Susan Rice giving Aaron Burr a run for his money

Aaron Burr was one of those figures of early American history who never held a position in that upper tier (President, Founding Father) yet he just seemed to pop up in odd and mysterious ways, almost always to the detriment of the situation or his comrades. Noted mostly for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel, he was never charged despite them already being illegal, but it ended his political career (he had risen to be VP under Jefferson, though at a time when being VP was even less of a job than it is now, Sec. of State was the place to be then). He was then involved in land scandals, the raising of a private militia, treason charges, it was a full life.

Anyway, for some reason Susan Rice made me think of him.

Today she was revealed by "sources" as the probable person ultimately responsible for "unmasking" Trump and his staff in the leaks of intellgence information.

She's also the person who as UN Ambassador was the person to go out and lie about Benghazi being a random protest started by a youtube video. she also was the schlep hound for Obama to defend Bergdahl as a POW and honorable soldier. The same one now under court martial for desertion.

I think we've met one of Obama's "dirty tricks" department heads, the people who you use when you know what you're doing is up to no good but you need someone who knows it and will do it anyway.

I'm not defending Trump, but I will observe two things in this insane mess:

1) It appears EVERYONE above my pay grade in the US has ties to the Russians. Sure we know the ties of Trump's people, but they forget all the ties the Clintons have to them plus new news coming out like the fact that Podesta's brother is a registered agent for a Russian bank. These guys have everyone on the payroll from what I can tell, on both sides.

2) For all the bluster, there's now more evidence of Trump being effectively 'wiretapped" than there is of Trump's ties to Russia. Funny since all these leaks were by Obama people to prove those ties, ignoring the fact that doing so just about insures you've committed a felony.

She has less integrity than the Minardi Hall madame.

At least Powell 'sort of' told the truth. The trash in the last administration wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the face.

She's saying she didn't nothing wrong. I"m sure she's a basically honest person....

She would not know wrong it it bit her on the nose

At one time I felt sorry for her. When team Obama/Clinton rolled her out to propagate the Bengazi lie of the YouTube video.being the cause, I assume she was the patsy. Does not look that way now. I suspect she is as crooked as those two.

You know, "IF" we had a real FBI Director that was a real cop and not a bi-partisan political hack, and "IF" we had a real Attorney General who wasn't a part of the current political apparatus, and "IF" anybody in Washington really cared more about our country instead of "just the politics", we might actually fond out what really happened.
Naw, those days are long gone. This is just more political theater, and in the end, all that is going to happen is that there will be lots of hot air blown about, and that's all. Kind of like the UNC-CHEAT academic scandal that will never see any meaningful enforcement or resolution.

I suspect Trump had some Intel about being surveilled and went to Twitter with it.
The problem is there will be no retribution against anyone involved in this by the government or the media. In fact the media is doing its part to discount the claim even though the items are slowly being shown to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

You know, "IF" we had a real FBI Director that was a real cop and not a bi-partisan political hack, and "IF" we had a real Attorney General who wasn't a part of the current political apparatus, and "IF" anybody in Washington really cared more about our country instead of "just the politics", we might actually fond out what really happened.
Naw, those days are long gone. This is just more political theater, and in the end, all that is going to happen is that there will be lots of hot air blown about, and that's all. Kind of like the UNC-CHEAT academic scandal that will never see any meaningful enforcement or resolution.

---

Susan Rice is a polarizing figure who has limited credibility with conservatives. Here is a strong criticism of her in the Washington Post regarding Syria.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.76a9e1fefeca

Honestly she has limited credibility with everyone. WaPo as you noted gave her over the coals over the Syria chemical weapons, she was the point for the cover story for Benghazi about the video, and there have been others.

I don't blame her, she's clearly the designated person to go do those things, which is what makes her role in the unmasking so significant. I find it hard to believe she has acted independently in any of this, b/c she's clearly done these other things on direction from others.

