Discussion:
"No one disputes: the Russians hacked our election and interfered"? How does he know? Especially as our voting machines weren't connected to the internet nor were there Russians working at different polling places to alter results.
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2017-03-21 06:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/20/donald-trump-sean-spicer-russia-adam-schiff/99410468/

Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered,"
Schiff said. "No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is
called 'fact'."

Totally unreasonable and undignified taunt! Bad for the country and
bad for the Demo constituents he supposedly represents.

I also wonder how the FBI can admit on one hand that it's been
investigating the Trump campaign for possible Russian "collusion" and
deny on the other that they wiretapped the organization. If they
really didn't bug the telephones, it is conceivable that the campaign
could have been talking to the Russians all day while keeping clean on
other forms of contact and not be found to be in touch with the
Russians. It seems that the Trump campaign could have told the
Russians to hack here and hack there --- like our "allies" in Iraq,
Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere radioed NATO to bomb here and bomb
there to fight "terrorists" and whatnot --- for Hillary's emails, all
through telephone communication.

It makes no sense to hear spies testify about anything they do or
don't. Lying is always their first and last refuge. They are masters
of disinformation.

lo yeeOn
TT
2017-03-21 09:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lo yeeOn
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/20/donald-trump-sean-spicer-russia-adam-schiff/99410468/
Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered,"
Schiff said. "No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is
called 'fact'."
Totally unreasonable and undignified taunt!
It is a fact. Nobody with a brain thinks that 'hacking' here refers to
voting machines. Except some desperate Republicans and apparently paid
Chinese trolls.
*skriptis
2017-03-21 11:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TT
Post by lo yeeOn
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/20/donald-trump-sean-spicer-russia-adam-schiff/99410468/
Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered,"
Schiff said. "No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is
called 'fact'."
Totally unreasonable and undignified taunt!
It is a fact. Nobody with a brain thinks that 'hacking' here refers to
voting machines. Except some desperate Republicans and apparently paid
Chinese trolls.
Then use a proper word, not "hacking".
There are enough words in English language.

Of course you won't be using an appropriate word because it would
make you look silly.

We still haven't seen anything that proves their involvement, but
if there was anything, that is often mentioned in fake news, an
appropriate description would be that the Russians tried to
influence US election.

But that doesn't sound so ominous like hacking, does it?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
lo yeeOn
2017-03-21 20:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lo yeeOn
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/20/donald-trump-sean-spicer-russia-adam-schiff/99410468/
Post by TT
Post by lo yeeOn
Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered,"
Schiff said. "No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is
called 'fact'."
Totally unreasonable and undignified taunt!
It is a fact. Nobody with a brain thinks that 'hacking' here refers to
voting machines. Except some desperate Republicans and apparently paid
Chinese trolls.
Then use a proper word, not "hacking".
There are enough words in English language.
Of course you won't be using an appropriate word because it would
make you look silly.
We still haven't seen anything that proves their involvement, but
if there was anything, that is often mentioned in fake news, an
appropriate description would be that the Russians tried to
influence US election.
But that doesn't sound so ominous like hacking, does it?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Good point, my friend. Yes, I would think that the Russians
themselves wouldn't have thought so highly of Volodya if he were so
dumb as to be oblivious of the implications of a Hillary presidency.

Hillary has made no secret that she would be confronting Russia in
Syria with her no-fly zone policy. That would be the minimum.

Given HRC's position toward the former Yugoslavia, and later her
policy toward Libya, her enthusiastic support for the Iraq War and the
phony and perpetual War on Terror, and her positions toward Syria and
Ukraine, what would we Americans expect the Russian leader to do?

To again pay homage to Lady President Hillary and beg for mercy like
he did with Bush in the early years of the PNAC wars?

We constantly justify every interventionist war we are involved in by
invoking our targets' internal political situations, and we constantly
get involved in influencing the elections in other countries,
including Russia. Do we have a sense of reciprocity, namely, sauce
for the goose is sauce for the gander? "What goes around comes
around."

And what, may I ask these Democrats and their allies/supporters who
have constantly compared Trump to the Nazis/fascists do they realize
that they are putting themselves in the role of Erdogan and his allies
who have been reportedly trying to compare the German government with
the Nazis/fascists?

And why they want to and try so hard to "influence" poor little
Montenegro that they are willing to go with John McCain, the
ultra-warmonger in the Senate to make the reluctant country a NATO
member, thus tacitly agreeing with McCain's false claim that those who
opposed the move were trying to "break up NATO"?

