Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[L'Emmerdeur]

I did not diagnose the organization as a whole as rabidly anti trump. I said Strzos, Page and folks they referred to in their communications were arguably rabidly anti-trump based on the text message evidence. So, SOME of the agency is, in fact, rabidly antitrump, it appears. I never said anything about the entirety of the agency.

OK, when you wrote "So, yes, some of those agencies appear to be rabidly anti-trump," you merely mis-typed. I can accept that. We know of a few agents who were anti-Trump, nothing beyond that.

Now, the Democrats pushed the narrative of the FBI being anti-Hillary in the summer of 2016, because Comey came out with the "reopening the investigation" thing. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nald-trump They pushed the narrative that it was "Trumpland" and that's why you shouldn't believe the allegations. Now, of course, it's a threat to democracy to question a single one of the good, hard-working, tireless, servants of all that is good and just in the world....

Democrats may have done so. I don't believe that I've ever claimed that the FBI nor Comey were or are anti-Clinton, though I expect that some FBI agents were and are. There are indications of that in the article you linked.

I admire your ability to employ circumlocutions and specious nuance to avoid precisely regurgitating talking points employed by right-wing propagandists. It would be boring if you just said 'deep state, deep state!'

Or, you could lower the volume on hyperbole, and just accept that what I said was that there were, in fact, some agents who appeared, based on their own words, to be on a mission to keep trump out of office, and to put hillary in office, and that there were others involved and that there was an "insurance policy" to deal with it. That's what they said, expressly, literally - that's not saying everyone in the agency or the DOJ was in on it. The people involved were the people involved. But saying that there were SOME involved does not mean everyone is involved.

You're going with the right wing conspiracy theory interpretation of the 'insurance policy' text, which was created to further the agenda of people like Trump and Nunes. According to reports, it wasn't about 'dealing' with (an attack on) a Trump presidency.

An FBI agent’s reference to “an insurance policy” in a much-debated text message was meant to convey that the bureau needed to aggressively investigate allegations of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, according to people familiar with his account.

The agent didn’t intend to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate but rather address a colleague who believed the Federal Bureau of Investigation could take its time because Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was certain to win the election, the people said.

...

The text came after a meeting involving Ms. Page, Mr. Strzok and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, according to people close to the pair and familiar with their version of events. At the meeting, Ms. Page suggested they could take their time investigating the alleged collusion because Mrs. Clinton was likely to win, the people said.

If they move more deliberately, she argued, they could reduce the risk of burning sensitive sources.

Mr. Strzok felt otherwise, according to these people.

His text was meant to convey his belief that the investigation couldn't afford to take a more measured approach because Mr. Trump could very well win the election, they said. It would be better to be aggressive and gather evidence quickly, he believed, because some of Mr. Trump’s associates could land administration jobs and it was important to know if they had colluded with Russia.

Twitter link to source

Even if you prefer to believe the conspiracy theory interpretation of the text, that isn't the only meaning of it that has been put forward, and there is no more reason to accept the conspiracy theory than there is the less sinister one described in the Wall Street Journal article.

You attribute a motive to Strzok's actions that you can't possibly know.

Hence my use of the word "if" and to discover his motive we would need an investigation - he could be questioned and so could other people who discussed stuff with him. Why shouldn't there be such an investigation?

It seems rather likely that there was already an internal investigation carried out by the FBI, which resulted in Strzok being removed from Mueller's team. What sort of investigation do you advocate?

If there were any evidence that he had changed the language to further a political aim, I think there's little doubt that he would have been fired already. But then again, I guess it all fits together. Of course he wouldn't have been fired, because apparently according to you he's an employee of a 'rabidly anti-trump' agency.

Well, we know he changed the language -- was there a good, solid, investigation to determine why he changed it? Certainly, his own words noted that he just thought Trump should never be President and that Hillary "just has to be elected." And, that there was an insurance policy to accomplish that. Obviously, I can't read his mind, but if you don't think that what I've described is enough to warrant an investigation, how much evidence do you think needs to be there before an investigation is opened on a government official?

We don't know whether there was already an internal FBI investigation, but as I noted above, it seems likely that there was. A highly respected and highly ranked agent isn't removed from an investigation unless that action is based on the results of a serious inquiry.

