TRUMP 2016

[LittleFuzzy]

Off work now and reading the transcript. I love that Senator Wyden managed to slip this into the open testimony part of the hearing.

What was it about the attorney general's own interactions with the Russians or his behavior with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the FBI to make this decision?

James Comey:
Our judgment as I recall was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons, we also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an open setting, that would make his continued engagement in a Russia related investigation problematic

[Ominous Gamer]

Oh, as if Rubio's shit about how when the president said 'hope' he was actually just expressing an honest wish rather than giving an implied instruction stank any better.

Get in the fucking sea Marco Rubio.

Comey finally getting a chance to drop Henry II in response to the Rs trying to define the word "hope" was such a Kingmans way of laying one's dick on the table.

[wiggin]

I do think the 'Comey had malicious motives' explanation has largely been ruled out, yes.

I don't think it's hypocritical to think Comey should have been fired for the letter, but that he shouldn't have been fired for failure to can the investigation into Flynn.

I also don't think it's hypocritical to think Comey should have been fired, then change your mind after more information about his motives and character become available.

I also think the word 'partisan' is one that could largely do with removal from the US political vocabulary.

There are plenty of reasonable people who can construct a reasonable argument in opposition to Comey's firing by Trump but harsh criticism (including calls for his ouster) in 2016. That is not, in itself, hypocrisy (and I've posted before how I think hypocrisy is not really as big of an issue as we make it out to be). That's not my objection. My objection is to the adulation heaped on Comey by a certain segment of my social circle during his acrimonious few months working with Trump - and the utter shock and horror that an FBI director might be terminated by a POTUS during a politically sensitive investigation, potentially putting the independence of our justice system into question - coming from precisely the same people who called Comey a traitor in 2016 and wanted his head on a pike. It's not hypocrisy that's the problem, it's the sheer logical fallacy.

I laud Obama for doing his damnedest to stay out of the whole email thing (though it does look like Lynch may have overstepped a bit) and studiously avoiding serious criticism of Comey or interference with the FBI's investigation - even when it was politically a disaster for the Clinton campaign. To do so would have put not just the independence of the justice department at risk (as with Trump) but would also have been seen as potentially attempting to influence the outcome of the election, a direct attack on our democracy. Now, it's possible to disagree with my take on things - maybe the optics of ousting Comey at one point or another in 2016 would not have had such an effect and could have prevented some of his missteps. Maybe someone might reasonably think Comey is a crypto-right wing traitor who was using his position to drag down Clinton. That's fine. But there's got to be some serious cognitive dissonance to reconcile such a position with the lionization of Comey going on in those same circles now that it's politically convenient to do so. Talk about whiplash. Comey is hardly Sally Yates and he shouldn't be treated like her- certainly not if we were sharpening the pitchforks just 6 months ago. (BTW I know I specifically mentioned Loki earlier when dealing with this but I want to be clear that he is not at all included in this critique; he does not appear to have ever become a Comey fan and just doesn't like Trump either, which IMO is a perfectly fair position to take.)

Yes, it is possible to imagine that some people might have gained such a better appreciation for Comey's character and the risks of executive interference in politically sensitive investigations by Justice in those 6 months and completely reversed their positions. That might be particularly challenging if they were the same people defending Comey's decision to more-or-less publicly say the investigation of Clinton was over back a year ago (against right wing rage), but maybe one could construct some reasonable set of positions. I daresay that those people had to have been pretty poorly informed to start with, so shouldn't have had such a strong position on Comey last year, but that's neither here nor there. Unfortunately, those in my circle who have held these positions appear not to have gone through a careful process of re-evaluation of their opinions in the light of new evidence and analysis, but rather seem to be driven by political expediency. Thus, it is not the hypocrisy that matters but rather the resort to politics over process, to point scoring over genuine investigations.

