Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Belz...]

I love how Noah is just laughing his ass off. The lies are so blatant and easy to prove wrong, it's a wonder people are still doubting that there's a link there.

 

[The Don]

I love how Noah is just laughing his ass off. The lies are so blatant and easy to prove wrong, it's a wonder people are still doubting that there's a link there.

The only people who care about the lies are already anti-Trump. OTOH the GOP and their supporters simply do not mind him lying, conspiring with the Russians, pardoning Arpaio, supporting Nazis and the host of other things he has done.

 

[NoahFence]

What'd I say?

 

[Octavo]

That can't be true, he assured the American people that he has no business in Russia.

[emoji23]

I love how Noah is just laughing his ass off. The lies are so blatant and easy to prove wrong, it's a wonder people are still doubting that there's a link there.

That clip was very well put together. I would very much like to see what the resident Trump supporters / reasonable conservatives, think of this new revelation.

Not only that, but didn't Maddow report that the finance for this deal was being lined up by Putins pet bank?

*I went to see Noah's live stand up show a couple of weeks ago here in Sa - he's even better live!

ETA, that was multiquote from a mobile device. There's no excuse dammit.

 

[sunmaster14]

[emoji23] That clip was very well put together. I would very much like to see what the resident Trump supporters / reasonable conservatives, think of this new revelation.

A letter of intent is not a contract or an agreement, and it appears the project went nowhere. In other words, this news does not prove that Trump had any Russian investments or financial ties to Russia. Further undermining the probative value of the letter of intent is the use of typical Trump hyperbole. The intent was to build the tallest building in the world in Moscow? That's ridiculous. Such tall buildings do not make economic sense even in the most densely populated and developed cities in the world. They certainly wouldn't make sense in a city with projected negative population growth, a moderate population density, and a stagnant economy in a country dependent on oil and gas.

Not only that, but didn't Maddow report that the finance for this deal was being lined up by Putins pet bank?

Haven't seen this, but Maddow is not a credible source. I've noticed that she doesn't have a clue about finance.

*I went to see Noah's live stand up show a couple of weeks ago here in Sa - he's even better live!

He can't be worse. He is terrible on TV. Lame material, and he laughs at his own jokes, which is off-putting in my view. He also flubs too many of his punchlines.

ETA, that was multiquote from a mobile device. There's no excuse dammit.

Congratulations, I guess.

 

[Belz...]

A letter of intent is not a contract or an agreement, and it appears the project went nowhere.

I wonder if that logic applies to the Clintons...

Wait, of course not. They're not conservative!

Haven't seen this, but Maddow is not a credible source.

Of course not. She's not a conservative!

He can't be worse. He is terrible on TV. Lame material, and he laughs at his own jokes, which is off-putting in my view.

Of course. He's not a conservative!

 

[Octavo]

A letter of intent is not a contract or an agreement, and it appears the project went nowhere. In other words, this news does not prove that Trump had any Russian investments or financial ties to Russia. Further undermining the probative value of the letter of intent is the use of typical Trump hyperbole. The intent was to build the tallest building in the world in Moscow? That's ridiculous. Such tall buildings do not make economic sense even in the most densely populated and developed cities in the world. They certainly wouldn't make sense in a city with projected negative population growth, a moderate population density, and a stagnant economy in a country dependent on oil and gas.



Haven't seen this, but Maddow is not a credible source. I've noticed that she doesn't have a clue about finance.



He can't be worse. He is terrible on TV. Lame material, and he laughs at his own jokes, which is off-putting in my view. He also flubs too many of his punchlines.



Congratulations, I guess.

Well that was underwhelming, although I'm not sure why I expected anything different. Does this not at least prove Trump is willing to outright lie in public? Or are we to quibble over the definition of "ties" to Russia? That should prove entertaining.

I'm not surprised you don't find an African man poking fun at your leaders' incompetence funny. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

And thank you. Mastering the arcane and incredibly complex task that is multiquote is quite an accomplishment and I'm rightly proud of it.

 

[d4m10n]

Not only that, but didn't Maddow report that the finance for this deal was being lined up by Putins pet bank?

Haven't seen this, but Maddow is not a credible source. I've noticed that she doesn't have a clue about finance.

