Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[The Great Zaganza]

Some people don't understand the concept of opposition research.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, they're damnably devious! I think that Al Gore invented Twitter just to make Trump look like an ass.

It's a little puzzling how the friggin' Liberals are quite so clever and control absolutely no branch of the Federal Government, but you know what? That's just how clever they are! It's the Deep State, baby. If not for the Democratic Deep State, America would be Great Again. As it is, they thwart our every move because they want America to fail.

Simple version: you can't win, because they lose so darned well.

Sometimes I really have a tough time following you phiwum. I really suck at figuring sarcasm and satire from text.

 

[logger]

How convenient for you that the only credible people are on your side. It has all the signs of bias, but you just know that this time it's true.

Go ahead and tell me how credible the Clintons are. Oh you were putting words on my post again thinking I meant every person on the left. Got it!

Haven't you heard? The GOP can't get anything done, and it's the Democrats' fault for making them fail! Sounds like the GOP has little power after all.

Actually, this president has the Dems and what’s called the “establishment” against him. Money and power.

 

[logger]

Some people don't understand the concept of opposition research.

Nor the kind of people who do the research.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, you're free to jump on whatever suppositions tickle your fancy, but I'll just wait on the outcome of the various investigations rather than take such dramatic leaps of faith.

Agreed.

Speculative scenarios that are plausible but unsupported don't accomplish much except to give the impression of confirmation bias.

 

[logger]

Yup. If people in the information business start just making up ****, they tend to lose their credibility, which means that they tend to quickly lose their sources of income.

Interesting that you equate people who invented this piece as folks in the information business. There’s no reason you’ll ever believe this was a set up. You’ve completely bought it.

Hills and the Dems weren't the source.

You’re wrong, they bought it.

You really don't understand the business world, where people just about always get paid for providing valuable services, I take it? Given that investigations tend to cost the investigator money and resources, criticizing them for not doing it for free seems to be entirely unreasonable.

Lol
That wasn’t the point.

So, you've got no actual evidence to point to anything in the dossier being lies and even the Republicans who are actually investigating it have yet to do anything other than confirm parts of it, yet you want to dismiss it as all lies simply because it is associated, in some way, with the Dems?

Lol
Anything?
Confirm parts of it?
And yet they have you sold on it.

 

[logger]

Agreed.

Speculative scenarios that are plausible but unsupported don't accomplish much except to give the impression of confirmation bias.

Because you don’t get this is all part of the political game, get as much mileage out of it as one can.

 

[Belz...]

Go ahead and tell me how credible the Clintons are.

About as credible as any politician or public figure.

Oh you were putting words on my post again thinking I meant every person on the left.

No, that's not what I said, because that's not what you said. You said "dems". It's quite a meta strawman you managed to put out there.

Actually, this president has the Dems and what’s called the “establishment” against him. Money and power.

He's a longtime rich businessman. He IS the establishment.

 

[dudalb]

Maybe. But considering how irrelevant she is now, and the topic of this thread is Trump, why not address Trump's own corruption?

I don't mind people thinking Hilary is corrupt; I was not crazy about her myself.
It's when they deny the obvious Corruption going on with Trump that I get mad.
To use a example from Dickens: Hilary was the Artful Dodger;Trump is Bill Sikes.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nor the kind of people who do the research.

you mean skilled investigators and experienced former intelligence operatives, right?

Because if you are just making **** up, you don't have to get off your chair.

 

[dudalb]

About as credible as any politician or public figure.



No, that's not what I said, because that's not what you said. You said "dems". It's quite a meta strawman you managed to put out there.



He's a longtime rich businessman. He IS the establishment.

God, how can anybody not see that Trump's whole Anti Establishment routine is just a con to fool the suckers?

 

[Belz...]

I don't mind people thinking Hilary is corrupt; I was not crazy about her myself.

Few people were crazy about her; that's why she got so few votes. I'm still of the opinion that if she had nothing to hide re her wall street speeches, she would've released the transcripts just to shut Bernie up.

It's when they deny the obvious Corruption going on with Trump that I get mad.

Yeah but what about her e-mails!?

 

[CapelDodger]

He's a longtime rich businessman. He IS the establishment.

Not even self-made, but to the manner born.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sunmaster makes a claim and doesn't back it up.

I didn't see your post. Not because of the forum software. More due to my own internal software.

First, the dossier was not public before the election. But, yes, the dossier was already in the hands of the security agencies by the time of the election. However, and once again this is an educated extrapolation, after losing the election, Hillary's people pushed hard for the FBI and CIA (and the Obama administration in general) to investigate the dossier aggressively, despite any misgivings the "professionals" in these agencies might have had about the dossier's veracity. If it had been known at the time that the Clinton campaign was responsible for funding the dossier (and they were 100% responsible - don't fall for this nonsense that the dossier was partly funded by Republicans since its author wasn't even retained by Fusion GPS until after the Democrats took over the funding), so-called professionals at the FBI might have taken Hillary's pressure with a large grain of salt.

There would have been less wiretapping, less unmasking, less malicious leaking, etc. Flynn might still be National Security Adviser, and none of the alleged inappropriate pressure on Comey to go easy on Flynn would have happened, none of the ill will between Comey and Trump would have developed, and America might very well have been great again by now.

 

[sunmaster14]

Of course you don't refute or discuss anything in the report, just poisoning the well is good enough for you.

“As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven,” Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview with Reuters.

It seems likely that in the end, we'll get the opportunity to see just how much of the dossier has been corroborated/proven.

