Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[phiwum]

Relative to what I know the US has done in the past, the quantity doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me.


Should we investigate it? Sure, just as we should expect other countries to investigate our meddling.

But to seemingly claim that such meddling is somehow unfair, and to imply that the president we have is only the president because of this meddling... To repeatedly come back to it as a battle-cry for the current crop of Anti-Trump folks seems disingenuous to me. Seems like just as much propaganda... only we're aiming it at ourselves.

You've never seen me suggest the highlighted.

 

[Babbylonian]

You've never seen me suggest the highlighted.

It's the standard pile of straw some people use in an attempt to change the issue. While there are obviously exceptions, most of us have accepted the reality we're in despite remaining desirous of a change.

And, ****, I can hardly blame Putin for wanting to screw with the US government. He's a murderous, thieving tyrant and wants badly to spread his evil. The bigger problem is that we seem to have evidence that Americans were conspiring with Russia to affect the election. Any American that did so needs to be in prison, not occupying the Oval Office or working anywhere in proximity to it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You've never seen me suggest the highlighted.

You personally, no.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's the standard pile of straw some people use in an attempt to change the issue. While there are obviously exceptions, most of us have accepted the reality we're in despite remaining desirous of a change.

And, ****, I can hardly blame Putin for wanting to screw with the US government. He's a murderous, thieving tyrant and wants badly to spread his evil. The bigger problem is that we seem to have evidence that Americans were conspiring with Russia to affect the election. Any American that did so needs to be in prison, not occupying the Oval Office or working anywhere in proximity to it.

We have some weak evidence, yes. We also have far stronger and more plentiful evidence that nobody in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to affect the election. If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd say the probability that any actual conspiring happened by anybody high up in the Trump campaign with anybody high up in the Russia government is less than 10%. Furthermore, I think if the same standard were applied to other Presidential campaigns (including that of Hillary's in 2016), my probability would be higher than 10%. Historically, Democrats have been the party of collaboration with foreign powers to win elections. They have also been the party of Communists, of fascists, of racists, and of eugenicists, for what it's worth. No wonder they engage in so much psychological projection.

 

[Segnosaur]

You are suggesting the actions of Russia last election are not novel nor limited to Russia. (I presume you're also suggesting that the quantity of Russian interference in 2016 wasn't noteworthy?)

Relative to what I know the US has done in the past, the quantity doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me.

Yes, there are various arguments tossed around about "Look how often the U.S. meddled in the politics of other countries". But, a little context is important here...

- In how many of those other situations has the U.S. been the only country involved? Remember, during the cold war, the Soviets (and other countries) were running around causing their own problems. (For example, many people point to the U.S. involvement in the 1948 Italian election, but Russia was funneling huge piles of cash to support their favored party.) At least in that case, the U.S. was providing balance.

I suspect many of the claims of 'interference' will be similar... with the elections already unfairly influenced by outside actors.

- How many of those cases occurred before most of us were born? Yeah, the CIA ran around causing havoc for decades. But, more recently they have kept out of that type of politics

 

[Cabbage]

We also have far stronger and more plentiful evidence that nobody in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to affect the election.

What is the nature of this evidence you claim we have?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is the nature of this evidence you claim we have?

Trump's word, of course.

 

[sunmaster14]

What is the nature of this evidence you claim we have?

Well, the fact that the deep state has been leaking anything and everything negative about Trump for the past year, without leaking anything remotely resembling collusion is pretty strong evidence by itself.

Additionally, much of the so-called evidence in favor of collusion is more appropriately viewed as evidence against it. Exhibit A is the meeting at Trump tower with the Russian lawyer et al. If there was collusion going on before that, the meeting would have made no sense. If there was collusion going on after that, presumably there would have been further contacts between the people at the meeting. Given the access to emails and the like granted by Kushner, Trump Jr, and Manafort to investigators, that strikes me as unlikely unless they had the presence of mind to delete all traces of meetings after the first one but not the first one itself.

Also, it is likely that the NSA has collected virtually all internet communications between Russian nationals and residents of the US. If any provided hints of collusion, I think we would have heard about it by now. If any had been encrypted to such a level that the NSA couldn't read the traffic, I think we would have heard about the Trump campaign using unusually strong encryption for their communications.