I want to be clear here: obviously Republican and Democratic politicians are going to behave in this way; they are politicians, their entire lives are about political expediency rather than principle. And it's entirely possible that rank and file right wingers are just as bad about this matter (certainly my perusal of right wing media over the last year seems to suggest they are, if anything, worse). But I don't have a large enough sample of right wing demagogues in my social circles to evaluate that personally, and - more importantly to me - Democrats present themselves as the party of principle and reason in a post-truth nightmare. I am deeply sympathetic to this position as a general rule given the clear unfitness for office of our current president and the apparent willingness of the GOP to let his embrace of 'alternative facts' et al go unchallenged. Yet when the people in my social circle who identify most strongly with the Democratic party (rather than those who tend to vote D) are those who are clearly resorting to political shenanigans over issues that are so central to the health of our democracy, I am less than inclined to be charitable.

Caveats about sample size and anecdotes aside, I think this is a reasonable critique to aim at supporters of the Democratic party. Is the party really the party of 'when they go low, we go high'? Are they really united to consistently contradict the avalanche of untruthful statements, obfuscation, and undemocratic behavior of government leaders, or are they only going to do it when it suits them? The GOP and its supporters can get away with it because no one expects them to do any better; I think the Dems have no excuse. Shortly after the election, there were any number of opinion pieces (including some opinions expressed by yours truly) that it was imperative that opposition to Trump remain principled, truthful, and devoid of hyperbole; otherwise it risked falling into the same behaviors of Trump and his associates. The behavior I have seen so far from some partisan Democrats on this and many other issues does not give me much hope on this front.

[Loki]

Trump is offering to testify under oath. The man has never spoken for a minute without lying about something. This should be fun.

[Ominous Gamer]

He has also offered to release his tax returns. No way his handlers let him testify voluntary. He'll posture about it until he can figure out how to manufacture​ the next white house catastrophe.

[Loki]

My thoughts as well. But we can hope.

[Flixy]

Trump is offering to testify under oath. The man has never spoken for a minute without lying about something. This should be fun.

Is he already tired from the job or something?

[Flixy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...aseball-239307

That explains

[Steely Glint]

Comey finally getting a chance to drop Henry II in response to the Rs trying to define the word "hope" was such a Kingmans way of laying one's dick on the table.

That was the greatest thing.

I hope priest turbulence is a major issue going into 2020.

There are plenty of reasonable people who can construct a reasonable argument in opposition to Comey's firing by Trump but harsh criticism (including calls for his ouster) in 2016. That is not, in itself, hypocrisy (and I've posted before how I think hypocrisy is not really as big of an issue as we make it out to be). That's not my objection. My objection is to the adulation heaped on Comey by a certain segment of my social circle during his acrimonious few months working with Trump - and the utter shock and horror that an FBI director might be terminated by a POTUS during a politically sensitive investigation, potentially putting the independence of our justice system into question - coming from precisely the same people who called Comey a traitor in 2016 and wanted his head on a pike. It's not hypocrisy that's the problem, it's the sheer logical fallacy.

I laud Obama for doing his damnedest to stay out of the whole email thing (though it does look like Lynch may have overstepped a bit) and studiously avoiding serious criticism of Comey or interference with the FBI's investigation - even when it was politically a disaster for the Clinton campaign. To do so would have put not just the independence of the justice department at risk (as with Trump) but would also have been seen as potentially attempting to influence the outcome of the election, a direct attack on our democracy. Now, it's possible to disagree with my take on things - maybe the optics of ousting Comey at one point or another in 2016 would not have had such an effect and could have prevented some of his missteps. Maybe someone might reasonably think Comey is a crypto-right wing traitor who was using his position to drag down Clinton. That's fine. But there's got to be some serious cognitive dissonance to reconcile such a position with the lionization of Comey going on in those same circles now that it's politically convenient to do so. Talk about whiplash. Comey is hardly Sally Yates and he shouldn't be treated like her- certainly not if we were sharpening the pitchforks just 6 months ago. (BTW I know I specifically mentioned Loki earlier when dealing with this but I want to be clear that he is not at all included in this critique; he does not appear to have ever become a Comey fan and just doesn't like Trump either, which IMO is a perfectly fair position to take.)