As for your insistence that 'they don't know it was the Russians,' your unwillingness to acknowledge that the intelligence agencies stated that they had additional evidence (unreleased to the public) which supported their conclusion is well established, as is your refusal to recognize the evidence that convinced the private cyber-security firms (and helped convince the intelligence agencies) that it was indeed the Russian government. That 'ain't evidence' to you, but the experts have a different opinion on the matter.

Given the choice between Putin, Trump, and Sean Hannity on one side, and professional cyber-security experts and the entire intelligence community of the United States on the other, I'm inclined to dismiss the claims of Putin and co.

Sure, but that's not the choice, only. One, it could be the Russians, but there be not connection to Trump. And, if you believe the intelligence agencies you have stated you are most likely to believe over the alternatives, then the last word from them is that Trump/Trump campaign had nothing to do with it (at least that there was no evidence that they did). Clapper - former head of the CIA -- said exactly that and nothing has yet changed.

So, quick question - if you believe the intelligence agencies that the Russians are the ones who did it, do you also believe them when they say that there is no evidence that Trump was in on it?

Clapper is not involved in the current investigation, so while I do believe that he is unaware of any evidence implicating the Trump campaign, that doesn't tell me that there is no evidence. If the finding of the current investigation is that the Trump campaign was not involved in any way, I see no reason why I wouldn't accept that.

It's possible that Trump's resistance to the investigation (firing Comey, repeatedly attempting to frame it as a 'witch hunt,' working with Nunes to create a spurious narrative are examples) is nothing more than a ham-handed attempt to 'defend himself' as he sees it, but there may well be a less innocent motivation.

The fact is that if a reporter has good reason for protecting the identity of their sources, they will do so,

Every journalistic policy on the topic says that if they have a "good reason" to do so, they should explain that reason.

If they have explained the reason to their editor, the editor may go ahead with the story. It's not hard to conceive of a situation where any intelligible explanation to the public of the reason for protecting the source would compromise the anonymity of the source. Thus the use of vague language like 'familiar with.' A person who is 'familiar with' the details of a situation could be directly involved in it, but to say 'involved with' would point to a very limited number of people. I expect that you're perfectly well aware of this, which is why I don't put much store in your ranting about anonymous sources.

and their editors will approve the publishing of the story if the report has credibility, based on what the reporter has told them about the sources. It's not as if the Wall Street Journal is in any way aligned with the left, or has a reputation for publishing false stories. I think that your repeatedly expressed concerns about anonymous sources are another example of your admirable ability to employ circumlocution, disguising the fact that basically you're parroting Trump's 'fake news' mantra.

It's not, to me, about them knowingly publishing false stories. The reporter can accurately convey what a source tells him, and thus the reporter is telling the truth, but the source is not being 100% accurate or the source isn't in a position to really know. When you have someone quoted who is not a source "participating" in an investigation, but is just a source "familiar" with an investigation, and then they purport to describe things that someone not involved in the investigation would have to learn by speaking to yet other people, we are in a realm of inaccuracy.

Not necessarily, and your 'knowingly publishing false stories' is baseless if applied to the vast majority of genuine journalists.

It's no different than taking a line of people and asking them to repeat a story. If a story is more than just a few words - even if it's just a few sentences - you don't get past two or three total people in the Chinese Whispers line before you have material differences in the story. When you're talking about politics and law, and you've got a report about what the President's fucking LAWYERS are telling him in terms of legal advice, but the report is coming from "people familiar with..." and not the lawyers, then you are in the realm of this: (1) reporter recounts the story to us, (2) reporter heard it from Joe Blow the person familiar, but (3) Joe Blow was told by either a lawyer breaking the strict attorney-client privilege rule or a (4) someone who heard it from yet another person. We have no way to assess the credibility of any of the people - we have no way to judge their motivation - we have no way to know who first talked -- I mean, did the reporter talk to someone who misheard something? We just don't know.

Yes there are instances where it is reasonable to question the accuracy of a story. However you've shown a nearly inevitable condemnation of any anonymous source, and so your objections have become background noise, fit mostly for ridicule.

