Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Skeptic Ginger]

Article.

This is back page news here I expect to slowly come to a boil after the Climate Accords ignorance dies down.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nunes and Trump trying to change the subject:

Dispute erupts over House panel subpoenas for CIA, FBI looking for the "unmaskers".

A political feud erupted on Wednesday over the U.S. House Intelligence Committee's probe of suspected Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, with charges that the panel's Republican chairman subpoenaed the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency without telling Democratic members.

Committee aides complained that the chairman, Representative Devin Nunes, who publicly recused himself from leading the Russia probe in April following a secret visit he paid to White House officials, failed to consult Democrats on the subpoenas.

So both Sessions and Nunes now have volunteered faux recusals.


Trump Tweet

The big story is the "unmasking and surveillance" of people that took place during the Obama Administration.

 

[alfaniner]

Nunes and Trump trying to change the subject:

I don't know why, but this action makes me fear for the very stability of our government.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know why, but this action makes me fear for the very stability of our government.

It sure sets a terrible precedent. If future administrations behave this way, it might just completely break confidence in democracy in the US.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Would Comey's testimony before Congress be enough for you people? Anything other than Trump and putin themselves admitting it?

Clear and direct testimony before congress would certainly count, for example, the testimony given by Brennan. Pretty much anything firm, with an identifiable source, that is fact as opposed to speculation or suspicion counts.

Whatsisname had a phone call with the Russian guy between when Trump was elected and when he took office, and during that call there was discussion of Obama's sanctions. It may not have been "yuge" bad-doings, but it was definitely a breach of protocol. Not proof of collusion, but certainly disallowed.

Brennan testified that there was sufficient contact between people associated with Trump's campaign and known Russian operatives to raise suspicion and merit an investigation. Not proof of collusion though.

Oh wait. We already know that's not good enough for you either.

There's plenty that's good enough for me. Most of it just hasn't materialized yet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, come on people! Putin is just your everyday lifelong civil servant with billions of dollars. I'm sure each of you has a friend or relative who worked most of their life for the US Federal Government and now has several mansions, a couple super yachts, and the ability to engage in long-term leases of foreign politicians.

Most of congress, then? Seriously, how many mansions and luxury items do the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Obamas, the McCains, etc. have? Pretty much any of our well-established senators or house representatives have a substantial volume of luxuries, mansions, etc. as a result of them being involved in politics for their whole careers.

I suspect this is substantially true of most life-long politicians in any country.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Al Franken is on the talking circuit with his new book and is discussing Session's alleged perjury under oath during his confirmation hearing. Franken and another Senator sent a letter to Sessions, got an unsatisfactory answer and went to Comey with their concerns. Now Franken thinks more is about to break about Sessions soon.

A couple of things ought to give you pause here.

"on the talking circuit with his new book..."
"alleged perjury..."
"thinks more is about to break..."

Unsubstantiated speculation that will increase book sales. It may be true, but don't discount the profit motive of people one likes, simply because they're saying something one wants to be true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I'm asking you to support your claim.

Which claim?

I'll provide support, but I don't know what it is that you're asking me to support.

 

[Babbylonian]

Most of congress, then? Seriously, how many mansions and luxury items do the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Obamas, the McCains, etc. have? Pretty much any of our well-established senators or house representatives have a substantial volume of luxuries, mansions, etc. as a result of them being involved in politics for their whole careers.

I suspect this is substantially true of most life-long politicians in any country.

"Substantial volume of luxuries" is not the same thing as billions of dollars obtained obviously and almost exclusively from public corruption.

Are you seriously going to defend a thieving dictator now? Don't become a caricature.

 

[Babbylonian]

And you know another thing US politicians do, before, during and after they hold public office? File tax returns.

 

[varwoche]

"Substantial volume of luxuries" is not the same thing as billions of dollars obtained obviously and almost exclusively from public corruption.

Are you seriously going to defend a thieving dictator now? Don't become a caricature.

There's speculation that Putin is the richest person in the world. No Emily's Cat, this didn't come from speaking fees and writing books.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Substantial volume of luxuries" is not the same thing as billions of dollars obtained obviously and almost exclusively from public corruption.

Are you seriously going to defend a thieving dictator now? Don't become a caricature.

Not defending a dictator. Just stating the obvious - that lots of money, luxury items, and real estate deals don't make a person an evil dictator. Being an evil dictator makes a person an evil dictator.

None of the things that you mentioned are evidence of corruption. They might be an outcome of corruption, but by themselves they aren't sufficient to determine corrupt evil dictator.

Putin has luxuries because he is a corrupt dictator = True Statement
Putin is a corrupt dictator because he has luxuries = False Statement

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's speculation that Putin is the richest person in the world. No Emily's Cat, this didn't come from speaking fees and writing books.

I'm getting pretty tired of your assumptions, varwoche. You're way off base, and it's becoming offensive.

 

[Childlike Empress]

There's speculation that Putin is the richest person in the world. No Emily's Cat, this didn't come from speaking fees and writing books.

Speculation, you said it. By the same crowd who assumed after they destroyed the place and impaled the man that the wealth of the Libyan nation was what Gaddafi "stole", so it was confiscated. Absurd, rotten distortions of the truth and with Putin it is even more laughable. If you know anything about the man you know that he is not after personal wealth. Unlike your idol Killary the done rightful war criminal ruler of Yankistan.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm getting pretty tired of your assumptions, varwoche. You're way off base, and it's becoming offensive.

Do you have any idea how offensive it is watching people defend the vilest of humanity?

Take issue with my characterization as you wish, but that's what you're doing: Defending the worst.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Do you have any idea how offensive it is watching people defend the vilest of humanity?.

So the President of Russia, after 17 years (ahem, with a break) in office with stunning approval rates at home, respected all over the world outside of the "Western" propaganda bubble, is among "the vilest of humanity"? Really? That is your conviction?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know why, but this action makes me fear for the very stability of our government.

You should, it's a tad unstable at the moment. But it's temporary.

 

[Tony Stark]

So the President of Russia, after 17 years in office with stunning approval rates at home, respected all over the world outside of the "Western" propaganda bubble, is among "the vilest of humanity"? Really? That is your conviction?

So what if people in the Russian state owned/controlled propaganda bubble approve of Putin. He is still a vile piece of ****.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you have any idea how offensive it is watching people defend the vilest of humanity?

Take issue with my characterization as you wish, but that's what you're doing: Defending the worst.

Well gee, surely the fact that a murderous ex-KGB dictator has billions and billions of dollars with no visible means of support is not evidence of corruption.

 

[Babbylonian]

Well gee, surely the fact that a murderous ex-KGB dictator has billions and billions of dollars with no visible means of support is not evidence of corruption.

Apparently, it's nothing that a little false equivalence* and willful disregard for reality can't excuse.

*Just look at the examples of rich US politicians Emily's Cat offered:
McCains: John McCain married an heiress/rich businesswoman.
Kennedys: Rich before entering politics.
Obamas: Rich based largely on bestselling books
Clintons: Rich based on Hillary's legal career and Bill's speaking fees after leaving office.

And none of them are billionaires.