Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yates hearing, she burned them. Grassley tried to accuse her of partisan action when she refused to defend the Muslim ban and said she disappointed him because he voted to confirm her and her job was to support the POTUS.

She came back with, he had asked her if she'd follow an unlawful order (remember this was when Obama was in office), and she had told him no.

Burn!

 

[uke2se]

You seem to be assuming, for some reason, that we only meddle in elections that "are not democratic" and that we are always meddling for the sake of weakening autocrats and promoting freedom. Also, your response does nothing to address my logic, you are making a completely separate point.

We Swedes haven't meddled in other countries' elections. Are we ok to feel outraged when Russia meddles in ours?

 

[phiwum]

We Swedes haven't meddled in other countries' elections. Are we ok to feel outraged when Russia meddles in ours?

I think that your Zoidberg icon says it all.

 

[uke2se]

I think that your Zoidberg icon says it all.

He doesn't answer my question, that's for sure.

 

[applecorped]

Yates hearing, she burned them. Grassley tried to accuse her of partisan action when she refused to defend the Muslim ban and said she disappointed him because he voted to confirm her and her job was to support the POTUS.

She came back with, he had asked her if she'd follow an unlawful order (remember this was when Obama was in office), and she had told him no.

Burn!

Sick burn.

 

[JPK]

Good evening. I must have missed this. Mr. Spicer has repeatedly stated that Acting attorney general Yates gave the White House a "heads up". Repeatedly saying that in quotes. Who is he quoting when he uses that phrase and do these particular quotes have a special meaning like they do when President Trump uses quotes to mean something other than what's in those quotes?

 

[TraneWreck]

Yates hearing, she burned them. Grassley tried to accuse her of partisan action when she refused to defend the Muslim ban and said she disappointed him because he voted to confirm her and her job was to support the POTUS.

She came back with, he had asked her if she'd follow an unlawful order (remember this was when Obama was in office), and she had told him no.

Burn!

What's she doing with her life now? Gonna need good candidates in 2018 and beyond. She's badass.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yates hearing, she burned them. Grassley tried to accuse her of partisan action when she refused to defend the Muslim ban and said she disappointed him because he voted to confirm her and her job was to support the POTUS.

She came back with, he had asked her if she'd follow an unlawful order (remember this was when Obama was in office), and she had told him no.

Burn!

How about, "The fact that the courts ruled against it shows I was right all along. If the President had listened to me in the first place, it would have saved him a lot of embarrassment. In that respect, you could say I WAS supporting the President, trying to help him not look bad."

 

[Aridas]

It's overblown, selective outrage, as I've said.

Maybe, maybe not. It is much more directly in people's interest to be concerned about things that affect them much more directly, like foreign powers trying to mess with their government in ways that are likely to be negative for them, than to be concerned about things that affect them less directly, like their own government doing similar to other countries, so of course people will be more emotionally involved with one than the other.

And when it comes from members of the federal government, it's also hypocritical.

If they were actually part of the decisions and implementation, perhaps. The vast majority of the federal government is not, though.

I disagree. We are actually in a position to influence our government, so it makes much more sense to be concerned with what our government does than what other governments do.

A position to influence it in an effectively negligible way, for a number of those decisions, to put it simply. It's certainly not like pretty much any of the really nasty decisions tend to actually be run by the American people or even be declassified until long after any meaningful action can be taken regarding them.

 

[pgwenthold]

delete

 

[Meed]

Maybe, maybe not. It is much more directly in people's interest to be concerned about things that affect them much more directly, like foreign powers trying to mess with their government in ways that are likely to be negative for them, than to be concerned about things that affect them less directly, like their own government doing similar to other countries, so of course people will be more emotionally involved with one than the other.

The hack resulted in more information being out there. Not really a direct negative. Wrong in principle, but I wouldn't call it a bad thing. It didn't force anyone to vote in a way they didn't want to. And there are a million factors that could have influenced the election. It is selective and overblown outrage, because people are saying things like it's an act of war when it's something routinely engaged in by their own government, and other governments.

If they were actually part of the decisions and implementation, perhaps. The vast majority of the federal government is not, though.

They are part of the institution that does it (as are we as voters, in a sense).

A position to influence it in an effectively negligible way, for a number of those decisions, to put it simply. It's certainly not like pretty much any of the really nasty decisions tend to actually be run by the American people or even be declassified until long after any meaningful action can be taken regarding them.

We elect the officials responsible for controlling the CIA. It's our responsibility to care what the CIA does.

I don't think I can express myself more clearly on this, so I'll just agree to disagree with you.

 

[varwoche]

I've yet to hear a vaguely credible 'innocent' explanation as to why...

• Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin
• Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine
• Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform
• Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts
• Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts.
• Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign
• Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign
• Trump remains evasive about Flynn to this day

 

[wareyin]

The hack resulted in more information being out there. Not really a direct negative. Wrong in principle, but I wouldn't call it a bad thing. It didn't force anyone to vote in a way they didn't want to. And there are a million factors that could have influenced the election. It is selective and overblown outrage, because people are saying things like it's an act of war when it's something routinely engaged in by their own government, and other governments.

If you have information that 2 people have done something bad, but only release that information about one of the 2, you have distorted perceptions of those 2 people. You make one look worse than the other when they are not, even if more information is out there.

 

[uke2se]

If you have information that 2 people have done something bad, but only release that information about one of the 2, you have distorted perceptions of those 2 people. You make one look worse than the other when they are not, even if more information is out there.

Which is called lying by omission. That's one of the major problems with these kinds of hacks. The information could be completely true (although it often isn't - another problem), but it's still just the information that the hacker wants you to see. In an election, a thing such as this could seriously slant people's opinion, even if there isn't much to the actual contents of the hack - like with the DNC hack. The point is, people think there must be something there, and the story keeps in the news.

Meanwhile, nobody is talking about the other guy, and all the problems with him.

 

[TraneWreck]

I've yet to hear a vaguely credible 'innocent' explanation as to why...

• Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin
• Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine
• Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform
• Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts
• Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts.
• Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign
• Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign
• Trump remains evasive about Flynn to this day

Yes to all of that, but I still think the biggest scandal, the actual corruption, is in the Trump business ties to Russia, which they've barely dug into - or at least mentioned publicly.

There's still a lot left in this. We need an independent investigator. This snail's pace is testing the collective gnat-like memory of the American public.

Remember the 5 million illegal votes cast? Ha, no one else does either.

 

[Segnosaur]

The US has tried to influence elections in other countries 81 times between 1946 and 2000, and Russia has done so 36 times, according to this article. Not including military coups, direct invasions and things like that. And that's just the ones we know about.

A little context is important here.

I don't doubt that the U.S. has attempted to influence elections. However, keep in mind that in many of those cases, American attempts were often done as a counterbalance to those of other foreign governments. For example, their interference in the 1948 Italian election provided balance to the Russian interference in the same election.

I also take issue of the claim that Russia only interfered in elections 36 times... that may or may not be true, but the fact is Russia interfered in the political systems of many countries outside of elections.... by funding revolutions (either directly, or through satellite countries like Cuba), or by maintaining almost absolute control over countries like those behind the iron curtain. Simply focusing on "elections" gives a distorted view about just how much Russia interfered in other countries relative to the U.S.

 

[Meed]

I've yet to hear a vaguely credible 'innocent' explanation as to why...

• Trump flat out lied about ...

• 
  
  Trump lies and makes bizarre statements constantly. I don't think we can read much into that.
  
  As to why these people lied about meetings with Russians and so on, it could simply be that they thought they would make them look bad or would be used to attack them (even if the meetings were not nefarious).

 

[Meed]

Yes to all of that, but I still think the biggest scandal, the actual corruption, is in the Trump business ties to Russia, which they've barely dug into - or at least mentioned publicly.

I agree, that's the important part.

 

[Meed]

If you have information that 2 people have done something bad, but only release that information about one of the 2, you have distorted perceptions of those 2 people. You make one look worse than the other when they are not, even if more information is out there.

Uh, are you implying there's evidence Russia had access to Trump's emails as well, and decided not to release those?

Also, I don't agree that Podesta's emails made Clinton look worse than Trump, but that's obviously subjective.

A little context is important here.

I don't doubt that the U.S. has attempted to influence elections. However, keep in mind that in many of those cases, American attempts were often done as a counterbalance to those of other foreign governments. For example, their interference in the 1948 Italian election provided balance to the Russian interference in the same election.

That's just one example of 81 and I'm not sure it's a good justification anyway.

I also take issue of the claim that Russia only interfered in elections 36 times...

I explicitly said "that's just the ones we know about". The US has also likely interfered in more than 81, considering that 2/3 of these attempts were done in secret.

that may or may not be true, but the fact is Russia interfered in the political systems of many countries outside of elections.... by funding revolutions (either directly, or through satellite countries like Cuba),

As did the US. Orchestrating coups, funding revolutions, installing dictators, direct invasions....

Simply focusing on "elections" gives a distorted view about just how much Russia interfered in other countries relative to the U.S.

As does focusing only on Russia's interferences outside of elections, but not the US's.

But my point was not to compare the two and argue that the US does it more. My point was that it's routine for both.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It took a long time for all the deception in the run-up to Iraq War 2.0 to come to light, but it eventually did.
I am quite confident that the morass of Trump's rise to power will be discovered and published, but not very soon, at least on in the US.
But it is likely that everything the CIA/FBI knows also is known by the rest of the Five-Eyes Club, plus any Intelligence Agency with special interests Russia, such as the German BND.
As the saying goes, three people can keep a secret if...