Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Belz...]

You're not fooling anyone, you're just as partisan as I.

How can I be partisan when I'm not an American and when I've voted for different parties over the course of my life?

Stop projecting your own behaviour onto other people. Not everyone is like you.

 

[logger]

I don't believe I asked why you didn't accept this article. Rather, I pointed out that you call this article fake news because it relies on unnamed sources, while you cite another article that does the same thing. You said that this is because "each side believes the narrative that side comes up with."

Yes, I'll be on the lookout when you put up or have faith in an article with unnamed sources, then we can be hypocrites together.

You also asked whether I accept the claims of that article (which is actually an opinion piece, if I've found the right article). I've only skimmed the article, couldn't find immediately the reference to an ex-NSA agent searching for "NSA", "agent" or "source".

I have no opinion on that article and am unfamiliar with the Observer.

I can clearly read it's just romour and innuendo from unnamed sources. You cannot?

 

[logger]

How can I be partisan when I'm not an American and when I've voted for different parties over the course of my life?

Lol
You really believe this don't you?

Stop projecting your own behaviour onto other people.

I'm not, I'm clearly responding to your one sided posts.

 

[Belz...]

Lol
You really believe this don't you?

That I voted for different parties in my life? Yes, I kind of do. That I'm Canadian? Yes, that seems to be a belief of mine.

I'm not, I'm clearly responding to your one sided posts.

Lol.

If you didn't spend 100% of your time in threads about Trump you might see other opinions of mine. In fact, you already have, but you conveniently forgot about them because doing so allows you to maintain your simplistic interpretation, and thinking in complex terms is hard.

 

[logger]

Lol.

If you didn't spend 100% of your time in threads about Trump you might see other opinions of mine. In fact, you already have, but you conveniently forgot about them because doing so allows you to maintain your simplistic interpretation, and thinking in complex terms is hard.

That's correct I have, I could count the times with three fingers.

I've agreed with Fudbucker at least a dozen times.

 

[phiwum]

Yes, I'll be on the lookout when you put up or have faith in an article with unnamed sources, then we can be hypocrites together.

Let me be clear. I have never said that articles with unnamed sources ought to be dismissed. Many such articles are reliable, particularly if confirmed by other reporters with other sources. I don't reject them out of hand.

Nor do I take for granted that they are true, whether or not they align with my prejudices.

Now, if you find that I have ever acted as if such articles are undeniable fact, then you will have evidence that I don't live up to my proclaimed principles.

In any case, we won't be hypocrites together, because I think that hypocrisy is a bad thing. I do try to fix my intellectual weaknesses rather than accept them, so you will be a self-admitted hypocrite all on your lonesome.

I can clearly read it's just romour and innuendo from unnamed sources. You cannot?

I have no opinion on that article.

 

[varwoche]

Suppose Putin wanted the platform change, does Trump not have the right if he thinks it might be a good faith effort in future negotiations. Do have a single clue on how these things work?

The notion that POTUS elect Trump changed the platform because Putin wanted it, and that's fine and dandy, is flat out bizarre. But fine, let's pretend it's fine and dandy.

Why then did Trump and Manafort lie about it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Especially when you are on tape blabbing to the Russians that the firing will take pressure off that same investigation.

That should be past tense, not future.

 

[Belz...]

That should be past tense, not future.

How about subjunctive?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The nations top attorney had to get legal "advisers" to tell him how to fill out a form ... that has no such caveats about not including certain activities (and yes, I have filled out an SF86)

So yeah, sessions lied on his form. Ignorance of the law and/or following bad legal advice is not a valid excuse.

Does following advice from the FBI person helping him fill out the form not count?

From the article:

Sessions initially listed a year's worth of meetings with foreign officials on the security clearance form, according to Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. But she says he and his staff were then told by an FBI employee who assisted in filling out the form, known as the SF-86, that he didn't need to list dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors that happened in his capacity as a senator.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fixed your pro-Trump, fact-challenged spin:
Framing. Yeah right.

Not to mention, we are being told, otherwise you and I wouldn't be aware of this claim.

Are you aware that the world is not black and white? Other colors do exist.

Not buying in to your witch-hunt based on speculation and allegation doesn't make me "pro-Trump".

 

[Emily's Cat]

You mean as opposed to firing him because he wanted to impede the investigation?

Now slow down, just because Trump said that's why he did it, I mean, how do you really know? We could all be brains in a vat, after all. Let's be proper skeptics about this.

First we need to establish we're not a world where Keanu Reeves can dodge bullets, then we can talk about this so called "evidence".

Yeah, but we only have President Trump's word that he fired Comey to impede the investigation - and we all know that we should take him seriously but not literally

And what is in the president's power to stop an investigation that he thinks is BS? Doesn't that also include investigations targeting him?

To be perfectly clear, Trump has not explicitly said he fired Comey to impede the Russia investigation. He did say that he thought about the investigation when he came to the decision, but he could have meant that he dismissed the investigation as unimportant and not reason enough to keep Comey on.

