Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[UNI88]

Opinion - Putin’s overseas empire is collapsing all at once — don’t let up on him now

And with Assad’s regime likely coming to an end, Russian influence in the region may be ending, too.

At risk now are two key military facilities: the Khmeimim airbase, from which Russian aircraft have been launching attacks against Syrian Rebels and civilians, and Tartus, home to Syria’s only naval base. And without these two bases, Russian operations in the Middle East, the Sahel region of Africa, and Sudan will likely grind to a halt as well.
...
In hindsight, this is the result of Hamas’s ill-conceived Oct. 7 terrorist attack against Israel — likely directed by Iran with Russia’s support. Already preoccupied with their own problems, neither Russia nor Iran nor Hezbollah are in any position to come to Assad’s aide. Putin’s war with Ukraine has drained Russian resources, and Israel has weakened Iran and its proxies. The regional kaleidoscope is now shifting, and conditions are ripe for the “wider regional conflict” that the Biden administration feared.
...
Russia is overextended. Should the pro-Russian Dream Party-led government collapse, Abkhazia and South Ossetia could come back into play for Georgia. A significantly weakened conventional Russian military may not be able to retain these Russian-occupied territories. The loss of the port in Abkhazia would be detrimental to Russian influence in the Black Sea.
...
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, losses continue to mount at a staggering pace. In November alone, while making gains in the Donetsk sector, Russia amassed over 45,720 casualties, also losing 307 tanks, 899 armored combat vehicles, and 884 pieces of artillery. November also ushered in a new single-day record of 2,030 Russian casualties. For purposes of comparison, only 14,500 Russian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989.
...
Putin’s Jenga tower is listing hard. Neither the Biden nor Trump administrations should consider anything short of a complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, and the restoration of its 1991 borders. All instruments of national power — Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economic — should be leveraged to end the war on the best terms possible for Ukraine.

I put this here because it goes beyond Ukraine.

[DSUrocks07]

Opinion - Putin’s overseas empire is collapsing all at once — don’t let up on him now

And with Assad’s regime likely coming to an end, Russian influence in the region may be ending, too.

At risk now are two key military facilities: the Khmeimim airbase, from which Russian aircraft have been launching attacks against Syrian Rebels and civilians, and Tartus, home to Syria’s only naval base. And without these two bases, Russian operations in the Middle East, the Sahel region of Africa, and Sudan will likely grind to a halt as well.
...
In hindsight, this is the result of Hamas’s ill-conceived Oct. 7 terrorist attack against Israel — likely directed by Iran with Russia’s support. Already preoccupied with their own problems, neither Russia nor Iran nor Hezbollah are in any position to come to Assad’s aide. Putin’s war with Ukraine has drained Russian resources, and Israel has weakened Iran and its proxies. The regional kaleidoscope is now shifting, and conditions are ripe for the “wider regional conflict” that the Biden administration feared.
...
Russia is overextended. Should the pro-Russian Dream Party-led government collapse, Abkhazia and South Ossetia could come back into play for Georgia. A significantly weakened conventional Russian military may not be able to retain these Russian-occupied territories. The loss of the port in Abkhazia would be detrimental to Russian influence in the Black Sea.
...
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, losses continue to mount at a staggering pace. In November alone, while making gains in the Donetsk sector, Russia amassed over 45,720 casualties, also losing 307 tanks, 899 armored combat vehicles, and 884 pieces of artillery. November also ushered in a new single-day record of 2,030 Russian casualties. For purposes of comparison, only 14,500 Russian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989.
...
Putin’s Jenga tower is listing hard. Neither the Biden nor Trump administrations should consider anything short of a complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, and the restoration of its 1991 borders. All instruments of national power — Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economic — should be leveraged to end the war on the best terms possible for Ukraine.

I put this here because it goes beyond Ukraine.

It's likely why Russia is pivoting hard to Libya now.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Opinion - Putin’s overseas empire is collapsing all at once — don’t let up on him now



I put this here because it goes beyond Ukraine.