Yes, it is possible to imagine that some people might have gained such a better appreciation for Comey's character and the risks of executive interference in politically sensitive investigations by Justice in those 6 months and completely reversed their positions. That might be particularly challenging if they were the same people defending Comey's decision to more-or-less publicly say the investigation of Clinton was over back a year ago (against right wing rage), but maybe one could construct some reasonable set of positions. I daresay that those people had to have been pretty poorly informed to start with, so shouldn't have had such a strong position on Comey last year, but that's neither here nor there. Unfortunately, those in my circle who have held these positions appear not to have gone through a careful process of re-evaluation of their opinions in the light of new evidence and analysis, but rather seem to be driven by political expediency. Thus, it is not the hypocrisy that matters but rather the resort to politics over process, to point scoring over genuine investigations.

I want to be clear here: obviously Republican and Democratic politicians are going to behave in this way; they are politicians, their entire lives are about political expediency rather than principle. And it's entirely possible that rank and file right wingers are just as bad about this matter (certainly my perusal of right wing media over the last year seems to suggest they are, if anything, worse). But I don't have a large enough sample of right wing demagogues in my social circles to evaluate that personally, and - more importantly to me - Democrats present themselves as the party of principle and reason in a post-truth nightmare. I am deeply sympathetic to this position as a general rule given the clear unfitness for office of our current president and the apparent willingness of the GOP to let his embrace of 'alternative facts' et al go unchallenged. Yet when the people in my social circle who identify most strongly with the Democratic party (rather than those who tend to vote D) are those who are clearly resorting to political shenanigans over issues that are so central to the health of our democracy, I am less than inclined to be charitable.

The basic difficulty you have here, wiggin, is that the potentially firing him over his handling of the Clinton investigation and the actual firing of him over Flynn and/or Russia are very different. That difference is that one is obstruction of justice and the other isn't.

The Clinton e-mail investigation was over and done with; conclusions reached and so forth. Had he been fired for it, he would have been fired for his misjudgement in releasing a letter saying they were reopening it at the worst possible time, especially when it later turned out there was nothing to really investigate. The Flynn investigation, meanwhile, was and is an ongoing investigation (into matters far more serious than Clinton's mishandling of an e-mail server) which has direct connections to an even more serious investigation into a Russian attack on US democracy and possible Trump/GOP collusion with that attack.

So, one is a decision made within a range of legitimate outcomes that may or may not have had a political motive, the other is pretty much unambiguously criminal.

Caveats about sample size and anecdotes aside, I think this is a reasonable critique to aim at supporters of the Democratic party. Is the party really the party of 'when they go low, we go high'? Are they really united to consistently contradict the avalanche of untruthful statements, obfuscation, and undemocratic behavior of government leaders, or are they only going to do it when it suits them? The GOP and its supporters can get away with it because no one expects them to do any better; I think the Dems have no excuse. Shortly after the election, there were any number of opinion pieces (including some opinions expressed by yours truly) that it was imperative that opposition to Trump remain principled, truthful, and devoid of hyperbole; otherwise it risked falling into the same behaviors of Trump and his associates. The behavior I have seen so far from some partisan Democrats on this and many other issues does not give me much hope on this front.

The problem comes when you're so committed to remaining principled, truthful and devoid of hyperbole that you refuse to see what's right in front of you because you don't have cast-iron-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt proof. It has been blatantly obvious to me for some time now - since before the election - that Trump has had some kind of deeply improper relationship with Russia and that the man is basically a traitor and that the GOP is probably at the very least turning a blind eye to that, yet we're still supposed to pretend like it's all still up in the air and carry on like nothing is wrong.

I also don't think applying a double standard or grading the GOP because 'no one expects better of them' on a curve is helpful. They're in government for crying out loud.

[Hazir]

I don't know if traitor quite covers it, but you don't expect the president of the USA to be so chummy with a regime that is hostile towards the west and what it stands for.