The smart money is on there being little tangible evidence of collusion, despite an incredibly intense investigation and the fervent desire of many in the intelligence community to bring Trump down.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I can hardly blame Putin for wanting to screw with the US government. He's a murderous, thieving tyrant and wants badly to spread his evil.

I can understand his motives, but that doesn't absolve him of blame.

The bigger problem is that we seem to have evidence that Americans were conspiring with Russia to affect the election.

The bigger problem is that a large number of Americans think anything is OK if it gets their party into power. They know that they got there by trickery, but democracy doesn't mean anything to them.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The smart money is on there being little tangible evidence of collusion, despite an incredibly intense investigation and the fervent desire of many in the intelligence community to bring Trump down.

You may be right. Al Capone was probably involved in hundreds of criminal conspiracies, but despite incredibly intense investigation the only thing they could get him on was tax evasion.

 

[NoahFence]

We have some weak evidence, yes. We also have far stronger and more plentiful evidence that nobody in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to affect the election. If I were a betting man, and I am, I'd say the probability that any actual conspiring happened by anybody high up in the Trump campaign with anybody high up in the Russia government is less than 10%. Furthermore, I think if the same standard were applied to other Presidential campaigns (including that of Hillary's in 2016), my probability would be higher than 10%. Historically, Democrats have been the party of collaboration with foreign powers to win elections. They have also been the party of Communists, of fascists, of racists, and of eugenicists, for what it's worth. No wonder they engage in so much psychological projection.

Word salad.

Trump pointed right in the camera and told them to do it. It's open and shut.

Just accept it so we can move on with the part where you explain to us why it's ok.

 

[NoahFence]

Well, the fact that the deep state

Illuminati busy or something? How about the NWO?

 

[Cabbage]

Well, the fact that the deep state has been leaking anything and everything negative about Trump for the past year, without leaking anything remotely resembling collusion is pretty strong evidence by itself.

The "anything and everything" is hyperbolic assumption on your part. Sure, there have been leaks. What justification that "anything and everything" has been leaked? Leaks have only recently come out about the proposed Moscow Trump Tower. If "everything" had truly been leaked, there would be no more leaks except those pertaining to the present.

Additionally, much of the so-called evidence in favor of collusion is more appropriately viewed as evidence against it. Exhibit A is the meeting at Trump tower with the Russian lawyer et al. If there was collusion going on before that, the meeting would have made no sense. If there was collusion going on after that, presumably there would have been further contacts between the people at the meeting. Given the access to emails and the like granted by Kushner, Trump Jr, and Manafort to investigators, that strikes me as unlikely unless they had the presence of mind to delete all traces of meetings after the first one but not the first one itself.

As the investigation is ongoing, it is premature to assume that the facts as you present them are complete. The Trumps have lied about the nature of those meetings. If there was nothing to hide, why persist in lies?

Also, it is likely that the NSA has collected virtually all internet communications between Russian nationals and residents of the US. If any provided hints of collusion, I think we would have heard about it by now.

Indeed, we have heard such hints. You referenced one of them above.

Honestly I don't see you presenting ANY evidence for your position. You seem to think that ABSENCE of evidence somehow constitutes evidence....In an investigation that is ongoing, no less, and one in which I feel sure Mueller is keeping many cards close to himself.



What's your prognosis on the possibility of it being discovered that Trump is involved in money laundering? Just curious.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, there are various arguments tossed around about "Look how often the U.S. meddled in the politics of other countries". But, a little context is important here...

- In how many of those other situations has the U.S. been the only country involved? Remember, during the cold war, the Soviets (and other countries) were running around causing their own problems. (For example, many people point to the U.S. involvement in the 1948 Italian election, but Russia was funneling huge piles of cash to support their favored party.) At least in that case, the U.S. was providing balance.

Are you somehow under the impression that Russia was the only player in this past US election? That seems... naive I suppose.

I suspect many of the claims of 'interference' will be similar... with the elections already unfairly influenced by outside actors.

I'm sorry, but I actually giggled at this. Do you honestly think that somehow the US interference in other countries, the blatant propaganda and puppets that we've placed have all somehow been in an effort to stop the really bad guys from doing it?

Instead of 'suspecting' things based on what you wish to be true, go do some research. The US is NOT a noble shining knight out to protect the world. We have just as many skeletons in our intelligence closets as nearly any other developed country does.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You may be right. Al Capone was probably involved in hundreds of criminal conspiracies, but despite incredibly intense investigation the only thing they could get him on was tax evasion.