Do you consider the newspaper of record a credible source?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-tower-putin-felix-sater.html

Mr. Sater, a Russian immigrant, said he had lined up financing for the Trump Tower deal with VTB Bank, a Russian bank that was under American sanctions for involvement in Moscow’s efforts to undermine democracy in Ukraine. In another email, Mr. Sater envisioned a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Moscow.

“I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected,” Mr. Sater wrote.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, these are almost certainly unnamed sources rather than anonymous. 'Anonymous' is the Trump camp framing, no reason to adopt it.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well that was underwhelming, although I'm not sure why I expected anything different. Does this not at least prove Trump is willing to outright lie in public? Or are we to quibble over the definition of "ties" to Russia? That should prove entertaining.

Trump is of course willing to outright lie in public. He does it often. Other Presidents have done it too, but, yes, Trump does it more, although so far about trivial things.

There is still no persuasive evidence that Trump lied when he said he had no business or financial ties to Russia. Inking a letter of intent with respect to some pie-in-the-sky fantasy project does not rise to the level of a "tie" to Russia if the project never came remotely close to fruition.

I'm not surprised you don't find an African man poking fun at your leaders' incompetence funny. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

Why is that? Are African men known for being unfunny? I don't have a lot of experience with African comedians. Maybe it's not directly on point since African-American culture is quite different from African culture, but in my experience African-Americans have been reasonably well-represented among the funniest comedians, e.g. Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, Damon Wayons, and Dave Chapelle, just to name a few. Oh, and Garrett Morris.

Trevor Noah simply isn't funny. I don't think it has anything to do with his politics either. I thought Jon Stewart was pretty darn funny, and I disliked his politics too.

 

[sunmaster14]

Do you consider the newspaper of record a credible source?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-tower-putin-felix-sater.html

Pretty much. So yes I believe that the NY Times accurately quoted Felix Sater. Was Rachel Maddow simply quoting Felix Sater, or was she drawing conclusions based on what Felix Sater has said?

 

[Babbylonian]

There is still no persuasive evidence that Trump lied when he said he had no business or financial ties to Russia. Inking a letter of intent with respect to some pie-in-the-sky fantasy project does not rise to the level of a "tie" to Russia if the project never came remotely close to fruition.

Keep tracing over that barely perceptible line. Eventually, I'm sure everyone will see it as thick and bright as you do.

 

[jimbob]

Well that was underwhelming, although I'm not sure why I expected anything different. Does this not at least prove Trump is willing to outright lie in public? Or are we to quibble over the definition of "ties" to Russia? That should prove entertaining.

Trump is of course willing to outright lie in public. He does it often. Other Presidents have done it too, but, yes, Trump does it more, although so farsome is about trivial things.

There is still no persuasive evidence that Trump lied when he said he had no business or financial ties to Russia. Inking a letter of intent with respect to some pie-in-the-sky fantasy project does not rise to the level of a "tie" to Russia if the project never came remotely close to fruition.

I'm not surprised you don't find an African man poking fun at your leaders' incompetence funny. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

Why is that? Are African men known for being unfunny? I don't have a lot of experience with African comedians. Maybe it's not directly on point since African-American culture is quite different from African culture, but in my experience African-Americans have been reasonably well-represented among the funniest comedians, e.g. Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, Damon Wayons, and Dave Chapelle, just to name a few. Oh, and Garrett Morris.

Trevor Noah simply isn't funny. I don't think it has anything to do with his politics either. I thought Jon Stewart was pretty darn funny, and I disliked his politics too.

Trump has lied about serious things as well as trivial things, and about things that are easily disproved. His lying is different to normal politicians.

Is there any evidence that Trump would tell the truth if he could think of a lie that massages his ego instead? There is lots of evidence that he will think of a story that puts him at the centre of attention, even if it is completely (and obviously) untrue.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Perhaps, but you'll also look like an incoherent critic unless you are equally ready to dismiss any newspaper report using "sources familiar with the matter" and similar constructions, regardless of the topic.

I DO dismiss newspaper reports using such vague language. They're all unsubstantiated and speculative as far as I'm concerned.

 

[sunmaster14]

Trump has lied about serious things as well as trivial things, and about things that are easily disproved. His lying is different to normal politicians.

Well, I don't think Trump has lied about anything serious yet, not because he wouldn't if given the opportunity, but more because he lies as a rhetorical technique. Pretty much nobody takes his actual claims literally. They instead get a sense of what he thinks or believes from his lies.