[Steely Glint]

I don't know if traitor quite covers it, but you don't expect the president of the USA to be so chummy with a regime that is hostile towards the west and what it stands for.

And why do we think he's doing that? Given that he's normally not shy about speaking his mind about someone?

[Hazir]

And why do we think he's doing that? Given that he's normally not shy about speaking his mind about someone?

TBH; I don't know an answer to the why questions. I do know that it's highly unsavory.

[wiggin]

That was the greatest thing.

I hope priest turbulence is a major issue going into 2020.



The basic difficulty you have here, wiggin, is that the potentially firing him over his handling of the Clinton investigation and the actual firing of him over Flynn and/or Russia are very different. That difference is that one is obstruction of justice and the other isn't.

The Clinton e-mail investigation was over and done with; conclusions reached and so forth. Had he been fired for it, he would have been fired for his misjudgement in releasing a letter saying they were reopening it at the worst possible time, especially when it later turned out there was nothing to really investigate. The Flynn investigation, meanwhile, was and is an ongoing investigation (into matters far more serious than Clinton's mishandling of an e-mail server) which has direct connections to an even more serious investigation into a Russian attack on US democracy and possible Trump/GOP collusion with that attack.

So, one is a decision made within a range of legitimate outcomes that may or may not have had a political motive, the other is pretty much unambiguously criminal.

This is fair, Steely. I do not think, however, that the critiques of Comey I read in 2016 had anything approaching this level of sophistication in reasoning. Furthermore, while we all acknowledge that in general POTUS has the power to dismiss the head of the FBI at will, it has only been done once before and that had less to do with his job performance and more to do with personal ethical/legal problems (tax evasion etc.). Executive interference in the workings of Justice - especially when it is politically expedient or seen as retaliation - is IMO inappropriate even if the interference may not rise to the level of obstruction of justice or illegality a la Trump or Nixon.

As for 'unambiguously criminal', IANAL but I suspect it's actually pretty hard to prove that in Trump's case.

The problem comes when you're so committed to remaining principled, truthful and devoid of hyperbole that you refuse to see what's right in front of you because you don't have cast-iron-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt proof. It has been blatantly obvious to me for some time now - since before the election - that Trump has had some kind of deeply improper relationship with Russia and that the man is basically a traitor and that the GOP is probably at the very least turning a blind eye to that, yet we're still supposed to pretend like it's all still up in the air and carry on like nothing is wrong.

I also don't think applying a double standard or grading the GOP because 'no one expects better of them' on a curve is helpful. They're in government for crying out loud.

I appreciate the critique; it's possible to be too fair to Trump in the interest of remaining objective. But I don't really think that's what's happening here. I'm not defending Trump (or his firing of Comey) - he continues to demonstrate day after day that he is terminally unfit for the job of POTUS, and this episode is just one of many. Rather, my ire here is reserved for diehard Democrats who won't recognize that they are part of the problem when it comes to partisanship. I don't begrudge them (most) of their critiques of Trump, but I want them to also examine themselves; their sins may be lesser, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth correcting.

I actually don't agree, however, that it's blatantly obvious that Trump is 'basically a traitor'. I think an entirely plausible argument is that he's an incompetent idiot who, due to ego and bad advice and avarice, is friendlier with Russia than we would like. But I think it's quite possible (even likely) that Trump did not collude with Russia to influence the outcome of the election, but that they were rather working in parallel. That would be distasteful, and horrifying, and all sorts of other adjectives, but I don't think it would be criminal or traitorous. If indeed there becomes clear evidence of collusion, I would demand immediate impeachment and/or imprisonment for this involved. But I think Russia just wanted to influence the election in favor of Trump and Trump didn't mind getting their help. Russia has done a lot to influence elections in other countries (and to cast doubt on the integrity of said elections) without conspiring with their favored winner.

