Conspiracy Theories / Wild Predictions

[Maximus]

"Lock her up"

Susan Rice?

 

[Sebastian]

Oh no. I was just talking about the conspiracy of 40+ Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch.





That's a double potential conspiracy.

1) Did Trump conspire with the Russians to affect American public opinion prior to the election?

2) Did people within the Obama Administration conspire to illegally leak intelligence wiretaps/surveillance for political purposes?

My guesses are 1) No, and 2) Yes. With respect to 1), I think it is extremely unlikely that Trump himself was involved in anything like that. It is more possible that someone within his campaign/affiliated with his campaign/sympathized with his campaign did that. I think the most likely explanation is that Trump's openly-expressed desire to reset relations with Russia and/or change policy for fighting ISIS, was all the incentive Russia needed. That, along with strongly disagreeing with the Obama Admin policies in Syria.

2), it is pretty much impossible to avoid the conclusion that legitimate intelligence surveillance of Russia was leaked by someone to the media. Exactly who was involved in that...not known yet.

It is likely that one doesn't happen without the other.

The only likely way Trump's people would be caught in the FISA net is if they were talking to Russians. So Trump and Co. should be careful what they wish for in this mess by "nailing Obama" they could get hoisted by their own petard.

 

[David.]

It is likely that one doesn't happen without the other.

The only likely way Trump's people would be caught in the FISA net is if they were talking to Russians. So Trump and Co. should be careful what they wish for in this mess by "nailing Obama" they could get hoisted by their own petard.

What constitutes being guilty of talking to the Russians?

Literally talking to any of them?

 

[caf]

It is likely that one doesn't happen without the other.

The only likely way Trump's people would be caught in the FISA net is if they were talking to Russians. So Trump and Co. should be careful what they wish for in this mess by "nailing Obama" they could get hoisted by their own petard.

I don't know about that.

Trump had business dealings worldwide. It seems pretty easy to just point at a foreign national from a designated country that Trump happens to communicate with and claim they are a person of interest. When in actual fact the target isn't the foreign national, the target is the US citizen.

That's why I'm against this mass collection to begin with. Probable cause can be manufactured. Easily, and after the fact.

 

[Sebastian]

What constitutes being guilty of talking to the Russians?

Literally talking to any of them?

I guess we'll find out. It is irritating that nothing has ben revealed on either side of the coin.

But, the GOP Senate is continuing to take this Russian side of things seriously so I don't think it is merely a witch hunt. Still waiting on Trump to produce any real evidence as well.

 

[-Akronite-]

1) Did Trump conspire with the Russians to affect American public opinion prior to the election?

2) Did people within the Obama Administration conspire to illegally leak intelligence wiretaps/surveillance for political purposes?

1) I think it's pretty likely given everything we've seen so far but we shall see in time. The more time goes on the more links get revealed. This latest one seems pretty damning.

2) "illegally leak intelligence wiretaps/surveillance" wait are you mixing up your Trump talking points? I thought these were separate claims, that Obama wiretapped him (didn't happen) and that there are illegal leaks (much like the DNC leaks, it's frustrating that people should have to CHOOSE problems instead of paying attention to both). Any sort of surveillance that has been brought up seems to either be incidental or perhaps something related to the FBI investigation on Russia. Nothing seems to suggest Obama has witch-hunted Trump. And of course there's all this deep state talk as if Obama is still pulling the strings to create these leaks. Much like Trump deflecting to Hillary when he's frustrated... Get over it they're no longer relevant.

My guesses are 1) No, and 2) Yes.

Of course those are your guesses.

Also love the talk about Russia as if these are all just a series of coincidences with people of no importance as if someone wasn't already fired from the administration on this or the attorney general didn't have to recuse himself. Kind of insane to be claiming a witch hunt when you control all 3 branches.

NOVEMBER: HAHA WE WON SUCK IT DEMS YOU GET NOTHING NOW WATCH US WIN WIN WIN!

