Senate Intel Committe goes full Russiaphobe
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Flynn in talks to testify in Trump-Russia probe if assured of immunity
In a statement, Flynn's attorney Robert Kelner said the retired Army lieutenant general "certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mp-russia-probe-in-exchange-for-immunity.html
We'd all sure like to hear what you have to say General Bubba. :0)
Russian 'reset' my ass.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Highly informative lol.
Stephen Cohen is a voice of sanity in today's Russiaphobic Amerika
There you go again with the big fat lies. The FBI already stated there is nothing to support these emotional hysterics and false narratives. Why does the Party of the Jackass continue promoting them? That's rhetorical; they do so because they are sociopathic lying hypocrites on steroids.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
:0) 'Stupid' .. that from Trump's Royal Ass-Licker who was too fucking dumb to see this train wreck coming.
You make 8th grade excuses for Trump's failures and idiocy at every turn, no matter how glaringly obvious the offense .. just like you're doing right now. You don't have a clue about what Flynn is going to say .. and there's a LOT more smoke to this fire than just Flynn. But of course, you're too stupid to know that.
You sir are a truly ignorant man. Feel free to call me stupid anytime you like. :0)
ROFL.. you are an idiot. so where is this Russian collusion? Spell it out for us, connect some dots. make a case
or simply throw up a website link and then sit there and go "see what I got".
I can think of a few things -most obvious is failure to disclose his Turkish money.
as usual you got nothing. No understanding of geo-politics, nothing but mindless hate for Trump
On the latter you are in good company. join the idiots. It's about what I expect from a Truther .. lol @ you
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
The beauty of this conversation is that you have no idea how completely ignorant you are. No clue.I don't have to waste one second 'debating' with a clueless moron. I can simply sit back and allow the facts to speak for themselves .. while laughing at you.
Don't look now Einstein, but many republicans are starting to distance themselves from Trump and Russia .. just like I said they would.
I could easily post lots of evidence of that .. but look it up yourself dummy .. or don't.
Either way, you still look the absolute fool.
I don't have to waste one second 'debating' with a clueless moron. I can simply sit back and allow the facts to speak for themselves .. while laughing at you.
Don't look now Einstein, but many republicans are starting to distance themselves from Trump and Russia .. just like I said they would. I could easily post lots of evidence of that .. but look it up yourself dummy .. or don't.
Either way, you still look the absolute fool.
there are no "facts" you idiot.
Trump being distanced by establishment Republicans isn't exactly new,
and the "smoke" coming from Capitol Hill is expected.
I won't explain to you how breaking a Sino-Russian alliance benefits the US - as does detente from Cold War 2.0
You've thrown in with the McCain/Graham crowd...not unexpected since you supported the neocon Hillary.
It's just kina sad! (Trump)
But then you never understood just what the destruction of Libya meant
when associated with the Sinai Province and AQIM
Putin spokesman: US-Russia relations 'maybe worse' now than Cold War
The relationship between the U.S. and Russia may be more antagonistic now than it was during the decades-long Cold War, Russian President Vladimir Putin's top spokesman said Friday.
Asked by ABC's "Good Morning America" host George Stephanopoulos if the U.S. and Russia were in a "new Cold War," Dmitry Peskov said the current situation may be worse, blaming the U.S. for disintegrating of cooperation between the two countries.
"New Cold War? Well, maybe even worse. Maybe even worse taking into account actions of the past presidential administration in Washington," Peskov told Stephanopoulos
http://thehill.com/policy/internati...relationship-maybe-worse-now-than-during-cold
The relationship between the U.S. and Russia may be more antagonistic now than it was during the decades-long Cold War, Russian President Vladimir Putin's top spokesman said Friday.
Asked by ABC's "Good Morning America" host George Stephanopoulos if the U.S. and Russia were in a "new Cold War," Dmitry Peskov said the current situation may be worse, blaming the U.S. for disintegrating of cooperation between the two countries.
"New Cold War? Well, maybe even worse. Maybe even worse taking into account actions of the past presidential administration in Washington," Peskov told Stephanopoulos
http://thehill.com/policy/internati...relationship-maybe-worse-now-than-during-cold
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Who gives a fuck what Putin or his spokesman thinks or says?
If Putin gave a fuck about a cold war, he wouldn't of had any involvement in hacking a US election, you idiot.
Of course you're free to believe Putin over US Intelligence. That's your job as Ass-Licker in Chief.
But unbeknownst to a dummy, Trump is already a lame duck .. in under 90 days .. and you never saw that coming. :0) genius
Getin the ring
Verified User
I don't have to waste one second 'debating' with a clueless moron. I can simply sit back and allow the facts to speak for themselves .. while laughing at you.
Don't look now Einstein, but many republicans are starting to distance themselves from Trump and Russia .. just like I said they would.