As for grading the GOP on a curve, I'm not really doing that. I punish (most of) them the one way I know how; not voting for them (the exception being people like my state's governor who, though a Republican, is eminently reasonable and has done everything short of calling Trump names to distance himself from that mess); far more Democrats have gotten my votes in state and federal elections. There is a double standard here, but it's not like the GOP is getting money or votes from me because I'm being 'easy' on them. I just want to have at least one option that is palatable; just because Republicans are (generally) worse doesn't mean I have to like Democrats. I also think it's important for our national dialogue that we not fall into the trap that the GOP has; I don't want the NYTimes and WPost to read like Breitbart. It is imperative that reasonable people make their voices heard, and that they don't stoop to political shenanigans at every turn.

[Aimless]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...e-house-239034

Pretty unfair accusation... They're obviously very busy dealing with the fallout from the president's every tweet.

[LittleFuzzy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...e-house-239034

Pretty unfair accusation... They're obviously very busy dealing with the fallout from the president's every tweet.

They're Congresscritters. All of these agencies and offices are only under Executive authority in the first place because they've invariably chosen to delegate their own powers to the Executive for the last 200 years. They should A) remember that and start trying to weaken the Imperial Presidency a little, and B) enjoy the beds their branch has made.

[Steely Glint]

This is fair, Steely. I do not think, however, that the critiques of Comey I read in 2016 had anything approaching this level of sophistication in reasoning.

I don't think that was especially sophisticated reasoning? Seems like a fairly intuitive, common sense distinction to me.

I actually don't agree, however, that it's blatantly obvious that Trump is 'basically a traitor'. I think an entirely plausible argument is that he's an incompetent idiot who, due to ego and bad advice and avarice, is friendlier with Russia than we would like. But I think it's quite possible (even likely) that Trump did not collude with Russia to influence the outcome of the election, but that they were rather working in parallel. That would be distasteful, and horrifying, and all sorts of other adjectives, but I don't think it would be criminal or traitorous. If indeed there becomes clear evidence of collusion, I would demand immediate impeachment and/or imprisonment for this involved. But I think Russia just wanted to influence the election in favor of Trump and Trump didn't mind getting their help. Russia has done a lot to influence elections in other countries (and to cast doubt on the integrity of said elections) without conspiring with their favored winner.

Two problems with this:

1) There is too much evidence of communication between the Trump campaign and Russia
2) Trump's attitude towards Putin is too out of character

It's possible Trump is unaware of what's going on and he's just being used by others in his circle where the real collusion is going on. He's not exactly difficult to manipulate, so that's a plausible scenario but I don't think that makes a substantial difference.

[wiggin]

I don't think that was especially sophisticated reasoning? Seems like a fairly intuitive, common sense distinction to me.

Well, obviously there wasn't a distinction back in 2016 to make, but there was no hand-wringing and deliberate thought involved in the calls for Comey's ouster back then - no one saying 'it's pretty unprecedented and a bad idea to sack the head of the FBI because we didn't like the political outcome of his handling of the investigation, but since he actions were so egregious and the investigation's conclusions won't be changed it's worth it to show that his missteps have consequences.' No, it was more 'the FBI director works at the pleasure of the president and he threw the election for Trump, the traitor. Let's lynch him!'

Two problems with this:

1) There is too much evidence of communication between the Trump campaign and Russia
2) Trump's attitude towards Putin is too out of character

It's possible Trump is unaware of what's going on and he's just being used by others in his circle where the real collusion is going on. He's not exactly difficult to manipulate, so that's a plausible scenario but I don't think that makes a substantial difference.

I disagree. I would fully expect that in the latter stages of a presidential campaign that members of the campaign will be in touch with (or be contacted by) representatives of major governments - allies and otherwise - to get a feel for the contours of the new relationship. Most countries' most important bilateral relationship is with the United States, and for countries engaged in high stakes interaction with the US (such as Russia), i would fully expect there to be some contacts. I would imagine that there were contacts between the Clinton campaign and Russia in one way or another as well.

The nature of those contacts is obviously what matters, and I am indeed concerned that there might have been inappropriate coordination of Russian attacks on Hillary; there is as of yet no public evidence about what occurred during these contacts, though, so we need to wait before passing judgment.

