Any chance the electoral college members can be persuaded that they would be committing treason if they voted for Trump?
Two thoughts:
1. An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election. Seems plausible.
2. There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left. I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them? We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders. It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left. I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?
Its very likely true the Russians hacked both candidates offices. The Chinese probably hacked them both two. Israel runs a pretty tight ship on the intelligence front, so don't be surprised if they probably hacked them both too just to keep tabs on how future policy may affect them. A handful of other countries are smart enough to do this kind of snooping around with a decent cover of plausible deniability. A mess of independent guys probably got into some of both candidates computers too. I could be totally wrong here, but I suspect the independent guys are more likely to dirty stuff for $$$$ than the state actors.
The problem is we will only see the summary of the report and none of the classified details. None of those details can be verified/checked/commented on by other experts. All electronic systems that capture a lot of public attention will end up having their security flaws exposed or exploited.
If you want an interesting study in propaganda watch the TV network RT. They've been trying to destabilize America for years and are doing a hilariously amateur job at it.
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
Everything we know to date:
Trump has become 'an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation'
Ex-director of the CIA publicly states that Putin has be successful in manipulating Trump - "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Trump campaign worked to undermine support for Ukraine
Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.
Still, Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.634e44e2df23
Trump states he doesn't believe Putin will invade the Ukraine - after Russia has already annexed Crimea
“He’s not going into Ukraine,” Trump said. “He’s not going to go into Ukraine. You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.” “He’s already there isn’t he?” Stephanopoulos said. “Well, he’s there in a certain way,” Trump said.
http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/pence-says-trump-knew-that-russia-invaded-crimea-heres-what-trump-actually-said/
Trump has been unclear on his relationship with Putin
In an interview with ABC News in August 2016, Trump said he had "no relationship with Putin." In an interview with MSNBC in 2013, Trump said "I do have a relationship, and he's very interested in what we're doing."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFgYzf4DV4
Unexplained server connection between Russian bank and Trump Organisation
“I have an outlier here that connects to Russia in a strange way,” he wrote in his notes. He couldn’t quite figure it out at first. But what he saw was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue. “I’ve never seen a server set up like that,” says Christopher Davis, who runs the cybersecurity firm HYAS InfoSec Inc. and won a FBI Director Award for Excellence for his work tracking down the authors of one of the world’s nastiest botnet attacks. “It looked weird, and it didn’t pass the sniff test.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
Russian diplomats and officials were in touch with Trump's team throughout the campaign
Russian government officials conferred with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, a disclosure that could reopen scrutiny of the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton. The statement came from Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who said in an interview with the state-run Interfax news agency that “there were contacts” with the Trump team. “Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Ryabkov said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/moscow-had-contacts-with-trump-team-during-campaign-russian-diplomat-says/2016/11/10/28fb82fa-a73d-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html?utm_term=.e5300ac87f7f
Ex-Trump campaign chairman allegedly received undisclosed cash payments from pro-Russian Ukranian party
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html
Trump advocates Russian hacking
Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html
Russia was involved in passing along hacked information about the Clinton campaign to Wikileaks
Officials briefed on the matter were told that intelligence agencies had found that individuals linked to the Russian government had provided WikiLeaks with thousands of confidential emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others.
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there."
In early May, the DNC called in CrowdStrike, a security firm that specializes in countering advanced network threats. After deploying their tools on the DNC’s machines, and after about two hours of work, CrowdStrike found “two sophisticated adversaries” on the Committee’s network.
CrowdStrike linked both groups to “the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services.” APT 29, suspected to be the FSB, had been on the DNC’s network since at least summer 2015. APT 28, identified as Russia’s military intelligence agency GRU, had breached the Democrats only in April 2016, and probably tipped off the investigation.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack
Russia was involved in the hacking of the Republican party but chose not release hacked information
The Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html)
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.
... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.
... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?
Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.
... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?
Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.
Particularly in a way that is patently false. Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law. Clinton has never even stood accused, much less been convicted.
Unless by "accused" you mean by angry people on the internet. In that case she's been accused of just about everything.
We don't need foreign powers to infiltrate the US government to know that Trump is corrupt. He's admitted it in court. He's admitted it on television. Why do people still buy this narrative that he's fighting corruption, rather than embodying it?
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.
... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.
... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?
Honestly. I'm absolutely shocked that people can justify this in any way.
Particularly in a way that is patently false. Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law. Clinton has never even stood accused, much less been convicted.
Unless by "accused" you mean by angry people on the internet. In that case she's been accused of just about everything.
We don't need foreign powers to infiltrate the US government to know that Trump is corrupt. He's admitted it in court. He's admitted it on television. Why do people still buy this narrative that he's fighting corruption, rather than embodying it?
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
It was a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to expose corruption in the other US candidate.
... and that makes it okay somehow? The ends justify the means?
Doesn't make it okay, just makes it laughable. The outrage from the Hillary supporters of "how dare they expose our dark terrible secrets" is amusing to me.
Trump is a on a low information diet, even if he didn't read MMM :). What is so magical about daily intelligence briefings? He's not actually president yet, his only actual job responsibility as president elect is to get all his cabinet and staff people on board so they are ready to go. If Obama makes some decision about Syria and if they tell trump an hour later or two days later what changes?
He is definitely an outsider and a wild card. He likely doesn't believe everything he said while campaigning, and that is both hopefully a good thing if he doesn't build a wall and a bad thing in that we really have no idea what wild $ss thing he's going to try. The China sabre rattling before actually in office seems more dangerous.
My plan is to make my ACLU and EFF donations this year. Next year we will start the first hundred days of useless political news that we as the American public must endure every time we get a new jockey. By June we might even know what Trump is really up to.
He's feuding with members of his own party (Ryan wouldn't speak his name until a few weeks ago.) He's feuding with the intelligence community (all 17 agencies agree -- Russia was involved in the hacking -- but Trump denies it). He's now taking on the defense companies (Lockheed and Boeing).
He'll be done in 2 years. Either he'll be enriching himself at the public trough or he'll be playing footsies too much with Putin.
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them.
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them.
Plus, you can hardly blame them, honestly. I mean, God, can you imagine the glee with which Putin views having a "useful idiot" in the WH instead of Hillary Clinton? How could he help himself?
I will also say that short of straight out hacking votes Russia could not make Hillary lose the election in a vacuum.
There was a lot of cynicism and dislike for her that made a lot of the bad press stick. Unfortunately you can't fight foreign and domestic false propaganda and real leaks by just bitching about them on the news. You have to put up popular candidates and have messaging that is strong enough to outweigh the slew of shit that inevitably gets tossed at a presidential candidate.
With the global flow information, guaranteeing that the internet never produces facts or false stories maybe even at the behest of a foreign power is next to impossible. A well funded and powerful group like the DNC simply has to be more nimble and find more politically effective ways to counter these outside influences.
Trying to correct this stuff as the administration that allegedly befitted from the foul play is taking office is just an absolute shit show. And even if its true it comes off as propaganda and more political maneuvering.
As sad as it is to say the inept Trump campaign with all its worthless members appears to have outmaneuvered the DNC completely. Trump managed to get the whole media outraged over thin claims of potential hacking and not accepting the outcome if he loses. Then the DNC loses and are essentially forced into a corner encouraged to do all the things Trump was railed on for claiming he would do.
The cynical side of me cant wait for this to be over and hopes Trump's idiocy and lack of leadership will end up shafting the majority of his base so they can see how empty all of his promises were.
Trump is a on a low information diet, even if he didn't read MMM :). What is so magical about daily intelligence briefings? He's not actually president yet, his only actual job responsibility as president elect is to get all his cabinet and staff people on board so they are ready to go. If Obama makes some decision about Syria and if they tell trump an hour later or two days later what changes?
He is definitely an outsider and a wild card. He likely doesn't believe everything he said while campaigning, and that is both hopefully a good thing if he doesn't build a wall and a bad thing in that we really have no idea what wild $ss thing he's going to try. The China sabre rattling before actually in office seems more dangerous.
My plan is to make my ACLU and EFF donations this year. Next year we will start the first hundred days of useless political news that we as the American public must endure every time we get a new jockey. By June we might even know what Trump is really up to.
Guess what? Trump (and trump supporters) no longer get to blame Hillary for everything. This is now about Trump. Good luck trying to defend him.But we can blame Obama for wuite some time, just as I still hear occasional Bush blames even 8 years later.
Guess what? Trump (and trump supporters) no longer get to blame Hillary for everything. This is now about Trump. Good luck trying to defend him.But we can blame Obama for wuite some time, just as I still hear occasional Bush blames even 8 years later.
The fact that the Russians interfered in the election and probably tipped it to Trump makes me very nervous about the future of democracy. If twitter bots and a few stolen passwords is all it takes to change the politics of the world - then we are all screwed, because some 13 year old on 4chan thinks chaos would be funny and your 80 year old granny believes every click-bait ad on Breitbart about Clinton killing children at pizza parlors.
Particularly in a way that is patently false. Trump has been literally convicted of corruption in a court of law.
Precedent has definitely been set.
Everything is the fault of whichever previous president you liked least.
I hold no view on the role of Russia in this particular election.
But I do find it hilarious to see the United States be on the receiving end of international meddling, after using every trick in the book to install their guys in various countries for the last 50 years.
I can't imagine anything Trump said in an email is much worse than the stuff he said in public, and the folks who voted for him would just say "oh, he's not serious about soliciting a bribe/killing a prostitute/doing meth with the leaders of ISIS, that's how everyone talks, blah blah blah" to justify it, so it sort of doesn't matter that the Trump campaign's dirty laundry didn't get aired by Russian hackers. They aired plenty on their own, and the mouth-breathing voters didn't care.
But sadly I have to agree with those knuckle-draggers a little: the emails made me less likely to vote for Clinton (I wasn't planning to anyway, though).
-W
Precedent has definitely been set.
Everything is the fault of whichever previous president you liked least.
Fuckin' Andrew Johnson....
Two thoughts:
1. An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election. Seems plausible.
2. There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left. I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them? We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders. It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.
This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?
Two thoughts:
1. An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election. Seems plausible.
2. There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left. I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them? We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders. It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.
This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?
Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?
Two thoughts:
1. An idea floated on Meet the Press yesterday that I agree with was that no one really predicted Trump's win, so Russia's releasing of Hillary's emails was more about discrediting the person Russia thought was going to be President than about swaying the election. Seems plausible.
2. There's something a bit off, in my mind, about those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left. I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them? We're not talking about classified information here, we're talking about election strategy and other banter between party leaders. It seems as though the outrage about the release of the emails is intended to cover up the fact that there were some very odious things being bandied about in the Democratic party.
This feels very much to me like the argument dismissing the erosion of privacy and civil liberties: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
Do you seriously see nothing problematic about a foreign government working actively to elect one presidential candidate over another? Do you seriously reduce this to a simple partisan "liberal whining" issue?
Well, there are most certainly odious things being bandied about in the Republican Party but we have not gotten to see those emails yet, have we?
How different would voting patterns be if the electorate knew the truth? I don't think anyone is saying what Russia did was not a big deal. But to suggest that it would have been better to elect a candidate from a party that has been shown to be corrupt is hardly a convincing argument.
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.
Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.
Christ on a stick.
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.
This is kinda sad. Fake news like this is why I'm not 100% against companies like Facebook adding warnings to previews of news. As far as I am aware, there has been no statement made by the CIA or FBI about this.
Good point. Except for the WaPo, Reuters, ABC, CNN, USA Today, NYT, Fox News, LA Times, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, there's been only fake news about this.
Christ on a stick.
I was sad when Trump won but at least he never advocated to start a war with Russia.
Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.
Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.
I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.
I don't understand people saying this. Our representatives are their to represent US, not their views. Why is it a bad thing that a politician will say, my constituents want this therefore I am going to be THEIR rep and fight for it?Since both parties have corruption, your point is not clear to me.
Of course they do. But they claim they don't. Proof of the opposite probably affects votes.
DNC scandles didn't help but I think they are giving to much credit for their loss to leaked emails. Lets be honest the emails didn't show much we didn't assume wasn't happening already. We knew the Clinton's were to pay to play. We also knew that they were flipping positions because popular opinion was forcing them to.
The reality is that we had a left wing and right wing populist movement in both major parties. One nearly succeeded and the other one went all the way.
I think the bigger thing that swung votes in the states that mattered was simply disillusion with 8 years of Obama. The DNC was counting on people who voted for him to vote for her. But the reality is likely that their situation has only gotten worse economically overall and to add insult to injury the DNC really didn't even campaign in some of the major rust belt states.
Do you think Bernie wouldn't have spent time appealing to the rust belt states? The thing that burns my ass about this election isn't that Hillary lost. Its that we had a left wing alternative to Trump, but the DNC drowned him in the bath tub before he could ruin they coronation. Most states kept to party lines, but Bernie had the same winning message that Trump had without the petty bullshit and lies.
I don't understand people saying this. Our representatives are their to represent US, not their views. Why is it a bad thing that a politician will say, my constituents want this therefore I am going to be THEIR rep and fight for it?
Does anyone here think the emails going back and forth within the Trump camp weren't horribly offensive, inappropriate, and damning? Were they hacked?
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.
4 years after his election, Obama was still blaming Bush for everything. Now it seems, in the last year of his presidency, he gets to blame Trump. This isn't OK when Republicans do it (see Bill Clinton's reaction when asked about 9/11 and what he did about AQ after the Cole bombing, he was (rightly) outraged at the suggestion that he could've/should've done more, as though it was somehow his fault), it isn't OK when Democrats do it.
As far as I know, blaming the incoming candidate for this shit prior to them taking office is unprecedented. We are once again being asked to believe by the left in two mutually exclusive things:
1. Trump is a masterful operator who knows all and sees all, and can perfectly coordinate with a global spy network to rig the election in his favor (and still manage to almost lose/certain secure no mandate at all).
2. Trump is a hopeless lunatic gas-bag egotist, incompetent in all things, incapable of anything, and an idiot.
I will let you have one and one only!
But we can blame him for his response, and wonder what Putin has on Trump.That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.
Absolutely. But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
But we can blame him for his response, and wonder what Putin has on Trump.That doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel outrage about it.
Absolutely. But it doesn't make sense to blame Trump.
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...
Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
- There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
- Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
- Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
- Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
- This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
- Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.
*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.
**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.
Well argued.
This isn't complicated folks. So many straw men coming out of the Trump supporters...
Let's recap how simple this particular situation is:
- There is overwhelming evidence that Russia tried to influence our election towards a particular result.
- Despite said evidence, Trump denies, denies, denies.***
- Foreign governments blatantly attempting to influence who is in power is bad for America, especially when done in this fashion. If I really need to explain why this is bad, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
- Trump could easily denounce Russia's actions without delegitimizing himself. And clearly should, but refuses to do so.
- This inevitably suggests either collusion with Russia or yet another example of just how out of his depth he is as leader of the free world.
- Neither of those conclusions support an optimistic assessment of his incoming administration.
*2a. Trump and a significant portion of his incoming administration have extremely friendly and lucrative ties to Russia. Curious indeed, but also a rabbit hole we don't even need to go down for this particular exercise.
**2b. Even more concerning is the mounting evidence that Trump will fill the government with yes men, ignoring critical national security reports if they don't conform to his agenda. If I really need to explain why this is terrifying, I doubt you'll ever be convinced.
Edit to clean up a couple sentences for clarity.
To myself, this clearly looks like a point-of-view that is many ways contrary to reality, but is an honestly held belief. I also know that I'm biased in the other direction, and wonder if my own point-of-view is as distorted from reality.
1. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...
3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
How many intelligence agencies do you want to say this. A quick google shows multiple links, here is one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.9d750f948cc51. Russia committed a hostile act towards this country with the hopes of effecting a certain result. I am not saying they are the sole reason for that result, only that it was the one they hoped for. I am also not saying this event was unprecedented or that we don't do the same. Nevertheless...
What evidence has any intelligence agency released to support this? Seriously if there is any share it with me. To the best of my search skills, the only 'evidence' I've found is usually along the lines of either (A) a news entity reporting "some guy, whom won't be disclosed, with an undisclosed role in some undisclosed department told us they have evidence the Russians did it but they didn't disclose the evidence" or (B) "We're sourcing an (A) story."
To the best of my knowledge, the only leaks with public evidence are the DNC hacks; Julian Assange claims it was an inside leak.Quote3. Trump has not only refused to rebuke Russia, but has even openly refused to believe the universal consensus of the intelligence community.
Which public statement has any intelligence agency made in regards to this? Again, if you have links please provide. I desperately want them because I am trying to knowledgeable on this issue. The fact you are saying it is a universal consensus but I can't find one, even one, department saying "The Russians did it" (let alone provide evidence) worries me deeply. One of use is gravely wrong.
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about. The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak. You have one person SAYING it was. With what evidence? And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility. Such as why he was removed from being the ambassador. From your article "Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?
Edit:
Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?
Edit:
Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about. The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak. You have one person SAYING it was. With what evidence? And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?
Edit:
Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
Which is why the REST of my post (which you deleted) is important. Given his was removed from his posted because of misconduct, his honesty is very much in question. And, funny enough he actually says he did not get the data from a DNC insider BUT from a middleman.You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about. The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak. You have one person SAYING it was. With what evidence? And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?
Edit:
Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public. And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider. Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
Which is why the REST of my post (which you deleted) is important. Given his was removed from his posted because of misconduct, his honest is very much in question. And, funny enough he actually says he did not get the data from a DNC insider BUT from a middleman.You know, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about. The DNC hack was not actually an insider leak. You have one person SAYING it was. With what evidence? And you ignore his bias and lack of credibility.I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?
Edit:
Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
There is no evidence that it was a hack either, at least not available to the general public. And that one person is a high ranking person inside Wikileaks, that has stated that he personally received the data from a DNC insider. Either he is telling the truth, or he is not.
I have a general question.
How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?
World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?
I have a general question.
How far can world leaders go before we would consider them to have influenced an election?
World leaders have said negative things about both candidates over the coarse of the campagn. How much can they do/say before they are considered to be influencing?
I don't mean to sound snide, but this literally took me 10 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
Ok, then question two: what evidence did they provide?
Edit:
Oct 7th would only cover the DNC hack (and earlier), not the bombshell Podesta hack. I'm moreso looking for that hack since it was the 'October Surprise'. The DNC hack Wikileaks said was actually an insider leak. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html)
I’m not going down that road. This is starting to sound like you want to make the fallacious “but they said there were WMDs in Iraq!” argument.
Is your position, then, that the president elect should just rely on his gut to make all of his decisions, regardless of the facts he is presented? That the media lies more often than not? That it’s more likely than not that the USIC has made a politically motivated, intentionally false statement? That it’s more likely than not that Trump is the sole voice of reason and truth in American politics right now? If your answers are yes, then there is no point in pretending that any subsequent discourse between us will be productive.
Edit - and ditto what Gin1984 said.
I understand condemnation of Trump's response. It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time. I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time. I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,
Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it? Because it sure looks like collaboration to me. There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking. Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened. Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia. What else does it take to make it more obvious?
Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is? The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor? THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE. Remember that little news story from like two years ago?
I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights. Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents. OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack. Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland. Of course they suppressed voting rights. Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood. Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.
Right now, today, Trump has no power to do anything about this, other than make a public statement, which he did, and it was retarded. Where is your outrage at the perpetrators of the lack of security in the first place? You are seeking to indict someone who has yet to actually do anything, and have no issue with the current governmental representatives not doing anything about this. Trump not denouncing it is because he's dumb, he sees it as an attempt to cast doubt on the outcome of the election, which it very clearly is. It also very clearly is a serious thing that ought to be dealt with accordingly (because things can be two things at the same thing, these two can be true of the russian hack without it needing to be one or the other).
I understand condemnation of Trump's response. It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.
Trump is not competent or smart enough to be anyone's puppet. You need to be able to read and follow directions to be a puppet. Trump accidentally got himself elected president, foreign governments are hostile to us (*gasp*) and way to let a foreign intelligence operation affect you maximally.
Keep calm and carry on folks.
Russia was successful beyond it's wildest dreams this time. I don't think they collaborated with Trump or his campaign,
Well that's certainly giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't it? Because it sure looks like collaboration to me. There has been a LOT of contact between those parties before and during the hacking. Trump publicly declared that Russia was going to release hacked information before it happened. Trumps campaign staff was being paid by Russia. What else does it take to make it more obvious?
Plus, you know who the only other party to hack the DNC is? The only organization we know to have preceded the Russians in this endeavor? THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE. Remember that little news story from like two years ago?
I swear the Democrats keep bringing knives to their gun fights. Politics is dirty business, and they keep getting burned by acting in good faith, by assuming common decency on the party of their political opponents. OF COURSE the republicans coordinated the hack. Of course they violated the constitution by refusing to hold hearings on Merick Garland. Of course they suppressed voting rights. Of course they edited fake video about planned parenthood. Of course north Carolina is stripping the powers of the incoming democratic governor.
I think the DNC emails quite clearly reveal the opposite line of thinking within the DNC...
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.
It should be accompanied by condemnation of the DNC IT security as well as of President Obama for not making the information public sooner and for not doing anything about it.
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.
I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.
Specifically, the politicking mud. I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked. I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared. I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing. I want to become the party of no. I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn. I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises.
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.
I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.
Specifically, the politicking mud. I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked. I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared. I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing. I want to become the party of no. I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn. I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises.
Well, hopefully these suggestions would be more effective than firebombing republican campaign offices, rioting in the street and staging sit-ins on the floor of the senate when they don't get their way.
I didn't really get Sol's rant in this either; high ground, principles, morals...next he will claim Anthony Weiner is an angel.
I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.
I'm not claiming the high ground, I'm advocating rolling in the mud with the pigs.
Specifically, the politicking mud. I want the DNC to illegally hack the RNC servers the way they were hacked. I want democratic operatives to use undercover video and selective editing to smear good people working in conservative causes, they way they were smeared. I want the democratic minority in congress to bring 34 bills to impeach trump, none of which will get a floor vote, refuse to review any supreme court nominees until after the next election, and cause a government shutdown over their ideological pet projects rather than governing. I want to become the party of no. I want the next democrat's campaign manager to get get a position on prime time cnn. I want the party to appeal to our nation's crudest desires and our most hateful inner thoughts with wildly illegal campaign promises.
I don't think the dems were playing as squeaky clean as you think - I mean look at the primary process. I think they did underestimate the extent that a certain swath of voters could be manipulated by negative nationalist rhetoric and the culture wars, and I think a lot of people missed that. The dems played their own dirty cards, but it didn't matter because 80000 midwest voters who really hated Hillary and thought their problems were due to other people who happened to be brown were enough to tip the election. Everyone else just basically voted down party lines.
What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end? A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans. If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said." and push to privatize more.
What does rolling in the mud actually get us in the end? A less functional, crippled government, which is really the goal of the ideological republicans. If we try the same tactics, the Repubs will just smile and say, "See, Government doesn't work, like we said." and push to privatize more.
That isn't the right answer. I get your anger and rage, but it won't be effective and it plays right into the hands of the enemy.
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy. If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it? Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy. If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it? Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
I agree about 98% with your sentiments, but like I said in another thread, I think the Democrats could easily win without completely sinking to the morally bankrupt actions Republicans and Trump have sunk to. Here's an easy list that comes to mind:
1. Nominate a candidate with some charisma and without a bunch of negative baggage (whether or not that baggage is "deserved" does NOT matter at all). Clinton was a poor choice, even though she was eminently qualified. Obama had lots of charisma, Hillary Clinton almost none or maybe even negative charisma (such as her laugh that has been repeatedly used as a basis for insult and ridicule by her opponents).
2. Ditch the intellectual (and fair) arguments. Start with a simple (even stupid) slogan like Trump used that resonates with lots and lots of voters or potential voters. Make America Great Again -- Yay!! Just keep mentioning all the stuff voters care about, and for the love of God quit pandering to your "base."
3. Close to #2 above: Appeal to voters' basic wants and ditch all the complicated policy shit. Get in the dirt on the wedge issues, culture wars, etc. Tell voters you'll protect their Medicaid and social security and go after all those welfare cheats. You can honestly say those things knowing that there are very few actual welfare cheats, and meat-eating Red Staters eat that shit up. Tell voters you'll kick the Islamic State's ass, you'll be tough on North Korea and China and Russia and Iran. Who doesn't agree with that? Details hardly matter, so don't even bring them up.
4. Level lots of effective and even personal zingers at your opponent, particularly in the debates. They don't have to be disgusting insults like Trump used ("look at her face!"), just targeted attacks like the kind Reagan, Obama, and Lloyd "You're no Jack Kennedy" Bentsen have effectively delivered.
I'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy. If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it? Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
This too will pass.
QuoteI'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy. If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it? Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
I hear you Sol, I really do. But I just can't be on board with that. Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.
And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back". Next up - "Return of the Jedi".
QuoteI'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy. If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it? Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
I hear you Sol, I really do. But I just can't be on board with that. Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.
And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back". Next up - "Return of the Jedi".
Goddamn it! We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?
QuoteI'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy. If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it? Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
I hear you Sol, I really do. But I just can't be on board with that. Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.
And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back". Next up - "Return of the Jedi".
Goddamn it! We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?
If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda? Now if we just had a spunky fighter pilot to save us all...
The emperor was the quiet power behind everything. Ain't Trump. Donald is more of a Jabba figure . . . Likes slave girls, kinda gross, seems to be wealthy but nobody really knows if that's true . . . But somehow he got elected to Vader's position.
At least Trump is seventy years old. Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.
QuoteI'm still not convinced that the dark side isn't the stronger side of the force.
Republicans have suffered NO electoral consequences of this strategy. If it works consistently and has no negative side effects, why not embrace it? Don't tell me you still believe in our common decency or the validity of rational fact-based decision making.
I hear you Sol, I really do. But I just can't be on board with that. Eventually, if winning is your only goal, you end up losing everything worth having.
And remember, we are just going through "The Empire Strikes Back". Next up - "Return of the Jedi".
Goddamn it! We're going to have to put up with Ewoks?
If Bernie is Obiwan, and Donald is The Emperor, and Carrie Fischer is dead, does that make Hillary Yoda?
At least Trump is seventy years old. Four years of presidency may be the end of him, it's not exactly a low-stress job.
It's only a high-stress job if you give a shit, try to do a good job, and care what happens as a result of your actions or lack thereof.
seems appropriate to ask here.
Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia? I am not really up to date on what is going on but my understanding is some have the perception there was an outsider 'hack' of the election when there was in fact only an insider 'leak' of the DNC's emails. So it would seem, by diplomatic standards, this is unwarranted.
So it seems this is just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.
Not really sure, some splain why please.
seems appropriate to ask here.
Why is the (current) president pursuing sanctions/retirbution against Russia?
Today, DHS and FBI released a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) which further expands on that statement by providing details of the tools and infrastructure used by Russian intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and infrastructure associated with the recent U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. government, political and private sector entities.
So is this just political pandering to; undermine the next president, or take a swipe at Russia for its recent jerking veer to the socially conservative direction, or of course just self denial of the fact that democrats lost lots of elections this year.
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation. And the blasé acceptance from Trump is astounding to me. I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious. But expelling a few diplomats? That's it?
I was surprised at the mild response from Obama, even though he seems to avoid escalation. And the blasé acceptance from Trump is astounding to me. I would have thought the American government would view interference in their presidential election as an act of war or something equally serious. But expelling a few diplomats? That's it?There is nothing Obama can do that cannot be undone by Trump, unless he has the support of Congress, and the congress is majority GOP, who have chosen party over country.
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.
Nobody is foolish enough to go to actual war (as opposed to proxy wars) when both sides have enough nuclear warheads to obliterate every major city on the planet before breakfast.
Or at least that's what I am banking on this year.
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of actual war.
I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) claims made by the intelligence communities.
In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.
It's so weird...in the 1980s or 1990s, demonstrated meddling of Russia in our elections would have carried a true risk of I would like to think we've learned our lessons about going to wars based only upon relatively unsubstantiated (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) claims made by the intelligence communities.
Potentially "relatively unsubstantiated," since even the arstechnica op-ed stated:Quote from: arstechnicaactual war.
In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.
In other words, computer forensics methods by secretive government agencies probably isn't in the unclassified realm. Considering that many Congressional Republicans (even excluding his detractors like McCain and Graham) are calling for stronger measures should indicate that there is fire to the smoke and not just "sour grapes," as Trump suggests.
Of course, Trump has special knowledge of the hacking that no one has. We'll find out tomorrow and it'll be Great!
I wasn't saying that the intelligence community doesn't wholeheartedly believe that the Russian government was the main perpetrator. I was merely drawing parallels to similar situations in which mistakes have been made based on intelligence community assurances, even when there is enough evidence to convince the majority of congress.
There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."
Except that given that the electoral college did not follow its mandate (choosing not being told how to vote via popular vote elections), it is just a bunch of small popular votes and then given certain states more power. That is not acceptable either.
There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."
> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us
The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.
Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)
Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."
> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us
The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.
Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)
Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."
> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us
The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.
Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)
Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.
Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?
(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)
There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."
> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us
The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.
Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)
Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.
Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?
(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)
I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.
That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)
Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left. I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?
I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election.
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."
> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us
The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.
Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)
Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.
Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?
(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)
I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.
That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)
Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)
There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."
> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us
The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.
Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)
Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.
Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?
(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)
I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.
That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)
Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)
Majority of the legislatures but not the majority of the population. 99% of the population could be for or against something. It doesn't matter when it comes to ratifying an amendment or even electing a president, especially if one candidate fails to get 270 electoral votes. A candidate could technically become president with under 200k popular votes and with only 3 electoral votes.
There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."
> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us
The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.
Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)
Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.
I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.
Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?
(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)
I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.
That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)
Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)
Slavery was abolished under the 13 Amendment. In order to ratify this amendment, it would require a proposal by Congress and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Three-fourths technically is a majority.
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left. I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?
I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election.
I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking. This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.
I thought Russia also got emails from the Republicans, and there was concern that Republicans could be blackmailed. I wish I could recall where I read that. I assume it was conjecture, because how would someone know for certain until such emails are released.
The point is that it seems easy enough for the Russians to hack large organizations and it seems like they would hack the RNC, too.
Top intelligence officials indicated on Tuesday that the GOP was also a Russian hacking target but that none of the information obtained was leaked.
The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)
Why is this suddenly back in the news? We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence. We knew that back in May of 2016. Remember Paul Manafort?
Because the rest of us checked it, probably. It's fake news...
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/
Because the rest of us checked it, probably. It's fake news...
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/
Well, Trump tweeted that it was fake news but CNN disagrees with you. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
And most of this stuff has been circulating in the intelligence network for months now. The FBI has them. A bunch of senators with security posts have known about it. Obama and Trump both have copies.
The part that is most upsetting isn't that Trump paid some hookers to pee on each other. Whatever man, pee away. The upsetting part is the detailed history of how Russian intelligence has been cultivating Trump as an unwitting asset for the past five years. His personality analysis, pressure points, successful past motivators of desired behavior, that sort of thing. It's the standard way the KGB (and the US, for that matter) goes about controlling a person who may turn out to be useful to them.
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this
Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?
Because the rest of us checked it, probably. It's fake news...
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/
edit: Wait a second, did you seriously just RETWEET trump's tweet of that link, like to the forum? You're not making yourself look like a credible analyst of this issue if your deep-dive perspective is to literally retweet the Trumpster.
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this
Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?
I don't think Republicans have much of a leg to stand on, if "this is a breach of journalistic vetting responsibilities" is going to be their defense on this one. They just spend the last year crying about how "the American people have a right to know" anything and everything, regardless of source or credibility.
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)
Yesand Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this
Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?
Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol. Who do you believe, Sol? Wikileaks themselves, or the CIA? If you believe either, why? Has Wikileaks ever given you cause to distrust them? Has the CIA?
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg)
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?Unlikely. I bet some troll wrote this dossier as it feeds into the worst of what liberals already believe about Trump.
Guys.. this is just feeding into the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. When the same news organizations that publish this crap then turn around and blab about fake news, it gives Trump legitimate ammo to use against them. They're already starting to campaign for reelection...
The story here is that Comey chose to speak publically 10 days before an election about emails on a computer of which he did not know the contents of or if they had any bearing on anything related to HRC. At the same time, he knew that this information about Trump being compromised, even if not verified, existed. He chose to release the email information, which turned out to be nothing, but not the Russia stuff, which may or may not turn out to be nothing. The FBI is playing favorites with unsubstantiated information, and that sucks.Which I think does mean the president can fire him..... But then is the person who Trump would appoint worse?
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?
Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol. Who do you believe, Sol?
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.
Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.
Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?
Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie? This has been (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/) his MO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9aa06f464835) all year (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-mocks-trump-scientist-claim-many-people-are-saying), to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents. I think it's only fair to play on his level.Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol. Who do you believe, Sol?
Have you even been reading the news? I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks. Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on. Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin. But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.
This isn't fake news. Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen. This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility. It's still a real document. It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about. Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole.
See the difference? A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen. This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.
Congressional GOP members already knew about this. They don't care. They are willing to put party in front of country. So I doubt he will ever be impeached unless people get out and vote in 2018.Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.
Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.
Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283
Absolutely and I never claimed as such. I think the news outlet was just reporting what it has while saying "hey we can't verify this." Honestly would it be surprising if it were true? And would it really change the minds of any Trump supporter? I mean they have made it this far ignoring his plethora of lies and deceit, I don't think it would change their minds. Might kick start the impeachment proceedings. Fingers crossed.
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?
Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie? This has been (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-many-people-are-saying/) his MO (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.9aa06f464835) all year (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-mocks-trump-scientist-claim-many-people-are-saying), to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents. I think it's only fair to play on his level.Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol. Who do you believe, Sol?
Have you even been reading the news? I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks. Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on. Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin. But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.
This isn't fake news. Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen. This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility. It's still a real document. It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about. Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole.
See the difference? A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen. This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.
Absolutely I agree Sol. I think folks are going to start labeling everything as fake news now even if it boils down to them just simply not agreeing with it.
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.
See the difference? A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen. This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.
See the difference? A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen. This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.
It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it. This is getting really interesting now. Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.
If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.
At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.
You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Given the accusation of his raping a 13 year old girl and his support for a proven pedophile, that would honestly not surprise me. I honestly want to know what it would take for the GOP to impeach him, and I don't think there is anything. The only blackmail I think that would work on Trump is proof that he is not rich. He has put so much effort into that lie, it does not matter that many people would not care, he'd care.I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.
If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.
At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.
You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
See the difference? A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen. This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.
It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it. This is getting really interesting now. Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?
4chan, jumping in and trying to take credit? Wow, I'm shocked -- shocked!
It's possible, I suppose.
Then again, the BBC is saying there's a second source that backs the veracity of the existence of the compromising dossier on Trump.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/672669/bbc-claims-second-source-backs-trump-dossier
Generally speaking, I try not to use cheap, tasteless jokes to mock political figures, because I think doing so is lazy and takes the place of legitimate critique.
This policy is REALLY, REALLY hard to adhere to right now.
Given the accusation of his raping a 13 year old girl and his support for a proven pedophile, that would honestly not surprise me. I honestly want to know what it would take for the GOP to impeach him, and I don't think there is anything. The only blackmail I think that would work on Trump is proof that he is not rich. He has put so much effort into that lie, it does not matter that many people would not care, he'd care.I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.
If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.
At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.
You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Embarrassing material probably isn't nearly enough. I doubt an old sex scandal with whores in a foreign country would be enough to get him to resign and I don't believe what has been talked about is a crime.
The salacious innuendoes in the periodic reports about Trump’s personal life dominated social media headlines. The mention of Webzilla and Gubarev was among the more specific allegations: that XBT and affiliates “had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.”
Gubarev said he operated 75,000 servers across the globe and got real-time information if there had been hacking or illicit activity tied to his businesses. There is no evidence of that, he said, adding that no one has contacted him.
“I have a physical office in Dallas. Nobody contacted me,” said Gubarev, adding that 40 percent of his business is handled over the servers it runs in Dallas and the United States accounts for about 27 percent of his global business.[/quote
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article125910774.html
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias." A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.
Why is this suddenly back in the news? We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence. We knew that back in May of 2016. Remember Paul Manafort?
That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol. Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin. But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with. If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.
Why is this suddenly back in the news? We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence. We knew that back in May of 2016. Remember Paul Manafort?
That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol. Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin. But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with. If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.
The same orgs giving Buzzfeed heat had no problem posting unverified info about HRC. Funny how they clutch their pearls now...
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias." A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.
To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.
I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.
The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.
I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias." A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.
To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.
I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.
The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.
I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.
I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias." A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.
To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.
I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.
The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.
I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.
I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.
CNN and MSNBC were terrible leading up to the election. Do you remember Van Jones saying this election result was a whitelash? To me that is an incredibly racist thing to say. Keep in mind, a lot of people that voted Democrat in previous elections, voted Republican this time around. Feel free to disagree with me about how good or bad CNN is. Bottomline is, I lost respect for it. Just like I lost respect for Fox during the Bush era.
And who could forget the smug Rachel Maddow...my god she is the definition of partisan reporting. How they think they are different or better than Fox, I do not know.
See the difference? A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen. This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.
It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it. This is getting really interesting now. Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?
EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support. That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.
The BBC are reporting that the author of the dossier is a respected former MI6 man, named as Christopher Steele, who had postings in Moscow and has sources in the FSB. He is now a director of Orbis Business Intelligence - https://orbisbi.com/
See the difference? A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen. This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.
It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it. This is getting really interesting now. Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?
EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support. That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.
This seems interesting. You're attempting to scold someone for allegedly believing "fake news" while using a source with zero credibility who's attempting to convince you they created the story and fed it to some guy named Rick Wilson which was easily disprovable. So you're in essence using actual fake news to try and discredit unverifiable fake news. That's an odd twist, to put I mildly.
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias." A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.
To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.
I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.
The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.
I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.
First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.
Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.
Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.
First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.
Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.
Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.
First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.
Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.
Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.
Good questions. I get the feeling from many anti Clinton people that they felt her behavior was a illegal and smoking gun for her being 100% corrupt.
I personally like you found the emails to be mostly benign insider deals, back scratching and basically all the stuff we assume the DNC and RNC were doing anyway.
I also think the to me saying an election was hacked means "they hacked votes". That would clearly be a terrible circumstance demanding a remedy.
A foreign country running a smear campaign based on real document leaks and disinformation on the internet is a far less tangible crime. I don't like it and I think we should fight that behavior by foreign states. But I don't think it is necessarily wise to inflame anger and destabilize our own government as part of the process to combat this behavior. At least part of the motivation for spending so much time talking about this "hacking" is certainly to either destabilize or box in the Trump administration with regards to his policies on Russia.
The way this is being handled is certainly in part political but I am not sure entirely what consequence the intelligence community and the DNC are hoping for.
In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.
First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.
Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.
Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.
There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.
For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.
At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
And I have a tough time getting mad at Russia for exposing the bad behavior of the Democrats. "They tilted the election by exposing our efforts to tilt the election" is pretty sad and laughable.In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.
First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.
Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.
Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.
There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.
For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.
At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J
And I have a tough time getting mad at Russia for exposing the bad behavior of the Democrats. "They tilted the election by exposing our efforts to tilt the election" is pretty sad and laughable.In the whole brouhaha about Russian hacking, there's a couple of things that don't seem to be talked about.
First, there was no hacking, even alleged, of the actual votes.
Second, the "hacking" that did take place was targeted at the Democratic Party, a non-governmental entity. This spearfishing of official's gmail accounts wouldn't have taken a state actor. The party officials who had their emails exposed were very sloppy with their information security, as were their organizations. So the jury is out whether it was Russia or not.
Third, how much did those exposed emails really change anyone's mind? I read through some of them. Mostly mundane stuff. No smoking guns. Nothing illegal or even that scandalous.
There were some democrats that alleged the possibility of electronic voter fraud, those have died down.
For your third point, I have to disagree. Hillary Clinton was killing Bernie Sanders in he primary. During that time there were allegations of the establishment rigging the system but it was widely dismissed. The DNC leaks revealed there was rampant manipulation occurring. This dissuaded some Bernie Sanders voters and others in the centre. Later leaks or hacks like the Podesta emails further eroded trust in Clinton.
At one point in time I could enumerate and describe each e-mail scandal and give a detailed timeline on when they occurred and how they were or were not inter-related. I literally threw up my hands and gave up after the seventh incident. Vox recently released a video that suggested that the constant barrage of "email scandal" headlines were an aggravating factor in the determination of the election.
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J
That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J
That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.
To repeat myself two posts in a row, no one here is claiming Russia "hacked" the election in the way you seem to mean it. There are plenty of other things to be disturbed about.
Trump's own choice to head the CIA believes that " the upper echelons of the Russian government worked to elect the president-elect."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/cia-nominee-believes-russians-wanted-trump?utm_term=.ptQ5451K5#.wyyJjJ38J
That's a very vague statement though. There's a world between Russia cleverly disseminating information or disinformation to help Trump and Russia "hacking" the election.
To repeat myself two posts in a row, no one here is claiming Russia "hacked" the election in the way you seem to mean it. There are plenty of other things to be disturbed about.
I'm pretty disturbed by how many conservatives are very untroubled by this Russian involvement precisely because they're happy it hurt HRC. It's depressing as hell that as long as the involvement helped tilt things their way, it's not a problem for them. As though it's not possible for them to see the larger picture, somehow. It really makes me shake my head.
Conservatives may not be troubled because there have been nothing but allegations so far. No evidence, just conjecture on the part of intelligence agencies.
Part of the problem is that anything the Russian did appears to ephemeral and unquantifiable. We can't really measure how much a possible information/disinformation campaign helped Trump or hurt Hillary, or point to anything really. There isn't a legal basis for doing much about it either.
If Russia had attacked one of our carrier groups, or massively hacked our voting machines, we could clearly point to something and respond, but not so much with this.
It wouldn't be the first time Russia used information warfare against us. The USSR's propaganda strategy abroad took advantage of our open society to further their agenda all the time.
I'm pretty disturbed by how many conservatives are very untroubled by this Russian involvement precisely because they're happy it hurt HRC. It's depressing as hell that as long as the involvement helped tilt things their way, it's not a problem for them. As though it's not possible for them to see the larger picture, somehow. It really makes me shake my head.
Conservatives may not be troubled because there have been nothing but allegations so far. No evidence, just conjecture on the part of intelligence agencies.
Part of the problem is that anything the Russian did appears to ephemeral and unquantifiable. We can't really measure how much a possible information/disinformation campaign helped Trump or hurt Hillary, or point to anything really. There isn't a legal basis for doing much about it either.
If Russia had attacked one of our carrier groups, or massively hacked our voting machines, we could clearly point to something and respond, but not so much with this.
It wouldn't be the first time Russia used information warfare against us. The USSR's propaganda strategy abroad took advantage of our open society to further their agenda all the time.
I mean, we addressed all of these points already, and raised a number of others that are seriously concerning, including some that have effectively nothing to do with Russia and entirely to do with Trump's handling of the situation. It doesn't matter that we can't quantify whether this actually influenced the election. If you don't understand why, there are 5 pages of discussion that can help clarify.
I read through the 5 pages.
What I don't see is that 5 pages is the "so what"? of this all. In an open society like ours with freedom of speech and press, how do you prevent a foreign power from disseminating information/disinformation especially if they do it from with in their own borders?
So assuming the allegations are true, what do you want? Another election? More sanctions against Russia? War? Trump to step down?
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.
I read through the 5 pages.
What I don't see is that 5 pages is the "so what"? of this all. In an open society like ours with freedom of speech and press, how do you prevent a foreign power from disseminating information/disinformation especially if they do it from with in their own borders?
So assuming the allegations are true, what do you want? Another election? More sanctions against Russia? War? Trump to step down?
I mean, if you really read all 5 pages, you skimmed a lot if you don't think those were also addressed. The point of this is not about figuring out ways to stop them from doing this (although we should try our best, obviously). Also, the "allegations" (regarding election meddling) are true--that's pretty indisputable at this point barring an amazingly coordinated conspiracy between over a dozen agencies that any government worker can tell you typically do not collaborate well. And frankly if they were going to bother, I think they would manufacture a much better bombshell than this. Whether the Trump camp colluded with Russia remains less substantiated although there is troubling circumstantial evidence that I truly hope doesn't pan out. I would prefer not to be alive to witness the fallout from the first outright traitorous president in US history. For now I'm going to presume that particular angle is overblown.
Regardless, that is largely beside the point. As for your question of what I want, Obama's response seemed reasonably good. We want to discourage nations from going too far in this inevitable meddling, just as with the China hacking thing a while back. When other countries mess with us, the response is not to call their president smart and/or deny that they actually messed with us. The response I expect of my leader is to stand up to them and enact carefully considered consequences (never war, which is always the worst option). Do you really want the leader of the free world to be a spineless bootlicker? I thought you conservatives valued strength in your leadership.
ETA - Finally, as I've said what must have been a dozen times by now, none of this would require Trump to step down. This is why I question whether you read the thread.
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.
Huh? If he had done it before the election that would have had every Republican crying to high heaven about how he was trying to influence it himself. I am struggling to see your logic here that his approach was somehow more political.
The media want something on Trump, I don't think there's any doubt about that. Trump hasn't exactly played nice with them so them gunning for him is understandable.
If he acknowledged Russian meddling, that would taint him before he even took office, giving his political opponents a huge stick to hit him with. I can see why that's off the table for him. These are frickin' politicians we're talking about here.
I reviewed the pages again to see if this point had been made and I did not see it.
Cartoon in today's The Times
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.
This is pretty far from the mark. He addressed the issue privately with Putin before the election. If he had done anything else prior (like most of his advisors suggested) it would be instantly viewed as an attempt to influence the election for Hillary. He specifically waited until after the election so there could be no accusations of him trying to sway the election. But then again he is Obama, so there literally is no correct course of action from the POV of the R's
Obama's response would have been much more appropriate before the election. Waiting until after was a pretty poor move, made to score political points and not actually defend America 's interests.
This is pretty far from the mark. He addressed the issue privately with Putin before the election. If he had done anything else prior (like most of his advisors suggested) it would be instantly viewed as an attempt to influence the election for Hillary. He specifically waited until after the election so there could be no accusations of him trying to sway the election. But then again he is Obama, so there literally is no correct course of action from the POV of the R's
Umm... he campaigned relentlessly for Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure how much more he could have tried to get her elected. It's not as if he was trying to appear impartial to who won, or that this information was so secret it couldn't be released. It was held back strictly for political theater; though this is consistent with much of his presidency, I'm still disappointed. It's likely all of his advisors were telling him to allow this information to be released because it would have been the right thing to do.
I still fail to see your reasoning here. If Obama pushed forward with this info earlier, there is a relatively good chance Trump would have sunk with it, especially if its release was timed just right. That President Obama would wait until after the election to release info that very obviously would have helped HRC could somehow be seen as "political theater" really makes no sense whatsoever to me. Perhaps you could expand on why you think this timing fits that narrative more than any other?
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.
Are you suggesting that Obama promoted a politically motivated cover-up to help Donald Trump?
That's a new one. People hate him for lots of reasons, but "he's secretly a Republican" isn't usually on the list.
While they both have political ramifications, one has its basis in free and open election; the other is a politically motivated cover-up.
Are you suggesting that Obama promoted a politically motivated cover-up to help Donald Trump?
That's a new one. People hate him for lots of reasons, but "he's secretly a Republican" isn't usually on the list.
Yep, he "resigned."
The wheels have started to come off.
Yep, he "resigned."
The wheels have started to come off.
What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
And why is he being allowed to resign instead of being charged with treason?Yep, he "resigned."
The wheels have started to come off.
What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
His resignation doesn't prevent a charge of treason. Who would be the prosecuting authority, and can the recorded phone conversations be admitted as evidence?And why is he being allowed to resign instead of being charged with treason?Yep, he "resigned."
The wheels have started to come off.
What I don't understand is why the press isn't calling this by it's commonly known name: treason.
I'm not sure I understand the seriousness of the situation.
Flynn, a civilian at the time spoke to Russian ambassador about sanctions.
Apparently it is illegal to do so as a civilian. As prepping for the job, isn't this understandable though?
The conversation led to Putin ultimately not expelling diplomats, and kinda preserved decent diplomatic ties. Is this not desirable?
Apparently he lies to Pence, leading to Pence telling press nothing was discussed regarding sanctions.
What difference does it make really?
Am I missing something? Is there some sort of lynchpin that ties it all together? Perhaps I'm used to public officials getting away with at worse, but this seems pretty minor.
I think Paul Manafort was the first case of confirmed collusion.
Remember back when republicans pretended to be outraged by perceived mishandling of classified information? Trump just had a top secret diplomatic meeting in a public place, and his national security advisor committed treason and then lied to the administration about it.
This whole thing shades of Watergate and Iran-Contra. What is it about republican administrations that causes them to so flagrantly break the law in pursuit of more executive power? Why do people who profess patriotism so actively undermine American ideals?
And while several other Republican senators have called for investigation of the incident, Paul said it would not make sense to have more investigations, especially of fellow Republicans.
"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."
You think negotiating away a policy stance of the sitting government while you are a private citizen is minor? Yes, I think you are missing something.
WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials
The call logs and intercepted communications are part of a larger trove of information that the F.B.I. is sifting through as it investigates the links between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russian government, as well as the hacking of the D.N.C., according to federal law enforcement officials. As part of its inquiry, the F.B.I. has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews, the officials said.
The White House also declined to comment Tuesday night, but earlier in the day, the press secretary, Sean Spicer, stood by Mr. Trump’s previous comments that nobody from his campaign had contact with Russian officials before the election.
“It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.
They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.
MakeAmericaRussia Great Again!
They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him.
You think negotiating away a policy stance of the sitting government while you are a private citizen is minor? Yes, I think you are missing something.
What do you know of Flynn's conversation and what he gave away. Go share your info with the press.
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.
They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.
MakeAmericaRussia Great Again!
He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.
They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.
MakeAmericaRussia Great Again!
He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.
I'd bet money also. Wondering how long it will take for a story will break on the $19B Rosneft deal and how Trump has his hands all over it.
The Rosneft deal is explicitly mentioned in the Steele Dossier. As is the Flynn conversation. In addition, the Russian source of the dossier is dead. And Steele is still in hiding. It was widely panned as "fake news" at the time, due to incredible cognitive dissonance of Trump voters at the time. When will the Trump voters stand up and realize that they elected someone who conspired with Russia to win the Presidency?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fates-of-5-men-connected-to-the-trump-russia-dossier_us_589f5472e4b080bf74f03cd6
Well, it's confirmed that Russia has tested a missile they previously denied building and is against the Cold War treaty they signed with the US. Now they have confirmed spy ships off the east coast of the US.
They are testing Trump big time. Wonder if he'll ignore it and play it off out of fear of Russia spilling the beans on him. Is it too early to start thanking Trump voters for this mess? I mean it's not like the writing was on the wall or anything.
MakeAmericaRussia Great Again!
He'll ignore it. I'd bet money.
I'd bet money also. Wondering how long it will take for a story will break on the $19B Rosneft deal and how Trump has his hands all over it.
The Rosneft deal is explicitly mentioned in the Steele Dossier. As is the Flynn conversation. In addition, the Russian source of the dossier is dead. And Steele is still in hiding. It was widely panned as "fake news" at the time, due to incredible cognitive dissonance of Trump voters at the time. When will the Trump voters stand up and realize that they elected someone who conspired with Russia to win the Presidency?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-fates-of-5-men-connected-to-the-trump-russia-dossier_us_589f5472e4b080bf74f03cd6
Another claim in the Steele Dossier comes true. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Dossier is true folks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/02/15/mattis-trumps-defense-secretary-issues-ultimatum-to-nato-allies-on-defense-spending/?utm_term=.604ebf6b3dea
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.
It makes sense for the GOP to shield Pence as much as possible, in case they do have to remove Trump. Pence himself is of course fantasizing about this outcome.
It's an interesting narrative, being the mirror image of what happened with Nixon and Agnew in 1973, where Agnew went down to protect the president.
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no? Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no? Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.
I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no? Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.
I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no? Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?This was my thought. Somehow Trump ignoring Russia will lead the US to nuclear war? Doesn't connect - which is why all the persons who hyperventilated about nuclear war ignored your question.
I think the more likely scenario (assuming this whole mess plays out with Trump ignoring Russia because they are blackmailing/bribing him) is that Russia is free to walk all over smaller European states and flout other international rules, which while not nuclear war, is still quite serious.
Umm nuclear was brought up as an example of the willingness of how far Trump's die hard supporters would go to continue deflecting to Hillary. I don't think there was a question anywhere about starting nuclear war or a suggestion Trump was going to start a nuclear war.
I don't know too much about all this since I haven't been following it, but it would seem that nuclear war is sort of the OPPOSITE potential outcome, no? Isn't the problem that Trump's administration has gotten too cozy with Russia, not antagonistic?
I find it interesting at how well Pence has been shielded from all of this thus far. By all accounts he has been highly involved in most major decisions, and yet somehow the narrative we are to believe is that he has been kept in the dark on anything related to the Russia situation? I'm open to him truly being innocent here, but I would hope he is investigated as thoroughly as the rest. Not that I think this would happen (nor is this really a great outcome either), but President Paul Ryan, anyone? The RNC would be thrilled, at the least.
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Maybe it's positioning itself to get ready to take Trump back to his homeland. We can only hope.
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Ha. I think to get Trump back to where he fits in will take something with a lot more range than a ship...Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?
Maybe it's positioning itself to get ready to take Trump back to his homeland. We can only hope.
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?Yes. Countries with the capability to have ISR assets active all the time. Russia has always collected on the US and will continue to regardless of who the president is. The same is true for the US. The US has had ISR assets active literally 24/7 365 for the past 50+ years.
Does anyone here think that Russia would have a warship off the coast of Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/index.html) today if Hillary Clinton were President?Yes. Countries with the capability to have ISR assets active all the time. Russia has always collected on the US and will continue to regardless of who the president is. The same is true for the US. The US has had ISR assets active literally 24/7 365 for the past 50+ years.
U.S. President Donald J. Trump's statement during his press conference on the Russian ship off the U.S. coast:
"The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great."
F'ing moron, literally NO ONE with half a brain would say that.
U.S. President Donald J. Trump's statement during his press conference on the Russian ship off the U.S. coast:
"The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s so great.’ That’s not great. That’s not great."
F'ing moron, literally NO ONE with half a brain would say that.
Well, to be fair, a lot of his supporters probably would say that, if he told them it was great.
Trump playing into their propaganda is just icing on the cake and we should investigate the shit out of him as anyone who so casually flirts with their rhetoric is at best a security risks with regards to maintaining a strong opposition stance to Russia's absurd leadership.Yes, thank god Trump hasn't done something that would truly play into their propaganda like "resetting their relationship with the U.S." Could you imagine how something as silly as that would appear when filtered through their media! A complete security nightmare for the entire country!
In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.
Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:QuoteIn January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification. He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."
Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c83bd09547ed
So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:QuoteIn January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification. He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."
Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c83bd09547ed
I don't think you can say he clearly lied. The question was related to the campaign, so the context of the question still has the qualifier of being related to the campaign. Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. Its not clear to me. At any rate, this story is now dead thanks to our friendly MO senator.So it appears Session's Russian connection is a bust. NY Times and WaPo have both picked the story up and ran with the angle that he "denied" Russian contact, yet the questions asked were pretty specific:QuoteIn January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.
Sessions responded with one word: “No.”
Sessions' response in the oral hearings did not contain that qualification. He specifically said "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I am unable to comment."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c83bd09547ed
This is correct. Sessions clearly lied to congress, even though he didn't actually have to within the confines of the question.
I don't think you can say he clearly lied. The question was related to the campaign, so the context of the question still has the qualifier of being related to the campaign. Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. Its not clear to me. At any rate, this story is now dead thanks to our friendly MO senator.
According to this (segment starting at 24.40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4FfVJnAuM
1. The FBI knew before Sessions was confirmed that he had lied on oath to Congress - because they had been investigating his contacts with Russia from before his confirmation hearings - and did not tell Congress.
2. FBI Director Comey is refusing to co-operate with the Congress investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, and Congress are contemplating subpoenaing him.
Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on? Has the FBI been compromised by the Russians?
To be fair (hard words to write in relation to Trump) if the FBI/Comey have been compromised then the evidence goes back into the Obama administration.According to this (segment starting at 24.40) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4FfVJnAuM
1. The FBI knew before Sessions was confirmed that he had lied on oath to Congress - because they had been investigating his contacts with Russia from before his confirmation hearings - and did not tell Congress.
2. FBI Director Comey is refusing to co-operate with the Congress investigation into Trump's ties with Russia, and Congress are contemplating subpoenaing him.
Jesus Christ, what the fuck is going on? Has the FBI been compromised by the Russians?
Trump's administration is a gigantic shit sandwich.
I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much. Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia. If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc... But no, they only meet with Russia.
I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much. Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia. If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc... But no, they only meet with Russia.
Do we actually know this? I have not seen any reporting showing the meeting schedule and if meetings with Russia are the only people they have been meeting with. Evidence shows a far greater degree of connection in the Trump admin (and prior campaign staff) than in recent precedent, but that is not to say they have not been meeting elsewhere. If that was their full meeting schedule, then it is indeed a shit sandwich. If not, then it is still damning because of the impropriety of the denials, or content of discussion (sanctions, etc).
I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much. Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia. If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc... But no, they only meet with Russia.
Do we actually know this? I have not seen any reporting showing the meeting schedule and if meetings with Russia are the only people they have been meeting with. Evidence shows a far greater degree of connection in the Trump admin (and prior campaign staff) than in recent precedent, but that is not to say they have not been meeting elsewhere. If that was their full meeting schedule, then it is indeed a shit sandwich. If not, then it is still damning because of the impropriety of the denials, or content of discussion (sanctions, etc).
I don't think there has been specific meeting schedule reporting. The lack of reporting says mountains though. Their initial defense was that the Russian meetings were getting to know you introduction things. It would be a very supportive defense to list other countries you had similar meeting with. *Crickets*. Russia meetings were leaked because we do surveillance on all foreign diplomats, that includes non-Russian diplomats but no leaks about them. No other countries have come forward and admitted to meetings with Trump officials.
There are a lot of sources of information that could confirm if the Trump team met with other countries, since there is no confirmation, it stands to reason that those meetings did not happen.
I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much. Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia. If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc... But no, they only meet with Russia.
“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.
She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.
stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.
stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.
Perhaps because he had just witnessed another cabinet official get the classic Trump "You're Fired" for doing the exact same thing? I think Sessions realized his career was over if he admitted to doing the same thing, so he lied to Congress to cover it up. Why not go all in, if you're going to get fired anyway?
the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury.
Regardless of how harmless the meetings were, the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury. Also, much of what we seem to know about the numerous Russia connections in the administration at a minimum seem to fall in the cover up being worse than the crime category. Perhaps there is no treason here and never was, but when you lie to congress (not to mention the American public!) and stubbornly block and obfuscate any efforts to learn exactly what happened and when, it certainly begs the question as to why.Yes. He should have went with the classic "I don't remember." Defense.
Classic. :)the best case scenario for our assessment of Sessions is that he still willfully misled congress (if we want to be generous with how we view his statement), which is also a crime, though not so serious as perjury.
"I did not have international relations with that country."
I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much. Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia. If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc... But no, they only meet with Russia.
Actually Sessions has, per Wapo:Quote“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.
She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ecebaaf41944
.
I would also like to add since it doesn't seem to be discussed that much. Of all the countries in the world for all the people in the Trump admin to be meeting with secretly, it was Russia. If they were doing innocuous relationship building or getting to know you meetings, they would also be meeting with China, France, Germany, Iraq etc... But no, they only meet with Russia.
Actually Sessions has, per Wapo:Quote“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.
She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ecebaaf41944
.
After this weekend I can say with even more confidence "This administration is nothing but a shit sandwich."
And yes. The image of the sandwich in my mind resembles a sloppy joe.
Did anyone else see where Marine Le Pen (French presidential candidate) has financial ties to Russia? She says she could not get a loan anywhere but Russia.
Just go to Google News and search for "Marine Le Pen russian loan". She reminds me alot of Trump. Also a conservative.
“I don’t think we should underestimate the degree to which the undermining of the fabric of Western society is a fundamental aim of what Putin is all about,” said Ivo Daalder, President Obama’s former permanent representative to NATO and now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “We are in a very different time period that has far more to do with the 1920s and 1930s than it does with 2010. We are at a tipping point where the success of these [populist] movements raises fundamental question about the [viability of the] international order we are living in.”
And yes. The image of the sandwich in my mind resembles a sloppy joe.
Made in a greasy shit diner, then dropped on a NY sidewalk and stepped on, then put on a fancy plate and sold to rural Americans as good wholesome American fare.
Everyone is talking about the stepped-on sloppy joe shit sandwich TV commercial that aired during the Superbowl and man are they excited about it. #MAG(gross)A
In totally unrelated news, last week with zero cameras present, Trump signed a new bill allowing mentally ill people to buy guns. Because the NRA told him mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a firearms issue. WTF, dude?
Jesus titty fucking christ. Really? I had not heard of this.
In totally unrelated news, last week with zero cameras present, Trump signed a new bill allowing mentally ill people to buy guns. Because the NRA told him mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a firearms issue. WTF, dude?
I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.
Well, him and the ACLU.I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.
The law that Trump just repealed didn't forbid bulimic people from buying guns. It just required background checks for people who receive state disability payments for mental health diagnoses so severe that they can't work.
But hey, if you think everybody should be able to buy guns regardless of their history of mental illness, then President Trump is right there with you.
Well, him and the ACLU.I'm sure some people would feel safe if people with anxiety or eating disorders couldn't own guns, but clearly the ACLU disagrees.
The law that Trump just repealed didn't forbid bulimic people from buying guns. It just required background checks for people who receive state disability payments for mental health diagnoses so severe that they can't work.
But hey, if you think everybody should be able to buy guns regardless of their history of mental illness, then President Trump is right there with you.
And it wasn't just people receiving benefits; just people with disabilities that also couldn't manage their own financial affairs. Hardly a group of mass shooters or terrorists in waiting.
So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
What if there are people who are severely mentally impaired for whom the only record of that impairment which could be available on the NICS system will be through their claim for disability? They are not being reported because they receive aid money, but because there is information available through the aid money system that they do not pass the background checks.So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
They are so severely mentally impaired they can not handle their own finances and their only source of income is welfare (because they can't work) and they have no history of violence AND they somehow find the money to buy a gun without their financial controller being aware AND they suddenly decide to commit a crime using that gun? Seems like we are in the level of absurdly small number of people here... while disenfranchising a lot of people strictly because they are on welfare. Probably why the ACLU had such a problem with it in the first place.What if there are people who are severely mentally impaired for whom the only record of that impairment which could be available on the NICS system will be through their claim for disability? They are not being reported because they receive aid money, but because there is information available through the aid money system that they do not pass the background checks.So, what Trump seems to have done is to stop background checks from identifying certain categories of people who since 1968/2007 should not have been able to buy guns on grounds of their mental illness.Well, to be more precise, congress stopped automatic reporting on these people solely based up their receipt of welfare, and not criminal history or propensity to violence. These people still have to be background checked before buying guns just like everyone else, the fact that they recieve aid money will not be included in the decision to approve or deny their purchase.
And by God the USA Federal legal code is a convoluted mess and the discussion about it staggeringly ill-informed and/or deliberately misleading.
Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia. The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia. The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
Isn't that enough? That there are people now running the USA government that may have colluded with Russia? With the obvious implication that they may still be colluding with Russia, including being subject to compromat which influences them to continue to collude with Russia? While in the White House and having access to USA government secrets? And access to the secrets of the Five Eyes too?
It's more than enough for me, for now.
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude. The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.He's said that the President has lied and that his campaign team is under investigation for collusion with Russia. The campaign team that includes people now working in the White House, including people having access to matters of national security.Yes indeed, and Comey is talking. Live. (http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn)Yes, but not saying much, sadly.
Isn't that enough? That there are people now running the USA government that may have colluded with Russia? With the obvious implication that they may still be colluding with Russia, including being subject to compromat which influences them to continue to collude with Russia? While in the White House and having access to USA government secrets? And access to the secrets of the Five Eyes too?
It's more than enough for me, for now.
Yes, they are conducting an investigation. Much like the previous investigations of prominent political figures and their campaigns, I would wait for the evidence and conclusions of the investigation before I decide to burn anyone at the stake.
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude. The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.
Both Tillerson and Wilbur Ross have significant ties to Russia - that's both the USA's foreign and commerce policies currently in dubious hands, and Homeland Security only beyond Russian influence because of leaked security information.I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude. The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.
I agree there is a need to wait for the investigations to conclude. The difference between this investigation and previous investigations is that while it is going on there are possibly treasonous individuals at the highest level of the USA government.I guess I see this as a very similar level of previous investigations. None of the aides are Secretary of State, but they could indeed have access to very powerful information. All the more reason to investigate fully and quickly.
part of me would be sad to see the US's global reputation sullied
Don't worry, the US foreign policy and image abroad has been the butt of a joke for about as long as I've been alive.part of me would be sad to see the US's global reputation sullied
I think it's been too late for that since early last November.
Come on, Obama was a freakin' rock star internationally! The US foreign policy reputation could not have been that bad (and was probably even pretty favorable) with him at the helm, no?It was getting better during Obama's time in office after W's time in which people literally were lying and saying they were Canadian instead of from the states. However, that does not mesh well with the opinions of the GOP so they like to say that Obama was too soft internationally and we looked weak.