It's likely why Russia is pivoting hard to Libya now.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

We're missing a golden opportunity to deny them a warm-water port

[SeattleGriz]

Awfully quiet about the latest CIA assessment pretty much showing Obama directed his IC to go after Trump and good old Brennan hand picked the team.

[kalm]

Awfully quiet about the latest CIA assessment pretty much showing Obama directed his IC to go after Trump and good old Brennan hand picked the team.

Are any credible sources other than Catturd reporting on this?

[SeattleGriz]

Awfully quiet about the latest CIA assessment pretty much showing Obama directed his IC to go after Trump and good old Brennan hand picked the team.

Are any credible sources other than Catturd reporting on this?

Official government documentation. Who is Cattird?

[kalm]

Are any credible sources other than Catturd reporting on this?

Official government documentation. Who is Cattird?

Post it up then.

[UNI88]

Are any credible sources other than Catturd reporting on this?

Official government documentation. Who is Cattird?

Rumor has it that catturd is the male prostitute that trump pays to pee on him. He always has the inside scoop on the trump regime.

[UNI88]

Official government documentation. Who is Cattird?

Post it up then.

Obama’s Trump-Russia collusion report was corrupt from start: CIA review

A bombshell new CIA review of the Obama administration’s spy agencies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump was deliberately corrupted by then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who were “excessively involved” in its drafting, and rushed its completion in a “chaotic,” “atypical” and “markedly unconventional” process that raised questions of a “potential political motive.”

One, after the debacle with doge's ever changing savings, the BS that HHS has released under worm brain, etc. it's fair to question the accuracy of any report released by an executive branch under trump.

Two, the irony of trump or any MAQA yahoo complaining about the alleged weaponization of the justice and intelligence communities against him when he is clearly and overtly weaponizing the executive branch against his opponents.

[SeattleGriz]

Post it up then.

Obama’s Trump-Russia collusion report was corrupt from start: CIA review

A bombshell new CIA review of the Obama administration’s spy agencies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump was deliberately corrupted by then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who were “excessively involved” in its drafting, and rushed its completion in a “chaotic,” “atypical” and “markedly unconventional” process that raised questions of a “potential political motive.”

One, after the debacle with doge's ever changing savings, the BS that HHS has released under worm brain, etc. it's fair to question the accuracy of any report released by an executive branch under trump.

Two, the irony of trump or any MAQA yahoo complaining about the alleged weaponization of the justice and intelligence communities against him when he is clearly and overtly weaponizing the executive branch against his opponents.

This was released by the CIA.

[Caribbean Hen]

Obama’s Trump-Russia collusion report was corrupt from start: CIA review



One, after the debacle with doge's ever changing savings, the BS that HHS has released under worm brain, etc. it's fair to question the accuracy of any report released by an executive branch under trump.

Two, the irony of trump or any MAQA yahoo complaining about the alleged weaponization of the justice and intelligence communities against him when he is clearly and overtly weaponizing the executive branch against his opponents.

This was released by the CIA.

And it’s old news

Clapper and Comney should be making a movie with Clint Eastwood

Hang em high

The audacity of the self appointed geniuses that they should mettle in a US election because they know so much better than the voters…..

[kalm]

Post it up then.

Obama’s Trump-Russia collusion report was corrupt from start: CIA review

A bombshell new CIA review of the Obama administration’s spy agencies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump was deliberately corrupted by then-CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who were “excessively involved” in its drafting, and rushed its completion in a “chaotic,” “atypical” and “markedly unconventional” process that raised questions of a “potential political motive.”

One, after the debacle with doge's ever changing savings, the BS that HHS has released under worm brain, etc. it's fair to question the accuracy of any report released by an executive branch under trump.

Two, the irony of trump or any MAQA yahoo complaining about the alleged weaponization of the justice and intelligence communities against him when he is clearly and overtly weaponizing the executive branch against his opponents.

