TRUMP 2016

[Aimless]

This one's for Steely and OG:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/933582030327177216

Frustrating format with 75 tweets and nine postscripts but good and thorough. The Twittersphere and especially Abrams has been several steps ahead of the media on this for a year now so I'm not dismissing this out of hand. Anyway most of the points are not controversial and are reasonably well sourced & corroborated. Obviously Mueller's team is expected to be even more thorough and well have access to other evidence including testimonies.

EDIT: replaced original twitter link with link to Threader.

[gogobongopop]

Holy shit

[Steely Glint]

This one's for Steely and OG:

https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbram...82030327177216

Frustrating format with 75 tweets and nine postscripts but good and thorough. The Twittersphere and especially Abrams has been several steps ahead of the media on this for a year now so I'm not dismissing this out of hand. Anyway most of the points are not controversial and are reasonably well sourced & corroborated. Obviously Mueller's team is expected to be even more thorough and well have access to other evidence including testimonies.

I mean, it's been right there in plain sight for anyone willing to see it, since before the election.

The only things I'm having trouble reconciling are the two forms of this story seems to take: The Pee Tape Edition where Trump had an established relationship with Putin/the Russian state since years past and his run at the presidency is a direct result of that, and the Donald Trump Junior Extremely Clumsy Attempts to Collude With Russia Edition where we hear all these leaks and stories about senior people in Trump's campaign meeting with people connected with the Kremlin connected individuals which seem to have been in order establish relationships and channels of communication which, under the Pee Tape (the pee tape which definitely exists, btw) version of the story, should really have already existed.

If both versions of the story are true, then there's a substantial piece of the puzzle missing.

[Aimless]

Team Flynn has stopped cooperating with Team Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/u...sia-trump.html

[Aimless]

The only things I'm having trouble reconciling are the two forms of this story seems to take: The Pee Tape Edition where Trump had an established relationship with Putin/the Russian state since years past and his run at the presidency is a direct result of that, and the Donald Trump Junior Extremely Clumsy Attempts to Collude With Russia Edition where we hear all these leaks and stories about senior people in Trump's campaign meeting with people connected with the Kremlin connected individuals which seem to have been in order establish relationships and channels of communication which, under the Pee Tape (the pee tape which definitely exists, btw) version of the story, should really have already existed.

If both versions of the story are true, then there's a substantial piece of the puzzle missing.

I agree this annoys me as well, but I don't think the two narratives are necessarily mutually exclusive. Even if Trump had established contact with Putin a couple of years before the election, their relationship before the election needn't have been particularly close. During the campaign, Team Trump may have messed up trying to establish a closer working relationship on election-related matters, or the Russians may have deliberately made a hash of it as a part of their long-term strategy for destabilizing the US. The Russians involved in the more recent election-related events were also being more closely watched during that time by the intelligence community, increasing the likelihood of cock-ups. It's also not a given that Trump would've revealed a corrupt relationship with Putin to Flynn & Sessions, for example. I agree though, we're missing many substantial pieces of the puzzle. And what the fuck was up with that server in Trump Tower?!

[Aimless]

This guy's threads are ridiculous, I'd missed the 16 additional notes:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/933582030327177216

This gem:

Twitter Link

[Steely Glint]

I just remembered that Donald Trump Junior released that himself, presumably as an attempt to make it look like a one time thing that didn't go anywhere. Or I'm just veering right into tinfoil territory, which it is very easy to do with this subject.

I'll just wait for Mueller to prove everything I've said in this thread right and / or America waking up one day to find the Whitehouse empty (with all the furniture removed, natch) and Donald Trump sitting in Russia.

Anyway, onto more important matters:

6/ ...by a blackmail-enabling video that is confirmed to exist *and*—the evidence now suggests—a phone call that directly suggests a "quid pro quo" smoking gun connecting Trump's run for the presidency and his thirty-year desire to build Trump Tower Moscow; and (e) we now have...Link Here
7/ ...so much more intel about the events of November 9, 2013—and the wee hours of November 10, 2013—than has been reported in U.S. media that to relay it creates the sense I'm making it up. *I am not*. The media is behind on this story and you can either accept that fact or not.

7/ ...so much more intel about the events of November 9, 2013—and the wee hours of November 10, 2013—than has been reported in U.S. media that to relay it creates the sense I'm making it up. *I am not*. The media is behind on this story and you can either accept that fact or not.

7/—and the wee hours of November 10, 2013—.

wee hours

wee

hours

wee hours

Textbook.

