Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Forty Two]

Fox News sources confirmed the 'Trump wanted to fire Mueller but was stymied by White House counsel' story. It wasn't just 'enemies of the people' like NYT, CNN and NBC. Trump can tweet and blither about 'Fake News!!' as much as he wants, but all he does is confirm his lack of integrity.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with him wanting to fire someone and being advised not to by White House counsel. That's what White House counsel is there for. There is nothing wrong with him evaluating various options, including the more extreme options. What happens if I fire him? There is nothing wrong with that. That's what he's supposed to do, if he wants to consider courses of action.

Now let's see what Fox News reported:

President Trump told top officials this past June that he wanted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but was talked out of doing so by White House counsel Don McGahn and other aides, a source close to the White House told Fox News late Thursday.

The source could neither confirm nor deny a New York Times report that Trump ordered Mueller's dismissal, but backed down when McGahn threatened to resign instead.

"A source close to the White House" LOL. Who the fuck is that? "close to" the White House. Not in the White House. Not part of the White House staff. Just "close to" it. Not in the room. Not hearing anything first hand. And, that source could neither confirm nor deny the Times story that Trump ordered Mueller's dismissal.

So the confirmation is only that Trump "wanted" to fire Mueller. He "wanted" to. If that source - ridiculously anonymous as it is -- is correct, then Trump "wanted" to fire Mueller. So fucking what?

White House lawyer Ty Cobb declined to comment on either the source's account or the New York Times report "out of respect for the Office of the Special Counsel and its process."

Well, yes. Of course, because what these articles are reporting is "attorney client privilege." And, none of the articles, including this Fox News one explain how the people they're talking to know what they know, and how they came to be privy to attorney-client information and why they think it's o.k. to reveal that attorney client privileged communication.

The rest of the article just summarizes what the NYTimes wrote -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01 ... ports.html

We don't know if the Fox News source is one of the same people that talked to the New York Times. Might be.

I'm not even disputing - or admitting - that Trump "wanted" to fire Mueller or even that he actually ordered the firing. I am taking issue with the shoddy reporting. It's really sickening. Folks need to start asking these reporters -- if you won't disclose your source, at least explain how they know what they say they know and what you did to confirm or corroborate it. I don't care if it's a Repub or Democrat who is the subject of the article, and I don't care if it's Fox News or CNN. I don't buy anything with an anonymous source, unless that anonymous source being used is treated as stated in the various anonymous source policies and practices that news and media outlets say they adhere to. This notion of just quoting a source "close to" or "familiar with" a matter and not explaining why anonymity is required, and how the source claims to know what they know, and basic info of what was done to corroborate the story, if anything, just leaves us with gossip by a source whose allegiance, bias, motives, veracity, and quality we are unable to evaluate. Too much of this is going on and it has to stop.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Perhaps people who work for a vindictive asshole with self-control issues have reason to be circumspect about revealing their identities.

[Scot Dutchy]

Breaking news:

FBI has second dossier on possible Trump-Russia collusion

Exclusive: memo written by former journalist Cody Shearer independently sets out many of the allegations made by ex-spy Christopher Steele

[Forty Two]

Perhaps people who work for a vindictive asshole with self-control issues have reason to be circumspect about revealing their identities.

Perhaps! Yes, indeed. Perhaps!

And, perhaps people who work for assholes have axes to grind.

And, perhaps people in general have allegiances, agendas, political motives, loose lips and desires to be quoted and respected.

Having read through various policies on the use of anonymous sources, respectable newspapers have acknowledged both your concern, and the other concerns I mentioned. That's why these policies provide guidance that say to explain how the source comes to know what they know, and why the source needs anonymity, and to be as specific as possible regarding what position the source holds.

Take the example of the phone call between McCabe and Trump where Trump was saying all the scurrilous things. The articles reporting it do not ever say they tried to talk to McCabe. Why? Did they try? Isn't it important to know if they did? Even to say "We attempted to reach McCabe for comment, but he would not return our call," or "he replied that he would not comment on the call," or maybe he would say "the conversation was fairly respectful, and involved X, Y and Z," none of which was scurrilous. We, the readers, don't know, because the writer did not say. The sources for reporting on both (a) the words spoken by Trump on a phone call with McCabe, and (b) the thoughts and motivations of the President during that call, were "people familiar with the phone call."