There seems to be some contention around what the report concluded. From Politico:

A CIA review released Wednesday is critical of how the agency arrived at the assessment that Russia sought to sway the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump — but finds the overall conclusion was sound.
The initial assessment, which has been condemned by Trump and his allies, was done too quickly and featured excessive involvement by intelligence agency leaders, according to the review commissioned by CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

But the review did not call into question the conclusions of the assessment, finding that it exhibited “strong adherence to tradecraft standards” and that its “analytic rigor exceeded that of most IC assessments.”
The eight-page review is the latest episode in a long-running saga over a Russian influence campaign that officials have said sought to damage Hilary Clinton and aid Trump in an election that he ultimately won by a narrow margin in a political upset that still reverberates.
The review questioned the CIA and FBI’s high confidence in the assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin “aspired” to help Trump, noting that it was based on a single source and not the multiple sources that would typically underpin such a conclusion. It did not take issue with their assessments that Putin was trying to damage Clinton’s chances.
The review noted that it did not dispute “the quality and credibility” of a CIA report that was used to inform the high confidence assessment.
“Agency heads at the time created a politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process around an issue essential to our democracy,” Ratcliffe said in a press release Wednesday. “Under my watch, I am committed to ensuring that our analysts have the ability to deliver unvarnished assessments that are free from political influence.”

Still, the review largely vindicated the 2016 assessment — and many former U.S. officials involved in its production cast it as a vote of confidence in their work.
“People have been asking whether they can trust Intelligence Community analysis given the politicized environment,” said Beth Sanner, former deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration. “This is a fair question, and there should not be a timestamp on asking it. But this report suggests that the answer, for now, remains yes.”………..

In an extensive review of the 2016 assessment, conducted as part of its wide-ranging Russia investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 found no “significant analytic tradecraft issues” with U.S. spy agencies’ work.
The oversight panel, which was headed at the time by Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC.), also dedicated “additional attention” to the assessment that Putin “aspired” to help Trump.
The CIA and FBI had “high confidence” Putin aspired to help Trump, while the NSA only had “moderate” confidence in that conclusion. The public version of the assessment released in 2017 referenced all of those judgements.
The Senate panel, for its part, concluded the agencies’ disagreement was “reasonable, transparent, and openly debated.” The fourth volume of their review, which spanned more than 150 pages alone, further stated that all witnesses interviewed by the committee saw “no attempts or pressure to politicize the findings.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/0 ... s-00438159

[CID1990]

Here’s the analyst note

https://www.cia.gov/static/Tradecraft-R ... 062625.pdf

It tracks with many things I know to be true. Including that State’s INR was left out of the assessments about the dossier, and it was Brennan who did that.

Why? Because INR has a reputation for calling balls and strikes without prejudice. For example, INR was the only IC agency to question the WMDs in Iraq assessment even as Colin Powell was making the opposite case at the UN.

The Steele Dossier was paid for by the same political campaign that floated the Obama birth cert bullshit. It had zero credibility (see: the Russia Russia Russia thread). Brennan got a permission slip from the White House and he ran with it. The NYT dropped their story the day after the WH meeting.

Signed,

An INR alum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Here’s the analyst note

https://www.cia.gov/static/Tradecraft-R ... 062625.pdf

It tracks with many things I know to be true. Including that State’s INR was left out of the assessments about the dossier, and it was Brennan who did that.

Why? Because INR has a reputation for calling balls and strikes without prejudice. For example, INR was the only IC agency to question the WMDs in Iraq assessment even as Colin Powell was making the opposite case at the UN.

The Steele Dossier was paid for by the same political campaign that floated the Obama birth cert bullshit. It had zero credibility (see: the Russia Russia Russia thread). Brennan got a permission slip from the White House and he ran with it. The NYT dropped their story the day after the WH meeting.

Signed,

An INR alum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Here’s the analyst note

https://www.cia.gov/static/Tradecraft-R ... 062625.pdf

It tracks with many things I know to be true. Including that State’s INR was left out of the assessments about the dossier, and it was Brennan who did that.