And remember, parts of the Steele dossier have been confirmed
Also, NBC’s Ken Dilanian reminds us that PARTS of the Steele dossier seem to line up with known facts. For example, Dilanian notes:

The dossier discusses Trump’s attempts to secure business deals in Russia, saying, “Regarding TRUMP’s claimed minimal investment profile in Russia, a separate source with direct knowledge said this had not been for want of trying. TRUMP’s previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St Petersburg as well as Moscow…” We now know that despite Trump saying he had no deals in Russia, his organization was trying to build Trump Tower Moscow during the Republican primaries.

The dossier says a “senior Russian diplomat withdrawn from Washington embassy on account of potential exposure in US presidential election operation/s.” According to McClatchy, Mikhail Kalugin was recalled from his post as head of the embassy’s economics section in August of 2016. BBC reported that U.S. government sources identified Kalugin as a spy, though NBC News has not confirmed this.

The dossier asserts that in early August 2016, “a Kremlin official involved in US relations commented on aspects of the Russian operation to date,” discussing attempts to compromise Jill STEIN of the Green Party; TRUMP foreign policy adviser Carter PAGE; and former DIA Director Michael Flynn, by inviting them to Moscow. Flynn and Stein spoke at the RT gala in 2015, Flynn having been paid. Page gave a Kremlin-friendly speech in Moscow in July 2016 while he was advising the Trump campaign.

Having read the dossier, I can't see anything in there that has been confirmed which wasn't already public information as of the date-stamps on the dossier's sections. It's a mix of speculation and just reporting what was available in the news already. Most of the latter is accepted as true, but that's hardly meaningful.

For example, if I wrote that "Michelle Obama was born a man, and she was first lady of the United States until January 20, 2017," you could say that half of my claims have been confirmed. The remainder is uncorroborated so far.

My "spidey senses" tell me that in the end you'll have more than the usual amount of egg on your face.

Well, I have literally never had egg on my face. Even figuratively, I have never had egg put on my face by this forum. I have over 9,500 posts, and I don't think I have ever claimed anything that I should have retracted. Admittedly, I've been lucky, but I also like to think that I'm very circumspect as well.

 

[phiwum]

I didn't see your post. Not because of the forum software. More due to my own internal software.

First, the dossier was not public before the election. But, yes, the dossier was already in the hands of the security agencies by the time of the election. However, and once again this is an educated extrapolation, after losing the election, Hillary's people pushed hard for the FBI and CIA (and the Obama administration in general) to investigate the dossier aggressively, despite any misgivings the "professionals" in these agencies might have had about the dossier's veracity. If it had been known at the time that the Clinton campaign was responsible for funding the dossier (and they were 100% responsible - don't fall for this nonsense that the dossier was partly funded by Republicans since its author wasn't even retained by Fusion GPS until after the Democrats took over the funding), so-called professionals at the FBI might have taken Hillary's pressure with a large grain of salt.

There would have been less wiretapping, less unmasking, less malicious leaking, etc. Flynn might still be National Security Adviser, and none of the alleged inappropriate pressure on Comey to go easy on Flynn would have happened, none of the ill will between Comey and Trump would have developed, and America might very well have been great again by now.

Funny way to spell "unevidenced guess that fits my prejudices".

Do let us know when it is no longer mere "educated extrapolation". Because once you have a scintilla of evidence that this event happened, it might be worth discussing.

 

[sunmaster14]

What is the nature of your problem with it?

It smacks of bearing false witness, which, despite it being one of the ten commandments, I think is immoral and very damaging to society. I would hope that you of all people would not want law enforcement to be sicked on innocent people through misrepresentation and lies.

 

[sunmaster14]

Funny way to spell "unevidenced guess that fits my prejudices".

Do let us know when it is no longer mere "educated extrapolation". Because once you have a scintilla of evidence that this event happened, it might be worth discussing.

You don't consider the fact that Clinton's lawyer lied about the provenance of the dossier for over a year is evidence of a corrupt intent? Do you not consider the fact that the dossier is an amateurish (take a look at the formatting; it's one level above forming a message by cutting letters out newspaper headlines) and completely unsourced document evidence that the FBI/CIA/DOJ had other than legitimate reasons for devoting resources to verifying it? How about the fact that the Clinton campaign (or former campaign) has been pushing the Russian collusion narrative hard in the media for over a year? None of that amounts to even a scintilla of evidence that Clinton had a hand in developing the narrative from the start?

 

[dudalb]

Not even self-made, but to the manner born.

I protest. If you are "to the manner born" you at least have some class and good taste. Trumpy has neither.

But yeah, given his record, he never would have been rich if it was not for Daddy's Money.

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't think it's that simple to dismiss. Yes, she lost to Trump. But I don't think it's a question of competency, I think it was a case of messaging and charisma. And while Trump is a douchecanoe... Clinton is also fairly well known for being pretty mean to people around her. Add to that the unconscious social bias against women in power (powerful decisive women are generally considered to be uncooperative and unlikable), and there's a multitude of reasons why she lost.

Some of it I think is also straight up bad tactics - focusing too much on the areas where she was already likely to win, and not enough on the areas that Trump took. Some of it is also reflective of a level of dissatisfaction with the democratic party as a whole.

None of those, however, indicate that Clinton is not intelligent - she's very intelligent, and very savvy. There's no reason to think that her loss in this election would indicate that she would be unable to pursue a different strategy with a different, longer term objective.

There's a pretty reasonable argument to say that part of her willingness to tolerate and stand by Bill during his presidential shenanigans was to bolster her own long range plans in the political arena.

On a the level of strategy (putting aside history and charisma and all that stuff), Hillary's big problem was that her internal polling was wrong. That's not really her fault. By early November, she thought she had it in the bag and was more concerned about winning the popular vote by a large margin so as to make her inevitable victory more resounding.