As for Trump's attitude being out of character, I honestly think it's absolutely in Trump's character. This is a man who has nice things to say to Duterte when there is very little to be gained from cosying up to him; why not say nice things about a leader who you're going to need a lot of cooperation with on various issues (Syria, Ukraine, etc.), who clearly prefers you in office to your opponent, and who governs his country in an illiberal manner that you probably admire? This is right up Trump's alley in terms of relationships being transactional and not based on shared history or values, and bucking the Washington consensus.

I do agree that if there was collusion it's likely it was mostly or entirely done by members of Trump's inner circle rather than Trump himself (though who knows); that would mean that members of his inner circle are indeed criminals of the highest degree who should be prosecuted. I do not think, however, that unknowingly having traitorous advisers is itself an impeachable offense. It's stupid, and concerning, and should (if the world was fair, which it clearly isn't) result in massive electoral losses in 2018 and 2020. But it's not treason.

[Aimless]

It's okay guys, statistically, Comey isn't likely to win this one:

https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/12...ruction-cases/

[Hazir]

So now Trump is considering sacking the special council? Correct me if I am wrong but it starts to feel as if this man is desperate to be impeached.

[wiggin]

So now Trump is considering sacking the special council? Correct me if I am wrong but it starts to feel as if this man is desperate to be impeached.

I do think it would be disastrous for Trump if he tried to dismiss Mueller. That being said, the guy who was the primary source of this news does not appear to really have much insight into what's going on in the White House. Even so, a lot of Trump proxies in the last couples days have come out with pretty strong critiques of Mueller (even after lauding him as an excellent choice just a few weeks ago). A lot of this appears to be due to the fact that Mueller has hired some real heavy hitters to be on his team including possibly the best criminal lawyer in the country (Dreeben) and it's making people nervous. I think it's a bit silly since they knew he would bring in top people for such an investigation. Interfering now is likely to end very badly for Trump; I would imagine that many of his advisers and his lawyers are telling him so.

[Loki]

Trump regularly sends out these trial balloons through these proxies.

[wiggin]

Trump regularly sends out these trial balloons through these proxies.

Yes but I have to wonder - does he actually pay attention to the results? Pretty much every trial balloon of his has gone down in flames yet he still does most of the crazy shit he wants to...

[Loki]

Yes but I have to wonder - does he actually pay attention to the results? Pretty much every trial balloon of his has gone down in flames yet he still does most of the crazy shit he wants to...

It might not be him per se; could be Bannon.

[Flixy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...meeting-praise

Sounds like a bad sketch.

[Steely Glint]

Well, obviously there wasn't a distinction back in 2016 to make, but there was no hand-wringing and deliberate thought involved in the calls for Comey's ouster back then - no one saying 'it's pretty unprecedented and a bad idea to sack the head of the FBI because we didn't like the political outcome of his handling of the investigation, but since he actions were so egregious and the investigation's conclusions won't be changed it's worth it to show that his missteps have consequences.' No, it was more 'the FBI director works at the pleasure of the president and he threw the election for Trump, the traitor. Let's lynch him!'

Well, the timing of what he said was fucking awful so I don't really begrudge anyone a strong reaction.

I disagree. I would fully expect that in the latter stages of a presidential campaign that members of the campaign will be in touch with (or be contacted by) representatives of major governments - allies and otherwise - to get a feel for the contours of the new relationship. Most countries' most important bilateral relationship is with the United States, and for countries engaged in high stakes interaction with the US (such as Russia), i would fully expect there to be some contacts. I would imagine that there were contacts between the Clinton campaign and Russia in one way or another as well.

Well, that explains some of Sessions contacts, sure, (although not why he felt the need to lie about them) but does it explain Flynn? And Manafort? and Kushner? And that server thing? And the pee dossier, some of which has been verified by the US Intelligence community? (and and and and)

I don't really have time right now to go through every single bit of reporting and hearsay about Trump and Russia from the past year plus, let alone sort out which of those reports turned out to be bullshit and which are actually on the level but suffice to say there's a lot of information out there which points to Trump/Russia collusion to the point where the burden of proof is on those who say the contacts were wholly innocent.