Why? Because INR has a reputation for calling balls and strikes without prejudice. For example, INR was the only IC agency to question the WMDs in Iraq assessment even as Colin Powell was making the opposite case at the UN.

The Steele Dossier was paid for by the same political campaign that floated the Obama birth cert bullshit. It had zero credibility (see: the Russia Russia Russia thread). Brennan got a permission slip from the White House and he ran with it. The NYT dropped their story the day after the WH meeting.

Signed,

An INR alum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, what a ****show. It's hard to imagine how something could've been handled any worse. Brennan certainly comes up looking awful after that read.

[UNI88]

Here’s the analyst note

https://www.cia.gov/static/Tradecraft-R ... 062625.pdf

It tracks with many things I know to be true. Including that State’s INR was left out of the assessments about the dossier, and it was Brennan who did that.

Why? Because INR has a reputation for calling balls and strikes without prejudice. For example, INR was the only IC agency to question the WMDs in Iraq assessment even as Colin Powell was making the opposite case at the UN.

The Steele Dossier was paid for by the same political campaign that floated the Obama birth cert bullshit. It had zero credibility (see: the Russia Russia Russia thread). Brennan got a permission slip from the White House and he ran with it. The NYT dropped their story the day after the WH meeting.

Signed,

An INR alum

Wow, what a ****show. It's hard to imagine how something could've been handled any worse. Brennan certainly comes up looking awful after that read.

The report clearly identifies "multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA. These included a highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation, and excessive involvement of agency heads" and Brennan looks horrible.

Does it tie back to Obama?

If I'm reading it correctly, the report makes it seem like the “aspire” judgment either shouldn't have been included or should have had caveats (due to single sourcing and conflicts).

Leaving out the "aspire" judgement, how does this report impact the original report's finding that:

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

I don't think you can argue that putin and russia didn't attempt to influence the 2016 election (and other elections) and to undermine public faith in the US democratic process. It's really a question of whether putin and russia attempted to:
- denigrate Secretary Clinton
- harm her electability and potential presidency
- developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump

There are external reasons to believe putin and the russians favored trump: the russian cyber attack on DNC servers and RT funding of rightwing influencers.


And on the flip side, isn't trump now requiring the "excessive involvement of agency heads" to make sure that his agenda is being implemented and that the minions are loyal? Keeping the intelligence community (and justice system) free from overt political bias is a thing of the past under trump.

[kalm]

Wow, what a ****show. It's hard to imagine how something could've been handled any worse. Brennan certainly comes up looking awful after that read.

The report clearly identifies "multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA. These included a highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation, and excessive involvement of agency heads" and Brennan looks horrible.

Does it tie back to Obama?

If I'm reading it correctly, the report makes it seem like the “aspire” judgment either shouldn't have been included or should have had caveats (due to single sourcing and conflicts).

Leaving out the "aspire" judgement, how does this report impact the original report's finding that:

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

I don't think you can argue that putin and russia didn't attempt to influence the 2016 election (and other elections) and to undermine public faith in the US democratic process. It's really a question of whether putin and russia attempted to:
- denigrate Secretary Clinton
- harm her electability and potential presidency
- developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump

There are external reasons to believe putin and the russians favored trump: the russian cyber attack on DNC servers and RT funding of rightwing influencers.


And on the flip side, isn't trump now requiring the "excessive involvement of agency heads" to make sure that his agenda is being implemented and that the minions are loyal? Keeping the intelligence community (and justice system) free from overt political bias is a thing of the past under trump.

As well as the DOJ.

Trusting any administration (IE government) is foolish.

[GannonFan]

Wow, what a ****show. It's hard to imagine how something could've been handled any worse. Brennan certainly comes up looking awful after that read.

The report clearly identifies "multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA. These included a highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation, and excessive involvement of agency heads" and Brennan looks horrible.

Does it tie back to Obama?