[RandBlade]

Am I the only one who can't stand Twitter "threads" as a means of communication? It is bloody irritating, why not just write a post somewhere and link to it from Twitter? Or do an image link? Or use a proper medium that isn't built around text message character limits?

[Aimless]

I just remembered that Donald Trump Junior released that himself, presumably as an attempt to make it look like a one time thing that didn't go anywhere. Or I'm just veering right into tinfoil territory, which it is very easy to do with this subject.

Obviously impossible to say at this stage but there's always going to be a need to have face-to-face meetings regardless. It has been reported elsewhere that some contacts between Trump's associates and Kremlin-affiliated actors likely took place in EU countries, eg. Hungary. This part of the story hasn't yet gotten much attention.

wee hours

You have the makings of a top-notch analyst like the ones that informed the FBI of Trump's Russian shenanigans as early as 2015

[Aimless]

Different take on Team Flynn's cooperation:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/933903761050865665

(including some salient and quite harsh criticism of the media coverage)

[Flixy]

Am I the only one who can't stand Twitter "threads" as a means of communication? It is bloody irritating, why not just write a post somewhere and link to it from Twitter? Or do an image link? Or use a proper medium that isn't built around text message character limits?

No, you are not the only one. Especially since he could just as easily put the same text in an article or blog.

[Aimless]

No, you are not the only one. Especially since he could just as easily put the same text in an article or blog.

Not "just as easily"--frequently "more easily". The reasons for not doing so are varied. One reason is that it increases engagement and reach because it becomes easier to respond to--and retweet--individual pieces of information or individual thoughts as the thread develops and you get more bits of the thread popping up on feeds over a long time. Another reason is that it also enables alteration of the original plan based on feedback given as the thread develops. In Abramson's case I suspect it's largely because this increases his reach and increases exposure for both old and new threads--and because this is how it's done on this particular platform.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm sorry but Abramson needs to start shutting up at some point. The NYT is practicing reasonable cautious journalism and there's nothing wrong with that. The world is not exactly short on journalism that is critical of Trump even without trying to copy Abramsom's screeds and over-the-top gassing (like the other excessive tweeting he was doing yesterday about 2013).

[Aimless]

I'm sorry but Abramson needs to start shutting up at some point. The NYT is practicing reasonable cautious journalism and there's nothing wrong with that. The world is not exactly short on journalism that is critical of Trump even without trying to copy Abramsom's screeds and over-the-top gassing (like the other excessive tweeting he was doing yesterday about 2013).

The core of the criticism are things that can arguably be described as poor journalism. He then goes on at length about significance/consequences of that, but that's a side issue.

[LittleFuzzy]

The core of the criticism are things that can arguably be described as poor journalism.

I disagree. Or at the least, I think the argument that they ought to be described as poor journalism is itself poor. It's always possible we disagree about what the core of the criticism is. And maybe I'm reading it wrong or am missing something, I just finished an overnight shift and am not at my best atm.

[Steely Glint]

The NYT has been downplaying the Russia story since the beginning (while also being probably the worst offender of 'But Her Emails', at least in the serious press) - I don't think it's unreasonable to go over their reporting of this issue with a fine tooth comb. And "reasonable cautious journalism" is pretty much how we got to this sorry state of affairs in the first place.

Fuzzball, get yourself some sleep. We'll still be here in the morning.

[LittleFuzzy]

The NYT has been downplaying the Russia story since the beginning

I strongly disagree and I know that you specifically are always at odds with my attitudes toward what constitutes responsible journalism wrt political figures you oppose. It's not bias if he really is a gasbag who should never have been elected, the press has no responsibility to be neutral and non-editorial in its reporting, etc.

[Loki]

Not "just as easily"--frequently "more easily". The reasons for not doing so are varied. One reason is that it increases engagement and reach because it becomes easier to respond to--and retweet--individual pieces of information or individual thoughts as the thread develops and you get more bits of the thread popping up on feeds over a long time. Another reason is that it also enables alteration of the original plan based on feedback given as the thread develops. In Abramson's case I suspect it's largely because this increases his reach and increases exposure for both old and new threads--and because this is how it's done on this particular platform.

FYI, Abramson is a borderline conspiracy nut. Smart guy, but goes on massive, poorly-sourced rants.

[Steely Glint]

The key point of Abramson's critique is that the NYT is misreporting several aspects of the latest Flynn developments, and uncritically repeating the Trump administration line about the investigation. In one example, he says they've mistated the exact nature of of what Mueller has been charged with investigating, then provides a document to back up this assertion.

The NYT then, in the second paragraph here, completely misstates the scope and purpose of the Mueller probe as it was authorized by the DOJ. Readers reading this paragraph would be completely misinformed about what Mueller has been tasked to do here. And it matters to America.