And yet the criticism of Hillary was she was far too hawkish and was going to get us in a quagmire in the ME (I write this as Trump deploys 400 ground troops to Syria, with another 1000 possibly to follow). The problem with Obama is he wasn't Republican enough for the Republicans. No amount of foreign policy deftness could bridge that gap. Obama's policy was a risk-averse long-game approach with modest achievements (e.g. Iran deal, containment of ISIL) with many of the more difficult problems still unresolved (Russia, NK).Come on, Obama was a freakin' rock star internationally! The US foreign policy reputation could not have been that bad (and was probably even pretty favorable) with him at the helm, no?It was getting better during Obama's time in office after W's time in which people literally were lying and saying they were Canadian instead of from the states. However, that does not mesh well with the opinions of the GOP so they like to say that Obama was too soft internationally and we looked weak.
So do Trump and Ryan have a quid pro quo going? Specifically, Trump doesn't throw Ryan under the bus on the health care reform meltdown as long as Ryan keeps Nunes on the investigative panel to obstruct its progress. The Yates hearing was pulled by Nunes as soon as the only path to blocking her testimony otherwise would require Trump citing executive privilege. This really is Stupid Watergate.
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.
Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.
Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.
Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.
Yeah. So why should we care at all that a failed superpower with ambitions of toppling the world's #1 superpower can effectively change the outcome of our presidential election?
why would Russia try?Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.
Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.
Yeah. So why should we care at all that a failed superpower with ambitions of toppling the world's #1 superpower can effectively change the outcome of our presidential election?
I'm not sure that GDP is the issue so much as that Putin has a long track record of doing exactly what his is accused of in other countries. Marie LePen comes to mind if we need something else more recent and openly acknowledged. A great way to improve your standing in the world is to shift the stance of other nations to be more favorable, especially when one of those countries has the leverage to impose economically significant sanctions. Just to bring that point home, some of those sanctions were put in place (along with the sending-home of some 30 diplomats) were put in place in direct response to evidence that Russia directly attempted to influence our election (and no, not by changing vote tallies directly).
If this were McCarthy, the question would be: Do you love America enough to stand up to foreign fellow travelers and conspirators? A love of Russia is fine and protected speech, even for the president and I have no problem with that in a legal sense even if I disagree with it personally. If the Trump campaign played dirty with Russia to help win, or in a quid-pro-quo then it is starting to smell a lot like treason. It is not currently conclusive (just as the FBI investigation of Clinton did not lead to a trial or conviction), but there is enough smoke to wonder if there is a fire, so to speak.
The issue is that our president and his administration is historically dishonest and corrupt, and has repeatedly colluded with a foreign government (that just happens to be Russia, but it wouldn't matter if it were Saudi Arabia, or China, or East Timor) in order to enrich themselves and their buddies. At least that is what increasingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence seems to suggest. We need a full investigation to know for sure, of course, but brainwashed Trumpbots like yourself appear to see him as incapable of doing wrong and thus won't even think of supporting an investigation of any kind, despite the fact you are sooooo confident there is nothing here. To parrot a favorite line of folks like you: why block investigations at every turn if there is nothing to hide?I'm sorry, were you referring to the previous O Admin, or current Trump admin? it's hard to tell...
The issue is that our president and his administration is historically dishonest and corrupt, and has repeatedly colluded with a foreign government (that just happens to be Russia, but it wouldn't matter if it were Saudi Arabia, or China, or East Timor) in order to enrich themselves and their buddies. At least that is what increasingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence seems to suggest. We need a full investigation to know for sure, of course, but brainwashed Trumpbots like yourself appear to see him as incapable of doing wrong and thus won't even think of supporting an investigation of any kind, despite the fact you are sooooo confident there is nothing here. To parrot a favorite line of folks like you: why block investigations at every turn if there is nothing to hide?I'm sorry, were you referring to the previous O Admin, or current Trump admin? it's hard to tell...
You may attack my opinions, but do not lower yourself to attack my intelligence, or so quickly pigeon-hole me, please. Try to do better than ad hominum. Flinging mud is infantile.
If anything, if I was Putin, i'd be pulling for Clinton. A known, flexible candidate. Not the crazy Trump, no one knows what he's going to do.
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.
Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.
Sigh...
Insane, inane hysterical Russia-phobia.
McCarthy V2.0, except this time worse.
Back then Russia was actually a legit superpower, was winning the space and arms race, and was actually trying to take over the world.
Today's Russia has about $2Trillion GDP, less than the state of California... it's a failed superpower, a 2nd rate player. It's a gas station with some old nukes.
It's incredible to me that the conservative side is so tribal that they happily carry water for Russia because they perceive this stance helps Trump. The same people who, you know, were responsible for McCarthyism, are furiously spinning happy tales of Russia Should Be Our Ally! Honestly, imagine a Reagan-era Republican looking at this right now. I can't imagine a more wholesale defeat of conservatives and conservative ideals than Trumpism. All that remains are the grievances.
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???
^ All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.
^ All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.
I know, I'm just easily baited by calls of "Bueller?? Bueller?" :-)
Plus I didn't want the Fox and Friends and Breitbart crowd to interpret silence as agreement, like we were all instantly forced back under our rocks and forced to admit how stupid we were ever to question Trump and Russian meddling in the election once we saw how Our President and Savior bravely and forcefully stood up to Syria.
why would Russia try?
And today Russia is fuming because we hit their vassal Syria. Is Prez Trump still on the take of the Russkies? Has everyone adjusted their cockamamie conspiracy theories accordingly? Bueller??? Bueller???
+1 to DoubleDown. All the Trumpbots continually miss the point. It doesn't matter what Trump is doing now relative to Russia. If he/his team colluded with them during the election/transition in any way shape or form (a claim for which there is enough evidence to effect the aforementioned investigations), that's still treason and should be treated accordingly.
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c
Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c
Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?
1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c
Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?
1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
Well McMaster denied this happened so obviously it didn't, case closed! Phew!
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c
Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word 'confidential'.-Donald Trump in Greenville North Carolina in September 2016
Individuals who are ‘extremely careless’ w/ classified info should be denied further access to it.-Paul Ryan in July 2016
That is a criminal offense. That makes it an impeachable offense.-Rep Mo Brooks (R-AL) on Hillary Clinton's potential disclosure of classified information
Did you notice how precisely worded his denial was? He used enough words that someone who blindly supports Trump would hear that it didn't happen, but the words he used are not a denial. He specifically said that they did not discuss "sources," "methods," and "military operations." There was utter silence regarding disclosure of information.
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.
This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps. Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, . I don't claim to have any specific information. But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.
This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps. Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, . I don't claim to have any specific information. But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.
One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.
This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps. Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, . I don't claim to have any specific information. But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.
One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.
Remember when we were saying thus at the end of Bush's presidency? Good times. Good times.
specific information that had been obtained and the city from which that information had come, which could easily lead to the source being identified.
This evening there is an undercover MI6 agent inside an ISIS terror cell who is sweating bullets his handler is going to off him while he sleeps. Or maybe it's a Mossad agent in Syria, . I don't claim to have any specific information. But the President has apparently put intelligence operatives at grave mortal risk by offering sufficient detail to the Russians to disclose specific intelligence conduits, and right now those individuals are probably not very happy about it.
One can only hope that when (if?) we recover from this travesty of an administration we can rebuild some of the trust lost in the international community.
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c
Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?
1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c
Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?
1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
And don't forget that oldie but goodie: Bengahzi....
Good to know you are just as hyper-partisan as ever acroy. Indeed, nevermind that after carefully "denying" that anything improper was said, the words directly out of the mouths of Trump and his lackies have subsequently and explicitly acknowledged his leaking of highly classified intel. Like, that is literally undeniable except through a single-minded commitment to ignorance. So what do Trumpbots like you do? All of the things Kris listed, of course, or else take a big old bite of the "he's president so he can do whatever he wants" shit sandwich and try to regurgitate it back to the rest of us with assurances that people who don't take a big old spoonful are the crazy ones.
But you're right, even though I am not a Democrat, by disagreeing with your stance that Trump is incapable of making mistakes I must be part of the "increasingly small" minority of Americans who disapproves of him. All of the polls that say otherwise (and by increasing margins) are fake news, of course.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
In the meantime life goes on. Time to get back to it. I like MMM's 'Circle of Concern' graphic enough to post it again.
O hey, my net worth hit a record high yesterday, one more day closer to FI. Thanks Trump Effect!
Carry on.
One could argue that you've remained a Republican while the party cleaved significantly from its former values. In July '16 I wrote a post about how much the GOP platform had changed and asked the somewhat retorical question: if you believed in the earlier values, what are you now?
I was a Republican until 5 months ago. Trump and the utter disregard of my former party to my fellow countrymen pushed me into what I suppose is purgatory in American politics-Independent. My only hope now is that the Democrats either moderate (not likely) or the Republicans come back from the fringe (not looking likely now either) or a new 3rd party establishes itself like Macron in France somewhere in the middle. These are pretty dark days for our Republic.
...I don't attribute this to anything, but the largest run-ups to my family's wealth (first my parents and now mine) occurred under Clinton and then Obama. We'll see what happens under DJT, but I've never credited or faulted a president for the state of the economy during their first 100 days (too soon).
Oddly, I can't find acroy's posts about the Obama Effect during the market runup of the last 8 years, since anyone credibly invested in the market had to have several net worth highs in that time period. But, I'm happy to do it for him: Thanks, Obama.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
In the meantime life goes on. Time to get back to it. I like MMM's 'Circle of Concern' graphic enough to post it again.
O hey, my net worth hit a record high yesterday, one more day closer to FI. Thanks Trump Effect!
Carry on.
Aannnndd the intelligence source country that Trump betrayed by sharing their classified information with Russia is... Israel. Yup. And now Iran has information about their intelligence gathering systems. Trump has just given Israel a reason to stop sharing information with us -- as well as our other allies, who can't possibly think he's trustworthy going forward.Adding to that, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran - Israel's mortal enemy. Wittingly or not, DJT may have just handed Iran some nice crumbs about Israeli intelligence gathering all on the eve of Trump's 9 day international trip which includes a stop in Israel.
One could argue that you've remained a Republican while the party cleaved significantly from its former values. In July '16 I wrote a post about how much the GOP platform had changed and asked the somewhat retorical question: if you believed in the earlier values, what are you now?
I was a Republican until 5 months ago. Trump and the utter disregard of my former party to my fellow countrymen pushed me into what I suppose is purgatory in American politics-Independent. My only hope now is that the Democrats either moderate (not likely) or the Republicans come back from the fringe (not looking likely now either) or a new 3rd party establishes itself like Macron in France somewhere in the middle. These are pretty dark days for our Republic.
Aannnndd the intelligence source country that Trump betrayed by sharing their classified information with Russia is... Israel. Yup. And now Iran has information about their intelligence gathering systems. Trump has just given Israel a reason to stop sharing information with us -- as well as our other allies, who can't possibly think he's trustworthy going forward.Adding to that, Russia's closest ally in the region is Iran - Israel's mortal enemy. Wittingly or not, DJT may have just handed Iran some nice crumbs about Israeli intelligence gathering all on the eve of Trump's 9 day international trip which includes a stop in Israel.
Speaking of the upcoming trip, I think we've effectively set the bar for "success" at "did not start an international incident". oy vey!
More fuel for the fire. Comey memo states Trump asked him to stop his investigation of Flynn:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
More fuel for the fire. Comey memo states Trump asked him to stop his investigation of Flynn:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
I would think this would be grounds for impeachment, since Trump is trying to shut down the Russian/Trump investigation using the power of his presidency.
I'd be willing to be a 'memo' of the same meeting will magically appear in the White House as well, with a conflicting account. Probably using less than 140 characters and mention the electoral college win, of course.
Possibly, but per the NYT article: "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." Not so sure an unverifiable document from the WH would be treated the same. I am starting to think there finally is clear-cut grounds for impeachment, but as the article below details, I doubt it will happen unless Dems take over the midterms, and even then he might be impeached but still not removed from office.
As much as I think this is a total s**t show, I'm not sure that this alone would do it... According to Comey's notes, Trump said "I hope you can let this go" - like many DJT statements it leaves just enough room to wiggle out of. It can be argued this wasn't an order or a threat, much int he way that me saying to an officer "gee, could you give me a warning instead of a ticket?"...QuotePossibly, but per the NYT article: "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." Not so sure an unverifiable document from the WH would be treated the same. I am starting to think there finally is clear-cut grounds for impeachment, but as the article below details, I doubt it will happen unless Dems take over the midterms, and even then he might be impeached but still not removed from office.
That may be the case if you assume that nothing else is going to happen that amounts to grounds for impeachment. Given that we see a new impeachable offense almost every day (or so it seems), that might change fast.
There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction. But, on the other hand, you have to realize that — as with any other sort of criminal law — intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is? Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."
Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:
"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."
Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
Trump has upended that apple cart.
I think they think the motivation is to (somehow?) pull down Trump and install Hillary in his place. For the most part they're still super fixated on "She lost get over it!" Which tells me they're still fixated on her having lost. They're so fixated on that, they are (probably wilfully) completely blind to the present.I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is? Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."
Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
I think they think the motivation is to (somehow?) pull down Trump and install Hillary in his place. For the most part they're still super fixated on "She lost get over it!" Which tells me they're still fixated on her having lost. They're so fixated on that, they are (probably wilfully) completely blind to the present.I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:I'm genuinely curious - for those that believe so much of the news is fake and intentionally trying to harm Trump - what do they think the motivation is? Ratings? To get Trump replaced with Pence (and if so why would that be better for 'the media')?
"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."
Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:
"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."
Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).
Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.
Wow, a special prosecutor has been named - Robert Mueller, former FBI director. This just got interesting. I suppose we'll (presumably?) find out our answers now, sooner or later. How those answers are spun by each side remains to be seen.
ETA - The Atlantic on why a special prosecutor is not necessarily the best way to determine malfeasance in this sort of scenario:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/a-special-prosecutor-is-not-the-answer/526662/
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:
"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."
Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).
Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:
"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."
Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).
Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.
Speaking of straw men, we're not talking about Trump voters here.
That ship sailed a while back. I think it's been well covered that there are many reasons why fewer people voted for him than Clinton in the last election. Trump's racism and misogyny were well known at that point, so it's not surprising that his stances in these areas hasn't lost him much support. Security though, was something that Trump campaigned on . . . and he has shown himself woefully unfit for duty as president along these lines, given the treason perpetrated by members of his campaign and the fact that he has personally leaked secret information while boasting to other foreign leaders.
It's somewhat surprising that this doesn't appear to bother his supporters.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I couldn't help myself, I have been delving into the cesspits of news site comments sections. Basically, there are two camps, those who are outraged, and Trump supporters, whose defenses amount to what acroy has presented--and those are the thoughtful ones. As for the less thoughtful ones, a representative comment, which I have seen more or less repeated a depressing number of times:
"I recommend you stop watching the news, then. 90 percent of news media are making up stories to harm Trump."
Truly we are testing the boundaries of cognitive dissonance like never before, and they are...vast.
There's your problem. The .00001% of voters who post on articles aren't representative of the whole. It's a bubble. Have you ever noticed in comment sections there are certain regulars that are called out? Not necessarily the trolls, just the blind parrots who have their single issue (immigration or voter ID for example).
Trump voter isn't a coal roller, nor a raving or secret racist, nor a 4chan troll, nor an inflammatory commenter. You guys are blind to them, and it's not even the media's fault. It's sad really. Trump voters are regular blue collar people. Keep responding to the straw men though if the circle jerk feels good. If you feel this way about half of America, there's really no hope.
Speaking of straw men, we're not talking about Trump voters here.
That ship sailed a while back. I think it's been well covered that there are many reasons why fewer people voted for him than Clinton in the last election. Trump's racism and misogyny were well known at that point, so it's not surprising that his stances in these areas hasn't lost him much support. Security though, was something that Trump campaigned on . . . and he has shown himself woefully unfit for duty as president along these lines, given the treason perpetrated by members of his campaign and the fact that he has personally leaked secret information while boasting to other foreign leaders.
It's somewhat surprising that this doesn't appear to bother his supporters.
The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."
...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Zombie thread! Lookey here what Mr. Trump did in a closed-door meeting to which American journalists were not invited (but Russian media was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.0d766f40ae4c
Revealing info so highly classified that we hadn't even shared it with our closest allies? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Wonder how his supporters are going to spin this in their minds?
1) Fake news?
2) Not that big a deal?
3) LALALALALALALA I can't hear you!
4) But her emails...
And don't forget that oldie but goodie: Bengahzi....
How could I forget?
And the answer is: all of the above:
Also, even if he's impeached (which at this point seems pretty much impossible), doesn't that just make Trump an even bigger security risk? He knows way too much and if I'm a foreign intelligence agency, I'm already plotting how to get to him if/when he's out of office. I highly doubt he would be any more restrained then...
Like a private email server.
The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."
...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.
The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."
...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Like a private email server.
The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."
...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!
Like a private email server.
The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."
...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!
both Trump and Clinton supports are hipocrits on this one, unless they didn't care in either case, or are outraged (like I am) in either case. Trump is less defensible, since it happened later... and I think his blab has more chance of doing material harm.
Like a private email server.
The general impression I get of the Trump-base response is "it wasn't illegal."
...which, while technically correct, completely misses the point.
Great, so we can all agree that the technicality of the law is not always sufficient defense of behavior unbecoming of our national leadership. Glad you're on the same page as the rest of us with that one!
um. guess I am more disgusted by what he said to Comey. the declassification thing...I have (at this time) no problem with. "hey, enemy of my enemy(Russia), bad guys are over here. I'll let you use that information as you will." bad guy thinks "someone dropped bombs on us, we're dead." Russia thinks "Wonder how they received that information?" Meh.
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.
Actually, I'd argue that this is the silver lining of the whole incident. Trump has proven himself dangerously incompetent. His incompetence is now publicly on display for the world to see . . . the sooner that the rest of the world stops trusting America while under his leadership the better.
Not to mention the fact that because of this, our other allies are going to really think twice about sharing information with us as long as Trump is in office. Yay.
Actually, I'd argue that this is the silver lining of the whole incident. Trump has proven himself dangerously incompetent. His incompetence is now publicly on display for the world to see . . . the sooner that the rest of the world stops trusting America while under his leadership the better.
I worry now that the US won't get intelligence sharing that could have averted an attack on the lives of soldiers abroad or people in the US.
I keep thinking "could there possibly be anything more outrageous to come out of this Russia investigation than [whatever the last major news story was]"
Apparently yes.
Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports....
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn
Either this is a giant lie or the biggest boneheaded move by anyone in politics in quite some time.
Article here. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_kushner-705pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.445305a09953)
I read some comments in relation to the article. Same old shift the goalpost fallacies. Fake news, Hillary, Obama, etc. Some will defend this traitor to their death beds.I've found I'm much happier simply not reading the comments on news articles. It's not even set up in a way where conversation and debate can take place, but rather streams shouted-out comments.
The Trump supporters in my family have grown extremely quiet.yeah, same here. At least in my family of mostly older retired military republicans their lifelong distrust of Russia is not sitting well with their inherent desire to support their president who comes from their party.
I doubt there will be any apology. A fierce denial, then an attack and mis-direct on the 'leakers'. Some rhetoric. DJT's WH dodge and attack, but never apologize.
Gotcha.I doubt there will be any apology. A fierce denial, then an attack and mis-direct on the 'leakers'. Some rhetoric. DJT's WH dodge and attack, but never apologize.
I meant the Trump apologists, as in the supporters who literally seem to think he and his administration are incapable of doing anything wrong. But yeah, the less crazy Trump supporters mostly seem to have gone quiet lately, although I would bet most would say it's because their sick of listening to the liberal echo chamber and biased media. Better to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.
If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again (as well as their civil rights, which they've been pretty good on for the most part).
If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again
Can't help but notice that health care is now in the Russia OT thread, while the health-care thread has lately been dominated by discussions on Russia. Black is white, up is down and dogs are sleeping with cats.If anything it is shaking up the Democrats and forcing them to realize that their unholy alliance of identity politics + corporate selling out cannot continue, and they have to actually represent people's economic interests again
It's under the Democrats the number of uninsured Americans dropped by about half.
DJT is giving back the two compounds in NY and MD which Obama took away as a penalty for meddling in the presidential election.
...
I'm just pissed that the punishment for Russian sanctions appears to have lasted a grand total of 6 months.
#Sol2020?He'll just electrocute gays and remove bodily autonomy from women. Oh, maybe even cause an HIV epidemic like he did in the state he was governor of....
Mueller is methodical and criminal investigations generally take a few years (though there's very little that's typical here). I'm guessing 6-24 months before anything comes of the FBI's investigation. The four congressional hearings will make noise and provoke responses (and DJT has committed multiple unforced errors thusfar).
Given that Pence is next in line I share your trepidation about what will come should DJT be removed from office. "Do nothing" is preferable than the social construct Pence/Ryan want - particualrly if the AHCA is any indication.
But hold on a second, must we wait until 2020? Let's assume for a second that all this smoke billowing around indeed comes from a fire. Let's also assume that another 16 months of this crap results in the democrat version of the '94 republican revolution.
what then? do we prefer an antagonistic and increasingly hostile president to what could certainly be a lame-duck Pence? As abhorrent as I find many of Pence's beliefs to be, he's unlikely to launch twitter-attacks at Germany, praise dictators and harbor conspiracy theories.
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.
Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.
Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.
There's quite a few...
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee) Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in). It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now). Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.
Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run. Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.
Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.
The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms. A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.
Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.
Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.
There's quite a few...
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee) Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in). It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now). Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.
Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run. Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.
Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.
The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms. A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.
I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.
Too bad Arnie's not eligible to run against DJT in the primaries. I'd just love to see him troll Trump again.I have this dream of Dwayne Johnson beating Trump in the GOP primary. My god would that be top notch schadenfreude.
And Jesse Ventura running as an independent. Need to find an analogous Democrat candidate. Or just vote for Jesse: "a plague on both their (Dem and Rep) houses."
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?
Has the FBI investigated the DNC servers yet? No?
Red herring (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring)?
And yes, they did.
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf
I'd love to see Gavin Newsom run, personally.Where is the Democratic bench? Biden is keeping his PAC open. Hillary is back on her speaking tours. I love them both, but I do not want to see either of them running again for Presidency. Same goes for Bernie.
Where is the recruiting? Who will challenge Nunez, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa here in California? These should be easy pickings for Democrats, considering the current high anti-Trump sentiments in the region. If we aren't seeing viable candidates here, I despair of the races in the rust belt and southern states.
There's quite a few...
Tim Kaine (VA), Cory Booker (NJ, but says no), Jerry Brown (gov CA), Julian Castro (mayor - SA-TX) and Andrew Cuomo (gov NY) could all make a run. Huge speculation that Elizabeth Warren (MA) will run this time (though she says no). Ditto for Joe Bidden (Veep/PA) (again he says no, but oddly has a committee) Bernie Sanders (VT) seems likely (though at some point one age will eventually factor in). It wouldn't surprise me to see Martin O'Malley or Terry McAuliffe (Govs of MD & VA, respectively).
..and don't discredit the business/celebs-turned-candidates (since that seems to be the thing now). Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Johnson ("the rock"), Mark Zukerberg (FB), Howard Schultz (Starbucks) - all seem laughable but then again so did DJT in early 2016.
Then there are about another dozen who 'might' run. Mostly it will depend on whether their political star waxes or wanes over the next 18 months (e.g. Kamalia Harris (CA), Steve Bollock (gov MT), etc. etc.
Honestly, it's fascinating from a political-spectator standpoint; barring impeachment/resignation/death DJT will almost certainly be the GOP candidate, but there's at least a dozen solid potentials on the Dem's side and they span the spectrum from centrist to socialist and with styles ranging from respected/low-key to firebrand/combative.
The reason we hear so little about it is that very little will happen before the '18 midterms. A few will form exploratory committees, but everyones going to wait to see how the '18 races turn out, what issues flip voters and what kind of candidate might the DNC put their weight behind.
Tim Kaine was a non-entity in 2016. I put Cory Booker and Martin O'Malley in the same category - hard-core ambition chasers without enough intellectual heft or ethics. Elizabeth Warren is already getting the Hillary/Pelosi treatment - relentlessly mysogynistic demonization. However ludicrous the characterization, some of that mud will stick and a kernel of doubt planted. See how easily all the the Bernie Bros believe the Russian propaganda! She should have challenged for 2016. Kamala Harris will get the same treatment, though she should take advantage of the fact that she isn't in their crosshairs yet. I'm still waiting for her to prove herself.
I'll reserve my judgement on Zuck. He sounds more libertarian than a Democrat. I'm inherently suspicious of the Noblesse Oblige/Tech Knows Best Silicon Valley attitude. And after DJT, are we still stupid enough to think the country should be run like a business?
I'd love for Jerry Brown to run, but again, this is not calling someone from the bench. This is the old guard rising again. The Democrats have not done a good job of nurturing talent.
A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....Admitting the need to invoke Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) here....
...
because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....Admitting the need to invoke Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) here....
...
because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
...might be compromised....Ok, I'll play.
...might be compromised....Ok, I'll play.
What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?
E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't? Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos? Or...?
Pssst...Ha!
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.
Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.
Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.
Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.
Based on his previous posts, this is no Poe's Law thing and Acroy is either trolling or (more likely) genuinely supporting these ideas.Pssst...
Trump's Russia 'thing' is Obama's birth certificate 'thing'.
Lots of noise, no substance. Nothing there. The noisy people on both sides sound like fools. Give it a rest already.
Is this another one of those Poe's Law things? As a lifelong (and current) Republican and someone who voted against Obama twice I think Acroy misplaced his :wink.
In case he's serious, there is genuinely no analogy. Obama's birth certificate & Muslim thing was embedded in racism and ignorance from the very moment it began and is a black-mark on American politics imo. There is a concerning amount of smoke regarding the possibility of coordinate Russian meddling in OUR elections and the administrations response to it has been disturbing.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
(on the Hollywood Access tape) Did anyone watch the tape, and think it was anything but Trump buffooning around, blowing smoke up the young guy's ass? C'mon.
So far I think [Trump's] doing fine. ... By the way, the Russian thing:
https://spectator.org/confirmed-john-brennan-colluded-with-foreign-spies-to-defeat-trump/
"One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s."
the 'Russian Hacker' fiasco fizzles...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/31/the-russia-hacking-fiasco-no-evidence-required/
The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science
Bannon: That guy is badass. ...
Enemy: The Establishment, in the forms of Nato, EU, UN, etc. Particularly Merkel
Ok, I'll play.
What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?
E.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't? Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos? Or...?
The absence of a smiley was intentional. Back to the question...?What is in either of those articles that shows illegal (or even "really bad") behavior from Trump?Was that a return volley of Poe's Law?
To find out if there is anything there, correct?QuoteE.g., his administration considered lifting sanctions - but didn't? Or some people with Russian addresses bought some condos? Or...?That is why we have a special prosecutor, n'est-ce pas?
When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing. After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one.
One can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google Trump Russia evidence.
@MDM - So your stance is that any criminal investigation that takes longer than a few months to lead to a conviction is probably smoke and mirrors?Nope, just this one. ;)
Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Any speculation at this point is...speculation.When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing. After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one.
Given that more is leaked on an almost weekly basis, your argument has little, well, credence. Given that Mueller was appointed only a few weeks ago, your claim has even less weight.QuoteOne can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google Trump Russia evidence.
Yeah...?
My speculation on your speculation is... speculative.Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Any speculation at this point is...speculation.When the first Trump+Russia stories appeared, it was a plausible thing. After this long and this many leaks of a wide variety of things about the Trump campaign and administration, however, the absence of any specific evidence of collusion (or whatever chargeable offense one wishes to use) lends more credence to a "smoke and mirrors" (from the anti-Trump folks) analogy than a "where there's smoke there's fire" one.
Given that more is leaked on an almost weekly basis, your argument has little, well, credence. Given that Mueller was appointed only a few weeks ago, your claim has even less weight.QuoteOne can find articles backing more or less any opinion - just google Trump Russia evidence.
Yeah...?
More smoke. A possible quid-pro-quo is starting to emerge....
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508
Trump lifts sanctions (and immediately after becoming President) because the Russians...invested in his apartment buildings?
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-property/
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.
What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them? To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers." Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.
What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them? To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers." Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.
Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.
What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them? To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers." Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.
Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.
His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.
What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them? To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers." Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.
Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.
His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?
It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.
Back to the post that led me to dip my toe in these waters.
What thing or things in either of these articles is causing angst among those who are suffering angst from reading them? To coin a phrase, they seem like "nothing burgers." Personally, "covfefe" worries me more than anything in them.
Agreed on that front. In the middle of all of this Russia business, there is also mounting circumstantial evidence that our president is suffering from some level of dementia.
His "battery" must be running low. Perhaps he should have stopped exercising earlier in life?
It's good he used a golf cart when he met with the European leaders for a short stroll.
Absolutely! He's conserving "battery" life.
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.The two reasons I've seen that this is an issue (rather than simply a hilarious gaffe) are:
The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...
In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.
The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...
In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.
The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...
In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".
With all the news swirling around remind me why i should give a shit about a twitter typo? If he is troll tweeting from his phone it is frankly a surprise this doesn't happen more often.First, this was more than a typo, it was an unfinished message that went up and wasn't caught by his staff as Anaya mentioned. Even if he had typed out 'coverage' that would be "Despite all the negative press coverage"... and that's it.
The reality is most public figures have teams of writers post for them so everything gets peer reviewed before posting...
In this case we have a 70+ year old belligerent serial tweeter. In that light the occasional grammar or spelling error doesn't even register as interesting.
Second, rather than saying whoops, and making fun of himself for his mistake, he acts like it was intentional because he of course, never makes mistakes. And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".
It appears I was to diverted with the constant trolling of the mistake when that is not what people are upset about. I haven't listened to or read much of any white house press briefings because they have become nothing but a sad confusing steady stream of lies to protect a child from a harsh unforgiving world.
I agree the assumed necessity on the part of his staff to protect our leaders fragile ego from even the stupidest most obvious mistake is extremely disturbing...
If this man manages to serve more than 1 term then our political system is a complete an utter failure.
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.
In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.Perk of FIRE.
In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?
I just had the horrible realization that Trump may have to be invited to the 75 year memorial ceremony of D-Day in Normandy in 2019 if he isn't removed out of office by then. Somehow the idea of him being there disgusts me more than anything he's done.
In other news, who's day-drinking the Comey hearing Thursday?
...And then Spicer followed that up with "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant".Small Group = ?
Is there some sort of pool? Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"Drink on:
Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?
what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
Is there some sort of pool? Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"Drink on:
Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?
what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat
Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin
Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower
Is there some sort of pool? Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"Drink on:
Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?
what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat
Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin
Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower
Is there some sort of pool? Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"Drink on:
Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?
what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat
Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin
Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower
Fake newsIs there some sort of pool? Certain phrases we drink to... like "I cannot comment or impede an ongoing investigation?"Drink on:
Do we drink everytime DJT counter-tweets during testimony (perhaps with: Lie/Lies, MSM or Showboat?)?
what's a good way of 'playing along' tomorrow?
- the American People
- Putin
- imminent threat
Finish your glass on:
- Maralago
- Comrade
- Alec Baldwin
Riot, burn down the bar and the next 4 city blocks:
- golden shower
What about crowd size or anything in reference to winning the election?
If ever a president were deserving of no more than a one and done term in office its this guy. Impeachment is too unlikely. Hopefully the Repubs get what they feel they need over 4 years so we don't have to suffer 8 and they can gracefully let the next campaign crumble. Not optimistic about that either though.
At what time does the Comey testimony start and where can you watch it?In 4 minutes. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-james-comey-testify-senate-hearing-russia/
Live WaPo stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puGY5JmWqUU
Trump has stated he will be tweeting during the Comey testimony. Lawyers are worried it will get him into even more legal trouble. Man this ought to be good. Time for the popcorn.I don't have access to Twitter right now. Anyone feel like posting tweets here (assuming his handlers don't tie him up and sit on him)?
So far he's not tweeting. Nothing since yesterday. Maybe cooler heads have secured his phone for the time being?Trump has stated he will be tweeting during the Comey testimony. Lawyers are worried it will get him into even more legal trouble. Man this ought to be good. Time for the popcorn.I don't have access to Twitter right now. Anyone feel like posting tweets here (assuming his handlers don't tie him up and sit on him)?
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation. Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation. Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun. He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.
It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer: "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News: But But Hillary.
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation. Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation. Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun. He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.
It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer: "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News: But But Hillary.
Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.
It's obstruction of justice. I asked the investigator to stop investigating. He didn't. I fired his ass.
It's obstruction of justice. I asked the investigator to stop investigating. He didn't. I fired his ass.
The reason this isn't an impeachable offense is that he didn't order him to stop the investigation. He said he hoped he would drop the investigation, instead of telling him to drop the investigation, and that subtle difference is why today's proceedings haven't sparked an impeachment hearing.
Apparently, asking someone to do something illegal is legal, but telling him to do something illegal is illegal. I know that I personally have a hard time deciphering when my boss is asking me to do something vs when he is telling me to do something.
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation. Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation. Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun. He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.
It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer: "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News: But But Hillary.
Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.
Only when it's a Republican.
Wasn't able to watch the hearing. Any important takeaways? Opinions?
Bottom line is that Trump is most likely a liar (big surprise) and that he probably did obstruct justice in regards to the Flynn Investigation. Other takeaway is that Comey said Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a matter, not an investigation. Never asked him to stop it or alter trajectory, but just change the noun. He did, but it didn't matter since reporters kept calling it an investigation.
It is being spun right now by Paul Ryan as "Trump doesn't know what he is doing, it was a mistake."
Trump's Lawyer: "Comey is a LIAR with pants on fire!"
Fox News: But But Hillary.
Gotta love that general incompetence is now being used as a supposedly legitimate defense.
Only when it's a Republican.
I don't think his being Republican is related. His biggest selling point for the election was that Trump had no idea what he was doing. It was what he showed people over and over at every chance. Continuing to demonstrate wild incompetence is continuing to play his base.
The reason this isn't an impeachable offense is that he didn't order him to stop the investigation. He said he hoped he would drop the investigation, instead of telling him to drop the investigation, and that subtle difference is why today's proceedings haven't sparked an impeachment hearing.
Interesting to see that Comey felt the need to log all correspondence with Trump after meeting him for the very first time. This alone speaks volumes about Trump's character.
"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.Quote"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."
Interesting to see that Comey felt the need to log all correspondence with Trump after meeting him for the very first time. This alone speaks volumes about Trump's character.
This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.Quote"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."
This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.
To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved. WTF!!?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers. The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks. Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.Quote"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."
This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.
To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved. WTF!!?
These are partisan oversight committees. The real investigation is being handled by the FBI which is anything help confirm for me that they are mostly unbiased on their to bring charges against anyone they feel committed a crime against the US.
The congressional and house oversight committees appear to simply be the usual circus side show meant only to garner political capital and trying rally public opinion to their side.
It is absolutely purely a matter of competing partisan narratives and that's all it can be. Sadly you have to cross this political bridge to invoke impeachment.
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.Shouldn't this have come up while going through the hiring phase??
Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.
The hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.
Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.
From the API don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs. The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.QuoteThe hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.
Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.
Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers. The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks. Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.
From the API don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs. The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.QuoteThe hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.
Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.
Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc. These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan) But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.
Of course - never meant to imply that spending money for influence was exclusive to one party (guilty of picking only the most recent examples), but it's gross hyperbole to equate the level of political influence these people have with the Russian oligarchs.From the API don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs. The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.QuoteThe hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.
Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.
Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc. These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan) But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.
...Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros....
(let's not pretend it's a right-wing phenomenon, no?)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FBI only investigates US citizens on domestic soil, and wouldn't have jurisdiction to investigate individuals with Russian diplomacy papers. The NSA and CIA would be the ones investigating those folks. Not that the FBI isn't looking into contacts with the Trump campaign (Comey and Mueller have said as much) - just wondering how much investigating is being done in the dark by forces we may never see or know about.This Comey quote from the testimony yesterday should not be lost in the partisan fracas. It is pretty important and stands on its own.Quote"There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did it with purpose, they did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts and measures driven from the top of that government. There's no fuzz on that. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get and it is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. Because this is about America."
This is what has frustrated me so much about this whole damn thing - the WH is obsessed with leaks to the press, and the GOP keeps coming back to HRC's email server, while the Dems are acutely focused on the whole obstruction-of-justice thing.
To me, the single most important thing about this is the fact that a hostile nation successfully monkeyed with our entire electoral process.
That's become secondary to all parties involved. WTF!!?
These are partisan oversight committees. The real investigation is being handled by the FBI which is anything help confirm for me that they are mostly unbiased on their to bring charges against anyone they feel committed a crime against the US.
The congressional and house oversight committees appear to simply be the usual circus side show meant only to garner political capital and trying rally public opinion to their side.
It is absolutely purely a matter of competing partisan narratives and that's all it can be. Sadly you have to cross this political bridge to invoke impeachment.
Of course - never meant to imply that spending money for influence was exclusive to one party (guilty of picking only the most recent examples), but it's gross hyperbole to equate the level of political influence these people have with the Russian oligarchs.From the API don't feel most "1%ers" in the US can be considered oligarchs. The overwhelming majority are working professionals earning a few hundred $k/year.QuoteThe hard-charging New York lawyer President Trump chose to represent him in the Russia investigation has prominent clients with ties to the Kremlin, a striking pick for a president trying to escape the persistent cloud that has trailed his administration.
Marc E. Kasowitz’s clients include Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir Putin and has done business with Trump’s former campaign manager. Kasowitz also represents Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank, U.S. court records show.
Isn't it cute how the press insists on referring to Russian 1%ers as "oligarchs" but treat ours like celebrities?
As for the 0.01%ers... yeah, we have a few notables that seem to rise to oligarch-like status; the Koch brothers, Adelson, etc. These people get high-ranking pols to sit down with them for contributions of a few million each cycle. In the last cycle we've seen several be given high-profile positions (DeVos, McMahan) But true Russian oligarchs are in a completely higher league of mingling business with politics.
...Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros....
(let's not pretend it's a right-wing phenomenon, no?)
There's simply no contest.
Word on the street is Trump might be firing Mueller as well. Did anyone watch clips of Trump's cabinet meeting? It reminded me of how lil Kim conducts meetings in North Korea. "Say something nice about me or I'll kill your family."
Word on the street is Trump might be firing Mueller as well. Did anyone watch clips of Trump's cabinet meeting? It reminded me of how lil Kim conducts meetings in North Korea. "Say something nice about me or I'll kill your family."
Re: Firing Mueller...just when I think my mind can't get more boggled by Trump's terrible instincts, I'm proven wrong.
So, basically, since Trump only gets his 'intel' from the right-wing media he consumes with alarming alacrity, the only way his advisors can communicate with him (that he'll pay any attention to) is via those media. This is so bizarre.
The attorney general underwent a barrage of questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, but about the only thing he could recall is that he didn’t do anything wrong
speaking of interesting articles....
Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation, actually False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html
Salon reports : The FBI is leading an investigation into Donald Trump’s connections with Russia, actually False, as later revealed by Comey himself.
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/20/the-fbi-is-leading-an-investigation-into-donald-trumps-connections-with-russia/
NY Times reports:F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms, Again False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?mcubz=1&_r=0
This is truly a witch hunt, and the media has already lost credibility for being so careless with their facts.
speaking of interesting articles....
Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation, actually False
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?
Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?
Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?
Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.
And CNN admitted their fault and retracted, and fired 3 journalists over it. I'm not sure what the problem is. If anything, their actions help their credibility, rather than hurt it.
I read the NY Times article and couldn't find a single statement in the article that has been proven false. WTF are you talking about?
Right... the NY Times article is not false, they are reporting that the CNN article claiming "Russian bank linked to a close ally of President Trump was under Senate investigation" was false.
And CNN admitted their fault and retracted, and fired 3 journalists over it. I'm not sure what the problem is. If anything, their actions help their credibility, rather than hurt it.
Meanwhile, the Trump's extensive list of blatant bullshit claims (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) go completely ignored by his supporters.
Someone or organization is trying to plant a fake NSA document to the Rachel Maddow Show to attempt to derail investigating any Trump campaign links to Russia's efforts at altering the presidential outcome.
The link provides an interesting video link to the Rachel Maddow show which explains this fake document
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-forged-nsa-document-discredit-news-organizations_us_595ef40ce4b0d5b458e96791
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753
Too bad Bin Laden is dead. Trump could have corroborated with him to form an anti-terrorism unit.
And apparently Donnie and Putin discussed collaborating on an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit." Yeah, Putin will really help curb those millions of illegal votes being cast here in the US, good thinking DJT!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753
Too bad Bin Laden is dead. Trump could have corroborated with him to form an anti-terrorism unit.
I liked this one from DCResisterBee
"This is like the FBI asking the Mafia to form an anti-crime unit together"
I also like, "Asking Russia for advice on cyber security makes about as much sense as asking the Koch brothers for advice on global warming. Oh, wait.."
Meh, par for the course. It won't matter.
He denied being a sexist even after all those comments about pageant contestants, and then the pussy grabbing tape came out and removed all doubt, and people accepted him.
He denied any and all contact with the Russians, then this happens, but people will still accept him. This is America today.
His tax evasion, his corrupt charity, his potential nepotism, his conflicts of interest, his fraud lawsuits, none of it will matter. He denies everything, then when proved to be a liar he attacks his opponents with the same claim instead of admitting any wrongdoing. People eat it up. He can do no wrong.
He's currently competing with U. Grant for the title of most corrupt US president ever. History will judge him to be an embarrassment to our nation, like Grant, but he still gets to be president for as long as he can win elections. The greatest flaw in democracy is that popularity does not endow any worthiness for the job, so sometimes we end up with dumpster fires as leaders. We'll either move past it, or sunset.
Meh, par for the course. It won't matter.I think what's hard to grasp sometimes is the level of hatred for Hillary. There is now this non-falsifiable view held by intransigent Trumpistas that Trump's blunders since assuming office are excusable because Hillary would have done far, far worse, corrupt, criminal things.
He denied being a sexist even after all those comments about pageant contestants, and then the pussy grabbing tape came out and removed all doubt, and people accepted him.
He denied any and all contact with the Russians, then this happens, but people will still accept him. This is America today.
His tax evasion, his corrupt charity, his potential nepotism, his conflicts of interest, his fraud lawsuits, none of it will matter. He denies everything, then when proved to be a liar he attacks his opponents with the same claim instead of admitting any wrongdoing. People eat it up. He can do no wrong.
He's currently competing with U. Grant for the title of most corrupt US president ever. History will judge him to be an embarrassment to our nation, like Grant, but he still gets to be president for as long as he can win elections. The greatest flaw in democracy is that popularity does not endow any worthiness for the job, so sometimes we end up with dumpster fires as leaders. We'll either move past it, or sunset.
I think what's hard to grasp sometimes is the level of hatred for Hillary. There is now this non-falsifiable view held by intransigent Trumpistas that Trump's blunders since assuming office are excusable because Hillary would have done far, far worse, corrupt, criminal things.
My former boss at work who voted for Trump without shame***, recently agreed with me that Trump is ineffectual and an embarrassment (baby steps).
***speaking of shame, I live in one of the reddest parts of the country; many, many people came back from the polls on election day and meekly and with shame admitted to voting for Trump. Red America has a brain and a conscience but it is superseded by the propaganda machine that leveled Hillary. The country is in trouble if tribalism and habit continue to win out over reason.
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.
This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.
Mueller issues a report implicating Tr*mp, the Rs in Congress reluctantly call on Tr*mp to resign for the good of the nation, he refuses, impeachment! Maybe?
So, your basic Turkey/Erdogan scenario?This seems like a slow moving train wreck right now. But as soon as the moment is right, Trump is going to be dumped overboard.
Mueller issues a report implicating Tr*mp, the Rs in Congress reluctantly call on Tr*mp to resign for the good of the nation, he refuses, impeachment! Maybe?
More likely Mueller issues a report implicating Trump, the Rs in Congress suddenly claim Mueller is on the Russian payroll and try him for treason, Trump gives a campaign rally style speech at Mueller's public execution. Adoring crowds chant "drain the swamp" as democracy dies.
Many Trump supporters support him for reasons similar to many post-Lewinsky Clinton supporters: they agree with his policies and choose to overlook his personal behavior.
Many Trump supporters support him for reasons similar to many post-Lewinsky Clinton supporters: they agree with his policies and choose to overlook his personal behavior.
Maybe, except his policies are backfiring as well. American's are paying for the wall. ISIS wasn't defeated in 30 days. Coal and manufacturing jobs aren't coming back as he promised. Repeal and replace is highly unfavorable in every single state. And he doesn't know what to do with NK because bullying didn't work. His approval ratings have plunged. He still won't acknowledge Russia hacked the election. And every day seemingly more and more evidence of Russia collusion.
Frankly I have no ideal what policies they are still supporting. He's torn apart families by deporting a few hard working folks back to Mexico. Maybe that is it? Perhaps it's the watered down version of his Muslim ban that finally got approved? At this point I am more likely to agree those still supporting him just love pissing off liberals. Policies be damned.
...Russia hacked the election.If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).
...Russia hacked the election.If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).
If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.
“Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election,” the Intercept’s report said, detailing the NSA’s analysis supporting that claim. It noted, though, that the analysis represents only one point of evidence to the charges it presents and that the document does not include the raw intelligence supporting the claims. That said, it comports with what was released publicly by the intelligence agencies.
...Russia hacked the election.If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).
If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.
...Russia hacked the election.If by "hacked" you mean "attempted to influence" then sure, "hacking" goes on all the time (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html).
If by "hacked" you mean "changed electronic vote totals" then you'll need to support that claim.
The email exchange reported in this article is pretty good (and by good, I mean damning, bad, and treasonous). I'm curious how the veracity of the emails was confirmed. Though, it should be noted that Don Trump Jr confirmed the meetings and the general progression of events, so at present I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the wording.
https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia
Yep, he tweeted them out.The email exchange reported in this article is pretty good (and by good, I mean damning, bad, and treasonous). I'm curious how the veracity of the emails was confirmed. Though, it should be noted that Don Trump Jr confirmed the meetings and the general progression of events, so at present I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the wording.
https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15953204/donald-trump-jr-emails-russia
Don Jr tweeted out screenshots of the actual email exchange so the wording is quite accurate. No word on the post meeting follow-up emails...
"But Benghazi!"no evidence of this
See how easy that is? We don't need to worry about
colluding with the Russians
or sexual assaultsno evidence of this
or fraud convictionsDonald Trump has never been convicted of any crime
or the emolument clausepeople that use this as argument against Donald Trump obviously don't understand what it is
or hidden tax returnswhat purpose would releasing them do, would it change your opinion of him to see a clean tax return with no ties to Russian companies, or would you probably still hate him?
or six bankruptciesout of hundreds of enterprises he created
or martial infidelitiesat least he got them out of the way before he entered office?
or demonizing immigrantsonly criminal ones
or voter suppressionof illegal voters
or enciting violence against the free presstweeting a gif is inciting violence? I hope you're joking
or carny handsyou're body shaming now?
. America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.
Trump could go on Fox and say "of course I colluded with the Russians to beat crooked Hillary, I had to do it to make America great again" and his supporters world lap it up. They don't care that it's illegal or immoral or that he previously denied it. Nothing matters anymore. He's untouchable.Is there anything Trump could do that would give you a positive opinion of him? If not, aren't you simply the opposite side of the coin you claim to hate.
no evidence of this
Quoteor fraud convictionsDonald Trump has never been convicted of any crime
or fraudconvictions
Donald Trump has never been convicted of any crimeQuote. America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.
Could anyone give a solid explanation as to the legal implications of what Donald Jr. has admitted to?
It certainly seems suspicious and dirty but honestly I don't know what is and isn't allowed.
Twitter is a means of communication, if words can incite violence then so can gifs. More importantly, do you think this is the only instance of Trump inciting violence against the press? calling the media the "enemy of the American people" sounds rather inciteful to me.Quoteor enciting violence against the free presstweeting a gif is inciting violence? I hope you're joking
This is not a joke about his hands, it's a joke about his ego. Graydon Carter referred to Trump as "short-fingered" in Spy Magazine in 1988. Since then Trump has periodically mailed pictures of himself to Carter with his hands circled to indicate they are normal sized. He even received one that said "See, not so short" written in gold sharpie just before Trump announced his nomination. 28 years later.Quoteor carny handsyou're body shaming now?
Could anyone give a solid explanation as to the legal implications of what Donald Jr. has admitted to?
It certainly seems suspicious and dirty but honestly I don't know what is and isn't allowed.
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.
no evidence of this
or sexual assaults
Quoteor fraud convictionsDonald Trump has never been convicted of any crime
That's true. Trump has settled out of court on hundreds of cases to make them go away. Most recently he settled one of the Trump University lawsuits by paying the plaintiffs 25 million dollars. Sol should have used:Quoteor fraudconvictions
no evidence of this
or sexual assaults
Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.
Quoteor fraud convictionsDonald Trump has never been convicted of any crime
That's true. Trump has settled out of court on hundreds of cases to make them go away. Most recently he settled one of the Trump University lawsuits by paying the plaintiffs 25 million dollars. Sol should have used:Quoteor fraudconvictions
Yep, he tweeted them out.
How fucking stupid is he? Did he really think this would help him? Wow. Or is he assuming the world is as Sol says it is and the Trumps have some sort of teflon immunity?
Trump junior only released the emails because he knew the times was going to do it mere hours later, and it looks better to release incriminating evidence yourself than to have it uncovered by investigative journalists. He didn't release then to clear himself, he released them as damage control. Notice the headlines are all "Tump junior releases..." instead of "NYTimes reveals..."And now Trump supporters can say "this can't really be incriminating, no one is that stupid."
So Trump made a false accusation against himself?no evidence of this
or sexual assaults
Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.
I'm not defending sexual assault, I'm defending against false accusations.
"But Benghazi!"no evidence of this
See how easy that is? We don't need to worry about
colluding with the RussiansQuoteor sexual assaultsno evidence of thisQuoteor fraud convictionsDonald Trump has never been convicted of any crimeQuoteor the emolument clausepeople that use this as argument against Donald Trump obviously don't understand what it isQuoteor hidden tax returnswhat purpose would releasing them do, would it change your opinion of him to see a clean tax return with no ties to Russian companies, or would you probably still hate him?Quoteor six bankruptciesout of hundreds of enterprises he createdQuoteor martial infidelitiesat least he got them out of the way before he entered office?Quoteor demonizing immigrantsonly criminal onesQuoteor voter suppressionof illegal votersQuoteor enciting violence against the free presstweeting a gif is inciting violence? I hope you're jokingQuoteor carny handsyou're body shaming now?Quote. America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.QuoteTrump could go on Fox and say "of course I colluded with the Russians to beat crooked Hillary, I had to do it to make America great again" and his supporters world lap it up. They don't care that it's illegal or immoral or that he previously denied it. Nothing matters anymore. He's untouchable.Is there anything Trump could do that would give you a positive opinion of him? If not, aren't you simply the opposite side of the coin you claim to hate.
no evidence of this
or sexual assaults
Except Trump admitted to it. If you want to keep defending sexual assault I doubt you'll last long on these boards and rightfully so.
I'm not defending sexual assault, I'm defending against false accusations.
He has settled a lawsuit, in civil court. For him to be convicted of a crime, he would have to be tried in a criminal court, which has never happened.
Quote. America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.
He has settled a lawsuit, in civil court. For him to be convicted of a crime, he would have to be tried in a criminal court, which has never happened.Quote. America has decided that all of this is preferable to Hillary Clinton, the world's greatest master criminal.Make believe offenses are preferable to actual crimes, imagine that.
Can you point to the criminal court case where Hillary was tried and convicted?
Stop trying to convert Trump supporters. It’s a lost cause. They belong to a cult. They would live, die or kill for him I think. At a certain point, they went all in, and there is no leaving the cult. Any action of his is justifiable. They will rationalize away actions that they would disown their own family members for.
I don’t get it, but I think, at some level, he just “feels” right to these people. I have a visceral distaste for the man that runs deep, but these people look at him and the things he does and says and they feel warm and happy inside. I have a hard time even looking at his face (and I think that is part of the appeal too for Trumpers). They love that he pisses liberals off.
It doesn’t matter what he does, legal or illegal. It doesn’t matter what his policies are. It doesn’t even matter that his policies will likely hurt them personally. The only thing that matters is that he makes them feel better about themselves. The rest is just irrelevant.
Sure looks like Donald Trump junior is going to jail.
Any bets on how long the presidential pardon takes?
Sure looks like Donald Trump junior is going to jail.
Any bets on how long the presidential pardon takes?
He can pardon preemptively a la Ford/Nixon. I'm surprised he hasn't pardoned his entire family and everyone he likes for everything they may have done already.
There may be something tangible in this latest brouhaha. Problem is all the previous "cry wolf" episodes of "this is finally the thing that will bring Trump down" that ultimately evaporated.
As with any cry wolf situation, sometimes there really is a wolf but too often there isn't.
I'm sure Trump tries to make things look like wolves merely crying by blocking evidence from being discovered - so he fired Comey.How does firing Comey block evidence from being discovered?
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO. He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.
none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end. Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO. He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.
none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end. Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.
I think Trump had a good case to fire Comey. He willingly came out and told the world that Clinton wasn't under investigation... for whatever reason. He refused to do the same thing for Trump when he wasn't under investigation... seeming to want the speculation to continue to damage Trump.
I'm sure Trump tries to make things look like wolves merely crying by blocking evidence from being discovered - so he fired Comey.How does firing Comey block evidence from being discovered?
For background, I'm assuming the head of the FBI is analogous to the CEO of some science-based company. The CEO doesn't personally discover new products, the R&D folks do. Similarly, the head of the FBI doesn't personally discover evidence, the agents in the FBI do. I don't have personal knowledge of the FBI's inner workings so that assumption may be incorrect.
The FBI director determines which cases to investigate and where the department outlays its resources, not unlike a CEO. He (or she) could assign an entire task force to investigate someone or something - conversely s/he could reduce or completely eliminate investigative resources.
none of this is to say that the firing of Comey has done this, but one popular explanation for his firing is that DJT wanted the investigation(s) to end. Trump himself helped fuel this speculation by publically stating that he fired Comey over that "Russia thing".
A more forgiving explanation would be that Trump feels there is nothing there, and felt persecuted by the investigation and decided to end it. But even that explanation implies that he hoped Comey's firing would end the investigation.
I think Trump had a good case to fire Comey. He willingly came out and told the world that Clinton wasn't under investigation... for whatever reason. He refused to do the same thing for Trump when he wasn't under investigation... seeming to want the speculation to continue to damage Trump.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the difference is Clinton wasn't under investigation, and there was minimal chance that she would be after that point. Whereas with Trump, the odds of him subsequently becoming the subject of an investigation were/are much, much higher. Saying Trump wasn't under investigation and then having him come under investigation would have been a huge problem.
I highly doubt that Trump didn't know about the meeting. His son, son-in-law and campaign manager had the meeting in the same place where Trump lived and worked at the time. I would be shocked if the Secret Service didn't have to clear everyone who entered Trump Tower to meet with Trump, Jr. and/or the campaign manager. Even if Jr., Manafort and Kushner ALL somehow initially forgot about the meeting AND the email chain I cannot believe that they were not reminded of the just-released email chain after: 1) the DNC was hacked and the emails were leaked; 2) Podesta's emails were hacked; 3) Wikileaks started dumping emails right after the Access Hollywood tape broke. Keep in mind that Trump stated that Chris Christie had to know about Bridgegate because those closely associated with him orchestrated it/knew about it.Post of the day.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/262394-trump-christie-totally-knew-about-bridgegate
I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious. Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal. The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison. This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion. Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government. We are well past the looking glass here. No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this. The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.
I highly doubt that Trump didn't know about the meeting. His son, son-in-law and campaign manager had the meeting in the same place where Trump lived and worked at the time. I would be shocked if the Secret Service didn't have to clear everyone who entered Trump Tower to meet with Trump, Jr. and/or the campaign manager. Even if Jr., Manafort and Kushner ALL somehow initially forgot about the meeting AND the email chain I cannot believe that they were not reminded of the just-released email chain after: 1) the DNC was hacked and the emails were leaked; 2) Podesta's emails were hacked; 3) Wikileaks started dumping emails right after the Access Hollywood tape broke. Keep in mind that Trump stated that Chris Christie had to know about Bridgegate because those closely associated with him orchestrated it/knew about it.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/262394-trump-christie-totally-knew-about-bridgegate
I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious. Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal. The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison. This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion. Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government. We are well past the looking glass here. No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this. The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.
...
I am (or was) a moderate Republican and am amazed, shocked and saddened that the party is tying itself in knots to deny the obvious. Who gives a damn if any of this was technically illegal. The bar for ethics, patriotism and civility should not be at the front door of a prison. This administration has spent the last year feigning ignorance and outrage about the mere possibility that there was any collusion. Now the party line seems to be that collusion isn't a crime and anyone would be remiss not to do opposition research with an adversarial foreign government. We are well past the looking glass here. No tax cuts, healthcare reform or Supreme Court justice is worth this. The fact that this is up for debate shows that we have already lost.
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....
Ironic that after calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as soon as the election is over he admits she never actually did anything illegal, and now we have a special prosecutor (appointed by Republicans, no less) investigating Trump, instead.
But this is classic Trump. He knows he colluded with the Russians, so he attacked Clinton for her ties to Russia. He knows his charity is a fraud (and here I use the technical legal meaning of the word), so he attacked the Clinton foundation for being crooked. He knows he's the oldest person ever elected to be President, in the entire history of the country, so he attacked Clinton's health and called her too frail. He knows his immigrant wife worked illegally in the US, so he attacked illegal immigrants. He knows he dodged the draft thee times, so he claimed to be the only candidate who supported the military. He knows he's publicly cheated on his wives before being multiply divorced, so he attacked the Clinton family's values. Every single weakness he has a candidate, he has instead turned into an attack ad on his opponents.
Face it folks, he a world class con man. All fluff, no substance. Why do you think congressional republicans are running away from him so fast?
On the bright side, now that he's in office I'm glad he's too teflon for anything to stick. Impeachment would be a godsend for the conservatives because it would get ride of the single biggest obstacle to enacting their agenda. I hope Trump keeps on keeping on being Trump, making fun of disabled people, calling women fat and stupid, bragging about pussy grabbing, praising the Russians, taking payments from foreign governments, pushing that Mexico wall, crying about healthcare, the works. He's like a liberal Manchurian Candidate, sabotaging the tea party from the inside by pretending to be their most stalwart champion.
He'd appoint a special prosecutor to indite HRC his first week of office because she was the most crooked politician perhaps in history, but now apparently she never was that bad....
Ironic that after calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, as soon as the election is over he admits she never actually did anything illegal, and now we have a special prosecutor (appointed by Republicans, no less) investigating Trump, instead.
But this is classic Trump. He knows he colluded with the Russians, so he attacked Clinton for her ties to Russia. He knows his charity is a fraud (and here I use the technical legal meaning of the word), so he attacked the Clinton foundation for being crooked. He knows he's the oldest person ever elected to be President, in the entire history of the country, so he attacked Clinton's health and called her too frail. He knows his immigrant wife worked illegally in the US, so he attacked illegal immigrants. He knows he dodged the draft thee times, so he claimed to be the only candidate who supported the military. He knows he's publicly cheated on his wives before being multiply divorced, so he attacked the Clinton family's values. Every single weakness he has a candidate, he has instead turned into an attack ad on his opponents.
Face it folks, he a world class con man. All fluff, no substance. Why do you think congressional republicans are running away from him so fast?
On the bright side, now that he's in office I'm glad he's too teflon for anything to stick. Impeachment would be a godsend for the conservatives because it would get ride of the single biggest obstacle to enacting their agenda. I hope Trump keeps on keeping on being Trump, making fun of disabled people, calling women fat and stupid, bragging about pussy grabbing, praising the Russians, taking payments from foreign governments, pushing that Mexico wall, crying about healthcare, the works. He's like a liberal Manchurian Candidate, sabotaging the tea party from the inside by pretending to be their most stalwart champion.
We don't agree on a lot, but I agree wit you on this. If Trump is out and Pence survives the fallout or worst case scenario, Paul Ryan steps up then it is all aboard the conservative fail train. Let Trump limp along until at least 2018 after the Left recovers the house and senate.
If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything. I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to mid-terms. That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018
If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything. I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to mid-terms. That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018
I have a high degree of confidence that Trump will last through the midterms. Here's why
Forcing him our will involve drafting articles of impeachment, BUT those articles must come from the House (currently controlled by the GOP) and by precedence would be drafted by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Gowdy - R/SC).
Nothing to date has shown that the House is willing to tolerate articles of impeachment so far - suggesting we'd need something substantially more damning to go down this route so long as the GOP holds the majority. What that could be I'd only hazard a guess.
Even if articles were drafted, it would be followed by months of high-drama testomonies and a trial, none of which the GOP wants. They'll avoid this at all costs, up and until it become apparent that NOT doing so will cost them their seats. Unfortunately, too many are in such ridiculously safe districts that there's no reason for them to set fire to their own boat while they're still in it.
Trump could quit and resign, but this seems unlike too - while he's been infurated by circumstances thus far he seems to adore the title and is convinced not only that he's done nothing wrong, but that everything would be "great" if people would just do what he says.
The wildcard is still Mueller, and DJT's team seems busy laying the groundwork to discredit him already. FBI investigations though typically take upwards of a few years, and we're on month 2. Plus, the huge scope of this investigation on so many fronts suggests it will take longer than other investigations. Even if Mueller has found criminal wrongdoing the indictments won't come out until the end when he's confident he's learned all he can from the investigative portion. I don't expect to hear anything from Mueller until 2018 at the earliest.
Interestingly, I think the most probable scenario is a strong GOP challenger to the incumbent DJT during the 2020 primary. This is something we haven't seen in over a generation - Buchanan held a lackluster challenge to H.W. in 92, but the last time a GOP seriously challenged the incumbent president was Reagan in 1980. I think this scenario will become much more likely should the GOP lose the house in 2018 and with it whatever ability they could have had to draft legislation in committee and get sent to the WH.
If this happens get ready for a stream of attack ads from within the GOP about how Trump has been a false republican, and all the counter-punching we saw during the 2016 GOP primary taken up a new level. DJT demands loyalty above all else, so any factions that challenge him will become 'the enemy' with no holds barred. Maybe the GOP will split, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a bad thing (indeed, I think it would be great if both the Dems and Reps split into 2 or more parties).
...he lacks sufficient experience?One can make a reasonable case that nobody has sufficient experience. Some state governors may have the most - a combination of leadership responsibility and the need to negotiate with a legislative body.
...he lacks sufficient experience?One can make a reasonable case that nobody has sufficient experience. Some state governors may have the most - a combination of leadership responsibility and the need to negotiate with a legislative body.
The point I was making though was that DJT ran precisely on how he was an 'outsider' and NOT a career politician. Johnson presents an interesting hypothetical twist since he, too, would have no political experience nor ties to Washington "insiders".Yes, agreed with all that.
Is there anything Trump could do that would give you a positive opinion of him? If not, aren't you simply the opposite side of the coin you claim to hate.
I thought this was a pretty good breakdown of the entire russia scandal up to this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCQMWwOZUw
The really damning, and potentially frightening thing, revolves around Paul Manafort's ties to Putin and an agenda on furthering Putin's policies abroad. He has been responsible for putting pro-putin leaders in office in other countires.
“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”
I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.
I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.
I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.
IDK if Trump is the "Useful Idiot" or not - but should we really be surprised that someone with absolutely no political experience is being outfoxed by someone who's spent two decades as a world leader and before that was a high ranking counter-intelligence officer in the KGB?
I think that trump is simply a Useful Idiot.
IDK if Trump is the "Useful Idiot" or not - but should we really be surprised that someone with absolutely no political experience is being outfoxed by someone who's spent two decades as a world leader and before that was a high ranking counter-intelligence officer in the KGB?
I thought he was a master negotiator! He even wrote a book about the art of the deal that I'm SURE Putin hasn't read.
Thoughts on this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/europe/trump-putin-undisclosed-meeting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
I suspect that this is where the real discussion, for better or for worse, occurred. Given that it was Trump, I expect mostly for worse. I wonder if Putin sees Trump as a foreign leader or an asset (in the tradecraft sense of the word)?
stopped and thought
Oh my goodness, Trump just threw Sessions under the bus. What a freak show.
Trump Tells The Times He Wouldn’t Have Appointed Sessions if He Had Known Sessions Would Recuse Himself on Russia
https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv
77 percent of the Trump voters said they think Trump should stay in office even if the campaign did collude with Russia.
Oh my goodness, Trump just threw Sessions under the bus. What a freak show.
Trump Tells The Times He Wouldn’t Have Appointed Sessions if He Had Known Sessions Would Recuse Himself on Russia
https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv (https://nyti.ms/2uEwuXv)
“Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the president.”
If Trump is out, the GOP will be so damaged they will not be able to enact anything. I do agree the longer it drags on, the closer we get to mid-terms. That said, as fast as this thing is going, I'll be surprised if Trump is still in by early 2018
I have a high degree of confidence that Trump will last through the midterms. Here's why
Forcing him our will involve drafting articles of impeachment, BUT those articles must come from the House (currently controlled by the GOP) and by precedence would be drafted by the House Oversight Committee (chaired by Gowdy - R/SC).
Nothing to date has shown that the House is willing to tolerate articles of impeachment so far - suggesting we'd need something substantially more damning to go down this route so long as the GOP holds the majority. What that could be I'd only hazard a guess.
Even if articles were drafted, it would be followed by months of high-drama testomonies and a trial, none of which the GOP wants. They'll avoid this at all costs, up and until it become apparent that NOT doing so will cost them their seats. Unfortunately, too many are in such ridiculously safe districts that there's no reason for them to set fire to their own boat while they're still in it.