If I'm reading it correctly, the report makes it seem like the “aspire” judgment either shouldn't have been included or should have had caveats (due to single sourcing and conflicts).

Leaving out the "aspire" judgement, how does this report impact the original report's finding that:

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

I don't think you can argue that putin and russia didn't attempt to influence the 2016 election (and other elections) and to undermine public faith in the US democratic process. It's really a question of whether putin and russia attempted to:
- denigrate Secretary Clinton
- harm her electability and potential presidency
- developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump

There are external reasons to believe putin and the russians favored trump: the russian cyber attack on DNC servers and RT funding of rightwing influencers.


And on the flip side, isn't trump now requiring the "excessive involvement of agency heads" to make sure that his agenda is being implemented and that the minions are loyal? Keeping the intelligence community (and justice system) free from overt political bias is a thing of the past under trump.

Well, the investigation, from the reading of that document, was to get to the aspire judgement no matter what. That was the goal and the investigation, if that's what we'll call it, was to get to that pre-determined goal. And considering the aspirational judgement came from above, it's certainly very possible it came from Obama or from others close to him. It's not far-fetched to think it came from Obama - he made it a very public point, at the end of his term, that he was going to disseminate the information from the investigation into every corner of the government, he said, for fear that the incoming administration would bury it. Doing so also set in motion the wheels that eventually led to the first, rushed, impeachment of Trump. What future historians, 50 to 100 years down say about this and the less-than-optimal transfer of power in 2016 will be interesting reads.

[kalm]

There needs to be a Venn diagram consisting of Republicans, Democrats, Russian intelligence, and Epstein engagement.

[UNI88]

The report clearly identifies "multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA. These included a highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation, and excessive involvement of agency heads" and Brennan looks horrible.

Does it tie back to Obama?

If I'm reading it correctly, the report makes it seem like the “aspire” judgment either shouldn't have been included or should have had caveats (due to single sourcing and conflicts).

Leaving out the "aspire" judgement, how does this report impact the original report's finding that:


I don't think you can argue that putin and russia didn't attempt to influence the 2016 election (and other elections) and to undermine public faith in the US democratic process. It's really a question of whether putin and russia attempted to:
- denigrate Secretary Clinton
- harm her electability and potential presidency
- developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump

There are external reasons to believe putin and the russians favored trump: the russian cyber attack on DNC servers and RT funding of rightwing influencers.

And on the flip side, isn't trump now requiring the "excessive involvement of agency heads" to make sure that his agenda is being implemented and that the minions are loyal? Keeping the intelligence community (and justice system) free from overt political bias is a thing of the past under trump.

Well, the investigation, from the reading of that document, was to get to the aspire judgement no matter what. That was the goal and the investigation, if that's what we'll call it, was to get to that pre-determined goal. And considering the aspirational judgement came from above, it's certainly very possible it came from Obama or from others close to him. It's not far-fetched to think it came from Obama - he made it a very public point, at the end of his term, that he was going to disseminate the information from the investigation into every corner of the government, he said, for fear that the incoming administration would bury it. Doing so also set in motion the wheels that eventually led to the first, rushed, impeachment of Trump. What future historians, 50 to 100 years down say about this and the less-than-optimal transfer of power in 2016 will be interesting reads.

You can make that connection. MAQA yahoos who require video proof and a confession of any malfeasance trump is accused of can't without being complete hypocrites.

The 2016 election was a complete shit show (as was 2020 and 2024) and it will be interesting to see what historians say about them.

How is what Brennan and possibly others did in weaponizing the intelligence community and DoJ to go after an opponent different from what trump is doing now with opponents, law firms, universities, etc? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have no problem with a serious and unbiased investigation of Brennan, Clapper, Obama, etc. but I'm not sure trump's DoJ can conduct an unbiased investigation. The irony of them appointing a special prosecutor after they argued they were unconstitutional would also be rich. So much of what trump is doing to his opponents in 2025 is what he complained they were doing to him previously.