And, no, I don't credit today's reporters with a thoroughness that they have their detailed notes all information needed to substantiate. Reporters are under an intense pressure to get scoops and to publish stories. And, so they try to develop relationships with people who can give them that. They need a story, they know Adam Schiff, and they pick up the phone and call him for comment - he will tell them something on condition of anonymity and if the reporter wants to keep access, he has to honor it.

I'm not saying that's every single time - but i am saying - and you know as well as I do - that it does happen SOMETIMES and it happens enough for it to be important to guard against. The notion that politicians do not use the media and reporters to push their messages, is absurd. Of course they do. And, if a reporter lets them remain anonymous, all the better. This is both Democrats and Republicans.

I do agree that inaccurate stories get published. However, the free press generally has a good record, despite the attempt by Trump and his sycophants to demean it and cast doubt on its motives.

Now, with the WSJ being a conservative outfit, I agree with you. However, conservatives have hated Trump since he announced his candidacy. Yes, he has support from many Republicans, but he has a strong opposition within his own party, and that's why his administration has been just besieged by leaks and attacks from within. Politics is a dirty game.

Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are hardly 'strong opposition.' Care to point to any recent examples of this 'strong opposition'? Plenty of Republican politicians who expressed very strong disapproval of Trump as a candidate shortly thereafter reaffirmed their support for him and are now fawning over him. Fox News at one time occasionally came out with stories that showed Trump in a less than flattering light, but that's much rarer now. The Wall Street Journal doesn't appear to be anti-Trump, though they apparently haven't decided to take on the task of being a Trump propaganda outlet the way that Fox has.

[Forty Two]

They include: the hacking of John Podesta’s personal gmail account, the hacking of various DNC staffers’ gmail accounts, and the alleged hacking of two state voter registration databases (Arizona and Illinois.) You might also include the hack of the DCCC. All these could have been conducted by different actors. We have no necessary reason to conclude at this point that they all originated from the same “hacker.” That said, take the Podesta hack, which was probably the most prominent, at least down the stretch of the general election campaign. How was John Podesta’s email hacked? He apparently clicked a “phishing” link, the most ridiculously simple form of “hacking” ever, and probably not even describable by the word “hacking.” You certainly did not need sophisticated cyber warfare technology to access John Podesta’s email account. And yet, Podesta’s gmail troubles is being included in the array of incidents put forward as evidence of Russia somehow “hacking the election,” whatever that means:

https://medium.com/mtracey/liberal-pund ... e04fbeb189

All this is part of an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society in the wake of Trump’s election — especially the media. They’re continually working themselves into a lather, over-reacting to every Trump taunt, and literally driving themselves insane. I do mean literally, not figuratively. I sincerely think many of these people have lost their grip on reality, and they’re going to be completely steamrolled by Trump. They’ve rendered themselves ineffectual. I keep seeing Corn’s ilk giddily retweeting the likes of Evan McMullin and David Frum; I’m sure the burgeoning liberal-neocon alliance will work out super well.

And by the way, reflexively imputing nefarious motivations to every Russian actor is a form of xenophobia: Hillary Clinton ran one of the most xenophobic campaigns of all time, in fact — but her particular “phobia” was Russia, hence, Russophobia. Worth bearing in mind.

Over a year old, and there is literally nothing new to report on the Trump-Russia fiasco -- it's the same bullshit, over and over.

[Tero]

So why is the president after Mueller? Because his dirty business dealings with Russia will come out?

[Brian Peacock]

"All this is part of an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society in the wake of Trump’s election". lol. Could that article troll any harder if it tried?

Criticism and objection to Trump and the Repubs is 'an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society?' Really? Like even the administration and it's appointees, Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court, political 'advisers', PR squads, and contractors? You don't get more elite than that. What's the net-worth of the current cabinet again, and what's elite about a journalism or being a Democrat that isn't about a right-wing thinktank funded by the Koch brothers or being a Republican? Again we see 'being one of them' cast as a fatal compromiser of loyalty, patriotism, competence, probity, and character.

[pErvinalia]

And don't forget that anti-Trumpers are also literally insane. Very objective article.