As usual, Trump's inability to communicate means that we have to do some interpretation.

Just to be clear, I think that he intended to fire Comey because of the investigation and other signs that Comey was not loyal to Trump personally. I also think that in his addle-headed manner, this is what he was alluding to when he spoke to Holt, further made plausible by his comments to the Russians.

But that said, this isn't a smoking gun. These are quite plausible interpretations, but not the only such.

That makes no difference: he willingly interfered with the investigation.

That was my point - it kinda depends.

IF Trump proceeds to interfere with the new director continuing the investigation, THEN it is fair to infer that he fired Comey in order to interfere with the investigation.

IF Trump does not interfere with the new director continuing the investigation, THEN it seems to imply that there may have been other reasons that he fired Comey, and that the firing was not a result of the investigation.

 

[NoahFence]

That was my point - it kinda depends.

IF Trump proceeds to interfere with the new director continuing the investigation, THEN it is fair to infer that he fired Comey in order to interfere with the investigation. IF Trump does not interfere with the new director continuing the investigation, THEN it seems to imply that there may have been other reasons that he fired Comey, and that the firing was not a result of the investigation.

I'm sorry, what?

On what planet is his outright admission that's what he did not good enough?

WTF?

 

[Resume]

IF Trump proceeds to interfere with the new director continuing the investigation, THEN it is fair to infer that he fired Comey in order to interfere with the investigation.

IF Trump does not interfere with the new director continuing the investigation, THEN it seems to imply that there may have been other reasons that he fired Comey, and that the firing was not a result of the investigation.

Or the new director gets on board and pledges loyalty the way Trump wanted Comey to do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And then told the Russians that the heat was off - the investigation would end.

This a misleading statement.

Trump told the Russians that the pressure was off *him* (not them), and the *he* wasn't under investigation. He did not tell them that the investigation would end, and it appears that the White house expects the investigation itself to continue without Comey.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Mr. Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

 

[Emily's Cat]

The defense offered by the administration is that the comment was meant to put Trump in a better negotiation position: Russia's actions put him in a tight spot, and they should remember that going forward.

It's not the most plausible interpretation, but it's not obviously false either. It's in keeping with Trump's ridiculous belief that diplomacy is about personal relationships and favors.
And, in any case, being pleased with a result doesn't mean that the result was your motivation. If Comey was fired for other reasons, does Trump's relief at hamstringing the investigation make it obstruction? (Not a rhetorical question -- I don't know.)

ETA: Again, let me say that all of this looks very plausibly like obstruction and dirty shenanigans to me. It's just not quite as obviously obstruction as some say around here, at least not from my perspective.

That viewpoint isn't completely wrong. Personal relationships play a pretty big role in a huge number of negotiations and dealings, both within the realm of business and in the realm of politics.

Being able to find common ground, and appeal to that common ground, is a pretty fundamental aspect of diplomacy. There's more to it than that, of course, but personal relationships and favors are part of the process.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trump's comments to Holt were as incoherent and ambiguous as one has come to expect from this master of communication.

Here's what he said:

He had made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it

And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won.​

Here's one interpretation of the above that does not entail that Russia is the reason for the firing. This is my own interpretation, not one I've seen elsewhere, but I think it's consistent with the above jumble of half-thoughts. I'm not saying it's what Trump meant, because who the **** knows what Trump means when he opens his mouth? (Even Trump seems puzzled by his own utterances.)

I had decided to fire Comey. I realized, however, that this might interfere with the ongoing Russia investigation, but I decided to do it anyway since the Russia investigation is pointless. There was no collusion, so interfering with an investigation bound to fail is not a significant issue.​

Of course, the common interpretation around here is something like this:

Comey is fixated on this Russia investigation and we need to get past it, so I fired him.​

That is also consistent with what he said.

Inadvertent of not, I love that Trump ends up agreeing that the Democrats should have been able to win this past election.

 

[TraneWreck]

This a misleading statement.

Trump told the Russians that the pressure was off *him* (not them), and the *he* wasn't under investigation. He did not tell them that the investigation would end, and it appears that the White house expects the investigation itself to continue without Comey.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

My statement doesn't suggest that I viewed the statement as taking the heat off of Russia. I'm not sure what you're seeing.

Posting Trump's crazy comments followed by his staff desperately trying to rationalize is not convincing. Just because everyone else understood that the investigation would continue doesn't mean that Trump did.

For the "pressure" to be off, something had to change when Comey left. If the change was just superficial presentation, that's hardly pressure, and also not remotely accurate in it's depiction of reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How about subjunctive?

I have forgotten that tense.

Wait... hold on... It seems that he has forgotten that tense...

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm sorry, what?

On what planet is his outright admission that's what he did not good enough?

WTF?

On the planet where he hasn't outright admitted it.