With the unmasking, any NSA person would have the obligation to know what Americans were either being discussed by Russian operatives or were actually talking to Russian operatives.

I am more open to that aspect of this as national security matters to me. And the thought that any high placed official is compromised by the Russians or working for them voluntarily is a concern.

And yes any official or official whose family has been paid by the Russians is a real concern.

But the Post is considered a liberal paper, it says something that she got 4 pinochios is telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

With the unmasking, any NSA person would have the obligation to know what Americans were either being discussed by Russian operatives or were actually talking to Russian operatives.

I am more open to that aspect of this as national security matters to me. And the thought that any high placed official is compromised by the Russians or working for them voluntarily is a concern.

And yes any official or official whose family has been paid by the Russians is a real concern.

But the Post is considered a liberal paper, it says something that she got 4 pinochios is telling.

---

Well the clintons were paid at least $1 million by the Russians, in cash. Podesta's brother is a registered foreign agent for a Russian bank. Those are just a few of the ties on the other side.

I say that b/c the truth is that at this level these people all have LOTS of ties to various foreign countries, b/c their businesses are international in nature.

So there's normal business interaction, like a Senator Sessions having talks with the Russian Ambassador, then there's far more questionable stuff, and funny enough the most questionable stuff so far was all tied to the Clintons and not Trump. Trump may be up to his eyeballs in it, but so far none of these intentional leaks or unmasking events have shown anything that's been made public. It may be there, but nothing so far.

Now I'm not a big defender of Trump and I don't really like the guy, and as a billionaire businessman I know he didn't get there by being nice or clean, but objectively so far the only money transfers, the only policy decisions, the only clear ties between the Russians and anyone is the very candidate they may have also wanted to hurt. Maybe b/c their business relationship faltered or they thought Hillary would be more aggressive and hawkish than Trump, not an unreasonable assumption.

But back to the unmasking. That's a VERY serious thing, and just saying that it was only shared among people in national security is very distrubing to me. They have specific protections in place to protect constitutional rights to privacy, and if they violated those not b/c of the need to protect national security but to damage someone politically, that's a huge deal.

I've never been a big theorist on the "deep state" or "dark state", but this past few months has convinced me it is very real and very dangerous.

I worry about any candidate that is backed or supported by the Russians. And while politics plays a part of all government stuff. If Russian agents talk about or talk to any American that is an issue.

I also worry that sessions was not forthcoming during his confirmation.

The clintons are horrible. I am not flying their banner. I just see a guy who appears to have been supported by the Russians alienating allies and otherwise implementing policies that will long term hurt the country.

Good people voted for trump or against Clinton. They cast their vote in good faith.

More than any other president I fear this one will work against the interests of Americans and the nation itself.

Americans deserve a president that will trust work in our best interests.

Had Clinton won, you would have had a candidate who was for herself, and sold 20% of the US Uranium stockpile to Russian interests.
I'm still waiting to see the pertinent connections that Trump was influenced by the Russian government. Not doubting it didn't happen, but the proof is flimsy at best at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Good people voted for trump or against Clinton. They cast their vote in good faith.

More than any other president I fear this one will work against the interests of Americans and the nation itself.

Americans deserve a president that will trust work in our best interests.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

I just see a guy who appears to have been supported by the Russians alienating allies and otherwise implementing policies that will long term hurt the country.

---

I see a guy who may have been aided by the Russians as part of the Russian's own agenda, but I seriously doubt their goal was to aid him in any way or that anything was ever coordinated.

it was almost a given that Trump would work against their national interests in as many ways as Clinton. While he was more isolationist than Clinton, he also was calling for rebuilding our military and putting "America first". it was going to be a far less soft and passive role for the US than Obama had for us, no matter who won.

If the Russians saw benefit in aiding Trump or even seeing him elected it was b/c he is such a polarizing figure and it would disrupt American politics, not b/c they thought he'd be their puppet or pawn in some way. They may have also simply wanted to generally disrupt the election process and sow doubt in our leaders, which they did by exposing duplicity and such.

