) got it 100 percent right about Russian meddling, was to throw diplomacy out the window and publicly embarrass Putin.

Thankfully, Trump refused to do that, and now the spoiled children, just as they did after Charlottesville, are again lying and claiming Trump “sided with Putin,” when the only thing Trump’s guilty of is remaining diplomatic, which is the whole point of a summit expressly arranged to facilitate peace.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...inest-moments/

© Copyright Original Source

And what is the result of Trump's masterful diplomacy? I'm glad you asked.

Source: First Win for Trump-Putin Summit: Agreement to Restrain Iran in Syria

Fast-forward to the press conference on Monday. Putin, who spoke first, said that the U.S. and Russia had agreed on a new course of action in Syria: “The south of Syria should be brought to the full compliance with the treaty of 1974, about the separation of forces — about separation of forces of Israel and Syria. This will bring peace to Golan Heights, and bring [a] more peaceful relationship between Syria and Israel, and also to provide security of the state of Israel.” Trump also referred to the agreement in his remarks at the press conference, and suggested that both the U.S. and Russia had agreed with the Israeli position on the issue.

Most of the Beltway journalists at the press conference were too busy asking about the 2016 election to ask about either Iran or Syria. But the Israeli media noticed — and so, too, did Yaroslav Trofimov, the Wall Street Journal‘s Middle East columnist, who reported that Putin had granted Israel’s request. While it was not clear whether the two leaders had agreed to push Iranian troops out of Syria, it is clear, as Glick observes, that Iranian troops cannot operate within Syria without the help of Russian air cover.

On Tuesday, Trump told reporters at the White House that Putin was “very much involved now with us” on guaranteeing Israeli security in Syria. Whether Putin follows through remains to be seen, but it is certainly a step in the right direction — of peace.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...iran-in-syria/

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

You appear to be suffering from Trump's inability to separate the issues as well.

The only thing I'm "suffering" from is an unwillingness to accept the unsupported liberal narrative.

[Tassman]

No, I didn't mean that. I wrote what I meant - and it's been a smashing success, aided and abetted by the Democratic Party/MSM.

You appear to be suffering from Trump's inability to separate the issues as well.

Source: Byron York

There have always been two parts to the Trump-Russia probe: the what-Russia-did part, which is the investigation into Russia's actions during the campaign, and the get-Trump part, which is the effort to use the investigation to remove him from office.

Trump's problem is that he has always refused, or been unable, to separate the two. One is about national security and international relations, while the other is about Donald Trump.

The president clearly believes if he gives an inch on the what-Russia-did part -- if he concedes that Russia made an effort to disrupt the election -- his adversaries, who want to discredit his election, undermine him and force him from office, will take a mile on the get-Trump part. That's consistent with how Trump approaches other problems; he doesn't admit anything because he knows that his adversaries will never be satisfied and just demand more.

But Trump's approach doesn't work for the Trump-Russia probe. There's no reason he could not accept that Russia tried to interfere in the election. There would be no political loss for Trump to endorse that finding.

At the same time, there is nothing wrong with Trump fighting back hard against the get-Trump part of the investigation. Voters know that Democrats, Resistance and NeverTrump activists have accused Trump of collusion for two years and never proven their case. Mueller has charged lots of people with crimes, but none has involved collusion. That could still change -- no one should claim to know what is coming next from Mueller -- but Trump, as a matter of his own defense, is justified in repeating the "no collusion" and "witch hunt" mantras.

© Copyright Original Source

link

Unless of course Trump DID collude with Russia. There is certainly every indication that he was prepared to collude if it was to his advantage. He has the moral scruples of an alley cat. And we know that Don Jr went to the Trump Tower meeting with every intention of colluding if the Russian information proved to be helpful to his father.

[Mountain Man]

Source: Donald Trump: No Confidence in Intelligence Led by Brennan, Clapper, Comey

“It’s been terrible,” Trump told CBS anchor Jeff Glor, citing the names of former CIA director John Brennan, former director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, Former Director of the National Security Agency Michael Hayden, former FBI director James Comey, as well as prominent FBI agents Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok.

The president responded to a question from Glor about whether or not he felt that former intelligence agents were “out to get him.” Trump said that he had difficulty trusting their judgement, as they stood vehmently against him.

“Certainly I can’t have any confidence in the past,” Trump said, citing the “all of the shenanigans that have gone on” in the intelligence community under former President Barack Obama.

“Very hard to have confidence in that group,” he added.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...clapper-comey/

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

There is certainly every indication that he was prepared to collude if it was to his advantage.

Except there is every indication that any time someone tried to establish some connection between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, they were rebuffed. Even the recent arrest of Maria Butina undermines the liberal narrative.

Source: CNN

CNN has previously reported that during the presidential campaign, Torshin worked with his protégé, Butina, as well as other associates, to try to arrange back-channel communications between Putin and then-candidate Trump. Those efforts appear to have been rebuffed by members of the Trump campaign, according to previous CNN reporting and documents that were provided to the House Intelligence Committee.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politi...ina/index.html

© Copyright Original Source

Of course that wasn't the only attempt at entrapment. We also have the dubious activities of Stefan Halpern and at least one other government "informant" inside the Trump campaign desperately trying, and more importantly FAILING to establish links to Russia.

So once again, we find that the liberal narrative is the opposite of reality.

[One Bad Pig]

[Trump] has the moral scruples of an alley cat.

Well, yes. Which makes him no different from the 99% of politicians who give the rest a bad name.

[rogue06]

No, I didn't mean that. I wrote what I meant - and it's been a smashing success, aided and abetted by the Democratic Party/MSM.

You appear to be suffering from Trump's inability to separate the issues as well.

Source: Byron York

There have always been two parts to the Trump-Russia probe: the what-Russia-did part, which is the investigation into Russia's actions during the campaign, and the get-Trump part, which is the effort to use the investigation to remove him from office.

Trump's problem is that he has always refused, or been unable, to separate the two. One is about national security and international relations, while the other is about Donald Trump.

The president clearly believes if he gives an inch on the what-Russia-did part -- if he concedes that Russia made an effort to disrupt the election -- his adversaries, who want to discredit his election, undermine him and force him from office, will take a mile on the get-Trump part. That's consistent with how Trump approaches other problems; he doesn't admit anything because he knows that his adversaries will never be satisfied and just demand more.

But Trump's approach doesn't work for the Trump-Russia probe. There's no reason he could not accept that Russia tried to interfere in the election. There would be no political loss for Trump to endorse that finding.

At the same time, there is nothing wrong with Trump fighting back hard against the get-Trump part of the investigation. Voters know that Democrats, Resistance and NeverTrump activists have accused Trump of collusion for two years and never proven their case. Mueller has charged lots of people with crimes, but none has involved collusion. That could still change -- no one should claim to know what is coming next from Mueller -- but Trump, as a matter of his own defense, is justified in repeating the "no collusion" and "witch hunt" mantras.

© Copyright Original Source

link

It may be a bit more than Trump being unable to distinguish between the two but his realizing that the MSM will never do so. If he were to condemn the Russians for meddling the headlines would read "Trump Admits His Election Is Illegitimate" and "Trump Admits Election Was Tainted"