Trump could quit and resign, but this seems unlike too - while he's been infurated by circumstances thus far he seems to adore the title and is convinced not only that he's done nothing wrong, but that everything would be "great" if people would just do what he says.
The wildcard is still Mueller, and DJT's team seems busy laying the groundwork to discredit him already. FBI investigations though typically take upwards of a few years, and we're on month 2. Plus, the huge scope of this investigation on so many fronts suggests it will take longer than other investigations. Even if Mueller has found criminal wrongdoing the indictments won't come out until the end when he's confident he's learned all he can from the investigative portion. I don't expect to hear anything from Mueller until 2018 at the earliest.
Interestingly, I think the most probable scenario is a strong GOP challenger to the incumbent DJT during the 2020 primary. This is something we haven't seen in over a generation - Buchanan held a lackluster challenge to H.W. in 92, but the last time a GOP seriously challenged the incumbent president was Reagan in 1980. I think this scenario will become much more likely should the GOP lose the house in 2018 and with it whatever ability they could have had to draft legislation in committee and get sent to the WH.
If this happens get ready for a stream of attack ads from within the GOP about how Trump has been a false republican, and all the counter-punching we saw during the 2016 GOP primary taken up a new level. DJT demands loyalty above all else, so any factions that challenge him will become 'the enemy' with no holds barred. Maybe the GOP will split, which I wouldn't necessarily consider a bad thing (indeed, I think it would be great if both the Dems and Reps split into 2 or more parties).
Trump is also threatening the special counsel...I wonderif, when Trump fires Mueller,if the Republicans in Congresswillhaveenough ofa backbonetodo anything about it.
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.
Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.
Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination
Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got. Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.
... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.
I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.
Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.
Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination
Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got. Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.
... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
As for the others, I think they were using it as a rhetorical device--with varying levels of success.
However, I'm now eagerly awaiting the day when Trump starts using the royal We. “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly We think is very unfair Us,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, We would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but We're not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to Us.”
Headcannon accepted.I seem to recall both Obama and W. referring to the office (a position) rather than how DJT was referring to his title in the third person - as in "it's disprespectful to the office of the President" or "People expect the president to rise above the fray and lead the country"Thanks for the examples nereo. I think he was trying to refer to the office, but just failed horribly and came off sounding crazy.
- perhaps this is how DJT intended it, but from the transcript it seems he's talking about himself, the president, in the 3rd person.
Other politicians have certainly referred to themselves in the 3rd person (Illeism)
Bob Dole was lampooned for talking about himself in the third person - the working families who will benefit from economic packages, they'll be better off when Bob Dole is president and Jack Kemp is vice president - Bob Dole talking about himself.
Hermain Cain also did something similar - The establishment does not want Herman Cain to get this nomination. The liberals do not want Herman Cain to get this nomination
Then there's Nixon's infamous line - People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I earned everything I've got. Here Nixon talks about "the president' in the abstract but switches to first person when referring specifically to himself.
... and perhaps the most famous Illeism of all - the Queen of England (e.g. The Queen is not amused!)
As for the others, I think they were using it as a rhetorical device--with varying levels of success.
However, I'm now eagerly awaiting the day when Trump starts using the royal We. “Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly We think is very unfair Us,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, We would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but We're not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to Us.”
Maybe DJT thinks that's what people mean when they write "US". POTUS... US meeting European leaders... Strong words from US against N. Korea... US pulls out of Paris agreement...
DJT: I must be an US now!
(joking of course...)
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.
An interesting question. I think which representatives support Trump will depend greatly on their re-election potential.
Regarding impeachment, the person who's backing matters the most is Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Oversight committee and a member of the tea party.
He is from one of the safest republican districts, having won re-election with 67% of the vote in 2016. In order for him to allow either censureship or articles of impeachment to proceed he'll need to calculate that a) Trump will definitely lose and b) the alternative (in this case Pence) will be favorable to his goals and re-election over the status quo (DJT). This is a hard sell - while his district is 'safe,' it holds a lot of Trump voters (DJT won there by 25%) Short of some immense pressure from other ranking members (and don't leave our Elijah Cummings) Gowdy can basically stonewall most attempts to hold DJT accountable.
Most of the other GOP members are similarly protected - it will take a LOT for them to turn on their standard bearer and POTUS. Now, if the GOP loses the house in 2018 they'll lose the committee chairs along with it, and I predict articles and limitations to rain down on the WH for months. Here, the risk is that the Dems will go too far, releasing pent-up frustration and turning legitimate concerns into a endless series of petty complaints... and they might lose that argument. It would be similar to how the investigation of WJC wound up focusing on an affair with intern - something the public largely decided was morally reprehensible but not a matter of national security.
This is the cynic in my talking - my personal wish is that, when regarding the presidency each member acted with what they believed to be the best for the country. But in reality I think each considers what is best for themselves and their constituents, even when the issue is with the executive branch.
Trump is also threatening the special counsel... I wonder if, when Trump fires Mueller, if the Republicans in Congress will have enough of a backbone to do anything about it.
An interesting question. I think which representatives support Trump will depend greatly on their re-election potential.
Regarding impeachment, the person who's backing matters the most is Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Oversight committee and a member of the tea party.
He is from one of the safest republican districts, having won re-election with 67% of the vote in 2016. In order for him to allow either censureship or articles of impeachment to proceed he'll need to calculate that a) Trump will definitely lose and b) the alternative (in this case Pence) will be favorable to his goals and re-election over the status quo (DJT). This is a hard sell - while his district is 'safe,' it holds a lot of Trump voters (DJT won there by 25%) Short of some immense pressure from other ranking members (and don't leave our Elijah Cummings) Gowdy can basically stonewall most attempts to hold DJT accountable.
Most of the other GOP members are similarly protected - it will take a LOT for them to turn on their standard bearer and POTUS. Now, if the GOP loses the house in 2018 they'll lose the committee chairs along with it, and I predict articles and limitations to rain down on the WH for months. Here, the risk is that the Dems will go too far, releasing pent-up frustration and turning legitimate concerns into a endless series of petty complaints... and they might lose that argument. It would be similar to how the investigation of WJC wound up focusing on an affair with intern - something the public largely decided was morally reprehensible but not a matter of national security.
This is the cynic in my talking - my personal wish is that, when regarding the presidency each member acted with what they believed to be the best for the country. But in reality I think each considers what is best for themselves and their constituents, even when the issue is with the executive branch.
I agree impeachment with a Republican House is very unlikely, but that isn't the only recourse. Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.
Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller. Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.
If will be absolutely ridiculous if he actually does this. I am not convinced enough people will turn against him, but if that didn't do it nothing but a democratic majority will.
That level of obstruction of justice is probably even worse than any collusion he could have been a party too... I am also utterly convinced he will do it too. No way he stops at firing Comey if the investigation intensifies. Letting things go is not in his DNA.
Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller. Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.
Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright. Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet. With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.
Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller. Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.
Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright. Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet. With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.
hmm... i never even pondered recess appointments. That would be truly diabolical.
(i feel like this is the plot to some half-baked political thriller)
Well, it seems he is now investigating the scope of his pardoning power, as well as ways to build a conflict of interest case against Mueller:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_campaign=pubexchange_article&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_term=.7343855937f7
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).
I've been wondering this - suppose a pardon was granted; would that actually stop all five investigations (Mueller's plus the four congressional inquiries)? Granted many in the WH would certainly make the argument that with no potential crime there should be no investigation. But could the investigations continue on the basis of uncovering the truth, regardless of whether someone goes to jail? Could it continue under the premise that potentially non-pardoned individuals might be involved (for example: democrats, lobbyists not ever part of the Trump campaign?)
Bye bye, Spicey!I wonder what Melissa McCarthy will do now...
You don't have to fire the special counsel if there are no crimes to investigate (i.e. all possible crimes have been pardoned).
I've been wondering this - suppose a pardon was granted; would that actually stop all five investigations (Mueller's plus the four congressional inquiries)? Granted many in the WH would certainly make the argument that with no potential crime there should be no investigation. But could the investigations continue on the basis of uncovering the truth, regardless of whether someone goes to jail? Could it continue under the premise that potentially non-pardoned individuals might be involved (for example: democrats, lobbyists not ever part of the Trump campaign?)
I feel like this makes sense, unless Trump outs all of the people still in the shadows by preemptively pardoning them as well, I guess.
I find this entire scenario highly implausible, but for the sake of the thought experiment, the fallout would be a good litmus test of the boundaries of partisanship in this country right now. I'm not sure I can think of anything more inherently corrupt than a president pardoning himself, so it would be interesting to see how many people still try to argue that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
Mass pardon of all of Trump's associates/family incoming.
He has all but officially announced his guilt.
He has all but officially announced his guilt.
Let's be careful here. This could absolutely be DJT trying to hide some serious crime, but what precisely what and how many are still unknown (besides what has already been revealed).
There's also the possibility that his interest in pardons are about protecting someone else (his sons, perhaps) or that he believes no one has a right to know anything about his personal finances ("it's none of your damn business!!") because that would be very bad for his businesses (loans, debt, losing money)
Of course not wanting any of this to become public makes his decision to become a public servant was a really dumb thing to do.
I'm just saying - innocent until proven guilty and all.
Innocent until proven guilty is a great, fundamentally important legal concept. It has no bearing (and should have no bearing) on public opinion. If you're technically not in violation of the law, but have behaved in a manner reprehensible to the average person you should not do jail time. You should expect to be reviled though.
Perhaps. But angry mobs get out of control because they view opponents as guilty and condemn people without reflection. Just look at how many people believe HRC is "the most crooked politician in history" and cite deleted emails as 'proof'. If the "never Trump" camp (of which I am a member) wants to avoid a similar hypocracy, we cannot also equate a lack of cooperation with guilt.Well said.
DJT has certainly said and done plenty so far to be critical of, nad there's plenty of investigative material coming in the monhts ahead. Why make judgements on him based on speculation and conjecture?
The escalating series of actions that Trump is doing...suggest he has something to hide.Could be.
Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.
I have not seen an answer to this question.
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...
I have not seen an answer to this question.
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight? You lost me with that anaolgy...
I have not seen an answer to this question.
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight? You lost me with that anaolgy...
Clinton could have run an honest campaign.
I have not seen an answer to this question.
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight? You lost me with that anaolgy...
Clinton could have run an honest campaign. The DNC could have done its job and been unbiased. Yet both failed to do their jobs. They had chosen Clinton long before Sanders appeared on the scene. Yet Democrats are saying "Russia harmed our electoral system." It was already damaged by the DNC actions. All the hacking did was reveal it.
And for a supposedly experienced group of politicians, why did they leave evidence of their manipulations online? Basic criminals know not to leave fingerprints. 30 year political veterans should know not to leave a paper trail. So out of idiocy or incompetence they screwed up.
Clinton ran the largest, most powerful political machine the world had ever seen. (The Titanic.) But the Clinton name is cursed. The icebergs are the problems she had on the campaign trail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html)
Clinton could have run an honest campaign.
On the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with the Russian American lawyer in June 2016 Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
On the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort met with the Russian American lawyer in June 2016 Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
(https://i.imgflip.com/q2q9q.jpg)
Donald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
^Was referring to this line:QuoteDonald Trump the president tweeted that he would shortly release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
Charity is good, is it not? :)Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.
That's being pretty charitable.
Imagine if Obama had refused to release his birth certificate and then started speaking Swahili in the White House and sending his paycheck to Kenya, and you have some idea of how Trump is responding to the "innuendo". Despite the fact that those birther criticisms were totally baseless, OF COURSE he responded in a transparent manner by releasing all documents and providing corroborating witnesses and freely discussing the topic with the press. He did not fire anybody. He did not threaten anybody. He did not deliberately encourage the rumors by doing things that made it look like they were all true, and then give speeches claiming that it's probably not true, but even if it was true it would be totally fine and he would just pardon himself.
Trump is trolling the nation again, just like he did with "there's nobody better on women than me" after the pussy grabbing tape, and "I'm the only one who respects the military" after trashing Gold Star families at the convention. Just like he did with Rosie O'Donnel and the birther conspiracy and "I'll release my taxes the day I win the nomination" and Mexican rapists who "some of them, I assume, are good people." He's a deliberately inflammatory caricature of himself. He thrives by pissing other people off, even when he debases and degrades and contradicts himself to do it, so of course he'll deny all contact with the Russians and then the very next day invite the Russian literally into the Oval Office for a secret meeting. It's like he's constantly trying to see exactly how far he can push things before everyone realizes he's just joking about this whole "being President" thing.
I don't think the bolded part is an either/or situation. Charity is fine, as long as it includes a reasoned look at the situation. There is a heck of a lot more than just innuendo here. And even if there were no issue with the Russians, his response to it is very problematic because it shows a disregard for the judicial processes. This is hardly politics as usual. I'm not going to normalize Trump's behavior by implicitly accepting that statement.Charity is good, is it not? :)Unfortunately, the same series of actions could come from a 100% guilty person who assumes he can get away with anything, or from a 100% innocent person who is sick of the distracting storm of innuendo.
That's being pretty charitable.
Imagine if Obama had refused to release his birth certificate and then started speaking Swahili in the White House and sending his paycheck to Kenya, and you have some idea of how Trump is responding to the "innuendo". Despite the fact that those birther criticisms were totally baseless, OF COURSE he responded in a transparent manner by releasing all documents and providing corroborating witnesses and freely discussing the topic with the press. He did not fire anybody. He did not threaten anybody. He did not deliberately encourage the rumors by doing things that made it look like they were all true, and then give speeches claiming that it's probably not true, but even if it was true it would be totally fine and he would just pardon himself.
Trump is trolling the nation again, just like he did with "there's nobody better on women than me" after the pussy grabbing tape, and "I'm the only one who respects the military" after trashing Gold Star families at the convention. Just like he did with Rosie O'Donnel and the birther conspiracy and "I'll release my taxes the day I win the nomination" and Mexican rapists who "some of them, I assume, are good people." He's a deliberately inflammatory caricature of himself. He thrives by pissing other people off, even when he debases and degrades and contradicts himself to do it, so of course he'll deny all contact with the Russians and then the very next day invite the Russian literally into the Oval Office for a secret meeting. It's like he's constantly trying to see exactly how far he can push things before everyone realizes he's just joking about this whole "being President" thing.
I have no idea whether Trump is a "master manipulator" (as Scott Adams states) or merely a loose cannon. The whole Russia thing, at the heart of it, seems pretty much politics as usual and not close to being worth all the discussion about it (whatever "it" is).
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.
There is a heck of a lot more than just innuendo here.There is a lot of smoke. Agreed that determining whether it is coming from a Trump fire or Democratic smoke machine is the core issue.
And even if there were no issue with the Russians...That would pretty much end this thread.
...his response to it is very problematic because it shows a disregard for the judicial processes. This is hardly politics as usual. I'm not going to normalize Trump's behavior by implicitly accepting that statement.Not saying Trump is normal ;) so in that sense it may be unusual. But making mountains out of molehills is something the far right and left do on a regular basis.
I can be critical of Trump and also be critical of Obama, one doesn't have to be on the extreme right or left to do so.Yes, indeed!
I have not seen an answer to this question.
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine. Why did they leave a log of their Machiavellian efforts ...
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here, and what exactly you are alleging happened. Much ink has been used talking about how and how the Dems lost, with plenty of blame to go around on substance, messaging and tactics. Not sure what your 'Machiavellian efforts" is alluding to, other than the emails revealing that HRC is a politician who strategized at length about ways to beat other politicians (Sanders included). It's about as surprising as finding out that a football coach sought to exploit the weakest elements in their opponents to gain an advantage.
...and the Titanic intentionally ramming every iceberg in sight? You lost me with that anaolgy...
Clinton could have run an honest campaign. The DNC could have done its job and been unbiased. Yet both failed to do their jobs. They had chosen Clinton long before Sanders appeared on the scene. Yet Democrats are saying "Russia harmed our electoral system." It was already damaged by the DNC actions. All the hacking did was reveal it.
And for a supposedly experienced group of politicians, why did they leave evidence of their manipulations online? Basic criminals know not to leave fingerprints. 30 year political veterans should know not to leave a paper trail. So out of idiocy or incompetence they screwed up.
Clinton ran the largest, most powerful political machine the world had ever seen. (The Titanic.) But the Clinton name is cursed. The icebergs are the problems she had on the campaign trail. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html)
Thank you for responding. I will say I disagree with many of your interpretations and assumptions. For starters I've never believed that either the DNC or the RNC are 'neutral, unbiased' entities. They are private political parties and have always sought out and supported candidates who exemplified their message. To me it was common sense that they would support HRC - a high profile democrat for over three decades - over Sanders, who has never been a democrat. Or, to use your parlance, the DNC's "job" is to support candidates who fit the party line and have the best chance of pushing their agenda. It can be argued that the DNC made a grave miscalculation here, but we'll never know how it could have turned out. I'd also say that the RNC tried and failed to support candidates who supported the GOP platform. As a result, under DJT the GOP's platform is splintered and largely non-compatible with what it was under the Bushes and Reagan.
Were they idiots for leaving an electronic trail? possibly, but that doesn't denote that their strategies were either unexpected or illegal. To my knowledge all the emails really showed was a concerted effort to defeat and discredit other political challengers. What did we expect they were saying behind closed doors - "gee, Bernie is great and i secretly hope he wins but how can we run for president and not ever make him look bad"? common...The major mistake the HRC campaign made was to use a private server, then lie about how it was used and botch several opportunities to come clean about it. I chalk that up to arrogance (another thing politics has plenty of). It also makes no sense to me why people are so willing to condemn HRC for saying unflattering things about her opponents in private email conversations when DJT said similar things in the national press. What's the message? You be nasty in public but not in private?
Finally there's this assertion that Russian interference is somehow not something to be concerned about because of the way HRC ran her campaign. Let's dispatch with that notion - regardless of what you believe HRC is or is not guilty of, it does not justify or negate a foreign entity attempting to influence our democratic elections. The "HRC is a corrupt politician so anything Russia may ahve done doesn't matter" doesn't add up. We cannot ignore severe crimes simply because we don't like who they were perpetrated against.
In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.
You are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.
My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?
ok - I can see from the document you linked that the DNC chairperson is charged with impartiality according to their bylawsQuoteIn the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.
I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment extensively on the legality of a private entity not following its own bylaws.
I do know that a person can excercize impartiality and evenhandedness even when they have an opinion about the person(s) they are dealing with. Judges do this on a daily basis.
Let me ask this: what actions did the DNC chair take that showed impartiality or were unevenhanded? I'm asking because I really don't know of any, but wouldn't be surprised if some exist.QuoteYou are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.
My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?
Yes - both burglar teams are in the wrong, and both actions should be examined. But if we find that one was your cousin there to steal beer from your fridge, and the other were convected murderers armed to the teeth and carrying equipment to break into your safe... my point is just as we must be skeptical of some claims that the election was stolen by the Russians, we also must not not ignore other transgressions by saying things like "... but Hillary and her emails! Benghazi! Paid speeches!"
Both extremes seem to be willing to overlook various transgressions by focusing on something completely unrelated. I think that's a grave mistake.
And everyone will say "Russia shouldn't have meddled in our election." I figure Democrats shouldn't have run a terrible candidate, who ran a disastrous campaign, that didn't appeal to a disillusioned base and then maybe the hack would not have been so effective.
I assume I poked a beehive but I honestly believe that Democrats tried to float the Titanic and proceeded to ram every damn iceberg in a 10 mile radius.
Risotto is exactly the point! Only a limousine liberal coastal elite would cook that; here in the heartland we eat Hamburger Helper!Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.
Really, a gold mine? Podesta's risotto recipe? People in an office talking shit about someone who's talking shit about them publicly?
Talk about a nothingburger that the media couldn't stop harping on ...
Why was there something to find in the DNC emails? It could simply have been day to day stuff of running an organization that wouldn't have been interesting to anyone. But instead they found a gold mine.
Really, a gold mine? Podesta's risotto recipe? People in an office talking shit about someone who's talking shit about them publicly?
Talk about a nothingburger that the media couldn't stop harping on ...
ok - I can see from the document you linked that the DNC chairperson is charged with impartiality according to their bylawsQuoteIn the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns.
I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment extensively on the legality of a private entity not following its own bylaws.
I do know that a person can excercize impartiality and evenhandedness even when they have an opinion about the person(s) they are dealing with. Judges do this on a daily basis.
Let me ask this: what actions did the DNC chair take that showed impartiality or were unevenhanded? I'm asking because I really don't know of any, but wouldn't be surprised if some exist.QuoteYou are right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Problem is, a team of burglars show up at your house, only to find a 2nd team already there. Are they all in the wrong? Yes.
My problem is every liberal saying "We would have had a fair election if Russia wasn't involved." Did you have a fair election? Was the will of the people expressed or oppressed? Are people just angry because the hacking exposed that they were as rotten to the core as Republicans?
Yes - both burglar teams are in the wrong, and both actions should be examined. But if we find that one was your cousin there to steal beer from your fridge, and the other were convected murderers armed to the teeth and carrying equipment to break into your safe... my point is just as we must be skeptical of some claims that the election was stolen by the Russians, we also must not not ignore other transgressions by saying things like "... but Hillary and her emails! Benghazi! Paid speeches!"
Both extremes seem to be willing to overlook various transgressions by focusing on something completely unrelated. I think that's a grave mistake.
Indeed, it's all just the tu quoque fallacy over and over. HRC is 100% irrelevant to questions about DJT. Also, at this point, she is a completely insignificant person in the scope of the world compared to DJT. The reasoning that we should still care about her as much/more than the POTUS is so bad it's laughable. You want to talk about Hillary? Go start a thread about her. But if you want to make a coherent point about any actions Trump and his team did or did not take, then stop talking about Hillary.
I figure Trump is the White House leaker. The timing and the fact that no solid evidence comes with it makes me think he is trolling you. He coopted the liberal "Russia-gate" narrative for his own ends.
Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.
Yet, what are you doing to reform your party? To make sure that your party will do what it says? That is the heart of the DNC email problem and the nomination. They read like Cersei Lannister talking about her "small folk." The "small folk" have been forgotten by both parties.
And until you figure out how to get back in touch with them, you better get used to Trump being president.
Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.
I figure Trump is the White House leaker. The timing and the fact that no solid evidence comes with it makes me think he is trolling you. He coopted the liberal "Russia-gate" narrative for his own ends.
Why would he do that? The Intelligentsia demanded a special prosecutor that will keep digging until he finds something. You created an Inquisition over politics. And it is starting to drive a wedge between the Intelligentsia and the middle class. You appear small, distracted and petty while their dinner table sits empty.
Yet, what are you doing to reform your party? To make sure that your party will do what it says? That is the heart of the DNC email problem and the nomination. They read like Cersei Lannister talking about her "small folk." The "small folk" have been forgotten by both parties.
And until you figure out how to get back in touch with them, you better get used to Trump being president.
First, I am not a Democrat. I think at best the DNC is only somewhat less terrible than the RNC at the moment, but I would throw them both out in an instant if I could. My views mostly align with more Americans than not, tbh, based on issue polling. Too bad the parties don't actually represent the will of the people.
Second, LOL at your apparent buy-in to the "Trump is playing 12 dimensional chess" narrative. I couldn't care less about his "trolling." Third, you are still completely deflecting because, apparently, you have nothing constructive to say about the actual topic of discussion other than a bunch of hand-wavy BS about some sort of "intelligentsia" machinations.
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.
Thanks for your time.
I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack.
I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.
Thanks for your time.
None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.
Umm... Because those superdelegates were US citizens duly empowered by a legitimate political party and Russian intelligence officers are not? This is one of the most pathetic attempts at a false equivalency I've seen in a while.
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.
Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller. Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.
Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright. Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet. With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.
August recess coming up. Maybe he will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and whomever else before the August recess, and then make a recess appointment of Kushner or maybe Trump Jr. as the AG.
Should Trump fire Mueller (and he seems to be setting that up) the Congress can pass legislation to appoint their own special counsel that would be outside the purview of the executive. Of course, they would need 2/3 of each house because Trump would veto such legislation.
Trump can't fire Mueller, only Rod Rosenstein could fire him. Rosenstein won't fire Mueller. Only Sessions could fire Rosenstein.
Yes, but Trump can fire Sessions, and nominate someone in turn who would fire Rosenstein, or (since Rosenstein would then be the acting Attorney General) fire Rosenstein outright. Of course any nominee would have to be approved by the senate, and at the very least the senate is likely to drag its feet. With both Sessions and Rosenstein removed the duty would fall on Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand (she would then be acting AG), who could either be fired by Trump or replaced if/when Trump had a new AG confirmed after firing (in this hypothetical situation) both Sessions and Rosenstien. If Trump goes ballistic a lot of people could be getting the ax... hypothetically speaking.
August recess coming up. Maybe he will fire Sessions and Rosenstein and whomever else before the August recess, and then make a recess appointment of Kushner or maybe Trump Jr. as the AG.
Apparently the minority party can block recess appointments via a filibuster, which the democrats are doing to Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/trump-recess-appointments/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/trump-recess-appointments/index.html)
Do you know why the Democrats instituted a primary system with superdelegates? It's because they were smart (stupid?) enough to want to avoid what happened this cycle on the Republican side where one of the weakest candidates emerged from the primaries. Some argue Bernie would have won (I'm skeptical about the prospects of everyone's manic socialist uncle winning, though Biden almost certainly would have) but (IIRC) even without the superdelegates, Hillary was ahead in ordinary delegates and even more ahead in primary votes, since a fair amount of Bernie's success came from caucus primary states with much smaller turnouts. Superdelegates are indeed a thumb on the scale but it's massively more transparent and democratic than the white smoke of a papal conclave.I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.
Thanks for your time.
None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.
I was looking for consistency. I shrug my shoulders because I figure it was an attack on a corrupt system. I admit that I was wrong and the system is clean.
You guys have fun.
Do you know why the Democrats instituted a primary system with superdelegates? It's because they were smart (stupid?) enough to want to avoid what happened this cycle on the Republican side where one of the weakest candidates emerged from the primaries. Some argue Bernie would have won (I'm skeptical about the prospects of everyone's manic socialist uncle winning, though Biden almost certainly would have) but (IIRC) even without the superdelegates, Hillary was ahead in ordinary delegates and even more ahead in primary votes, since a fair amount of Bernie's success came from caucus primary states with much smaller turnouts. Superdelegates are indeed a thumb on the scale but it's massively more transparent and democratic than the white smoke of a papal conclave.I came here because of an article from "The Atlantic." (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russia-trump-left/534534/) I was asking questions about how the DNC committee (with super delegates being in the tank for clinton) was any different from foreign meddling when our democracy is "under attack." It appears to me that an attack from the inside is simply "business as usual." Good to know.
Thanks for your time.
None of what you "allegedly" came here for has any relation to the topic. You are attempting to conflate super delegates with Russia meddling and the possibility of collusion. It's an obvious attempt to deflect and/or downplay the seriousness of the current situation. As someone already suggested feel free to start your own thread about Clinton.
I was looking for consistency. I shrug my shoulders because I figure it was an attack on a corrupt system. I admit that I was wrong and the system is clean.
You guys have fun.
this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.
I think the DNC is in the shitter with no clear political narrative and a paucity of serious and talented (undamaged) candidates to put forward. The Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches, and have an ideological edge in SCOTUS at the federal level. Republicans control 32 state legislatures and have 33 state governors. Some of the discrepancy can be attributed to gerrymandering but much of it cannot. The Democrats should be thinking hard about what they are doing wrong, when on paper, their identity politics-based demographic coalition should be thriving. But this thread isn't about any of that (though I'd welcome one that got into such issues); this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.
I think the DNC is in the shitter with no clear political narrative and a paucity of serious and talented (undamaged) candidates to put forward. The Republicans control the Executive and the Legislative branches, and have an ideological edge in SCOTUS at the federal level. Republicans control 32 state legislatures and have 33 state governors. Some of the discrepancy can be attributed to gerrymandering but much of it cannot. The Democrats should be thinking hard about what they are doing wrong, when on paper, their identity politics-based demographic coalition should be thriving. But this thread isn't about any of that (though I'd welcome one that got into such issues); this is specific thread is about Russian meddling in the US election, which is why I presume your tangents are not being warmly embraced as relevant counterpoints.
Yes. You hit everyone of my points on the head actually. Except go one step further. I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time? Was it that we expected the worst out of our candidates? (Fake news requires doubtful minds to germinate in.) Was the election simply a series of amateur mistakes that we are trying to fit a narrative to now because it was so damn insane? We have five investigations going, four "smoking guns" and what seems to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Did Russia actually do this damage, or was the damage actually there for a while and this election was going to expose it one way or the other?
There are lots of questions. But I don't think we can have an honest discussion between the two camps.
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?
You are asking to be persuaded of something that no one with any credibility (that I'm aware of) is even claiming. The issue is that Trump encouraged (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282), applauded (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/donald-trump-russian-hacking-twitter), and possibly even participated in (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/07/21/timeline-donald-trump-jr-s-contradictory-statements-about-the-russia-meeting/?utm_term=.e50b8be82de8) Russia's interference with our elections. And now that he's under investigation for possible collusion, he's putting using every interference technique in the goddamn books to try to stop and/or undermine the investigation. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether or not Russia's meddling swayed the electoral results; I just want to know whether or not Trump and his associated acted illegally or unethically to further his own interests by colluding with a hostile nation.
I need to be persuaded that Russian meddling was not a one time happening. If there is a certain level of foreign interference (computer or in person) in every election, why did it tip the scales this one time?
You are asking to be persuaded of something that no one with any credibility (that I'm aware of) is even claiming. The issue is that Trump encouraged (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282), applauded (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/donald-trump-russian-hacking-twitter), and possibly even participated in (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/07/21/timeline-donald-trump-jr-s-contradictory-statements-about-the-russia-meeting/?utm_term=.e50b8be82de8) Russia's interference with our elections. And now that he's under investigation for possible collusion, he's putting using every interference technique in the goddamn books to try to stop and/or undermine the investigation. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether or not Russia's meddling swayed the electoral results; I just want to know whether or not Trump and his associated acted illegally or unethically to further his own interests by colluding with a hostile nation.
The real irony is that in the 2012 elections, the Romney and the GOP were all, OBAMA IS TOO SOFT ON PUTIN! RUSSIA IS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE OMG! And (apart from Russian interference in elections, which was not being discussed then) I mostly thought the GOP was acting hysterical. But now the GOP (and esp its voters) views Russia as 'no big deal', while the nuttiest elements of the left seem to think that Trump could never have won without Russian help.Good point. The narratives have changed somewhat since then, haven't they?
The real irony is that in the 2012 elections, the Romney and the GOP were all, OBAMA IS TOO SOFT ON PUTIN! RUSSIA IS OUR NUMBER ONE GEOPOLITICAL FOE OMG! And (apart from Russian interference in elections, which was not being discussed then) I mostly thought the GOP was acting hysterical. But now the GOP (and esp its voters) views Russia as 'no big deal', while the nuttiest elements of the left seem to think that Trump could never have won without Russian help.Good point. The narratives have changed somewhat since then, haven't they?
...downplay the russian collusion story until it's 100% obvious it occurred.That's assuming it did occur. If there were solid evidence Feinstein et al. would be trumpeting it, not saying such evidence hasn't been found (e.g., There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/05/23/there-remains-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion/#3f26de08242c)).
I think republicans still don't like russia (at least republican politicians), but they hate giving the democrats a win even more so that's why theywant towill downplay the russian collusion storyuntileven after it's 100% obvious it occurred.
Yes, there's lots of smoke, but the source of the smoke is debatable.
...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!In all seriousness - so what?
Yes, there's lots of smoke, but the source of the smoke is debatable.
LMAO, what? The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign. Oh we forgot we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!! They already admitted to collusion. The question isn't where the smoke is coming from. It's how much gasoline is this administration going to continue pouring on the fire?
If your response to this is "so what", then we have a very different view of what is acceptable behavior.Yup. Let's hear it for diversity!
Politics is a bare-knuckle fight, but there are still boundaries.
Politics is a bare-knuckle fight, but there are still boundaries.
Anyone who has been trained to fight, in any discipline, will tell you that the key to victory is learning which rules you can bend, and which you can break. People who want to play by all the rules are destined to lose, and that's true in the ring (ask Tyson), or the football field (ask Brady), or in Congress (ask McConnell).
Aside here, but there is no evidence that Brady cheated. He shouldn't be mentioned in the same context as Tyson
Aside here, but there is no evidence that Brady cheated. He shouldn't be mentioned in the same context as Tyson
While I disagree that deflategate left Brady unbesmirched (he did get suspended after all), I was just using his name as a stand in for the oft-fined cheater Patriots he led.
yourteamcheats.com/NE
...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!In all seriousness - so what?
People met and meet with Russians all the time.
Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time.
Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time.
Nice false equivalenceI was waiting for that one - seems to be de rigueur to say at some point in these discussions. ;)
...setting up meetings with foreign adversaries to illegally obtain detrimental information to an opposing campaign, and then lie about it. Wow, just wow!Again, when leading Democrats (Feinstein et al.) start saying there is real evidence, that could be worth paying attention to. Until then, not so much.
And meeting with them to discuss what they could get is the definition of conspiracy.Gosh, a meeting. How awful.
Here is just one example: Al Gore's campaign once received a packet of information stolen by an insider from the Bush campaign. Their response was to hand it over, unopened, to the FBI. That was information taken from within the campaign, literally delivered to their laps, by a US campaign insider -- and yet the Gore campaign did not exploit it, let alone express interest in receiving it.Good for Gore's campaign. Seriously - no sarcasm.
Compare that to the Trump campaign willingly seeking information hacked and stolen from U.S. computer systems by a hostile foreign power, which is magnitudes of order worse.Not according to Assange - of course, one needs to decide whether/what to believe about him.
Here's another thing: Anyone claiming that Trump's actions are "business as usual, everyone does it" clearly is not paying attention. There's nothing usual about Trump, including the collusion with Russia. Presidents don't usually invite Russia to hack into U.S. computer systems or to hack their rival, they don't usually fire the FBI Director for not pledging "loyalty" and killing the investigation, they don't usually go on a public and nasty campaign against their own appointed Attorney General for not quashing the investigation, they don't usually repeat obvious lies every day (such as about crowd sizes to name just one), they don't usually call Senate, House, and FBI inquiries "hoaxes" and "witch hunts," and so on.I'm on record agreeing that Trump is not normal, so I agree with you about that.
So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.Nice false equivalenceI was waiting for that one
Uh, no. I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.Nice false equivalenceI was waiting for that one
Uh, no. I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.Nice false equivalenceI was waiting for that one
Gosh, a meeting. How awful.
No it wasn't a fallacy.Uh, no. I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.Nice false equivalenceI was waiting for that one
No you didn't type or no it's not a fallacy? If you don't believe it's a false equivalence then feel free to explain how "people meet with Russia all the time" is equivalent to the meeting we were discussing.
You realize that a meeting with employees to discuss Q4 revenue is different than a guy having a meeting with a hitman to discuss having his wife killed, right? Would that defense fly when prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder, saying, "Golly, it was just a meeting.No comment. ;)
A presidential campaign (the most senior members on the campaign, no less) meeting with representatives of a foreign government (including former and possibly still active intelligence agents!) to discuss the promised compromising information on his political opponent is a real big, fat, ugly problem.Exactly what problem? Legal? "Looks bad"? Other?
It's not yet clear if a law was broken, but further investigations by Mueller and other investigators might yet find conspiracy to violate election law.Agreed - they might, they might not.
Donald Trump Jr. and Russia: What the Law Says
https://nyti.ms/2vaFUqI
No it wasn't a fallacy.Uh, no. I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.Nice false equivalenceI was waiting for that one
No you didn't type or no it's not a fallacy? If you don't believe it's a false equivalence then feel free to explain how "people meet with Russia all the time" is equivalent to the meeting we were discussing.
No it wasn't a fallacy.Uh, no. I'd be happy to discuss salient issues but debate technique minutiae holds no attraction.So you knew your response was a fallacy yet proceeded to type it anyways. Weird admission, but ok.Nice false equivalenceI was waiting for that one
No you didn't type or no it's not a fallacy? If you don't believe it's a false equivalence then feel free to explain how "people meet with Russia all the time" is equivalent to the meeting we were discussing.
Just as the onus was on the birthers to prove that Obama wasn't born in the US (and of course they failed to do so), the onus on someone accusing Trump of whatever Trump is being accused of is to prove that case. What specifically is it you suspect Trump of doing with Russia? Note that I'll give you "being a loose cannon, self-contradictory, and not making sense on many things" for free, because I think that also - but those aren't the topic of this thread.
I'll help you out....
It is a fallacy....Again, discussion of debate lingo may be interesting to some but it's not relevant to what Trump did or didn't do "with Russia."
I'll help you out....It is a fallacy....Again, discussion of debate lingo may be interesting to some but it's not relevant to what Trump did or didn't do "with Russia."
If/when actual evidence (e.g., something that Sen. Feinstein would label "evidence") comes out then we'll see what we'll see. Until then it seems much ado about nothing.
Unless you are talking about things Russia did independent of Trump. There does seem plenty of evidence in that area.
...that won't change the facts."Facts about what Trump did or didn't do" is indeed on topic. Unless we're talking only about what Russia did or didn't do...?
Dude... I've read a lot of forum debates and seen a lot of cases where the person in the wrong was able to move the goalposts and never really get pegged down. But this? Just admit that you made a false equivalency on the meeting thing....that won't change the facts."Facts about what Trump did or didn't do" is indeed on topic. Unless we're talking only about what Russia did or didn't do...?
In all seriousness - so what?People meet with Russians all the time. That statement means nothing. The context and the topic of the meeting mean everything.
People met and meet with Russians all the time. Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time. As wenchsenior noted, in 2012 it was Obama criticizing Romney for being obsessed with Russia. Now the Republicans say the Democrats are obsessed with Russia.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose#French).
...that won't change the facts."Facts about what Trump did or didn't do" is indeed on topic. Unless we're talking only about what Russia did or didn't do...?
Just admit that you made a false equivalency on the meeting thing.
...
People meet with Russians all the time. That statement means nothing. The context and the topic of the meeting mean everything.
Edit: And I'll also add that just because you made one poor argument doesn't mean anything else you've said is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, admitting a mistake will only give more credibility to everything else you say. Denying it tells a different story.
Thus your original comment was off topic and indeed a fallacy (since others meeting with Russia has no bearing on Trump or the meeting we were discussing). Admit it or continue to shift the goalpost. It really doesn't matter. I think your comment now belongs more appropriately under the topic "OP is the only who doesn't see it."
MDM seems to be looking for specific evidence of legal collusion, so let's review what we know.sol, thanks for bringing this back to relevant issues. Good summary!
...
MDM seems to be looking for specific evidence of legal collusion, so let's review what we know.
The Russian government attempted to interfere with and undermine American democracy. Donald Trump's campaign knew this was happening, and gave both explicit consent and public endorsement of this process. Campaign staffers met secretly with Russian intelligence operatives on multiple occasions, to discuss how they could establish a quid pro quo with the Russians for their help with the election, for example by lifting sanctions, changing the GOP platform plank about Russia, and establishing secret backchannel communications to avoid US intelligence monitoring. These compromised campaign staffers were then appointed to positions of power in the US government that required security clearances, and they lied to security investigators and concealed their foreign contacts, sometimes in front of the US Senate, in order to hide their complicity.
The national security advisor (Flynn) was forced to resign over these lies. The campaign manager (Manafort) was forced to resign because he was literally being paid by the Russians to advance Russian interests, and subsequently had to register as a foreign agent. The white house senior advisor (Kushner) was recruited by Russian intelligence, agreed to circumvent official protocols in order to assist Russia, and is now under investigation. The Attorney General (Sessions) lied to congress about meeting with the Russians and had to recuse himself in order to save his job.
None of that is evidence of collusion by Trump, personally, so it basically won't affect him if he just fires all of those people.
But we also know that Trump had received millions of dollars from Russian oligarchs closely tied to Putin, ostensibly as "investments" in failing real estate deals. These look like bribes, but are probably legal. There is no law against accepting ridiculous sums of money from Putin for items of nominal value.
And we know that Trump knew about the Russian hacks of the DNC, but so far we don't have any public evidence that Trump or his campaign assisted in the release and dissemination of that information, like on Facebook, other than making public statements that it should be leaked.
And lastly, Trump publicly admitted to obstruction of justice. He said he tried to squash the Russia investigation internally, and then fired FBI Director Comey over it when he wouldn't do it. That's about as clear cut of a case as I think can be made.
The Trump Jr. meeting in which he solicited opposition research on Clinton will probably warrant a fine but no jail time. It's illegal, but not very illegal. More importantly, it demonstrates that the campaign was actively seeking to collude.
And in the middle of all of this, while Trump continued to deny any connection with the Russians even as six of his top staffers admitted to it, Trump invited the lead Russian spy in the US for a private meeting in the Oval Office. That was a pure troll move, I think, designed to send the clear message that he considers himself above the law. It was "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and get away with it" all over again.
So what else do we really need? What additional forms of collusion would reach the legal threshold required to convict of collusion?
And for the record, comparing this list to the birther conspiracy is laughably absurd. There was never any evidence to support that theory other than "he's black" and it was promptly and completely debunked right up front. There was no long list of high level staffers being fired over it. Nobody ever had to admit any part of it was true after lying about it to congress and federal investigators. No foreign government ever confirmed it. It's fine to ask for evidence, but let's not pretend that the evidence of Russian collusion is as non-existent as was the evidence for Obama being born in Kenya.
If anything, the false equivalence lies in equating "a meeting happened" to "Trump is guilty".
The "context and topic" are indeed more relevant, but still aren't evidence of actual wrongdoing - at least according to what I've seen, but then IANAL.
If anything, the false equivalence lies in equating "a meeting happened" to "Trump is guilty".No one made that claim thus it's a straw-man fallacy. And it's an improper use of false equivalence. You are drawing a conclusion not comparing two opposing arguments. Perhaps we found the problem.QuoteThe "context and topic" are indeed more relevant, but still aren't evidence of actual wrongdoing - at least according to what I've seen, but then IANAL.Yet that has been explained numerous times as evidence of your fallacy that you still keep denying. Kind of like you are arguing against yourself. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.....
...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!In all seriousness - so what?
People met and meet with Russians all the time. Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time. As wenchsenior noted, in 2012 it was Obama criticizing Romney for being obsessed with Russia. Now the Republicans say the Democrats are obsessed with Russia.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose#French).
If anything, the false equivalence lies in equating "a meeting happened" to "Trump is guilty".No one made that claim thus it's a straw-man fallacy. And it's an improper use of false equivalence. You are drawing a conclusion not comparing two opposing arguments. Perhaps we found the problem.QuoteThe "context and topic" are indeed more relevant, but still aren't evidence of actual wrongdoing - at least according to what I've seen, but then IANAL.Yet that has been explained numerous times as evidence of your fallacy that you still keep denying. Kind of like you are arguing against yourself. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water.....
Let's go back to the original(?) post that seems to bother you (if you have a different one in mind, please advise):...we met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton, of which Trump had a big announcement that very day!!In all seriousness - so what?
People met and meet with Russians all the time. Politicians look for information detrimental to their opponents all the time. As wenchsenior noted, in 2012 it was Obama criticizing Romney for being obsessed with Russia. Now the Republicans say the Democrats are obsessed with Russia.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose#French).
Was "met with the Russians last year, in Trump tower, in an attempt to obtain information detrimental to Clinton" not put forth as evidence Trump did something wrong? Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were trying to say?
MDM seems to be looking for specific evidence of legal collusion, so let's review what we know.
The Russian government attempted to interfere with and undermine American democracy. Donald Trump's campaign knew this was happening, and gave both explicit consent and public endorsement of this process. Campaign staffers met secretly with Russian intelligence operatives on multiple occasions, to discuss how they could establish a quid pro quo with the Russians for their help with the election, for example by lifting sanctions, changing the GOP platform plank about Russia, and establishing secret backchannel communications to avoid US intelligence monitoring. These compromised campaign staffers were then appointed to positions of power in the US government that required security clearances, and they lied to security investigators and concealed their foreign contacts, sometimes in front of the US Senate, in order to hide their complicity.
The national security advisor (Flynn) was forced to resign over these lies. The campaign manager (Manafort) was forced to resign because he was literally being paid by the Russians to advance Russian interests, and subsequently had to register as a foreign agent. The white house senior advisor (Kushner) was recruited by Russian intelligence, agreed to circumvent official protocols in order to assist Russia, and is now under investigation. The Attorney General (Sessions) lied to congress about meeting with the Russians and had to recuse himself in order to save his job.
None of that is evidence of collusion by Trump, personally, so it basically won't affect him if he just fires all of those people.
But we also know that Trump had received millions of dollars from Russian oligarchs closely tied to Putin, ostensibly as "investments" in failing real estate deals. These look like bribes, but are probably legal. There is no law against accepting ridiculous sums of money from Putin for items of nominal value.
And we know that Trump knew about the Russian hacks of the DNC, but so far we don't have any public evidence that Trump or his campaign assisted in the release and dissemination of that information, like on Facebook, other than making public statements that it should be leaked.
And lastly, Trump publicly admitted to obstruction of justice. He said he tried to squash the Russia investigation internally, and then fired FBI Director Comey over it when he wouldn't do it. That's about as clear cut of a case as I think can be made.
The Trump Jr. meeting in which he solicited opposition research on Clinton will probably warrant a fine but no jail time. It's illegal, but not very illegal. More importantly, it demonstrates that the campaign was actively seeking to collude.
And in the middle of all of this, while Trump continued to deny any connection with the Russians even as six of his top staffers admitted to it, Trump invited the lead Russian spy in the US for a private meeting in the Oval Office. That was a pure troll move, I think, designed to send the clear message that he considers himself above the law. It was "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and get away with it" all over again.
So what else do we really need? What additional forms of collusion would reach the legal threshold required to convict of collusion?
And for the record, comparing this list to the birther conspiracy is laughably absurd. There was never any evidence to support that theory other than "he's black" and it was promptly and completely debunked right up front. There was no long list of high level staffers being fired over it. Nobody ever had to admit any part of it was true after lying about it to congress and federal investigators. No foreign government ever confirmed it. It's fine to ask for evidence, but let's not pretend that the evidence of Russian collusion is as non-existent as was the evidence for Obama being born in Kenya.
Actually my original comment was "The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign." I only stated Trump himself had a big announcement because of the sheer timing of it looks suspicious. I made no conclusion of guilt either way on Trump himself.Ah, thank you, that makes the point to which you are objecting clearer.
The source of your response was surrounding the meeting itself, which as far as we know, didn't include Trump Sr. But it sure showed at the very least, collusion. The fallacy lies with your desire to insinuate it's like all other meetings, which of course it is not. It's been beaten into the ground by myself an others.
Actually my original comment was "The source of the smoke is Trump's own family and his campaign." I only stated Trump himself had a big announcement because of the sheer timing of it looks suspicious. I made no conclusion of guilt either way on Trump himself.
The source of your response was surrounding the meeting itself, which as far as we know, didn't include Trump Sr. But it sure showed at the very least, collusion. The fallacy lies with your desire to insinuate it's like all other meetings, which of course it is not. It's been beaten into the ground by myself an others.
There is a difference between saying "all meetings are identical, thus Trump is innocent" (to which I disagree) vs. "the fact that a meeting occurred with Trump (or his staff) and some Russians means Trump (or his staff) is guilty of something" (to which I disagree).
Regarding "collusion" and other charges, see the article DavidAnnArbor linked in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/united-states-of-russia/msg1639075/#msg1639075. From what I know, that is a fair recap of events to date. Do we agree on that?
I'll take that as a yes. ;)Do we agree on that?<snip>
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56666/russia-putin-oligarchs/?src=social-textGreat share. Thanks.
More Senate testimony yesterday
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56666/russia-putin-oligarchs/?src=social-textGreat share. Thanks.
More Senate testimony yesterday
I'm not prone to hyperbole. I believe the Russian rhetoric can be over the top at times. I'm perfectly content letting Mueller conduct his investigation and accepting the results. For the sake of argument let's assume that Trump/his campaign/his family didn't collude with Russia. Let's assume that Mueller conducts his investigation and determines that it was all just a bunch of smoke. Let's assume that changing the Republican platform to be more pro-Russia was just happenstance. Assuming all of that, we still have a serious problem in my humble opinion.
Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in July. The Russians hacked the DNC in June. The Russians attempted to hack into the election software that manages voter rolls in August 2016. The Russians attempted to target local election officials in October 2016. Presumably Donald Trump/Pence/Flynn would have been briefed on this info by as part of the presidential daily briefs beginning in July. Despite the intelligence community being unanimous in the belief that Russia interfered/attempted to interfere in our election, Donald Trump has bent over backwards to sow seeds of doubt with the American public. He did this while still a candidate for office during the presidential debates and he has continued to do it as the President of the United States.
Maybe he did/does it because of election insecurity and not because of an underlying crime/conspiracy. Maybe there was no collusion. But think about what that means. The President of the United States is purposefully disparaging our intelligence community and misleading the American public for no reason at all. That does not make me feel better.
When facts are very heavily slanted against you, you're not going to win by focusing on the truth. It's far more effective to play smoke and mirror games in an attempt to discredit the facts.
I'm not prone to hyperbole. I believe the Russian rhetoric can be over the top at times. I'm perfectly content letting Mueller conduct his investigation and accepting the results. For the sake of argument let's assume that Trump/his campaign/his family didn't collude with Russia. Let's assume that Mueller conducts his investigation and determines that it was all just a bunch of smoke. Let's assume that changing the Republican platform to be more pro-Russia was just happenstance. Assuming all of that, we still have a serious problem in my humble opinion.
Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in July. The Russians hacked the DNC in June. The Russians attempted to hack into the election software that manages voter rolls in August 2016. The Russians attempted to target local election officials in October 2016. Presumably Donald Trump/Pence/Flynn would have been briefed on this info by as part of the presidential daily briefs beginning in July. Despite the intelligence community being unanimous in the belief that Russia interfered/attempted to interfere in our election, Donald Trump has bent over backwards to sow seeds of doubt with the American public. He did this while still a candidate for office during the presidential debates and he has continued to do it as the President of the United States.
Maybe he did/does it because of election insecurity and not because of an underlying crime/conspiracy. Maybe there was no collusion. But think about what that means. The President of the United States is purposefully disparaging our intelligence community and misleading the American public for no reason at all. That does not make me feel better.
I'm not prone to hyperbole. I believe the Russian rhetoric can be over the top at times. I'm perfectly content letting Mueller conduct his investigation and accepting the results. For the sake of argument let's assume that Trump/his campaign/his family didn't collude with Russia. Let's assume that Mueller conducts his investigation and determines that it was all just a bunch of smoke. Let's assume that changing the Republican platform to be more pro-Russia was just happenstance. Assuming all of that, we still have a serious problem in my humble opinion.
Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in July. The Russians hacked the DNC in June. The Russians attempted to hack into the election software that manages voter rolls in August 2016. The Russians attempted to target local election officials in October 2016. Presumably Donald Trump/Pence/Flynn would have been briefed on this info by as part of the presidential daily briefs beginning in July. Despite the intelligence community being unanimous in the belief that Russia interfered/attempted to interfere in our election, Donald Trump has bent over backwards to sow seeds of doubt with the American public. He did this while still a candidate for office during the presidential debates and he has continued to do it as the President of the United States.
Maybe he did/does it because of election insecurity and not because of an underlying crime/conspiracy. Maybe there was no collusion. But think about what that means. The President of the United States is purposefully disparaging our intelligence community and misleading the American public for no reason at all. That does not make me feel better.
Actually, most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors. Even the paranoid hippy/druid guy doubts it.
But the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.
You can point to your articles and all your red string as evidence. The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds. And liberals reactions immediately after the election (riots, safe space crying, the hippy I mentioned above said his town entered a "day of mourning") just makes the entire hacking crisis look like pouting.
You can point to your articles and all your red string as evidence. The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds. And liberals reactions immediately after the election (riots, safe space crying, the hippy I mentioned above said his town entered a "day of mourning") just makes the entire hacking crisis look like pouting.
What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors.
But the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.
The initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds.
What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
gentmach explained it a few posts back. Not at all what I guessed. :)What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
gentmach explained it a few posts back. Not at all what I guessed. :)What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
most of the moderates and conservatives I know have this pegged as smoke and mirrors.
Really? Even the part about the Russians trying to undermine American democracy by interfering in our elections? How about the part where Trump went on national tv to ask the Russians to hack his opponents? What about the part where he admitted to firing the FBI director for refusing to shut down a criminal investigation?
Because those three parts are pretty well established facts. I don't think anyone really disputes those.
But lots of folks, even liberals, are still unclear on whether Trumps deference to the Russians is just bad policy because he's an idiot, or bad policy because the Russians have leverage over him and asked him to change it. In the end, I'm not sure that part really matters. They got what they wanted either way.QuoteBut the hard core liberals I know foam at the mouth about this. One offered up "She won the popular vote" as the thing that convinced him of Russian hacking.
You're confused. Nobody brings up the popular vote as evidence of Russian hacking unless they fundamentally misunderstand the electoral college. If anything, the only person who loves to bring up the election over and over again is Donald Trump himself.
But the Russians did totally try to hack the election, by multiple means. Right now, it looks like they infilitrated a variety of voting systems but were unable to change the vote totals, which is good. What's no so good is that they were much more successful with convincing Americans to legitimately change their votes, with targeted fake news stories on facebook. I'm not sure it still counts as "hacking" if you just trick someone into doing something you want them to do.QuoteThe initial evidence is still too vague to change people's minds.
Is it also too vague to change the minds of the entire US intelligence community? The Russian hacking facts I've laid out above aren't really in dispute among the people who have access to the relevant information. The fact that parts of the public are still skeptical of these facts is a testament to the power of Donald Trump to mislead people, but a deceived public doesn't change the fact that they are still true facts.
"red string evidence"gentmach explained it a few posts back. Not at all what I guessed. :)What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
Explained what?
"red string evidence"gentmach explained it a few posts back. Not at all what I guessed. :)What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
Explained what?
"red string evidence"gentmach explained it a few posts back. Not at all what I guessed. :)What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
Explained what?
Hmm, I remember a bunch of hand waving BS he got called out on, but no mention of "red string evidence." Perhaps it was in reference to Covfefe. Oh well ( :
You may be missing the point of this series of quotes, that starts with"red string evidence"gentmach explained it a few posts back. Not at all what I guessed. :)What exactly is "red string evidence?"Auto-complete typo for "red herring"?
I would assume but it's a pretty terrible and incorrect use of red herring.
Explained what?
Hmm, I remember a bunch of hand waving BS he got called out on, but no mention of "red string evidence." Perhaps it was in reference to Covfefe. Oh well ( :
Quote from: MasterStache on Today at 03:33:42 PM What exactly is "red string evidence?" |
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/
Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/
They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:QuoteDue to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.
23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?
Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):
(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)
That's over 4x 23MB/sec.
They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/
They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:QuoteDue to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.
23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?
Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):
(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)
That's over 4x 23MB/sec.
They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."
Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?
And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)
Do we have forensics on it?
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/
They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:QuoteDue to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.
23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?
Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):
(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)
That's over 4x 23MB/sec.
They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."
Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?
And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)
Do we have forensics on it?
Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.
See?
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/
They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:QuoteDue to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.
23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?
Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):
(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)
That's over 4x 23MB/sec.
They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."
Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?
And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)
Do we have forensics on it?
Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.
See?
Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.
I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
The emails were part of what appears to be 19.1 GB of data. The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack but could have been done by USB.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/
They appear to be using this as a basis for this claim:QuoteDue to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.
23MB/sec is "too fast" for the internet?
Peasant internet, maybe...but that is not remotely fast enough to firmly claim it's impossible. Want proof? Here's my home internet connection as of a few seconds ago (ran while simultaneously uploading the entire contents of my website to another server):
(http://i.imgur.com/25C0bk1.png)
That's over 4x 23MB/sec.
They continue to use computer time settings as proof of a system's physical location - anybody with even a passing familiarity with computers can make their computer think it's any time zone they want. That's laughably poor "proof."
Is your computer an email server though? Is it processing several demands for information over that single line?
And what was that DNC server? Do we know the type? The brand? The type of connection? (They figure a T3 line with 40 MB capacity. Would they have fiber optic? What type is yours?)
Do we have forensics on it?
Therefore, it's absurd to claim their speculative conclusion to be fact.
See?
Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.
I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.
I have no idea. My problem is with your claim "The transfer rate was too large for an internet hack" which is based on speculation. The source you cited also claimed that speed is 80% of gigabit LAN rate, which is completely wrong. It's approximately 20% of gigabit ethernet's capability. They were called out in the comments and admitted fault but still have not corrected the article.
and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.
Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.
Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.
Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.
Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.
Actually I have an associates in Industrial Electrical. Your point still stands. I am asking questions because I know enough to get into trouble. (I'm running Linux Mint now.)
And the author does point out that it is speculation. I had not found the comment section going into.more detail.
But it has raised a question of why the DNC used a private security firm instead of the FBI when Russians hacked their server. There was a serious crime and the scene disappeared as far as I can tell.
Except why don't we have those facts? What was the official decision on it? Was it processed? There seems to be a lack of information that allows people to wiggle around in.To answer this specifically: there's usually nothing to be gained from disclosing internal infrastructure with conspiracy theorists, or even fans.
I mean, I am sure the DNC has a set up similar to other types of corporations. Internet technology is standardized. They could easily quash speculation like this, yet they don't.
Gentmarch is a HS grad who works in machining /fast food and until recently was running Windows XP in a 16 year old pre-fab Dell.
Given this background it's not likely that he has any credibility relating to internet protocols, IT security, or server side email vulnerabilities. In fact, he appears to mostly be regurgitating talking points from conspiracy sites in the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" mold. Ya know, sites that spew a bunch of technobabble to confuse laypeople.
Before everyone screams "Ad hominem" - everything I've said about gentmarch's background is not speculation, it's personal info he has shared via the blog link in his Sig.
Actually I have an associates in Industrial Electrical. Your point still stands. I am asking questions because I know enough to get into trouble. (I'm running Linux Mint now.)
And the author does point out that it is speculation. I had not found the comment section going into.more detail.
But it has raised a question of why the DNC used a private security firm instead of the FBI when Russians hacked their server. There was a serious crime and the scene disappeared as far as I can tell.
I work in IT. The datacenter gear I manage uses $30k/mo in electricity.
There are a lot of questions without enough answers to make the claims they're making.
And the article in the WaPo about Trump personally dictating a misleading statement about Donny Jr's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airforceone-759pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7334bd539af4
And the article in the WaPo about Trump personally dictating a misleading statement about Donny Jr's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airforceone-759pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7334bd539af4
Today's news about Trump intervening in the Trump Jr. Russia meeting affair certainly looks like some of the first hard evidence of the President being directly involved in a secret cover-up. And for what reason? He didn't have to do that. He could have kept his hands clean and just stayed out of the entire affair.
Until this, I was holding out hope that Trump was just a clueless idiot surrounded by conspirators. Now it looks like, in at least this one case, be was not only not clueless but purposefully and actively involved the conspiracy.
It would be delicious irony if the the thing that finally brings down Trump is totally unnecessary meddling in the criminal proceedings of his own family. For all his spurious talk about loyalty, and his simultaneous wanton destruction of his supposed political allies, he suddenly seems uniquely vulnerable to weaknesses in the very family he previously claimed made him so robustly qualified to be president.
I love it when incompetent people fail publicly, I just wish it wasn't my country at stake this time.
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:The letter is fucking great.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:The letter is fucking great.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".
But he did! See the last sentence.Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:The letter is fucking great.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".
Hell I am surprised he didn't toss in something about winning the election.
But he did! See the last sentence.Trump signed the sanctions bill. The signing statement is a very strange thing. See:The letter is fucking great.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16084458/trump-russia-sanctions-congress
I went from "no way Trump writes this well" to "hmm, he must have had some input after all" and ended on "nope that's totally him".
Hell I am surprised he didn't toss in something about winning the election.
"That is a big part of the reason I was elected."
Three days after Donald Trump named his campaign foreign policy team in March 2016, the youngest of the new advisers sent an email to seven campaign officials with the subject line: “Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin.”(The Washington Post reports 8/14/2017)
.... adding more evidence that "this Russia thing" just isn't going away...QuoteThree days after Donald Trump named his campaign foreign policy team in March 2016, the youngest of the new advisers sent an email to seven campaign officials with the subject line: “Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin.”(The Washington Post reports 8/14/2017)
Between March and September [2016], the self-described energy consultant sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump... or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials.
To experts in Russian intelligence gathering, the [email] chain offers further evidence that Russians were looking for entry points and playing upon connections with lower-level aides to penetrate the 2016 campaign.
Steven L. Hall, who retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of managing the agency’s Russia operations, said when told by The Post about the emails: “The bottom line is that there’s no doubt in my mind that the Russian government was casting a wide net when they were looking at the American election. I think they were doing very basic intelligence work: Who’s out there? Who’s willing to play ball? And how can we use them?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-emails-show-aides-repeated-efforts-to-set-up-russia-meetings/2017/08/14/54d08da6-7dc2-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russians-558pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4cb15670b4b9 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-emails-show-aides-repeated-efforts-to-set-up-russia-meetings/2017/08/14/54d08da6-7dc2-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_russians-558pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4cb15670b4b9)
I'm reading the first few paragraphs and I'm already confused by the article. They sure need an editor to better organize this.Good, I'm not the only one. I'll need to take notes as I go if I have much chance of keeping up but maybe if I have some time tonight.
I'm reading the first few paragraphs and I'm already confused by the article. They sure need an editor to better organize this.Good, I'm not the only one. I'll need to take notes as I go if I have much chance of keeping up but maybe if I have some time tonight.
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps
DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps
DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
Irony alert! There was collision with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.
http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/
Irony alert! There was collision with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.
http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/
Sure. This totally explains why the Trump campaign insisted on only one change to the RNC platform that had to do with Ukraine policy. Because Hillary. It also explains why Trump won't enforce Russia sanctions. Again, Russia is controlling him, via Hillary. And, it explains why his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russian operatives who stated they represented the government to trade info on Hillary in exchange for discussing "adoptions". Hillary's fault-again!
I mean, this is some quality whataboutism. The DNC might have used Russian sources to dig up dirt on Trump....because that's where the dirt was. Maybe if Trump wasn't so sketchy about Russia, there wouldn't have been so much dirt there. I mean, if you are looking for dirt on Bill Clinton, you buy it from brassy ladies in Arkansas, because that's where the dirt is. If you are looking for dirt on Trump...
Btw-the treason is trading U.S. policy for the dirt. Like, for example, dicking around on sanctions. Not opposition research. Unless you can point to what Hillary traded, that ain't treason.
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps
DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps
DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.
I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it up to now has made clear that it was the product of opposition research.
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps
DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.
I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps
DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.
I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?
It's also weird because it's been well documented that the dossier was funded by Republicans during the primary election and Hillary contributed additional funding only after she won the right to run against Trump. Strangely all the new articles coming out this week seem to be pointedly ignoring the first part.
Senate Committee reports certainty of Russian involvement, still no sign of collusion: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-investigation-update-senate-intelligence-committee-2017-10http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps
DNC and Clinton campaign helped pay for Steele dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.6c68f99dd876
Somebody pointed out that the dossier has been verified so we can disregard that. I found it strange that the Washington Post was reporting on stuff a year old.
I have been genuinely curious about the dossier "news" this week. Almost everything I've read on it for the last several months has made clear that it was the product of opposition research. Why are people surprised by this in October of 2017?
It's also weird because it's been well documented that the dossier was funded by Republicans during the primary election and Hillary contributed additional funding only after she won the right to run against Trump. Strangely all the new articles coming out this week seem to be pointedly ignoring the first part.
Yup. even in the mainstream media.
Liberal bias, indeed.
Irony alert! There was collision with the Russians to influence the election, but it was by Hillary and the DNC.
http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/
Sure. This totally explains why the Trump campaign insisted on only one change to the RNC platform that had to do with Ukraine policy. Because Hillary. It also explains why Trump won't enforce Russia sanctions. Again, Russia is controlling him, via Hillary. And, it explains why his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with Russian operatives who stated they represented the government to trade info on Hillary in exchange for discussing "adoptions". Hillary's fault-again!
I mean, this is some quality whataboutism. The DNC might have used Russian sources to dig up dirt on Trump....because that's where the dirt was. Maybe if Trump wasn't so sketchy about Russia, there wouldn't have been so much dirt there. I mean, if you are looking for dirt on Bill Clinton, you buy it from brassy ladies in Arkansas, because that's where the dirt is. If you are looking for dirt on Trump...
Btw-the treason is trading U.S. policy for the dirt. Like, for example, dicking around on sanctions. Not opposition research. Unless you can point to what Hillary traded, that ain't treason.
The die hard Trump-bots will grasp at whatever straws they can to prove that HRC is the real villain here. She has to be since that's the only excuse they seem to have left to justify their vote. And pissing off liberals, of course, so I guess worst case they can always fall back on that.
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.
You have to change people's minds.
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.
You have to change people's minds.
Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.
It's a matter of perception. If you woke up on November 9th and asked "How could we lose?", Then Russia-gate makes sense to you.
To me, the question is "How could you win?", Then Russia-gate looks like the Democrats deflecting blame. You can point to Obamacare as a center piece and dozens of other well meaning initiatives at the national level. But at the local level, things weren't looking great. I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.
You have to change people's minds. Explain why Democrats had a strong candidate. Explain why they ran a good campaign. (There was a third thing that needed to be explained. Can't remember right now.)
I find the lack of soul searching from liberals disturbing. They seemed to have jumped to McCarthyism with a slight nudge rather than a hard shove. Any disagreement with liberals and their actions (Whether Democrat or Antifa) sets off a wave of snarling.