The nature of those contacts is obviously what matters, and I am indeed concerned that there might have been inappropriate coordination of Russian attacks on Hillary; there is as of yet no public evidence about what occurred during these contacts, though, so we need to wait before passing judgment.

This is where you and I differ. I don't think we do have to wait before passing judgement, because this isn't a court of law.

With the weight of evidence against Trump (and, reading between the lines about the ongoing FBI investigation, it sounds like they're on to something big) the innocent explanation becomes increasingly untenable. For example, Trump fired Comey, then admitted he wanted the Russia thing to go away. Why did he want it to go away? Because it was annoying him, or because he was worried about the outcome? Sure, 'it's annoying me and I want to stop so I fired the guy' is totally in character for Trump (though I doubt he'd phrase it that elegantly), but given Flynn, given Manafort, given everything else we know, then the former explanation presents itself as the most likely.

Even given the above, there still is the question about the nature of the contacts, i.e. whether it was just "Putin wants Trump to be elected, Trump wants Trump to be elected - let's work together" or whether it was, as you say, more transactional.

As for Trump's attitude being out of character, I honestly think it's absolutely in Trump's character. This is a man who has nice things to say to Duterte when there is very little to be gained from cosying up to him; why not say nice things about a leader who you're going to need a lot of cooperation with on various issues (Syria, Ukraine, etc.), who clearly prefers you in office to your opponent, and who governs his country in an illiberal manner that you probably admire? This is right up Trump's alley in terms of relationships being transactional and not based on shared history or values, and bucking the Washington consensus.

Duterte doesn't oppose U.S. interests whenever he gets the chance - Trump usually isn't shy about speaking his mind about the US's enemies.

I do agree that if there was collusion it's likely it was mostly or entirely done by members of Trump's inner circle rather than Trump himself (though who knows); that would mean that members of his inner circle are indeed criminals of the highest degree who should be prosecuted. I do not think, however, that unknowingly having traitorous advisers is itself an impeachable offense. It's stupid, and concerning, and should (if the world was fair, which it clearly isn't) result in massive electoral losses in 2018 and 2020. But it's not treason.

I didn't say it was likely, I said it was possible

[Steely Glint]

Oh, if you're into Bored Song of Ice and Fire Reader style theory-crafting based on specific wording but about real things, checkout his use of the past tense when he referred to Trump not being under investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.a6b49c6db8cf

FBI began investigation of Trump, personally, for obstruction of justice days after Comey was fired.

Significant Use of the Past Tense, man

Gets ya every time.

[LittleFuzzy]

You know, I would really like it if at some point the media pushed and actually got someone to speak on the record.

[Loki]

And here's the GOP being America First.

Twitter Link

[wiggin]

Well, the timing of what he said was fucking awful so I don't really begrudge anyone a strong reaction.

When it comes to the political independence of the justice system of our country, I think it rather matters.

Well, that explains some of Sessions contacts, sure, (although not why he felt the need to lie about them) but does it explain Flynn? And Manafort? and Kushner? And that server thing? And the pee dossier, some of which has been verified by the US Intelligence community? (and and and and)

I don't really have time right now to go through every single bit of reporting and hearsay about Trump and Russia from the past year plus, let alone sort out which of those reports turned out to be bullshit and which are actually on the level but suffice to say there's a lot of information out there which points to Trump/Russia collusion to the point where the burden of proof is on those who say the contacts were wholly innocent.

I have followed this story pretty closely, and I see a lot of smoke but so far no fire. The signal-to-noise ratio is quite low and there's perfectly reasonable explanations for most of what has been reported on. It mostly points to them having a more positive view of Russia than the rest of the political spectrum (and the public) and them being some combination of incompetent, politically naive, and stupid. They're probably also greedy (e.g. Kushner's contacts). But there is as yet little clear evidence of collusion. My general rule of thumb in the absence of such evidence is to employ Hanlon's Razor. Given the general stupidity, naivete, and incompetence of this administration, I'm even more likely to apply the Razor.