[GannonFan]

Well, the investigation, from the reading of that document, was to get to the aspire judgement no matter what. That was the goal and the investigation, if that's what we'll call it, was to get to that pre-determined goal. And considering the aspirational judgement came from above, it's certainly very possible it came from Obama or from others close to him. It's not far-fetched to think it came from Obama - he made it a very public point, at the end of his term, that he was going to disseminate the information from the investigation into every corner of the government, he said, for fear that the incoming administration would bury it. Doing so also set in motion the wheels that eventually led to the first, rushed, impeachment of Trump. What future historians, 50 to 100 years down say about this and the less-than-optimal transfer of power in 2016 will be interesting reads.

You can make that connection. MAQA yahoos who require video proof and a confession of any malfeasance trump is accused of can't without being complete hypocrites.

The 2016 election was a complete shit show (as was 2020 and 2024) and it will be interesting to see what historians say about them.

How is what Brennan and possibly others did in weaponizing the intelligence community and DoJ to go after an opponent different from what trump is doing now with opponents, law firms, universities, etc? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have no problem with a serious and unbiased investigation of Brennan, Clapper, Obama, etc. but I'm not sure trump's DoJ can conduct an unbiased investigation. The irony of them appointing a special prosecutor after they argued they were unconstitutional would also be rich. So much of what trump is doing to his opponents in 2025 is what he complained they were doing to him previously.

2016 makes 2020 and 2024 look tame by comparison. 2016 stands apart as an absolute choke job by so many. Comey got played like a violin by the Russians, back and forth interjecting himself into the race. Both parties were utilizing Russian sources for information gathering and who knows if any of it was reliable - not that either party really cared about validity. And then Obama was convinced (or at least wanted to paint it that way) that Trump was in the pocket of the Russians that he made sure to hamper Trump's administration on the way out the door by discrediting it before they even took office. It was easily the worst transfer of power in our lifetimes and you may have to go all the way back to Adams/Jefferson to find anything even close to it. 2020 and 2024 had their own dramas, but 2016 stands on its own.

[kalm]

You can make that connection. MAQA yahoos who require video proof and a confession of any malfeasance trump is accused of can't without being complete hypocrites.

The 2016 election was a complete shit show (as was 2020 and 2024) and it will be interesting to see what historians say about them.

How is what Brennan and possibly others did in weaponizing the intelligence community and DoJ to go after an opponent different from what trump is doing now with opponents, law firms, universities, etc? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have no problem with a serious and unbiased investigation of Brennan, Clapper, Obama, etc. but I'm not sure trump's DoJ can conduct an unbiased investigation. The irony of them appointing a special prosecutor after they argued they were unconstitutional would also be rich. So much of what trump is doing to his opponents in 2025 is what he complained they were doing to him previously.

2016 makes 2020 and 2024 look tame by comparison. 2016 stands apart as an absolute choke job by so many. Comey got played like a violin by the Russians, back and forth interjecting himself into the race. Both parties were utilizing Russian sources for information gathering and who knows if any of it was reliable - not that either party really cared about validity. And then Obama was convinced (or at least wanted to paint it that way) that Trump was in the pocket of the Russians that he made sure to hamper Trump's administration on the way out the door by discrediting it before they even took office. It was easily the worst transfer of power in our lifetimes and you may have to go all the way back to Adams/Jefferson to find anything even close to it. 2020 and 2024 had their own dramas, but 2016 stands on its own.

Wait. For a second there I thought you said 2016 was a worse transfer of power than 2020.

I’m sure every admin takes some departing shots but what made Obama’s worse than the rest? Serious question.

[GannonFan]

2016 makes 2020 and 2024 look tame by comparison. 2016 stands apart as an absolute choke job by so many. Comey got played like a violin by the Russians, back and forth interjecting himself into the race. Both parties were utilizing Russian sources for information gathering and who knows if any of it was reliable - not that either party really cared about validity. And then Obama was convinced (or at least wanted to paint it that way) that Trump was in the pocket of the Russians that he made sure to hamper Trump's administration on the way out the door by discrediting it before they even took office. It was easily the worst transfer of power in our lifetimes and you may have to go all the way back to Adams/Jefferson to find anything even close to it. 2020 and 2024 had their own dramas, but 2016 stands on its own.