Who is a person familiar with a phone call. Technically, you and I are familiar with it now. But, was the source in the room when it happened, meaning he could hear one side of it? Why? Why was the source there? Was it on speaker phone so the source heard Trump? No? Was the content of the call supplied by McCabe to the source afterward? We don't know. Why? Because the writer does not bother to tell us, so we don't know how many layers of hearsay (chinese whispers) we need to go through to get to the people who were on the call.

This is important.

And, this is doubly important because even if you are against Trump or hate him with a passion, you will probably recognize that politics is politics and the media is used by both sides to attack the other, and neither side is above leaking things improperly, and twisting facts and circumstances, and even inventing news to hurt their opponents. I know people don't want to admit that about the side they support, but it is indisputably true that reporters are used by politicians from time-to-time to float balloons, send messages, release information, etc. Democrat operatives and Never Trump Republicans, and even disgruntled employees working for vindictive assholes, have motivations to strike out against their foe, and if they can do so anonymously, well, more the better.

That doesn't make everything said about Trump false. He's said shit himself that make me cringe. And, I suspect I would loathe the man personally. However, I want reporters to give me more. When I read stories that are this thin -- like the reporting on the phone call between Trump and McCabe, as recounted by anonymous people who were not on the phone call and who we don't know heard the facts second hand or even third hand or more -- I wonder what the reporter is thinking, and why they didn't spend even just a few minutes writing the story in a way that supplied some detail. The article amounts to "trump said some insulting shit on a telephone call with McCabe, so says some people who weren't on the phone call." Errrr..... o.k...... great. Thanks for the breaking news story..... what's the next story -- "Trump caught singing Nickelback in the shower, says a source close to the White House familiar with the process of showering?"

[Brian Peacock]

[Forty Two]

O.k., you said something here involved the post I made about Fusion on the other thread. Where is it? I searched for "Fusion" and read through three pages of posts that came up. Frankly, for you to say I "ignored" that topic is ridiculous. I posted on it many times, and responded to all the arguments made.

So, help me out - link to what you were talking about.

[Brian Peacock]

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 3#p1748613

In the Kremlin thread the answers you seek are...

I read through every post there mentioning "Fusion" and there was nothing I ignored, and nothing that refuted what I posted. So, unless you can help me out with a link, I'm not going to chase it around anymore.

Yeah, but you're quick to ignore the content of the Steele report--particularly those parts of it which have been borne out thus far--along with the credentials of its author, or to meet challenges to your position squarely. Instead you put up a string of moral equivalences, in this case between a non-US national who was commission to write a report and a foreign power seeking to aid and abet, support or bolster Trump's presidential campaign - either unbidden or otherwise.

And the upshot of these repeated contrarian equivalences? Those who disagree must presume themselves biased and bankrupted for criticising the interference of one sovereign power in the democratic processes of another nation, or questioning the role of the beneficiaries of that interference, because a foreigner wrote a report.

Of course, when reflected in this manner answer will be "No." The problem then is not that a foreigner wrote the report but that a rival political organisation commissioned the foreigner to write it, and on that account we must now presume that the report is tainted and biased and fabricated to a Democratic brief. The good old bait and switch.

So which is it? The Steele report can be put aside (along with concerns about Russian influences on the Trump campaign) because it's author was a paid foreigner, thus if that's OK then so too is Russia helping Trump get elected: or all this can put aside because the Democrats employed the firm who commissioned the report?

Personally, I am not ready to acknowledge that Russian hacking/troll farms and election interference are the same kind of thing as the commissioning of intelligence analysis from a specialist firm. So you must try harder to convince me why one renders the other OK, and which one's which. Or if it's a given that neither are OK then how do they kind of cancel each other out, or something else?

[pErvinalia]

So the confirmation is only that Trump "wanted" to fire Mueller. He "wanted" to. If that source - ridiculously anonymous as it is -- is correct, then Trump "wanted" to fire Mueller. So fucking what?

Try linking the dots. See if you can imagine why him firing Mueller could be really really contentious.

[Brian Peacock]

It's fine for him to "want" to obstruct justice - as long as his lawyer doesn't threaten to resign.

[Animavore]

Seems like a possible indication that Trump supporters tacitly know that they elected a piece of shit when they're reduced to trying to argue for corruption rather than try to exonerate him from charges of corruption.

Pathetic.

[Scot Dutchy]

What I worry about is all this negativism over Trump helping him? I think it is. His supporters are so thick they just dont see it and to them it is all fake news. Unless the Dems pull their fingers out he is going to have an easy run to the next election.

