Obama on Russia: Who can?????t Forget!

[_canpakes]

This is what you asked....

How is Trump not going to the FBI with what Russia was attempting to do not a major concern for you?

I am asking you for a cf for this...what page in the report is it on?

I don’t think that the purpose of the report was to document Trump’s past inaction on this matter. Maybe the reference instead is to Trump’s Helsinki comments, where we heard the following:

" ... I think that the United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish. ... And I think we're all to blame....

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.

So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.“

Apart from Trump’s Russian apology and strangely fawning infatuation for Putin’s “powerful” denial, Trump plainly telegraphed his intent to accept as truth whatever the leader of our geopolitical arch rival told him to believe about past actions, and Trump proclaimed the desire to completely ignore interference claims while in front of an international audience, on live TV. So you probably can’t blame anyone for believing that Trump will not be attempting to mitigate future Russian shenanigans, let alone even acknowledge their existence.

It’s also reasonable for folks to come to the conclusion that you believe Obama to be the greater villain in this story, regardless of Trump’s inaction in the face of now-plainly-known facts that Obama did not receive the full scope of, and regardless of Trump’s live, international and public disrespecting of his own intelligence services.

[_canpakes]

More for you, Markk -

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was urged by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney not to bring up the subject of possible Russian interference in the 2020 election to President Donald Trump, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Citing interviews with three unnamed senior administration officials and one former senior official, the Times said Nielsen, who left the White House earlier this month, was told by Mulvaney in a meeting this year that Trump "still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory."

Mulvaney, one official told the paper, said in the meeting the subject of Russian interference in the upcoming election "wasn't a great subject and should be kept below (Trump's) level."

According to the Times, during her tenure, Nielsen organized two meetings with Cabinet secretaries and agency heads, including top Justice Department and intelligence officials, to address the issue of interference.

The paper said she eventually abandoned efforts to design a strategy with other Cabinet secretaries to "to protect next year's election," and that the result was that the issue of Russian interference "did not gain the urgency or widespread attention that a president can command."
Many

[_honorentheos]

I stand by my comparison. Asking for evidence out of the Mueller report that demonstrates Trump or members of his campaign didn't go to the FBI when the Russians approached them is ignoring that this is why the Mueller report exists in the first place.

It shows a comprehensive lack of understanding on the subject.

[_Markk]

Hmmm. You asked if EAllusion, Mak or I had "read" the OP and were reminded it was discussed on page 1.

You asked me a very specific question Hor, I am asking you to cite the your source?

You wrote...

Fair enough, Markk. So what about the discussion then? How is Trump not going to the FBI with what Russia was attempting to do not a major concern for you?

I am asking you for CF, so I can properly answer your question... There are a lot things that concern me about Trump, and our "goverment" as a whole.

Hor wrote...But now you want the evidence from the Mueller report showing Trump didn't go to the FBI to inform them of Russia's attempts to influence the election?

I am asking you to provide me a source so I can understand the context of your assertion, so I can answer your question. I am not saying that this is not addressed in the report, I am saying I can't find it?

Hor wrote...That's like asking for the article at ESPN that shows they employ sports reporters by stating they employ sports reporters.

HuH... In other words, you expect me to accept, and more specifically comment on, your position as factual, without you providing a source for your assertion? Again, I would like to read your source and understand the or a specific context of your assertion.

[_Markk]

I stand by my comparison. Asking for evidence out of the Mueller report that demonstrates Trump or members of his campaign didn't go to the FBI when the Russians approached them is ignoring that this is why the Mueller report exists in the first place.

It shows a comprehensive lack of understanding on the subject.

If you have a understanding, it should be fairly easy to point me to a cf where Trump knowingly colluded with the "Russians" in order to help him get elected in the report. The Report, or at least the parts that I read do not make that claim.

[Guest]

Markk, are you asking for proof that something did not happen? That Trump did not approach the FBI after the Tower meeting to let the Feds know what the Russians were proposing?

[_EAllusion]

What the report makes clear is that the Trump team was aware of Russian attempts to illegally influence the election on their behalf. It also makes clear they welcomed that interference and incompetently tried to participate in it. They had extensive connections to Russian government figures while they were both publicly denying any connections to Russia and casting doubt in public over the very interference they were welcoming. At the same time, it is strongly suggested that they were in cooperation with Assange while he was acting as a cutout for Russian intelligence to time the release of stolen campaign materials. They consistently misled the public on this every step of the way. When the subsequent investigation into Russian interference happened, Donald Trump took a large number of steps to obstruct that investigation, some of which were at least partially successful.

If your takeaway from this is “No collusion! Everything is fine!” you very much are the result of a successful influence operation.

[_subgenius]

What the report makes clear is that the Trump team was aware of Russian attempts to illegally influence the election...

The Obama team and the Clinton team also being aware...so, meh.

on their behalf.

Um, not that clear - but I see your point.

It also makes clear they welcomed that interference and incompetently tried to participate in it.

That is a broad and unreasonable stroke - and one that is not made by the report. You are increasing scale without justification (other than your political bias and 24 month long brainwashing hair fire)

They had extensive connections to Russian government figures while they were both publicly denying any connections to Russia and casting doubt in public over the very interference they were welcoming.

Meaningless inasmuch as it could just be par-for-the-course political spinning...like "you can keep your doctor".

At the same time, it is strongly suggested that they were in cooperation with Assange while he was acting as a cutout for Russian intelligence to time the release of stolen campaign materials.

Foolishness. "Strongly suggested" is a dressed up version of "I reeaaally want to believe".

They consistently misled the public on this every step of the way.

The report does not state this...you are digressing into a hair-fire.

When the subsequent investigation into Russian interference happened, Donald Trump took a large number of steps to obstruct that investigation, some of which were at least partially successful.

nope.

If your takeaway from this is “No collusion! Everything is fine!” you very much are the result of a successful influence operation.

Its not my takeaway, it is Mueller's takeaway...so address your inquiries and condemnations in that direction. It was long ago predicted that guys like you never would need the Mueller report to make your decision...you decided on November 7th, 2016 and have since never 2nd guessed that burning in ye bosom.

[_Markk]

and have since never 2nd guessed that burning in ye bosom.

That genuinely made me laugh out loud.

[_EAllusion]

“Strongly suggested” is they quite clearly caught Roger Stone doing that, but some of the material on the matter is redacted as he is being prosecuted. I will gladly revise the “strongly suggested” to “did.”