Merged All things Trump + Russia

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps so. That doesn't mean that the decision making process was thought out beyond a point that can only be called extremely superficial, though.



Which assumptions or statements do you think are unreasonable there when it comes to pointing out a reasonable alternative to your claim that distinctly rests on assumptions itself?



What did Comey lose at, again?



...What? No, seriously, what?




So... this whole post of yours was an utterly nonsensical "Comey is just like Hillary" claim?

I think Roger was posting satire.

 

[d4m10n]

Yeah, I do. But since you don't define interference to include a US sponsored coup, why should I have a semantics debate with you?

So you think a coup 3-4 years after an election counts as interference with an election process? Fascinating.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, organising a coup against an elected government isn't technically interfering with the election process, agreed, but if you know that is hanging over you, then the threat of such a coup is.

Fair point, jimbob, but I don't think the Guatemalan people could have reasonably foreseen the 1954 coup when voting in late 1950. There may well be good examples of the U.S. deliberately nfluencing the outcome of an election, but this isn't one of them.

More generally, though, it strikes me as fallacious to say that Americans are now enjoined from complaining about election interference because our grandparents supported similar interventions during the Cold War. Are we also enjoined from complaining about modern slavery if our great-great-grandparents happen to hail from the Old South?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[d4m10n]

Do you believe the United States interfered in zillions of "election processes abroad" or not?

Everybody knows it, but that was when the US still had influence it could exploit. Those days are long gone, so this is just a pointless diversion.

Everybody knows it, but nobody seems willing to point to a specific election campaign. Odd.

 

[Antonio Coceri]

Perhaps so. That doesn't mean that the decision making process was thought out beyond a point that can only be called extremely superficial, though.



Which assumptions or statements do you think are unreasonable there when it comes to pointing out a reasonable alternative to your claim that distinctly rests on assumptions itself?

I assume you have studied law, didnt you?
Even if youdid not pass the exams

 

[uke2se]

I assume you have studied law, didnt you?
Even if youdid not pass the exams

Do not personalize the argument. Instead, answer the question posed.

 

[TraneWreck]

Everybody knows it, but nobody seems willing to point to a specific election campaign. Odd.

Here's an LA Times article that gives some examples:

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

Given the current state of the Middle East, it should be noted that US engagement in that region began with a joint effort with Britain to undermine Mossadegh in Iran. Though that seems to have been included in the outright Coup category.

 

[d4m10n]

Thanks for the link, TraneWreck.

Which of Dov Levin's many examples is most comparable to the GRU stealing and leaking private data from the DNC? Certainly Bill Clinton's open support for Shimon Peres doesn't fall into the same political/conceptual/moral category as covert ops.

 

[Aridas]

I think Roger was posting satire.

Hopefully.

I assume you have studied law, didnt you?
Even if youdid not pass the exams

Totally irrelevant to the topics in question in either of those. I forgive you for your dislike, either way, but would expect that if it was actually about assumptions then you wouldn't like your suggestion especially much, either.

Thanks for the link, TraneWreck.

Which of Dov Levin's many examples is most comparable to the GRU stealing and leaking private data from the DNC? Certainly Bill Clinton's open support for Shimon Peres doesn't fall into the same political/conceptual/moral category as covert ops.

Of the examples there? The closest example for what you're asking here is likely -

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin. The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

How the CIA got that information is unstated, but related covert ops were apparently being performed by them, regardless.

 

[TraneWreck]

Thanks for the link, TraneWreck.

Which of Dov Levin's many examples is most comparable to the GRU stealing and leaking private data from the DNC? Certainly Bill Clinton's open support for Shimon Peres doesn't fall into the same political/conceptual/moral category as covert ops.

I would suggest that the outright coups dramatically exceed any poor moral behavior from hacking.

 

[d4m10n]

I would suggest that the outright coups dramatically exceed any poor moral behavior from hacking.

Agreed.

Had Russia instigated a coup in the U.S. we'd probably be hearing complaints even from folks like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.

How the CIA got that information [alleging corruption by Marxist Sandinistas] is unstated, but related covert ops were apparently being performed by them, regardless.

Seems plausible, at least. Contemporaneous reporting doesn't sound terribly sinister, though.

Nicaragua, unlike the United States, permits foreign contributions to political parties in national elections. But under Nicaraguan law, foreign contributors must pay a 50 percent tax to the Nicaraguan election agency, the Supreme Electoral Council.

 

[skyeagle409]

I agree that Trump lies but as Sessions has shown, there aren't necessarily any negative consequences for committing perjury.

There will be if Trump dares to testify under oath against Comey. Chances are, Trump will not dare do so while president.