Some idea's from a libertarian that was branded a "Trump bot" for questioning a narrative.
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.
You have to change people's minds.
Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.
Mike Madigan and the Democrats have ruled Illinois for 30 years and we are essentially the "Greece" of the United States. Chicago is losing residents at such a rate it will be the next Detroit. Common reasons being high taxes, budget stalemate, crime, and unemployment.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html
Yes, Trump is a toxic brand of napalm. But compared to the chain of landfill fires that is Illinois politics, he is simply a tangy scent on top of burning garbage.
Democrats still looked paralyzed when faced with a crisis.
"You guys want end up like Illinois? Vote Democrat"
I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.
You have to change people's minds.
Democrats tried to pass infrastructure spending in Congress but the Republicans refused to go along with that.
Democrats were trying to pass criminal justice reform.
Republicans are trying to slash programs that help people in areas hit hard by declines in manufacturing/mining.
Mike Madigan and the Democrats have ruled Illinois for 30 years and we are essentially the "Greece" of the United States. Chicago is losing residents at such a rate it will be the next Detroit. Common reasons being high taxes, budget stalemate, crime, and unemployment.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html
Yes, Trump is a toxic brand of napalm. But compared to the chain of landfill fires that is Illinois politics, he is simply a tangy scent on top of burning garbage.
Democrats still looked paralyzed when faced with a crisis.
"You guys want end up like Illinois? Vote Democrat"
Please. If you think the corrupt assholes in Illinois (where I lived for 7 years) represent the soul of the Democratic party, you are being willfully obtuse. Just like those liberals who claim Trump represents some sort of proof of a cancer borne from Republicanism. No. Both party's greatest failing is that they prop up any and all who bear their standard. An actual libertarian would agree this is obvious.
Unfortunately for those leaning right, your party chose a much worse candidate that Democrats have yet manage to muster. Doesn't mean Republicans lose and Democrats win. It's only, merely, America that loses.
It's a matter of perception. If you woke up on November 9th and asked "How could we lose?", Then Russia-gate makes sense to you.
To me, the question is "How could you win?", Then Russia-gate looks like the Democrats deflecting blame. You can point to Obamacare as a center piece and dozens of other well meaning initiatives at the national level. But at the local level, things weren't looking great. I mean, Chicago gained the nickname "Chiraq" with a democratic mayor, in a firmly Democratic state while Democrats held federal power. At best Democrats appeared as callous as Republicans and at worst they appeared incompetent. Multiply such indifference across towns everywhere in the United States and you had a recipe for disaster.
You have to change people's minds. Explain why Democrats had a strong candidate. Explain why they ran a good campaign. (There was a third thing that needed to be explained. Can't remember right now.)
I find the lack of soul searching from liberals disturbing. They seemed to have jumped to McCarthyism with a slight nudge rather than a hard shove. Any disagreement with liberals and their actions (Whether Democrat or Antifa) sets off a wave of snarling.
Some idea's from a libertarian that was branded a "Trump bot" for questioning a narrative.
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.what? does not compute.
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions rolled back a series of Obama-era curbs on civil-asset forfeiture on Wednesday, strengthening the federal government’s power to seize cash and property from Americans without first bringing criminal charges against them.
President Trump announced a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. That evening, the Department of Justice made another significant move in the fight over LGBT rights, albeit with less flash than a tweet storm: It filed an amicus brief in a major case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, arguing that it’s not illegal to fire an employee based on his or her sexual orientation under federal law.
The administration has also rejected Obama-era protections for transgender students.
Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote Tuesday night to repeal a rule that made it easier for Americans to sue their banks and credit card companies.
"Tonight's vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country," Richard Cordray, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in a statement. "Wall Street won and ordinary people lost."
Companies will be able to cite religious or moral objections to birth control, and deny the funding to their employees – a new policy which unpicks a key provision of Obamacare.
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine. AKA straight white guys.
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.
I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
Oh, man. I haven't laughed that hard in weeks.
acroy's posts never fail to be knee-slappers
Even if Trump supported every policy that I favor I would want him out. In fact, all the more so because the vice president he would theoretically leave behind would still get things done without making us the butt of the world's jokes. He's extremely untrustworthy and isn't very intelligent outside of the few things he understands regarding manipulation of the media and people. Even you should be a little wary that his political views have changed so drastically over the last 10-20 years. No matter how much you like him now it must tickle the back of your brain to make you wonder what his real motives are; Why does someone change parties like that? Is it because he saw an opportunity for a power grab in the Republican party that didn't exist with the Democrats? After all scientific studies have shown the brains of declared republicans are more reactive to danger cues than the general population, maybe he understood this means they are more receptive to fear mongering (his primary tactic). Frankly I don't think we need scientific studies to tell us this but we do have them. If he changes parties and his positions on key issues to match in order to follow opportunity, when will he turn on his party again? When will he turn on his country?I would venture that I am at least as libertarian as you, and very possibly more so. And yet I think Trump is the worst threat to American liberty in my lifetime, as brief as it may have been thus far. Go figure.what? does not compute.
A few Trump actions directly affecting liberty:
- A flood of judge appointments. Appointees seem to be conservative/constitutionalist. Result: more liberty.
- New regulations slowed to near-zero (this is a yuuuge deal), and an EO to eliminate 2 for every 1 new reg. Result: more liberty, or at minimum, slower encroachment on your liberty.
- recent order on O-care. result: companies can offer more plans and millions of Americans now have more choice. MOAR liberty!
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine. AKA straight white guys.Yawn. Enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics / professional victimization already.
They have removed protections for average citizens in order to favor big businesses. They have deprived you of your rights (to sue banks for stealing from you, as a recent example).Nope. I deprived myself of the ability to sue when I, of my own free will, signed the agreement not to sue.
I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine. AKA straight white guys.Yawn. Enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics / professional victimization already.They have removed protections for average citizens in order to favor big businesses. They have deprived you of your rights (to sue banks for stealing from you, as a recent example).Nope. I deprived myself of the ability to sue when I, of my own free will, signed the agreement not to sue.I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
Civil asset forfeiture: good point. That is BAD stuff and violates basic rights, terrible.
Good to hear back from you Acroy. My statement wasn't an ad-hominum attack, but rather an observation that several different times you've popped in to assert your positive opinion on current political events, but then didn't address or respond to the legitimate criticisms.I'm always left wondering whether its a bit of trolling on his part given he rarely responds to criticisms of his posts, or if he actually believes such statements.I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
Saying "enough with the demeaning, degrading, discriminatory identity politics" or labeling others as living inside an "echo chamber" isn't refuting their points, its just calling them names.
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.
I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach. Government's job is to protect existing property rights. In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers. They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.
And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer. Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth. Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.
I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach. Government's job is to protect existing property rights. In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers. They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.
And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer. Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth. Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.
At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
Civil asset forfeiture: good point. That is BAD stuff and violates basic rights, terrible.
I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.
You do realize that, only yesterday, you posted in a thread about Trump and Russia a list of things that Obama and Clinton potentially did wrong or that were illegal. It was like you cut&paste the headlines from Foxnews.
Seriously, check it out. The top articles at Foxnews right now are:
"Fusion GPS hiring murky by design, gives key Democrats dossier deniability" (Hillary!)
"Turley on Russia: 'Allegations against Clintons could potentially be criminal'" (Hillary!)
"STEPHEN MILLER: Hillary Clinton and Democrats lose the high ground on Russia" (Hillary!)
"KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: The Fusion GPS bombshells have just begun to drop (Hillary!)"
"Inside the relationship between Russia and Fusion GPS" (HILLARY!)
If you look at CNN, the top story is about Trump and the gag order, the 2nd biggest story is about Catalonia, and the 3rd is about the letdown of the JFK papers.
Now, given that CNN has some Trump articles and opinion pieces, it also has some Clinton pieces below the Trump headline:
"Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions and accusations"
"Did Clinton help approve uranium deal?"
You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?
I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?
I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?
I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
When one of the big stories breaks I often check out the conservative angle first - Fox, Washington Times, LA Daily, The Federalist...
How far to the left would you say you read opposing views? Do you make it to Reuters? C-span?
Specifically what Trump actions are threatening American liberty?
Is this...is this a legitimate question?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/QuoteAttorney General Jeff Sessions rolled back a series of Obama-era curbs on civil-asset forfeiture on Wednesday, strengthening the federal government’s power to seize cash and property from Americans without first bringing criminal charges against them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/title-vii/535182/QuotePresident Trump announced a ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. That evening, the Department of Justice made another significant move in the fight over LGBT rights, albeit with less flash than a tweet storm: It filed an amicus brief in a major case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, arguing that it’s not illegal to fire an employee based on his or her sexual orientation under federal law.QuoteThe administration has also rejected Obama-era protections for transgender students.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/senate-cfpb-arbitration-repeal/index.htmlQuoteVice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote Tuesday night to repeal a rule that made it easier for Americans to sue their banks and credit card companies.Quote"Tonight's vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country," Richard Cordray, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in a statement. "Wall Street won and ordinary people lost."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/06/trump-administration-allows-employers-refuse-pay-birth-control/QuoteCompanies will be able to cite religious or moral objections to birth control, and deny the funding to their employees – a new policy which unpicks a key provision of Obamacare.
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine. AKA straight white guys.
He's a libertarian asking another libertarian. Most of these responses are liberty-reducing from the perspective of a mainstream liberal, not necessarily a libertarian.
Libertarians do not like the civil asset forfeiture.
If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).
The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.
If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).
The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.
QuoteIf you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).
The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.
sooo... basically here we measure every failure as a success?
Color me unimpressed, but that's akin to taking pride in winning the match because your opponent simply didn't show up. A 'win by default' sort of outlook.
Like you said, this shows the relative opinions of viewers, not the level of bias of the outlet so it tells us something but it's not a good way to rate the bias of a network. MSNBC & CNN should certainly be further left than NPR & BBC. And Fox news only gets dragged towards the middle because the more reasonable people who can't accept anything that doesn't have at least some conservative bias are left with a cable news network that has become steadily more unreasonable over the years, particularly since Trump came on the scene.For the record, I make it a point to read a few top stories from Fox news and sometimes even Breitbart (but those are generally non-articles, a few paragraphs of calling some celebrity a snowflake because of what they said on twitter or vague details on a homosexual/immigrant murderer in California is the majority of what you'll find there)I'm happy to disrupt the seeming ideological echo-chamber in here from time to time and try to bring in some critical thinking. My non-response is when I'm doing other things, sorry to disappoint. Please, don't stoop to ad-hominum.You gotta ask yourself, where is the (most confining) echo chamber?
I would highly recommend that you, and others, skim opposing news sites. It'll get you out of the echo chamber.
When one of the big stories breaks I often check out the conservative angle first - Fox, Washington Times, LA Daily, The Federalist...
How far to the left would you say you read opposing views? Do you make it to Reuters? C-span?
I'm often shocked at what some people consider to be the 'extreme edge' on the other side of whichever spectrum they fall on.
For example, CNN is often derided as having a 'bleeding-heart liberal bias' to those who consider themsleves staunchly conservative, but has an audience which can be considered pretty centrist. Likewise, Fox is far from the more extreme right-wing outlets (it just happens to have the broadest audience).
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.
I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach. Government's job is to protect existing property rights. In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers. They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.
And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer. Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth. Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.
At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.
I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach. Government's job is to protect existing property rights. In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers. They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.
And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer. Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth. Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.
At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.
Without any details on the where and what you are specifically referencing it's hard to make definitive statements, but TNC operates under a free-market approach towards habitat conservation. I'm guessing what they've done here that you are objecting to is acquiring the rights to marsh land they deemed 'critical habitat' through a combination of gifts and straight-up pruchasing, then bundled that land together, possibly granting easements to certain donors.
This strategy isn't illegal or even unethical, though sometimes it has unintended side effects like reducing the tax base. You seem to be hating on this organization in particular - why?
At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.
Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.
I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach. Government's job is to protect existing property rights. In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers. They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.
And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer. Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth. Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.
At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.
At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.
My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.One of the problems I see with US government is that as a population Americans sit back and say "we've got this wonderful Constitution, everything will be all right". To which I say: horseshit: since the French Revolution idealistic, entrenched constitutions all over the world have failed to create or save democratic societies based in the rule of law.
And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.
So unless you're a woman, LGBT, minority, or immigrant...I guess you're doing fine. AKA straight white guys.That is basically the classic conservative mindset, from what I can tell. As long as straight white guys are all set, fuck everybody else.
My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.One of the problems I see with US government is that as a population Americans sit back and say "we've got this wonderful Constitution, everything will be all right". To which I say: horseshit: since the French Revolution idealistic, entrenched constitutions all over the world have failed to create or save democratic societies based in the rule of law.
And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.
The USA Constitution is just a piece of vellum. It has good and bad parts, and its effects depend entirely on the individuals who use it. To those of us on the outside USA elections now look hopelessly corrupt and corruptible, which spills on down to USA government which is run by ideological placemen and subject to private interests masquerading as public interest legislation. And it can't be put right because of your precious Constitution, which your Supreme Court interprets as allowing "free speech" to morph into "unlimited political influence peddling by anyone with enough money", which means that there is no truth and no centre left in American political discourse.
In another thread I tried to make the point that there is more to the USA than the constitution, and got back the response that no, the two were the same and the USA had no existence outside the constitution. Until that attitude starts to change, things will get worse and worse for the USA and for the rest of the world. Unless Trump blows it all up first.
At some point we have to stop destroying the natural environment and instead protect sensitive environmental areas.
Global climate change mitigation and species protections mean not only reducing carbon emissions but also putting more land out of the hands of development.
The Nature Conservancy's business model is to pay fair market value for natural lands in order to protect them from development. They're literally a free-market solution to environmental problems. They absolutely have a politicized agenda, but they also absolutely play within the rules of our current market-based economy.
If someone doesn't like what they do with their land, then they should have offered a better price for it. That's the conservative's solution. All power to the wealthy.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/September-2011/The-Ongoing-Poverty-of-Pembroke-Illinois/
That is the town that is being battered. They have a standard of living equal to a third world country. Them buying the land isn't an option.
A large company has begun buying land as a defensive measure against the refuge. So yes, the system works.
@ gentmach -
I don't really understand the hostility that you have towards The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Fish & Wildlife. You agreed earlier that TNC's business model is to pay fair market value for land, and that this is clearly a legal practice. The rest of your assertions run contrary to what I know about TNC (which is a fair bit since I've done contract work for them) and their impact on society.
First, broadly speaking wildlife preserves do not cause land values to plummet (quite the opposite, as it reduces supply and creates open spaces), and act of TNC purchasing land actually stabilizes or increases the surrounding land values. It's basic supply and demand economics. In fact, one of the key challenges TNC has in most areas is as they purchase large plots of land the per acre cost keeps increasing, until they reach a point when its no longer economically feasible to continue their strategy. TNC has to make decisions about just how much land in one area they can bid on, and weigh having multiple parcels in one region (habitat fragmentation) vs paying more for a less land that is contiguous.
The article you linked was interesting, and it shows a community that has been one of the poorest for at least 40 years. The article itself is 6 years old and cites numerous other media attention this community has recieved since the 1970s for being so poor. What appears to be happening is you are attributing TNC's presence as the causation of their problems (i.e. a 'false correlation'). There can be community blow-back whenever land that was formerly people's homes and businesses gets converted into something else, but I think you are shooting the messenger here, so to speak. The article's end line is that TNC may be a dim hope here.
As for environmental impact statemenets (EIS), the need for them and their standards are determined by the NEPA. Again speaking broadly, they are generally required whenever new development is proposed on a particular site. It does not surprise me that an 18yo EIS is still appropriate when the intended use for a parcel of land is essentially "zero new development". That is the opposite of what EISs are intended for (to assess impacts on new uses, which basically means new infrastructure in place).
Again, your anger seems misdirected; this is the statute we have. If we required more frequent EISs, including when there's little/no new deelopment planned would cause untold delays in development.
Likewise, Fish and Wildlife's mandate is resource management of public lands, where the 'resource' is living things which typically have cultural or economic value (i.e we like to fish/hunt/photograph them). Sand isn't in their jurisdiction. Again, your anger seems misdirected.
It's certainly tragic when a community is gripped in poverty, but scapegoating a charitable organization operating both legally and ethically, or blaming a federal agency (and process) for not doing things which aren't under their jurisdiction isn't fair.
I have a problem with trust in this instance. If I keep my land private and am adjacent to public lands, can I trust them to maintain the drainage network? It is a law that they have to maintain them. That is subject to the availability of funds though. So could I be forced to sell because there was never any "funds" available? I mean, it's not like there's a threat of government shutdown over budgets every two years or so, right?
Well we've gone from a "nothing-burger" to a full indictment against Paul Manafort, former campaign chairman for Trump. Not only has he been charged of criminal wrongdoing, but among the 12 criminal charges are 'conspiracy against the United States' and 'conspiracy to launder money'. If convicted Manafort could spend the rest of his life in jail.
Interesting to see where it goes from here. Will Michael Flynn be next? Kushner? Now that the charges have been made the screws will be on Manafort to cut a deal. Given that DJT threw him under the bus already I wonder how deep his loyalty will lie.
Other questions I have: what will DJT do in the next 72 hour to try to distract and distance himself from this media storm? He's already tried claiming that his former campaign chairman played only a "minor role" (laughable). I expect him to viciously attack Mueller now. Maybe he'll start another fight on a gold-star family or insinuate that McCain is a Vietnamese spy or escalate tensions with Kim Jong Un.
Will he pardon Manafort? Will Manafort flip? How many more indictments will we see by year's end?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manafort-and-former-business-partner-asked-to-surrender-in-connection-with-special-counsel-probe/2017/10/30/6fe051f0-bd67-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel-817am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c6f1875aa906 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/manafort-and-former-business-partner-asked-to-surrender-in-connection-with-special-counsel-probe/2017/10/30/6fe051f0-bd67-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_specialcounsel-817am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c6f1875aa906)
Don't worry guys, this has nothing to do with Trump. Also, something something Hillary. (◔_◔)
He's a libertarian asking another libertarian. Most of these responses are liberty-reducing from the perspective of a mainstream liberal, not necessarily a libertarian.
Libertarians do not like the civil asset forfeiture.
If you think Trump is actually de-legitimizing the Executive, and your major concern is Executive overreach, Trump's disasters are a net-positive for the nation. They will hopefully lead to an emboldened Congress asserting its legal authority (like the War Powers Act over Niger right now).
The biggest threat to the US freedom is executive overreach which has been a bipartisan trend since the Cold War, IMO.
As far as I can tell, Acroy is a culture warrior, making him not a libertarian by definition. I totally agree with your latter analysis btw. The best outcome I can hope for at this point is 1) that Trump doesn't get too many of our soldiers (not to mention South Koreans) killed/start a major conflict and 2) congress actually does something to curb the very real and very bipartisan expansion of executive authority in recent decades.
This one in particular seems like a very poor defense, and one that has the potential to backfire spectacularly.
3. Sure, Manafort is a criminal, but-like-way before he was Trump's campaign manager
Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????
Imagine for a second that this scenario played out at a fortune 500 company;
Also - its seems very curious to me that Michael Flynn and his lawyers have been quite silent for the last several weeks.
Also - its seems very curious to me that Michael Flynn and his lawyers have been quite silent for the last several weeks.
I think Michael Flynn is a cooked goose. He's taken the fifth on everything, and refused to testify to avoid perjury. There is nothing he can say that will help him in any way. I think he knows he screwed up and is just putting his affairs in order before he goes away.
Jeff Sessions and Jared Kushner, otoh, look ready to go down for perjury, so the less they say now the better. They're both on record lying under oath repeatedly, and you can only claim "whoops" so many times before people start to see the pattern.
Edit: The part of this whole scenario that most intrigues me is the potential presidential pardons it generates. Will the President pardon the people who committed conspiracy on his behalf? Will he try to pardon himself? Was Joe Arpaio just testing the waters? Does the power of the pardon effectively negate all of rest of the constitution? I mean what's the point of having a constitution that delineates separation of powers if this one power in one branch can nullify anything in the rest of the document?
Dunno if there has ever been a court case about it. The President can pardon anyone for any offense committed against the United States. The DOJ website and practically everyone I have read says this means federal crimes. In the US, states and the federal government are dual sovereigns, and the President is the executive of the federal sovereign, NOT the state sovereigns. President can no more tell a Governor what to do or pardon a state crime than a governor can tell the President what to do or pardon a federal crime. An analogous scenario would be the President of the EU trying to pardon a French criminal for a French crime.Also - its seems very curious to me that Michael Flynn and his lawyers have been quite silent for the last several weeks.
I think Michael Flynn is a cooked goose. He's taken the fifth on everything, and refused to testify to avoid perjury. There is nothing he can say that will help him in any way. I think he knows he screwed up and is just putting his affairs in order before he goes away.
Jeff Sessions and Jared Kushner, otoh, look ready to go down for perjury, so the less they say now the better. They're both on record lying under oath repeatedly, and you can only claim "whoops" so many times before people start to see the pattern.
Edit: The part of this whole scenario that most intrigues me is the potential presidential pardons it generates. Will the President pardon the people who committed conspiracy on his behalf? Will he try to pardon himself? Was Joe Arpaio just testing the waters? Does the power of the pardon effectively negate all of rest of the constitution? I mean what's the point of having a constitution that delineates separation of powers if this one power in one branch can nullify anything in the rest of the document?
I'm not American so it's possible I misheard or misunderstood, but I thought the president could only pardon people convicted of federal crimes and so Mueller was trying to get everyone charged at the state level.
Can any Americans fact check that?
Here is my understanding, backed up by about 20 minutes of fact checking and reading...
I'm not American so it's possible I misheard or misunderstood, but I thought the president could only pardon people convicted of federal crimes and so Mueller was trying to get everyone charged at the state level.
Can any Americans fact check that?
Id love to see Capt Shitbag fire Mueller. Its very Possible
Id love to see Capt Shitbag fire Mueller. Its very Possible
I've been waffling back and forth all day between thinking he's not nearly that stupid, and then thinking he's exactly that stupid.
Id love to see Capt Shitbag fire Mueller. Its very Possible
I've been waffling back and forth all day between thinking he's not nearly that stupid, and then thinking he's exactly that stupid.
All three of DJT's lawyers made comments that firing Mueller definitely isn't about to happen - which is a bit weird in and off itself.
- There are no discussions and there is no consideration being given to terminating Mueller.
- There’s no firing-Robert-Mueller discussions
- No, no, no. [Firing Mueller] never come up and won’t come up
Pretty unequivical statements about what you are definitely not going to do. Odd that they are spending effort to say what they are NOT considering.
Maybe it's the truth. Maybe his legal team is trying earnestly to prevent it from happening in the best interest of their client (DJT). I guess we'll find out over the next few days.
i believe that one: trump can't pardon himself. that's wouldn't hold up. and two: anyone he pardons can no longer plead the 5th, so they'd be forced to testify against higher-ups or trump himself -- or be held in contempt of court effectively negating the pardon.
I would sort of guess this -- saying it so emphatically, over and over, makes it a little harder for Trump to contradict them so directly and do it.
i believe that one: trump can't pardon himself. that's wouldn't hold up. and two: anyone he pardons can no longer plead the 5th, so they'd be forced to testify against higher-ups or trump himself -- or be held in contempt of court effectively negating the pardon.
Mueller has been working with the NY DA. I believe they will be presenting state charges....these cannot be pardoned by the President.
CNN is thus much more important to him than the FBI.Wow. But accurate.
I've been avoiding this thread . . . today seems like the right day to join.
Sure, they might not fire Mueller. But they might find other ways to stop the investigation. Like defunding him. (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/mueller-investigation-republicans-russia-242108)
Drain the Swamp!
The more dirt Mueller exposes, the better.
Manafort, Gates, and now Podesta all getting caught with dirty money, pedaling Russian / Ukrainian influence for years, under multiple administrations. From a purely partisan point of view, neither the R's nor the D's are liking where this is going. Most of 'em are damned swamp creatures! From my point of view, GREAT. If it does take down DJT, fine. If he's a dirty swamp rat he needs to go too.
I suspect (hope) the special council finds many interesting things, especially as it expands it's inquiry well outside the initial mandate. Throw those rats into the grind of the justice system! But so far, collusion between Trump campaign and Russia is not one of them, and I suspect it will remain this way :)
But so far, collusion between Trump campaign and Russia is not one of them, and I suspect it will remain this way :)
Papadopoulos erased his Facebook page because it mentioned talking with Russians. He got a new phone number because the old one had records of calls with Russians. He met with a source in London to get info on Clinton...from Russia.
This was in the employ of the campaign as a "foreign policy adviser." If that's not collusion, it's pretty damn close.
It seems that Republicans are hoping that Mueller will expand his investigation to Hillary (Benghazi!) and Obama ("He's even blacker than we thought!").
Agree. Lots of Trump people have lied and lied and lied, including on formal disclosure documents, and now someone has been convicted of a criminal offence of lying. Flynn, Sessions and Kushner are all now looking at slam dunk criminal convictions.
Which is to say, the former Trump National Security Adviser, the current Trump Attorney General and the senior Trump White House adviser. All about to be convicted criminals.
So far, it doesn't look like anything in these indictments wasn' already reported by the press. We already knew manafort worked for the Russians. We already knew the Trump campaign met with the Russians to try to get emails. We already knew about the shady real estate deals to launder money.
These things have been out in the open for over a year now. I feel like we're currently getting last season's reruns on Netflix while the new season is already airing on cable. We're behind the curve on the current narrative. There must be so much more in the works that were not seeing yet, based on what's dribbling out today.
Then you're a naive fool
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Apparently not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Apparently not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html
Getting people riled up about who paid for the dossier (everyone, apparently) is a great distraction from what it actually said and if it is true. The veracity of it appears to still be in question.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
those dam' Russians - LOL
It's clear Russia have been working to incite disruption in the US - as they have been off and on for decades. And, frankly, as the US does to many other governments throughout the world.
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.Are you serious? Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using. Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.Are you serious? Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using. Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.Are you serious? Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using. Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:Kris, I'm cut to the quick that you would think I hadn't read the article. ;)
"Who paid for it?
During the Republican primaries, a donor opposed to Mr. Trump becoming the party’s presidential candidate retained a research firm called Fusion GPS to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The donor has never been identified, but several possible suspects have denied responsibility, including officials from the so-called super PACs that supported the rival campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida."
But you'd have to, you know, actually READ the article to know that.
And yeah, the NYT sucks in that they have succumbed to the urge to write click-bait headlines, like everyone else. That's part of the reason Hillary lost -- because even they seem to care more about clicks than they do about the truth.
Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:Kris, I'm cut to the quick that you would think I hadn't read the article. ;)
"Who paid for it?
During the Republican primaries, a donor opposed to Mr. Trump becoming the party’s presidential candidate retained a research firm called Fusion GPS to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The donor has never been identified, but several possible suspects have denied responsibility, including officials from the so-called super PACs that supported the rival campaigns of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida."
But you'd have to, you know, actually READ the article to know that.
And yeah, the NYT sucks in that they have succumbed to the urge to write click-bait headlines, like everyone else. That's part of the reason Hillary lost -- because even they seem to care more about clicks than they do about the truth.
I did read it, and learned something (maybe?), because what I'd gleaned from other superficial headlines was that it was known that Rubio or Bush or some other Republican candidate had funded the initial research. Come to find out, if the NYT can be believed, "[t]he donor has never been identified."
I will admit to enjoying how it goes against type when the NYT/WaPo publishes something anti-Dem/pro-Rep, and when Fox News, etc., publishes something anti-Rep/pro-Dem.
So, you’re saying that...the donor to the conservative group was not identified, and therefore... a liberal?Of course it's a stretch, and of course I didn't say it.
That seems...
A bit of a stretch.
We have a REPUBLICAN president who has publicly attacked John McCain for being captured, several Republican senators, Gold Star parents, a Gold Star widow and the various leaders of other countries (including those armed with nukes)
Serious question...what definition of collusion are we using? I am more than willing to let Mueller's investigation go where it may, however, at some point we just need to acknowledge that none of this is normal. We have a REPUBLICAN president who has publicly attacked John McCain for being captured, several Republican senators, Gold Star parents, a Gold Star widow and the various leaders of other countries (including those armed with nukes). This same president has had received overwhelming evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and that Russia was behind the Podesta email hack and yet he has never publicly said anything to definitively acknowledge that Russia was responsible for anything. He has gone out of his way to convey the Russian hacks and attempted interference as a hoax.
Meanwhile we have:
1. A president who has attacked everyone except Putin;
2. the Republican platform being altered to be more pro-Russia;
3. meetings between everyone associated with the campaign and Russians that were initially denied and only admitted to after each person was outed by the press;
4. Kushner contacting Russian bankers for money and failing to disclose the contacts;
5. Kushner attempting to establish a back channel with Russians behind the back of US intelligence;
6. Manafort literally being paid by pro-Russia oligarchs with undisclosed, offshore money (so much so that he was not paid by the campaign to be the campaign manager);
7. An email to set up a meeting that was couched as being part of the Russian government's desire to help get Trump elected - and said meeting was attended by a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, the son of the president, the president's son-in-law and the same campaign manager indebted to and working as an agent for pro-Russianoligarchs (and no one seemed to be surprised by the notion that Russia wanted to help Trump get elected)
SPOILER ALERT - the meeting took place and everyone involved lied about it...then the president personally dictated a misleading statement about the meeting...then Don Jr. published the email regarding the meeting minutes before WaPo was going to do so...
8. the President refusing to acknowledge Russia's interference with the election in general or with the respective hacks in particular;
9. the Trump campaign asking wikileaks (generally known to be working with information supplied by Russia) for the emails of HRC;
10. Nigel Farage, a campaign surrogate, having various meetings with Assange and the Ecuadorean embassy;
11. Roger Stone hinting that he knew of the wikileaks haul of emails before it was public knowledge;
12. the President publicly asking Russia to obtain HRC's emails;
13. the President reading from the hacked emails on the campaign trail and stating that he loves wikileaks;
14. the President appointing a Sec. of State known to be on good terms with Putin;
15. Flynn purportedly informing the Russians that sanctions would be lifted, and then lying about it, which caused him to be fired;
16. the President meeting with Putin without anyone else from the U.S. being present;
17. both of the people named as the President's foreign policy advisors (George Papadopolous and Carter Page) having extremely shady relationships with Russia with George P. pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about Russia;
18. the President being reluctant to sign off on a bill imposing sanctions on Russia;
19. the President has yet to impose the sanctions set forth in the bill;
...and those are just the things that I can think of off the top of my head. Again, serious question, at what point do we have evidence of collusion?
TL;DR: If this isn't evidence of collusion, what is?
It's obvious Mueller has more info than he's letting on, but I doubt he has any concrete information that would lead to impeachment.
Trump campaign meetings are shady. Which is a behavior we have come to expect from politicians.
But it does sway public opinion. Donald Trump hired a criminal to run his campaign, and then acted surprised when that criminal committed treason, sorry "conspiracy against the United States" as if he thought Manafort was a really swell guy who just made some mistakes. No, he's a lifelong criminal and a foreign agent, and he has no place in US government much less literally running the campaign of one of our national party candidates.
But it does sway public opinion. Donald Trump hired a criminal to run his campaign, and then acted surprised when that criminal committed treason, sorry "conspiracy against the United States" as if he thought Manafort was a really swell guy who just made some mistakes. No, he's a lifelong criminal and a foreign agent, and he has no place in US government much less literally running the campaign of one of our national party candidates.
I only hire the BEST people - DJT
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts? And what are their sources of information?
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts? And what are their sources of information?
I mean, come ON. There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.
Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts? And what are their sources of information?
I mean, come ON. There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.
Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.
People have doubts the Russians hacked the DNC. So the idea that WikiLeaks is a informal branch of Russian intelligence gets shaky.What does this mean? Which "people" have doubts? And what are their sources of information?
I mean, come ON. There are numerous sources detailing Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear as the DNC hackers, then linking Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear to the Russians and the WikiLeaks dump of the emails within hours of the "pussy grabbing" video being made public.
Without evidence, your statement is straight out of the Trump playbook and a sign that you are swallowing Russian propaganda whole.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
https://nef4rhc.wordpress.com Collects all the current doubts into one single report.
As for politicians having shady meetings, I figure the reason we heard about this one was because they bungled it. Experienced politicians would have two or three layers between them and the actual meeting.
For better or worse, the show has begun. We can only let it run its course.
Just thought the follow-up to that first article deserved a link as well...
[snip]
Just thought the follow-up to that first article deserved a link as well...
[snip]
This was already discussed up-thread. Please read the previous comments to avoid rehashing.
ETA: see here (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/united-states-of-russia/msg1643019/#msg1643019).
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions. Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement. There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions. Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement. There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".
I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."
1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.
Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.
2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.
Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?
3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.
I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions. Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement. There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".
I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."
1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.
Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.
2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.
Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?
3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.
I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.
The problem with relying on statements like "People have doubts" and similar phrases is that it confounds facts with opinions. Yes, the same can be said about the holocaust, climate change, a spherical earth, the Sandy Hook shootings, and any other number of topics which individuals choose to refute despite evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately "some people" will never take an objective look at the facts, including how our own intellegence agencies have repeatedly and publicly confirmed Russian involvement. There is a lot that is still conjecture at this point, but that doesn't mean we ignore what we do know because "people have doubts".
I posted all the reasons I have doubts. I may be in the middle of cognitive dissonance but "Liberals losing their shit" still makes more sense than "Russian Puppet."
1st scenario: I have seen Trump be called an idiot. A fool. A buffoon. Senile. Arrogant. Childish. Impulsive. Pissing all over himself in this interview. If this were the middle ages, we would dress him in motley and have him be court jester.
Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.
2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.
Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?
3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.
I'll be figuring "Liberal Meltdown" until whatever the intelligence community evidence is is revealed. "Trust me. We got evidence." Doesn't quite cut it.
Yeah, those FBI indictments are silly liberal meltdowns...
Yet, Putin, criminal Mastermind and future Legion of Doom member, looked at Trump and said "You see that goofy, off the wall, batshit crazy motherfucker there? He's our road to the Whitehouse." Because Putin has better Intel on heartland America than either political party. Like a mob boss choosing senators.
2. In the halcyon days of 2002 the Patriot act was signed and liberals claimed it obliterated the very concept of privacy. Government spooks went through your emails, phone calls, Livejournals, watched you eat dinner. Couldn't go to the bathroom without three agencies logging it. Then at some point those powers were expanded.
Despite all their power, a Russian agent still became president. So either liberals were wrong and the state needs more surveillance powers or we accept shoddy Intel work when it suits us. I mean, year and a half of following him around and he doesn't slip up once?
3. Liberalism has been imploding for a while. Free speech is to be delegated. Riots on campuses. Micro aggressions. Neo-McCarthyism. Antifa waiting in the wings in case Nazi's appear.
anytime someone says drain the swamp, it usually means, in that context, someone working for the Federal Gov. in DC; possibly including FBI agents. Not saying the indictments are not warranted (ha!) but just that they are what they are, for tax evasion not presidential election conspiracy.
*Most Republican politicians do not like trump any more than nearly all Democrats.
I'm more interested in the next round of indictments from Mueller. I assume Flynn is on deck, although I would take Jared Kushner or Don Jr.
Jared Kushner has turned over documents in recent weeks to special counsel Robert Mueller as investigators have begun asking in witness interviews about Kushner's role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey, CNN has learned.
Mueller's investigators have expressed interest in Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, as part of its probe into Russian meddling, including potential obstruction of justice in Comey's firing, sources familiar with the matter said.
The NYT article was published on the 25th and the original funder of the dossier was unknown at that time.Why, yes, everyone knows the New York Times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, don't they?As far as I can tell though, only 1 political party paid an ex-Brit spy to pay Russian sources for fake dirt on another candidate.Are you serious? Because, really, you need to check what news sources you are using. Because right now the Russian propagandists have you chalked up as a win.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html
Also, from the source Acroy himself cited:
"Who paid for it?
So many swamp rats getting so uncomfortable. I LOVE it.
So many swamp rats getting so uncomfortable. I LOVE it.
You mean like the entirety of Trump's inner circle? Me too.
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Wont happen. Most want Capt shithead gone. Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down? I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting. This makes Watergate look like childs play
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Wont happen. Most want Capt shithead gone. Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down? I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting. This makes Watergate look like childs play
Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway. I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress. I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Wont happen. Most want Capt shithead gone. Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down? I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting. This makes Watergate look like childs play
Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway. I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress. I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.
Its the Indy voters who elected this guy.
Either way, for the GOP establishment to back the President in firing Mueller would pretty much seal their fate. Were talking about 3 extreme right congressmen here.
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Wont happen. Most want Capt shithead gone. Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down? I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting. This makes Watergate look like childs play
Hmmm...what lost votes? Maybe independents? My understanding (unless recent polls have been conducted) is that it is mainly Dems who care about the Russia investigation, and they are't voting GOP anyway. I find this sad, but I'm not at all sure voter pressure will come down on the GOP side to remove Trump from office. The GOP vote is far more in tune with Trump than with Congress. I think it's even money that Trump will move against Mueller, and further even money that the GOP will support him.
Its the Indy voters who elected this guy.
Either way, for the GOP establishment to back the President in firing Mueller would pretty much seal their fate. Were talking about 3 extreme right congressmen here.
Yep. Trump's approval rating is 37%. Worse, his disapproval rating is 57%. If Trump fires Mueller, the numbers will shift and not in his favor. Even staunch Republican Congresslings won't want to face down a 60%+ disapproval.
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Wont happen. Most want Capt shithead gone. Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down? I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting. This makes Watergate look like childs play
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Wont happen. Most want Capt shithead gone. Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down? I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting. This makes Watergate look like childs play
What makes you think the House GOP caucus will tolerate what they think is a witch-hunt?
Looks like they're trying to move against Mueller now. Funny, he wasn't "unfit" or "compromised" until the indictments began. In fact, I seem to remember lots of Republican praise for Mueller when he was appointed. And saying he should recuse himself because of the uranium deal? Are you kidding me?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/03/house-republicans-robert-mueller-resignation-244517
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11
This is 3 guys....but there's definitely a strong chance House Republicans are going to axe Mueller at some point. I don't think people in this thread realize that Mueller is on a clock. The GOP controls both Houses, and Mueller is toast when a sufficient number of them decide this has become pointless political theater and a witch-hunt rather than an actual investigation into the Russian interference in the election.
Wont happen. Most want Capt shithead gone. Plus, could you imagine the lost votes if they shut him down? I mean, he just started and look at the kind of crap he is presenting. This makes Watergate look like childs play
What makes you think the House GOP caucus will tolerate what they think is a witch-hunt?
They (most of them) don't think it's a witch hunt.
They just want tax reform for rich people more than they want a functioning government.
And they're more afraid of being primaried by a crazy pro-Trump person than they are of being beaten by a Democrat in the generals.
Most of them know Trump is awful. But they care more about themselves than they do about the country.
There is a large contingent of the Republican Party (the Tea Partiers) who entered public office because they actively want to destroy government. I wonder how different things would be without them in the mix (and suspect that things would be much more reasonable overall).
There is a large contingent of the Republican Party (the Tea Partiers) who entered public office because they actively want to destroy government. I wonder how different things would be without them in the mix (and suspect that things would be much more reasonable overall).
It's only a matter of time until we start learning about how the original tea party movement was funded by Russian oligarchs with ties to Putiin.
Well, I sincerely hope you guys are correct. But currently 8 in 10 GOP voters actively approve of the job Trump is doing. And those are the people that elect the Republican congresspeople. Generally speaking, the GOP base approves of Trump more than they approve of the GOP congress, and many of them agree with Trump that the Russia investigation is bogus. I see no reason to think that they won't stick by Trump no matter what, and turn on any congressperson that distances themselves from Trump. So I am not at all optimistic that the GOP will move against Trump, no matter what is discovered about him.
Flynn and his son are next. Flynn Sr will have leverage applied re: his son's sentence and roll over.We shall see where this goes.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/wsj-flynn-turkey/index.html
It may never get to Trump but it'll reach high (Sessions?).
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort),
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort),
Why is this not already the biggest story in the land?
The President of the United States hired a literal foreign agent to run his campaign. It's like a KGB spy becoming Speaker of the House, and nobody bats an eye.
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort),
Why is this not already the biggest story in the land?
The President of the United States hired a literal foreign agent to run his campaign. It's like a KGB spy becoming Speaker of the House, and nobody bats an eye.
The Mueller investigation now includes a member of Congress. You won't be surprised to learn it's a Republican Congressman.uh-oh. I wonder how much longer a GOP controlled congress will permit this investigation to continue unimpeded when one/some of their own members are persons of interest.
As for reaching high 0 it's already ensnared his chief campaign manager (Manafort),
Why is this not already the biggest story in the land?
The President of the United States hired a literal foreign agent to run his campaign. It's like a KGB spy becoming Speaker of the House, and nobody bats an eye.
The response has been equally baffling to me.
[quoteTrump]Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign.[/ quote]
The indictment is for offenses occurring between 2010 and 2014. The subtext here is that we should be utterly unconcerned that the chief campaign manager of the sitting POTUS was both a foreign agent and an alleged criminal a few years back.
Mueller: lyingI'd be laughing if I wasn't crying inside.
Comey: lying
Obama: lying
Clinton: lying
Federal judges: lying
His sex assault accusers: lying
Scientists about climate change: lying
Doctors about Affordable Care Act: lying
Mother of slain U.S. soldier: lying
Putin: He means it.
Sessions magically remembers meeting Papadopolous after previously testifying he did not recall.
Sessions magically remembers meeting Papadopolous after previously testifying he did not recall.
Everything about the Trump administration is conveniently unrememberable until the press does some fact checking.
Examples from the Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/14/a-brief-history-of-things-that-jeff-sessions-and-team-trump-could-not-recall-until-the-media-reminded-them/
sessions forgot meeting Papadopolous
trump forgot meeting with Papadopolous
trump jr forgot meeting with the russians
kushner forgot meeting with the russians
trump jr forgot seeking out dirt on clinton
sessions forgot meeting with the russians
sessions forgot discussing the campaign with the russians
And that's not even touching Manafort or Flynn. Those are just the most recent cases where administration officials were asked direction questions and testified they "couldn't remember" the answers, only to have the media remind them days later by quoting its own reporting. Why is it that everyone in America knows that Trump Jr met with the Russians but Trump Jr mysteriously gets amnesia every time he's asked about it?
Yeah but what about Obama's birth certificate?
Yeah but what about Obama's birth certificate?
Roy Moore says it's a forgery. He's pretty sure of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZOcvZ0Vnw).
But he can't remember if he sexually assaulted a 16 year old girl on January 3rd, 1978 in his pickup truck parked behind the Olde Hickory House in Gadsen Alabama. He doesn't deny it, he just doesn't recall.
When you've completely lost it...
(https://i.imgur.com/w6I393q.jpg)They forgot the direct line between Bill and Hillary. So scandalous!
When you've completely lost it...
Steele delivered a total of 16 reports to Fusion between June and early November 2016, but his sources started to go quiet from July, when Trump’s ties to Russia came under scrutiny. According to Harding’s account, he was shocked by the extent of collusion his sources were reporting.
“For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience,” Steele told friends.
Steele flew to Rome in June to brief his FBI contact with whom he had shared his Fifa report, and returned in September to meet a full FBI team of investigators. He described their response as “shock and horror”, and they asked him to explain his methods and to pass on future reports.
However, as the weeks went by leading up to the 8 November election, the FBI told him it could not go public with material involving a presidential candidate, and then his FBI contacts went silent altogether. Steele told a friend it was clear he had passed on a “radioactive hot potato”.
That kind of crap always just makes me thing of Charlie in the mailroom:And our response should be just like Mac's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Glfe6UeXQ
More than a dozen top Trump campaign officials subpoenaed in Mueller probe
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story
In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
Was someone indicted over Obama's birth certificate? Did any senior administration officials resign in disgrace? Did a judge issue any no-knock warrants for Obama conspirators?
I like your chutzpah, but I think you're reaching in this case.
Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate story
In what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
Was someone indicted over Obama's birth certificate? Did any senior administration officials resign in disgrace? Did a judge issue any no-knock warrants for Obama conspirators?
I like your chutzpah, but I think you're reaching in this case.
It’s like it in the sense that Trump supporters hope for some sense of moral equivalency.
Which is fucking sad. But hey.
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565654507/journalist-investigating-trump-and-russia-says-full-picture-is-one-of-collusion
Mueller: lying
Comey: lying
Obama: lying
Clinton: lying
Federal judges: lying
His sex assault accusers: lying
Scientists about climate change: lying
Doctors about Affordable Care Act: lying
Mother of slain U.S. soldier: lying
Putin: He means it.
The Columnist reviews Luke Harding’s new book, “Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.” Odds Are, Russia Owns Trump
https://nyti.ms/2icfx2N
Interesting tidbit:
"One uncanny aspect of the investigations into Trump’s Russia connections is that instead of too little evidence there’s too much. It’s impossible to keep it straight without the kind of chaotic wall charts that Carrie Mathison of “Homeland” assembled during her manic episodes. "
The 'desperate hope' makes it feel quite similar. Sorry ya'll but thesvenster and I do recognize the same hysterically absurd tune being played in different venues.Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate storyIn what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
The 'desperate hope' makes it feel quite similar. Sorry ya'll but thesvenster and I do recognize the same hysterically absurd tune being played in different venues.Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate storyIn what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
The 'desperate hope' makes it feel quite similar. Sorry ya'll but thesvenster and I do recognize the same hysterically absurd tune being played in different venues.Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate storyIn what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
The 'desperate hope' makes it feel quite similar. Sorry ya'll but thesvenster and I do recognize the same hysterically absurd tune being played in different venues.Just checking in, I see that you're all desperately hoping something is found. It's little like the Obama birth certificate storyIn what way does it bear any resemblance at all to the Obama birther conspiracy?
What would the USA look like the GOP and their supporters got everything they wanted? Feudal Europe? A dictatorship?
What would the USA look like the GOP and their supporters got everything they wanted? Feudal Europe? A dictatorship?
Russia. The USA would look a lot more like Russia, if the GOP got everything they wanted. A corrupt oligarchy where power and wealth are concentrated among the political allies of the defacto emperor-for-life. Democracy treated as a farce, a public tool subverted by state corruption. Murder of political adversaries routinely carried out in public. Warlike expansion undertaken in the name of patriotism. Most of the nation too deeply impoverished to care about anything but survival, while the favored political elite become the wealthiest individuals in the planet. Bears everywhere.
+1What would the USA look like the GOP and their supporters got everything they wanted? Feudal Europe? A dictatorship?
Russia. The USA would look a lot more like Russia, if the GOP got everything they wanted. A corrupt oligarchy where power and wealth are concentrated among the political allies of the defacto emperor-for-life. Democracy treated as a farce, a public tool subverted by state corruption. Murder of political adversaries routinely carried out in public. Warlike expansion undertaken in the name of patriotism. Most of the nation too deeply impoverished to care about anything but survival, while the favored political elite become the wealthiest individuals in the planet. Bears everywhere.
I can get behind more bears.You know where there are lots of bears but not all that other stuff Sol listed? Canada.
This page will provide much useful information for the more-bears scenario.I can get behind more bears.You know where there are lots of bears but not all that other stuff Sol listed? Canada.
This page will provide much useful information for the more-bears scenario.I can get behind more bears.You know where there are lots of bears but not all that other stuff Sol listed? Canada.
https://www.bearmageddonnews.com/
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible. Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago. Median investigation length is 2 years. Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).
Wonder what Flynn's plea will be...
I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.
Curious, why should someone lose a pension for being convicted of a crime? He is not being sued.
I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.
Could be that, or he could know the case against him is air-tight and he'll take a plea in exchange for reduced sentencing. Could be either...
What irritates me now is that he is and in all likelihood will continue to earn a cushy military pension. The military is loathe to ever strip away an officer's pension, even if they are convicted in civilian court.
IMHO, committing a federal crime which carries the penalty incarceration should also nullify one's military pension. It's a principle thing. Military benefits are paid for through our tax dollars. It seems particularly apt in this case because Flynn was actively being paid by foreign powers and then lying about it to the FBI.Curious, why should someone lose a pension for being convicted of a crime? He is not being sued.
I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.
Could be that, or he could know the case against him is air-tight and he'll take a plea in exchange for reduced sentencing. Could be either...
What irritates me now is that he is and in all likelihood will continue to earn a cushy military pension. The military is loathe to ever strip away an officer's pension, even if they are convicted in civilian court.
Curious, why should someone lose a pension for being convicted of a crime? He is not being sued.
I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.
Could be that, or he could know the case against him is air-tight and he'll take a plea in exchange for reduced sentencing. Could be either...
What irritates me now is that he is and in all likelihood will continue to earn a cushy military pension. The military is loathe to ever strip away an officer's pension, even if they are convicted in civilian court.
CAN A VETERAN RECEIVE RETIRED MILITARY PAY WHILE IN PRISON?- https://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-benefits/incarcerated-veterans.html (https://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-benefits/incarcerated-veterans.html)
Generally, yes. Being convicted of a crime almost never jeopardizes a federal pension – the rare exception to this rule are charges relating to criminal disloyalty to the United States: espionage, treason, sabotage, etc.
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.
Enemies are only entities that we are at war with. So no, Russia is not an enemy....it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381
I guess it comes down to how you view things.
- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?
If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
Enemies are only entities that we are at war with. So no, Russia is not an enemy....it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381
I guess it comes down to how you view things.
- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?
If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
ETA: Could there be other "criminal disloyalty"? Perhaps, but treason seems pretty unlikely.
My understanding is that we can be "at war" with an entity such as the Taliban so yes, aiding the Taliban would have been treason. And if we're legally still at war with North Korea then yes, that would be treason as well.Enemies are only entities that we are at war with. So no, Russia is not an enemy....it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381
I guess it comes down to how you view things.
- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?
If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
ETA: Could there be other "criminal disloyalty"? Perhaps, but treason seems pretty unlikely.
Seems like that's kinda a loophole. The last time the US officially declared war was 1941. Helping the Taliban, Saddam's army, the VC, or North Korea then wouldn't have counted as treason.
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible. Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago. Median investigation length is 2 years. Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).
My understanding is that we can be "at war" with an entity such as the Taliban so yes, aiding the Taliban would have been treason. And if we're legally still at war with North Korea then yes, that would be treason as well.Enemies are only entities that we are at war with. So no, Russia is not an enemy....it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381
I guess it comes down to how you view things.
- Is Russia an enemy?
- Did Flynn's off the record conversation with the Russian ambassador where he said that he would help end/relax Obama's sanctions against them constitute aid and comfort?
If the answer is yes to both of the above, then it seems to be pretty clear cut.
ETA: Could there be other "criminal disloyalty"? Perhaps, but treason seems pretty unlikely.
Seems like that's kinda a loophole. The last time the US officially declared war was 1941. Helping the Taliban, Saddam's army, the VC, or North Korea then wouldn't have counted as treason.
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible. Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago. Median investigation length is 2 years. Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).
Wonder what Flynn's plea will be...
I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.
The speed at which this investigation is happening is incredible. Four people charged already, and the council was appointed just 6 months ago. Median investigation length is 2 years. Watergate dragged on for four years before any charges were filed (and then continued to for several years after that).
Wonder what Flynn's plea will be...
I read he will plead guilty. So, he's cooperating. In exchange for not being charged on something larger, is my guess.
I'm guessing to protect his son from being charged. His son is a real piece of work and should thank his lucky stars that his dad actually seems to care what happens to him. I suspect Don Jr. would not get so lucky.
The US did not declare war on the Taliban or North KoreaYes, so we can be at war without actually declaring war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Undeclared_wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Undeclared_wars)
As part of his plea bargain, Flynn will testify that then-candidate Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.Citation?
As part of his plea bargain, Flynn will testify that then-candidate Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.It does also seem that Flynn has a wee bit of a credibility problem. I suspect that Mueller recognizes this and would require something more substantive than just Flynn's testimony.
As part of his plea bargain, Flynn will testify that then-candidate Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.Citation?
After ManafortMonday and FlynnFriday, what else can we look forward to? TrumpTuesday? SoMuchWinningWednesday? SoninLawSunday?Don't forget the ever-popular Schadenfreude Saturday.
After ManafortMonday and FlynnFriday, what else can we look forward to? TrumpTuesday? SoMuchWinningWednesday? SoninLawSunday?Don't forget the ever-popular Schadenfreude Saturday.
...it's a pretty long leap to treason from where we currently stand.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States" - 18 US Code 2381
I guess it comes down to how you view things....
Do you think that Trump finds it even more annoying that during the transition Obama specifically warned him to not hire Flynn for anything? (Remember, Obama fired Flynn from DIA).
Do you think that Trump finds it even more annoying that during the transition Obama specifically warned him to not hire Flynn for anything? (Remember, Obama fired Flynn from DIA).
No, I don't. In fact I expect that Obama's warning was part the reason Flynn got the job.
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824
44/ (When I get a number of new readers—as today—people ask me to restate my bona fides: Harvard Law School, 2001; public defender for eight years in two jurisdictions; trained at Georgetown/Harvard as a criminal investigator; represented 2000+ defendants in cases up to homicide;
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936626565210927105
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936626565210927105
Yeah I don't doubt his credentials, but it would be nice to hear a similar analysis from someone else to corroborate his conclusions.
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824
Considering it just happened three hours ago, I'd say wait for the "morning papers." They timed it perfectly for the weekend news cycle.
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824
Excerpt from above:
"8/ What this indicates—beyond any serious doubt—is the following: Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former Director of the FBI, believes Mike Flynn's testimony will *incriminate* the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, or both of these two men."
I'm no legal expert so I don't know if this guy's reading of the situation is way off-base or not, but this analysis thread is a good read: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/936602442996813824
Excerpt from above:
"8/ What this indicates—beyond any serious doubt—is the following: Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former Director of the FBI, believes Mike Flynn's testimony will *incriminate* the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, or both of these two men."
Eta: Any of the Trumpees want to admit that there's a Russian problem yet? Or are you still holding out for that "nothingburger?"
BREAKING NEWS: As predicted early on in this thread, it has now been revealed that Jared Kushner directly ordered Michael Flynn to engage in negotiations with the Russians during the last weeks of the Obama presidency (specifically, in December 2016).
It's Kushner.
It's Kushner.
It's always been Kushner. Boy's going to jail, I think. I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.
Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the next inauguration?
It's Kushner.
It's always been Kushner. Boy's going to jail, I think. I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.
Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the next inauguration?
It's Kushner.
It's always been Kushner. Boy's going to jail, I think. I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.
Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the next inauguration?
It's Kushner.
It's always been Kushner. Boy's going to jail, I think. I predict Trump will burn him, and Jared will gladly take the fall for him.
Maybe two years behind bars, then a pardon right before the next inauguration?
Assuming Kushner is next up on charges, why do you assume that he will 'gladly take the fall' for DJT?
Mussolini had his son-in-law executed. Just saying.
He's banging the emperor's daughter. That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup. So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing. I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence. His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
Mussolini had his son-in-law executed. Just saying.
He's banging the emperor's daughter. That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup. So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing. I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence. His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
Sol - you made a compelling case for why Kurshner will clam up and stay loyal. Whether DJT will repay his loyalty is a different question.Mussolini had his son-in-law executed. Just saying.
He's banging the emperor's daughter. That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup. So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing. I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence. His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
I predict 100% loyalty, too, because he kind of doesn't have much of a choice but to be loyal and hope for the best.
But Trump would sell him out if he had to. Trump would sell anyone out, depending on the price, including and up to Ivanka. It would just depend on the price.
Or maybe Trump's escape plan is a dementia plea...Sol - you made a compelling case for why Kurshner will clam up and stay loyal. Whether DJT will repay his loyalty is a different question.Mussolini had his son-in-law executed. Just saying.
He's banging the emperor's daughter. That's like the ultimate get out of jail free card, as long as there isn't a coup. So I think he's in it all the way, no admissions of guilt, no deal making, no sharing of evidence, nothing. I predict 100% loyalty for anything less than a death sentence. His role in the administration will be to take all of the blame for every illegal action and concentrate it into one body that can't be denied a pardon.
I predict 100% loyalty, too, because he kind of doesn't have much of a choice but to be loyal and hope for the best.
But Trump would sell him out if he had to. Trump would sell anyone out, depending on the price, including and up to Ivanka. It would just depend on the price.
Speaking of which.. what will Trump's next twitter-storm bring? I'm guessing it'll be tomorrow morning ~5am.
Will he attempt his own "Saturday Night Massacre"?
Or maybe Trump's escape plan is a dementia plea...And admit he doesn't have one of the greatest minds of all time? Publicly declare his own weakness? Phttt.... never!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/flynn-charged-lying-fbi-plea-hearing-set-u-142319424.html
Flynn is being charged with lying to the FBI. Plea hearing set at 10:30 am.
He's flipped. This is a small-fries charge, which leads one to wonder what he's avoiding in exchange for cooperating with Mueller. Very few bigger fish than Flynn...Don Jr., Kushner, and POTUS is about it.
Come on Trumpies, come tell us how this is nothing.
If dotard tries to fire Mueller, Abramson predicts "all hell breaks loose." What would that mean, exactly?This, I presume...
If dotard tries to fire Mueller, Abramson predicts "all hell breaks loose." What would that mean, exactly?
Trump couldn't fire Mueller directly — he'd have to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing Mueller's probe, and then maybe a couple of people after that before the position was eventually put in the hands of someone willing to do his bidding. And now that the indictments have started, it would be even clearer if Trump moved to get rid of Mueller that doing so would be for no purpose other than obstruction of justice.
So getting rid of Mueller would be enormously costly to Trump, and could well fail to end his legal problems. This is likely why White House aides are currently advising against it.
But it’s entirely possible that, whether out of fear of what Mueller will turn up or simple annoyance at the investigation itself, Trump will pull the trigger anyway. And if he does so, the political system will be thrown into a major crisis.
So the ball would then be in congressional Republicans’ court to decide whether firing Mueller was a step too far for President Trump.
Eta: Any of the Trumpees want to admit that there's a Russian problem yet? Or are you still holding out for that "nothingburger?"
Sol - you made a compelling case for why Kurshner will clam up and stay loyal. Whether DJT will repay his loyalty is a different question.
Remember, Mueller will bring up state charges against anyone holding the hot potato at the end. These are not pardonable crimes.
What Id give to see Capt Asshat's Son In Law roll over on him.
Anybody else notice, that the Twitterer in chief, who never goes more than a few hours without attacking anybody and everybody, hasn't made a peep in the 24 hours since Flynn plead guilty. The silence is not only stunning, but speaks volumes.
This is a short-term strategy bound to fail, like hoping if you just keep teenagers busy enough they won't discover the opposite sex. Sooner or later the dam will break. Coverage of Flynn's plea cannot be interpreted as anything but a negative, regarldes of the spin. Even Fox News is basically conceding "yup, he's guilty" before saying "...but it doesn't prove collusion".Anybody else notice, that the Twitterer in chief, who never goes more than a few hours without attacking anybody and everybody, hasn't made a peep in the 24 hours since Flynn plead guilty. The silence is not only stunning, but speaks volumes.
It's a concerted effort by his aides and lawyers to keep him busy 24/7 to avoid a twitter firing of Mueller.
Trump's tweet this morning is painting a pretty clear picture of obstruction of justice.
I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!
maybe stop tweeting out evidence against yourself quite so often. I would hate to be your lawyer. Better Call Saul.Don't know if you caught it, but when the Orange Oligarch was first shopping for a legal firm to help with this mess, the press went to the top three or four most likely candidates in the DC legal community. They asked if any of these high power firms, with past experience in presidential shenanigans, were going to be accepting the job? Several commented for the record, essentially saying, "why work for a guy that refuses to listen to you, and doesn't pay his bills". Interesting to be the most powerful man in the world, with access to billions in personal assets, and unable to sign the best of council, because you are too arrogant and dishonest to be of interest to those most qualified to save you.
Trump has always cared more about image and loyalty than substance. When fill out his administration he approached it as if it were a casting call, emphasizing the "look" he was after, regardless of whether the people were even above average from the applicant pool. Remember - he was irritated by Spicer' first press conference not because it was so absurdly confrontational (he apparently loved that) but because Spicey was wearing an ill fitting suit. How dare his wardrobe be sub-par!!maybe stop tweeting out evidence against yourself quite so often. I would hate to be your lawyer. Better Call Saul.Don't know if you caught it, but when the Orange Oligarch was first shopping for a legal firm to help with this mess, the press went to the top three or four most likely candidates in the DC legal community. They asked if any of these high power firms, with past experience in presidential shenanigans, were going to be accepting the job? Several commented for the record, essentially saying, "why work for a guy that refuses to listen to you, and doesn't pay his bills". Interesting to be the most powerful man in the world, with access to billions in personal assets, and unable to sign the best of council, because you are too arrogant and dishonest to be of interest to those most qualified to save you.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/937007006526959618QuoteI had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/02/trumps-first-tweet-about-michael-flynns-guilty-plea-could-be-a-problem-for-him
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, told CNN on Sunday that he wrote a tweet for the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account about the firing of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.
I wonder if there is any legal liability for claiming to have written a post when you didn't. In one scenario DJT is (at the very least) implying that what comes from @realDonaldTrump is from him. If its not, is that a problem? If it is but his lawyer says its wasn't to shield him from legal liability - is that kosher?
Realizing Trump's error, his lawyers did damage control:QuotePresident Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, told CNN on Sunday that he wrote a tweet for the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account about the firing of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.
I wonder if there is any legal liability for claiming to have written a post when you didn't. In one scenario DJT is (at the very least) implying that what comes from @realDonaldTrump is from him. If its not, is that a problem? If it is but his lawyer says its wasn't to shield him from legal liability - is that kosher?
Realizing Trump's error, his lawyers did damage control:QuotePresident Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, told CNN on Sunday that he wrote a tweet for the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account about the firing of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.
I wonder if there is any legal liability for claiming to have written a post when you didn't. In one scenario DJT is (at the very least) implying that what comes from @realDonaldTrump is from him. If its not, is that a problem? If it is but his lawyer says its wasn't to shield him from legal liability - is that kosher?
Realizing Trump's error, his lawyers did damage control:QuotePresident Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, told CNN on Sunday that he wrote a tweet for the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account about the firing of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.
I don't give a damn who wrote it given this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMb3GbwbApY
Also I think the attorney may have pierced the attorney/client privilege by doing this as well...
Makes it a little hard to walk-back later unless the account was used without his permission (e.g. hacked)
So his lawyer ate his homework? WTF
If they said that trump got the dates wrong or misworded something it would be more credible for a guy that lives in his own reality.
A U.S. National Archives spokesperson has recently said that posted tweets are considered presidential records.
“When [Comey] found out that there may be tapes out there…I think his story may have changed,” Trump said on Fox Friday. “Then he has to tell what actually took place at the events.”
“It wasn’t very stupid,” Trump continued. “He did admit that what I said was right and, if you look further back before he heard about that, maybe he wasn’t admitting that.”
This is the head of the United States attempting to interfere and stop a criminal investigation into his National Security Adviser. This is coming straight from Trump himself.
Now...imagine what we don't yet know (but Mueller does).
They'll want to find a way to soothe the message so they don't lose voters.
They'll want to find a way to soothe the message so they don't lose voters.
I think this is the issue, the Republicans aren't going to do anything to alienate Trump voters, so therefore they won't do anything when Mueller brings forth charges of obstruction of justice. Trump's negative tweets about the FBI has to really irk not just the FBI, but many people in uniform as well.
I don't think we need anything else. This is already enough for Mueller to bring charges.It may be 'enough to bring charges', but a competent prosecutor (which Mueller definitely is) will not stop at 'enough.' He will continue the investigation until there is "nothing left" that can be proven. My greatest fear regarding this investigation is that it will get terminated and the reports will be forever buried and/or destroyed. It would not surprise me if someone has already made the calculation that facing a charge of willfully destroying evidence is preferable to whatever that evidence says. Similarly, DJT may decide that the fallout from his own "Saturday Night Massacre" would be preferable to those reports becoming part of the public sphere.
the GOP is definitely riding DJT as far and as long as they get their wish list. I'm not convinced that Trump undertsands this though. He likely (still) thinks that he's a brilliant person who can fix the nation's problems if only everone would listen to him and stop doing pesky things like following established law and checking his power.After congress has extracted all of the compliant utility out of trump that they think they can get, they'll dump him. Trump knows this, and must be terrified at how fragile his position is. He's basically Mitch McConnell's little bitch from here on out. He'll do anything and everything to stay in good graces with congress because be knows they can dispose of him at any time for the crimes he has committed.
This latest crop of GOP has shown little spine. Few spoke up when he ridiculed Cruz's wife, when he mocked a disabled reporter, when he talked about Mexicans being rapists, when he tried to enact two travel bans that were "definitely bans!!!", when he repeatedly called for a former secretary of state to be locked up, when he - repeatedly - pissed off our closest allies, when he attacked the FBI, when he tweeted racist graphics and videos, when he appointed those who had donated to his charity to positions they had no experience in, when he praised dictators and said the US will no longer consider human rights abuses, when he refused to release his taxes, when he again brought up the 'birther' conspiracy he started after he claimed to be the one who ended it, ...But congress has other considerations too. It's bad party politics to impeach your president, no matter how guilty he is. They'll want to find a way to soothe the message so they don't lose voters.
He has been undermining the intelligence agencies as well - since before he got in office. It's absurd.No, it's strategic. This is a guy with decades of shady business dealings, and who's been under investigation since before the election was held. The intelligence agencies are a big threat to him and his family. His attempts to undermine and discredit them are a preemptive strike; ruin their credibility and suggest political partiality before any analysis or charges are brought. He's already hard at work discrediting the witness.