I could easily post lots of evidence of that .. but look it up yourself dummy .. or don't.
Either way, you still look the absolute fool.
you're a sad man aren't you?
but I digress
here's an idea, why don't liberals have an end game of some sort?
or get on board with fixing things, important things, like jobs creation, illegal immigration, ISIS
If I thought for one minute something positive could come out of investigating Trump / Russian collusion I could possibly take liberals seriously.
Have you asked yourself that question, what the fuck do you want this to lead to?
A fight with Russia? are you insane?
It is just mind boggling how sour grape whiney crybabies can stomp up and down without stopping to think what possibly do they hope to gain from this.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
:0) Just who in the fuck do you think cares if you take liberals serious or not? WHO?
Did you throw a hissy fit when republicans were obstructionists during all 8 of Obama's years in office? Did you tell them to get positive? Let me guess .. NO.
Dude, you're supporting a clown, the worst president in history. How in the hell do you presume to give advice to anyone about politics?
"hacking an election" is typical of your inability to use clear words -expected from a mindfucked Truther who watches too much MSNBC..
Who gives a fuck what Putin or his spokesman thinks or says?
If Putin gave a fuck about a cold war, he wouldn't of had any involvement in hacking a US election, you idiot.
Of course you're free to believe Putin over US Intelligence. That's your job as Ass-Licker in Chief.
But unbeknownst to a dummy, Trump is already a lame duck .. in under 90 days .. and you never saw that coming. :0) genius
I question the IC. they are masters of deception, and if you understood why the CIA was formed to begin with-or how rapproachment with Russia threatens their raison d'etre you'd at least be able to see some healthy skepticism is called for here.
I am playing devil's advocate because the CIA et allhas become the Deep State with the rise of the politicized IC leadership
But then again you're a Democrat-despite all the protestations otherwise- so I don't expect you to look at anything
other then thru partisan eyes.
There's a lot of questioning about the malware used, regardless of Clappers simply stating it's from "Russian State Actors".
And please don't tell me the "17 INTEL agencies agree" because you don't understand the nature of how the DNI spoke for all of them.
You should put down your ridiculous Trutherism,and take a dispassionate look at what's going on here, instead of following the political stampede.
But that would mean you would have to have an independent mind, and you've long shown you are lacking such
when you support a warhorse like Clinton over Bernie.
Getin the ring
Verified User
so tell us oh wise one, what would like this Trump Russia collusion investigation to lead to,
some end game you have in mind? or just makes you feel good to whine?
and try to stay on topic, instead of resorting to the usual moral equivilence BS
Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party
or nearly a half century – since late in the Vietnam War – the Democrats have been the less warlike of the two parties, but that has flipped with the choice of war hawk Hillary Clinton, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The Democratic Party has moved from being what you might call a reluctant war party to an aggressive war party with its selection of Hillary Clinton as its presumptive presidential nominee. With minimal debate, this historic change brings full circle the arc of the party’s anti-war attitudes that began in 1968 and have now ended in 2016.
Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.
But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.
As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent
In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another “regime change,” albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a “no-fly zone” to “protect civilians.”
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women.
Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her “no-fly zone.” Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi
But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi’s demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared, “we came, we saw, he died” and clapped her hands in glee.
Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” sidekicks in support of another violent “regime change,” ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.
In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to “liberate” the people of Crimea from “Russian aggression” (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?
Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving “regime change” in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?
new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated “crises” in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, “usable”) nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone — having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State.
Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking “free trade” agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a “new Hitler” waging a “new genocide”. Who needs to be reminded that Hillary’s domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global “crises” take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/hillary-and-the-war-party/
or nearly a half century – since late in the Vietnam War – the Democrats have been the less warlike of the two parties, but that has flipped with the choice of war hawk Hillary Clinton, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The Democratic Party has moved from being what you might call a reluctant war party to an aggressive war party with its selection of Hillary Clinton as its presumptive presidential nominee. With minimal debate, this historic change brings full circle the arc of the party’s anti-war attitudes that began in 1968 and have now ended in 2016.
Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.
But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.
As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent
In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another “regime change,” albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a “no-fly zone” to “protect civilians.”
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women.
Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her “no-fly zone.” Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi
But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi’s demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared, “we came, we saw, he died” and clapped her hands in glee.
Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” sidekicks in support of another violent “regime change,” ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.
In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to “liberate” the people of Crimea from “Russian aggression” (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?
Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving “regime change” in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?
new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated “crises” in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, “usable”) nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone — having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State.
Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking “free trade” agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a “new Hitler” waging a “new genocide”. Who needs to be reminded that Hillary’s domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global “crises” take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/hillary-and-the-war-party/
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
BAC, you really shouldn't post......you make white supremacists look credible......
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I gave the liberal snowflakes a thread to show their "proof"; but it seems to have scared the shit out of them.
Actual proof