As conspiracy theories go, it's as plausible that the clintons were tied to Putin and their relationship went bad and this was a vendetta as it is to believe Putin was working with Trump in some way. There are so many ways to play that game I don't know where to start.

As for alienating allies, I'm not sure who you mean. He's mouthed off to China and Mexico, but China is definitely not an ally, and mexico needs some calling out on some things (though I don't dispute he's been over the top with this as with everything else). he's called out NATO nations for not paying their agreed upon share of expenses, but there's no real harm in some saber rattling even with allies from time to time.

Obama alienated the living hell out of some allies like Israel and even Iraq, and ask the Saudis and the rest of the Middle East how well they took his agreement with Iran. His support of the Brotherhood in Egypt and lack of support for the military taking over again has also done damage there, to the only regime that has been able to maintain control over that country for 60 years. those things have substantively strained relationships with key allies in very real ways, far more than Trump's campaign rhetoric.

Further, his inaction on issues like Chinese expansion and North Korea's development of nuclear capable missiles has led to very serious issues with our allies, not the least of which is the rise of Japanese nationalism. The Japanese PM is pushing to re-write their constitution to allow more military powers and options, and the area is as unstable as it has been since the removal of Taiwan from the UN in 1979.

Those are real things that alienate our allies far more than what any candidate says on the campaign trail.

Now I'm not defending his rhetoric. Trump has said so many over the top things I never even tried to count. But I don't see it as a dire situation, any more than the alarm raised about Reagan's rhetoric proved to be any kind of issue. In fact having a President willing to rattle the saber and even use force decisively has proven to be far more assuring to our allies, and intimidating to our enemies, than all the measured talk and diplomacy of a President like Obama.

Citizen,

We agree that both candidates are flawed. And I would have real concerns about the Clintons had she won. But she didn't so whatever conflicts of interest with Russia or any country she has is not an issue of national security today. That is not the case with the current administration.

Our inaction in the Ukraine and Syria is great criticism on Obama as these examples really show how Russia began to reassert itself globally.

Trump's position (until yesterday) on NATO has been alarming. More than anything to embrace Putin and question NATO's continued relevance worried me.

As of last night, Mr. Trump has changed his stance. Will it last? I don't know.

North Korea is a problem many thought would just go away. Instead they are more entrenched than ever. A large conventional force that could overrun the DMZ and take Seoul pretty easily is a great concern.

Richard Haas mentioned every country that has disarmed, has been overrun: Iraq, Libya, and the Ukraine. This is a bad lesson for North Korea to have learned.

In the abstract I like a leader who will keep our enemies on their toes.

Love Reagan but I was very young when he led the nation. I do worry about Reagan's legacy domestically. I really am concerned with those who wrap themselves up in Reagan but don't appear to have the same level of compassion on a personal basis.

Trump, unlike Reagan, has never been a head of a government. Reagan was unpredictable in a sense. But Trump's position on issues appears manic in the first 80 plus days. I like the stronger stance on Syria but not happy with why he may have changed his position (Fox news and his daughter?). The use of US military might should be used only when necessary and with specific objectives in place.

Reagan was consistent with our allies--no confrontation with Australia, England, or at the time West Germany.

Not that we have to, but in terms of the big picture we agree. I clearly have more concerns about Trump's positions and many of the things he is doing domestically that are not receiving the attention it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Americans deserve a president that will trust work in our best interests.

---

We haven't had one of those in a long long time.

History--

Re the Clintons. they absolutely have huge conflicts of interest vis a vis Russia, and other nations. when Bill Clinton goes to Moscow and is paid $1 million in speaking fees ($500K for 2 speeches) by a company with deep ties to Putin and his energy interests, as the same time that Hillary as sec. of State has to sign off on a purchase by one of that entities companies of 20-25% of the US uranimum reserve, that should have been a national scandal immediately.