Don't forget that he is also working hard to undermine the media ("fake news") that might report on the facts found against him.He has been undermining the intelligence agencies as well - since before he got in office. It's absurd.No, it's strategic. This is a guy with decades of shady business dealings, and who's been under investigation since before the election was held. The intelligence agencies are a big threat to him and his family. His attempts to undermine and discredit them are a preemptive strike; ruin their credibility and suggest political partiality before any analysis or charges are brought. He's already hard at work discrediting the witness.
I don't believe the Republicans have any honour for the Constitution at all: they demonstrated that they had already lost that when refusing to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court for nothing more than party political advantage. Trump is going to spend the next couple of years demonstrating that the best Constitution in the world (if it is that) is worthless when not enough people with power have the courage to stand up for the rule of law.
When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller
The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller
The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...
Well DJT said months ago in an interview with the NY Times that any inquiry into his personal finances would be a 'red line' - we'll see what he does about this latest development.
"Follow the money" is a prosecutor's mantra.
Could be (again, "we shall see"...). I wonder whether any business irregularities and financial transgressions will pop up from DJT's past, and how those might play out. his supporters will doubtless argue that these were before he was candidate or president Trump and therefore we should ignore them. I think that's ridiculous; a crime is a crime regardless of your current occupation. Whether he can be prosecuted for such things while in office is an open legal question.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller
The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...
Well DJT said months ago in an interview with the NY Times that any inquiry into his personal finances would be a 'red line' - we'll see what he does about this latest development.
"Follow the money" is a prosecutor's mantra.
Pure speculation: The loan backer is intimately involved with the Russian Government.
It would be interesting to know when DJT heard about this - did Deutsche Bank tell him at the time, has he found out since, or did he find out when the rest of us did? The "tell" would be a tweetstorm on something diversionary.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller
The Deutsche Bank handed DT's info to Mueller. If anyone still had doubts if the president was being personally investigated...
Well DJT said months ago in an interview with the NY Times that any inquiry into his personal finances would be a 'red line' - we'll see what he does about this latest development.
"Follow the money" is a prosecutor's mantra.
Seems logical, when not much else about a loan that size from that bank does.
Pure speculation: The loan backer is intimately involved with the Russian Government.
It would be interesting to know when DJT heard about this - did Deutsche Bank tell him at the time, has he found out since, or did he find out when the rest of us did? The "tell" would be a tweetstorm on something diversionary.
Those records pertain to people affiliated with President Donald Trump, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the action hasn’t been announced. Several news outlets -- including Bloomberg -- reported yesterday that the subpoena targeted Trump and his family’s bank records, which was disputed by Trump’s personal lawyer and the White House.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said on Wednesday that Trump Jr. invoked attorney-client privilege and "refused to share anything" about what he and his father may have discussed about the statement when it was being drafted.
Trump Jr. did tell the committee, however, that he engaged in a back-and-forth about the wording of the statement with communications director Hope Hicks, a committee source confirmed to Business Insider.
"I think the overriding issue here is, why does every road lead to Russia?" Speier said on Wednesday.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-jr-testimony-house-intel-committee-russia-probe-2017-12?__twitter_impression=true
Trump Jr. "has a very serious case of amnesia," and ... was "pretty non-responsive" during the meeting.
Oops.
Bloomberg corrects Dec. 5 story that said subpoena ‘zeroed in’ on Trumps (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/deutsche-bank-said-to-be-subpoenaed-by-mueller):
“We have confirmed that the news reports that the Special Counsel had subpoenaed financial records relating to the president are false. No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources,” Trump’s lawyer John Dowd wrote in an email Dec. 5.
Interesting. There can be three conclusions from this; 1) Mueller indeed has not subpoenaed financial records for DJT, 2) Mueller has but Deutsche-Bank declined to share that with his council (possible if ordered not to under the subpoena) or 3) Mueller has subpoenaed the records, Deutsche-Bank told as much to Trump's legal team and Dowd is lying.
3) seems unlikely to me - as I understand it would immediately put Dowd on the hot-seat on the bar
2) is certainly possible, though the definitive wording in Dowd's statement ("No subpoena has been issued or received") is curious
1) ...how could Mueller possibly NOT follow financial connections between Russia and DJT... unless he already has them. Maybe Mueller will subpoena those records in the future.
Interesting. There can be three conclusions from this; 1) Mueller indeed has not subpoenaed financial records for DJT, 2) Mueller has but Deutsche-Bank declined to share that with his council (possible if ordered not to under the subpoena) or 3) Mueller has subpoenaed the records, Deutsche-Bank told as much to Trump's legal team and Dowd is lying.
3) seems unlikely to me - as I understand it would immediately put Dowd on the hot-seat on the bar
2) is certainly possible, though the definitive wording in Dowd's statement ("No subpoena has been issued or received") is curious
1) ...how could Mueller possibly NOT follow financial connections between Russia and DJT... unless he already has them. Maybe Mueller will subpoena those records in the future.
A bank cannot tell you when the Federal government has issued a subpoena for your banking records in a criminal investigation.
I get that a big part of his job is to present a front of innocence for his client, but...
Another possibility is that the Deutsche Bank loans were not to Trump personally but to one or more of the extensive network of companies which are part of the Trump organisation. So the bank's denials and Trump's lawyers could both be correct, in the narrowest sense that the loans were made to a limited company owned by Trump rather than to Trump in person.ah, good point. Within the legal system one must always consider that the statement is both true and constructed with so narrow a focus as to be completely useless.
Another possibility is that the Deutsche Bank loans were not to Trump personally but to one or more of the extensive network of companies which are part of the Trump organisation. So the bank's denials and Trump's lawyers could both be correct, in the narrowest sense that the loans were made to a limited company owned by Trump rather than to Trump in person.ah, good point. Within the legal system one must always consider that the statement is both true and constructed with so narrow a focus as to be completely useless.
Can’t say what his health is, but I’m annoyed by their responses to inquiries (asking questions about it is “frankly ridiculous” said SHS). DJT and Co. spent 2016 openly questioning HRC’s health, going so far as to ‘diagnose’ her with dysphasia.
What’s fair for team Trump to do towards others is unfair for anyone to do to him. Such a double standard.
In other news, Manafort’s lawyers have acknowledged that he edited the Ukrainian Op-Ed piece. Now he has to defend how this didn’t violate the gag-order placed on him with his indictment earlier last month. Do these people ever stop and ask themselves “gee, should I be doing this?” The arrogance is just mind-boggling. How hard it is to simply do nothing related to other countries for a month?
I find the double standard of the "Hillary collapsed, so she is dying within the next 48 hours" to be less of a concern than the fact that he obviously suffered a neurological event, and that POS Sanders stands in front of the camera and lies about it. He is arguably the most powerful man in the world, was struck with some sort of brain trauma while speaking to tens of millions, and the WH attempts to dismiss it. Sorry. but hell no. I have spent the last two decades living with a partner who has a debilitating brain injury. Fact is, you do not just randomly start slurring your speech, and dismiss it as no big deal.
Manafort is no different than a lot of Trump's closest inner circle. They have spent a lifetime fully engaged in the belief that they are superior to most, and that rules, laws, common decency, respect for any of your "lessers", honestly, and personal integrity are all signs of weakness. Trump has become, arguably, wildly successful following this set of "values", and actively cultivates relationships with others who he sees as sharing his values. As was mentioned earlier here by another poster, I also believe that trump more fully embraced Flynn after Obama personally recommended that he dump Flynn, before it bites him in the ass.
At best he would of needed a subtle break in his speaking, to force them upward with his tongue, which is possible, but hardly something you could do without being noticed.
the picture that's emerging from this whole debacle isn't of some great, well-concocted conspiracy but one of multiple cocky, arrogant people motivated by greed convinced that they could do as they pleased and somehow not get away with it, and then lie unconvincingly about it when people started asking questions. A well concocted conspiracy would have been much better hidden.I have an alternative theory that these are all people whose ambition is greater than their abilities and that it was the cognitive dissonance created by this that led them all to crookedness - it was the only way in which they could marry their lack of ability with the level of worldly success they craved as proof of their superiority.
Yeah...
This is why they really believe that the world is against them rather than it just being a convenient story in their defence: in their eyes all they have done is what was necessary to get what was rightly due to them.
Nereo, good post. The arrogance is a really fascinating situation. In the end most of these clowns will end up self-destructing, and it will be entirely self-inflicted. Chances are they are all intelligent and driven enough to have enjoyed much success, without to need to operate in a moral vacuum.
As for Shitbag Sarah, I guess the draw of fame and power is worth selling your soul for? Like you noted, trump's spokespeople seem to last as long as a jumbo roll of paper towels. Pretty hard to imagine, absent some off the wall, far right political operations, she is really employable in any normal career, here in the real world. After having a very prominent position of looking the American public in the eye, while continually telling outrageous lies, and attempting to promote an alternative reality, based on what the bleach blond crack whore so eloquently coined as, "alternative facts".
Nereo, good post. The arrogance is a really fascinating situation. In the end most of these clowns will end up self-destructing, and it will be entirely self-inflicted. Chances are they are all intelligent and driven enough to have enjoyed much success, without to need to operate in a moral vacuum.
As for Shitbag Sarah, I guess the draw of fame and power is worth selling your soul for? Like you noted, trump's spokespeople seem to last as long as a jumbo roll of paper towels. Pretty hard to imagine, absent some off the wall, far right political operations, she is really employable in any normal career, here in the real world. After having a very prominent position of looking the American public in the eye, while continually telling outrageous lies, and attempting to promote an alternative reality, based on what the bleach blond crack whore so eloquently coined as, "alternative facts".
I'm not a fan of Donald Trump (to put it mildly). It's fine to be upset when someone lies to you on a regular basis. Complain about what these people are doing, abuses of power, or give examples of incompetence. Lowering yourself to simple name calling and unsupported speculation isn't going to help your case though.
At best he would of needed a subtle break in his speaking, to force them upward with his tongue, which is possible, but hardly something you could do without being noticed.
I just figured he was trying to power through to the end of the speech, since he was mere sentences away, without making the obvious gesture of putting his teeth back in place.
Last week, Trump huddled with anti-Mueller congressional forces on Air Force One who have previously described Mueller’s investigation as a “coup” against Trump and “very dangerous.” No doubt Trump got an earful about how the former Marine and longtime Republican prosecutor now represents the dark side.
And yes, Trump’s own attorneys have also recently moved into the fever swamps. Now fully embracing far-right conspiracy theories, they’ve put Mueller in their sights and are demanding that the Department of Justice appoint a second special counsel to investigate the work of Mueller and his team.
After listening to hours of the GOP’s bashing, Rep. Eric Swawell (D-CA) warned that Republicans were signaling to the White House that they would OK with Trump trying to obstruct justice.
how would firing Mueller play out in context of also trying to pass this tax bill?
QuoteLast week, Trump huddled with anti-Mueller congressional forces on Air Force One who have previously described Mueller’s investigation as a “coup” against Trump and “very dangerous.” No doubt Trump got an earful about how the former Marine and longtime Republican prosecutor now represents the dark side.
And yes, Trump’s own attorneys have also recently moved into the fever swamps. Now fully embracing far-right conspiracy theories, they’ve put Mueller in their sights and are demanding that the Department of Justice appoint a second special counsel to investigate the work of Mueller and his team.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/12/14/16762840/mueller-trump-gaetz-jordan-perry-fireWhether it's "crap" or not is largely irrelevant - what matters is whether enough people (and people of importance) believes the "crap".
^Vox lays out the 4 main points of the anti-Mueller movement. It's all crap.
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/941159085998858241
^Fox "News" is just a propaganda network. Period.
Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon says meeting between Don Jr. and Russians was "treasonous" and "unpatriotic."...with friends like these, who needs enemies?
Michael Schmidt's piece in the NYTimes shows a field of landmines for the Trump White House in the months ahead
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/politics/trump-sessions-russia-mcgahn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
Among the reporting
1) Mueller now has substantiated many of the notes that Comey himself took after meeting with DJT, including (via Priebus) that Trump urged Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn ("... I hope you can let this go") and to state publicly that DJT was not under investigation.
2) Rosenstein kept the original memo drafted for firing Comey (now with Mueller) indicating that the reason given (he botched the investigation of Clinton's emails) was bogus
3) AG Jeff Sessions directed one of his aids to seek out damaging information on Comey as part of an effort to undermine the FBI director
We are undone.
QuoteWe are undone.
Sol, I HATE Trump and everything he does to my core. So, in general, I agree with you about the direction of the country.
That said, are you sure you haven't given in hyperbole here? Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of the MAGA spirit yourself? Ya know, by appealing to a glorious, unblemished, imaginary American past where "everything was better"?
The nation survived the Grant administration, survived the Harding administration, survived the Nixon administration.
Only two months after promising that he would not allow Congress to interfere in the ongoing Russia investigation, House Speaker Paul Ryan on Wednesday reportedly backed colleague Devin Nunes in his attempts to subpoena the FBI for documents related to the matter.
https://thinkprogress.org/ryan-nunes-russia-investigation-9affc788894a/
Spoiler - Paul Ryan said he'd do something, then two months later went against his word. I am SHOCKED.QuoteOnly two months after promising that he would not allow Congress to interfere in the ongoing Russia investigation, House Speaker Paul Ryan on Wednesday reportedly backed colleague Devin Nunes in his attempts to subpoena the FBI for documents related to the matter.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/official-fbi-investigating-clinton-foundation-months-n835006
Official: FBI investigating Clinton Foundation ‘for months’
Welcome to The Banana Republic of America.
Besides giving me a chuckle, your post highlights something I wish more people would appreciate and aknowledge - namely that the supposed sins of one person do not nullify the actions of another.
Clinton has been investigated for years, and nothing has come of it. Team Trump has been investigated for a few months, and Mueller's already bagged a few convictions, including the head honcho of the campaign. It's like the Republicans are yelling about Hillary going 36 mph in a 35 zone while Trump is driving 85 mph the wrong way down the street running every light and has left a mangled pedestrian corpse a few miles back. And we're yelling for the cops to stop him while they are busy giving Hillary a ticket, and Republicans are the bystanders saying "oh-so you don't CARE about the law! She was speeding!"
The Senate Judiciary committee just handed down its first criminal referral for . . . Christopher Steele. Apparently, they're alleging Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier. To be clear -- not that anything actually in the dossier is a lie. But that he lied to the FBI about having talked to reporters about the dossier.
It wouldn't even surprise me if the Clinton foundation is also afoul of some tax laws. Personal family foundations are, by their very nature, tax dodges. The fact that Trump's was fined for tax evasion and Clinton's hasn't been yet doesn't really change my opinion on that matter. I assume all family foundations are at least somewhat dirty, or else why have one?
The Trump Foundation is in a class by itself, as Donald Trump used foundation money to buy things for his own personal benefit, was caught by the IRS for doing this, and forced to backtrack the wrongdoing. Trump would also lie and say his foundation was funded by his own personal money, when it was funded by outside donors to the foundation.
The Trump Foundation is in a class by itself, as Donald Trump used foundation money to buy things for his own personal benefit, was caught by the IRS for doing this, and forced to backtrack the wrongdoing. Trump would also lie and say his foundation was funded by his own personal money, when it was funded by outside donors to the foundation.
As much as it pains me to say this, I feel like Donald Trump's defense in this case was valid. He's just an idiot. I think he genuinely didn't know that he couldn't use a charitable foundation to buy himself stuff, and I think that his business is structured in such a way that no lawyer or accountant was ever going to tell him. Trump has always surrounded himself with the ultimate YES-men, people who will flatter his vanity without any argument. I think he gets bad advice, and in this case no one told him he was committing tax fraud.
But even the Clinton foundation, which has legitimately dispersed billions of dollars to worthy causes, exists in a fuzzy grey area of tax law where you can pay no taxes on your income that you donate to it, while retaining control of the donated assets. You can pay your children or relatives to work for the foundation, while avoiding the gift tax. And you can solicit outside donations to the foundation, which presents the opportunity for people or nations to attempt to curry favor with you by giving you money. It's legal, but still shady.
But even the Clinton foundation, which has legitimately dispersed billions of dollars to worthy causes, exists in a fuzzy grey area of tax law where you can pay no taxes on your income that you donate to it, while retaining control of the donated assets. You can pay your children or relatives to work for the foundation, while avoiding the gift tax. And you can solicit outside donations to the foundation, which presents the opportunity for people or nations to attempt to curry favor with you by giving you money. It's legal, but still shady.
And if you look at the Form 990 for the Clinton Foundation, you can see all the hours of work that the Clintons did for this charity, but they were paid nothing for their work.
Any instrument of tax can be abused, the devil is in the details. What did the Trump Foundation do, what did the Clinton Foundation do. But, it's more sexy to find a scandal with the Clintons, when nothing of the sort ever existed. That the Clintons must be committing some sort of wrong doing is just sloppy thinking that was propogated by not just Fox News but the mainstream media. In the meantime Trump's wrongdoing bordered on criminality.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/311/311580204/311580204_201512_990.pdf
Fusion GPS interview transcript:
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/3974a291-ddbe-4525-9ed1-22bab43c05ae/934A3562824CACA7BB4D915E97709D2F.simpson-transcript-redacted.pdf
Why was Grassley so adamant about keeping this private? Is there any new information? What was his end game with his criminal referral of the Fusion GPS head? From what I understood, he was basing the criminal referral on information the FBI itself gave him.
Fusion GPS interview transcript:
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/3974a291-ddbe-4525-9ed1-22bab43c05ae/934A3562824CACA7BB4D915E97709D2F.simpson-transcript-redacted.pdf
Why was Grassley so adamant about keeping this private? Is there any new information? What was his end game with his criminal referral of the Fusion GPS head? From what I understood, he was basing the criminal referral on information the FBI itself gave him.
Just doing the dirty work for Trump - trying to undermine a (not THE) source of the investigation into Trump.
Twitter Inc. missed a deadline on Monday to provide the U.S. Senate Intelligence committee with information about alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, a spokeswoman for the committee's top Democrat, Senator Mark Warner, said on Tuesday.
A member of Trump’s National Security Council staff had a radical notion: to pare back American troops in Europe as a way to curry favor with the Kremlin
...Minority Staff Report....Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)
...www.nytimes.com....
...Minority Staff Report....Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)
...www.nytimes.com....
...Minority Staff Report....Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)
...www.nytimes.com....
Substitute...Minority Staff Report....Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)
...www.nytimes.com....
And we wonder why Trump gets away with it...
The fact that Sneaky Dianne Feinstein, who has on numerous occasions stated that collusion between Trump/Russia has not been found, would release testimony in such an underhanded and possibly illegal way, totally without authorization, is a disgrace. Must have tough Primary!
Substitute...Minority Staff Report....Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)
...www.nytimes.com....
And we wonder why Trump gets away with it...
- Republicans for Democrats
- Fox News for the NY Times
- Obama for Trump
and we would have analogous observations to a paper critical of Obama, correct?
True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)- Fox News for the NY TimesLol
True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)- Fox News for the NY TimesLol
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct? But ad hominem, not so much.It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)- Fox News for the NY TimesLol
Thus the danger of people believing there is a (false) equivalence between news and propaganda.Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct? But ad hominem, not so much.It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)- Fox News for the NY TimesLol
It is unfortunate that most "news" sources really aren't, but rather are businesses looking to attract ad revenue by attracting an audience. Different sources aim to attract different audiences. Real Clear Politics often has amusing (if one can see beyond a far-left or far-right bubble) juxtapositions of articles on exactly the same subject, but with very different slants.
Agreed. If only there were a foolproof way to distinguish between those.Thus the danger of people believing there is a (false) equivalence between news and propaganda.Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct? But ad hominem, not so much.It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)- Fox News for the NY TimesLol
It is unfortunate that most "news" sources really aren't, but rather are businesses looking to attract ad revenue by attracting an audience. Different sources aim to attract different audiences. Real Clear Politics often has amusing (if one can see beyond a far-left or far-right bubble) juxtapositions of articles on exactly the same subject, but with very different slants.
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct? But ad hominem, not so much.It's funny how "troll" seems to be the default setting of more and more conservatives. It's quite striking.True, The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be, so maybe it isn't fair to hold Fox to such a low bar. ;)- Fox News for the NY TimesLol
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, correct? But ad hominem, not so much.
Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)
I'm calling out a behavior. An action.If disagreement merits "calling out", then so be it.
That's the charitable interpretation. Because the other interpretation would be that you actually believe that Fox and the NYT are equivalent. Which... well, I'll stop there, because there aren't a lot of charitable ways to put that...Equivalent? That's a subjective metric. There are times that one is more accurate than the other, and vice versa. Would you agree to that?
Why, yes, that is the definition. See also "irony" - "the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."Shocking that Senate Democrats and the NY Times would say bad things about Trump. ;)Or not.
Not that any of us are really expecting you to, your history in this thread is evident, but I'd like to point out that you didn't actually address any of the facts in the two links, instead just resorted to a form of ad hominem yourself.
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
yup - we shall see.
I realize that the majority of people commenting in this forum don't like Trump's politics. Probably an even larger majority (one that includes me) think he's not a particularly nice person. But I also think a theme in this thread, that Trump did something traitorous with the Russians, is incorrect. If and when Mueller or others demonstrate otherwise, I'll stand corrected. Until then, however....
Well said - I can agree with that!yup - we shall see.
I realize that the majority of people commenting in this forum don't like Trump's politics. Probably an even larger majority (one that includes me) think he's not a particularly nice person. But I also think a theme in this thread, that Trump did something traitorous with the Russians, is incorrect. If and when Mueller or others demonstrate otherwise, I'll stand corrected. Until then, however....
For now all we can say for certain is that four members of his campaign have been indicted and two are cooperating with the special prosecutor. Whether this extends to DJT himself is still publicly unknown. If we make the jump that it does extend to DJT it will interesting to see what transgressions took place, and when. Was it something boneheaded where the denial and attempts to conceal were far worse than the original transgression (the coverup was worse than the crime), or are there serious transgressions afoot? What-if all violations were before he became a candidate (a-la Manafort)?
The what-if game can be fun to play, but also would like the re-emphasize 'wait and see'....
Bannon has been subpoenaed by Mueller's Grand Jury.
It's also worth noting that Bannon has the same lawyer (not just firm--same lawyer) as Priebus and McGahn. Meaning their interests likely align or at least are not in conflict.
I see a tweetstorm a-brewin'.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/steve-bannon-mueller-russia-subpoena.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The timing is sure interesting. Is it too much of a stretch to think that Mueller knew he wanted Bannon, but intentionally chose to wait until his estrangement from Trump was well and truly complete? The breakup was brewing for months, so it's not like anyone was surprised.
Trump will just end up hanging himself by burning bridges with everyone around him.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon broke some bad news to House investigators Tuesday, announcing that the White House had invoked executive privilege to keep him from answering many of their questions.
But executive privilege—the president’s right to keep certain information from the public so he can have frank conversations with aides—will not keep Steve Bannon from sharing information with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, according to a person familiar with the situation.
“Mueller will hear everything Bannon has to say,” said the source, who is familiar with Bannon’s thinking.
https://www.axios.com/scoop-sessions-fbi-trump-christopher-wray-877adb3e-5f8d-44a1-8a2f-d4f0894ca6a7.htmlThose four are certainly the biggest fish in the pond, but there's also Conway, Hicks, Eric & Ivanka Trump. All were involved in the 2016 campaign and to my knowledge haven't been interviewed as of yet. Each could provide useful statements about various meetings (both what was said and corroborating who was there).
Mr. Mueller adds Jeff Sessions to his interview list.
There's really no one left except Kushner, Don Jr., Pence, and DJT.
I hope Mueller is building an ever more conclusive iron clad case against Trump
Apart from Trump himself being in trouble, he's likely to pardon anyone who does get nailed and is not immune. Something might happen to him after he leaves office, in the event of criminal wrong-doing. One would hope. But I'm not too optimistic.
https://www.axios.com/scoop-sessions-fbi-trump-christopher-wray-877adb3e-5f8d-44a1-8a2f-d4f0894ca6a7.htmlThose four are certainly the biggest fish in the pond, but there's also Conway, Hicks, Eric & Ivanka Trump. All were involved in the 2016 campaign and to my knowledge haven't been interviewed as of yet. Each could provide useful statements about various meetings (both what was said and corroborating who was there).
Mr. Mueller adds Jeff Sessions to his interview list.
There's really no one left except Kushner, Don Jr., Pence, and DJT.
Then there's the re-interviews, anytime Mueller finds two statements that don't line up.
For better or worse this thing is going to drag on for many months longer.
Apart from Trump himself being in trouble, he's likely to pardon anyone who does get nailed and is not immune. Something might happen to him after he leaves office, in the event of criminal wrong-doing. One would hope. But I'm not too optimistic.
There's no logical explanation that Trump and/or Pence didn't know about the Don Jr. meeting, didn't know about the Papadopolous "leak," didn't know about Manafort, etc. etc.
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old. For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years. Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old. For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years. Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"
Didn't you know - facts don't matter anymore. You get to say literally whatever you want and people have to believe you. It's the internet, after all.
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old. For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years. Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"
Didn't you know - facts don't matter anymore. You get to say literally whatever you want and people have to believe you. It's the internet, after all.
Truth. Let’s face it, in this climate any decent troll should be able to make a good living at it, like Alex Jones. Anyone not monetizing it is either lazy or just not very good at it.
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.You just love popping in here and throwing a troll-grenade, don't you acroy?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old. For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years. Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"
Didn't you know - facts don't matter anymore. You get to say literally whatever you want and people have to believe you. It's the internet, after all.
Truth. Let’s face it, in this climate any decent troll should be able to make a good living at it, like Alex Jones. Anyone not monetizing it is either lazy or just not very good at it.
How do we know acroy hasn't found his FIRE job AS ALEX JONES?
Four indictments and a plea-bargain at last count, and the investigation is only 7 months old. For reference special investigations such as this one last on average about 2 years. Only Watergate ended in under a year with Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre"
She's been under the radar so far, but does anyone seriously believe that Ivanka didn't know what her father, brother and husband were up to? She's been working in the business for years, including working on the dodgy "Iranian Republican Guard money" deal in Azerbaijan, and she was fully involved in the campaign. Her defence of ignorance would have to rely on the notion that she is dumb as a tub of bricks and twice as oblivious. Which may be true, of course, but probably wouldn't chime with her own view of herself.https://www.axios.com/scoop-sessions-fbi-trump-christopher-wray-877adb3e-5f8d-44a1-8a2f-d4f0894ca6a7.htmlThose four are certainly the biggest fish in the pond, but there's also Conway, Hicks, Eric & Ivanka Trump. All were involved in the 2016 campaign and to my knowledge haven't been interviewed as of yet. Each could provide useful statements about various meetings (both what was said and corroborating who was there).
Mr. Mueller adds Jeff Sessions to his interview list.
There's really no one left except Kushner, Don Jr., Pence, and DJT.
Then there's the re-interviews, anytime Mueller finds two statements that don't line up.
For better or worse this thing is going to drag on for many months longer.
Sorry...I meant of the possible people up the chain potentially to be charged/indicted. Sessions marks the first cabinet member interviewed but I'm not sure he's smart enough to participate in collusion/obstruction of justice. He was likely interviewed because of all of his contacts with Russians during the campaign and Mueller probably wants to know who he reported up to in the Trump campaign.
There's no logical explanation that Trump and/or Pence didn't know about the Don Jr. meeting, didn't know about the Papadopolous "leak," didn't know about Manafort, etc. etc.
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.
Nah - acroy has a history of tossing incendiary comments into a thread and then leaving, only to do it again months later. My guess is he's off chuckling to himself. Scan his comments earlier in this thread and on other "off-topic" threads.wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.
Pro tip: Instead of parroting echo-chamber right-wing talking points, do some (primary source) research beforehand.
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.
Pro tip: Instead of parroting echo-chamber right-wing talking points, do some (primary source) research beforehand.
The "closing in on 2 years" statement had me scratching my head, too... Mueller's investigation is less than 8 months old. This thread is just over 1 year. Two years ago was before Flynn (plea-bargain), before the now infamous meeting in Trump Tower, before the hacking of the DNC.wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.
Pro tip: Instead of parroting echo-chamber right-wing talking points, do some (primary source) research beforehand.
Perhaps 2 years ago was when the plot to collude began? Did he mean closing in on 2 years of getting away with it?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected the Obama administration’s efforts to warn the public about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, former vice president Joe Biden said Tuesday.
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past themWhy rig the voting machines when you can get Americans to do something stupid on their own through disinformation? See also, piles of russian bots, memes, twitter feeds, etc.
Of course Russia was trying to help Trump win. That was plainly obvious to anyone paying attention before the election. I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Russia actually helped *rig* the election (in the sense of hacking electronic voting machines to change vote counts) but I wouldn't put it past them
California Democrats Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff released a letter to the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook warning of possible Russian influence on the special counsel's investigation.
A website monitoring Russia-linked Twitter accounts found that their use of #releasethememo increased nearly 300,000 percent in just a few days.
The politicians urged the CEOs to conduct their own examination and submit their findings to Congress.
Hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference with the American elections. For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. That's what de Volkskrant and Nieuwsuur have uncovered in their investigation.
A recession?
A recession?...
I take a little comfort in watching Trump crow about the Dow, because I know it can't last. Live by the Dow, die by the Dow.
A recession?
https://www.volkskrant.nl/media/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~a4561913/QuoteHackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference with the American elections. For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. That's what de Volkskrant and Nieuwsuur have uncovered in their investigation.
The evangelical conservatives got into bed with the GOP over gay marriage and the 'defense of marriage act' (among others), as well as with anti-abortion legislation.
He has now cheated on each of his wives. I can't see how the evangelical conservatives can wrap their belief system around their President's actions and support him.
A recession?...
I take a little comfort in watching Trump crow about the Dow, because I know it can't last. Live by the Dow, die by the Dow.
. . .
So Trump called every good economic indicator under Obama fake and fraud, but now touts those same numbers as evidence of being the greatest president in modern history. What will happen when we hit an inevitable downturn? Something tells me he'll 1) blame democrats ("if the loser democrats weren't blocking our way our economy would be so great!", 2) call the numbers 'fake' again ("a bunch of liberal, unelected losers want our economy to fail and are publishing fake numbers about unemployment and jobs. Get a life!!") and 3) basically tell everyone (again) that he alone can fix it.
His base will continue to lap it up. The GOP in congress will spout the talking points handed down to them, no matter how absurd - because the only alternative would be ceding control to the Dems.
The NY Times is reporting that Trump fired Mueller back in June, then had to withdraw it when white house counsel threatened to resign.
In effect, the white house counsel seems to have saved the Trump presidency, by avoiding the Saturday night massacre scenario. Looks like clear intent to obstruct justice, to me.
Is anyone shocked? What would that even take, anymore?
I've always maintained that nothing about the Russia investigation itself would lead to anything where Trump could really be legally nailed. Only his efforts to stop said investigation would be likely to do so.
Back in June both DJT and Conway are on the record (on tape) saying that conversations about firing Mueller "never came up" and they were absolutely not considering doing it. If this latest report is true its another lie
Shocking, i know. Turns out the guy who led the birther movement, who said Hillary Clinton started it, who said real unemployment might be over 40%, who claims his won the popular vote if you deduct 3-5 million illegal votes, who claims to have had the largest inaugeration crowd, 'period', who promised to release his tax returns once a 'routine audit' was completed, who said his 58 story Trump Tower was actually 68 stories, who's committed adultery on three different women, who got five medical deferments from the draft for an issue that 'went away', who... (crap this would take too long)... might not always tell the truth.QuoteBack in June both DJT and Conway are on the record (on tape) saying that conversations about firing Mueller "never came up" and they were absolutely not considering doing it. If this latest report is true its another lie
Wait wait wait. You mean Donald Trump is a liar?
Well, this just upsets my whole world view.
The evangelical conservatives got into bed with the GOP over gay marriage and the 'defense of marriage act' (among others), as well as with anti-abortion legislation.
He has now cheated on each of his wives. I can't see how the evangelical conservatives can wrap their belief system around their President's actions and support him.
Now they are proverbially married to supporting the GOP, 'for better or worse.' It doesn't matter how flawed the candidate is, because the alternative is to either butt out of politics altogether or support a democrat. They won't butt out of politics because its become an enormous cash-cow for both them and the GOP; nothing unzips evangelical's pocketbooks faster than a good sermon about combating the evil of homosexuality or those poor unbaptized, unborn souls. Likewise they won't support even centrist Dem candidates because losing the war is worse than supporting a seemingly endless stream of immoral politicians.
The justify their support of DJT by saying that "only God can judge" and that their 'true support is with the bible' - basically the ends justify the means approach.
Ironically, what most have forgotten is that the entire concept of Seperation of Church & State was brought about by our founders NOT to keep the religion out of the state, but to keep the state out of religion. You can't force your religion into politics without politics infiltrating your religion.
There's the old saying about a "dead girl or a live boy" ending any politician's career - however for DJT we knew long before the campaign he had tabloid-trysts, numerous apperances on Howard Stern well documented affairs, plus those comments to Hollywood Access. All of that was out in the open months and years before the election. Plenty of stuff worse than that has been alleged (the Steele dossier). So I'm not convinced that a public sex-tape would even move the needle against him. After all, everyone pretty much knew he was a hedonistic, womanizing twerp back in the 90s.The evangelical conservatives got into bed with the GOP over gay marriage and the 'defense of marriage act' (among others), as well as with anti-abortion legislation.
He has now cheated on each of his wives. I can't see how the evangelical conservatives can wrap their belief system around their President's actions and support him.
Now they are proverbially married to supporting the GOP, 'for better or worse.' It doesn't matter how flawed the candidate is, because the alternative is to either butt out of politics altogether or support a democrat. They won't butt out of politics because its become an enormous cash-cow for both them and the GOP; nothing unzips evangelical's pocketbooks faster than a good sermon about combating the evil of homosexuality or those poor unbaptized, unborn souls. Likewise they won't support even centrist Dem candidates because losing the war is worse than supporting a seemingly endless stream of immoral politicians.
The justify their support of DJT by saying that "only God can judge" and that their 'true support is with the bible' - basically the ends justify the means approach.
Ironically, what most have forgotten is that the entire concept of Seperation of Church & State was brought about by our founders NOT to keep the religion out of the state, but to keep the state out of religion. You can't force your religion into politics without politics infiltrating your religion.
"Only God can judge" until one of their wedge issues pops up and then we're off to the judgement races.... ;)
What we need for added entertainment value is for the next bombshell to reveal that DJT is actively gay or molested his daughters. I wonder if even THAT would knock his approval numbers down any?
OMGGGGGG IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf
This? This is it? This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump? This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?
Lol. They're screwed.
OMGGGGGG IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf
This? This is it? This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump? This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?
Lol. They're screwed.
It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?
OMGGGGGG IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf
This? This is it? This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump? This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?
Lol. They're screwed.
Not sure how you can take this stance.
Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?
It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?
Could you be more specific here? What illegal steps did the intelligence agencies take to derail DJT?
Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?
It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?
OMGGGGGG IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf
This? This is it? This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump? This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?
Lol. They're screwed.
Not sure how you can take this stance.
Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?
It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?
OMGGGGGG IT"S TEH MEMO!!!!!
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf
This? This is it? This was their Hail Mary to take down the Russia Investigation and vindicate Trump? This was worth publically taking on the intelligence community?
Lol. They're screwed.
Not sure how you can take this stance.
Ignoring partisanship completely, you don't think it's concerning that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC would go through the steps they took (illegally, mind you) to derail the incoming and then sitting President?
It's a conspiracy theory proven true about how far the intelligence community will abuse their power. And if they will do it to the President, what do you think they care about your individual rights as a citizen?
Am I the only one who feels completely underwhelmed by this memo?
Am I the only one who feels completely underwhelmed by this memo?
As an indictment of federal law enforcement, yes, but I think there is still value in it.
Specifically I think it very clearly demonstrates just how corrupt the Devin-Nunes-led House intelligence committee has become. It appears to be doing Trump's obstruction-of-justice dirty work for him.
If Mueller is pursuing an obstruction of justice charge against Trump, any demonstrated collusion between Trump and Nunes would pretty much clinch it.
DJT risks further demonstrating that he's not acting in the interests of the United States (by going against 'grave concerns' of the FBI - whom he picked for god's sakes)... all to accomplish... what, exactly?
DJT risks further demonstrating that he's not acting in the interests of the United States (by going against 'grave concerns' of the FBI - whom he picked for god's sakes)... all to accomplish... what, exactly?
I don't think Trump cares about the details. The actual memo could reak "j/k just kidding" and he'd release it anyway, because he thinks the whole idea of the existence of a critical memo plays favorably with his base. For him it's more about managing the theatricality of the process than about the specific content, and he thinks the public perception around it will help discredit the inevitable indictment against him.
So the "purpose" of it is to lay the groundwork for the constitutional crisis he sees coming. It's not about legal criteria, because he knows he's already lost the legal battle. I think he's planning to rely on Congress, with the support of 25% of die-hard Americans who will support him no matter what, to snuff the impeachment process. He knows he can't win on the facts, so he's playing the people instead.
White House: Document 'raises serious concerns' about integrity of decisions by DOJ and FBI
Fitton: FISA memo is 'devastating blow' to Mueller's Russia investigation
We can add this to the pile:Quote from: foxnewsWhite House: Document 'raises serious concerns' about integrity of decisions by DOJ and FBIQuote from: foxnewsFitton: FISA memo is 'devastating blow' to Mueller's Russia investigation
See? The DOJ and FBI are flawed with their investigations. Mueller has nothing. Nothing! #shameful
It also provides cover for a Kushner pardon.
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.
There is some tasty irony here given that the focus of Mueller's investigation is to look at foreign influences attempting to undermine our government. Remember when Mueller was appointed and there was bipartisan praise for how sterling his reputation and ability to be independent was? Notice also how the Nunes memo says nothing about Mueller? Even Trey Gowdy (aka, Mr. Benghazi) says that the Nunes memo has nothing to do with Mueller.
A lot of people are calling for Mueller's investigation to end without knowing what his investigation has found or how it has actually been conducted. So far, what is known is that a lot of partisans are unhappy, and that there have been multiple guilty pleas.
There is no disagreement among intelligence agencies that Russia interfered with our election process. None. Zero. Let's let the investigations into that bear fruit. That is far more important than the career of any individual politician or investigator.
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.
Just got to say this out loud...
you want the investigation to be stopped, and the investigator investigated by a new investigative team for the way they did their investigating?
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.
Just got to say this out loud...
you want the investigation to be stopped, and the investigator investigated by a new investigative team for the way they did their investigating?
Mostly, but I never said Mueller should be investigated
The Mueller investigation should be ended and the DOJ and FBI investigated by a legitimate independent council for attempting to undermine our government. People need to be held accountable.
Just got to say this out loud...
you want the investigation to be stopped, and the investigator investigated by a new investigative team for the way they did their investigating?
Mostly, but I never said Mueller should be investigated
So we stop the investigation but don't investigate it? How come?
Do we just sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened?
what crimes are you referring to? How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?
what crimes are you referring to? How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?
Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.
what crimes are you referring to? How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?
Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.
Do we understand correctly that an investigation to undermine political process is to undo the Trump election?
The investigation is about Russian election interference. Many of Trump's associates were neck-deep in Russian contacts. Manfort is probably the poster child for this. That should be investigated.
For the simple version, see:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/12/01/timeline-events-related-russia-investigation/914959001/
Let's stay in topic and stop trying to gloss over the fact that a political party apparently tried to undermine our system of government by using the power of state as their enforcement mechanism.
Let's stay in topic and stop trying to gloss over the fact that a political party apparently tried to undermine our system of government by using the power of state as their enforcement mechanism.
Yes! That's why we have an investigation! Trump totally did that!
Then he continued to do it, by firing one staff member and government official after another that he felt was more loyal to the country and the constitution than to him personally. He has actively undermined the justice department and the fbi at every turn. He is systematically tearing down the democratic norms that make America great. I see that you and I are united in demanding a reckoning.
what crimes are you referring to? How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?
Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.
what crimes are you referring to? How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?
Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.
You said we “cannot allow crimes to take place” just to justify and investigation.
I repeat: what crimes are you referring to?
what crimes are you referring to? How do you obtain proof if you can't investigate?
Who is saying you can't investigate? Federal government has a whole slew of laws dealing with things like perjury, political actions by federal employees. Stop trying to justify an investigation conducted to undermine our political process.
You said we “cannot allow crimes to take place” just to justify and investigation.
I repeat: what crimes are you referring to?
Not sure how I can make this more simple. You need evidence of a crime to start an investigation and a political smear campaign is not evidence of a crime. What I have an issue with is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals. Furthermore you are putting in quotes what I did not say, not sure how laws work in Italy if your location is correct but it is a crime to falsify information to a court in the United States. Back To The pOint though, When Is It ok To Use The Power of the state TO Go after Political rivals? Sorry About THe Capital Letters, Its The amazon Fire.
Let's stay in topic and stop trying to gloss over the fact that a political party apparently tried to undermine our system of government by using the power of state as their enforcement mechanism.
Yes! That's why we have an investigation! Trump totally did that!
Then he continued to do it, by firing one staff member and government official after another that he felt was more loyal to the country and the constitution than to him personally. He has actively undermined the justice department and the fbi at every turn. He is systematically tearing down the democratic norms that make America great. I see that you and I are united in demanding a reckoning.
When is it okay to use the power of state to go after political rivals? When is that ok?
The wiretaps were renewed four times, 90 days apart. Between the third and fourth renewals, and apparently unrelated, the Steele dossier was made public and Nunes thinks this means the wiretaps were an illegal abuse of power by the FBI.What does the date of the Steele dossier being made public have to do with anything?
The wiretaps were renewed four times, 90 days apart. Between the third and fourth renewals, and apparently unrelated, the Steele dossier was made public and Nunes thinks this means the wiretaps were an illegal abuse of power by the FBI.What does the date of the Steele dossier being made public have to do with anything?
Nunes claims that the Steele dossier and its origins/funding was known to the FBI and was part of the evidence presented in the original FISA application. Before the dossier was public.
was part of the evidence presented in the original FISA application. Before the dossier was public.
You said we “cannot allow crimes to take place” just to justify and investigation.
I repeat: what crimes are you referring to?
Not sure how I can make this more simple. You need evidence of a crime to start an investigation and a political smear campaign is not evidence of a crime. What I have an issue with is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals. Furthermore you are putting in quotes what I did not say, not sure how laws work in Italy if your location is correct but it is a crime to falsify information to a court in the United States. Back To The pOint though, When Is It ok To Use The Power of the state TO Go after Political rivals? Sorry About THe Capital Letters, Its The amazon Fire.
I get it, lots here don t like the president but that does not mean we allow crimes to take place in order to be rid of him. The ends don t justify the means.. Several people have asked you which crimes you are referring to, including myself. From what I gather in your response the (a) crime you are talking about is falsifying information to a federal court (in this case FISA). Ok, let's unpack that this entire statement a bit more
Mr Page has been indicted by the special prosecutorNot yet? He was "male 1" in the evidence leading to the 2013 spying convictions, though.
Mr Page has been indicted by the special prosecutorNot yet? He was "male 1" in the evidence leading to the 2013 spying convictions, though.
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.
Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.
Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.
Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.
Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
Russia has been influencing foreign elections for many years now. To think that it "can't happen here" is pretty naive.
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.
Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
Here's a pro tip for life:
Stop watching Sean Hannity.
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.
Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
Here's a pro tip for life:
Stop watching Sean Hannity.
The problem with that statement is:
CounterPunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08/the-russia-thing/)
The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/)
Spiked Online (
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-russia-frenzy-gripping-washington/19546#.WnxvJ8tME0M)
Caitlyn Johnstone (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857)
Aaron Mate (https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g) (This one is fun because the Russa-gater seems to rage quit.)
All these are left leaning outlets that have no love for Trump, but agree there is no collusion.
Also the point out that you can't ask about Mueller's evidence without:
A. Getting a Gish gallop fallacy about all the evidence.
B. Being accused of being a Putin Puppet, Russian Bot, Troll Farm or Useful idiot.
The problem with that statement is:
CounterPunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08/the-russia-thing/)
The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/)
Spiked Online (
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-russia-frenzy-gripping-washington/19546#.WnxvJ8tME0M)
Caitlyn Johnstone (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857)
Aaron Mate (https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g) (This one is fun because the Russa-gater seems to rage quit.)
All these are left leaning outlets that have no love for Trump, but agree there is no collusion.
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.
Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
Here's a pro tip for life:
Stop watching Sean Hannity.
The problem with that statement is:
CounterPunch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08/the-russia-thing/)
The Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/)
Spiked Online (
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-russia-frenzy-gripping-washington/19546#.WnxvJ8tME0M)
Caitlyn Johnstone (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721cb5843857)
Aaron Mate (https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g) (This one is fun because the Russa-gater seems to rage quit.)
All these are left leaning outlets that have no love for Trump, but agree there is no collusion.
Well, shit. Get rid of Mueller and dismiss the charges! Nothing to see here.
The point is that Sean Hannity is part of the right echo chamber. Your cherry-picked articles are not part of the left echo chamber (wtf is Caitlin Johnstone?). You need to mention Maddow and the Fire book and probably MSNBC for the same effect.QuoteAlso the point out that you can't ask about Mueller's evidence without:
A. Getting a Gish gallop fallacy about all the evidence.
B. Being accused of being a Putin Puppet, Russian Bot, Troll Farm or Useful idiot.
C. Wondering how you know about the Mueller team's evidence. Are you privy to the investigation?
I find it odd that liberals are agreeing with right wing people.
I'm not privy to the investigation. I just find the blind trust in our intelligence services disturbing.
Given the above, a far more relevant question is, why do Trumpians have such blind faith that there aren't more skeletons in the closet?Perhaps an even more basic question would be: how can anyone qualitatively state that the entire investigation has been a sham?
Not sure how I can make this more simple. You need evidence of a crime to start an investigation and a political smear campaign is not evidence of a crime. What I have an issue with is using the power of the state to persecute political rivals.
I find it odd that liberals are agreeing with right wing people.
It happens. I find it odd that conservatives are agreeing with left wing people.
Senators John McCain, Flake, and Graham, among others
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
etc.QuoteI'm not privy to the investigation. I just find the blind trust in our intelligence services disturbing.
Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians before Trump took office. Michael Flynn wasn't some junior Trump staffer in Tulsa; he was the National Security Advisor.
Papadopoulos tried to arrange a meeting between Trump, the then Republican nominee, and Putin, the RussiandictatorPresident. He emailed Manafort and Lewandowski and attended a meeting with Trump where he mentioned his connections and attempts. He also pled guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russian officials.
Given the above, a far more relevant question is, why do Trumpians have such blind faith that there aren't more skeletons in the closet?
I find it odd that liberals are agreeing with right wing people.
It happens. I find it odd that conservatives are agreeing with left wing people.
Senators John McCain, Flake, and Graham, among others
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/
etc.QuoteI'm not privy to the investigation. I just find the blind trust in our intelligence services disturbing.
Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians before Trump took office. Michael Flynn wasn't some junior Trump staffer in Tulsa; he was the National Security Advisor.
Papadopoulos tried to arrange a meeting between Trump, the then Republican nominee, and Putin, the RussiandictatorPresident. He emailed Manafort and Lewandowski and attended a meeting with Trump where he mentioned his connections and attempts. He also pled guilty to lying to the FBI about meetings with Russian officials.
Given the above, a far more relevant question is, why do Trumpians have such blind faith that there aren't more skeletons in the closet?
Flynn was trying to influence Russians. And was actually paid by Turkish officials.
"According to prosecutors, on Dec. 22, Mr. Flynn discussed with Mr. Kislyak an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter."(https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html?referer=https://t.co/VLw3wOLCCG)
I meant to say independent journalists keep find holes in the story. (I was in bit of a rush.)
Post Iraq War our intelligence services shouldn't be able to say "we have evidence" and use that "evidence" to raise tensions with a nuclear power. Why are we making decisions based on evidence we haven't seen.
As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.
Here's a pro tip for life:So all you've got in response to things you don't like is to throw shade at me personally? You gotta do what you gotta do, hope you feel better, and it helps you move on from the 'Denial/Anger' stages of grief. Life Happiness Tip: stop watching MSM, they teach the arts of bias, personal insults and snark, not things to be proud of. Learn how to read and determine facts from opinion - the two are so easily confused.
Stop watching Sean Hannity.
I'm glad O is gone and richer too. May the trend continue!
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367972-the-link-between-obamas-departure-and-your-increasing-wealth
The relevant facts that you are missing is that all four people you mentioned actively worked for the Trump campaign, and one of the two who pleaded guilty was appointed by Trump to an executive-level cabinet position after the election. That's huge regardless of whether this is all there is, or whether more indictments are forthcoming. That investigation has already proven it has merit.
Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia
*crickets*
Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.
As horrifying as all of this is, I have to admit it's fascinating to watch in real time the people who would have been Nixon's staunch defenders all through Watergate, dismissing the whole thing as smoke and mirrors. It's like a real-live historical documentary unfolding right before our eyes.Here's a pro tip for life:So all you've got in response to things you don't like is to throw shade at me personally? You gotta do what you gotta do, hope you feel better, and it helps you move on from the 'Denial/Anger' stages of grief. Life Happiness Tip: stop watching MSM, they teach the arts of bias, personal insults and snark, not things to be proud of. Learn how to read and determine facts from opinion - the two are so easily confused.
Stop watching Sean Hannity.
Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia
*crickets*
Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.
As far as I can see the 'rest' of Russiagate is easily-spun conjecture, largely spun by triggered, hateful MSM. You'll see what you want to see. "Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." That's what I'm trying to do here, and I'll probably fail, people seem pretty invested in their opinion.
In the meantime, this is rapidly turning into Obamagate. Who knew and did what when in the O admin? Why are the swamp creatures suddenly so worried about facts coming to light? The same swamp creatures who claimed there was 'no scenario' Trump could win, his chance of winning is 'the Easter Bunny, doesn't exist' etc etc. And then he won, and 'their world ended'. Seldom have they been more wrong and never has it felt so good.
I'm glad O is gone and richer too. May the trend continue!
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367972-the-link-between-obamas-departure-and-your-increasing-wealth
Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia
Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia
*crickets*
Anyone watch Dirty Money on Netflix? Somewhat on/off topic. 6 episodes ranging from the VW scandal to HSBC money laundering for cartels/terrorist and the last episode is called The Confidence Man and it's about Trump's business empire. All the episodes were great. I highly advise to watch them all. It only solidified a lot of what I already know (I did learn some new things).
"An explosion of M&A action in big pharma that is our big story and we've got every angle covered for ya!!! Top gun activist investor Bill Ackman, teaming up with VALEANT, Canadian drug company to bid for the botox maker ALLERGAN! WE call it PhARmaPaLOozA what does it mean for you? This, folks, is POWER LUNCH, And this, Sue, is your pOweR LuNCh on drUGs!!!!!!
Anyone watch Dirty Money on Netflix? Somewhat on/off topic. 6 episodes ranging from the VW scandal to HSBC money laundering for cartels/terrorist and the last episode is called The Confidence Man and it's about Trump's business empire. All the episodes were great. I highly advise to watch them all. It only solidified a lot of what I already know (I did learn some new things).
The relevant facts that you are missing is that all four people you mentioned actively worked for the Trump campaign, and one of the two who pleaded guilty was appointed by Trump to an executive-level cabinet position after the election. That's huge regardless of whether this is all there is, or whether more indictments are forthcoming. That investigation has already proven it has merit.
Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia
*crickets*
Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.
The other relevant fact that you are ignoring is that there was state-sponsored Russian interference in our election. This has been confirmed by basically every intelligence agency we have, under oath and in public hearings. Whether there was willing cooperation on the US side is under investigation. It seems beyond bizarre to suggest that we shouldn't even investigate. That's what your so-called 'Russiagate' is; an investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election.
Finally I'll just reiterate how incredibly fast all of this has happened from a legal standpoint. In just over 7 months we have two guilty pleas and two convictions. It did not take very long as all to find criminal behavior that a grand-jury found prosecutable. Based on all other previous special investigations we can expect this to go on for at least another 18 months, probably longer.
Anyone watch Dirty Money on Netflix? Somewhat on/off topic. 6 episodes ranging from the VW scandal to HSBC money laundering for cartels/terrorist and the last episode is called The Confidence Man and it's about Trump's business empire. All the episodes were great. I highly advise to watch them all. It only solidified a lot of what I already know (I did learn some new things).
Yes! HSBC, Valeant, Scott Tucker and the Trump episodes were eye popping. I mean, much of the Trump and HSBC stories I already knew, but to see the pieces put together in one coherent episode - well it was unsettling.
I'm not sure that people who voted for trump will appreciate that final slow pan over the faces of mesmerized Trump/Apprentice fans.
These episodes left me looking at the progressive movement as our only viable way out of these messes. Once they're in office, constitutional amendment to get money out of politics, declare corporations aren't people, etc. (I don't want anyone to send me any stupid d'souza docs about how some early 'progressives' were fascists - IDGAF).
Any industry that is a public good shouldn't be allowed to organize as a for-profit. Non-profits can compensate workers well enough, and they don't require management to pursue anti-human projects for short term profits and growth.
Did you catch that Power Lunch segment during the Valeant episode? It was like a intro to a WWF match. This is what for-profit 'news' looks like.Quote"An explosion of M&A action in big pharma that is our big story and we've got every angle covered for ya!!! Top gun activist investor Bill Ackman, teaming up with VALEANT, Canadian drug company to bid for the botox maker ALLERGAN! WE call it PhARmaPaLOozA what does it mean for you? This, folks, is POWER LUNCH, And this, Sue, is your pOweR LuNCh on drUGs!!!!!!
I about fell out of my chair. People WATCH that bullshit? They think it's 'journalism'???? This is FOR-PROFIT SHOW BUSINESS - and shitty show business at that.
Consumer banking, news, healthcare,... any industry with regular decision points pitting people against profits, should not be for-profit. Political campaigns too-they should rely on public funding, not on corporate / private donations- WTF do people expect? As it is, for-profit corporations regularly engage in disinformation campaigns to keep us confused and thus,keep us buying their products. Just as corporate sponsored politicians engage in disinformation campaigns to keep us enraged and voting against the evil strawmen they draw in our minds on the for-profit news outlets day in and day out.
I cannot believe the bullshit we're living through these days. And as far as I can tell it's all because we're A) children of the television age and 2) we've been conditioned to glorify unfettered capitalism - "the less 'evil regulation' the better" - and support it without question. Who are the biggest modern day capitalists of them all? Russian oligarchs and Putin. It makes sense that many die hard libertarians are totes down with Russia Today (double meaning intended).
/rant over.
MasterStache you brought out some rage leading me to think about those episodes again. I cannot believe the outcomes. It's just ... ugly.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump
Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was. Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB. Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump
Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was. Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB. Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.
This is nonsensical to me. Are you saying that it's Democrats' fault for nominating someone thatthe Russiansliterally everyone but some Democrats hated?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump
Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was. Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB. Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.
This is nonsensical to me. Are you saying that it's Democrats' fault for nominating someone thatthe Russiansliterally everyone but some Democrats hated?
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020776/russian-indictments-robert-muellerYes, thanks.
The full indictment. It's worth the 20+ minutes to read the whole thing.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump
Said it before and I'll say it again, all of our problems are because of how lousy a choice HRC was. Keep blamin' Trump like you blamed GWB. Every time you annoint a candidate we all lose.
This is nonsensical to me. Are you saying that it's Democrats' fault for nominating someone thatthe Russiansliterally everyone but some Democrats hated?
I know a lot of Trump voters here in Michigan, and some of them are my friends. We just agree to disagree, but I don't mind engaging them in friendly discussions about the issues. It's especially curious that some of them need Obamacare subsidies and have voted against their own interests.
Special counsel Robert Mueller's interest in Jared Kushner has expanded beyond his contacts with Russia and now includes his efforts to secure financing for his company from foreign investors during the presidential transition, according to people familiar with the inquiry.
There's another guilty plea. Van Der Zwaan, a lawyer, lied to the FBI about meeting Rick Gates and the Ukrainians and "Person A."
Van Der Zwaan is an interesting catch. His father-in-law is German Khan, "is an owner of Alfa Group, Russia’s largest financial and industrial investment group" with close ties to Putin.
Trump's retinue is like a college apartment with 3 messy roommates -- you can't turn around without a (Russian linked) roach scurrying away.
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!
First and third, I think, and the shortest marriage in the middle was to the American born wife.I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!
Just to throw another log on that fire... Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries. The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!
Just to throw another log on that fire... Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries. The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!
Just to throw another log on that fire... Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries. The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.
Unlimited interest free loans with "no strings attached"?
The last episode of the WNYC podcast on Trump, about "alternative financing", has a good theory on sol's questions:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/trumpinc
Sure. The gist is that Trump seems to have been laundering Russian money through condos in questionable markets for years, as a way to get just enough money to convince others to give him more financing.The last episode of the WNYC podcast on Trump, about "alternative financing", has a good theory on sol's questions:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/trumpinc
Can you provide cliff notes for us?
In furtherance of the scheme, MANAFORT used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States, without paying taxes on that income.
Gates may be pleading guilty soon. He's under indictment on new charges of money laundering and fraud during the campaign (vs years before) and felt the pressure.
I've seen it speculated that Gates, and possibly Manafort, don't have enough good information to give up on Trump in order to do a deal. That seems to me to be quite likely: both of them only came in to the Trump orbit during 2016, and the Russians had their (financial, and possibly sexual) hooks into Trump long before that. Manafort left during the campaign, and Gates before Trump took office so any major crimes in office are out of their knowledge too. I suspect that they were put in place by the Russians (get close to Trump and we'll forget the money you owe us) as a further channel of control. They might have some knowledge of electoral collusion, I suppose, but without proof to offer Mueller he's probably just going to set them up as an awful warning to others who might have more knowledge.Gates may be pleading guilty soon. He's under indictment on new charges of money laundering and fraud during the campaign (vs years before) and felt the pressure.
I was actually kind of worried to see the news of the new indictments, because it means they're bringing charges instead of working a deal. If he was being fully cooperative with the investigation, and giving them everything they wanted, they shouldn't need new charges. Bringing new charges probably means the Mueller team is pissed, because this is them using their leverage against him. I'd much rather see all mention of the charges against Gates and Manafort go quiet.
I really really hope that Donald Trump is just an idiot who is being played by the Russians instead of being a Russian mole turned wildly successful. I hope he's a narcissistic grifter who is so insecure that he only cares about maintaining the illusion of wealth, and so took deals with the Russians and the mafia to finance his brand and not because he actually hates America and wants to tear it all down. I hope that his campaign staff were bought and paid for by the Russian government, instead of being true believers, and can thus be bought back. I hope that his affection for Soviet women is just a weirdly coincidental personal fetish, and not a sign of his affection for Mother Russia. I hope that his pro-Russia positions during the campaign were just poorly conceived rally lines designed to get crowd reactions, and are not reflective of an underlying affinity for the actual ideas he has espoused. I hope his plutocratic tendencies are genuinely homegrown American Reaganism style excesses, and not taught to him by Russian oligarchs. I hope, but I also fear.
I had the same takeaway from that thread as you. It's just Russians everywhere you look!
Just to throw another log on that fire... Trump is in so deep with the Russians that his last two wives are literally from eastern bloc countries. The man is in love with all things Soviet, and I've yet to figure out why.
Unlimited interest free loans with "no strings attached"?
Once US banks ceased funding Trump's shoddy business dealings in the US (again I emphasize Trump is an absolutely terrible businessman, and the fact that American banks refuse to give him more money is absolute proof), he sought it elsewhere.
There is video around and about of Ivanka visiting Baku in relation to the Azerbaijan deal so there is evidence of her involvement in the Trump organisation's corruption. She seems to have flown under the media radar rather so far on the Trump dodgy dealings but I'm betting Mueller hasn't forgotten about her.
Rick Gates, a former adviser to President Donald Trump's campaign, is expected to plead guilty Friday and cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, according to multiple reports.
So, here’s the essence of what went wrong for Manafort and Gates, according to Mueller’s investigation: Manafort allegedly wanted to falsify his company’s income, but he couldn’t figure out how to edit the PDF. He therefore had Gates turn it into a Microsoft Word document for him, which led the two to bounce the documents back and forth over email. As attorney and blogger Susan Simpson notes on Twitter, Manafort’s inability to complete a basic task on his own seems to have effectively “created an incriminating paper trail.”
https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/paul-manafort-couldnt-convert-pdfs-to-word-documents.htmlQuoteSo, here’s the essence of what went wrong for Manafort and Gates, according to Mueller’s investigation: Manafort allegedly wanted to falsify his company’s income, but he couldn’t figure out how to edit the PDF. He therefore had Gates turn it into a Microsoft Word document for him, which led the two to bounce the documents back and forth over email. As attorney and blogger Susan Simpson notes on Twitter, Manafort’s inability to complete a basic task on his own seems to have effectively “created an incriminating paper trail.”
Truly "the best people."
https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/paul-manafort-couldnt-convert-pdfs-to-word-documents.htmlQuoteSo, here’s the essence of what went wrong for Manafort and Gates, according to Mueller’s investigation: Manafort allegedly wanted to falsify his company’s income, but he couldn’t figure out how to edit the PDF. He therefore had Gates turn it into a Microsoft Word document for him, which led the two to bounce the documents back and forth over email. As attorney and blogger Susan Simpson notes on Twitter, Manafort’s inability to complete a basic task on his own seems to have effectively “created an incriminating paper trail.”
Truly "the best people."
Hahahaha. Is that for real? It's the 1st result at google.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+edit+a+pdf
Hahahaha. Is that for real? It's the 1st result at google.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+edit+a+pdf
Hahahaha. Is that for real? It's the 1st result at google.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+edit+a+pdf
haha I work in IT support- about half of my job would be unnecessary if everyone could be relied upon to google things before contacting us.
When will Adobe be outed as a pillar of the Deep State and a hotbed of liberal Clinton supporters? /s
Oh look - you can open a PDF in free LibreOffice Draw and edit the PDF. Imagine that.
Software probably written by a bunch of free software hippies gets the job done.
You know, the GOP ought to outlaw free and open source software like LibreOffice and Linux and all those folks...
Gates may be pleading guilty soon. He's under indictment on new charges of money laundering and fraud during the campaign (vs years before) and felt the pressure.
I was actually kind of worried to see the news of the new indictments, because it means they're bringing charges instead of working a deal. If he was being fully cooperative with the investigation, and giving them everything they wanted, they shouldn't need new charges. Bringing new charges probably means the Mueller team is pissed, because this is them using their leverage against him. I'd much rather see all mention of the charges against Gates and Manafort go quiet.
I really really hope that Donald Trump is just an idiot who is being played by the Russians instead of being a Russian mole turned wildly successful. I hope he's a narcissistic grifter who is so insecure that he only cares about maintaining the illusion of wealth, and so took deals with the Russians and the mafia to finance his brand and not because he actually hates America and wants to tear it all down. I hope that his campaign staff were bought and paid for by the Russian government, instead of being true believers, and can thus be bought back. I hope that his affection for Soviet women is just a weirdly coincidental personal fetish, and not a sign of his affection for Mother Russia. I hope that his pro-Russia positions during the campaign were just poorly conceived rally lines designed to get crowd reactions, and are not reflective of an underlying affinity for the actual ideas he has espoused. I hope his plutocratic tendencies are genuinely homegrown American Reaganism style excesses, and not taught to him by Russian oligarchs. I hope, but I also fear.
Officials from at least four countries have discussed ways they could use Jared Kushner's intricate business arrangements, lack of experience and financial woes to manipulate President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior White House adviser,
What I see on the Cyber Command side leads me to believe that if we don’t change the dynamic here, that this is going to continue, and 2016 won’t be viewed as isolated. This is something that will be sustained over time.”
NSA director Rogers' testimony on Russian interference was enlightening.
tl/dr; the NSA has been given no new authority or directives to combat future Russian meddling in upcoming elections.Quote from: RogersWhat I see on the Cyber Command side leads me to believe that if we don’t change the dynamic here, that this is going to continue, and 2016 won’t be viewed as isolated. This is something that will be sustained over time.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/27/nsa-director-mike-rogerss-careful-indictment-of-trumps-anti-russia-efforts/?utm_term=.0327854fa0b4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/27/nsa-director-mike-rogerss-careful-indictment-of-trumps-anti-russia-efforts/?utm_term=.0327854fa0b4)
So - why on earth would a man in questionable financial standing take a job without pay to lead a campaign which seemed destined to fail?
Open question: Will Trump lose the support of the military high command?
Since his days as a candidate Trump has surrounded himself by high-ranking military brass, and now the executive branch is filled with them.
Traditionally the military are the most loyal group of people to the office of the President - so it's struck me how many seem to be at odds with DJT and, worse, how many have permanently tarnished their professional reputations serving in his administration. If McMasters goes back to the Pentagon and Kelly leaves as WH Chief of Staff will other generals step in, especially after seeing how they were treated by this administration? Or will the 'call of duty' for these lifetime military men be too hard to break?
As examples:
Flynn permanently tarnished his reputation and plead guilty to lying under oath to the FBI
Rogers gave a rather candid report yesterday that the WH continues not to take the Russian threat seriously
McMasters was called out publicly by Trump after confirming Russian interference
Kelly is tied up with Kushner's loss of security clearance (and at odds with the Trump children in general) and tarnished his reputation being forced to defend Rob Porter.
Mattis seems perpetually trying to prevent the DJT from attacking North Korea, and quickly walks back every inflammatory tweet DJT makes.