[Forty Two]

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 3#p1748613

In the Kremlin thread the answers you seek are...

I read through every post there mentioning "Fusion" and there was nothing I ignored, and nothing that refuted what I posted. So, unless you can help me out with a link, I'm not going to chase it around anymore.

Yeah, but you're quick to ignore the content of the Steele report--particularly those parts of it which have been borne out thus far--along with the credentials of its author,

For the purposes of a discussion about collusion with foreign persons to get dirt on an opponent, the quality of the material or source is not the issue. If it were, then the legality of a Trump Jr meeting with a Russian person for dirt on Hillary would be proven just by saying either that no dirt was actually involved or that whatever dirt provided was true and credible.

We can assume for the sake of this discussion (about what I posted specifically) that Steele is the most credible source ever and everything in the dossier was true and accurate 100%. It would still be collusion with a foreign person to obtain dirt on a political opponent and provision of a thing of value to a candidate to assist in that campaign. It would be the definition of meddling used in the Trump-Russia allegations.

or to meet challenges to your position squarely.

That link is a post by me, meeting a post regarding my position squarely.

Instead you put up a string of moral equivalences, in this case between a non-US national who was commission to write a report and a foreign power seeking to aid and abet, support or bolster Trump's presidential campaign - either unbidden or otherwise.

The allegation involving the Russians is only partly about a foreign "power." The allegations have included "persons" providing aid and support to a campaign by providing dirt on a campaign opponent. Is your allegation that the Russia allegations would only be about something improper if it can be shown that the Russian government were involved?

Note, what I posted about Fusion was that it is a foreign entity which has provided dirt to a candidate about that candidate's opponent, and that information was bought and paid for. So, you have collusion with a foreign person, money exchanging hands, and a thing of value provided (in relation to Trump, it has been alleged that "information" about dirt on Hillary would be a thing of value and thus an illegal campaign contribution and other violation of US election law).

And the upshot of these repeated contrarian equivalences?

I've made zero "contrarian equivalencies." I've simply set forth a state of facts that you refuse to actually address. Instead, you essentially tell me that I should be talking about something else.

Those who disagree must presume themselves biased and bankrupted for criticising the interference of one sovereign power in the democratic processes of another nation, or questioning the role of the beneficiaries of that interference, because a foreigner wrote a report.

The Fusion GPS report "interferes" with the democratic processes in just the same way as a Russian providing information about Hillary Clinton is said to have "interfered" with the democratic process, and it would be the same violation of American election law, if indeed it is a violation of the law at all.

I've said before that I don't think that Hillary Clinton having a foreign company - whether british, Russian, Chinese, whatever - to dig up dirt on Trump, or receiving that information as a gift, is illegal. But, if that's not illegal, then doesn't it cut both ways? Wouldn't such conduct by Trump's campaign also not be illegal?

Of course, when reflected in this manner answer will be "No." The problem then is not that a foreigner wrote the report but that a rival political organisation commissioned the foreigner to write it, and on that account we must now presume that the report is tainted and biased and fabricated to a Democratic brief. The good old bait and switch.

I don't think it's bad form to add to a "baloney detection" list the note that we should scrutinize allegations made by people who are paid to make that very self-same allegation. It's like when an expert witness in a court is paid for their opinion by Dow Chemical and the expert says "this chemical is safe - you can eat it by the spoonful and it won't give you cancer", the fact that Dow paid for that testimony doesn't mean the testimony is false, but it sure as shit should put one on their guard. One might want to be made privy to the underlying data and evidence on which the witness based their opinion.

So which is it? The Steele report can be put aside (along with concerns about Russian influences on the Trump campaign) because it's author was a paid foreigner,

You missed the point. The Steele report is out there and its truth should be scrutinized and it should be determined whether the allegations are true and if they mean anything important. The fact that it was a foreigner who supplied it is, under the analysis being applied to Trump, irrelevant. Nobody is saying that it's fine for Trump to hire Russian versians of FusionGPS to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton, as long as the dirt is true, are they? Or are they? Is that what you're saying? It's o.k. to meet with lady Russian lawyer, if the handbag she brought to the meeting contained true but damaging dirt?

thus if that's OK then so too is Russia helping Trump get elected: or all this can put aside because the Democrats employed the firm who commissioned the report?