What are alliances supposed to be about? Michael Haltzel of Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies called for the
Senate to waive the microstate through as "to do otherwise would
show the world that during (Trump's) presidency the Kremlin will
exercise unprecedented influence on U.S. foreign policy."

In his view apparently only a traitor would ask whether issuing yet
another security guarantee is in America's national interest.

There are currently about 40% Montenegrins who are said to support the
accession and about 40% who are said to oppose to it. The neocons
have claimed falsely that Russia tried to do a coup in the country.
But where is the evidence?

These politicians stop at nothing to try to destroy Trump's legitimate
presidency.

Lastly, when I said "How does he know?", I was referring to Schiff's
assertion that "no one disputes [except Trump]" his assertion of
Russians hacking our election. It is logically absurd. He was taking
in too much territory saying what he said. Of course, he committed a
worse offense by making the Russian "hacking" claim. So, you're
absolutely right by pointing out that it was an attempt at influencing
- doing nothing more than what we have done for ages. It's nothing
new to have hypocrites wearing politicians' clothing. It's just so
unpatriotic to try to bring down the duly elected government with this
kind of lie though.

lo yeeOn

President Trump Should End NATO Expansion Charade
By DOUG BANDOW 3/13/2017
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/president-trump-should-end-nato-expansion-charade/

The postage stamp country of Montenegro expected to be rushed into
NATO during Washington's lame duck period before the unpredictable
Donald Trump became president.

But Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee, more concerned about America than
wannabe foreign dependents, blocked ratification of the ratification
resolution. The president should kill the measure.

What are alliances supposed to be about? Michael Haltzel of Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies called for the Senate
to waive the microstate through as "to do otherwise would show the
world that during (Trump's) presidency the Kremlin will exercise
unprecedented influence on U.S. foreign policy."

In his view apparently only a traitor would ask whether issuing yet
another security guarantee is in America's national interest.

But the question recurs, what are alliances for? Most obviously, to
increase U.S. security. Adding Podgorica won't do that, however.

Montenegro has 1,950 men under arms. That's not likely to stop the
Russian hordes on their way to Berlin or Paris.

Haltzel pointed out that Podgorica sent 45 personnel to Afghanistan. A
nice gesture, but such tiny deployments probably cost the alliance as
much to manage as they are worth.

Still, argued Haltzel, Montenegro "is on a pace to fulfill the two
percent of GDP spending for defense ahead of the 2020 target." Which
would have added about $15 million to Podgorica's military spending
last year - a rounding error in the Trump administration's proposed
$54 billion boost.

Finally, any benefit would come at a high price. Washington would
likely spend more money on aid to help Podgorica conform to alliance
standards. Moreover, the U.S. would be expected to go to war if
necessary on Montenegro's behalf.

How about viewing expansion as an act of charity to protect Montenegro
from enemies unnamed? No one has obvious designs on the microstate -

which has fewer people than the typical American congressional
district. Why should such a country gain a say in the affairs of what
is supposed to be a serious military organization, one in which
Washington is expected to do the heavy lifting whatever the conflict?

Podgorica claims to have met NATO's standards, but Washington has no
obligation to defend any other state. The decision should be based on
what best serves the interests of the American people, whose defense
is entrusted to the U.S. government.

The Hoover Institution's Kori Schake claimed that the invitation
demonstrated that the "West can actually take a stand in defense of
its values and security." However, Podgorica merits only a "partly
free" rating from the group Freedom House. Better would be to
encourage the country to focus on fulfilling European Union membership
criteria, which would satisfy Schake's desire to draw states to the
West.

Moreover, Montenegrins are sharply divided: a December poll found
39.7% against and 39.5% for membership. That's hardly a strong
commitment to what remains a military alliance with theoretically
serious security responsibilities.

One of the Senate's most militaristic members, Lindsey Graham, touted
membership as "a clear signal to our friends in Montenegro and to the
Russians about how we feel." But military alliances are about going to
war, not sharing feelings. And with Moscow not threatening to invade
Montenegro it is not clear what the signal might mean.

Podgorica claimed that Russia recently promoted a coup, though the
truth is unclear and political divisions within the country are
real. Anyway, NATO membership offers no guarantee of democratic
governance, just ask the tens of thousands of Turks oppressed by
Turkey's increasingly authoritarian Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The only argument for Montenegro's inclusion that has any logic is to
signal that the alliance is continuing to accept new members, no
matter how irrelevant and insignificant the country. But NATO was
created during the Cold War to prevent the Soviet Union from
dominating Eurasia. America's participation in the alliance was not
conceived as a means to guarantee the independence of distant lands of
virtually no significance to America.