QuoteSo - why on earth would a man in questionable financial standing take a job without pay to lead a campaign which seemed destined to fail?
nereo,
I've been thinking about your question a bit, and I wonder whether there aren't multiple corrupt threads interweaving in all this.
- Corrupt financing/money laundering related to Trump's international real estate deals
- Russian gov't possession of kompromat on Trump related to god knows what (or possibly just the Russians hating Clinton and wanting to reassert their power on the international stage)
- Manafort scheming to use his position to financially gain/repay debts to his Ukranian business partners as well as sell influence to other nefarious characters
They may all be active, but uncoordinated efforts?
Or put another way, is this all coordinated conspiracy & collusion, or just a bunch of unrelated illegal idiocy?
It means she's getting off of a sinking ship.
It means she's getting off of a sinking ship.
Hope Hicks resigns from her position as White House communications director the day after testifying (and essentially refusing to answer all questions) to the House Intelligence Committee and its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
... can't tell if this is a coincidence or related. If it's related, what could it mean?
I mean, what the everlasting fuck.
Oddly, he says "no one hates Trump more than me" and alternatively praises him and calls Trump "an idiot".
I mean, WTF?? This guy is literally daring Mueller to toss him in jail for contempt (which every judge would agree with).
As i understand it, you can be held in contempt indefinitely - so he'd just stay in prison until everything ended or he decided to testify.Oddly, he says "no one hates Trump more than me" and alternatively praises him and calls Trump "an idiot".
I mean, WTF?? This guy is literally daring Mueller to toss him in jail for contempt (which every judge would agree with).
Maybe the contempt time is less than whatever he would get for what he really did? Just spitballing here.
As i understand it, you can be held in contempt indefinitely - so he'd just stay in prison until everything ended or he decided to testify.Oddly, he says "no one hates Trump more than me" and alternatively praises him and calls Trump "an idiot".
I mean, WTF?? This guy is literally daring Mueller to toss him in jail for contempt (which every judge would agree with).
Maybe the contempt time is less than whatever he would get for what he really did? Just spitballing here.
“Roger is my mentor. Roger is like family... I’m not going to go in there for them to set up a case against Roger. Roger did not do anything. Roger and I were treated like crap by Donald Trump, okay?”
Here's the link to the New Yorker article which goes into the background on the published Steele dossier and gives details about the second Steele dossier which passes on an allegation that Putin vetoed Romney as Secretary of State because he had been hawkish on Russia, and wanted someone who would not interfere with Russia's actions in Syria and would lift sanctions.
Here's the link to the New Yorker article which goes into the background on the published Steele dossier and gives details about the second Steele dossier which passes on an allegation that Putin vetoed Romney as Secretary of State because he had been hawkish on Russia, and wanted someone who would not interfere with Russia's actions in Syria and would lift sanctions.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier
It's a single accusation from a single source, but all the circumstantials support it.
I mean, what the everlasting fuck.
Honestly, this is what pisses me off about politics in general and this threat in particular, and both parties do it. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand the first response is always to criticize the opposite party and insinuate that they are trying to intentionally destroy America.
One interesting point is that Christopher Steele had a 30 year working, trusting relationship with the FBI doing investigations both from when Steele worked at MI-6 and then later when Steele started his own private company. Steele is an expert on Russia's innerworkings - and the FBI would hire him for research. So when the Republicans try to discredit Steele it's clearly phony and political.
while the Dems use the moral failings of DJT as the primary attack against any policy he proposes.
while the Dems use the moral failings of DJT as the primary attack against any policy he proposes.
I'm not sure what you're reading/hearing, but I see plenty of counter-arguments to Trump's proposal that are policy-based.
Watergate, or a recession caused by a war, or a recession caused lack of financial regulation/enforcement.
Watergate, or a recession caused by a war, or a recession caused lack of financial regulation/enforcement.
We tried all of those, what else do you have?
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.By most accounts Tillerson has been absolutely awful as the head of the state department, and regardless of your political leanings its never ideal when the SoS and the President do not see eye to eye on things. Pompeo has been much friendlier to Trump than Tillerson.
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.
My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.
My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.
Dems will certainly use this as a way of highlighting Pomeo's connection with torture and extreme interrogation techniques. They wil do this to further paint this administration as one which violates common decency (even though Pompeo's been through multiple administrations). The hearings will be in the headlines for a while and make a bunch of people squeemish about this man leading the bureau which deals with all foreign nations... but yeah, in the end he'll most likely get confirmed unless he withdraws his name and/or DJT falls out of favor with him (either of which is possible with this administration).
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.
My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.
Dems will certainly use this as a way of highlighting Pomeo's connection with torture and extreme interrogation techniques. They wil do this to further paint this administration as one which violates common decency (even though Pompeo's been through multiple administrations). The hearings will be in the headlines for a while and make a bunch of people squeemish about this man leading the bureau which deals with all foreign nations... but yeah, in the end he'll most likely get confirmed unless he withdraws his name and/or DJT falls out of favor with him (either of which is possible with this administration).
Yeah. Because Trump's base actively thinks it's GOOD that with Trump we're tending toward authoritarianism and have no problems using torture ourselves and condoning it in other authoritarian regimes. And Democrats will yell about it, but ultimately they won't be able to do anything about it. And frankly, I'm not even sure they have backbone to stop his confirmation even if they controlled both houses.
So what does it mean that the administration is jettisoning Tillerson and replacing him with Pompeo? There have been rumors of conflict between Tillerson and Trump for a while now, but the timing is interesting considering the recent diplomacy talks announced between the U.S. and North Korea.
My guess is/was - and Trump mentioned it - the Iran deal, and probable trade deals are on the chopping block. Tillerson was more "establishment," if you want to use that term. Pompeo seems a bit more "extreme" aka more in line with what Trump thinks - cut trade deals, cut the Iran deal, etc. Obviously Pompeo needs to be confirmed, but I don't see why he wouldn't be, unfortunately.
Dems will certainly use this as a way of highlighting Pomeo's connection with torture and extreme interrogation techniques. They wil do this to further paint this administration as one which violates common decency (even though Pompeo's been through multiple administrations). The hearings will be in the headlines for a while and make a bunch of people squeemish about this man leading the bureau which deals with all foreign nations... but yeah, in the end he'll most likely get confirmed unless he withdraws his name and/or DJT falls out of favor with him (either of which is possible with this administration).
Yeah. Because Trump's base actively thinks it's GOOD that with Trump we're tending toward authoritarianism and have no problems using torture ourselves and condoning it in other authoritarian regimes. And Democrats will yell about it, but ultimately they won't be able to do anything about it. And frankly, I'm not even sure they have backbone to stop his confirmation even if they controlled both houses.
To be fair, Americans in general don't really seem to care about torture or other war crimes perpetrated on brown people with foreign sounding names. There has been no serious push to close Guantanamo bay or halt extrajudicial drone strikes from either party because there's little outrage at what's happening.
To be fair, Americans in general don't really seem to care about torture or other war crimes perpetrated on brown people with foreign sounding names. There has been no serious push to close Guantanamo bay or halt extrajudicial drone strikes from either party because there's little outrage at what's happening.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the investigations (plural) have reached a political boiling point over the last 72 hours.
Let's recap:
- GOP members on the House investigation committee contradicts US intelligence agencies by stating Russia did not attempt to influence the election
- ...then DEMs and a few GOP members refuted the GOP's conclusion in the media
- UK concludes Russia assasinated a double-agent on UK Soil
- US then joins UK in condemning Russia
- Trump asks Kelly to find a replacement for HR McMaster, who publicly stated Russian interference in 2016 was 'incontrovertible'
- FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was fired hours before he would collect his full pension
- McCabe released a statement calling his firing politically motivated and punitive
- McCabe supposedly kept contemporaneous notes of his interactions with Trump
- Trump counsil Dowd publicly called for an end to the Russia probe
- Trump criticized Mueller by name (rare until now), called McCabe's note's "Fake Memos" and claimed nothing had come from the investigation
- Putin wins re-election in a landslide
This - all in about three days. And this is excluding non-Russia news, like porn stars and gun laws and the Pennsylvania special election.
That's a lot to unpack.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the investigations (plural) have reached a political boiling point over the last 72 hours.
Let's recap:
- GOP members on the House investigation committee contradicts US intelligence agencies by stating Russia did not attempt to influence the election
- ...then DEMs and a few GOP members refuted the GOP's conclusion in the media
- UK concludes Russia assasinated a double-agent on UK Soil
- US then joins UK in condemning Russia
- Trump asks Kelly to find a replacement for HR McMaster, who publicly stated Russian interference in 2016 was 'incontrovertible'
- FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was fired hours before he would collect his full pension
- McCabe released a statement calling his firing politically motivated and punitive
- McCabe supposedly kept contemporaneous notes of his interactions with Trump
- Trump counsil Dowd publicly called for an end to the Russia probe
- Trump criticized Mueller by name (rare until now), called McCabe's note's "Fake Memos" and claimed nothing had come from the investigation
- Putin wins re-election in a landslide
This - all in about three days. And this is excluding non-Russia news, like porn stars and gun laws and the Pennsylvania special election.
That's a lot to unpack.
almost like it's scripted.
Talks about how the FBI is untrustworthy and how all these people were fired but fails to mention it was Trump who fired them.
Who pays for all these lawyers? Us the taxpayers?Cobb & McGahn are both paid for and are under the purview of the White House. They are paid out of the federal budget. Every administration has a WH legal council, but I think its new to have two (someone correct me if I"m wrong). What's interesting with both of them is that, because of their position as official WH counsil, the normal rules of lawyer-client privilege aren't as iron-clad. For example, Mueller or the Senate investigative committee could subpoena all of Cobb's notes. Much of what they do will be discoverable under freedom of information acts (though much is likely protected until after DJT leaves office).
Who pays for all these lawyers? Us the taxpayers?There's at least some reason to suspect the DiGenova was hired more to keep him silent about his role with the rogue NY FBI and NYPD agents who pretended to find new dirt on Weiner's laptop right before the election, forcing Comey to "reopen" and then quickly reclose the Secretary of State server investigation. Oh, and he and his wife provide legal representation for several other players in this whole conspiracy. I smell some convoluted attempt to block investigations from interviewing many key witnesses, including DiGenova himself. Trump seems to think he can wave his had and make anything he's done, even pre-inauguration and pre-election, go away by claiming executive privilege and attorney-client privilege. We are assured by many experts that this is not the case, and yet many in any position of power to oppose this remain quiet (and in my view complicit).
Olsen has gone on record saying he didn't accept the job. Looks like DJT's still shopping around for yet more advocats.
Olsen has gone on record saying he didn't accept the job. Looks like DJT's still shopping around for yet more advocats.
Why does DJT need lawyers? He should fire his entire legal team and represent himself, because no one knows more about the constitution and the law than Trump, believe me. He's the very best, very best.
And after he builds the very best legal defense in the world, democrats are going to pay for it.
Alternating, I hear there's a former judge from Alabama who is looking for work these days. Roy something or other, seems like Trump's kind of guy. I bet he'd do a good job.Yeah, a real "law-and-order candidate" - 'cept he gets to decide to enforce laws that aren't on the books and ignore ones that are based on his own personal opinions.
III. RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE
...
A. What Happened
...
Our security team has been aware of traditional Russian cyber threats — like hacking and malware — for years. Leading up to Election Day in November 2016, we detected and dealt with several threats with ties to Russia. This included activity by a group called APT28, that the U.S. government has publicly linked to Russian military intelligence services.
...
After the election, we continued to investigate and learn more about these new threats. What we found was that bad actors had used coordinated networks of fake accounts to interfere in the election: promoting or attacking specific candidates and causes, creating distrust in political institutions, or simply spreading confusion. Some of these bad actors also used our ads tools.
We also learned about a disinformation campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) — a Russian agency that has repeatedly acted deceptively and tried to manipulate people in the US, Europe, and Russia. We found about 470 accounts and pages linked to the IRA, which generated around 80,000 Facebook posts over about a two-year period.
Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a Facebook Page associated with the IRA at some point during that period. On Instagram, where our data on reach is not as complete, we found about 120,000 pieces of content, and estimate that an additional 20 million people were likely served it.
Over the same period, the IRA also spent approximately $100,000 on more than 3,000 ads on Facebook and Instagram, which were seen by an estimated 11 million people in the United States. We shut down these IRA accounts in August 2017.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/385602-muellers-former-assistant-says-grammatical-errors-prove-leaked-questions-came
An interesting possibility...
I'm still left wondering how this strategy could benefit DJT.
Trump's lawyer/"fixer" was on retainer to a firm owned by a Russian billionaire with close ties to Putin during the 2016 election and well into Trump's first year. He allegedly received $500k during the first half of 2017.Not so much draining the swamp, more peeing into it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb)
Trump's lawyer/"fixer" was on retainer to a firm owned by a Russian billionaire with close ties to Putin during the 2016 election and well into Trump's first year. He allegedly received $500k during the first half of 2017.Not so much draining the swamp, more peeing into it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-attorney-michael-cohen-was-hired-by-us-affiliate-of-russian-company/2018/05/08/12a218c8-52f6-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.511133422acb)
It willbe interestinggross me out to see what contortions the Trump supporters in Congress come up with to justify this $4 million slush fund started during the transition and continuing throughout the first year of the Trump Presidency.
"The senators found that the Russians targeted at least 18 states, and said that there is evidence that they also went after three others, scanning them for vulnerabilities. In six states, they went further, trying to gain access to voting websites, and in “a small number of states” actually breached election computer defenses.
In those instances the intruders had the ability to change registration data but appeared unable to change votes, the report stated. The senators cautioned that other Russian attacks and breaches could have gone undetected."
"The senators also sounded concerns on Tuesday about the shrinking number of voting-machine makers. The three largest vendors of voting equipment dominate the industry, and both the companies and their subcontractors that serve local election agencies are largely unregulated. That makes them and other vendors “an enticing target for malicious cyberactors,” the Intelligence Committee wrote.
A National Security Agency analysis leaked last June concluded that Russian military intelligence launched a cyberattack on at least one maker of electronic voting equipment during the 2016 campaign, and sent so-called spear-phishing emails days before the general election to 122 local government officials, apparently customers of the manufacturer. The emails concealed a computer script that, when clicked on, “very likely” downloaded a program from an external server that gave the intruders prolonged access to election computers or allowed them to search for valuable data."
"Russia Tried to Undermine Confidence in Voting Systems, Senators Say"
https://nyti.ms/2KMUn4U
"The senators found that the Russians targeted at least 18 states, and said that there is evidence that they also went after three others, scanning them for vulnerabilities. In six states, they went further, trying to gain access to voting websites, and in “a small number of states” actually breached election computer defenses.
In those instances the intruders had the ability to change registration data but appeared unable to change votes, the report stated. The senators cautioned that other Russian attacks and breaches could have gone undetected."
"The senators also sounded concerns on Tuesday about the shrinking number of voting-machine makers. The three largest vendors of voting equipment dominate the industry, and both the companies and their subcontractors that serve local election agencies are largely unregulated. That makes them and other vendors “an enticing target for malicious cyberactors,” the Intelligence Committee wrote.
A National Security Agency analysis leaked last June concluded that Russian military intelligence launched a cyberattack on at least one maker of electronic voting equipment during the 2016 campaign, and sent so-called spear-phishing emails days before the general election to 122 local government officials, apparently customers of the manufacturer. The emails concealed a computer script that, when clicked on, “very likely” downloaded a program from an external server that gave the intruders prolonged access to election computers or allowed them to search for valuable data."
"Russia Tried to Undermine Confidence in Voting Systems, Senators Say"
https://nyti.ms/2KMUn4U
I feel like as a country that we should be FREAKIN' THE HELL OUT over this stuff. I don't think most people realize how important it is that our elections are trustworthy and valid.
"The senators found that the Russians targeted at least 18 states, and said that there is evidence that they also went after three others, scanning them for vulnerabilities. In six states, they went further, trying to gain access to voting websites, and in “a small number of states” actually breached election computer defenses.
In those instances the intruders had the ability to change registration data but appeared unable to change votes, the report stated. The senators cautioned that other Russian attacks and breaches could have gone undetected."
"The senators also sounded concerns on Tuesday about the shrinking number of voting-machine makers. The three largest vendors of voting equipment dominate the industry, and both the companies and their subcontractors that serve local election agencies are largely unregulated. That makes them and other vendors “an enticing target for malicious cyberactors,” the Intelligence Committee wrote.
A National Security Agency analysis leaked last June concluded that Russian military intelligence launched a cyberattack on at least one maker of electronic voting equipment during the 2016 campaign, and sent so-called spear-phishing emails days before the general election to 122 local government officials, apparently customers of the manufacturer. The emails concealed a computer script that, when clicked on, “very likely” downloaded a program from an external server that gave the intruders prolonged access to election computers or allowed them to search for valuable data."
"Russia Tried to Undermine Confidence in Voting Systems, Senators Say"
https://nyti.ms/2KMUn4U
I feel like as a country that we should be FREAKIN' THE HELL OUT over this stuff. I don't think most people realize how important it is that our elections are trustworthy and valid.
The most prominent ad — with 1.3 million impressions and 73,000 clicks — illustrates how the influence campaign was executed.
A Facebook page called “Back the Badge,” landed on Oct. 19, 2016, following a summer that saw more than 100 Black Lives Matter protests, NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protests in August and protests over the police shootings of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Keith Lamont Scott in North Carolina.
The information analyzed by the USA TODAY Network shows the Internet Research Agency paid 110,058 rubles, or $1,785, for the Facebook spot. It targeted 20 to 65-year-olds interested in law enforcement who had already liked pages such as “The Thin Blue,” “Police Wives Unite” and the “Officer Down Memorial Page.”
The very next day, the influence operation paid for an ad depicting two black brothers handcuffed in Colorado for “driving while black.” That ad targeted people interested in Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X and black history. Within minutes, the Russian company targeted the same group with an ad that said “police brutality has been the most recurring issue over the last several years.”
I'm not sure that GDP is the issue so much as that Putin has a long track record of doing exactly what his is accused of in other countries. Marie LePen comes to mind if we need something else more recent and openly acknowledged. A great way to improve your standing in the world is to shift the stance of other nations to be more favorable, especially when one of those countries has the leverage to impose economically significant sanctions. Just to bring that point home, some of those sanctions were put in place (along with the sending-home of some 30 diplomats) were put in place in direct response to evidence that Russia directly attempted to influence our election (and no, not by changing vote tallies directly).
If this were McCarthy, the question would be: Do you love America enough to stand up to foreign fellow travelers and conspirators? A love of Russia is fine and protected speech, even for the president and I have no problem with that in a legal sense even if I disagree with it personally. If the Trump campaign played dirty with Russia to help win, or in a quid-pro-quo then it is starting to smell a lot like treason. It is not currently conclusive (just as the FBI investigation of Clinton did not lead to a trial or conviction), but there is enough smoke to wonder if there is a fire, so to speak.
Bold mine
But where is the logic? There is none. There would be only downside for Russia to engage in such risky behavior.
All the hoopla is inane hysteria; trying to create smoke.
Trump as Hitler meme has failed; now it's Trump as Putin. Whatever.
Russia as 'enemy #1' is 'tilting at windmills'. Russia is a convenient way to try to smear Trump.
Just more 'crying Wolf'
Obama+Clinton worked deals with Russia. Facts. If anything, if I was Putin, i'd be pulling for Clinton. A known, flexible candidate. Not the crazy Trump, no one knows what he's going to do.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
So after a year of investigations: Who did what colluding?
Samp-creature establishment Dems+Repubs (they are not so different, it would seem) and national security agencies, with their 4th estate MSM buddies turning a blind eye.
- James Comey prepared to exonerate Hillary Clinton before interviewing her.
- Fusion GPS executives invoking the Fifth Amendment.
- The Podesta Group coming under the scrutiny of Mueller.
- New revelations about Uranium One.
- Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Trump dossier.
- O Administration possible knowledge/complicity in some of the above....
Dirty!!
At least one promise was kept: that of O. to the Russians, to 'be more flexible' following the 2012 re-election :)
And so the worm turns....
wow, does anyone believe the trump/Russia fabrication any more? closing in on 2 years ... nothing? If yes, it's an act of faith and hope, one small step removed from religion.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-we-can-be-certain-that-mueller-wont-prove-trump-russia-collusion-595db7f1401b
The only collusion we can factually verify are various swamp creatures colluding to 1) sink Bernie 2) smear Trump the candidate 3) smear Trump the president elect 4) smear Trump the president.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Take a moment to review the genesis of all this 'Russia' hysteria: The DNC claiming they were hacked, screaming about Russia, while not allowing the FBI to investigate, at the same time rigging the primaries for HRC, in cahoots with their MSM cheerleaders. These are known facts, not speculations.
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/a-year-in-review-democracy-betrayed-by-democrats-not-russia/
Even Jill Stein points it out. Julian Assange has been poking holes in the establishment story this whole time. The Dems+MSM screaming not to release the memo, then claiming it was a dud, I mean c'mon. It reeks of swamp creature desperation.
Yes the election was rigged. Trump won anyway. Russiagate is a political smokeshow. Time to get on with life.
Life Happiness Tip: stop watching MSM, they teach the arts of bias, personal insults and snark, not things to be proud of. Learn how to read and determine facts from opinion - the two are so easily confused.
Russia investigation facts to date:
4 people charged with either/or 1) doing illegal things before the campaign 2) lying
0 charges of anyone doing anything connecting Trump to Russia
*crickets*
Correct me if I missed any relevant facts.
As far as I can see the 'rest' of Russiagate is easily-spun conjecture, largely spun by triggered, hateful MSM. You'll see what you want to see. "Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." That's what I'm trying to do here, and I'll probably fail, people seem pretty invested in their opinion.
In the meantime, this is rapidly turning into Obamagate. Who knew and did what when in the O admin? Why are the swamp creatures suddenly so worried about facts coming to light? The same swamp creatures who claimed there was 'no scenario' Trump could win, his chance of winning is 'the Easter Bunny, doesn't exist' etc etc. And then he won, and 'their world ended'. Seldom have they been more wrong and never has it felt so good.
I'm glad O is gone and richer too. May the trend continue!
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367972-the-link-between-obamas-departure-and-your-increasing-wealth
ah, the internet - where comments live on forever!
The Trump administration has eliminated the White House’s top cyber policy role, jettisoning a key position created during the Obama presidency to harmonize the government's overall approach to cybersecurity policy and digital warfare.
Happy Mueller Investigation Anniversary everyone...
what will year 2 bring?
Neato. So, the president of the USA is above the law then.
Neato. So, the president of the USA is above the law then.
Only if you believe Giuliani, which....
Ah, Giuliana - rarely has a person been supported by so many, only to throw it all away to appeal to so very few.Neato. So, the president of the USA is above the law then.
Only if you believe Giuliani, which....
Fair enough. I'm always impressed when he manages to complete a whole sentence without saying 9/11.
.
In making this all about and only about what is prosecutable against DJT we do a disservice to everything else that has occurred, and turn a blind eye to how easily hostile nations can influence our democracy.
So what's easier to effect, human nature or the tools. My guess is that it's impossible to change human nature so we go for the next best thing..
In making this all about and only about what is prosecutable against DJT we do a disservice to everything else that has occurred, and turn a blind eye to how easily hostile nations can influence our democracy.
We have a global information network in a society that values free choice in all its forms. People get to read what they want regardless who it is published by. The problem here is human nature, not the tools.
So what's easier to effect, human nature or the tools. My guess is that it's impossible to change human nature so we go for the next best thing..
In making this all about and only about what is prosecutable against DJT we do a disservice to everything else that has occurred, and turn a blind eye to how easily hostile nations can influence our democracy.
We have a global information network in a society that values free choice in all its forms. People get to read what they want regardless who it is published by. The problem here is human nature, not the tools.
Also I don't understand how your comment is a response to the nereo quote.
Of course they will make it all about Trump. That way people don't have to analyze what actually led to Trump being elected. That once Trump is out of office, everything will return to normal.
We will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)
QuoteWe will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)
Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it. What about murder or tax fraud? Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.QuoteWe will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)
Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.
Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.
So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.
It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it. What about murder or tax fraud? Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.QuoteWe will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)
Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.
Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.
So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.
It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it. What about murder or tax fraud? Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.QuoteWe will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)
Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.
Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.
So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.
It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I believe I am being practical. If 100 spies attempt to sneak in and we catch 85, woo! We caught the bad guys! But those 15 will still do damage.
Our government may be the most powerful on Earth, but it is still run by humans and restrained by resources. Humans make mistakes. Time may not allow for the investigation of every tip. And imagination can be lacking at the higher levels of our intelligence services.
It isn't about the "morality" issue. It's accepting that there are limitations on what we can do.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it. What about murder or tax fraud? Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.QuoteWe will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)
Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.
Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.
So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.
It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
I believe I am being practical. If 100 spies attempt to sneak in and we catch 85, woo! We caught the bad guys! But those 15 will still do damage.
Our government may be the most powerful on Earth, but it is still run by humans and restrained by resources. Humans make mistakes. Time may not allow for the investigation of every tip. And imagination can be lacking at the higher levels of our intelligence services.
It isn't about the "morality" issue. It's accepting that there are limitations on what we can do.
I see your practicality, and it is reasonable to an extent. It is a different thing when the people running for office are either complicit or so guileless that they do not understand when they are being played.
From the descriptions of the now infamous Trump Tower meeting, I can't help but think that they thought Trump Jr and Kushner were total fucking idiots. I think it was the worst combination of being both complicit and guileless for how these things work.
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it. What about murder or tax fraud? Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.
Under US law, the involvement of foreign governments or individuals in American elections is illegal.
It is not known if anything came of the alleged offer for assistance. The Times stated that Trump Jr responded “approvingly”.
Merry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5
Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.
Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.
Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.
Merry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5
Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.
Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.
Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.
The Clintons normalized it? Reality:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdrhoriVwAA6-wm.jpg)
Get out the pitchforks and torches gents! The israeli's offered assistance to Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/19/donald-trump-jr-meeting-saudi-arabia-united-arab-emirates-report
Merry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5
Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.
Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.
Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.
Get out the pitchforks and torches gents! The israeli's offered assistance to Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/19/donald-trump-jr-meeting-saudi-arabia-united-arab-emirates-reportMerry Christmas Glenstache. https://amp.businessinsider.com/bill-hillary-clinton-normalized-trump-2018-5
Nah. I'm just being smug because that Israel story shows we do not have all the available information. Somehow it got ignored in the Russia frenzy. Also now we have questions on if Democrats will be demanding Sanctions on Israel.
Do recall that there was a lot of saber rattling for Russia.
Or maybe we'll just get an endless cycle of investigations.
I'm confused as to what your conclusions are from the Guardian article. Information that suggests further collusion of a candidate with a foreign government in exchange for favorable treatment towards that country once elected tells us...? Are you saying this is good news for Trump? For Russia? Bad news for the investigation?
If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.
If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.
I think this is hilarious. Some people are so convinced that there was no foreign interference in the election ("witch hunt!") that they use the example of additional foreign interference to exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing.
"No officer, I couldn't possibly have been doing 75 in a 60. It had to be at least a 90!"
If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.
I think this is hilarious. Some people are so convinced that there was no foreign interference in the election ("witch hunt!") that they use the example of additional foreign interference to exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing.
"No officer, I couldn't possibly have been doing 75 in a 60. It had to be at least a 90!"
Actually I believe there was foreign interference, just no more than average. I don't believe that it was this "all out, blitzkrieg style, Putin behind every corner" attack.
This second meeting seems to flip the narrative around and raises more concerns that need to be investigated in uncomfortable places.
If you believe that Russia-gate is real because foreign interference in our election is intolerable, you can expect the Democrats to start demanding Sanctions, expelling diplomats and starting investigations.
I think this is hilarious. Some people are so convinced that there was no foreign interference in the election ("witch hunt!") that they use the example of additional foreign interference to exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing.
"No officer, I couldn't possibly have been doing 75 in a 60. It had to be at least a 90!"
Actually I believe there was foreign interference, just no more than average. I don't believe that it was this "all out, blitzkrieg style, Putin behind every corner" attack.
This second meeting seems to flip the narrative around and raises more concerns that need to be investigated in uncomfortable places.
Well this raises the question - do you refute the conclusions of our own intelligence agencies and the Senate Intelligence committee, or do you think that they've correctly assessed the level of Russian interference but missed previous, state-sponsored coordinated attacks?
Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?
Between known and unknown interference attempts in every election, the result is statistically negligible. At least not enough to warrant making America a police state.
The answer is "I don't know." I am looking for context.
Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?
Also historical context. Who did the Russians pull for in the 2012 election? How much did the spend? Was 2016 above average or below average?
The problem is that most inquiries run into a page of redacted text.
Between known and unknown interference attempts in every election, the result is statistically negligible. At least not enough to warrant making America a police state.
The answer is "I don't know." I am looking for context.
Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?
Also historical context. Who did the Russians pull for in the 2012 election? How much did the spend? Was 2016 above average or below average?
The problem is that most inquiries run into a page of redacted text.
Police state? Was the question even asked? Seriously?? I'm quite certain that our numerous intelligence agencies spend an great deal of time and resources trying to detect and deter just these sorts of things, and not just in this last election. The fact that the FBI, CIA and NSA and Senate intelligence committee have all said as much - Russia attempte to interfere in our 2016 election to a previously unprecedented level.
your argument here seems to be based on two assumptions; that this level of interference is common (only we've never learned of it before) and because it is common we ought not to care.
Even if both of those are true (and I strongly refute both conditions) - I'm not willing to accept that we shouldn't try to stop it from happening again. Imagine if the police took that approach to a serial bank-robber. "well, we don't really know if other banks have been robbed that we just haven't heard about, and it would be expensive and time consuming to catch him, so let's just go home"
I don't understand this sentiment, nor do I agree with it. What about murder or tax fraud? Just because we can't detect and punish all offenses doesn't mean we just accept that they happen and are fine with it.QuoteWe will always have foreign interference in our elections. We always have had interference. (Has context been provided for how much other nations spent on ads? And also compare it to 2012?)
Can any of the other Trump apologists on this thread not see the problem with this statement? There are (or at least were) rules in place regarding advertisements regarding elections, and registration of lobbyists, legitimate and illegitimate sources of campaign funds, in attempt to prevent untoward domestic and foreign interference in our election processes. Surely you are not comparing attempts at influence through these established proper channels with what Trump has done? Or are you claiming that we have always had candidates, parties, and their agents who are also agents (both registered and unregistered) of foreign governments and play roles in espionage and counter-espionage actions against US citizens, US organizations, and US governments? You ask for context yet don't provide any.
Essentially espionage was my point. Rules are simply walls. You can go over, around and under walls if you want to. Simply because our intelligence services cannot be everywhere at once we have to accept some foreign meddling.
So I would like to be able to compare Russian spending to Chinese or Saudi Arabia spending.
It would also be nice to know if they spent more or less compared to other elections.
Hypothetically, if China spent 500,000 on Facebook ads to get Clinton elected, would that mean they had 5 times the influence? Does anyone know that outside Facebook management? Was the question even asked?
You're making this up as you go along, aren't you?
Foreign government spending on American elections is illegal. It has been illegal since the advent of marketing. When it happens, it's by covert counterintelligence officers working under the radar, and whether they cost a thousand or a million doesn't make much difference. They're spies.
Facebook and twitter are, for some reason, exempt from the laws that make it illegal for foreign governments to sway elections. That needs to change first, but we can't even do that as long as potus continues to deny that it even happened.
The amount of spending on facebook and twitter ads in most previous elections was exactly zero, because they didn't exist. To my ears, it just sounds like you're trying to confound the issue at hand. Which is that Russia orchestrated a deliberate intervention in the US election.
No no you guys have it all wrong!
There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"
Come on, what don't you guys get?
It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.
Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.
Our borders are unsecured
No no you guys have it all wrong!
There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"
Come on, what don't you guys get?
It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.
Every nation on Earth has something at stake in our elections. Our borders are unsecured and with the Advent of the internet, we have more open avenues for attack than ever. Some avenues of attack that are purposefully left open by our own intelligence services. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7)
If a nation has the capabilities, why not try? Using Tor and other programs makes it nearly impossible to trace. Larger nations have resources or capital that we cannot live without so have leverage on us even if they are caught.
Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.
Our borders are unsecured
No, they are not. If they were truly unsecured the USA would have tens of millions of people coming into the States without formal permission, and it just doesn't.
In saying that they are unsecured you are denigrating the work of every person who works to keep the USA borders secure, and demonstrating that you are being willfully ignorant of the facts and being led down a policy blind alley by demagoguery.
The USA population is 325 million. Between 11 and 12 million of those people are undocumented: that is less than 3%. Perhaps about half of those may have come across the borders without documentation, the rest have entered legally and overstayed. Undocumented people in the USA overall have higher levels of education, commit less crime and take fewer benefits than the rest of the population, despite the obstacles put in their way by being undocumented. So while there are some issues regarding undocumented immigration across the borders, it is not at the level of "unsecured". (Compare and contrast with Europe two years ago, when some borders were opened.)
Please don't devalue the good points you are making by including bad ones,
No no you guys have it all wrong!
There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"
Come on, what don't you guys get?
It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.
Every nation on Earth has something at stake in our elections. Our borders are unsecured and with the Advent of the internet, we have more open avenues for attack than ever. Some avenues of attack that are purposefully left open by our own intelligence services. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7)
If a nation has the capabilities, why not try? Using Tor and other programs makes it nearly impossible to trace. Larger nations have resources or capital that we cannot live without so have leverage on us even if they are caught.
Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.
Yeah, because that' exactly what I meant by mental gymnastics *eye roll*
This brings the number of high-level campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts between the Trump team and Russia to 23. None of these 23 individuals ever revealed to federal law enforcement that the Russians were seeking to interfere with the election by aiding the campaign.
Yet over the past year, we’ve learned about a series of meetings and contacts between individuals linked to the Russian government and Trump’s campaign and transition team. In total, we have learned of 75 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia linked operatives, including at least 22 meetings. And we know that at least 22 high-ranking campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts with Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition. None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them.
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
Sorry ya'll if you actually trust the MSM, you're in a small and shrinking minority...
MSM and Dems seem to be locked in a suicide pact.
-Who actually had Russia ties? Hillary via Clinton Foundation
-Where did the 'Trump/Russia' story come from? Hillary, via Podesta
-Where is proof, actual verifiable facts (not just 'anonymous sources') of Trump/Russia connection? nowhere
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/
TRUMP’S RUSSIA COVER-UP BY THE NUMBERS – 75+ CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA-LINKED OPERATIVESQuoteThis brings the number of high-level campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts between the Trump team and Russia to 23. None of these 23 individuals ever revealed to federal law enforcement that the Russians were seeking to interfere with the election by aiding the campaign.
This is aiding and abetting. Remember when Al Gore's campaign got sent an advanced copy of W's outline/plan for the debate and they IMMEDIATELY turned it over to the FBI without looking at the content?QuoteYet over the past year, we’ve learned about a series of meetings and contacts between individuals linked to the Russian government and Trump’s campaign and transition team. In total, we have learned of 75 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia linked operatives, including at least 22 meetings. And we know that at least 22 high-ranking campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts with Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition. None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them.
The Trump denial plan:
1) No contact with any Russians (lie)
2) No contact with any Russians that we're aware of (lie)
3) Ok, maybe there was contact but it wasn't about the campaign (lie)
4) Ok, it was about the campaign but everyone does that (lie)
5) NO COLLUSION (lie)
6) Look, guys, collusion isn't a crime (lie)
How many Saudi and UAE contacts?
We assess 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. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton
No no you guys have it all wrong!
There was no Russia meddling. Well ok there was but there wasn't much to it. Well ok it was a big deal but they wanted Hillary to win. Well ok they didn't really want Hillary to win they wanted Trump to win BUT, it's no big deal it happens all the time. It's "negligible!"
Come on, what don't you guys get?
It takes some crazy ass mental gymnastics to try and defend the indefensible.
Every nation on Earth has something at stake in our elections. Our borders are unsecured and with the Advent of the internet, we have more open avenues for attack than ever. Some avenues of attack that are purposefully left open by our own intelligence services. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7)
If a nation has the capabilities, why not try? Using Tor and other programs makes it nearly impossible to trace. Larger nations have resources or capital that we cannot live without so have leverage on us even if they are caught.
Acknowledging that we are vulnerable on several fronts is hardly mental gymnastics.
Yeah, because that' exactly what I meant by mental gymnastics *eye roll*
It doesn't take much to be a hacker. Programming knowledge, computer with internet, time, patience and imagination.
Our institutions are under attack everyday from hostile actors. Most of these attempts fail. A few succeed, (someone didn't install a patch, malware piggy backed in on legitimate software).
Generally the public won't be alerted to or think about such things. If you suddenly zoom in on it, have radio stations, news channels and newspapers reminding the public every day that we were attacked, then people start freaking out. Peer pressure will make anyone who has questions look like a traitor.
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.
@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.
@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.
Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.
Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.
@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.
@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.
Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.
Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.
One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things. In normal world.
Well shit. I guess we should just throw in the towel.
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.
@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.
@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.
Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.
Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.
One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things. In normal world.
The world has always been mad. You just never noticed.
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.
@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.
@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.
Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.
Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.
One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things. In normal world.
The world has always been mad. You just never noticed.
In other words, they get a free pass. They sure didn't hold back with Benghazi. On all 8 investigations.
@Wexler Thank you sir. We can agree that we should hold our politicians to higher standards.
@MasterStache I'm not defending the indefensible. We can do our best efforts and still come up short.
@sol That is the thing I was talking about before we went on a tangent. There was a second meeting at Trump tower, this time with Saudi and UAE people offering help.
Now since we can agree that foreign intervention in our elections (even offering to) is absolutely unacceptable. So I expect to hear Democrats demanding investigations, sanctions and expelling diplomats.
Even our allies must be held to account for this ghastly tresspass.
One might also expect Republicans to demand the same things. In normal world.
The world has always been mad. You just never noticed.
In other words, they get a free pass. They sure didn't hold back with Benghazi. On all 8 investigations.
Speaking of Benghazi, Pompeo's latest testimony - thi time in from of the House Foreign Affairs Committee over the security of diplomats abroad - got pretty testy. Pompeo argued that diplomatic security was a primary concern of his and that his 45% proposed cut in security did not undercut this in any way. Rep Meeks (D - NY) and Pompeo had a testy exchange when Meeks said that Pompeo did not bring up security once in his Senate confirmation hearing, despite grilling HRC about it in hours of testimony and despite him wanting to cut the security budget by 45%. Pompeo countered that dollars spent don't matter.
With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?Unless he (and Trump) are being lulled.
I'm skeptical the FBI would take this approach - giving someone very high security clearance and access to daily presidential briefings would be too risky if they thought that information could later be compromised.With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?Unless he (and Trump) are being lulled.
I'm skeptical the FBI would take this approach - giving someone very high security clearance and access to daily presidential briefings would be too risky if they thought that information could later be compromised.With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?Unless he (and Trump) are being lulled.
As usual Sol - you've brought up a thoughtful counterpoint.I'm skeptical the FBI would take this approach - giving someone very high security clearance and access to daily presidential briefings would be too risky if they thought that information could later be compromised.With Kushner's new permanent security clearance approved, it would seem that he's no longer a focus of the Mueller probe, no?Unless he (and Trump) are being lulled.
You're all thinking about security clearances in the wrong way. A clearance is not a privilege, it is a burden. It subjects you to all kinds of rules and regulations, limits your foreign travel options, requires reporting of your personal dealings, and gives the government a lifetime option of interviewing and possibly imprisoning you.
In this case, I suspect that Trump basically voided the "access to information" part by just giving Kushner full access to classified documents, meetings, and systems. Whether or not the FBI thinks this is prudent doesn't matter, because Trump was just going to ignore them anyway. Since Kushner was going to be exposed to classified information whether or not he's actually a Russian spy (or whatever), it makes sense to then give him the clearance and make it official. That way you can at least keep tabs on him forever.
A regular citizen without a clearance who discovers classified information (say in an improperly redacted government report) and then publishes that information so our enemies can find it has not technically committed a crime. A person with a security clearance who does that HAS committed a crime, and will disappear into a deep dark hole. If Kushner is going to have access to classified information by virtue of living/working in the west wing, then I want him to have a clearance. Also an ankle bracelet.
Kushner lied on his SF-86 more than 40 times. That's a felony.Perhaps, but not the question I was asking...
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:Quote
We assess 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. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:QuoteThe Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton
To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections. For any presidential election.
Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:Quote
We assess 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. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:QuoteThe Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton
To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections. For any presidential election.
Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))
That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?
We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.
The words I would use to describe it are precise and unequivocal.Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:Quote
We assess 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. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:QuoteThe Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton
To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections. For any presidential election.
Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))
That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?
We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:Quote
We assess 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. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:QuoteThe Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton
To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections. For any presidential election.
Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))
That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?
We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.
Source?
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/389274-dems-after-briefing-no-evidence-spy-placed-in-trump-campaign
But this focus on whether DJT specifically - not just his campaign - colluded entirely misses the hostile actions of Russia.Good point.
Perhaps it is a good time to repeat what our own agencies have said about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
From the joint-report filed by the FBI, CIA and NSA in January 2017:Quote
We assess 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. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
From the Senate Intelligence Committee's co-chairs Burr (R - NC) and Warner (D - VA), filed just last week:QuoteThe Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton
To the best of my knowledge, nothing even remotely similar has been found and disclosed about Saudi, UAE, Israeli, or any other nation's efforts to interfere with our elections. For any presidential election.
Sources:
US Intelligence Agencies report (opens PDF (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf))
US Senate Intelligence Committee Statement (opens PDF (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOscakrJzbAhWSylkKHXaOClEQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fos-ghaspel-050918.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zdaiLmuv3MI3-FQQ5ZW3m))
That seems rather narrow and specific doesn't it?
We know there was an informant in the Trump campaign. One foreign company was hired while a second foreign company offered assistance. Niether of those were mentioned though.
@gentmach
I don't dispute that all countries try to curry favors with the United States, nor that multiple countries have had apparent success by personally appealing to DJT.
I do strongly disagree that 'using the same metrics' this is 'in the same boat'. It is NOT the same boat. We're not even comparing mega-yacht to a kayak. Russia has been revealed to have systematically broken both US laws and international treaties in a coordinated effort to disrupt and influence our democratic elections. By all evidence these other countries sucked up to Trump and got favorable policy responses. The former is nefarious cyber attacks; the latter is the diplomacy of kissing ass. It's entirely possible that Trump (the US president) violated the emoluments clause (we will have to see), which is very different from Russia's actions.
As I read your posts and the article you linked it becomes clear that you are, at least in part, talking about whether DJT colluded with other nations, and if so that he may have done as much with more than just Russia. Its possible and we shall see. But this focus on whether DJT specifically - not just his campaign - colluded entirely misses the hostile actions of Russia. Perhaps when you said "Russia-gate" upthread you were specifically talking about collusion; that's why I asked for clarification. Regardless, Russia's involvement been established by criminal indictments and by four major intelligence entities - so 'Russia-gate' resulted in some 1st-class news.
QuoteWe know there was an informant in the Trump campaign.
As there should have been.
Russia is the State where we have conclusive statements and mounds of evidence that they interfered, breaking US laws, international treaties and diplomatic norms. There is nothing even comparable for the other nations mentioned.
It seemed straight forward when it was only Russia who interfered. But now we have two other foreign groups that have interfered. Groups with possible connections and resources. It doesn't even need to be state actors to interfere because the tools are available online.
The guilty pleas appear to be more in response to the crippling cost of defense more than anything.I disagree. The guilty pleas are almost certainly the result of mounds of evidence and collaborating testimony that these individuals broke the law. Flynn & Papadopoulos lied under oath. Pinedo set up bank accounts under stolen identities, which were then used by Russians (in violation of US banking laws). Gates laundered tens of millions from Ukraine through several different countries while not registering as a foreign but working as a lobbyist abroad.
I provided the statements released earlier. The 'fourth' in my statement is the US Senate Intelligence Committee, an entity which has the power to investigate, subpoena and has access to classified material. The 17 agencies that NPR is referencing are are the 16 federal agencies that form the US Intelligence community plus the Senate intelligence committee, led by Dan Coats who has also released numerous statements consolidated from the IC detailing Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
The FBI, NSA and CIA are three agencies. You're saying four. NPR still says seventeen. It's getting confusing.
Russia is the State where we have conclusive statements and mounds of evidence that they interfered, breaking US laws, international treaties and diplomatic norms. There is nothing even comparable for the other nations mentioned.
It seemed straight forward when it was only Russia who interfered. But now we have two other foreign groups that have interfered. Groups with possible connections and resources. It doesn't even need to be state actors to interfere because the tools are available online.
If you are trying to say we must be vigilant of other entities, then I agree with you. If you are saying equivalent illegal acts have already been committed, what evidence can you provide?The guilty pleas appear to be more in response to the crippling cost of defense more than anything.I disagree. The guilty pleas are almost certainly the result of mounds of evidence and collaborating testimony that these individuals broke the law. Flynn & Papadopoulos lied under oath. Pinedo set up bank accounts under stolen identities, which were then used by Russians (in violation of US banking laws). Gates laundered tens of millions from Ukraine through several different countries while not registering as a foreign but working as a lobbyist abroad.
You can read each of their plea deals online and get a sense of what they did and what evidence was against them.
Generally speaking, people who are on the up-and-up do not go bankrupt defending themselves, because the charges can be tossed out. The insinuation that these individuals pleaded guilty because they could not afford competent defense counsil is aburd; Papadopoulos & Gates are worth tens of milions and could certainly have afforded the best legal council for years. Flynn is similarily worth several million and has a lucrative military pension. By pleading guilty they face jail time and (particularly Gates & Pinedo) massive fines; guilty pleas will actually cost them far more than if they had paid for top-tier legal teams and beaten the charges.I provided the statements released earlier. The 'fourth' in my statement is the US Senate Intelligence Committee, an entity which has the power to investigate, subpoena and has access to classified material. The 17 agencies that NPR is referencing are are the 16 federal agencies that form the US Intelligence community plus the Senate intelligence committee, led by Dan Coats who has also released numerous statements consolidated from the IC detailing Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
The FBI, NSA and CIA are three agencies. You're saying four. NPR still says seventeen. It's getting confusing.
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?You are not being logical. You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started." Do you see the problem with that?
^This... Plus... I'm also reading this very differently from you, @gentmach. The insinuation above is that TRUMP gave favorable treatment to specific countries after meeting privately with their diplomatic teams. Perhaps this is because he was persuaded by some convincing diplomacy, perhaps this was because he (Trump) was offered certain quid-pro-quos (e.g. fast-tracking permits for his hotels), perhaps it was because they had compromising material on him. Whichever it may be - and it could be more than one - this was diplomats meeting with Trump & his team to influence policy. That is very different from hundreds of state-sponsored individuals interfacing directly and under false pretenses with US citizens in a coordinated attempt to sow discord and spread false information about the candidates.We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?You are not being logical. You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started." Do you see the problem with that?
You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?You are not being logical. You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started." Do you see the problem with that?
You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.
Although I'd bet that Mueller has a pretty good idea by now.
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?You are not being logical. You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started." Do you see the problem with that?
You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.
Although I'd bet that Mueller has a pretty good idea by now.
I'm not denying there was interference. There was lots of interference. We just went over this.
The way I see it, Democrats have attempted to set themselves up as "Defenders of the American Republic." That where ever foreign interference showed up, Democrats would investigate, sanction and stop it dead.
Now if they sincerely believe that our elections need protection, we know their next move. Investigate. Sanction. Expel diplomats. And beat the drum til we have 5 investigations going on at once.
If the Democrats are covering for the 2016 loss while setting up for midterms, we might get a token investigation, no sanctions, no expelling of diplomats. Nothing as dramatic as what we got with Russia.
Now the ball is in the Democrats court to see what they will do. And considering Trump can't go anywhere without corrupting everything around him, those investigations should be gold mines.
Yes. Trump is corrupt. I understand that Russia interfered. This is more of a litmus test to see how corrupt our whole government is. (Russia being a relatively safe target while Saudi Arabia is probably a potential political minefield.)
Also a quote, “If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.” former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/24/the-clinton-campaign-warned-you-about-russia-but-nobody-listened-to-us/?utm_term=.f833841021f2&tid=a_inl
We've got a Democrat from the Senate intelligence committee's saying more investigation is necessary. The house Democrat didn't have the specifics. If they don't know the extent of interference, how can we?You are not being logical. You sound as though you are trying to say "we know that it started, we don't know where it ends, and so because we don't know where it ends we can't say that it's started." Do you see the problem with that?
You can't deny that there was interference just because we can't yet say how bad the interference was, or how many people or countries were involved.
Although I'd bet that Mueller has a pretty good idea by now.
I'm not denying there was interference. There was lots of interference. We just went over this.
The way I see it, Democrats have attempted to set themselves up as "Defenders of the American Republic." That where ever foreign interference showed up, Democrats would investigate, sanction and stop it dead.
Now if they sincerely believe that our elections need protection, we know their next move. Investigate. Sanction. Expel diplomats. And beat the drum til we have 5 investigations going on at once.
If the Democrats are covering for the 2016 loss while setting up for midterms, we might get a token investigation, no sanctions, no expelling of diplomats. Nothing as dramatic as what we got with Russia.
Now the ball is in the Democrats court to see what they will do. And considering Trump can't go anywhere without corrupting everything around him, those investigations should be gold mines.
Yes. Trump is corrupt. I understand that Russia interfered. This is more of a litmus test to see how corrupt our whole government is. (Russia being a relatively safe target while Saudi Arabia is probably a potential political minefield.)
Also a quote, “If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us.” former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/24/the-clinton-campaign-warned-you-about-russia-but-nobody-listened-to-us/?utm_term=.f833841021f2&tid=a_inl
If you truly believed that then there isn't any further discussion. Let the investigation play out. Stop trying to make excuses and label Dems. Stop trying to downplay everything and muddy the waters. You are playing the politics game. Not everybody plays that game. There are Republicans supporting this investigation as well. Remember over 30% of Americans still support this President in spite of the lies and corruption. That's scary!
Remember over 30% of Americans still support this President in spite of the lies and corruption. That's scary!
Remember over 30% of Americans still support this President in spite of the lies and corruption. That's scary!
It's not nearly as scary as you think it is. That's about the same percentage as pass basic high school math numeracy, and about the same percentage as believe in evolution. So when you think about, there's this ~40% chunk in the middle of the American spectrum that doesn't believe in evolution, yet still recognizes that Trump is a liar and a crook. That's pretty good, right?
I guess. I mean 40% don't believe in evolution doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But I get what you are saying.
I guess. I mean 40% don't believe in evolution doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But I get what you are saying.
Last I checked, it was 70% of people who don't believe in evolution, and 30% who do. And yet some of that 70% necessarily doesn't support Trump. That's the only silver lining I can see here.
I guess. I mean 40% don't believe in evolution doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But I get what you are saying.
Last I checked, it was 70% of people who don't believe in evolution, and 30% who do. And yet some of that 70% necessarily doesn't support Trump. That's the only silver lining I can see here.
I believe that has changed. When I looked at several polls conducted lately it looks like only roughly 30% believe purely in Creationism and roughly the same number believe purely in natural evolution. A larger percentage believe in God-guided evolution. Belief in pure evolution (non god-guided) has more than double since 1982. So there is hope.
More bad news for Micheal Cohen - ~300,000 of his files have already been given to the DA of the southern Distrtict of NY as potential evidence in crimes after clearing review of the 'taint team'. Another million digital documents are set to be released this week from three of Cohen's cell phones.
If nothing else we ought to give Cohen a facepunch for having three cellphones.
Paul Manafort has now been accused of witness tampering while under house arrest.
Inexplicably he allegedly encouraged several people to lie in their testimony, and communicated with them electronically. Somehow Manafort thought that his communications would not be detected, despite the fact that he's indicted on electronic bank fraud, tax fraud and money launderying (among 15 other charges). Worse, it was the people whom he contacted who contacted the FBI.
I'm trying to decide whether this was an act of sheer bravado, hubris or stupidity.
Reminded once again of the saying; It's not the crime that gets you, it's the attempted coverup.
Will this latest failed attempt (and a potential revokeation of his cushy home confinement) cause Manafort to finally give up and cut a plea? Will he try something even more stupid/desperate and dig his hole deeper? Will DJT pardon an indicted conspirator against the US and throw even more gasoline onto this dumpster fire? stay tuned...
Donald Trump wants to include Russia in the G-7Does this mean we finally have confirmation that Kilimnik is "Person A"?
Manafort Associate Konstantin Kilimnik Indicted In Mueller Probe
Robert Mueller’s team also added charges against Paul Manafort.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/manafort-indictment-konstantin-kilmnik_us_5b1ac1afe4b0adfb8268db07
Donald Trump wants to include Russia in the G-7Does this mean we finally have confirmation that Kilimnik is "Person A"?
Manafort Associate Konstantin Kilimnik Indicted In Mueller Probe
Robert Mueller’s team also added charges against Paul Manafort.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/manafort-indictment-konstantin-kilmnik_us_5b1ac1afe4b0adfb8268db07
Mueller continues to throw the book at Manafort. If he only gets the minimum on half these charges its still life for him. He's got to pray for either a pardon or a full acquittal... wonder which is more likely?
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!
This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)
You read that and go "Man, that is shady."
Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.
Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?
This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!
This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)
You read that and go "Man, that is shady."
Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.
Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?
neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.
Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.
*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.
First off - that's not correct. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty about lying to the FBI about a obtaining "dirt" on Clinton during the campaign. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. 13 Russian nationals and three companies were charged for election meddling.This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!
This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)
You read that and go "Man, that is shady."
Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.
Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?
neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.
Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.
*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.
In area's not directly linked to the 2016 election.
First off - that's not correct. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty about lying to the FBI about a obtaining "dirt" on Clinton during the campaign. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. 13 Russian nationals and three companies were charged for election meddling.This witch hunt has brought about 75 criminal charges against 20 different witches. So weird!
This Vox article summarized the situation pretty well. (https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion)
You read that and go "Man, that is shady."
Then you read this article in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-indictments-still-dont-add-collusion/) and the whole thing sounds like a paper tiger.
Also I didn't see the IG report regarding Comey's firing on here. It muddied the waters mirroring Rosensteins case for Comey's removal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/analysis-doj-report-clinton-probe-hits-its-mark-comey-n883306
)
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?
neither of those articles are refuting the 75 criminal charges that have already been handed down.
Again, they are arguing over whether or not there has been "collusion*" between Trump and the Russians, while ignoring that criminal wrongdoing has already been proven by multiple guilty pleas.
Regardless of whether Trump was involved or just surrounded by criminals through happenstance, the investigation has already produced fruit.
*even though its been discussed at legnth its worth repeating that collusion as a legal term is not a crime, whereas conspiracy and obstruction are. In that sense proclaiming "no collusion" is rather meaningless.
In area's not directly linked to the 2016 election.
So yes, some of the indictments and guilty pleas are directly linked to the 2016 election. Others (e.g. most of the charges against Manafort) are from before the campaign started.
Second - it shouldn't matter whether federal crimes committed are directly related to the election or not. Crimes are crimes, regardless of whether they happened in 2014 or 2016/17.
That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.
Regarding the 13 companies
"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"
From the Aaron Mate article.
Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.
Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?
"But Trump admitted that he was trying to stop the Russia probe." Yes. Trump also lies all the time. What makes that statement trust worthy?
I cannot believe I'm actually about to participate in this thread.... But here goes nothing!
The great thing about liars is you always get to hold them to their word. In any semi normal situation their lies or hypocrisies will at the least discredit them. I'm no lawyer, but I would guess whether or not he is a trustworthy individual has little to do with the legal standing of any of his statements of intent. I don't think there's any such thing as the "I was just lying" defense.
That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.
Regarding the 13 companies
"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"
From the Aaron Mate article.
Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.
I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing. It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT. Full stop. We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain. These two findings are not mutually exclusive.
In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States. Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others. Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years.
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.
So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away. Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign. It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.
That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.
Regarding the 13 companies
"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"
From the Aaron Mate article.
Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.
I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing. It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT. Full stop. We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain. These two findings are not mutually exclusive.
In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States. Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others. Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years.
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.
So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away. Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign. It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.
Zooming out even more you find some strange political moves. If Trump is half as dangerous as everyone implies, Congress should be throwing up roadblocks to stop him, right?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/congress-just-passed-terrible-surveillance-law-now
The FBI searches the information gathered in FISA as regularly as common people use Google. An amendment was proposed to require the FBI to get warrants. That amendment was voted down by Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.)
One bill doesn't mean anything. How about two?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-have-new-plan-expand-indefinite-detention-and-endless-global-war
Tim Kaine helped cook this one up. Allows the president to bypass Congress when starting wars.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/russia-probes-wouldn-t-expand-if-the-democrats-win-warner-says
"The top Democrat working on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe doesn’t see his party ramping up investigations into Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election should they win control of Congress in November elections.
Americans “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said Wednesday at the Recode Code Conference in California"
-Big Picture- You have criminal indictments. Lots and lots of them. Each one proving that Trump and crew owes *something* to the Russians. Yet niether group in Congress seems to be bothered by that. They keep trying to give him power. Also the *many* successes you point to does not inspire confidence in Mark Warner, who has access to more information than you do.
Is Congress inept? Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. These moves are dangerously negligent in that case.
That's the point. 75 criminal indictments sound impressive. Then you hear that it's procedural infractions.
Regarding the 13 companies
"Now that we can see all of the ads for ourselves, it is difficult to argue with Facebook executive Rob Goldman, who said that “swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.” The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found, according to The Washington Post, before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats: “A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren’t working for a foreign government.”"
From the Aaron Mate article.
Yes. Crimes are crimes. Just don't declare guilty pleas "evidence" if they have nothing directly involving the election.
I believe this is an example where concentrating on small details and refuting their importance causes some to lose sight of the larger picture - missing the forest for all the trees, as the saying goes.
People who less familiar with white collar crimes find the the number of charges filed first remarkable (75+) and then disappointing. It's important to keep the larger context in mind.
We know from statements made by our intelligence agencies that there was a coordinated and extensive effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election with the aim of damaging HRC and supporting DJT. Full stop. We've also seen from the various indictments issued by Mueller's investigation that there were individuals who also interfered in the election, but may have done so simply for financial gain. These two findings are not mutually exclusive.
In addition, we have multiple US citizens who were in close proximity with the current POTUS who have been charged with crimes against the United States. Manafort and Gates leads that list, with charges that include conspiracy against the US, conspiracy to launder money, failure to register as a foreign agent, among others. Each of these charges have sentences of several years in prison, with the cumulative total of around 80 years.
Flynn, a US General and the National Security Advisor plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian Contacts, which to be clear is an obstruction charge. Papadopoulos did the same.
So - "Big Picture" here - multiple people who helped run DJT's election campaign have been charged with crimes which i) carry substantial prison time and ii) involve dealing with and/or lying about their contacts with Russia. Nothing can wash that away. Guilty pleas are evidence of guilt, and both Flynn and Papadopoulos have plead guilty to lies made to the FBI during the campaign. The charges against Manafort & Gates are the ones which came largely from before teh campaign, but that doesn't make them any less newsworthy, particularly since Manafort, the man now accused of conspiracy against the US - was selected by Trump to lead his campaign. It's possible that Trump knew nothing about this, which points to some extraordinarily poor vetting on his campaign. Or its possible that he knew and either didn't beleive it or didn't care. Regardless, finding ex post facto that the person who very recently led your operation is facing 8 decades in prison for crimes agains the US would be considered a major problem for any large organization.
Zooming out even more you find some strange political moves. If Trump is half as dangerous as everyone implies, Congress should be throwing up roadblocks to stop him, right?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/congress-just-passed-terrible-surveillance-law-now
The FBI searches the information gathered in FISA as regularly as common people use Google. An amendment was proposed to require the FBI to get warrants. That amendment was voted down by Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.)
One bill doesn't mean anything. How about two?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-have-new-plan-expand-indefinite-detention-and-endless-global-war
Tim Kaine helped cook this one up. Allows the president to bypass Congress when starting wars.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/russia-probes-wouldn-t-expand-if-the-democrats-win-warner-says
"The top Democrat working on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe doesn’t see his party ramping up investigations into Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election should they win control of Congress in November elections.
Americans “will be tired of it if this is not wound down in this calendar year,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said Wednesday at the Recode Code Conference in California"
-Big Picture- You have criminal indictments. Lots and lots of them. Each one proving that Trump and crew owes *something* to the Russians. Yet niether group in Congress seems to be bothered by that. They keep trying to give him power. Also the *many* successes you point to does not inspire confidence in Mark Warner, who has access to more information than you do.
Is Congress inept? Trump is a dangerous authoritarian. These moves are dangerously negligent in that case.
Congress is not inept. It's filled with some of the brightest minds in the United States. Your pondering all presupposes that the Republican president isn't doing exactly what the Republican congress wants though. Not a safe assumption IMHO.
Well, that's disturbing.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trumpI think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trumpI think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trumpI think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.
Shhh... You're making too much sense.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trumpI think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.
Shhh... You're making too much sense.
Yes, but also grossly understating the power of propaganda.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trumpI think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.
That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference. However, note the following (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html):https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trumpI think Nate Silver made a similar point on fivethirtyeight before the 2016 election but even if Trump narrowly lost by a few 10K votes in a few states, it should still be considered a strong signal that something was awry in US politics (and I'm not referring to Russian interference). If Trump was a terrible candidate, he would have lost the popular vote by 30M votes, not 3M. When I see stuff like that from the New Yorker, I suspect it's part of a concerted effort to make excuses not to question the Democratic electoral platform and strategy by pinning the loss on a third party (perhaps an echo of Al Gore's loss in 2000). This elevates the status of Putin/Russia too much and is tone deaf to the reasons why the election was close enough for a troop of social media trolls to tip the outcome towards Trump.
Perhaps (in reference to the bolded section) you were using hyperbole, but if not I do not think you are appreciating the role that identity politics has on our federal elections. A lead of 30MM votes is a victory so staggeringly beyond what any president has accomplished. Total votes is not directly comparable without correcting for changes in the total population and the number who cast ballots.
Trump got just 46.1% of the popular vote, which puts him 3rd to last in the last 100 years. As a percentage of votes cast, Bill Clinton got fewer votes with a fairly sizable showing from independent R Perot (he got 19% of the popular vote) and Nixon ('68) got fewer votes with G. Wallace taking 13.5% of the vote and carrying 5 states. If we accept conventional wisdom that both Wallace and Perot siphoned even a moderate (25%) of votes away from the winning candidate, than Trump had the fewest votes by percentage in the last 100 years.
Bottom line is that a candidate from either party appears to be able to count on a floor of somewhere around 35%-40% regardless of who they nominate. Trump got only 46% of the vote despite running against a candiddate with historically high unfavorable numbers and without a sizable drag from the 3rd party candidates (only 5% of the total vote).
...it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump. Over all, almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016, either supporting Mr. Trump or voting for a third-party candidate.If any ads swung the election, I think it's more likely to be the $330M (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/) spent by the Trump campaign (plus all of the free wall-to-wall coverage of his various rallies kindly brought to us by CNN & Fox News...) rather than $100K in Facebook ads.
...it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump.
^^I was quoting NYTimes/Upshot and it is presumably clear to them for reasons given in the linked article
As we've been discussing, the Russians exploited this partisan divide to influence the election. Our own intelligence agencies have said so, repeatedly. Separating out the degree of their influence is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, but we know that i) it was illegal and ii) DJT won the election on the narrowest of margins
That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference.
Sure, I agree there are two separate questions involved here: 1) did the Russians interfere? 2) did the interference make a material difference. I think it's crazy to deny (1) in the affirmative; what I'm suggesting is the tendency to assume (2) was significant in the outcome rather than facing up to the signal buried with the noise of the Trump campaign. Come to the Midwest and tell the yokels here--as the New Yorker would like to--that they were merely fooled by Russians and see how many hearts and minds you win.As we've been discussing, the Russians exploited this partisan divide to influence the election. Our own intelligence agencies have said so, repeatedly. Separating out the degree of their influence is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, but we know that i) it was illegal and ii) DJT won the election on the narrowest of margins
That is a fair point, but in that case, it's still a much better explanation that Trump won due to partisanship rather than Russian interference.
FWIW I'm less concerned with the Russian's actions (after all they've been our antagonists for the last century) than I am with the degree to which DJT and his team have worked with Russia and for their national interests, often for personal greed.
^^I was quoting NYTimes/Upshot and it is presumably clear to them for reasons given in the linked article
Great, would you like to reiterate any of that evidence here?
The postelection survey data tells a similar story: Mrs. Clinton won Mr. Obama’s white-working class supporters by a margin of only 78 percent to 18 percent against Mr. Trump, according to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.
In the Midwestern battleground states and Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton had an advantage of 76 percent to 20 percent among white working-class Obama voters.
The survey data isn’t perfect. It relies on voters’ accurate recall of their 2012 vote, and that type of recall is often biased toward the winner. Indeed, the C.C.E.S. found that Mr. Obama had 54 percent of support among 2012 voters, compared with his actual 51 percent finish.
But the data all points in the same direction: Shifts in turnout were not the dominant factor in Mr. Trump’s success among white working-class voters.
why is there zo much anamosity towards new york fromm the midwest? particularly with a new yorker in the wh...?That's a good question. It's less about origin location and more about attitude. Since attitude is correlated with geographic location in the US, it's easy to conflate the two (I seem to recall WhiteTrashCash had some insight on this distinction maybe in his journal). I'm from California but lived in Trumpland long enough that (after a long period of adjustment, especially around the 2016 election) I was able to re-calibrate my thinking to incorporate the meaningful components of Trump's electoral success. It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).