His lies convey emotion and fashion an atmosphere and mood for his listeners. His braggadocio is part of his marketing shtick. As Fareed Zakaria astutely observed (first time for everything right?), Trump is not a liar so much as a ********ter (in case that gets censored, I'm referring to one who produces prodigious amounts of bovine excrement as he speaks).

Is there any evidence that Trump would tell the truth if he could think of a lie that massages his ego instead? There is lots of evidence that he will think of a story that puts him at the centre of attention, even if it is completely (and obviously) untrue.

Well, that's my view as well. Fortunately, Trump is the most transparent liar I've ever seen. Even more fortunately, everybody knows it. The kind of liar who scares me is the Hillary Clinton type who not only fashions reasonably plausible lies but is surrounded by an army of flacks who will viciously attack anybody who questions her lies. Actually, Barack Obama was such a liar as well, although probably not as bad as Hillary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How about this one? Aside from background facts, no identifiable sources I could find (correct me if I missed one).

Should this have been dismissed at the time? Should we have pretended that these sources might have been man-in-the-street know-nothings?

The background information supplied is verifiable. The claims of "someone familiar with" were speculative at the time they were reported. They later became confirmed. That doesn't change their status at the time though - they were still speculative.

 

[jimbob]

There was this

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ily-golf-courses-russia-funding-author-claims

Eric Trump said three years ago the Trump Organization had “all the funding we need out of Russia” for its golf course projects, according to an author recounting the story of a 2014 meeting with Donald Trump and his son.


Trump-Russia investigation reignites as Senate asks aides to hand over notes
Read more
The author also said Donald Trump “sort of tossed off that he had access to $100m”.

The author’s comments – which Eric Trump later said were “completely fabricated” – prompted widespread interest in the media and online.

Now, obviously this is disputed (by someone whose integrity is... doubtful and with motive to lie about it. But the money came from somewhere, and Trump wasn't exactly a good risk.

Dodson continued: “So when I got in the cart with Eric, as we were setting off [to play], I said” ‘Eric, who’s funding? I know no banks – because of the recession, the great recession – have touched a golf course. You know, no one’s funding any kind of golf construction. It’s dead in the water the last four or five years.’

There is also this story about the Trump links to Russian organised crime

https://newrepublic.com/article/143...ses-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate

Now Trump could have just been negligent in checking these but it is more evidence of historic Russian ties.

But even without an investigation by Congress or a special prosecutor, there is much we already know about the president’s debt to Russia. A review of the public record reveals a clear and disturbing pattern: Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia. Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, and even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties. Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money. Some ran a worldwide high-stakes gambling ring out of Trump Tower—in a unit directly below one owned by Trump. Others provided Trump with lucrative branding deals that required no investment on his part. Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics. “They saved his bacon,” says Kenneth McCallion, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Reagan administration who investigated ties between organized crime and Trump’s developments in the 1980s.

 

[Stacko]

Mueller sharing info on Manafort with NY AG.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.

The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump’s campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes.

The two teams have shared evidence and talked frequently in recent weeks about a potential case, these people said. One of the people familiar with progress on the case said both Mueller’s and Schneiderman’s teams have collected evidence on financial crimes, including potential money laundering.

No decision has been made on where or whether to file charges. “Nothing is imminent,” said one of the people familiar with the case.

 

[phiwum]

The background information supplied is verifiable. The claims of "someone familiar with" were speculative at the time they were reported. They later became confirmed. That doesn't change their status at the time though - they were still speculative.

The background information in the article you originally referenced is also verifiable, of course.

My take is this: a reputable news organization has cited unnamed sources. Because the news organization is reputable and the claims are not utterly implausible, I tend to think that the claims are more likely true than not. It would be better if there were named sources, but that's not how these things go often.

So, probably the claims in the NBC article are true, far as I'm concerned. It could turn out that this isn't the case, of course. If so, NBC's reputation would suffer most likely.

I do not think that a credible, established news organization would interview a nobody in the street and pretend that he's a source familiar with the investigation. You don't really think so either.

 

[quadraginta]

Mueller sharing info on Manafort with NY AG.

I wonder if Mueller helping state AGs go after his partners in crime was an unintended consequence of the Arpaio pardon which Trump failed to consider.