Also, the burden of proof obviously continues to lie with those accusing the President or his advisers of knowingly undermining our electoral process. That's a pretty big accusation to make and a bunch of innuendo and circumstantial evidence does not a case make.

This is where you and I differ. I don't think we do have to wait before passing judgement, because this isn't a court of law.

With the weight of evidence against Trump (and, reading between the lines about the ongoing FBI investigation, it sounds like they're on to something big) the innocent explanation becomes increasingly untenable. For example, Trump fired Comey, then admitted he wanted the Russia thing to go away. Why did he want it to go away? Because it was annoying him, or because he was worried about the outcome? Sure, 'it's annoying me and I want to stop so I fired the guy' is totally in character for Trump (though I doubt he'd phrase it that elegantly), but given Flynn, given Manafort, given everything else we know, then the former explanation presents itself as the most likely.

Even given the above, there still is the question about the nature of the contacts, i.e. whether it was just "Putin wants Trump to be elected, Trump wants Trump to be elected - let's work together" or whether it was, as you say, more transactional.

I do think that we have a fundamental disagreement here; I am far less willing to convict someone in the court of public opinion than you are, apparently. My reasoning for doing so is fairly straightforward: I think it coarsens our public discourse and reduces the application of rationality to our most pressing policy issues. If you can just tar someone as a traitor without real evidence, why should we rely on facts? Just use rumors and innuendo and unsubstantiated leaks to assassinate their character and you don't need to engage with their ideas. This is precisely why I am uncomfortable with those partisans (D or R) who use political expediency in shaping their response to a set of events rather than a consistent, principle-based worldview.

I did read a fairly compelling argument that Trump was uniquely worried about the Flynn investigation. (I think it was in the WPost?) Essentially, the argument is that Trump's relatively extraordinary intervention with Comey, Coats, and others over Flynn in particular is due to either (a) extraordinary loyalty to Flynn or (b) serious concern over what Flynn's investigation might turn up (or he might spill). Since (a) seems unlikely (witness Trump's summary firing of previous campaign directors and White House staffers), (b) is the only option left. While this is certainly a plausible line of reasoning, I think it has some obvious flaws. Most importantly, I question whether Trump really thinks things through - he seems to make decisions without much in the way of reflection or due diligence. For one reason or another, he wanted to try to protect Flynn, but it's not necessarily indicative of any real political machinations.

*Shrugs* I will freely admit to a great deal of concern about Trump from a great number of perspectives - including the potential collusion with Russia, along with other deeply concerning but less treasonous behavior. But I want to be sure before I start leveling that accusation, and I think that it's appropriate to require a pretty high bar for evidence before trying to unseat our democratically elected leader.

Duterte doesn't oppose U.S. interests whenever he gets the chance - Trump usually isn't shy about speaking his mind about the US's enemies.

Actually Duterte has been a real challenge for US interests in the Pacific. Obviously as a less powerful country than Russia his scope for meddling is somewhat limited, but he is definitely opposed to a whole lot of strategic American interests in the region.

I think that Trump doesn't see Russia as opposing US interests since he has a different view of US interests than I do. Instead he sees an opportunity, especially to engage with someone who affects a vaguely similar style of governance. See e.g. Trump's warm embrace of Erdogan despite the substantial problems in Turkey, or his standoffish relations with most longstanding US allies. He views international relationships, US interests, and world leaders through a different lens than your or I do. I do not think it's remotely out of character for Trump to like Putin.

[Ominous Gamer]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politi...ers/index.html


Hired a lot of organised crime and money laundering experts. They are starting to trace the money. These people have worked on cases from watergate to enron. This has the possibility to ensnare a good number of Republicans.

Meanwhile Trump can't stop hiring incompetent yes men and has a spray tan lawyer who can't proofread.