It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).
Haha, yup!It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).
Trump can't even pass an ideological Turing test for Trump voters.
why is there zo much anamosity towards new york fromm the midwest? particularly with a new yorker in the wh...?That's a good question. It's less about origin location and more about attitude. Since attitude is correlated with geographic location in the US, it's easy to conflate the two (I seem to recall WhiteTrashCash had some insight on this distinction maybe in his journal). I'm from California but lived in Trumpland long enough that (after a long period of adjustment, especially around the 2016 election) I was able to re-calibrate my thinking to incorporate the meaningful components of Trump's electoral success. It's not about agreeing with Trump supporters; rather, it's about being able to pass an ideological Turing test (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html).
It's like saying - We are determined NOT to get to the bottom of this!
After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.
To be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI. And II.After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.
Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency? Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies. Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute. What has become of the republican party?
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /sTo be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI. And II.After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.
Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency? Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies. Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute. What has become of the republican party?
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /sTo be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI. And II.After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.
Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency? Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies. Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute. What has become of the republican party?
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Add skipping visiting Arlington to the list of disrespects.
Apparently rainy weather fronts make his bone spurs hurt. /sTo be fair, Russia did fight against the Germans in WWI. And II.After skipping the ceremony he was supposed to attend yesterday, Trump lunched with Putin today in Paris. On Veteran's Day.
Was there ever a more perfect metaphor for Trump's Presidency? Scorn our institutions and traditions, and break bread with our enemies. Tomorrow I expect him to burn an an American flag and do the Nazi salute. What has become of the republican party?
But yeah, fucked up that he dissed Macron because 'it was raining'.
Add skipping visiting Arlington to the list of disrespects.
Trump has worked so hard at subverting the rights that people fought and died for, wouldn't it have been more disrespectful for him to show up?
Really hope that people open their eyes before the next presidential election.Which people are you referring to?
well it's happened - AG sessions has been shown the door by Trump. Matthew Whitaker will be the interim AG, a man who has publicly mused on CNN that an interim appointment could allow the acting AG to defund Mueller to the point where the "investigation grinds to almost a halt"
It's like saying - We are determined NOT to get to the bottom of this!
The weather would have messed with his hair, how could he stand possibly stand hatless in the rain?
The weather would have messed with his hair, how could he stand possibly stand hatless in the rain?
I've blown multiple well coiffed people's minds by pointing out this is the reason the dumb MAGA hats exist at all. As a formerly insecure balding man I know the special dread of facing inclement weather in a situation where a hat is not acceptable. But at least I got over it after a year or two. To be that insecure at 72 years old is pretty pathetic.
Trump is back to punching out some batshit crazy Tweets about the Russia meddling probe.
Trump is back to punching out some batshit crazy Tweets about the Russia meddling probe.
Seems he had another 'Lester Hiolt' moment, this time with the Daily Caller. When asked about who he might select to be the next AG, Trump pivoted - without being prompted - to talking about the Russia Investigation and how it never should have happened.
He's practically shouting to the world "I'll do whatever I can do shut down the investigation focused on me and my campaign!"
Well chalk up another 'guilty' plea:
Michael Cohen pled guilty today to lying under oath to congress about Trump's real-estate dealings in Russia.
Well the cover-up is certainly bad (and incredibly poorly executed). Now about the underlying crimes...
The timing of this week's Special Counsel movements is very important.
I'm very interested to see whether today's raids on Deutsche Bank in Germany on money laundering charges turn out to be linked to Trump.
The timing of this week's Special Counsel movements is very important.
Did you see the news about Trump cancelling his meeting with Putin this week, immediately after Cohen reported that Trump was actively pursuing a Moscow hotel deal during the campaign while claiming "absolutely no business in Russia"? Of course, he blamed the cancellation on the Ukraine conflict instead of the terrible terrible optics of repeating a Helsinki-style Putin love-fest immediately after his conflicts of interest with Russia hit the news, but it's hard not to connect the dots on this one. Trump may be an idiot, but he's keenly aware of public perceptions of his performances. He is, first and foremost, a showman.
I'm very interested to see whether today's raids on Deutsche Bank in Germany on money laundering charges turn out to be linked to Trump.
I'm very interested to see whether today's raids on Deutsche Bank in Germany on money laundering charges turn out to be linked to Trump.
Don't forget one of Trump's former tax attorneys also had the feds show up, show everyone the door, and cover up the glass with brown paper to conceal their activities. These two raids are most certainly not a coincidence, and the Mueller investigation has very clearly crossed Trump's "red line" regarding his personal finances.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418928-federal-agents-raid-office-of-tax-firm-that-previously-worked-for (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418928-federal-agents-raid-office-of-tax-firm-that-previously-worked-for)
the Mueller investigation has very clearly crossed Trump's "red line" regarding his personal finances.
the Mueller investigation has very clearly crossed Trump's "red line" regarding his personal finances.
He's like a serial killer covered in blood when the cops ring the doorbell, and he says "Come on in, officers, you can look anywhere except in the freshly dug holes in my back yard." Did he really think that naming the location of the evidence was going to be an effective defense mechanism? Does he think he can just stop law enforcement from doing their jobs by telling them they can't investigate what he's done wrong?
This whole "red line" argument just cracks up.1. Yes.
[1]Did he really think that naming the location of the evidence was going to be an effective defense mechanism?
[2]Does he think he can just stop law enforcement from doing their jobs by telling them they can't investigate what he's done wrong?
At this point, I think Trump has abandoned all pretense of being exonerated by the investigation. He knows he broke the law in ten different impeachable ways, so his only defense is to try to convince the public that the entire FBI is just another liberal plot. I expect the Mueller investigation to publish a report with the full cooperation and backing of every US law enforcement agency, along with a bunch of foreign law enforcement agencies that also cite the evidence against him, just so that he can't claim it's a single rogue prosecutor making stuff up.
ETA: This nugget, reported today by the WSJ, just smacks me with the level of absurdity: the proposed plans for the 2016 project included giving Russian President Vladimir Putin a $50 million penthouse, long-time Trump associate Felix Sater said in an interview. Mr. Cohen loved the idea, Mr. Sater said
So: The GOP nominated a real-estate mogul with direct ties to sketchy oligarchs, who continued to do pursue business deals in Russia after becoming the presumptive party nominee and was trying to gift Putin a $50 penthouse to make it happen, and Trump has (recently and repeatedly) said he sees absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Let them eat cake?
After Trump has progressed from "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA" to "eh, maybe a little light treason" the Trump base is just waiting to get its talking points on why this is OK. I'm guessing it will be something about how he's a businessman and how anyone who objects to him brokering real estate deals in exchange for policy deference or giving Ivankas' husband a loan in exchange for a list of the Crown Prince's enemies hates capitalism and is a dirty commie. Also, Hillary once sent some emails, so checkmate.
After Trump has progressed from "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA" to "eh, maybe a little light treason" the Trump base is just waiting to get its talking points on why this is OK. I'm guessing it will be something about how he's a businessman and how anyone who objects to him brokering real estate deals in exchange for policy deference or giving Ivankas' husband a loan in exchange for a list of the Crown Prince's enemies hates capitalism and is a dirty commie. Also, Hillary once sent some emails, so checkmate.
I suspect his defense in this case will be the same one that Sarah Huck-Sands has repeatedly offered up at the white house press briefings: "The American people voted for him anyway." In essence, her arguments has been that all of these illegal activities were things Trump was well known for before the election, and by voting for him anyway the populace declared that they don't mind if he breaks these laws, so clearly the laws don't apply to him.
She used it with the DC hotel deal. She used it with the Saudi bribes and the Russian money laundering. She used it with the pussy grabbing and the adultery NDAs. It's like the entire administration thinks that the law doesn't matter as long as you win the election, because electoral victory somehow means the people support you no matter what. I suspect Trump is going to be outraged when he finds out that we're nation of laws after all.
Good TV ratings do not exonerate you for you crimes, Donnie.
Twice now, immediately before the summits in Helsinki and Argentina, Mueller has dropped bombshells about Russia. This timing isn't coincidence, so it appears Mueller has chosen to highlight the Russia issues when Trump is going into high profile meetings with Putin.
Everyone says that Mueller is a straight by the book guy. So why would he do something so deliberately disruptive? So calculated to weaken Trump's position, to the point this time of stopping him even meeting Putin?
The answer I think has to be that Mueller is stone cold certain that Trump is guilty of conspiracy with the Russians and that he is a traitor to the USA. He is using this timing to point out how big a security risk Trump is, in advance of being able to complete all the work necessary to get it all proven in court or in his report to Congress. There can be no doubt now that Trump is going down hard, with no escape. It's just a matter of time. And all the Trump businesses will be going down with him. That will highly likely take down Don Jr and Ivanka too.
I was brought up to believe that gloating over someone else's downfall was not a good character trait. In this case, I don't care.
No jail time for Flynn should make it even easier for Mueller to get Trump's long list of indicted buddies to talk . . . I wonder how they will balance that offer against Trump's offer of a pardon.
No jail time for Flynn should make it even easier for Mueller to get Trump's long list of indicted buddies to talk . . . I wonder how they will balance that offer against Trump's offer of a pardon.
Anyone with any sense would know that Trump's loyalty can change with the wind. I'm surprised Manafort trusts him. Manafort must really like his ostrich jacket.
Either that or they are both truly innocent.
Either that or they are both truly innocent.
Ummmm, Manafort has already pled guilty.
He also has a long and complicated history working for the Russians before and during the time he worked for Trump. I expect that his eventual convictions will directly implicate not only Trump, but a variety of Russian oligarchs as well. This is going to be one of those disappointing stories where the big murder-mystery whodunnit reveal turns out to be the obvious suspect from chapter 1.
In today's news, Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen is going to receive "substantial" prison time for the crimes he committed at the request of Donald Trump. Those crimes include campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and bank fraud, all three of which were basically Trump's bread and butter before he became President.Trump Twitter -did he cover all the bases here (no collusion, cohen's fault, Obama, witch hunt". Only new twist is admitting it and saying it is only a private transaction...
@acroy - still arguing that there's no evidence of collusion?He was banned a few months ago for repeatedly violating the forum rules, including trolling posters & threads
@acroy - still arguing that there's no evidence of collusion?He was banned a few months ago for repeatedly violating the forum rules, including trolling posters & threads
A bit of a shame, as his posts on other topics were often incredibly useful. But for some reason he couldn't resist popping in on threads he didn't agree with only to call the posters 'sheeple' and other insults without actually participating in the discussion.@acroy - still arguing that there's no evidence of collusion?He was banned a few months ago for repeatedly violating the forum rules, including trolling posters & threads
Oh.
Meanwhile, at his sentencing hearing, Michael Flynn and his lawyers are getting reamed out by Judge Sullivan (Reagan appointee). Sullivan is clearly pissed that Flynn's sentencing memorandum implied prosecutorial misconduct when the 302s about his interview do not bear this out. "How is raising those contentions about the circumstances under which Mr. Flynn lied consistent with acceptance of responsibility?"
Sullivan gave Flynn one final shot to withdraw his guilty plea, but Flynn declined and admitted guilt. Sullivan also led Flynn's attorney through a colloquy asking if it was the defense's contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime or that Flynn was entrapped by the FBI. "No, your honor." Flynn also admitted he "was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime when he did so over interactions with Russians.
The proceeding escalated from there.
Sullivan asked the government whether Flynn could have been charged in the unsealed indictment in Virginia yesterday, could have been charged under the Logan Act, or even "treason." "This is a very serious offense -- a high-ranking senior official of the government, making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while on the physical premises of the White House." Also, "so all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States."
The court is now in recess because Sullivan has asked Flynn to consider whether he still wants to be sentenced today, or whether he wants to wait until his cooperation is complete in hopes of getting more credit.
UPDATE: Sullivan granted Flynn's request for a delay in sentencing for the last modicum of cooperation benefit in the Virginia case.
Can anyone remind us of why Russia preferred the Trump team in the White House?because under the Obama administration, SoS HRC denounced Russia's annexation of Ukraine. Also, DJT had all sorts of COI with Russia (starting with his ongoing efforts to build Trump Tower Russia), which still makes him easier to manipulate. The GOP had spent the last two decades airing out HRC's dirty laundry, so is/was little additioanl leverage on her.
Can anyone remind us of why Russia preferred the Trump team in the White House?
Meanwhile, at his sentencing hearing, Michael Flynn and his lawyers are getting reamed out by Judge Sullivan (Reagan appointee). Sullivan is clearly pissed that Flynn's sentencing memorandum implied prosecutorial misconduct when the 302s about his interview do not bear this out. "How is raising those contentions about the circumstances under which Mr. Flynn lied consistent with acceptance of responsibility?"
Sullivan gave Flynn one final shot to withdraw his guilty plea, but Flynn declined and admitted guilt. Sullivan also led Flynn's attorney through a colloquy asking if it was the defense's contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime or that Flynn was entrapped by the FBI. "No, your honor." Flynn also admitted he "was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime when he did so over interactions with Russians.
The proceeding escalated from there.
Sullivan asked the government whether Flynn could have been charged in the unsealed indictment in Virginia yesterday, could have been charged under the Logan Act, or even "treason." "This is a very serious offense -- a high-ranking senior official of the government, making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while on the physical premises of the White House." Also, "so all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States."
The court is now in recess because Sullivan has asked Flynn to consider whether he still wants to be sentenced today, or whether he wants to wait until his cooperation is complete in hopes of getting more credit.
UPDATE: Sullivan granted Flynn's request for a delay in sentencing to get additional cooperation benefit from the ongoing Virginia case.
Meanwhile, at his sentencing hearing, Michael Flynn and his lawyers are getting reamed out by Judge Sullivan (Reagan appointee). Sullivan is clearly pissed that Flynn's sentencing memorandum implied prosecutorial misconduct when the 302s about his interview do not bear this out. "How is raising those contentions about the circumstances under which Mr. Flynn lied consistent with acceptance of responsibility?"
Sullivan gave Flynn one final shot to withdraw his guilty plea, but Flynn declined and admitted guilt. Sullivan also led Flynn's attorney through a colloquy asking if it was the defense's contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime or that Flynn was entrapped by the FBI. "No, your honor." Flynn also admitted he "was aware" that lying to FBI investigators was a crime when he did so over interactions with Russians.
The proceeding escalated from there.
Sullivan asked the government whether Flynn could have been charged in the unsealed indictment in Virginia yesterday, could have been charged under the Logan Act, or even "treason." "This is a very serious offense -- a high-ranking senior official of the government, making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while on the physical premises of the White House." Also, "so all along you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country, while serving as the National Security Advisor to the president of the United States."
The court is now in recess because Sullivan has asked Flynn to consider whether he still wants to be sentenced today, or whether he wants to wait until his cooperation is complete in hopes of getting more credit.
UPDATE: Sullivan granted Flynn's request for a delay in sentencing to get additional cooperation benefit from the ongoing Virginia case.
Two things stood out to be during Flynn's court appearance:
1) the judge at one point asked the prosecution whether Flynn could be charged "for treason"
2) In response to Flynn Acknowledging that he worked to further Turkey's national interests while serving as the National Security Advisor to Trump, Judge Sullivan* pointed to an American flag behind him and said: "Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably you sold your country out.
"
Talk about a bad day in court...
*District court judge Emmet G. Sullivan is a republican first appointed by Reagan in '84, then by Bush Sr in 1992.
Not great! That said, federal sentencing hearings are often theater. For a variety of reasons, the judges' comments are meanest when they're about to go light on you.
The Kremlin, who has been backing Syrian president President Bashar al-Assad at at odds with the US position, must be thrilled that DJT has decided to abruptly pull all troops out of Syria, against the advice of his own Sec of Defense.
Vladdy must be tickled pink. Merry Christmas Russia!
"'Donald’s right, and I agree with him,' Mr. Putin said."Putin began his adult life as a KGB agent specializing in counter-intelligence for 25 years. Since then he's been in politics. I'm certain his every word in such a statement is intentional.
There's something about just using his first name in that context that is so dismissive. And I'm absolutely sure it was intended to be so.
But was that drafted before the formal announcement? Asking for a friend.The Kremlin, who has been backing Syrian president President Bashar al-Assad at at odds with the US position, must be thrilled that DJT has decided to abruptly pull all troops out of Syria, against the advice of his own Sec of Defense.
Vladdy must be tickled pink. Merry Christmas Russia!
Russia has already released a public statement praising Trump's decision to abandon Syria.
I assume country A is RussiaCertainly possible, but I too suspect it's Russia. But suppose it isn't - holy crap that could be a new can of worms for this WH.
But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
I assume country A is RussiaCertainly possible, but I too suspect it's Russia. But suppose it isn't - holy crap that could be a new can of worms for this WH.
But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
I assume country A is RussiaCertainly possible, but I too suspect it's Russia. But suppose it isn't - holy crap that could be a new can of worms for this WH.
But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
Well it's definitely not Costa Rica.
Other leading possibilities are that it's...
...
Israel is also higher on the suspect list than is China. There are a few Russian technology and hacking firms that I've seen mentioned as suspects, too. My guess is that the real story is some combination of all of the above, though the current court battle over Country A is just a part of it. Mueller appears to be piecing together a complex web of connections in which Russian assets were used to fund coordination between a variety of international partners to hack and then release DNC emails and then use that information on social media in coordination with the campaign's public messaging. Trump's family and several of his top aides were paid handsomely for their cooperation, though some of them were merely promised payments that then never materialized.
Based on the sheer number of indictments, the longstanding (and busy!) grand jury and the size and complexity of Mueller's team I'm pretty confident that he's going to uncover an absolute hoard of illicit and illegal behavior by multiple persons.
What happens to Donald Trump after that is kind of a footnote. America has already lost this game, for now.He's a 72 year old fat bastard with a terrible diet and lifestyle. I doubt he will be around by the time the wheels of justice are done turning, if ever.
What happens to Donald Trump after that is kind of a footnote. America has already lost this game, for now.He's a 72 year old fat bastard with a terrible diet and lifestyle. I doubt he will be around by the time the wheels of justice are done turning, if ever.
A more fitting punishment would be to sentence Donald Trump to personally build the wall between the US and Mexico with his own hands and money.
A more fitting punishment would be to sentence Donald Trump to personally build the wall between the US and Mexico with his own hands and money.
that would still be a waste of money for at least 1,000 miles of border.
It would also be an environmental catastrophy, fragmenting the habitat of a whole suite of wild and often endangered creatures.
I'm pretty certain if left to Trump there would be a big gawdy ribbon cutting ceremony around a guilded concrete barrier of enormous proportions, and only later would we learn that most of it was cardboard and that it tapered into nothingness only a few miles away. Like the Disney Theme-park (or Trump Casino) version of a wall - all show , little substance and no function.A more fitting punishment would be to sentence Donald Trump to personally build the wall between the US and Mexico with his own hands and money.
that would still be a waste of money for at least 1,000 miles of border.
It would also be an environmental catastrophy, fragmenting the habitat of a whole suite of wild and often endangered creatures.
I think you are vastly overestimating the productivity and work ethic of Mr. Trump.
So the big takeaway from all of this insanity is that there exists a tremendous amount of white collar corruption and crime in the world. I suspect Trump is just a wee fraction of the overall mess.
I am also pretty sure he and his associates could have carried on blithely breaking laws and barely covering them up for the rest of their lives if they hadn't gotten overconfident and decided that the next smart thing to steal would be the White House. One by one all of these crooked thieves are 'looking astonished' that the FBI and others are actually paying attention to their shenanigans instead of ignoring them to focus on simpler crimes (i.e. murder, bank robbery etc) that are easier to prosecute.
...
I assume country A is RussiaCertainly possible, but I too suspect it's Russia. But suppose it isn't - holy crap that could be a new can of worms for this WH.
But I could also imagine any number of countries have state owned enterprises that might try to influence the US election, China, Iran, etc.
Well it's definitely not Costa Rica.
Other leading possibilities are that it's...
1. Germany and Deutsche Bank, and is related to the loans they gave Trump as part of their ongoing money laundering investigation. Money they laundered for Russian organized crime, in part by giving it to Donald Trump as loans for properties he then sold back to those same Russians. It's a classic scheme, familiar to white collar criminals all over the world.
So the big takeaway from all of this insanity is that there exists a tremendous amount of white collar corruption and crime in the world. I suspect Trump is just a wee fraction of the overall mess.
I am also pretty sure he and his associates could have carried on blithely breaking laws and barely covering them up for the rest of their lives if they hadn't gotten overconfident and decided that the next smart thing to steal would be the White House. One by one all of these crooked thieves are 'looking astonished' that the FBI and others are actually paying attention to their shenanigans instead of ignoring them to focus on simpler crimes (i.e. murder, bank robbery etc) that are easier to prosecute.
The best possible outcome for this process is a wholesale cleaning house and a massive daylight process of cleaning up international finance. If we need to toss a significant percentage of Wall Street and K Street into jail to do it then more the better.
The more likely outcome is a fizzling out of Trump's presidency, a few token convictions (likely including some Trumps) and a 'looking forward not back' sellout of justice by whoever is elected next. The white collar crime world will be a bit more careful until the heat dies down, then they will get back to their old shenanigans and we will all carry on as if it never happened (until the next time, at which point we will be shocked and astonished all over again).
That the corporation cares about compliance with a US ruling enough to appeal to our Supreme Court suggests that it might be a pawn in all this rather than directly backed by Putin.
That the corporation cares about compliance with a US ruling enough to appeal to our Supreme Court suggests that it might be a pawn in all this rather than directly backed by Putin.
Or that the corporation has assets in the US that it doesn't want to risk.
More shoes dropping...
According to Buzzfeed, President Trump (yes, while serving as President) directed his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, “to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.” Mueller allegedly learned about this directive through internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents”, which Cohen later verified under questioning by the special council.
If this reporting is accurate this a the textbook definition of obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.
Most intriguing is that Cohen's testimony seems to be backstopped by a cache of communications now in the special council's hands.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash)
This is my shocked face. /s
I think this is the thing with Mueller. He understands how large distributed criminal organizations work and how to back things up and corroborate them. I mentioned this over in the 'speculate' thread, but I see a real possibility that Mueller could build a RICO case against Trump/Kusher/et al assets if there is significant money laundering and fraud. That would not require an indictment against the person who is president. In itself, that would be satisfying, but could also provide an exceptionally long lever on Trump towards resignation.
This is my shocked face. /s
I think this is the thing with Mueller. He understands how large distributed criminal organizations work and how to back things up and corroborate them. I mentioned this over in the 'speculate' thread, but I see a real possibility that Mueller could build a RICO case against Trump/Kusher/et al assets if there is significant money laundering and fraud. That would not require an indictment against the person who is president. In itself, that would be satisfying, but could also provide an exceptionally long lever on Trump towards resignation.
I believe the theory going around on Twitter for quite a while is that there is already a RICO case against Trump in NY (specifically so that it can't be pardoned). I used to call the accounts reporting this/similar things, "Russia Conspiracy Theory Twitter" -but at this point some of these folks have been right more often than not so now I just say Twitter :)
This is my shocked face. /s
I think this is the thing with Mueller. He understands how large distributed criminal organizations work and how to back things up and corroborate them. I mentioned this over in the 'speculate' thread, but I see a real possibility that Mueller could build a RICO case against Trump/Kusher/et al assets if there is significant money laundering and fraud. That would not require an indictment against the person who is president. In itself, that would be satisfying, but could also provide an exceptionally long lever on Trump towards resignation.
I believe the theory going around on Twitter for quite a while is that there is already a RICO case against Trump in NY (specifically so that it can't be pardoned). I used to call the accounts reporting this/similar things, "Russia Conspiracy Theory Twitter" -but at this point some of these folks have been right more often than not so now I just say Twitter :)
Fivethirtyeight has a blog about it. It's far easier to go after Trump's businesses than Trump himself, at least while he's a sitting President.
Look at the Trump Foundation. The court told it to shut down but only with court supervision. It had almost $2M in assets at the end, which was considered at risk of being spent on more Trump portraits.
Trump thought he was going to catapult himself into the realms of the plutocrats. Instead, he may end up bankrupting himself -- permanently.
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7. It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.
That's less than three weeks away.
The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?
I wonder who is more nervous, Trump or Cohen?
I wonder who is more nervous, Trump or Cohen?
Cohen already knows how he is cooked. Trump or Melania is the better question. Think she'd stay with him if he became damaged goods?
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7. It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.
That's less than three weeks away.
The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7. It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.
That's less than three weeks away.
The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?
Well, he could try to have him killed.
He could do what he's doing, which is to threaten MC's family members via Twitter. Stochastic terrorism.
I wonder who is more nervous, Trump or Cohen?
Cohen already knows how he is cooked. Trump or Melania is the better question. Think she'd stay with him if he became damaged goods?
How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now?
Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 7. It's essentially guaranteed that the committee will ask him about being directed by Trump to lie under oath to Congress about ongoing negotiations with Russia while Trump was president.
That's less than three weeks away.
The next three weeks are going to be very interesting. How will the WH attempt to keep him from testifying now? What lengths will they go to discredit Trump's former lawyer of several decades?
Well, he could try to have him killed.
He could do what he's doing, which is to threaten MC's family members via Twitter. Stochastic terrorism.
I figure Trump will take him out with a drone. Bush and Obama both executed people extra-judicially at whim via drone strike, so I don't see why Trump would be barred from doing the same.
Another indictment - long time advisor Roger Stone. Stone was in contact with 'Guccifer 2.0', a Twitter persona that U.S. intelligence officials say was a front operated by Russian military officers who conspired to hack Democratic emails.
This ought to make for an interesting Friday in Trumpworld.
ETA: Stone is being indicted on 7 counts. Count one is obstruction, counts 2-6 is providing false statements, count 7 is witness tampering.
Full indictment is here (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/roger-stone-indictment/3410/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_pdf-indictment-642am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans). (sorry, paywall)
Maybe he was ordering a pizza from Dominos.Another indictment - long time advisor Roger Stone. Stone was in contact with 'Guccifer 2.0', a Twitter persona that U.S. intelligence officials say was a front operated by Russian military officers who conspired to hack Democratic emails.
This ought to make for an interesting Friday in Trumpworld.
ETA: Stone is being indicted on 7 counts. Count one is obstruction, counts 2-6 is providing false statements, count 7 is witness tampering.
Full indictment is here (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/roger-stone-indictment/3410/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_pdf-indictment-642am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans). (sorry, paywall)
One interesting point is that Stone was not part of the official Trump campaign at the time of the Wikileaks disclosures, which means that the nexus between the Russian contacts in the Trump campaign and the Wikileaks disclosures was probably Trump himself. It will be interesting to see what phone calls Stone made to "Blocked telephone number no.1" at the time of the Wikileaks disclosures.
Damned witch hunt. Where's the collusion????!!!
Damned witch hunt. Where's the collusion????!!!
This is like shouting "where are the animals????!!!" when visiting a zoo. Motherfucker, this whole place exists for the sole purpose of the thing you're suggesting doesn't exist.
Adding this update on Kushner's security clearance lest it fall through the cracks of this shitstorm of an administration:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/jared-kushner-security-clearance
Apparently the only reason Kushner got his clearances approved was because a political appointee overruled career security clearance personnel.
cool cool cool cool https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html
Another big development:
the US attorney's office of the Southern District of NY (SDNY) issued a widespread subpoena for documents on Trump's inaugural committee, with a focus on donations and spending. According to the subpoena they are investigating crimes related to 'conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, false statements, wire fraud and money laundering'. The focus on donor roles and their country of origin suggests that the campaign may have accepted money from foreign entities (which is also a crime). Curiously, the subpoena specifically requests ''all communications' from one specific donor, a venture capitalist from Los Angeles, which donated $900,000 to the inaugural committee.
Like Capone, Trump's empire will get taken down by financial crimes. Like OJ, he'll retreat to Florida to hide his assets.You left out:
Which brings up his taxes. The IRS knows so presumably a 3-letter agency also knows what's in them.
Why the reluctance to release them?
1) The empire has no clothes. His income has been declining for years. Maybe a trust fund is funding his lifestyle instead of his business acumen.
2) Someone with a Slavic name holds his mortgage and other liens.
3) It's a huge troll to waste Dem's time and political capital.
Why the reluctance to release them?You left out:
1) The empire has no clothes. His income has been declining for years. Maybe a trust fund is funding his lifestyle instead of his business acumen.
2) Someone with a Slavic name holds his mortgage and other liens.
3) It's a huge troll to waste Dem's time and political capital.
4) both DJT and his company have violated so many laws that releasing them would reveal his 'success' was being a crook.
Reporting by the NYTimes (and subsequently partially substantiated by the SDNY) showed how Trump and his family ran an illegal tax dodge to avoid paying hundreds of millions. The latest purge of undocumented workers by Trump properties suggests his businesses may have benefited by the intensional exploitation of a frequent scape-goat of his.
And of course there's
5) he has all sorts of undisclosed interests in foreign investments which might shed light onto why he's favored a particular company or brow-beaten another. Do any of his holdings benefit from the trade his trade tariffs (e.g. US Steel)? How many of his properties are being propped up by special interest groups and foreign governments?
My personal bet is that it's a combination of 1, 4 and 5. He's not as rich as he claims he is (TEN BILLION DOLLARS!!) and much of what he has he's failed to pay taxes on and has broken many laws to get it. And he's not above using his position as President to earn money for himself.
An irony completely lost on DJT is that many of these laws are there to protect the individual as well as the country.. But he's so arrogant I think he only sees them as a barrier which he should sidestep as long as he thinks no one will find out.
To my knowledge, the only people who have claimed Trump was under an audit have been Trump and his spokespeople. The IRS doesn't comment and he hasn't provided any evidence that he has been under audit. The Trump Organization is also a sprawling mass of LLCs and authorized licensees. Perhaps intentionally the actions of one part is hidden from another (and the IRS)
Perhaps his returns would wilt under external investigation but obviously the IRS auditors weren't up to the job.
Seems that using your elected position to intentionally enrich your personal business is textbook corruption. No idea what specific laws might be broken but defrauding the United STates (18 U.S.C. § 371) seems one of my potential crimes. You are probably right that a large chunk of his base won't care - but that's immaterial when dealing with legal matters
Is that even a crime for a sitting President? It would be embarrassing but Trump's base has been whittled down to a core, he-can-put-on-blackface-and-they-won't-care, group.
It is also likely that a routine IRS audit and an FBI forensic audit might be different and focus on different metrics. There is zero benefit to Trump disclosing returns and the attention used on asking for them is useful to him so I expect no willing offers to give them up.To my knowledge, the only people who have claimed Trump was under an audit have been Trump and his spokespeople. The IRS doesn't comment and he hasn't provided any evidence that he has been under audit. The Trump Organization is also a sprawling mass of LLCs and authorized licensees. Perhaps intentionally the actions of one part is hidden from another (and the IRS)
Perhaps his returns would wilt under external investigation but obviously the IRS auditors weren't up to the job.
Probably true that there's no benefit to Trump in voluntarily releasing them. However the House Ways and Means committee has the power to request review any citizen's tax records from the IRS and need not inform the individual that they have been obtained. THe committee can then release those records to all members of congress with a majority vote - and Dems hold both the chair (Neal) and the majority (25/42). There's a very big difference between refusing to release and telling a co-equal branch "you'd better not look there, even though you can and I can't stop you!"To my knowledge, the only people who have claimed Trump was under an audit have been Trump and his spokespeople. The IRS doesn't comment and he hasn't provided any evidence that he has been under audit. The Trump Organization is also a sprawling mass of LLCs and authorized licensees. Perhaps intentionally the actions of one part is hidden from another (and the IRS)
Perhaps his returns would wilt under external investigation but obviously the IRS auditors weren't up to the job.
It is also likely that a routine IRS audit and an FBI forensic audit might be different and focus on different metrics. There is zero benefit to Trump disclosing returns and the attention used on asking for them is useful to him so I expect no willing offers to give them up.
Interesting if deeply depressing article about Russian kleptocracy and modern American indifference to corruption.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/
Indeed.Interesting if deeply depressing article about Russian kleptocracy and modern American indifference to corruption.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/
disturbing
Can't tell whether that's chutzpah or just extreme stupidity.
It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.
Yeah, not losing much sleep over Manafort rotting in a cell.It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.
It looks like Manafort betrayed his country. He was literally working for a foreign adversary. A life sentence would be a mercy.
It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.
It looks like Manafort betrayed his country. He was literally working for a foreign adversary. A life sentence would be a mercy.
It looks like Manafort could be facing essentially a life sentence because he's already 69 years old.
It looks like Manafort betrayed his country. He was literally working for a foreign adversary. A life sentence would be a mercy.
I don't think there's any "looks like' (ie doubt) about it. He entered a plea-deal where he pled guilty to two counts: one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice for tampering with witnesses.
Even after that a US district judge has ruled by a preponderance of the evidence that he continued to engage in activity which violated his plea agreement.
He is guilty. He betrayed his country. Then he was told not to do it anymore in exchange for cooperation and leniency at sentencing (a cap of 10 years) - and yet he kept doing it.
. Anything less than the minimum 10 year sentence at this point would be shocking, and my guess is it will be considerably longer given these latest revelations. At age 69 Manaforts best chance of not dying in prison lies with a presidential pardon, but I think even Donny wouldn't issue one until he was on his way out the door, given the baggage Manafort now carries.
Lol -I prefer the phase, "Where are the high crimes and misdemeanors?!" Just has such a nice constitutional ring to it, eh?
As has been pointed out (but let's review anyway), collusion is a colloquial term. It has no strict legal definition, so one can claim "NO COLLUSION" to just about anything and from a legal standpoint not be incorrect. You can substitute the words "shenanigans" or "tomfoolery" and it makes about as much sense.
"There's NO SHENANIGANS! Dems are running wild, Where's the TOMFOOLERY?!!"
but of course most of us equate collusion with conspiracy or any coordinated effort to break the law, and we've had quite a bit of that already. Gates and Manafort pled guilty to conspiracy. Stone's been charged as such. Cohen has pled guilty to breaking federal laws and claims he lied at the instruction of DJT and the campaign.
Lol -
As has been pointed out (but let's review anyway), collusion is a colloquial term. It has no strict legal definition, so one can claim "NO COLLUSION" to just about anything and from a legal standpoint not be incorrect. You can substitute the words "shenanigans" or "tomfoolery" and it makes about as much sense.
"There's NO SHENANIGANS! Dems are running wild, Where's the TOMFOOLERY?!!"
but of course most of us equate collusion with conspiracy or any coordinated effort to break the law, and we've had quite a bit of that already. Gates and Manafort pled guilty to conspiracy. Stone's been charged as such. Cohen has pled guilty to breaking federal laws and claims he lied at the instruction of DJT and the campaign.
I have it on great authority (the best really) that this is just a witch hunt with nocollusiontomfoolery.
:P
my work here is done.I have it on great authority (the best really) that this is just a witch hunt with nocollusiontomfoolery.
:P
I'm replacing all "collusions" with tomfoolery now because it makes me laugh. Hahaha.
I don't think there's any "looks like' (ie doubt) about it. He entered a plea-deal where he pled guilty to two counts: one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice for tampering with witnesses.
Even after that a US district judge has ruled by a preponderance of the evidence that he continued to engage in activity which violated his plea agreement.
He is guilty. He betrayed his country. Then he was told not to do it anymore in exchange for cooperation and leniency at sentencing (a cap of 10 years) - and yet he kept doing it.
. Anything less than the minimum 10 year sentence at this point would be shocking, and my guess is it will be considerably longer given these latest revelations. At age 69 Manaforts best chance of not dying in prison lies with a presidential pardon, but I think even Donny wouldn't issue one until he was on his way out the door, given the baggage Manafort now carries.
I have it on great authority (the best really) that this is just a witch hunt with no collusion.
:P
I don't think there's any "looks like' (ie doubt) about it. He entered a plea-deal where he pled guilty to two counts: one count of conspiracy against the United States and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice for tampering with witnesses.
Even after that a US district judge has ruled by a preponderance of the evidence that he continued to engage in activity which violated his plea agreement.
He is guilty. He betrayed his country. Then he was told not to do it anymore in exchange for cooperation and leniency at sentencing (a cap of 10 years) - and yet he kept doing it.
. Anything less than the minimum 10 year sentence at this point would be shocking, and my guess is it will be considerably longer given these latest revelations. At age 69 Manaforts best chance of not dying in prison lies with a presidential pardon, but I think even Donny wouldn't issue one until he was on his way out the door, given the baggage Manafort now carries.
You have much more faith in the Republicans than I do. Why wouldn't Trump or Pence pardon him? What could they possibly have to lose? If they don't pardon him it's an admission that Trump was a traitor (or at least incompetent) all along. If they do pardon him then they can keep on repeating their "Democratic witch hunt" lies on Fox News, and a significant portion of the population will believe them.
“Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it,” Mr. Cohen said in his opening statement.
Mr. Cohen provided several documents to the committee, including a copy of a check Mr. Trump wrote from his personal bank account after he became president that he says was to finance hush payments to Ms. Daniels. He also offered what he said were financial statements that Mr. Trump gave to institutions such as Deutsche Bank from 2011 to 2013.
He also gave a copy of an article with Mr. Trump’s handwriting on it reporting about an auction of a portrait of himself that he said the president rigged. Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump arranged for a bidder to buy the portrait at the auction, then reimbursed the bidder from Mr. Trump’s charitable foundation. The picture now hangs in one of Mr. Trump’s country clubs, Mr. Cohen said.
I can't help but wonder how much Trump is shitting himself today.So far it seems like what Cohen has confirmed is that payments were made to Stephanie Cliffords (Stormy Daniels), complete with reimbursement cheques from Trump's private account to Cohen.
Testifying under oath-
Michael Cohen: People want to know whether I have evidence of Mr Trump colluding with Russia. I do not. But I have my suspicions.
So we have no new evidence, but more accusations linking the two.
Minor nitpick: Stephanie Cliffords, as opposed to the congresswoman from AZ that was shot by a crazy person. They alliterate well.I can't help but wonder how much Trump is shitting himself today.So far it seems like what Cohen has confirmed is that payments were made to Gabriel Giffords (Stormy Daniels), complete with reimbursement cheques from Trump's private account to Cohen.
I'm not sure many doubt that account anymore (though notable that reimbursement cheques continued into the Trump presidency).
There's lots of mental accounts of other meetings, but not documents to confirm, so it continues to be a he-said/he-said unlikely to change many minds.
The saddest part, to me, is how the republican party chose to support this fuckery in order to gain political power. I suspect that will be the greatest lasting consequence of the Trump presidency, how the GOP abandoned all pretense of representing American interests.
Rep Green (R) is spending most of his time criticizing chairman Cummings, and not asking any Cohen any questions.I can't help but wonder how much Trump is shitting himself today.So far it seems like what Cohen has confirmed is that payments were made to Stephanie Cliffords (Stormy Daniels), complete with reimbursement cheques from Trump's private account to Cohen.
I'm not sure many doubt that account anymore (though notable that reimbursement cheques continued into the Trump presidency).
There's lots of mental accounts of other meetings, but not documents to confirm, so it continues to be a he-said/he-said unlikely to change many minds.
Cohen's explanation of how Trump gets people to do his dirty work may be why there won't be any direct evidence.
DJT: "It'd sure be nice to get those emails"
Manafort/Stone/staff: [...]
DJT: "Ahem. I said that it'd be REALLY NICE to get those emails."
Don Jr doesn't appear to be as clever about it, given his Trump Tower talks.
‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’Attorney general Barr said.
Quote‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’Attorney general Barr said.
So... we've got a null verdict?
Quote‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’Attorney general Barr said.
So... we've got a null verdict?
Quote‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him’Attorney general Barr said.
So... we've got a null verdict?
There were two parts to the investigation. You are confusing them. I am pointing out that Barr literally says, "The Special Councel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election". That's what this thread is generally about.
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference."
"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference."
Technically, it said they couldn't assemble enough evidence to prove it, not that it didn't happen. It may be a distinction without a difference to some people, but it bothers me how many folks are jumping to "innocent" when that is definitely not what it says. It says guilty of a whole laundry list of crimes, and not enough evidence to prove the criminal intent required to charge with conspiracy. At this point, I'm just assuming that it also says there's not enough evidence to prove criminal intent because Trump's entire team was too incompetent to actually coordinate deliberate criminal activities, and just sort of blundered into them instead.
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice? I mean lifetime career people had their lives destroyed over this because they were considered in the way or did not stop the probe for Trump. Why did Trump drop sanctions for Russia, refuse to critique Putin for ANYTHING, including illegal acts of Russia like assasination. Why meet with Putin outside normal diplomatic channels? Why was Kushner trying to create a back channel to Russia. These are all highly unusual.
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?
I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.
And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion". The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies. They shared internal polling data with the Russians. They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies. They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television. They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton. Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton. All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.
But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen. According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an witting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power. Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election. In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it. He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.
And obstruction has the same criteria. If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal. So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear. Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal. Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.
(THREAD) The Barr Summary—a very different document from the Mueller Report—is being woefully misread by media. It doesn't import what media is suggesting it does. Lawyers are welcome to comment on this thread as I report the Summary accurately. I hope you'll read on and retweet.
1/ Mueller was supposed to decide if Donald Trump could be charged with Obstruction of Justice—or, if not chargeable, whether he should be referred to Congress for impeachment for Obstruction of Justice. But AG Barr usurped Mueller's job and decided to make that decision himself.
2/ Barr was selected by Donald Trump upon Trump's reading of documents written by Barr and sent to Trump allies arguing Trump *couldn't* be charged with Obstruction of Justice. So in not forcing Mueller to make the decision his appointment obligated him to make, Barr saved Trump.
3/ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, a witness in the Obstruction of Justice investigation against Trump, appears to have assisted Barr—who had already put his position on Obstruction in writing prior to his nomination—in usurping Mueller's obligation to make a decision on that question.
4/ Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense, and therefore we now have a *witness* in a case and a man who made his views known on the case *before he had any evidence on it*—and who *got his job* because of his view on the question—saving Trump from impeachment for that.
5/ On "collusion," investigative reporters and independent journalists just spent years gathering evidence on a very specific allegation of collusion: that for his own enrichment, Trump traded away our foreign policy on Russian sanctions at a time he knew Russia was attacking us.
6/ We are now being told that *Mueller never investigated* the collusion allegation Trump was facing—on a money-for-sanctions-relief quid pro quo—and *instead* investigated the allegation *as Trump saw it*, which was whether he struck an agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers.
7/ For two years, as Trump's team defined the collusion allegation against him *falsely*—saying he'd been accused of striking a secret accord with the Internet Research Agency and/or Russian hackers before-the-fact—his critics shrugged and said, "Yeah, we're not looking at that."
8/ On this collusion allegation no one was even making against Trump, the Special Counsel *didn't* find "no evidence"—which I would've been fine with, as I've never accused Trump of that type of collusion—he actually just found he didn't have 90%+ proof of that form of collusion.
9/ This isn't backpedaling: *anyone* who reads this feed—or anyone else researching and reporting on collusion—will *know* that we did *not* accuse Trump of striking a *secret deal with the IRA or Russian hackers before-the-fact*, and that "collusion" has *never* been about that.
10/ So we alleged Obstruction—and people *ineligible to make a decision on that issue* made the decision. We alleged collusive activity—and it appears the activity we alleged was *never investigated*. *That* is how critics of Trump should be seeing what has just happened. *That*.
11/ What will happen now is that Trump will say that Mueller found no Obstruction—false, because Mueller made no conclusion on that (though he was supposed to). Trump will then say that Mueller found no *collusion*, and *that* will be wrong on *two* separate and distinct grounds.
12/ The *first* way in which Trump's coming statement will be wrong on collusion is that the collusion he was actually *accused* of wasn't fully investigated—or perhaps not investigated at all. The *second* issue is, Mueller said he "didn't exonerate" Trump as to *any* collusion.
13/ American discourse surrounding Mueller's investigation is at this moment in *dire* danger—because most in the media don't understand either point I've made here: that a proper Obstruction finding *was never made*, and that a full collusion investigation *was never conducted*.
14/ So what does it all mean? Well, as the Obstruction determination was *not* made by Mueller—and was improperly made by Barr and Rosenstein—it now falls to Congress to review the underlying evidence and, if House Judiciary finds it appropriate, initiate impeachment proceedings.
15/ As to collusion, 1) it continues to be *properly* investigated—not in the narrow way Trump demanded and apparently Mueller's team acceded to—in *multiple other federal jurisdictions*; 2) the inability to indict on the *investigated* collusion is *not* an inability to impeach.
16/ So what's my reaction to today's news? Well, I thought there was *no* evidence Trump colluded *via secret agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers*—I always said that—so *now* I want to know why Mueller said he wasn't able to "exonerate" Trump on that allegation. I mean—wow.
17/ As to the collusion allegations never investigated—as opposed to the ones Trump self-servingly *himself* raised only because he knew he wasn't guilty of *those*—my feeling is that there are now *19 federal jurisdictions* working on Trump probes that could resolve that issue.
18/ Moreover, some of those jurisdictions being Congressional, and many working on cases involving people never interviewed by the SCO face-to-face—Trump, Trump Jr., Prince, Ivanka, and so many others—I feel like we're only at the *beginning* of the real collusion investigation.
19/ On Obstruction, once Congress gets all Mueller's hard evidence, they should proceed with impeachment (or at worst, wait for other federal prosecutors to finish their collusion investigations). Why? Because if the *public evidence* made a prima face case—it did—so did Mueller.
20/ I ask people to retweet this thread. Misinformation spreads fast—the nation already misunderstands what happened today, as media wrongly uses terms like "exoneration," "vindication," and "collusion." As for fellow lawyers? Come at me if you disagree with anything I said. /end
PS/ As ever, my concern about the media *isn't* an accusation of bad faith: I think people are rushing—and don't understand certain things they *need* to understand to do their jobs well tonight, like *what the collusion allegation actually was*—so threads like this are critical.
PS2/ That the first "defense" to the Mueller Report from Team Trump is Giuliani saying you can't commit Obstruction of Justice if there's no (beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-proof-level) crime—a *flatly false legal statement no attorney agrees with*—tells you that they have *concerns*.
PS3/ The *second* defense—a Trump tweet, "No obstruction. No collusion. Total and complete exoneration!"—is also completely false, which *again* should communicate to everyone that Team Trump is terrified about not just the truth of the Report but even the truth of Barr's letter.
PS4/ For two years, I said we needed a *clear* definition of "collusion" or we would pay the price down the line, and now here we are—with Mueller narrowly defining collusion not just as "conspiracy" but only *one narrow breed* of conspiracy (with the IRA and/or Russian hackers).
PS5/ Mueller wasn't even *consulted* on Barr's letter, as we'd been promised he would. Folks, Trump is now on TV saying "no collusion with Russia"—again, a far broader issue than Mueller conducted—and if people of sense don't talk back publicly *now*, we will all regret it later.
NOTE/ The answer to sensible questions like the one below is simple: the accusation of collusion Trump faced, and was terrified of, is *not* the one that the Mueller Report appears to have looked at. Instead, Mueller focused on the IRA and Russian hackers.Seth Abramson added,
NOTE2/ No fellow attorneys are questioning this thread thus far—either on the law or the facts of the collusion investigation as we know it to exist. On Obstruction, what I've expressed here is already becoming key legal analysts' view; on collusion, I hear no contradictions yet.
NOTE3/ Some folks add, rightly, that Mueller only found no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of collusion with the Russian "government"—the IRA, GRU officials, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—none of whom Trump was ever accused of colluding with. Rep. Heck just said this on CNN.
NOTE4/ Barr appears to have *avoided* any reference to Team Trump collusion with Russian foreign nationals and Kremlin cutouts like Agalarov, Rozov, Vekselberg, Deripaska, Firtash, Sater, Kilimnik, Boyarkin, Akhmetshin, and *so many others* who are *not* "the Russian government."
NOTE5/ We have an *indication* from today's "Barr Summary"—but we'll need to see the Mueller Report—that the Barr Summary mentioned the "Russian government" only because Mueller's focus was on the IRA and GRU alone, which again is *not* what Trump stood accused of collusion-wise.
Saying that he did not think the investigation was damaging to him personally would be a bit of a stretch given how much Twitter-ink has been dedicated to how poorly he has been treated, etc, etc.I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?
I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.
And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion". The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies. They shared internal polling data with the Russians. They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies. They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television. They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton. Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton. All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.
But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen. According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an witting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power. Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election. In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it. He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.
And obstruction has the same criteria. If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal. So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear. Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal. Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.
My gut tells me this will go in for all of eternity.
I guess my question is, if there was no collusion, why was there so much (obvious) obstruction of justice?
I think Trump will not be prosecuted for the obvious obstruction of justice for the exact same reason he isn't being prosecuted for the obvious collusion.
And let's be clear about this, the report does NOT say there was "no collusion". The Trump campaign had a variety of secret discussions with Russia to coordinate election strategies. They shared internal polling data with the Russians. They hired Russian firms and took Russian clients to better coordinate their online messaging strategies. They openly asked the Russians to interfere, on national television. They had secret meetings to exchange information harmful to Clinton. Through Stone as an intermediary, the Trump campaign negotiated with Russian intelligence services about how to best harm Clinton. All of that is proven, and is definitely collusion.
But without being able to prove criminal intent, that collusion is not a crime that can be prosecuted, and the Mueller report only says they couldn't prosecute it, not that it didn't happen. According to Giuliani everyone in the Trump campaign was a a Russian patsy, an unwitting tool of the KGB, who only betrayed America and undermined our democracy by accident, in their pursuit of personal profit and political power. Trump was happy to accept Russian help, and direct his underlings to facilitate that help, but only because he honestly thought it was fine for Russia to help him win the election. In this case, he only broke the law by accident and that means you can't prosecute him for it. He looks like an incompetent stooge, but they can't prove he's a criminal mastermind.
And obstruction has the same criteria. If it's accidental or incidental obstruction, it's not illegal. So even though Trump went on 60 Minutes and openly admitted that he fired Comey in order to stop the Mueller investigation, as long as he can claim that he did so because he believed the investigation was pointless and not because he felt the investigation threatened him personally or politically, he's basically in the clear. Again, he looks like an idiot but not a criminal. Ignorance of the law appears to be a valid defense, for these crimes.
Glen Greenwald has a response for this.
Glen Greenwald has a response for this.
You seem to have misunderstood. When I said the Mueller investigation was unable to prosecute for conspiracy, I did not mean because they did a shoddy job or were incompetent. I meant that there was legitimately insufficient evidence to build a solid case proving criminal intent rather than general profiteering and thuggery. Despite eight different corners of Trump's organization colluding with Russia, all of which are being prosecuted, the defense of Trump himself is that he did so while apparently thinking it was legal.
This defense is belied by the million times Trump lied about it, though.
And as pointed out above, the Mueller investigation appears to have been severely handicapped into only investigation specific kinds of collusion with Russia, instead of all of it. The people Trump appointed to oversee it, Barr and Rosenstein, were both severely compromised from the outset and promised to undermine the findings before even seeing the evidence. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they have now done so.
The only way America gets out of this alive is if the entire Mueller report is made public, rather than the summary written by a Trump toady. If it genuinely does say "Trump is innocent" in it, then let America read it for themselves and then we can all move on to other things. Unfortunately, I fear that this report going to be just like Trump's tax returns, shrouded in secrecy and obstruction even as he insists it would totally exonerate him if released, while he refuses to release it.
If you really have nothing to hide, why are you hiding so much?
NOTE3/ Some folks add, rightly, that Mueller only found no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of collusion with the Russian "government"—the IRA, GRU officials, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—none of whom Trump was ever accused of colluding with. Rep. Heck just said this on CNN.
NOTE4/ Barr appears to have *avoided* any reference to Team Trump collusion with Russian foreign nationals and Kremlin cutouts like Agalarov, Rozov, Vekselberg, Deripaska, Firtash, Sater, Kilimnik, Boyarkin, Akhmetshin, and *so many others* who are *not* "the Russian government."
NOTE5/ We have an *indication* from today's "Barr Summary"—but we'll need to see the Mueller Report—that the Barr Summary mentioned the "Russian government" only because Mueller's focus was on the IRA and GRU alone, which again is *not* what Trump stood accused of collusion-wise.
If you really have nothing to hide, why are you hiding so much?
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551
The unredacted version will no doubt be available in another few months as well. I think that the Republicans have been very smart about this though. They hired a guy who lied about the content of the report to Americans, then grudgingly released the redacted report (after first holding a full on press conference to put their spin on it), and will eventually release the full report . . . but by that time they will have stamped so much of their interpretation and message onto it that I think the public will have lost much of the outrage that it would otherwise have generated.
The Republicans certainly know how to manipulate Americans to further their own ends.
Welp. At long last a (redacted) copy of the Mueller Report is available. Here's a link to a downloadable PDF of the report, oy you can just read it there (link in page).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551
The unredacted version will no doubt be available in another few months as well. I think that the Republicans have been very smart about this though. They hired a guy who lied about the content of the report to Americans, then grudgingly released the redacted report (after first holding a full on press conference to put their spin on it), and will eventually release the full report . . . but by that time they will have stamped so much of their interpretation and message onto it that I think the public will have lost much of the outrage that it would otherwise have generated.
The Republicans certainly know how to manipulate Americans to further their own ends.
Just started reading the report. One quote from the introduction is "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."
Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?
Just started reading the report. One quote from the introduction is "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."
Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?
Just started reading the report. One quote from the introduction is "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."
Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?
"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Just started reading the report. One quote from the introduction is "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."
Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?
"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
#ContextMatters
Just started reading the report. One quote from the introduction is "...the Russian government perceived that it would benefit from a Trump presidency..."
Do you think that Russia has benefited from Trump's first two years versus Clinton's hypothetical first two years?
Um.... yep.
With Trump at the helm, the GOP has basically backed away from bothering to investigate any Russian interference in our elections, our government, and probably even cyberespionage.
The Transatlantic alliance has been seriously weakened because of Trump, which is awesome for Putin.
America's position of dominance in the global order is decreasing, which is also awesome for Putin.
Trump is destabilizing the US from within, which Putin loves.
The EU has been weakened, which Putin loves.
That's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.
Today's new from the Mueller report looks pretty damning. It says Trump's team wanted and accepted Russia's help swinging the election. It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice. Then it refuses to bring charges for either of those crimes, basically citing DOJ precedent that says they can't indict a sitting president.
This is a very different conclusion than William Barr gave in his "summary" memo, and it is a very different conclusion than what Trump is saying to tv cameras and on twitter. Far from being an exoneration or a vindication, it says he is guilty but they can't touch him until he leaves office. Basically, Mueller says only Congress has the power to do anything about it, but he laid out all of the evidence for them to use.
Even the Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Jared and the Russians is punted. Mueller agrees that it's a crime, but apparently chose not to press charges because the Trump team was so inept they didn't know they were breaking the law. I'm not sure that feigned ignorance is a good legal defense, but it does seem to have worked in this case.
I'm still unclear on why the Stormy Daniels payments aren't a campaign finance violation. Maybe that case is still being prosecuted separately?
jfc, chill with the giant images. I'm on a 4k display and it still takes half of the entire screen.
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.
The entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."
On the whole, I don't see how this report can be anything but a net-negative for DJT and this administration
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.
No. It says the Russians wanted to help, and DID help, in many different ways, because they thought Trump would support Russian interests better than Clinton would. It also says that Trump's team knew about the Russian efforts, and expected to benefit from Russian interference. Then it lays out in excruciating detail all of the different ways the Russians worked to help Trump, and the ways that Trump's team worked to help the Russians help Trump. Then it concludes that they can't prove both sides didn't just independently want to work towards the same goals, and without criminal intent they can't prosecute for conspiracy. It was just coincidental collusion. Like Manafort sharing internal polling data with the Russians was just because he thought they would be interested in it, not because he told them to use it to help Trump.
But I didn't say that he was guilty of conspiracy, I said "It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice." And it does go into great detail on that charge, explicitly stating that they have more than enough evidence to bring a criminal case, but chose not to just because he's the President. The Mueller report even clearly says that only Congress can do anything about these crimes, and the DoJ cannot.QuoteThe entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."
On the obstruction charge, the answer is very definitely "yes."
For reference, both Nixon and Clinton were nailed for obstruction. Of course, they had more independent legislative branches that actually cared about little things like the law. I think Trump is teflon as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate. He's totally protected and can do pretty much whatever he wants, because Congress has refused to check his power in any way. Conspiracy and obstruction are fine. Pussy grabbing and rawdogging porn stars are fine. Lying to the public is fine. Grovelling before Russia is fine. None of it matters until republicans lose the majority.
Actually it says the Russians wanted to help and Trump campaign expected help but never actually coordinated.
No. It says the Russians wanted to help, and DID help, in many different ways, because they thought Trump would support Russian interests better than Clinton would. It also says that Trump's team knew about the Russian efforts, and expected to benefit from Russian interference. Then it lays out in excruciating detail all of the different ways the Russians worked to help Trump, and the ways that Trump's team worked to help the Russians help Trump. Then it concludes that they can't prove both sides didn't just independently want to work towards the same goals, and without criminal intent they can't prosecute for conspiracy. It was just coincidental collusion. Like Manafort sharing internal polling data with the Russians was just because he thought they would be interested in it, not because he told them to use it to help Trump.
But I didn't say that he was guilty of conspiracy, I said "It says Trump is guilty of multiple instances of obstruction of justice." And it does go into great detail on that charge, explicitly stating that they have more than enough evidence to bring a criminal case, but chose not to just because he's the President. The Mueller report even clearly says that only Congress can do anything about these crimes, and the DoJ cannot.QuoteThe entire question was "is there enough evidence to meet the standard of the law?" The answer seems to be "no."
On the obstruction charge, the answer is very definitely "yes."
For reference, both Nixon and Clinton were nailed for obstruction. Of course, they had more independent legislative branches that actually cared about little things like the law. I think Trump is teflon as long as Mitch McConnell controls the Senate. He's totally protected and can do pretty much whatever he wants, because Congress has refused to check his power in any way. Conspiracy and obstruction are fine. Pussy grabbing and rawdogging porn stars are fine. Lying to the public is fine. Grovelling before Russia is fine. None of it matters until republicans lose the majority.
On the whole, I don't see how this report can be anything but a net-negative for DJT and this administration
The most favorable read for the president seems to be that - because it did not result in additional indictments (beyond those already levied) and because the president has escaped prosecution it could have been much worse.
The report does confirm and provide substantial context for several issues
- Russia actively interfered in the 2016 election to support DJT and undermine HRC
- The Trump Campaign knew about, welcomed and encouraged such interference by Russia
- The Trump Campaign had "numerous" contacts and "substantial" interaction with Russian operatives
- Trump himself repeatedly asked subordinates to lie and break the law on his behalf
- Five individuals close to Trump and his campaign are guilty of criminal conduct, and a sixth (Stone) is on trial.
- There are no fewer than 12 ongoing additional investigations into Trump, his campaign and his businesses
In sum, the report confirms Russian interference and describes numerous incidents where the now-president lied and encouraged others to lie. Beyond the aforementioned previous indictments most of this conduct either didn't rise to level of criminal activity or was deemed to be difficult to prove (e.g. a person's intent). However, "it was not technically illegal" is a much lower standard than "it was appropriate and above-board".
About the most beneficial aspect of this report is that it was released in April 2019 - and will likely be a distant memory by the time the primaries are wrapped up. I'm betting its unlikely that any of his biggest supporters or critics will change their mind over this report. Ironically, Trump's saving grace from prosecution seems to be that -repeatedly - his advisors refused to break the law when asked to by Trump.
Regarding whether this amounted to obstruction, Mueller was careful to point out that his investigation did not exonerate him:
If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.
The Russia situation seems to never been a big problem for people, at least according to Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) it never got more than 1% on the list. The release of the Mueller report just tying up loose ends.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629
To save you a click:
***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629
To save you a click:
***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***
Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."
The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.
***
Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.
Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.
Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).
A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.
The Russia situation seems to never been a big problem for people, at least according to Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) it never got more than 1% on the list. The release of the Mueller report just tying up loose ends.
I'm not sure that poll supports your statement above - just because almost no one lists Russian interference as "the most important problem" doesn't mean that people don't find it to be a 'big' problem.
I'm certainly one who thinks Russian interference in our elections is a serious issue, but not the biggest one we face.
By your standards foreign trade, abortion, gun control, terrorism, social security and income inequality are also issues that aren't a big problem for people.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629
To save you a click:
***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***
Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."
The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.
***
Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.
Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).
If your credentials can compete, I'd welcome your analysis as well.QuoteA graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.
Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).
A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.
If your rebuttal is simply "he's a total tinfoil hat loon" with no relevant corroboration, I trust you'll understand why I disregard your opinion.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629
To save you a click:
***Seth Abramson Tweet Thread***
Just wanted to go back to someone citing Seth Abramson as a credible source; who yesterday did a FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE WORD (451) tweet storm, that ended in him basically saying, "I'll get to the obstruction analysis tomorrow."
The guy is a total tinfoil hat loon (my recollection is that he also had similar diatribes as to why Bernie was going to win the 2016 primary), and yet he's somehow been deemed legitimate by the far, far left. He's seriously insane.
***
Reaction to the Mueller Report, overall, is that it's full of damning information, and in my opinion prosecutorial misjudgment (in a ton of ways). It's also no surprise both sides are cherry-picking parts of the report to support their base.
Put me in the camp of let's move on and use the ballot box as the test rather than impeachment proceedings (which I don't think would be successful given the constitutional requirements, and would only further tear the country apart).
If your credentials can compete, I'd welcome your analysis as well.QuoteA graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nine years as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator and is now a tenure-track professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy (legal writing, case method, and trial advocacy). He is also Affiliate Faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art, a member of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, a columnist for Newsweek, and a New York Times best-selling author.
Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and Harvard University (2000-2001), Seth is now an attorney in good standing with both the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He's worked for four public defenders— three state and one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder. He first testified in federal court as a defense investigator at the age of 19; represented his first homicide client at the age of 22 as a Rule 33 attorney for the Boston Trial Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS); and had won two homicide cases, including a first-degree murder trial, by the age of 29. After working for CPCS on major felonies (called "non-concurrent felonies" in Massachusetts) in Boston Municipal Court and Dorchester District Court in 1999 and 2000, Seth represented misdemeanor clients in Roxbury District Court through the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute from 2000 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2007, he was a staff attorney for the Nashua Trial Unit of the New Hampshire Public Defender, working cases in seven district courts in southern New Hampshire as well as in both of the Superior Courts in Hillsborough County (the Southern District and Northern District).
A 1998 graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B.), Seth returned to school after his time at the New Hampshire Public Defender and received additional terminal degrees in both Creative Writing (MFA, The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop, 2009) and Literary Studies (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016). In 2015, he joined the undergraduate faculty at the urban college of University of New Hampshire, which specializes in interdisciplinary and professional studies.
If your rebuttal is simply "he's a total tinfoil hat loon" with no relevant corroboration, I trust you'll understand why I disregard your opinion.
Taking the assumption that in lieu of being president there would be enough to indict, this raises the interesting question of what happens to DJT on January 21, 2021 (or 2025, god forbid). Will we see a bunch of pardons fly out the window on the morning of Jan 20? I don't see a path in which this does not get a lot uglier, either through erosion of law or just ugly politics, unless Mitch decides it is more politically expedient to turn on Caesar.
Taking the assumption that in lieu of being president there would be enough to indict, this raises the interesting question of what happens to DJT on January 21, 2021 (or 2025, god forbid). Will we see a bunch of pardons fly out the window on the morning of Jan 20? I don't see a path in which this does not get a lot uglier, either through erosion of law or just ugly politics, unless Mitch decides it is more politically expedient to turn on Caesar.
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss. He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down. Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.
In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote. No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment. He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office. And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.
I am going nowhere near the US until he is out of office. Shit could get very dangerous, very quickly.
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss. He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down. Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.
In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote. No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment. He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office. And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss. He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down. Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.
In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote. No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment. He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office. And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.
You should always take this claim with a large grain of salt. People always say this about the other side's president. In 2016 mother-in-law was claiming Obama was going to somehow subvert the constitution and install himself as king.
However, given this time we're talking about Trump, I'm pretty worried about this possibility too.
No way will Trump accept an electoral loss. He will deny the vote, claim cheating, and refuse to step down. Of course, vote suppression and actual cheating are going to be factors as well, particularly in the states where the Republicans have control of the voting systems.
In the last election he refused to state whether he would respect the vote. No way will he quietly step down and into an indictment. He will cling to power unless he is bodily removed from the office. And he will whip up his alt right base to fight for him too.
You should always take this claim with a large grain of salt. People always say this about the other side's president. In 2016 mother-in-law was claiming Obama was going to somehow subvert the constitution and install himself as king.
However, given this time we're talking about Trump, I'm pretty worried about this possibility too.
It was said about Bush too.
However, neither Bush nor Obama were warning their supporters ahead of the election that there was a good chance that the election would be stolen. Neither Bush nor Obama declared after the election that there was massive voter fraud.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
So, I'm currently only about 40 pages into the Mueller Report. Mueller has definitely gone out of his way to give Trump Co. the benefit of the doubt. However, the picture clearly emerges of a campaign that absolutely knew that Russia was conducting an operation to influence the US election and made the choice to just let that happen because it benefited them rather than report to the FBI. This is consistent with reporting I've seen about Trump that he believes that everyone else is cheating so he should just so also at baseline.