Where the fact pattern is the same, the nationality of the helping person should not change the legal import (unless there is a state of war or the country is an official enemy). Russia is a country Americans are free to go to, do business with, move to and from, have investments, and do all sorts of things. There is no legal status of Russia or Russkies that makes it worse for Russia to supply a "dossier" to Trump than it is for Britain or a Brits to supply a dossier to Clinton. Is there? If you think there is, what's the difference?

Personally, I am not ready to acknowledge that Russian hacking/troll farms and election interference are the same kind of thing as the commissioning of intelligence analysis from a specialist firm.

Well, that's fine, as my quote was only about the getting of information from a foreign person -- not hacking, troll farms or election interference.

So you must try harder to convince me why one renders the other OK, and which one's which. Or if it's a given that neither are OK then how do they kind of cancel each other out, or something else?

I did not argue ever - not once - that "one renders the other o.k." I am comparing two fact patterns which are essentially the same. A private Russian person bringing a bag of dirt to a meeting with Trump Jr, and a private other-European person bringing a dossier of dirt to the Hillary campaign. If one is unlawful, I ask why the other is not unlawful.

I've said before that I don't think EITHER are unlawful. It's anti-Trump folks that are saying that if the Trump campaign received dirt on Hillary from a Russian lawyer who showed up to talk about the Magnitsky Act and represented that she had dirt on Hillary was evidence of some sort of improper collusion, and that the dirt providing would be a violation of the law and interference in our election. I'm merely asking folks to think that if they agree with that, then doesn't that same rule apply to the provision of dirt on Trump to the Hillary Campaign? If there is a distinction, what's the distinction.

The only thing I think you've said is that you say it's different because all Clinton did was buy and pay for dirt acquired by a British company, and that the Russians were up to other things, like hacking and other interference while the Brits were not. Is that the key difference? If I've not got it right, please explain.

[pErvinalia]

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 3#p1748613

In the Kremlin thread the answers you seek are...

I read through every post there mentioning "Fusion" and there was nothing I ignored, and nothing that refuted what I posted. So, unless you can help me out with a link, I'm not going to chase it around anymore.

Yeah, but you're quick to ignore the content of the Steele report--particularly those parts of it which have been borne out thus far--along with the credentials of its author,

For the purposes of a discussion about collusion with foreign persons to get dirt on an opponent, the quality of the material or source is not the issue. If it were, then the legality of a Trump Jr meeting with a Russian person for dirt on Hillary would be proven just by saying either that no dirt was actually involved or that whatever dirt provided was true and credible.

We can assume for the sake of this discussion (about what I posted specifically) that Steele is the most credible source ever and everything in the dossier was true and accurate 100%. It would still be collusion with a foreign person to obtain dirt on a political opponent and provision of a thing of value to a candidate to assist in that campaign.

"Collusion" with a foreign person is fine, as long as they aren't acting on behalf of a foreign state". The Emoluments clause concerns state actions, not those of random citizens.

[Forty Two]

That's not accurate, as there is also campaign finance law that can apply. The legal experts, lol, were all over this https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/159 ... es-illegal -- just agreeing to take a meeting with a "foreign person" who is offering to give you dirt on an opponent, that - according to the legal experts when talking about Trump -- is a clear violation of federal campaign finance law.

So, either the legal experts are wrong, or they're not wrong.

If they're not wrong, then didn't Hillary Clinton's campaign meet with foreign persons and collude with them to get dirt on a political opponent in the 2016 campaign?

It's not an emoluments clause issue, because that clause only applies to a government official in office. It doesn't apply to candidates. And, basically the emoluments clause prohibits the giving by a "foreign state" (or king or prince) any "emolument" (salary, fee or profit). So, one possible example would be Hillary Clinton as secretary of state receiving massive payments through the use of her Clinton Foundation which she controls, or whether she and her husband engaged in Pay-for-Play actions whereby preferences were given to foreign states in exchange for money. Now, of course, the devil is in the details, but I would think anyone who is really concerned with an emoluments clause violation would be curious if a sitting SEcretary of State's charitable foundation was receiving millions of dollars from Saudi Arabian princes. But I'm sure there's a real good reason why there would be no cause to look into that, and examine whether Hillary herself reaped any benefit from that "profit" paid to an entity she controls.

[Seabass]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

If that orange shitbag were innocent, he wouldn't be hindering and obstructing the investigation. But he purges and undermines at every opportunity. Trump and all his toadies are fucking traitors, and all his supporters are drooling idiots.