Wait. For a second there I thought you said 2016 was a worse transfer of power than 2020.

I’m sure every admin takes some departing shots but what made Obama’s worse than the rest? Serious question.

At the end, 2020 was a whimper. Sure, J6 was a big deal, a really big deal, but it was one day. Maybe Trump thought it was going to be a bigger deal, but in the end it was like 1,000 of some of his most yahoo-sycophants fighting with the Capitol building cops and then walking around the building with no clue what to do. There was no chance of the election being overturned, not even the slimmest of it. And after J6, Trump just sulked away. He should've been impeached (he was) and removed from office (he wasn't) and barred from holding office again (he wasn't), but Republicans then didn't have the backbone and Democrats were just looking forward to opening up the government spending spigots to test out their new economic theory to care.

As for the 2016 transfer of power, show me an administration that, on the way out, accused the incoming administration of basically treason by means of saying they were controlled by a foreign government? Clinton's followers stole vandalized thousands of dollars of computer equipment by removing "W"'s before Bush Jr took office - Obama's passed around the results of a tainted and rushed investigation with the sole purpose of smearing the incoming administration and setting up the groundwork from it for an impeachment. John Quincy Adams hated Andrew Jackson but even they managed to pass the baton of power without threatening to bring down the Republic.

[kalm]

Wait. For a second there I thought you said 2016 was a worse transfer of power than 2020.

I’m sure every admin takes some departing shots but what made Obama’s worse than the rest? Serious question.

At the end, 2020 was a whimper. Sure, J6 was a big deal, a really big deal, but it was one day. Maybe Trump thought it was going to be a bigger deal, but in the end it was like 1,000 of some of his most yahoo-sycophants fighting with the Capitol building cops and then walking around the building with no clue what to do. There was no chance of the election being overturned, not even the slimmest of it. And after J6, Trump just sulked away. He should've been impeached (he was) and removed from office (he wasn't) and barred from holding office again (he wasn't), but Republicans then didn't have the backbone and Democrats were just looking forward to opening up the government spending spigots to test out their new economic theory to care.

As for the 2016 transfer of power, show me an administration that, on the way out, accused the incoming administration of basically treason by means of saying they were controlled by a foreign government? Clinton's followers stole vandalized thousands of dollars of computer equipment by removing "W"'s before Bush Jr took office - Obama's passed around the results of a tainted and rushed investigation with the sole purpose of smearing the incoming administration and setting up the groundwork from it for an impeachment. John Quincy Adams hated Andrew Jackson but even they managed to pass the baton of power without threatening to bring down the Republic.

Thank you.

Do you think Obama did it out of vindictiveness, threatening the stability of the country and trust in government or did they have reasons to suspect Russian interference?

I strongly disagree on 2020. It was not peaceful. There was an elaborate plan to stop the transfer of power. It greatly solidified mistrust in institutions including the government at large (except for Trump), destroyed faith in the electoral process.

We’ll feel its effects for decades.

[GannonFan]

At the end, 2020 was a whimper. Sure, J6 was a big deal, a really big deal, but it was one day. Maybe Trump thought it was going to be a bigger deal, but in the end it was like 1,000 of some of his most yahoo-sycophants fighting with the Capitol building cops and then walking around the building with no clue what to do. There was no chance of the election being overturned, not even the slimmest of it. And after J6, Trump just sulked away. He should've been impeached (he was) and removed from office (he wasn't) and barred from holding office again (he wasn't), but Republicans then didn't have the backbone and Democrats were just looking forward to opening up the government spending spigots to test out their new economic theory to care.