Bringing in Georgia and Ukraine would be even more dangerous, since
both have been involved in shooting conflicts with Russia. Moreover,
as border states once part of both the Russian Empire and Soviet
Union, their status matters far more to Moscow than to either
Washington or Brussels. Neutralization rather than participation in
NATO would be far more likely to promote regional peace and stability.

NATO already is too big and has added countries that never belonged in
the alliance. The president should focus on America's interests and
withdraw the Obama administration's Resolution of Ratification for
Montenegro.

------

Montenegro Opposition Asks Bannon To Block NATO Accession
http://www.eurasiareview.com/03032017-montenegro-opposition-asks-bannon-to-block-nato-accession/

By Dusica Tomovic

With ratification of Montenegro's NATO accession stuck in the US
Senate, two Montenegrin opposition leaders have asked Trump advisor
Steve Bannon to help keep the country out of the alliance.

Anti-NATO opposition politicians in Montenegro have written to White
House chief strategist Steve Bannon, seeking his aid in getting Donald
Trump's new US administration to reconsider America's support for
Montenegro's membership of NATO.

US Congressman Mike Turner, former NATO Parliamentary Assembly
President and, Chairman of the US Congress Armed Services
Subcommittee, wrote to Trump on Thursday urging him to support
Montenegro's accession.

Turner said Montenegro had "proved itself a worthy partner to the US:
It completed essential reforms and contributed to NATO-led missions."

. . .

-----

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nato-montenegro-idUSKBN1685QS

By Patricia Zengerle | WASHINGTON

In his first major speech to Congress on Tuesday, President Donald
Trump assured U.S. allies that he is committed to NATO, but some of
his fellow Republicans have been blocking a Senate vote to expand the
alliance for months.

The delay of the Senate's consideration of Montenegro's accession to
the alliance has fueled questions about whether Trump's administration
and his party will stand up to Russia despite the president's desire
for better relations.

Moscow opposes any further expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.

Montenegro, a former Yugoslav republic with a population of 650,000,
hopes to win the approval of all 28 NATO allies in time to become a
full member at a summit in May. By late February, it had been approved
by 24. Members see Montenegro's accession as a way to counter Russia's
efforts to expand its influence in the Balkans.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has twice voted in favor of
Montenegro, first in December and again in January.

But objections by Republican Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee have
blocked a vote in the full Senate.

At a September hearing, Paul questioned the wisdom of angering Russia
by allowing a tiny country that could not play a significant role in
defending the United States to join the trans-Atlantic alliance.

"I think we need to think this through, and we need to have a little
bit more of a debate," he said then.

On Wednesday, Paul said he still objected.

"I'm not so sure what they add to our defense. So I'm not so sure it's
a great idea that somehow Montenegro's going to defend the United
States," Paul told Reuters.

A spokesman for Lee said the senator objected only to the Senate
considering the matter with a quick voice vote, saying he wanted a
roll call so every member's position would be recorded.

Lee has not made his opinion on Montenegro's accession public, the
spokesman said.

ROLL CALL

Asked if a roll call vote would be scheduled, a spokesman for Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell said he had no updates to provide. If there is
a Senate vote, Montenegro's accession is expected to receive the
two-thirds majority needed to pass

. . .

-----

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/324310-why-paul-is-right-on-nato-and-mccain-is-wrong

This January, the Foreign Relations Committee recommended a vote to
ratify Montenegro's accession to NATO. This week, Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) attempted to do just that, requesting unanimous consent that
the Resolution of Ratification be approved by the full chamber without
any more debate on the floor.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected to the request and then walked off the
floor, leaving McCain so furious that he openly declared that the
junior senator from Kentucky was in cahoots with Russian President
Vladimir Putin to dismember NATO. "The only conclusion you can draw
when he [Paul] walks away," McCain remarked on the floor, "is he has
no justification for his objection to having a small nation be part of
NATO that is under assault from the Russians."

But McCain's rationale is simple-minded and ultimately misguided.

Fortunately, the bullying tactics aren't cowing Paul into submission.
There is a strong case to be made for why Montenegro becoming the 29th
member of NATO isn't a good idea. At the very least, the Senate should
have a full debate on the matter, exercising its powers of
ratification.

. . .

It's difficult to see what the positives would be for Montenegro's
inclusion. The Montenegrin government spends 1.6 percent of its GDP on
defense, short of the 2 percent threshold that NATO now uses as a
guideline. As my colleague Charles Pena wrote last November, it would
be unwise policy for the United States and the NATO alliance to take
in yet another member that won't contribute their fair share of the
defense burden.