5/ This is what Mueller is *actually* authorized to investigate: not whether Trump's campaign aided efforts to undermine Clinton, but a) ANY links between Russia and Trump's campaign, b) ANY new matters that arise from that investigation, and c) ANY attempts to hinder the probe.

If the critique is true (and, honestly, the above example seems pretty damning unless he literally made up the document), in what universe does that constitute neutrality and non-editorial reporting?

[Loki]

As Fuzzy says, the NY Times has a higher evidentiary standard. The idea that it's pro-Trump is ridiculous. It regularly runs stories that make Trump look bad, and commits quite a lot of resources to to investigate the administration. If you want an organization in Trump's pocket, you should look at the WSJ.

I also don't see the distinction between the NY Times quote and the title of that document.

[LittleFuzzy]

The key point of Abramson's critique is that the NYT is misreporting several aspects of the latest Flynn developments, and uncritically repeating the Trump administration line about the investigation. In one example, he says they've mistated the exact nature of of what Mueller has been charged with investigating, then provides a document to back up this assertion.

They're not misreporting. There's the avenues of investigation and there's what might actually constitute wrongdoing, particularly by Trump himself. It is not in any way unlawful or criminal (which is what the Mueller investigation is necessarily seeking to investigate and prosecute) to have communicate with, engaged in business deals in, or otherwise fostered ties to Russia at even recent points in someone's career, for instance. Which would be why I describe all that writing about 2013 as "gassing." As far as Trump himself is concerned that section is almost completely irrelevant. It's just a vehicle for investigating others to try and uncover actual wrong-doing and then flip them on people even higher-up.

The purpose of the investigation is, as Loki points out, in the title of the order. Will the investigation pursue other wrongdoing it uncovers, as the order mentions? Yes. Is that really salient to the reporting or as an objection to what the NYT writer (or past reporting) put down? No.



If the critique is true (and, honestly, the above example seems pretty damning unless he literally made up the document), in what universe does that constitute neutrality and non-editorial reporting?[/QUOTE]

[Aimless]

FYI, Abramson is a borderline conspiracy nut. Smart guy, but goes on massive, poorly-sourced rants.

Have to take it for what it is. He shares many traits with cranks and conspiracy nuts, and his political tweeting during the primaries was not useful. He's also, to an extent, attempting to do something Fuzzy suggested, in a recent discussion about influencing public opinion: exploiting some of the same human traits Trump/Russia/the alt-right etc have used to influence public opinion for their benefits. Nevertheless, annoying and off-putting as that may be, he is also one of the most diligent gatherers of publicly available information on matters pertaining to the Russian interference investigation. There is, to my knowledge, no established media organization that is equally diligent when it comes to collating this information and referring back to it as new information comes to light. Much of the time they seem to have forgotten what they themselves have previously reported, never mind what others have reported. When they do refer to information others have reported, they rarely take into account non-western sources, evidence gleaned from social media, etc and rarely from more than 1-2 years ago. These news organizations have short and unreliable memories and Abramson's obsession with this special interest helps compensate for that deficiency. I wouldn't be interested in anything he might report from his own anonymous sources; his usefulness, in my eyes, lies in bringing together reasonably well-corroborated information from other sources.

There was a nice article about the size of the "paranoid style" of political discourse that some of you may enjoy. It also features a profile of Abramson:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Wh...-Trying/240071

[Loki]

Have to take it for what it is. He shares many traits with cranks and conspiracy nuts, and his political tweeting during the primaries was not useful. He's also, to an extent, attempting to do something Fuzzy suggested, in a recent discussion about influencing public opinion: exploiting some of the same human traits Trump/Russia/the alt-right etc have used to influence public opinion for their benefits. Nevertheless, annoying and off-putting as that may be, he is also one of the most diligent gatherers of publicly available information on matters pertaining to the Russian interference investigation. There is, to my knowledge, no established media organization that is equally diligent when it comes to collating this information and referring back to it as new information comes to light. Much of the time they seem to have forgotten what they themselves have previously reported, never mind what others have reported. When they do refer to information others have reported, they rarely take into account non-western sources, evidence gleaned from social media, etc and rarely from more than 1-2 years ago. These news organizations have short and unreliable memories and Abramson's obsession with this special interest helps compensate for that deficiency. I wouldn't be interested in anything he might report from his own anonymous sources; his usefulness, in my eyes, lies in bringing together reasonably well-corroborated information from other sources.