The Russia ties thing is nonsense, and months of investigating has found nothing. It sells b/c of Trumps comments about Putin not b/c there was any real evidence there to support a scandal. So far it seems that the Clintons actually have more ties to Russia and Putin than Trump. Other than the circumstance that the Russians apparently hacked Podesta and released the info to wikileaks there's not much there, and it's so murky I have no idea why they'd do that, but it's not clear it was FOR Trump rather than just against Hillary or against US democracy generally.

It's a scandal that sells on the surface b/c Trump talked nice about PUtin and the Russians hurt Hillary in the race, but as you drill down things get much more complex. Why did Russia want to hurt Hillary when she was SoS they had a great relationship? Hillary was the force behind the "reset" and personally worked to bring US tech companies to Russia, setting up a tech park and getting Apple, GOogle etc. on board. Bill did speeches, there were good ties here. Then things went sour. Was it the Crimea and it all blew up and Putin feels wronged?

Heck, Podesta's own brother is a registered foreign agent for a Russian bank. The politics of this stuff is murky and questionable. But the Clintons are up to their eyebrows in it through the Foundation and that separate consulting company that was funneling the money.

And it's not just them, that's the problem with the entire power structure of this country. It's like in Braveheart when the Scottish nobles didn't want to go to war b/c they had as much invested in England as they did in Scotland. The super rich and powerful have investments everywhere, and they are always working to influence our nation for their interests, which are not necessarily the US's interests even if they own things here.

That's why it's so easy to find these "ties". all of these big time consultants, lawyers, PR firms, investment firms, they ALL have foreign agency with various countries. They all meet with foreign actors. Some are legit and necessary, some are for the making of money, some are I'm sure nefarious.

Re Trump's change in position, I was going to start a thread on this, but he did exactly what I and some others predicted.

Read his book, "Art of the Deal". He says explicitly to start with the most outrageous terms in your favor and negotiate down. That's why his campaign sound bytes never bothered me. Did people really think he could or would do something like withdraw from NATO? That was never on the table, but rattling his saber to get those other nations to start ponying up? Sure, that's a real possibility, and we already see the that he's in fact getting them to do it already.

Trump is a salesman, a self promoter. he knows how to make a pitch, work a crowd, but he also knows how to make a deal work and get things done. He never got where he did by being a lunatic, or not listening to smart people, so I never thought he would start now.

So we see him listening to his Generals, we see him trying to find a deal. Not even a little surprising.

And also not "flipping" on his positions. As long as you went into it understanding that those were never his "positions" like a traditional politician has an ideology and positions on issues. Those were his opening offers. They were never going to be what he did, they were just the general direction in which he was going to move things.

And that's what he's doing. And BTW it freakin' works a lot. Illegal immigration crossings at the border are down 70% just b/c of his rhetoric. NATO will IMO emerge stronger than ever with him making others start to carry a bit more of the water, being more invested in the organization.

It's unconventional, and I don't even really like it compared to other methods, but it is why he never scared me. He built and ran a multi-billion dollar business. he's a showman that would make Barnum blush, but there's a method to his madness.

He also appears to be listening to the very smart people he surrounded himself with and moving the ones that do not fit the mission out of the public eye if not completely out of the group of advisors. I think he is entrenched in his primary goals. He may have to take less than he wants in the end, but it will not be without a fight and the fight could be a very public one.

Regarding the Clintons, did bill not gift 4 nuclear reactors to North Korea? What problem are we dealing with now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

Regarding the Clintons, did bill not gift 4 nuclear reactors to North Korea? What problem are we dealing with now?

---

This current Korean problem is on several Presidents, certainly including Clinton. There's the Loral situation, which is maybe far worse than was thought at the time, but mostly for his doing things like sending Carter over as Lord Chamberlain where we got a useless agreement and gave them food aid that helped sustain their regime.

But Clinton wasn't alone, US Presidents for a long time have passed the buck on their nuclear program to future generations.