[Sean Hayden]

Intelligent Trump supporters are just having a protracted brain fart. I think it's probably the result of looking very deeply into something, maybe because the situation was hopeless, and then loosing their way. It's like in chess when you think you've seen something brilliant and then after you've committed to it you realize you misapprehended the situation. Or like when you're programming and you get a rush because you've just solved some particularly nasty problem, only after you implement your solution you find you haven't solved anything. You may understand the problem very well now, you've seen very deeply into it, but something in all that analysis has caused you to miss what should have been very obvious. It's always embarrassing later.

[Seabass]

Intelligent Trump supporters

[Sean Hayden]

[Forty Two]

So why is the president after Mueller? Because his dirty business dealings with Russia will come out?

"After" him? Please be specific.

Look, Mueller is a danger to him. Like any cop or prosecutor, he's not on the side of the people he's investigating. So, Trump would be stupid to not be concerned about what Mueller is doing.

And, sure, if there was a "dirty" business dealing with Russia that would be somethign that would concern Trump. However, what tirty business dealing are you referring to? The one you're sure exists, despite not having any evidence for it?

[Forty Two]

"All this is part of an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society in the wake of Trump’s election". lol. Could that article troll any harder if it tried?

Criticism and objection to Trump and the Repubs is 'an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society?' Really?

No, criticism and objection is not.
However, the hysteria is not mere criticism and objection. It's hyperbole taken to hyperbolic levels, where moderate onlookers view the anti-Trump folks as bizarre caricatures.

Like even the administration and it's appointees, Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court, political 'advisers', PR squads, and contractors? You don't get more elite than that. What's the net-worth of the current cabinet again, and what's elite about a journalism or being a Democrat that isn't about a right-wing thinktank funded by the Koch brothers or being a Republican? Again we see 'being one of them' cast as a fatal compromiser of loyalty, patriotism, competence, probity, and character.

The country is in the throes of a major epidemic, with no known cure and some pretty scary symptoms. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome, or TDS, and it’s rapidly spreading from the point of origin – the political class – to the population at large.

In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

Trump set up a single phone call with Taiwan's president, and suddenly TDS patients were insisting that our "One China" policy was no more. But the reality is that telephonic communication isn't the same thing as official diplomatic recognition. Besides, in their eagerness to highlight Trump's alleged recklessness, the president-elect's critics misunderstand our policy. "One China" means that we don't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country or China's sovereignty over Taiwan. We've never considered Taiwan a mere province, and the Taiwan Relations Act obligates us to defend the island against attack.

Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of hyperbole. Politico recently ran a piece that noted Trump's supposedly unprecedented decision to continue using his private security force, which provoked former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin to tweet: "A predictable move for a kleptocratic authoritarian who wants to operate outside the bounds of law and basic ethical standards. Even more troubling, he may use the force's lack of government oversight & presidential veneer to carry-out extralegal acts of force."

It's quite a stretch to suggest that a desire to keep trusted lieutenants is actually a sinister plot to create a version of the brownshirts, but such illogical leaps are the pathway to the next stage of TDS: a state of constant hysteria.

Especially when discussing Trump's views on immigration, hysterical TDS victims assume there's no difference between the president-elect's rhetoric (get out!) and his proposed policy (deporting known criminals who are in this country illegally). As Reince Priebus, Trump's chief of staff, put it: "He's not calling for mass deportation. He said, 'No, only people who have committed crimes.' And then only until all of that is taken care of will we look at what we are going to do next."

As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. Despite Trump's expressed desire to "work something out" for the so-called Dreamers – those brought here as very young children – Trump's critics continue to harp on this issue. Immigration advocate Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, who has a very bad case of TDS, inadvertently revealed this mind set when he said: "Before anyone falls into the trap of believing that Trump is 'softening' on immigration, they should remember that we've seen this movie before."

A movie, eh?

In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact. Life resembles a dark fairy tale in which the villain – Trump – is an amalgam of all the worst tyrants in history, past and present, while the heroes –Trump's critics – are akin to the resistance fighters of World War II.