APRIL: THESE DEMS ARE SO POWERFUL THEY ARE UNDERMINING MY GOVERNMENT, BLOCKING MY APPOINTMENTS, FORCING MY HEALTH CARE AND MUSLIM BAN TO FAIL WHAT CAN WE DO?*





*may contain strawmen

EDIT: Just to throw in, gotta admit I'm even surprised at how poor Donald seems to be at governing. I thought they'd have no issue getting the Obamacare repeal done, as well as the Muslim ban. It's kind of hilarious that they've actually met failure on multiple occasions already given how stacked the deck is in their favor.

Also, they seem to have no real plans for space or infrastructure so the bright spots left in this administration may be down to zero.

 

[caf]

EDIT: Just to throw in, gotta admit I'm even surprised at how poor Donald seems to be at governing. I thought they'd have no issue getting the Obamacare repeal done, as well as the Muslim ban. It's kind of hilarious that they've actually met failure on multiple occasions already given how stacked the deck is in their favor.

Also, they seem to have no real plans for space or infrastructure so the bright spots left in this administration may be down to zero.

Why would you "throw this in"? This is a conspiracy theory thread. Not a politics thread.

 

[-Akronite-]

Why would you "throw this in"? This is a conspiracy theory thread. Not a politics thread.

Did you miss where we hijacked it?

Oh um... It's- It's a DEMOCRATIC CONSPIRACY to prevent Donald from getting his agenda done! There, how's that? Or should I go back to my line about how Donald seems to deal exclusively in conspiracy theories? No, not working? Okay, I'll stop. It's just so easy to get into it with Q-Tip.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

1) I think it's pretty likely given everything we've seen so far but we shall see in time. The more time goes on the more links get revealed. This latest one seems pretty damning.

The investigation into the Russian contacts has been going on for nearly a year, most of which was under the Obama Administration. This is not like Hillary's emails, where emails were withheld, court orders setting forth lengthy release schedules, etc., were in place. If illegal communications happened between Trump and Russia, the feds already have them, and had them while Obama was still President.

Which really begs the question why we haven't seen a smoking gun. Obama's DNI Clapper, who absolutely hates Trump and would be in a better position to know about collusion than just about anyone, flatly said "we have no evidence of such collusion."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article136600203.html

buzzfeed -- which is anti-Trump as well -- reports that Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are nervous about the "wildly inflated" expectations their base has about what will be found. They don't expect to find any actual collusion either.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkin...ection-worry?utm_term=.rhqMWqD68B#.tuy63GYeXD

I suppose it's possible. I just don't see a good explanation for why these folks are downplaying expectations, and why there hasn't been any evidence of actual collusions leaked.
:

2) "illegally leak intelligence wiretaps/surveillance" wait are you mixing up your Trump talking points? I thought these were separate claims, that Obama wiretapped him (didn't happen) and that there are illegal leaks (much like the DNC leaks, it's frustrating that people should have to CHOOSE problems instead of paying attention to both). Any sort of surveillance that has been brought up seems to either be incidental or perhaps something related to the FBI investigation on Russia. Nothing seems to suggest Obama has witch-hunted Trump. And of course there's all this deep state talk as if Obama is still pulling the strings to create these leaks. Much like Trump deflecting to Hillary when he's frustrated... Get over it they're no longer relevant.

As for the surveillance...we'll see. At this point, illegal leaks seem a certainty. What we do not yet know is if anyone directed additional, non-incidental surveillance of private American citizens for an illegal purpose.

ETA: The failure to pass a fast ObamaCare repeal shouldn't have surprised anyone. The lack of GOP Congressional agreement on an ObamaCare replacement has been obviously since 2015.

 

[caf]

As for the surveillance...we'll see. At this point, illegal leaks seem a certainty. What we do not yet know is if anyone directed additional, non-incidental surveillance of private American citizens for an illegal purpose.

I agree with your hesitation to jump down the rabbit hole here as there is no evidence of systemic wrongdoing.

It is plausible that Trump and at least one associate (Flynn) had:
1) Communicated with a foreign national
2) who was a legitimate terror threat
3) and had a FISA warrant on them.
It is also possible that these incidental communications were properly masked. It is also possibly that their names were unmasked for a legitimate reason (which in Flynn's case showed no wrongdoing).

Even in that case outlined above, this sensitive data (Flynn) somehow found its way to the media and was used to force his resignation. I see no way this information went from the intelligence communities hands to the media legally. At the very LEAST at this stage someone broke the law.