Currently, 23 of NATO's 28 members contribute less than the 2 percent
benchmark. Montenegro would add yet another dependent country to
America's coattails, while hardly making Americans safer.

And then there's the Russia question. U.S.-Russia bilateral relations
are perhaps their worst since the early 1980s, when Washington and
Moscow were on the precipice of nuclear war. Russian officials have
repeatedly argued that incorporating Montenegro into NATO would be a
direct threat to their national interests - a not-so subtle hint that
they would respond accordingly.

If the Trump administration does indeed want to deescalate tensions
with Moscow and attempt to establish a pragmatic relationship with the
Russians on issues of common concern, it's difficult to argue how
accepting Montenegro makes that goal easier to achieve.

Paul could have articulated this on the Senate floor and explained it
to McCain - but the truth is, this isn't news to senator from
Arizona. He understands these issues and discounts them because he
cares more about looking tough and flaunting America's military than
actually enhancing American security.

NATO is a security alliance, not a get-to-know-you club where
everybody is accepted regardless of the regional circumstances and
despite how insignificant a candidate's acceptance will be.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a Middle East
and foreign policy analyst at Wikistrat. He has written for The
National Interest, Rare Politics and The American Conservative. Follow
him on Twitter @dandepetris.
Johanne Strause
2017-03-21 16:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If the hacking is done, not by his knowledge of instruction, should he be
liable?





"lo yeeOn" wrote in message news:oaqh1p$dnc$***@reader1.panix.com...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/20/donald-trump-sean-spicer-russia-adam-schiff/99410468/

Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered,"
Schiff said. "No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is
called 'fact'."

Totally unreasonable and undignified taunt! Bad for the country and
bad for the Demo constituents he supposedly represents.

I also wonder how the FBI can admit on one hand that it's been
investigating the Trump campaign for possible Russian "collusion" and
deny on the other that they wiretapped the organization. If they
really didn't bug the telephones, it is conceivable that the campaign
could have been talking to the Russians all day while keeping clean on
other forms of contact and not be found to be in touch with the
Russians. It seems that the Trump campaign could have told the
Russians to hack here and hack there --- like our "allies" in Iraq,
Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere radioed NATO to bomb here and bomb
there to fight "terrorists" and whatnot --- for Hillary's emails, all
through telephone communication.

It makes no sense to hear spies testify about anything they do or
don't. Lying is always their first and last refuge. They are masters
of disinformation.

lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
2017-05-20 17:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Johanne Strause
If the hacking is done, not by his knowledge of instruction, should
he be liable?
Another branch of this tree has talked about whether it was hacking.

I personally don't believe that there was hacking.

But suppose for argument's sake that "hacking [was] done", then what?

I believe in proportionality and priority. That is, I believe that we
must consider whether it is good for the republic to squander so much
of the administration's energy, not to mention the whole nation's
productive hours being distracted by such a frivolous scandal, whoever
is behind it.

We can say, e.g., let's wait until Trump's term is over, because right
now he has much, much more important thing to do for the country!

But no, the Deep State is so deeply and jealously guarding its
influence that it wants to make sure that whoever the US president is,
he or she will be under its control. (We know that Hillary is! Even
in her own defeat, she would tell you that she would out-Trump Trump
on Syria after Trump lobbed 39 Tomahawks into Syria 'cause otherwise
it would not be useful, in her words to journalists.)

lo yeeOn
Post by Johanne Strause
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/20/donald-trump-sean-spicer-russia-adam-schiff/99410468/
Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered,"
Schiff said. "No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is
called 'fact'."
Totally unreasonable and undignified taunt! Bad for the country and
bad for the Demo constituents he supposedly represents.
I also wonder how the FBI can admit on one hand that it's been
investigating the Trump campaign for possible Russian "collusion" and
deny on the other that they wiretapped the organization. If they
really didn't bug the telephones, it is conceivable that the campaign
could have been talking to the Russians all day while keeping clean on
other forms of contact and not be found to be in touch with the
Russians. It seems that the Trump campaign could have told the
Russians to hack here and hack there --- like our "allies" in Iraq,
Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere radioed NATO to bomb here and bomb
there to fight "terrorists" and whatnot --- for Hillary's emails, all
through telephone communication.
It makes no sense to hear spies testify about anything they do or
don't. Lying is always their first and last refuge. They are masters
of disinformation.
lo yeeOn
Loading...