TDS victims routinely compare Trump to Hitler: Time magazine ran an opinion piece that asked "Just how similar is Donald Trump to Hitler?" The answer: "The comparison between Hitler and Trump is so poignant" because "both men represent their personal character as the antidote to all social and political problems."

Since Hitler has been dead for more than 70 years, though, victims may feel the need for a more potent bogeyman, a tyrant with more currency. And they’ve found one in Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom they insist ordered a hacking campaign to help Trump win the election.

The other day, Tucker Carlson of Fox News interviewed TDS-riddled Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank). Carlson asked for evidence that Putin’s alleged machinations had any effect on the election. Unable to come up with a coherent answer, Schiff morphed into J. Edgar Hoover: “You're carrying water for the Kremlin,” he said, “you're going to have to move your show to ‘Russia Today.’”

If you ask a TDS victim what might help them feel better, they'll use the word "normalize." As in, we mustn't "normalize" Trump. What they're really saying is that normal means of dealing with him aren't enough. Which raises the question: If he's another Hitler, if he's in league with Putin, then why is assassination out of the question? Poke a TDS victim and you'll find they don't think that "solution" is out of the question at all.

This is the final stage of the TDS epidemic: violence against a democratically elected leader. Unless a cure for TDS is found, this is where we are headed.

[pErvinalia]

And in you we have a great case study of TSS - Trump Sycophancy Syndrome.

[Forty Two]

What were you saying about "yebbut" arguments? So what if I'm a sycophant? Doesn't change the fact that there is a massive epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

However, in opposition to the diversionary allegation that I am a Trump sycophant, I will remind you that when Trump first announced, I was very much opposed to his candidacy and I was not in the Trump camp at all. I did not believe he would win the nomination, and I did not think it would be good if he did win the nomination. I had other candidates in mind that I thought would be better. Over time, however, I changed my tune, as began to give his policy proposals a chance, and stopped listening to the emotional noise surrounding him.

I became more comfortable with him as a candidate, and as I saw the Democrat field narrowed down to Hillary, and examined her policy proposals and platform, as well as her conduct during the election (vis-a-vis Bernie Sanders and others), I became very disaffected with Hillary Clinton, and I opted for Trump as the better of the two options.

Since then, I have had no trouble criticizing Trump on issues with which I disagree, and that has been evident on this board. I have not been a sycophant, agreeing with everything he says regardless, or defending him regardless of the quality of his positions. I have attempted to apply the principles I apply to all the candidates and politicians equally.

I've criticized his language, his tweeting, and I've described him as someone I would personally dislike if I knew him (I believe), and I have described him as lacking decorum and class. I have criticized his speeches, among other things.

So, I've not been a sycophant, and if you'll note, I did not accuse anyone HERE of having Trump Derangement Syndrome. I was referring to the media and public figures in general. You, of course, opt right away to attack me, again, personally. I think you confuse a person taking an opposing position on the prevailing, dominant viewpoint on this board about Trump-related issues, with being a "sycophant."

[laklak]

If you gaze long into a Trump, the Trump will gaze into you.

[Brian Peacock]

"All this is part of an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society in the wake of Trump’s election". lol. Could that article troll any harder if it tried?

Criticism and objection to Trump and the Repubs is 'an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society?' Really?...

No, criticism and objection is not.
However, the hysteria is not mere criticism and objection. It's hyperbole taken to hyperbolic levels, where moderate onlookers view the anti-Trump folks as bizarre caricatures.

So being anti-Trump is considered 'bizarre' by 'moderate onlookers' eh? You've just done it again: criticising or objecting to Trump, even trenchantly, is not antithetical to a moderate outlook - it's not an extreme position.

Any response to this will, I suspect, boil down to "... but they started it."

...
Like even the administration and it's appointees, Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court, political 'advisers', PR squads, and contractors? You don't get more elite than that. What's the net-worth of the current cabinet again, and what's elite about a journalism or being a Democrat that isn't about a right-wing thinktank funded by the Koch brothers or being a Republican? Again we see 'being one of them' cast as a fatal compromiser of loyalty, patriotism, competence, probity, and character.

[Tero]

Being pro Trump is bizarre...and mostly selfish. The man is clearly an asshole, so you only support him for personal gain.