Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Emily's Cat]

Skepticism is characterized by a willingness to say that I don't know and by careful reasoning.

In this case, I can't say that even a preponderance of the evidence points to illegalities by Trump himself. There's some suggestive stuff out there, but not enough for me to think the odds are greater than 50/50 yet.

So I'll wait and see. If I had any practical role in the investigation, perhaps I wouldn't have the luxury of waiting, but I don't. I don't have to have an opinion on these things, so waiting and seeing seems the best option to me.

Agreed.

None of this is to suggest that Trump is a respectable man or anything close to a reasonable choice for President. He's one of the least likeable public figures I've seen, an incompetent egotist with not any interest in actual policy or principles, a boob who lies just as soon as blink.

Even more agreed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I took EC to be referring to numerous "unnamed senior administration/intelligence officials" as the basis for much of what is discussed as accepted fact.

ETA: the "helpful" infographic with the dude in a hoodie hacking the DNC being touted as some kind of evidence was probably one of my personal favorites.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Pretty much.

And Varwoche, I get where you're coming from, but it's an absurd request. It's been a part of so many posted articles, and it's been called out as speculative so many times, that it ends up feeling like a game here. I say "a lot of the grains of sand on the beach in Hawaii are actually ground up bits of coral" and you respond with "Yeah? Well show me one in person or I don't believe it!"

I get that's not your intention... but this is not difficult. You're asking me to do meaningless research for things that are prevalent and abundant in this thread. The fact that they're prevalent and abundant in this thread is exactly why I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Curious.

More curious are the parts you left out...

CNN originally reported the email was released September 4 -- 10 days earlier -- based on accounts from two sources who had seen the email. The new details appear to show that the sender was relying on publicly available information. The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.

 

[Childlike Empress]

More curious are the parts you left out...

To be fair, that disclaimer likely wasn't there when he posted the article. He's eager to deliver us all the bunk before it is debunked. And never looks back.

 

[phiwum]

Clearly, because he's an "ex" foreign intelligence operative, he would have zero ties to that foreign government, yes?

No, but because ex-operative is what he is.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I would like evidence of the "pro"

Their efforts to hide the contacts is evidence, and it implies guilty knowledge of something.

 

[jimbob]

Clearly, because he's an "ex" foreign intelligence operative, he would have zero ties to that foreign government, yes?

That foreign government which has arguably been the closest ally of the US for the last 40 years.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Clearly, because he's an "ex" foreign intelligence operative, he would have zero ties to that foreign government, yes?

Please explain: What would having non-zero "ties" to that government mean? Are you suggesting he was acting as an agent for that government, or is it more like Glenn Beck/Alex Jones "ties"?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Their efforts to hide the contacts is evidence, and it implies guilty knowledge of something.

Then go find the evidence of what that something is.find the "pro"

 

[WilliamSeger]

Then go find the evidence of what that something is.find the "pro"

It sure looks like Trump is getting ready to take a wrecking ball to Mueller's investigation before he can find much more, but we don't yet know what he already got out of Flynn and Papadopoulos.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Interesting comparison between Watergate and Russiagate:

[...] In summary, it took the FBI just four months to arrive at a clear picture of what had happened. Within ten months – by the time of Haldeman’s and Ehrlichman’s resignations and Dean’s dismissal – the existence of the cover-up was accepted knowledge. Within a year the existence of the evidence which would implicate Nixon himself in the cover-up had been discovered

Contrast this with the Russiagate investigation.

It is known that the Russiagate investigation began in July 2016, following Wikileaks’ publication of the DNC emails and the FBI’s initial meetings with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier. Eighteen months later it has however come up with no evidence of the conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Russians which it is supposed to be investigating.

This despite the fact that the investigative resources committed to the Russiagate investigation – which included surveillance of US citizens during the election – have been immeasurably greater and more intrusive than anything seen during Watergate. [...]

 

[varwoche]

Pretty much.

And Varwoche, I get where you're coming from, but it's an absurd request. It's been a part of so many posted articles, and it's been called out as speculative so many times, that it ends up feeling like a game here. I say "a lot of the grains of sand on the beach in Hawaii are actually ground up bits of coral" and you respond with "Yeah? Well show me one in person or I don't believe it!"

I get that's not your intention... but this is not difficult. You're asking me to do meaningless research for things that are prevalent and abundant in this thread. The fact that they're prevalent and abundant in this thread is exactly why I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole.

Frankly, I find this evasive to the point of bizarre.

In thread after thread you complain about the behavior of the press. Yet time after time, you refuse to cite one, lonely, solitary example of the behavior you take issue with. What, are readers supposed to take your word for it? And proceed to have a conversation in the abstract?

Actually, it's worse than that. You not only refuse to cite examples. You're dismissive, as if a simple request for a citation is somehow jerking you around. I don't get it one bit.