As for the 2016 transfer of power, show me an administration that, on the way out, accused the incoming administration of basically treason by means of saying they were controlled by a foreign government? Clinton's followers stole vandalized thousands of dollars of computer equipment by removing "W"'s before Bush Jr took office - Obama's passed around the results of a tainted and rushed investigation with the sole purpose of smearing the incoming administration and setting up the groundwork from it for an impeachment. John Quincy Adams hated Andrew Jackson but even they managed to pass the baton of power without threatening to bring down the Republic.

Thank you.

Do you think Obama did it out of vindictiveness, threatening the stability of the country and trust in government or did they have reasons to suspect Russian interference?

I strongly disagree on 2020. It was not peaceful. There was an elaborate plan to stop the transfer of power. It greatly solidified mistrust in institutions including the government at large (except for Trump), destroyed faith in the electoral process.

We’ll feel its effects for decades.

I think it was both for Obama. I don't think he liked Trump one iota (can't blame him for that), thought Trump was a threat to the country and the Republic (there are countless clips of Obama calling Trump just that), and he had already convinced himself that Trump was a Russian asset. You see it here on even these boards, there are still posters who think he's a Russian asset. I've always said, if he is, he must be the most inept and ineffective puppet in the history of politics because he's done so many things contrary to what Russia would prefer. But people really believe that in spite of the evidence against it. Either way, Obama was determined to cripple and hinder the incoming administration, hence why he widely distributed the rushed and inaccurate investigation throughout government. It's why we had that Schiff guy go on for years about having the smoking gun on Trump but in the end couldn't produce anything. No matter the evidence, or lack thereof, people were convinced of it because they simply could not believe that the voters in this country wanted Trump as the President. It was inconceivable to them and everything cascaded from there.

We'll have to disagree on 2020. The not peaceful stuff was one day. Outside of 1,000 or so whackos, no one lifted a finger. Not the electorate, not the military, not even his own party. Disgraceful, yes. Embarassing, yes. Horrific, yes. But there was no elaborate plan, it was a half-thought through idea of a plan that had absolutely zero chance of being enacted due to its lack of comprehension on how our government works. The government moved on, and the transfer of power was going to happen no matter what. The wheels of government didn't even stutter. Today, outside of these message boards, no one even mentions J6 as a thing worth talking about. It has no legacy other than being an abomination by a large mob of dim-witted sycophants. I would've impeached, removed, and banned Trump from office, but that moment has passed.

You reference the mistrust in institutions, the government at large, and the electoral process. But mistrust in those things way predate J6. Basically everyone agrees that Trump didn't start the movement he heads now, MAGA if you will. He simply rode the wave of that movement into office back in 2016. There's been a rather significant, and both far right and far left, movement of anti-government for at least 15 years now, if not longer (you can go back to Gingrich and the Contract With America if you want to trace the current trend of mistrust in the government) that has made a crusade out of not trusting government and the electoral process. Gingrich in the 90's, Clinton's impeachment, the 2000 election fiasco, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the Great Recession, the blindness of the threat from Russia, and the enriching of elected officials through insider trading, were all things that came before Trump was ever in the picture, and all did a fairly significant part in damning people's views of our government and the people running it.

Heck, I'd argue that COVID, not J6, is by far the bigger and more protracted recent event that ruined people's faith in government. Trump figures prominently in that regard, as he couldn't have been a more ineffective and disastrous President and leader - while W was able to rally the nation behind him after 9/11, Trump was the opposite and made people mock the nation. Sure, he didn't do it alone - there was a considerable, and very political, opposition that wanted Trump to fail no matter what, even no matter the consequences to the country, and they did their part to make living during the pandemic even worse. Covering up for the source of the virus, covering up for the people potentially responsible for the virus, and refusing to accede to commonsense restrictions while opening the country back up early (and even late) during the pandemic all played a pretty big part in people not trusting the government and the people in power in the government. Maybe a handful of people died, many not directly to, J6. Millions of Americans died throughout COVID. We are still feeling, and probably will for decades, the impact of COVID. Like I said, people have already forgotten J6.