As the recent comments by GOP senators calling Comey a liar and the long discussion about what "I hope you...." shows, as long as Trump's testimony supports the GOP version of events then there will be no impeachment and FOXNews and its fellow travellers will find ways to show that Trump is telling the truth.

Even then, cracks are appearing in Trump's support base and he has only been in office 4 months.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks for the link, TraneWreck.

Which of Dov Levin's many examples is most comparable to the GRU stealing and leaking private data from the DNC? Certainly Bill Clinton's open support for Shimon Peres doesn't fall into the same political/conceptual/moral category as covert ops.

So now that wasn't good enough either?

Can't you just admit you were wrong?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Had Russia instigated a coup in the U.S. we'd probably be hearing complaints even from folks like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.

"Probably."

I'd have thought we'd be hearing them now, but events of this past year have really made me reevaluate the cognitive dissonance some people are willing to put up with to keep themselves in power.

 

[The Don]

There will be if Trump dares to testify under oath against Comey. Chances are, Trump will not dare do so while president.

Why ? Who will bring charges ?

The Attorney General committed perjury live on TV and after the initial furore was drowned in a tsunami of Trump Allegations about Obama, no-one cares any more.

Trump will lie, lie and lie again and his enablers in the GOP will insist that it is the truth or that his words have been taken out of context or any of a wide range of lame excuses.

Edited to add this bit.....

In any case, a lot of this depends on individuals' recollections of meetings and the intent behind IMO deliberately ambiguous statements. Unless there is a tape recording then it's impossible to prove that Trump lied if he did so. Sure Comey is IMO a much more reliable witness and he has contemporaneous notes but Trump could simply claim he never said stuff or that Comey misheard and or misunderstood

...end of edit

Even then, cracks are appearing in Trump's support base and he has only been in office 4 months.

If the cracks are there, it's not affecting the GOP legislators' blind loyalty towards him.

 

[d4m10n]

So now that wasn't good enough either?

Can't you just admit you were wrong?

I'm looking for a good historical parallel for what the GRU did to the DNC. Orchestrating a coup d'état years after an election, while awful, isn't nearly that. Neither was Bill Clinton's unabashed public support for Shimon Peres, in hopes of maintaining the legacy of Yitzhak Rabin.

(EDIT: U.S. support for the anti-Sandinista front is a somewhat closer case.)

 

[jimbob]

I'm looking for a good historical parallel for what the GRU did to the DNC. Orchestrating a coup d'état years after an election, while awful, isn't nearly that. Neither was Bill Clinton's unabashed public support for Shimon Peres, in hopes of maintaining the legacy of Yitzhak Rabin.

(EDIT: U.S. support for the anti-Sandinista front is a somewhat closer case.)

I'd say that coups were worse but that was in the Cold War.

Since the end of the Cold War, even including Iraq, the US and the West has been better than Russia.

Russia has also directly attacked the West with their recent activities, so it is perfectly reasonable to take steps to protect ourselves.

 

[skyeagle409]

Why ? Who will bring charges ?

I will give you a hint. What happened to Bill Clinton when he lied under oath as president? Was he impeached? Yes, and it was the House of Representatives that approved the articles of impeachment against him.

Trump will lie, lie and lie again and his enablers in the GOP will insist that it is the truth or that his words have been taken out of context or any of a wide range of lame excuses.

Just remember what happened to Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and I might add that calls for impeachment are growing around the country. We are not there yet, but cracks are appearing in Trump's support base and when those cracks reach the Republicans in Washington, they will be looking out for their own survival and dump Trump.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I think Roger was posting satire.

Not exactly.

The parallels between Comey and Hillary's actions are quite real, at least in the minds of rightists who want to bring both of them down. That is why the lie that Comey leaked classified documents exists. This is how a right-wing smear campaign works, and it is very effective. Now we are all talking about his 'leak' as if it were real - and pretty soon it will be a 'fact' to be spouted at every opportunity whenever a 'leftist' tries to set the record straight.

Hillary endured decades of it - now it's Comey's turn. Ironically he is to blame for the position he now finds himself in. If only he had resisted the urge to put the boot in...

 

[The Don]

I will give you a hint. What happened to Bill Clinton when he lied under oath as president? Was he impeached? Yes, and it was the House of Representatives that approved the articles of impeachment against him.




Just remember what p to Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and I might add that calls for impeachment are growing around the ww. We are not there yet, but cracks are appearing in Trump's support base and when those cracks reach the Republicans in Washington, they will be looking out for their own survival and dump Trump.

IMO, the GOP will not indict. The damage of indictment will exceed the damage of not. At least in their minds.