At least one defense of the Trump Org has been that they simply didn't understand the law well enough to know that they were breaking it. This seems a very generous read by Mueller. However, when it comes to the counterintelligence elements of this, I think there is a pretty clear line that the Trump Org was made aware of and willingly crossed. To the point, the FBI specifically told them that there was a potential for foreign influence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-warned-trump-2016-russians-would-try-infiltrate-his-campaign-n830596
Not a slam dunk, but sure as hell does seem like "aid an comfort".QuoteTreason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
Would appreciate some honest reaction to this take on the Mueller report (note: author formerly worked for McConnell, so I am aware it's an "opinion" piece with a capital 'O'):
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)
Would appreciate some honest reaction to this take on the Mueller report (note: author formerly worked for McConnell, so I am aware it's an "opinion" piece with a capital 'O'):
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)
The whole Mueller investigation is a farce. We live in a republic and not a democracy. With that both the Dems and the Reps showed how much vile stuff they could make up against each other within the two party system. I have begun to loath CNN when that was the first website I ever went to.
The Mueller’s report doesn’t just look back for Obama it looks bad for all politicians including Hillary. If wikileaks has taught us nothing… It has shown the US, Russia, and China are meddling in more democracies than comprehendible.
I stated the whole Mueller investigation is a farce... The 25-40 million dollars paid due to the investigation. \
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)What is demonstrably incorrect about the contents of the report?
The whole Mueller investigation is a farce.
I stated the whole Mueller investigation is a farce... The 25-40 million dollars paid due to the investigation. The countless news media reports speculating on the outcome of the investigation. The lies and ruffling of feathers. Fear mongering by politicians.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/
Hillary could have won the election and the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place.
farce
/färs/
noun
a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)What is demonstrably incorrect about the contents of the report?
The whole Mueller investigation is a farce.
I stated the whole Mueller investigation is a farce... The 25-40 million dollars paid due to the investigation. The countless news media reports speculating on the outcome of the investigation. The lies and ruffling of feathers. Fear mongering by politicians.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/
Hillary could have won the election and the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html)What is demonstrably incorrect about the contents of the report?
The whole Mueller investigation is a farce.
I stated the whole Mueller investigation is a farce... The 25-40 million dollars paid due to the investigation. The countless news media reports speculating on the outcome of the investigation. The lies and ruffling of feathers. Fear mongering by politicians.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/26/mueller-investigation-cost/
Hillary could have won the election and the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place.
1) The cost of an investigation, when an investigation has to be done, is irrelevant if the cost is appropriate.
2) The media's reaction to the investigation, and the politicians' attempts to skew public opinion about the investigation, are not the investigation itself.
3) I honestly don't know what you mean about "the same Russian collusion & investigation would have taken place." Are you saying Hillary's campaign was colluding? Are you saying the Republicans would have sought to conduct an investigation on her regardless of whether there was any evidence of wrongdoing? Quite honestly, that last statement seems like utter nonsense.
It appears that one of the reasons that Trump may have assumed he was being blackmailed by Comey when he was told after his election about the salacious allegations in the Steele dossier is that just before the election a Russian contact of Michael Cohens emailed to say "don't worry about the photos from your Miss Universe trip to Moscow, I've stopped them coming out of Russia". As detailed in Mueller (Vol. II, footnote 112), and further in Bloomberg News.
Indeed a basic problem with Trump is that he simply does not vet the people around him as rigorously as most other politicians would; in addition, many fewer people would like to work for him because--frankly--he seems like a bad boss. This resulted in him accepting grifters and people with little moral compass into his orbit, many of whom (Papadapolous, Cohen, Manafort) are paying the price in jail.
We knew this before the Mueller report was released.
Indeed a basic problem with Trump is that he simply does not vet the people around him as rigorously as most other politicians would; in addition, many fewer people would like to work for him because--frankly--he seems like a bad boss. This resulted in him accepting grifters and people with little moral compass into his orbit, many of whom (Papadapolous, Cohen, Manafort) are paying the price in jail.
We knew this before the Mueller report was released.
The Mueller report kinda proved the opposite though. By ignoring the crazier direct orders of their commander in chief, several of the people that Trump hired ended up saving him from committing obstruction of justice despite how badly he wanted to.
Indeed a basic problem with Trump is that he simply does not vet the people around him as rigorously as most other politicians would; in addition, many fewer people would like to work for him because--frankly--he seems like a bad boss. This resulted in him accepting grifters and people with little moral compass into his orbit, many of whom (Papadapolous, Cohen, Manafort) are paying the price in jail.
We knew this before the Mueller report was released.
The Mueller report kinda proved the opposite though. By ignoring the crazier direct orders of their commander in chief, several of the people that Trump hired ended up saving him from committing obstruction of justice despite how badly he wanted to.
Also, Giuliani is literally off to Ukraine to ask them to investigate conspiracy theories related to 2016 (aka support a Trump pet political project).
Clearly, this is the only logical explanation:Also, Giuliani is literally off to Ukraine to ask them to investigate conspiracy theories related to 2016 (aka support a Trump pet political project).
No collusion, though. We're just sending the President's personal lawyer to go ask the Ukrainian government to publicly interfere in the 2020 election. Maybe hack some emails, maybe push some conspiracy theories against his opponents, maybe get a more favorable US diplomatic treatment in return. That's totally legit, right?
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.
It's beyondbizarretreason that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.
I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.
It's beyond bizarre that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.
I think McConnell has shown that he is first and foremost interested in accumulating power for the GOP (and himself), fairness or ethics be damned. I have never seen him waver from this. In this framework, to reveal or actively fight the Russian interference does nothing but harm the GOP. From a strictly partisan viewpoint, there is no upside to cracking down on the Russian support.I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.
It's beyond bizarre that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.
I suspect he is compromised.
Pro-GOP treason isn't real treason you bunch of socialists.
I think McConnell has shown that he is first and foremost interested in accumulating power for the GOP (and himself), fairness or ethics be damned. I have never seen him waver from this. In this framework, to reveal or actively fight the Russian interference does nothing but harm the GOP. From a strictly partisan viewpoint, there is no upside to cracking down on the Russian support.I just wanted to dig this thread back up to mention the #MoscowMitch hastag.
It's beyond bizarre that our intelligence agencies have all spoken in unison that Russia poses an ongoing and significant risk towards our electoral system, and the leader of the senate continues to block bipartisan bills designed to address the threat.
I suspect he is compromised.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/foxconn-pulls-back-on-its-10-billion-dollar-factory-commitment/ (https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/foxconn-pulls-back-on-its-10-billion-dollar-factory-commitment/)
Sounds about right
(https://fox11online.com/resources/media/f55f54da-4a6a-4de8-ae3d-a2304499a4f6-large16x9_FOXCONNGROUNDBREAKING_frame_44796.jpg?1530210626779)
Which do you think voters will remember more in 2020 - the huge Foxconn plant that was promised in 2017, or the fact that it never materalized and was roundly criticized in the press for sacrificing too much tax revenue?
Which do you think voters will remember more in 2020 - the huge Foxconn plant that was promised in 2017, or the fact that it never materalized and was roundly criticized in the press for sacrificing too much tax revenue?
Well, Trump voters will only remember the first part, because Fox will never tell them about the second part.
"The Trump administration is pulling out of the Open Skies Treaty, which allows the United States and our allies and partners in Europe to monitor Russian military deployments. Withdrawal risks dividing the transatlantic alliance. "
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/6/46136e03-1d92-431b-aa31-7d20d2f266f9/5B01C6DD219BB03F508CB4377B03183E.ele-letter-to-o-brien-open-skies-treaty-final.pdf
https://twitter.com/juliadavisnews/status/1181322726843265026
How easily can all these treaties b/c repaired once Trump is gone?
We've established that policy from the WH careens between right and left extremes.
How could you possible strike a deal with a government in that case? I think the things that Trump breaks are mostly going to stay that way.
Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/trump-syria-kurds-normandy) defended his decision to withdraw US troops from Syria and enable a Turkish offensive against US-backed Kurdish fighters in the region by noting the Kurds didn’t fight alongside the US in the second world war.
The US president told reporters that the Kurds “didn’t help us in the second world war, they didn’t help us with Normandy as an example – they mention the names of different battles, they weren’t there”, in a staggering comment following the signing of executive orders on the federal regulation at the White House on Wednesday.
More on topic with this thread:
While our hasty withdraw has prompted Turkey to launch an offensive against our allies, the Kurds, the country which may benefit the most is.... Russia!
Syria and Russia... sound familiar?
More on topic with this thread:
While our hasty withdraw has prompted Turkey to launch an offensive against our allies, the Kurds, the country which may benefit the most is.... Russia!
Syria and Russia... sound familiar?
Like I mentioned, Trump is not even being subtle about toadying up to Putin now. He's doing multiple overtly beneficial to Russia and bad for the US things right out in the open.
So would Congress need to impeach Trump first to go against his wishes and send help to defend the Kurds?
The more I think about it, the less I think our founders were prepared for such a scenario.
The framers were very concerned about a commander in chief who might go to war against the wishes of The People (represented by Congress). So they gave congress the ultimate power to declare war and authorize all spedning (including on the military). The President, as Commander in Chief, can order military intervention for 40 days before s/he must get the authorization of congress.
But there appears to be few guardrails to a Commander in Chief who wants to NOT have military intervention AGAINST the wishes of Congress.
Congress alone can declare war, but here again there's a problem; who would we declare war on? We don't want to go to war against Turkey, we just want to defend the Kurds. It's backwards from 'traditional war'. Congress can do little to defend an ally (particularly one that is not a soverign state) - it can only declare war on a hostile, foreign nation.
The more I think about it, the less I think our founders were prepared for such a scenario.
The framers were very concerned about a commander in chief who might go to war against the wishes of The People (represented by Congress). So they gave congress the ultimate power to declare war and authorize all spedning (including on the military). The President, as Commander in Chief, can order military intervention for 40 days before s/he must get the authorization of congress.
But there appears to be few guardrails to a Commander in Chief who wants to NOT have military intervention AGAINST the wishes of Congress.
Congress alone can declare war, but here again there's a problem; who would we declare war on? We don't want to go to war against Turkey, we just want to defend the Kurds. It's backwards from 'traditional war'. Congress can do little to defend an ally (particularly one that is not a soverign state) - it can only declare war on a hostile, foreign nation.
You are right this is an unusual situation. At the very least presidents confer with their generals to make these kind of decisions, but even that is not happening.
The Kurdish controlled portions of Syria and Iraq are geographically very important for natural gas pipelines from Russia to Europe via Syria and Turkey. Turkey and Russia have become much closer under the Erdogan administration in Turkey (administration may be a generous term for it). Russia has the rights to petroleum development in Syria and the rights to pipelines through that area as part of that. The agreements between Syria and Russia in this regard are part of why Russia has pretty aggressively supported Assad since the revolt began. Natural gas pipelines are also part of Russia's interest in Ukraine, which is less politically friendly lately. Russia provides about 30% of Europe's natural gas, which is a big part of their economy and also a cudgel to exert influence/power over Europe. Anything that presents a risk to natural gas pipelines has a disproportionate risk to Russia's influence on the western hemisphere and Russia's economy. Allowing Turkey to wipe out the Kurds leaves Syria and Turkey in control of those regions and provides a lower risk profile for Russian natural gas infrastructure. With ISIS gone (which also presented a risk to that infrastructure) The US withdrawal leaves a vacuum for Russia to happily fill. The US has much to lose by leaving now and Russia has much to gain. Moral issues with genocide (which Erdogan, and Turkey in general, have been pretty ok with against the Kurds for a long time) the sudden departure from Syria is a strategic blunder for US interests.
How long do we think it will be before the rest of the middle east sees Russia as a more stable (or at least more predictable) partner than the US?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj-wNuKmBrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj-wNuKmBrY
Hillary lost in 2016. She's not the President. Get over it.
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment. Can't think why.
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment. Can't think why.
Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview? Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment. Can't think why.
Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview? Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.
Nah.
It just takes time to construct ridiculous, illogical, pretzel-twisted excuses for the fire hose of inexcusable things coming from this administration.
They'll be back to denying, what-abouting, and blaming Hillary or Obama in a day or two.
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment. Can't think why.
Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview? Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.
Nah.
It just takes time to construct ridiculous, illogical, pretzel-twisted excuses for the fire hose of inexcusable things coming from this administration.
They'll be back to denying, what-abouting, and blaming Hillary or Obama in a day or two.
Yeah. I thought Ken Starr saying that the current impeachment inquiry was baseless and bad for the country was pretty rich. Anyone else remember that Kavanaugh was helping write the really graphic questions for the questioning of Clinton during the last impeachment?
Unlike me, my progressive/liberal sister is not feeling any optimism about the impeachment. She says no one she knows who voted for Trump in 2016 (however reluctantly) are at all changing their minds about him. In fact, they seem to be doubling down. She worries that impeachment will backfire spectacularly and cause 45's re-election next year.
My sister is a very, very smart woman, and her comments have sent me into quite a depression.
I *want* to believe that even if every 2016 Trump voter votes for him again in 2020, there are enough independents who are disgusted, and enough Democrats eager to cast their vote, that it will be a blue tsunami (*even* taking foreign interference into account).
But is this wrong? Am I overly (wrongly) optimistic?
Unlike me, my progressive/liberal sister is not feeling any optimism about the impeachment. She says no one she knows who voted for Trump in 2016 (however reluctantly) are at all changing their minds about him. In fact, they seem to be doubling down. She worries that impeachment will backfire spectacularly and cause 45's re-election next year.
My sister is a very, very smart woman, and her comments have sent me into quite a depression.
I *want* to believe that even if every 2016 Trump voter votes for him again in 2020, there are enough independents who are disgusted, and enough Democrats eager to cast their vote, that it will be a blue tsunami (*even* taking foreign interference into account).
But is this wrong? Am I overly (wrongly) optimistic?
I guess I don't share your sentiment that the Dems lack anyone that people will be enthusiastic about. 13 monhts before a general election and the majority of voters simply aren't giving it much thought. At this stage both Obama and WJC were considered outsiders and few paid beyond the truly politically wonkish knew or cared about them.
Even once we get to the primaries the majority of people haven't formed much of an opinion - only 10-15% of eligible voters show up to vote on primary day during most years for either party. 4x that number will vote in the general election.
it is worth impeaching Trump on moral grounds regardless of electoral outcomes. It is a way to show the rest of the world that we get rid of leaders who turn away from our allies, and act in an outrageously corrupt manner. Leaving him in place sends a bad message of complacency and acceptance.
And I think it should also be made really clear that Congress has not yet really made the case for removal. Those of us who consume way to much political moves have seen the (many) flashes of evidence, heard various statements from committee chairs, etc., but that's not how most Americans go about their day. That's one reason that I worry it's a mistake to do this "6 committee" impeachment inquiry, rather than just appointing one special committee to hold televised hearings specifically focused on impeachment.They are just gathering evidence at the moment. I'm hoping that they are using this phase to put together the evidence, and that they will then lay it all out in a nice, comprehensive, comprehensible story over a short period of time, with witnesses giving their most pertinent bits of evidence to build the case, and then hold the impeachment vote in the House. It's at that point that the public will hopefully be able to see a watertight and overwhelmingly convincing case laid out before them, and that the case will go to the Senate with the public baying for (metaphorical) blood.
it is worth impeaching Trump on moral grounds regardless of electoral outcomes. It is a way to show the rest of the world that we get rid of leaders who turn away from our allies, and act in an outrageously corrupt manner. Leaving him in place sends a bad message of complacency and acceptance.
I'm not sure that letting an outrageously corrupt person become president - where he continuously acts in a corrupt manner with impunity (and the the full backing of one of the two political parties in the country), then impeach him as he's heading out the door anyway is much of a reprimand.
And I think it should also be made really clear that Congress has not yet really made the case for removal. Those of us who consume way to much political moves have seen the (many) flashes of evidence, heard various statements from committee chairs, etc., but that's not how most Americans go about their day. That's one reason that I worry it's a mistake to do this "6 committee" impeachment inquiry, rather than just appointing one special committee to hold televised hearings specifically focused on impeachment.They are just gathering evidence at the moment. I'm hoping that they are using this phase to put together the evidence, and that they will then lay it all out in a nice, comprehensive, comprehensible story over a short period of time, with witnesses giving their most pertinent bits of evidence to build the case, and then hold the impeachment vote in the House. It's at that point that the public will hopefully be able to see a watertight and overwhelmingly convincing case laid out before them, and that the case will go to the Senate with the public baying for (metaphorical) blood.
Completely hypothetical (and unlikely to happen I'll add), but which would be more difficult for Dems - going up against Trump in 2020 or going against someone like Romney who doesn't evoke such intense feelings? Before you say "Trump" consider that ~90% of the GOP will vote GOP regardless of who it is.
Here is your daily reminder that Trump is unfit for office.
How can any thinking person still support him?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/trump-erdogan-letter/index.html
His syntax to Erdogan aside, I’m more angry at how he’s defended his decision to pull troops out of the region.
“Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine. It’s a lot of sand. They’ve got a lot of sand over there to play with.”
So he doesn’t care (and seems to support) about Russia’s involvement in Syria, and characterizes armed conflict as “playing in sand”.
His syntax to Erdogan aside, I’m more angry at how he’s defended his decision to pull troops out of the region.
“Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine. It’s a lot of sand. They’ve got a lot of sand over there to play with.”
So he doesn’t care (and seems to support) about Russia’s involvement in Syria, and characterizes armed conflict as “playing in sand”.
Yep.
And also that, per the letter, he is totally fine with sharing confidential communications from one ally leader with another leader without their knowledge. And now the world knows this, if they didn’t suspect it before.
His syntax to Erdogan aside, I’m more angry at how he’s defended his decision to pull troops out of the region.
“Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine. It’s a lot of sand. They’ve got a lot of sand over there to play with.”
So he doesn’t care (and seems to support) about Russia’s involvement in Syria, and characterizes armed conflict as “playing in sand”.
Yep.
And also that, per the letter, he is totally fine with sharing confidential communications from one ally leader with another leader without their knowledge. And now the world knows this, if they didn’t suspect it before.
At this point it would be pretty negligent of any world leader to treat the head of America as a grown man, let alone an equal.
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated. So Trump withheld aid. And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. At the same time. But there's no link. Or something.
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated. So Trump withheld aid. And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. At the same time. But there's no link. Or something.
Instead, Mulvaney told reporters that the withholding of almost $400 million in aid this summer was due in part because Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the possibility that elements in that country somehow had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Trump’s detriment.
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated. So Trump withheld aid. And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. At the same time. But there's no link. Or something.
It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?
Sound bite dream for the Dems.
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated. So Trump withheld aid. And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. At the same time. But there's no link. Or something.
It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?
Sound bite dream for the Dems.
In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."
So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...
I've been following The Trump show as light relief from Brexit. With Trump's betrayal of the Kurds, leading to their murder and likely genocide, the hilarity has ended.Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated. So Trump withheld aid. And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. At the same time. But there's no link. Or something.
It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?
Sound bite dream for the Dems.
In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."
So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...
This utter shit show is hilarious. Everything follows the same path. Starts out as Trump doing nothing wrong and it's all a witch hunt. And ends with, so what it happens all the time and besides, it's not illegal.
I've been following The Trump show as light relief from Brexit. With Trump's betrayal of the Kurds, leading to their murder and likely genocide, the hilarity has ended.
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment. Can't think why.
Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview? Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.
Republican party supporters unaccountably quiet at the moment. Can't think why.
Maybe a hopeful sign that they've started to pay attention to facts that run contrary to their worldview? Because usually there's just a flood of lies and half-truths immediately forwarded as a reason to support Trump.
I don't see this. I see a lot of "Republicans" claiming that Biden's corruption is the real problem.
If whoever is the then current UK Prime Minister rocks up at Trump Doral for the G7 next year they will be committing a criminal offence under the UK Bribery Act 2010. See section 6 -
- The announcement that Trump's Doral Resort would host the G7
If whoever is the then current UK Prime Minister rocks up at Trump Doral for the G7 next year they will be committing a criminal offence under the UK Bribery Act 2010. See section 6 -
- The announcement that Trump's Doral Resort would host the G7
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/6
Potential penalties are an unlimited fine and up to 10 years in prison.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/11
Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated. So Trump withheld aid. And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. At the same time. But there's no link. Or something.
It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?
Sound bite dream for the Dems.
In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."
So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...
This whole sh*tshow that is the Trump presidency is getting to absurdist levels. I keep thinking, so who went back in time and stepped on a butterfly for us to have gotten to this reality?
I've been following The Trump show as light relief from Brexit. With Trump's betrayal of the Kurds, leading to their murder and likely genocide, the hilarity has ended.Mulvaney is trying to normalize foreign aid quid-pro-quo. I assume that's an attempt to keep Fox conservatives in line but it seems like a dangerous tactic.
Oops... after telling a group of assembled reporters with recorders and cameras that Trump withheld aid in order to pressure Ukraine to help the DOJ investigate Hunter Biden he's now saying that the two were unrelated. So Trump withheld aid. And he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden. At the same time. But there's no link. Or something.
It's bizarre. Was this completely Trump's idea and then wiser people (like his lawyers) told Trump to retract? Is Mulvaney trying to get his boss impeached? Or it was a poor tactic from the impeachment warroom that backfired?
Sound bite dream for the Dems.
In a fascinating move, the White House's official lawyer, Jay Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement that said, “The President’s legal counsel was not involved in acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s press briefing."
So the WH's Chief of Staff conduct is being disowned by the WH legal council...
This utter shit show is hilarious. Everything follows the same path. Starts out as Trump doing nothing wrong and it's all a witch hunt. And ends with, so what it happens all the time and besides, it's not illegal.
The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!SAW it coming, or actively worked to get Trump to pull US troops out of Syria?
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
Vote Trump 2020 - Make America A Puppet Again
All of those items are downsides for the US only if you believe it should continue being the de facto global cop; it's also interesting to note how much criticism the US garnered historically in carrying out its enforcement of the post-WW2 global order.The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!SAW it coming, or actively worked to get Trump to pull US troops out of Syria?
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
Russia wins the match here. US forfeited. Kurds get slaughtered and oppressed for god knows how much longer. Erdogan stays in power. Like it or not that’s the net result of this fiasco.
Except that Russia's southern borders along the Black and Caspian seas pretty much put them in the ME neighborhood as a function of geography, even if just a country outside of what is formally considered ME. Russia is interested in influence in the area in part due to nostalgia for former superpower status, but also because of the geopolitical and economic benefits of pipelines to the EU. This serves the oligarchy's pocketbooks and Putin's political ambitions. This is bad for the EU (acknowledging that they would also have to agree to buy the gas, but...), bad for our alliances, and the current situation is especially bad for NATO. The current situation shows both the weaknesses and the need for a continued strong NATO. That Turkey is increasingly aligning with Russia and making loud noises about wanting to join the nuclear arms club does not help; Russia is likely to help Turkey with this given their prior support to Iran, etc. Nuclear proliferation in the ME is strategically bad for not only the US, but the whole world.All of those items are downsides for the US only if you believe it should continue being the de facto global cop; it's also interesting to note how much criticism the US garnered historically in carrying out its enforcement of the post-WW2 global order.The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!SAW it coming, or actively worked to get Trump to pull US troops out of Syria?
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
Russia wins the match here. US forfeited. Kurds get slaughtered and oppressed for god knows how much longer. Erdogan stays in power. Like it or not that’s the net result of this fiasco.
I'm not sure how much of a long-term win any of this is for Russia. Assuming they are still pursuing their Neo-Eurasianism geopolitical objectives (e.g. Alexander Dugin), they can have their turn screwing around in the ME at great cost.
Quite likely, the dominance of the US within NATO has disincentivized Europe from forming a more coherent European-based opposition to Russian threats (both military and economic via natural gas supplies). I quoted Maçães elsewhere where he states that the current EU has had the privilege of growing up "in a controlled environment" -- a reference to how the US security umbrella has fostered the one-dimensional bureaucratic rules-based manner in which the EU flexes its muscle internationally. Eurocrats have international power only inasmuch as access to their markets are desirable to other countries and their security backstopped by NATO (i.e. the US). People who were born when WW2 ended in Europe are now 74 years old and Europe evidently still doesn't have the hard- or soft-power clout to counter a much-diminished Russian empire to its east. Why should the US assume most of this burden and then be saddled with all of the blame when things go inevitably wrong*?Except that Russia's southern borders along the Black and Caspian seas pretty much put them in the ME neighborhood as a function of geography, even if just a country outside of what is formally considered ME. Russia is interested in influence in the area in part due to nostalgia for former superpower status, but also because of the geopolitical and economic benefits of pipelines to the EU. This serves the oligarchy's pocketbooks and Putin's political ambitions. This is bad for the EU (acknowledging that they would also have to agree to buy the gas, but...), bad for our alliances, and the current situation is especially bad for NATO. The current situation shows both the weaknesses and the need for a continued strong NATO. That Turkey is increasingly aligning with Russia and making loud noises about wanting to join the nuclear arms club does not help; Russia is likely to help Turkey with this given their prior support to Iran, etc. Nuclear proliferation in the ME is strategically bad for not only the US, but the whole world.All of those items are downsides for the US only if you believe it should continue being the de facto global cop; it's also interesting to note how much criticism the US garnered historically in carrying out its enforcement of the post-WW2 global order.The Russians are running in to fill a strategic power vacuum left by the US abandonment in an area that happens to be advantageous for their natural gas interests? Shocked! Shocked, I say! It's almost as if they saw it coming!SAW it coming, or actively worked to get Trump to pull US troops out of Syria?
https://www.newsandguts.com/russians-move-into-syrian-kurdish-region-abandoned-by-u-s-forces/?fbclid=IwAR0U3iScZnFX-bco3BH8As8lhvjGghg7zstXQLLCBmMRPQAHPvKSe8naba0
Russia wins the match here. US forfeited. Kurds get slaughtered and oppressed for god knows how much longer. Erdogan stays in power. Like it or not that’s the net result of this fiasco.
I'm not sure how much of a long-term win any of this is for Russia. Assuming they are still pursuing their Neo-Eurasianism geopolitical objectives (e.g. Alexander Dugin), they can have their turn screwing around in the ME at great cost.
Saying that we are there only to be the world's cops is an easy way to write off our valid strategic interests in the area. Those interests are super complicated and internally contradictory at times. But yeah, I think Russia is pretty pleased about all aspects of this right now and will be plenty happy to be screwing around in the ME with less constraint for a while. The US has not been a beacon of morality in our military actions in the area (ahem, Iraq invasion), but we are a hell of a lot better than Russia is and has been.
*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.
I was thinking that NATO was pretty much what allowed Germany not to go full-on communist bloc, but maybe I assumed too much?I'm not doubting the historic importance of NATO in that regard--just its current relevance and the set of incentives it provides to its European members.
Keeping the world's most dynamic developed export economy as a market system seems like a win.
I’m sure a marketing director would say NATO suffers from poor branding. NATO isn’t a “European Organization” that the US ‘happens’ to belong to, nor was WWII a ‘European War’ that the US came in out of benevolence to win. The net benefits that we’ve gotten from NATO have been immense, and a fraction of what another war would cost in blood and treasure. The contributions which other NATO states have made are largely (and often intentionally) underrepresented for the size of their economies.Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population¶ms=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.
Likewise, Russia isn’t ‘Europe’s problem’ simply based on a rather incomplete view of geography (Russia is largely an Asian nation, and geographically is closer to the US than France or Italy or the UK).
I would never defend Trump's tactics--and thinking that he has any sort of coherent strategy is even more deluded. However, sometimes he might grasp onto an interesting idea by pure accident. I don't know that he is here but I am trying to argue in favor of a different way to conceptualize US foreign policy. No single sundae makes a person fat, but to stop getting fatter, eventually you have decide to stop having them all the time. Defending the Kurds again this one time might feel righteous but that same line of thinking leads to the various examples of US overreach and resulting blowback that litter the pages of history.*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.
Your point on political Rorschach test is well taken, and is seen in many facets of political discourse. Objectively, I think there is little to defend in Trump's actions on Syria over the last weeks. Getting out of Syria is a fine position to have. The manner in which it was done, apparently without substantive consult with the military or our allies, is strategically stupid and a terrible example to set in terms of abandoning allies. Why should the rest of NATO trust the US after the last years of Trump's actions? The adverse response to Trump's actions has been bipartisan. There is no easy button in geopolitics. Sure would be nice if Trump knew that.
Well the goalposts certainly have been moved very quickly. In the span of a week we've gone from: 1) The conversation between Trump and Ukraine was "Perfect" to 2) well we held up aid, but there was no quid-pro-quo, to 3) well aid eventually flowed and it was just Trump trying to assert pressure - there was no quid-pro-quo if you look beyond that one phone call to 4) there's nothing wrong with quid-pro-quos - it only matters who the quo is.
This is literally the line that's being pushed out by the WH defenders this morning. Up is down and black is white, and all these tepid defenses about "waiting for all the facts" and how the allegatons "if true are concerning" can all be brushed aside, because what matters is who Trump was cutting a quid-pro-quo with. Trump was making a deal with an ally, see? And anything done between friends can't be wrong.
I was thinking that NATO was pretty much what allowed Germany not to go full-on communist bloc, but maybe I assumed too much?I'm not doubting the historic importance of NATO in that regard--just its current relevance and the set of incentives it provides to its European members.
Keeping the world's most dynamic developed export economy as a market system seems like a win.I’m sure a marketing director would say NATO suffers from poor branding. NATO isn’t a “European Organization” that the US ‘happens’ to belong to, nor was WWII a ‘European War’ that the US came in out of benevolence to win. The net benefits that we’ve gotten from NATO have been immense, and a fraction of what another war would cost in blood and treasure. The contributions which other NATO states have made are largely (and often intentionally) underrepresented for the size of their economies.Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population¶ms=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.
Likewise, Russia isn’t ‘Europe’s problem’ simply based on a rather incomplete view of geography (Russia is largely an Asian nation, and geographically is closer to the US than France or Italy or the UK).I would never defend Trump's tactics--and thinking that he has any sort of coherent strategy is even more deluded. However, sometimes he might grasp onto an interesting idea by pure accident. I don't know that he is here but I am trying to argue in favor of a different way to conceptualize US foreign policy. No single sundae makes a person fat, but to stop getting fatter, eventually you have decide to stop having them all the time. Defending the Kurds again this one time might feel righteous but that same line of thinking leads to the various examples of US overreach and resulting blowback that litter the pages of history.*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.
Your point on political Rorschach test is well taken, and is seen in many facets of political discourse. Objectively, I think there is little to defend in Trump's actions on Syria over the last weeks. Getting out of Syria is a fine position to have. The manner in which it was done, apparently without substantive consult with the military or our allies, is strategically stupid and a terrible example to set in terms of abandoning allies. Why should the rest of NATO trust the US after the last years of Trump's actions? The adverse response to Trump's actions has been bipartisan. There is no easy button in geopolitics. Sure would be nice if Trump knew that.
Having NATO distrust the US is precisely the idea (to quote President Muffley). Europe is too complacent and probably would benefit in the long run from being unshielded from the outside world.
Regarding the Rorschach test, yes everything is one in the polarized environment we live in but I think it's easiest of all in foreign policy to make unfalsifiable claims. As difficult domestic policy is to craft within the context of a rules-based state, the anarchy of global foreign affairs is much more poorly constrained and poorly understood.
{{finally, I hope everyone realizes I don't necessarily believe any of this but it is a compelling argument I have been considering recently. I believe this viewpoint needs to be more broadly considered because maybe we are too complacent with the world order of the last 3/4 century and not ready for what may come next}}
Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population¶ms=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.
I think it's possible to both disagree with the way that decision was carried out but consider from a long-term strategy perspective that it was the right thing to do. Russia wants to strangle Europe via its natural gas supply? Well maybe Europe will import more LNG from the US, or reverse direction (in Germany) on the desirability of nuclear power, or tap their own reserves via fracking...I was thinking that NATO was pretty much what allowed Germany not to go full-on communist bloc, but maybe I assumed too much?I'm not doubting the historic importance of NATO in that regard--just its current relevance and the set of incentives it provides to its European members.
Keeping the world's most dynamic developed export economy as a market system seems like a win.I’m sure a marketing director would say NATO suffers from poor branding. NATO isn’t a “European Organization” that the US ‘happens’ to belong to, nor was WWII a ‘European War’ that the US came in out of benevolence to win. The net benefits that we’ve gotten from NATO have been immense, and a fraction of what another war would cost in blood and treasure. The contributions which other NATO states have made are largely (and often intentionally) underrepresented for the size of their economies.Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population¶ms=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.
Likewise, Russia isn’t ‘Europe’s problem’ simply based on a rather incomplete view of geography (Russia is largely an Asian nation, and geographically is closer to the US than France or Italy or the UK).I would never defend Trump's tactics--and thinking that he has any sort of coherent strategy is even more deluded. However, sometimes he might grasp onto an interesting idea by pure accident. I don't know that he is here but I am trying to argue in favor of a different way to conceptualize US foreign policy. No single sundae makes a person fat, but to stop getting fatter, eventually you have decide to stop having them all the time. Defending the Kurds again this one time might feel righteous but that same line of thinking leads to the various examples of US overreach and resulting blowback that litter the pages of history.*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.
Your point on political Rorschach test is well taken, and is seen in many facets of political discourse. Objectively, I think there is little to defend in Trump's actions on Syria over the last weeks. Getting out of Syria is a fine position to have. The manner in which it was done, apparently without substantive consult with the military or our allies, is strategically stupid and a terrible example to set in terms of abandoning allies. Why should the rest of NATO trust the US after the last years of Trump's actions? The adverse response to Trump's actions has been bipartisan. There is no easy button in geopolitics. Sure would be nice if Trump knew that.
Having NATO distrust the US is precisely the idea (to quote President Muffley). Europe is too complacent and probably would benefit in the long run from being unshielded from the outside world.
Regarding the Rorschach test, yes everything is one in the polarized environment we live in but I think it's easiest of all in foreign policy to make unfalsifiable claims. As difficult domestic policy is to craft within the context of a rules-based state, the anarchy of global foreign affairs is much more poorly constrained and poorly understood.
{{finally, I hope everyone realizes I don't necessarily believe any of this but it is a compelling argument I have been considering recently. I believe this viewpoint needs to be more broadly considered because maybe we are too complacent with the world order of the last 3/4 century and not ready for what may come next}}
I don't follow world politics that closely, I am not an expert but from what I understand Europe and European countries are allies to the US and vice versa; we have a shared history, democratic political systems and goals. Russia is NOT an ally to the US. It is a country that is ok injuring our diplomats (see Cuba), killing journalists (including US journalists), assasinating political enemies.
In turn, the Kurds are/were allies to the US, in that we had shared goals. To decide by talking to Turkey, to suddenly withdraw from that area, both abandoning Kurds, and giving Turkey and Russia and advantage in that area, is not only ethically wrong but strategically stupid for both Europe and ourselves. Having an oligargic/toltalitarian country like Russia stronger and taking over more trade from politically aligned European countries, can only hurt us. While I don't believe in the domino effect, I feel that Trump's favoring and being soft to toltalitarian governments is making the world a worse, less democratic place with increased human rights abuse, huge economic disparities. If you just want to look at money, closed borders means less consumers for anything the US might sell. A hotel in Turkey is not worth all that (I guess, unless you are Trump).
I was refuting the idea that Russia was in any meaningful way proximal to the US. Notwithstanding Sarah Palin's excellent eyesight, the parts of Russia that are near the US are virtually unpopulated.Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Center_of_population¶ms=56_34_N_53_30_E_) and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.
You've got me scratching my head on this one to understand your response. From what I understand, you seem to be saying that becasue Russia is a Eurasian nation, it should be a Eurasian problem. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense - we have a vested interest in what Russia does, just as we do with China. Economically Russia is a petroleum exporter - which is a globally traded commodity and we buy a crap ton of. The EU is also our biggest trading partner. In terms of national security Russia's military is second only to China's, not to mention they have the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads outside of the US. NORAD was designed to deter a Russian offensive because (guess what!) in this day and age even conventional Russian warplanes are within range of major US cities.
The whole point of our international involvement since WWII is that it's allowed the US to set favorable terms for international trade. Our prosperity is precisely because we have been involved; not in spite of it.
So...what have we concluded?
Is remaining the sole guarantor of global security a valid objective of US military might?
And, if not, by how much should we cut the Pentagon's budget?
I'm basically ok with both of these options:
1. We have a huge military budget to enforce Pax Americana as we have since the 50s.
2. We let the world sort out most of it's own problems, configure our military purely for national defense, and cut it's budget by, say 75%.
The increasing military spending and withdrawing from the world option seems pretty stupid.
-W
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding. The rest I'd put toward deficit reduction.The military has never been great about reintegrating its soldiers into civilian life - why start now?
There would be some significant economic damage from a 75% cut in military spending (including, yes, lots of basic research...) so you'd have to put some thought into how to reintegrate an awful lot of career military folks and civilian military-industrial-complex employees.
-W
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding.The most recent version for 2018 reports that, in 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp)
Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding.The most recent version for 2018 reports that, in 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp)
The U.S. spending estimate includes money spent by public sources, such as federally guaranteed student loans and direct loans from the Department of Education, and private funds. Private funds include fees and expenses paid by parents and students and private student loans, which are not federally guaranteed.
Several countries outspent the United States for elementary and secondary education, including Austria, Norway, and Luxembourg, which spent $13.931, $14,353, and $20,900, respectively, in 2015.
So the US is 4th out of 34 OECD countries for primary + secondary education. As a % of GDP, the US is a median spender. Student loans are not much of a factor outside of tertiary education, right?Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding.The most recent version for 2018 reports that, in 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp)
Maybe you didn’t read past the first paragraph you linked...?QuoteThe U.S. spending estimate includes money spent by public sources, such as federally guaranteed student loans and direct loans from the Department of Education, and private funds. Private funds include fees and expenses paid by parents and students and private student loans, which are not federally guaranteed.
Several countries outspent the United States for elementary and secondary education, including Austria, Norway, and Luxembourg, which spent $13.931, $14,353, and $20,900, respectively, in 2015.
So much of our “funding” comes from public and private student loans, and things paid for by parents and by the students themselves. That’s explains the disconnect between Walt’s comment that we need more direct public investment for R&D and education and the US spending more that some other OECD countries.
So the US is 4th out of 34 OECD countries for primary + secondary education. As a % of GDP, the US is a median spender. Student loans are not much of a factor outside of tertiary education, right?Me personally, I'd plow a lot of money into basic research and primary education, both of which we are woefully underfunding.The most recent version for 2018 reports that, in 2015, the United States spent approximately $12,800 per student on elementary and secondary education. That is over 35% more than the OECD country average of $9,500. (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp)
Maybe you didn’t read past the first paragraph you linked...?QuoteThe U.S. spending estimate includes money spent by public sources, such as federally guaranteed student loans and direct loans from the Department of Education, and private funds. Private funds include fees and expenses paid by parents and students and private student loans, which are not federally guaranteed.
Several countries outspent the United States for elementary and secondary education, including Austria, Norway, and Luxembourg, which spent $13.931, $14,353, and $20,900, respectively, in 2015.
So much of our “funding” comes from public and private student loans, and things paid for by parents and by the students themselves. That’s explains the disconnect between Walt’s comment that we need more direct public investment for R&D and education and the US spending more that some other OECD countries.
I totally agree on increased spending on basic research, however.
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers of citizens shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.Yep. This makes me sad.
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers ofcitizensillegal aliens and felons shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.
How much evidence do you have evidence of illegal aliens voting? By what mechanisms are illegal aliens managing to vote? Have any elections been verified to have had a different result because of illegal aliens voting? Or, just possibly, is this fear a Russian disinformation tactic that helps to divide American society and move a more gullible section of the population away from rational views of the world?But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers ofcitizensillegal aliens and felons shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.
Did I make it more accurate?
I've never understood why we don't allow felons who have served out their sentences to vote. At that point they are otherwise free men and women who have (to use the popular phrasing) paid for their crimes. Instead we disenfranchise them further.
Agreed that illegal alien voting has been a red herring used to get people all riled up. By most honest accounts the number of ineligible people who manage to cast a vote illegally is miniscule, and is far, far smaller than the number of eligible voters who get incorrectly turned away.
"Better to turn away a thousand eligible voters, than to allow one ineligible voter to vote"
-Benjamin Franklin (as quoted from his instagram feed)
I thought party gypsy gave a very nice summary of various GOP efforts to reduce the number of votes in elections.
What should be equally frustrating to progressives is how little resources are being directed to Stacey Abrams' efforts to increase turnout.
But when you talk to conservatives, they truly believe that these voter ID requirements are necessary. Even here in NC, in which we just got done re-doing an election because the Republican candidate hired a conman to basically fill out peoples' absentee ballots for them, many people seem to think it's these people without ID's that are the problem.
Meanwhile, I teach college students and roughly 1/4 of them don't have licenses or state IDs for the state we live in.
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers ofcitizensillegal aliens and felons shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.
Did I make it more accurate?
I thought party gypsy gave a very nice summary of various GOP efforts to reduce the number of votes in elections.
What should be equally frustrating to progressives is how little resources are being directed to Stacey Abrams' efforts to increase turnout.
But when you talk to conservatives, they truly believe that these voter ID requirements are necessary. Even here in NC, in which we just got done re-doing an election because the Republican candidate hired a conman to basically fill out peoples' absentee ballots for them, many people seem to think it's these people without ID's that are the problem.
I'm listening to it on the radio.
I really wonder at Republicans' abilities to stand up and lie so vehemently and flamboyantly. It's quite shocking.
Welp, it looks like it's time to get out the popcorn for the hearings (and the anti-nausea meds). Given the Russia-interference sbutext, I thought this poster by Scalise (R) was pretty funny, and perhaps unintentionally ironic.
(https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2019/10/31/scalise-rep-steve-700x420.jpg)
Every time I see something like this it makes me wonder if the person understands the difference between the Soviet Union and present-day Russia. Granted there are similarities, but they are not one and the same.
But there are so many people (and one large political party) that believe large numbers ofcitizensillegal aliens and felons shouldn't have the right to vote, or if allowed to vote, they shouldn't be represented equally. No way those people are interested in anything that puts more power in the hands of more people.
Did I make it more accurate?
How can you even say that, and then in your next post admit you live in NC? No that's not at all more accurate. The actions of the Republican representatives show without a shadow of a doubt that it's not about illegal aliens or felons, its about racial and religious minorities. Or, if I'm being as generous as humanly possible, at least about winning-at-any-cost (regardless of betraying democracy), and the only way they can do that "just happens to be" discriminating against racial and religious minorities.
And it's not like NC is unique in this regard, although it's especially blatant here. You can find the same stories and the same trends and the same tactics in practically every GOP-controlled state. The race element is particularly strong in the south, but it's not unique.I thought party gypsy gave a very nice summary of various GOP efforts to reduce the number of votes in elections.
What should be equally frustrating to progressives is how little resources are being directed to Stacey Abrams' efforts to increase turnout.
This sounds an awful lot like you're trying to "both sides" the situation. "Hey instead of just blaming Republicans for consistently demonstrating their true colors by intentionally suppressing the black vote, we should be equally mad at Democrats for not having successfully stopped them!" No thanks, my rage is reserved for those trying to destroy democracy, not those trying to preserve it.But when you talk to conservatives, they truly believe that these voter ID requirements are necessary. Even here in NC, in which we just got done re-doing an election because the Republican candidate hired a conman to basically fill out peoples' absentee ballots for them, many people seem to think it's these people without ID's that are the problem.
Right, and they believe that because their partisan propaganda has consistently lied to them and told them it's true, and they would rather believe their own blatant propaganda rather than the mountain of actual evidence on the topic. What's your point again? Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean it's correct or evidence-based or worth listening to or acting on.
And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble.
But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.
And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble.
"Partisan media bubbles" are also not a "both sides" issue, one side is obviously drastically worse in this regard than the other.
But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.
My opinion? You cannot. Republicans are not open to fact or evidence or logic-based convincing and they never will be. You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing you can do is continuously point out how openly awful and anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equal-treatment, and anti-fact-and-evidence-and-science all their actions are and wait for the next few generations to solidly oppose them and shift electoral numbers.
Some Republicans may have the self-awareness to reconsider things if it starts to become socially acceptable to despise them for the despicable things they do. I think most others will simply double down and refuse to admit wrongdoing. But my hope for the future of this country does not rest on convincing Republicans, it rests on the fact that they've now irreversibly shown their true colors in the Internet Age and then next three generations mostly despise them for it.
It's possible to get pretty partisan left wing news. People could certainly live in a bubble in that regard. I think that the part that's disturbing with the right leaning news sources is the disregard for provable fact. They are often straight up lying. I don't see this problem (at least to nowhere near the same extent) from left leaning news sources. This radically changes how being in a partisan right wing media bubble will impact you vs being in a partisan left wing media bubble.
And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble.
"Partisan media bubbles" are also not a "both sides" issue, one side is obviously drastically worse in this regard than the other.But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.
My opinion? You cannot. Republicans are not open to fact or evidence or logic-based convincing and they never will be. You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing you can do is continuously point out how openly awful and anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equal-treatment, and anti-fact-and-evidence-and-science all their actions are and wait for the next few generations to solidly oppose them and shift electoral numbers.
Some Republicans may have the self-awareness to reconsider things if it starts to become socially acceptable to despise them for the despicable things they do. I think most others will simply double down and refuse to admit wrongdoing. But my hope for the future of this country does not rest on convincing Republicans, it rests on the fact that they've now irreversibly shown their true colors in the Internet Age and then next three generations mostly despise them for it.
And I have to ask myself why it's broken: I think it's largely because of this absence of shared facts that has arisen from most people around here giving themselves to partisan media bubbles. My original comment--correcting "undocumented" to "illegal"--was meant to be an allusion to that conservative media bubble.
"Partisan media bubbles" are also not a "both sides" issue, one side is obviously drastically worse in this regard than the other.But I do think that the people who support the outrages that Republicans in NC are committing continue to think those outrages are necessary to keep them safe. And I don't know how to convince them otherwise.
My opinion? You cannot. Republicans are not open to fact or evidence or logic-based convincing and they never will be. You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing you can do is continuously point out how openly awful and anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equal-treatment, and anti-fact-and-evidence-and-science all their actions are and wait for the next few generations to solidly oppose them and shift electoral numbers.
Some Republicans may have the self-awareness to reconsider things if it starts to become socially acceptable to despise them for the despicable things they do. I think most others will simply double down and refuse to admit wrongdoing. But my hope for the future of this country does not rest on convincing Republicans, it rests on the fact that they've now irreversibly shown their true colors in the Internet Age and then next three generations mostly despise them for it.
I'm actually considering more of a "lull them to sleep" approach, based on the idea that:
- The economy is really good right now,
- so Trump probably isn't really in danger,
- and a Republican Senate would keep anything from Warren or Sanders happening anyway,
- The backlog of judges is pretty much completely worked-through,
- And--wow--I'm actually pretty tired and going to go home and take a nap
On #3, if one of those candidates some how won, I wouldn't assume they wont get any major legislation through. They are likely to implement at least one major promise. So if that makes you uneasy I wouldn't completely ignore that possibility.
Kind of like how Trump has gotten very little of his signature promises accomplished, despite having both the House and Senate under GOP control ofr the first two years. Remember all his talk of being 'a builder' and our 'crumbling infrastructure' which he would solve with $1T in spedning (which could have had massive bipartisan support? That went nowhere.
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:
1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.
Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:
1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.
Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.
There's little coordination among the Repub House members.
New defense: Trump did hold back the aid for an investigation but he had the right to do so to fight corruption.
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:
1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.
Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:
1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.
Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.
So, you try to hire someone to kill someone, and your hitman was actually fbi informant, means there is no case because the deal wasn't consumated? Um, try that for any other crime (trying to buy a prostitute, drugs, hitman, blackmail etc).
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:
1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.
Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.
So, you try to hire someone to kill someone, and your hitman was actually fbi informant, means there is no case because the deal wasn't consumated? Um, try that for any other crime (trying to buy a prostitute, drugs, hitman, blackmail etc).
Jordan has made some good speeches for the Republican side. He's presented the strongest defense and probably the one that'll stick. It's the headliner on foxnews.
Jordan has made some good speeches for the Republican side. He's presented the strongest defense and probably the one that'll stick. It's the headliner on foxnews.
Gym Jordan? Strong pass from that master of looking the other way.
Hmm, the House Republicans are trying two different impeachment defenses at the same time:Aren't these two versions of "nobody is stupid enough to try and be that bad at crime." despite the large numbers of people getting caught in various crimes because they are just not very good at it. Being bad at corruption does not mean it is not illegal or impeachable, just that you are not that effective at it.
1) There may have been conditions on the Ukraine aid but it wasn't quid pro quo.
2) It wasn't quid pro quo because the deal wasn't consummated.
Not completely contradictory but definitely requires an askance look.
Is this one of those things where a whole generation or two of people had some environmental, social, or otherwise, exposure that crippled some human capacity in some way? And now they get so easily distracted by these so transparently ridiculous conspiracy theories and lies and distortions, especially by the anti-liberal democracy media? You know, something like lead explaining in some significant way the spike and then subsequent drop in violent crime in recent history? Maybe some combination of corn flakes, ready access to cars, and the drumbeat of anticommunist rhetoric as a starting hypothesis for the witches brew that gives us modern America today?
Is this one of those things where a whole generation or two of people had some environmental, social, or otherwise, exposure that crippled some human capacity in some way? And now they get so easily distracted by these so transparently ridiculous conspiracy theories and lies and distortions, especially by the anti-liberal democracy media? You know, something like lead explaining in some significant way the spike and then subsequent drop in violent crime in recent history? Maybe some combination of corn flakes, ready access to cars, and the drumbeat of anticommunist rhetoric as a starting hypothesis for the witches brew that gives us modern America today?
I believe the lack of progress on infrastructure reflects the general movement of the country right-ward over the last four decades.
I did attend a presentation by Mulvaney about two years ago: he mentioned infrastructure specifically, saying that the "Republican" way of doing infrastructure was different than the "Democrat" way of doing it, relying much more on using limited public money as a catalyst to spur public/private partnerships. He wasn't specific about an example of a success in this category.
I believe the lack of progress on infrastructure reflects the general movement of the country right-ward over the last four decades.
I did attend a presentation by Mulvaney about two years ago: he mentioned infrastructure specifically, saying that the "Republican" way of doing infrastructure was different than the "Democrat" way of doing it, relying much more on using limited public money as a catalyst to spur public/private partnerships. He wasn't specific about an example of a success in this category.
I am actually happy about the fact the there are no big infrastructure spending bills. Enough money is already spent propping up the transportation status quo and adding to local maintenance needs. The majority of infrastructure spending (roads) is not based on economic reality, is not what we can consider an investment in productivity, because more roads means more traffic. So I am not rooting for a massive infrastructure package that relies on funding the type of projects we are currently funding, only more and larger. I think a slowly increasing drip, tightly bound to productivity gains is needed.
I believe the lack of progress on infrastructure reflects the general movement of the country right-ward over the last four decades.
I did attend a presentation by Mulvaney about two years ago: he mentioned infrastructure specifically, saying that the "Republican" way of doing infrastructure was different than the "Democrat" way of doing it, relying much more on using limited public money as a catalyst to spur public/private partnerships. He wasn't specific about an example of a success in this category.
I am actually happy about the fact the there are no big infrastructure spending bills. Enough money is already spent propping up the transportation status quo and adding to local maintenance needs. The majority of infrastructure spending (roads) is not based on economic reality, is not what we can consider an investment in productivity, because more roads means more traffic. So I am not rooting for a massive infrastructure package that relies on funding the type of projects we are currently funding, only more and larger. I think a slowly increasing drip, tightly bound to productivity gains is needed.
well you've made the jump/assumption that an infrastructure bill would be primarily about roads, and that it would necessarily *increase* maintenance needs. That isn't necessarily the case.
Wow. Sondland isn't the most reliable witness but he's directly pulled in Perry, Mulvaney, Rudy, and even Trump* in this "drug deal." Even Fox News analyst Ken Starr has admitted defeat. The Foxnews headliner is "Whose Orders?"
Getting Bolton or Mulvaney to testify would probably get Trump removed from office but impeachment is a sure thing at this point.
* Trump's intelligence was mentioned in another thread. This is what Trump is good at -- he doesn't actually tell anyone to commit illegal activities on his behalf. He implies.
I listened to a bit of Sondland's testimony this morning before I drove out of NPR-range. Sweet Jesus is that dude in over his head. The absolute poster child for Dunning Kruger plus a healthy dose of drunk on proximity to power. He will have many regrets in the future. What a fucking embarrassment it is to have had him representing the United States as ambassador to the EU.
FYI I'm on another forum, and the Trump supporters are still firmly behind them. One says that it's nothing unless they prove "intent" that Trump intended to get quid pro quo. So... no impeachment is not a sure thing. In a normal universe, yes. Because the grounds for impeachment is less than grounds for criminal trial. But from what I can tell, (and one Trump supporter was asked, what would be suffiicient grounds for impeachment, with the sound of crickets) that basically none of this matters to Republicans.
I'm a middle aged lady on the boring side. I'm not a marcher. But, if the senate does not remove Trump it might be time for people to get back to marching in the streets.
FYI I'm on another forum, and the Trump supporters are still firmly behind them. One says that it's nothing unless they prove "intent" that Trump intended to get quid pro quo. So... no impeachment is not a sure thing. In a normal universe, yes. Because the grounds for impeachment is less than grounds for criminal trial. But from what I can tell, (and one Trump supporter was asked, what would be suffiicient grounds for impeachment, with the sound of crickets) that basically none of this matters to Republicans.
I'm a middle aged lady on the boring side. I'm not a marcher. But, if the senate does not remove Trump it might be time for people to get back to marching in the streets.
Remember that impeachment and the trial/conviction for impeachment are different things. The Articles for Impeachment will pass the House; it's a simple majority vote. Trump will be impeached unless a bunch of House Democrats wimp out.
It's true that there's an out for Trump -- Rudy, Mulvaney, Sondland, and Perry were all working by themselves without any input from Trump. He didn't know what they were doing!
FYI I'm on another forum, and the Trump supporters are still firmly behind them. One says that it's nothing unless they prove "intent" that Trump intended to get quid pro quo. So... no impeachment is not a sure thing. In a normal universe, yes. Because the grounds for impeachment is less than grounds for criminal trial. But from what I can tell, (and one Trump supporter was asked, what would be suffiicient grounds for impeachment, with the sound of crickets) that basically none of this matters to Republicans.It actually is. The first impeachment in US history was a judge who was incompetent and a bit crazy.
I'm a middle aged lady on the boring side. I'm not a marcher. But, if the senate does not remove Trump it might be time for people to get back to marching in the streets.
Remember that impeachment and the trial/conviction for impeachment are different things. The Articles for Impeachment will pass the House; it's a simple majority vote. Trump will be impeached unless a bunch of House Democrats wimp out.
It's true that there's an out for Trump -- Rudy, Mulvaney, Sondland, and Perry were all working by themselves without any input from Trump. He didn't know what they were doing!
Is gross incompetence/negligence an impeachable offense?
And last, as Fiona Hill ably testified on Thursday, the primary beneficiary of our domestic dysfunction and divisions is President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Republicans in Congress are spouting Russian-sponsored conspiracy theories that disparage Ukraine and obscure Russian interference in our democracy. President Trump consistently takes actions with respect to NATO, Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere that accrue to Russian rather than American interests.[/i]
While Americans spew venom at one another, Russia is working overtime to pour salt into our wounds. Using social media every day to inflame distrust, fear and hate, Russia is pitting Americans against one another by fueling extremes on both sides of every divisive issue, whether race, immigration or guns.
Mr. Putin seeks to dismantle democracy and destroy America’s standing as a global leader. The only question is whether we will allow him to succeed.
Shouldn't Nunes be required to step down as chairperson of the intelligence committee if he played a role in trying to get Ukraine to falsely claim that Biden was involved in corruption?
I'm surprised at how much the GOP members can lie without getting absolutely roasted by the Dems and the media.
Lot's of Kremlin propaganda in here, but interesting to see how Trump is covered on Russian state media:
https://news.yahoo.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-151254712.html
Makes a person wonder how much of the GOP activities have Russian donors...
Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.Well, it *is* about 8,000km from DC to Ukraine. So... that's definitely far.
Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.
#MoscowMitchPutin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.
He also is confident that our Senate will acquit Trump. Wonder (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a-mcconnell-backed-effort-to-lift-russian-sanctions-boosted-a-kentucky-project/2019/08/13/72b26e00-b97c-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html) why (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia/senator-paul-delivers-letter-from-trump-to-putin-idUSKBN1KT1RV=) he's (https://www.vox.com/2019/11/25/20981661/john-kennedy-roger-wicker-ukrainian-interference-russia) so (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395719-gop-senators-visited-moscow-on-july-4) confident? (https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-fails-to-block-administration-from-easing-russia-sanctions-11547664204)
Are you referring to the Inspector-General's report about whether the FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page were proper?
I am not surprised at all at the level of lying and ass kissing that the GOP is engaging in right now.I Trump is a strong argument for ranked choice voting, especially in primaries where the fields are large. Trump consistently came in very low relative to most of the other candidates, but because the votes were split among the others, Trump managed to get high overall standing. He would have been decimated by ranked choice voting because he was viewed by most primary voters as a terrible choice relative to pretty much all of the other options.
I would caveat that by saying, while I think Trump did something very wrong. I think it would be appropriate if there was some way of putting a president in their place that did not require removal. Because its possible impeachment too extreme and or difficult.
With regard to party behavior it, seems like we are witnessing the reality that the major parties are powerless in choosing their leaders. The GOP would have never put someone like Trump at the head of their ticket. He is too ill tempered and volatile. While the part may appropriate the victories Trump gets them at home, he is killing our reliability as an ally to our international neighbors.
The GOP congress is fully at the mercy of their voter base if any of them want to keep their jobs. So they are all pretty much stuck sticking their necks out for the President or losing their seat when they go up fore reelection... Most life long politicians will do and say what is necessary to keep their jobs.
NPR actually had some pretty interesting podcasts about how the erosion of party power in choosing their presidential candidates has effectively lead to a president like Trump being possible. I think there are also cases where a corrupt party would make very bad choices, but in this instance we are really seeing the effects of getting fucked by voters and current make up of the electoral college. Not the GOP and its members specifically. Career politicians in general cant be expected to sacrifice their careers for idealism.
+1.I am not surprised at all at the level of lying and ass kissing that the GOP is engaging in right now.I Trump is a strong argument for ranked choice voting, especially in primaries where the fields are large. Trump consistently came in very low relative to most of the other candidates, but because the votes were split among the others, Trump managed to get high overall standing. He would have been decimated by ranked choice voting because he was viewed by most primary voters as a terrible choice relative to pretty much all of the other options.
I would caveat that by saying, while I think Trump did something very wrong. I think it would be appropriate if there was some way of putting a president in their place that did not require removal. Because its possible impeachment too extreme and or difficult.
With regard to party behavior it, seems like we are witnessing the reality that the major parties are powerless in choosing their leaders. The GOP would have never put someone like Trump at the head of their ticket. He is too ill tempered and volatile. While the part may appropriate the victories Trump gets them at home, he is killing our reliability as an ally to our international neighbors.
The GOP congress is fully at the mercy of their voter base if any of them want to keep their jobs. So they are all pretty much stuck sticking their necks out for the President or losing their seat when they go up fore reelection... Most life long politicians will do and say what is necessary to keep their jobs.
NPR actually had some pretty interesting podcasts about how the erosion of party power in choosing their presidential candidates has effectively lead to a president like Trump being possible. I think there are also cases where a corrupt party would make very bad choices, but in this instance we are really seeing the effects of getting fucked by voters and current make up of the electoral college. Not the GOP and its members specifically. Career politicians in general cant be expected to sacrifice their careers for idealism.
When I heard it come out in Mid-December, I heard that it found now apparent political motivation, but it did document several instances in which bad decisions were made. The most important conclusion was that--in the absence of information from the Fusion GPS dossier--there was still enough evidence of Page's activities that surveillance was warranted. In particular, the work of Peter Strzok was adequate and unbiased (even if Strzok himself had obvious personal bias).
I believe Christopher Wray's statements about it, and I think Bill Barr's statements were (generously) "spin".
Yes ranked choice voting is the way to go, and I believe is how California does voting.
I believe Maine now used rank choice voting for the governorship.
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).
But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).
But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).
But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).
But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?
Agreed. These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to killRussianSoviet soldiers during the Cold War. Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).
But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?
Agreed. These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian soldiers. Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.
I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).
But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?
Agreed. These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian soldiers. Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.
That's making two unverified assumptions
- It was 'just' for the US to arm and train troops in our proxy-war with Russia (aka the Cold War) - something you've argued against multiple times
- that directing/rewarding kills is ethically the same as selling arms but not instructing the recipient to kill your advicary. /li]
...
If, for the sake of argument, Trump was actually unaware of what was going on, then at a minimum the whole crew was a bunch of novices that were played by many actors (not just Russia) and exploited. It feels like they were so enamored of being at the grown up tables that they were eager to wheel and deal, but were in woefully over their head. See also, pretty much anything that Kushner has touched.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-court-1st-durham-case-russia/3393941001/
Clinesmith plead guilty to falsifying evidence. Whatever your politics I think we can all agree that the FBI falsifying evidence and lying to the court is a grevious abuse of trust.
By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.
Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.
By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.
Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.
The silence is indeed deafening. That it took an opinion piece in the NYT to surface this is a bit disturbing.
By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.
Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.
The silence is indeed deafening. That it took an opinion piece in the NYT to surface this is a bit disturbing.
To be fair to Trump . . . he worked really hard at firing, or pissing off the competent people in government for four years. Maybe he doesn't know that it happened? It's not like he reads newspapers like the 'failing New York times'.
Confused. I thought the Mueller Report failed to find sufficient evidence of Trump coordinated directly with Russian Cyber-intelligence.Mueller was looking in a very limited way (didn't look at financials for instance) at whether specific actions amounted to criminal offences - for which he in any case followed the line that a President in office could not be subject to prosecution. And even then he came up with several convincing instances of criminal obstruction surrounding Russia matters. Not the same thing at all. If you look at Trump's actions overall, not limited to specific criminal offences and taking into account all the available evidence, then the conclusion that Trump is a Russian asset becomes overwhelming. And I expect a lot more evidence to emerge during future administrations.
Broadly speaking, I expect future administrations will find that the Trump administration deleted or destroyed an unprecedented number of documents, which will make reconstruction of what actually occurred difficult. Even if Trump is not a knowing asset, Russia must certainly be pleased at Trump's actions over the last 4 years.Confused. I thought the Mueller Report failed to find sufficient evidence of Trump coordinated directly with Russian Cyber-intelligence.Mueller was looking in a very limited way (didn't look at financials for instance) at whether specific actions amounted to criminal offences - for which he in any case followed the line that a President in office could not be subject to prosecution. And even then he came up with several convincing instances of criminal obstruction surrounding Russia matters. Not the same thing at all. If you look at Trump's actions overall, not limited to specific criminal offences and taking into account all the available evidence, then the conclusion that Trump is a Russian asset becomes overwhelming. And I expect a lot more evidence to emerge during future administrations.
Broadly speaking, I expect future administrations will find that the Trump administration deleted or destroyed an unprecedented number of documents, which will make reconstruction of what actually occurred difficult. Even if Trump is not a knowing asset, Russia must certainly be pleased at Trump's actions over the last 4 years.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia authorized extensive efforts to interfere in the American presidential election to denigrate the candidacy of Joseph R. Biden Jr., including intelligence operations to influence people close to former President Donald J. Trump, according to a declassified intelligence report released Tuesday.
The report did not name those people but seemed to be a reference to the work of Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who relentlessly pushed allegations of corruption about Mr. Biden and his family involving Ukraine.
“Russian state and proxy actors who all serve the Kremlin’s interests worked to affect U.S. public perceptions in a consistent manner,” the report said.
For all of the stale US debate about whether Trump and his aides "colluded" with Russia, there are now multiple reports, intelligence assessments and other known details to expose a damning reality: Moscow with its election meddling, Trump acolytes pushing false claims of voter fraud and his GOP supporters in the states now passing voter suppression laws share the same goal -- the denigration of the US democratic system.
Somehow this administration can't seem to get away from scandals involving Russia
This time it's about Russia paying bounties to Taliban militants for killing US soldiers. The official line from the WH is that Trump was never briefed on the matter, though reports refute this notion, detailing briefings going back to at least Feb 2020.
So either our own intelligence agencies did not brief the President, or they did and Trump has done nothing and denies knowing anything about it before this week.
take your pick of news outlets, none of them are particularly kind to Trump in this matter...
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/885033809/dems-fault-trump-over-russia-bounty-allegations-ask-for-more-information (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/885033809/dems-fault-trump-over-russia-bounty-allegations-ask-for-more-information)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wasnt-briefed-on-russian-bounty-intelligence-because-it-wasnt-verified-white-house-says-11593455761 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wasnt-briefed-on-russian-bounty-intelligence-because-it-wasnt-verified-white-house-says-11593455761)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html)
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/505153-cnn-russian-bounty-intel-was-included-in-trumps-daily-briefing (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/505153-cnn-russian-bounty-intel-was-included-in-trumps-daily-briefing)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/multiple-intelligence-streams-russian-bounties-for-us-troops-trump-not-briefed (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/multiple-intelligence-streams-russian-bounties-for-us-troops-trump-not-briefed)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/29/timeline-russia-bounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-response/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/29/timeline-russia-bounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-response/)
https://fox59.com/news/politics/white-house-trump-not-briefed-on-unverified-bounties/ (https://fox59.com/news/politics/white-house-trump-not-briefed-on-unverified-bounties/)