Despite that it may not always seem so, this Politics forum exists within what ostensibly is a forum for skeptics / critical thinkers, with an ethos for supporting our claims. That ethos seems to have wilted since the time I first joined. Where's CFLarsen when you need him?

 

[Emily's Cat]

To be fair, that disclaimer likely wasn't there when he posted the article. He's eager to deliver us all the bunk before it is debunked. And never looks back.

Fair point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, but because ex-operative is what he is.

That foreign government which has arguably been the closest ally of the US for the last 40 years.

Please explain: What would having non-zero "ties" to that government mean? Are you suggesting he was acting as an agent for that government, or is it more like Glenn Beck/Alex Jones "ties"?

The majority of the dot-connecting with respect to Trump is based on people who have ties to the Russian government. Not direct employees of that government, but are in some fashion tied to it through a series of connections. In several cases, the connections are alleged (ie a bank that is alleged to have been involved in some alleged money laundering allegedly on behalf of people allegedly tied to Putin).

Trump was offered, but does not appear to have received*, information about his political opponent from a foreign person with alleged ties to a foreign government.

Clinton paid actual money for information that she is known to have received about her political opponent from a foreign person who was a known intelligence operative for a foreign country.

But in these two scenarios, Clinton's actions are perfectly acceptable, whereas Trump's actions are treasonous.

I'm not sure I follow the distinction.

* It is possible that he received information, but that this has not yet been discovered.

 

[NoahFence]

Interesting comparison between Watergate and Russiagate:

True story -

It takes just as long to build a doghouse than it does an entire affluent subdivision.

Honest!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Frankly, I find this evasive to the point of bizarre.

In thread after thread you complain about the behavior of the press. Yet time after time, you refuse to cite one, lonely, solitary example of the behavior you take issue with. What, are readers supposed to take your word for it? And proceed to have a conversation in the abstract?

Actually, it's worse than that. You not only refuse to cite examples. You're dismissive, as if a simple request for a citation is somehow jerking you around. I don't get it one bit.

Despite that it may not always seem so, this Politics forum exists within what ostensibly is a forum for skeptics / critical thinkers, with an ethos for supporting our claims. That ethos seems to have wilted since the time I first joined. Where's CFLarsen when you need him?

I've cited them repeatedly - I've cited them when I make the complaint. You're referencing a repeated complaint about things I've already cited, and have had several discussions about... as if there is no evidence. You're not asking me to support my argument - you're asking me to repeatedly regurgitate work I've already done ad nauseum.

If you were coming in when it was relevant, I would point you back to the information cited. Rather, you're coming in multiple pages after the fact, and following me through multiple threads, hounding me for the same thing over and over. This isn't argument, Varwoche. And it's not skepticism that you're demonstrating.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's beyond pathetic.

Another of Putin's serial pullouts. Pull out. Run back in. Pull out...

Every time he thinks he's out, they pull him back in.

http://www.newsweek.com/most-russia...ia-operation-kremlin-death-toll-mounts-659450

Putin's repeated failure to close anything is starting to look pathological. Even the cyber campaign is open-ended, and its purpose is vague. He maintains the frozen conflicts he inherited and has added a few of his own. It's as if he sees them as assets, but it's hard to see why.

He declared victory in Chechnya, of course, but it's noticeable how many Chechens feature in ISIS so that ain't over either.

 

[Childlike Empress]

A great question of history is certainly why those ludicrous limey landlords have such a deep hatred of Russia. And everybody else who stands against their right to rule the world. Oops, forget that question.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The majority of the dot-connecting with respect to Trump is based on people who have ties to the Russian government. Not direct employees of that government, but are in some fashion tied to it through a series of connections. In several cases, the connections are alleged (ie a bank that is alleged to have been involved in some alleged money laundering allegedly on behalf of people allegedly tied to Putin).

Trump was offered, but does not appear to have received*, information about his political opponent from a foreign person with alleged ties to a foreign government.

Clinton paid actual money for information that she is known to have received about her political opponent from a foreign person who was a known intelligence operative for a foreign country.

But in these two scenarios, Clinton's actions are perfectly acceptable, whereas Trump's actions are treasonous.

I'm not sure I follow the distinction.

* It is possible that he received information, but that this has not yet been discovered.

Instead of thinking in terms of a political game, think of it in terms of the law. Russia is accused of espionage, aiding Trump's campaign, and money laundering, all of which are illegal. TrumpCo is being investigated for conspiring in those crimes in exchange of U.S. policies favorable to Russia.

What crime are you accusing Steele and Mueller of? Investigating TrumpCo?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Where's CFLarsen when you need him?

Last sighted posting in the comments of the SWIFT blog before it ceased.