However, if they were purposefully targeting Trump and his associates for somewhat more nefarious purposes (I.e. politically motivated) it's hard to imagine Trump and his associates being the only targets. If this branch of logic is proven true, it is far more likely the previous administration vastly abused their power more than once here for any political opponent deemed a threat. I'm really hoping this is not the case.

 

[caf]

I would also like to point out that Obama is currently residing outside the United States in a country with no US extradition laws and has been for some time.

 

[Sebastian]

The investigation into the Russian contacts has been going on for nearly a year, most of which was under the Obama Administration. This is not like Hillary's emails, where emails were withheld, court orders setting forth lengthy release schedules, etc., were in place. If illegal communications happened between Trump and Russia, the feds already have them, and had them while Obama was still President.

Which really begs the question why we haven't seen a smoking gun. Obama's DNI Clapper, who absolutely hates Trump and would be in a better position to know about collusion than just about anyone, flatly said "we have no evidence of such collusion."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article136600203.html

buzzfeed -- which is anti-Trump as well -- reports that Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are nervous about the "wildly inflated" expectations their base has about what will be found. They don't expect to find any actual collusion either.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkin...ection-worry?utm_term=.rhqMWqD68B#.tuy63GYeXD

I suppose it's possible. I just don't see a good explanation for why these folks are downplaying expectations, and why there hasn't been any evidence of actual collusions leaked.
:


As for the surveillance...we'll see. At this point, illegal leaks seem a certainty. What we do not yet know is if anyone directed additional, non-incidental surveillance of private American citizens for an illegal purpose.

ETA: The failure to pass a fast ObamaCare repeal shouldn't have surprised anyone. The lack of GOP Congressional agreement on an ObamaCare replacement has been obviously since 2015.

I'd also add Carthego delanda est.

 

[CommD]

Interesting how in October 2016, the lewd Trump Access Hollywood tape was released one day after the joint DHS and ODNI statement on the Russian hacking campaign to influence the 2016 U.S. election was released.

Masters of deflection using the 'shiny object'?

Just like the POTUS releasing a tweet on being wiretapped by Obama after watching "random" Fox News reports. Whatever happened to that Jeff Sessions lying in his confirmation hearing issue anyway?

Perhaps there is a reason why chief political strategist Steve Bannon attends the National Security Council meetings and has access to its data (breaking all precedent), some of which has subsequently been deployed politically and selectively to the House Intelligence Committee Chairman.

Conspiracy...or political strategy?

 

[caf]

Interesting how in October 2016, the lewd Trump Access Hollywood tape was released one day after the joint DHS and ODNI statement on the Russian hacking campaign to influence the 2016 U.S. election was released.

Masters of deflection using the 'shiny object'?

Just like the POTUS releasing a tweet on being wiretapped by Obama after watching "random" Fox News reports. Whatever happened to that Jeff Sessions lying in his confirmation hearing issue anyway?

Perhaps there is a reason why chief political strategist Steve Bannon attends the National Security Council meetings and has access to its data (breaking all precedent), some of which has subsequently been deployed politically and selectively to the House Intelligence Committee Chairman.

Conspiracy...or political strategy?

Can you elaborate on the "conspiracy" you're referencing?

Your post reads like just a bunch of political opinions. This isn't a catchall politics thread.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Interesting how in October 2016, the lewd Trump Access Hollywood tape was released one day after the joint DHS and ODNI statement on the Russian hacking campaign to influence the 2016 U.S. election was released.

I don't understand your point. The Hollywood Access tape was released and disseminated. by people who wanted to sink Trump, not help him. And it almost worked.

Masters of deflection using the 'shiny object'?

Again, that doesn't make sense. The problem for the Democrats -- and really, the core problem with the whole idea that Russians trying to influence the electorate delegitimized his election -- was that a lot of people cared more about the substance of the DNC leaks than their source. And people were entitled to make that judgment regardless of whether or not the media or the Democrat thought that was right.

The "it was the Russians" finger-point was made way back in July by Hillary and the DNC, pretty much as soon as the story leaked. It just didn't appear to stick -- at least if you buy the argument that the entire thing helped Trump.