Lol, do you think Trump is a criminal mastermind on the level of Capone?

 

[Babbylonian]

Lol, do you think Trump is a criminal mastermind on the level of Capone?

I'd say yes to the question, with the above edit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trump pointed right in the camera and told them to do it.

Did he now? That should be simplistic for you to provide evidence for in full context with no spin. Go for it!

 

[sunmaster14]

The "anything and everything" is hyperbolic assumption on your part. Sure, there have been leaks. What justification that "anything and everything" has been leaked? Leaks have only recently come out about the proposed Moscow Trump Tower. If "everything" had truly been leaked, there would be no more leaks except those pertaining to the present.

It seems to me that pretty much anything discovered by Mueller's team is leaked immediately. I assume that we're only just now hearing about the proposed Moscow Trump Tower because Mueller just found out about it. Sure, there may be more interesting little tidbits yet to be discovered, but we're getting down into the flotsam and jetsam. The Moscow Trump Tower was barely more than a fantasy.

And before you say "Ah ha, you wouldn't know about stuff Mueller has found out that hasn't leaked yet, and therefore you can't know that everything Mueller knows has leaked," I'll just point out that stuff has already leaked from Mueller's team that is an egregious breach of ethics and law concerning confidentiality. We already know that there are unscrupulous leakers eager to leak in order to undermine Trump, his family members, and his advisers. Unless information is tightly compartmentalized, which makes no sense in the context of an investigation (because you want your team members to collaborate, not work in isolation), then we can be pretty confident that any piece of inculpatory information will leak. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, exculpatory information never seems to leak, or at least it is never spun that way.

As the investigation is ongoing, it is premature to assume that the facts as you present them are complete. The Trumps have lied about the nature of those meetings. If there was nothing to hide, why persist in lies?

The investigation has been going on as long as the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and, in contrast with the Hillary's "security review," with the investigatory firepower of not one but two grand juries. Subpoenas have been issued left and right, and nobody has been granted immunity, also in contrast with the Hillary "security review." Furthermore, there is no evidence that anybody under investigation has destroyed 30,000 emails, as well as the electronic header information on the remaining 30,000. Further to that, there is no evidence that the President and the Attorney General are in anyway interfering with the investigation as happened from March 2015 to July 2016 with the "security review."

Point is, if there was anything to find, chances are it would have been found by now. And leaked of course.

Indeed, we have heard such hints. You referenced one of them above.

Honestly I don't see you presenting ANY evidence for your position. You seem to think that ABSENCE of evidence somehow constitutes evidence....In an investigation that is ongoing, no less, and one in which I feel sure Mueller is keeping many cards close to himself.

Yes, absence of evidence constitutes evidence. If somebody claims that he left his keys in my house during a dinner party, and I search for them and don't find them, then that is strong evidence that he didn't leave his keys in my house.

What's your prognosis on the possibility of it being discovered that Trump is involved in money laundering? Just curious.

Knowingly laundered money? I think that's a low probability. That doesn't strike me as Trump's gig, and he was under constant audit by the IRS. It would be a foolish thing for a billionaire to do.

If instead you ask me what is the probability that Trump did something illegal, then it's probably likely. The US has very stringent laws about bribing foreigners to get deals done in foreign countries, but in most countries, it is very difficult to be competitive without greasing a few palms here and there. Mueller may dig up something in that respect. It wouldn't impress me though. I think those laws are kind of stupid.

 

[Belz...]

Did you mean to write "can't?"

Oops. Yes.

If so, have you never had somebody make a negative impression on you?

Are you really trying to equivocate between those two words? I'm 0% impressed.

 

[sunmaster14]

Lol, do you think Trump is a criminal mastermind on the level of Capone?

Indeed. Al Capone always did his dirty deeds through layers of intermediaries. Kind of like how the Clinton campaign worked. Rather than sending Chelsea to collude with the Russians, like Trump did with Fredo Donald Trump Jr., Hillary and Bill would send out Podesta to ask another flack to ask a flunkie to make contact. How the flunkie could establish his bona fides for the Russians is part of the craft. He probably had a sample of Bill's semen that the Russians could use to verify the provenance of the contact.

Although, come to think of it (no pun intended), that wouldn't necessarily distinguish a Clinton agent from a bar maid in Bulgaria.