There was a nice article about the size of the "paranoid style" of political discourse that some of you may enjoy. It also features a profile of Abramson:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Wh...-Trying/240071

What some call "diligent" others might call delusional. Most of his rants grasp at straws. He finds connections where none exist. Or he makes perfectly normal behavior sound nefarious. As someone who follows the Russian saga pretty damn closely (including for academic reasons), his Russia rants are way off base. That's an opinion shared by most other Russia experts I've spoken to. His understanding of the political elements of things like impeachment is also severely lacking.

On a related note, I recommend staying away from McKew, Schindler, Garland, and Mensch, who are even more blatant conmen.

[Aimless]

His gathering of information is diligent in comparison to that of those covering the matter at established news organizations. "Obsessive" may be a more appropriate term. "Delusional" is a term that would be more appropriately used to describe a person's conclusions/beliefs. He's not a "Russia expert", and neither are most of the journalists actively covering this subject. I think it's important to distinguish between the roles of "Russia expert" and "expert on the Russia investigation" or on any of the specific subjects the election touches on. You obviously need Russia experts to put understand what's going on, but you also need people who're experts on the specific focuses of the investigation, to the extent that's possible. I'm not saying Abramson is such an expert mind you.

[Loki]

His gathering of information is diligent in comparison to that of those covering the matter at established news organizations. "Obsessive" may be a more appropriate term. "Delusional" is a term that would be more appropriately used to describe a person's conclusions/beliefs. He's not a "Russia expert", and neither are most of the journalists actively covering this subject. I think it's important to distinguish between the roles of "Russia expert" and "expert on the Russia investigation" or on any of the specific subjects the election touches on. You obviously need Russia experts to put understand what's going on, but you also need people who're experts on the specific focuses of the investigation, to the extent that's possible. I'm not saying Abramson is such an expert mind you.

You need an understanding of politics and Russia to put any of the material into context (and while reporters aren't exactly experts either, they're far better informed than he is). Facts by themselves are meaningless. And he doesn't just present facts - he adds his own warped interpretation. He's not an expert on the Russia investigation, because he doesn't understand what it means, he doesn't understand what is important, or why it's important. He's an English professor with far too much time on his hands.

Are you really going to take someone like this seriously? I can't even count how many things are wrong with this single tweet.

Twitter Link

[LittleFuzzy]

His gathering of information is diligent in comparison to that of those covering the matter at established news organizations. "Obsessive" may be a more appropriate term.

Obsessive would be kinda ok. . . except he gets fixated on things which don't matter and gets upset that others aren't similarly fixated (because they or others on their teams do know that those things don't matter).

[RandBlade]

The key point of Abramson's critique is that the NYT is misreporting several aspects of the latest Flynn developments, and uncritically repeating the Trump administration line about the investigation. In one example, he says they've mistated the exact nature of of what Mueller has been charged with investigating, then provides a document to back up this assertion.

If the critique is true (and, honestly, the above example seems pretty damning unless he literally made up the document), in what universe does that constitute neutrality and non-editorial reporting?

"Whether anyone around Mr. Trump was involved in Russian efforts to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" and "to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 Presidential election and related matters" seem quite comparable lines.

[Steely Glint]

As Fuzzy says, the NY Times has a higher evidentiary standard. The idea that it's pro-Trump is ridiculous. It regularly runs stories that make Trump look bad, and commits quite a lot of resources to to investigate the administration. If you want an organization in Trump's pocket, you should look at the WSJ.

a) The NYT has a higher evidentiary standard when it suits them
b) They aren't pro-Trump, they're anti the Russia story. Those two aren't necessarily the same thing. They downplayed the shit out of it during the election and couldn't shut up about Her E-mails, and now this whole thing makes them look like idiots.

They're not misreporting. There's the avenues of investigation and there's what might actually constitute wrongdoing, particularly by Trump himself. It is not in any way unlawful or criminal (which is what the Mueller investigation is necessarily seeking to investigate and prosecute) to have communicate with, engaged in business deals in, or otherwise fostered ties to Russia at even recent points in someone's career, for instance. Which would be why I describe all that writing about 2013 as "gassing." As far as Trump himself is concerned that section is almost completely irrelevant. It's just a vehicle for investigating others to try and uncover actual wrong-doing and then flip them on people even higher-up.

It is relevent if those ties pertain to what went on in the 2016 election, which is what Abramson alleges.

As for the business about the title of the order.

The purpose of the investigation is, as Loki points out, in the title of the order. Will the investigation pursue other wrongdoing it uncovers, as the order mentions? Yes. Is that really salient to the reporting or as an objection to what the NYT writer (or past reporting) put down? No.

I also don't see the distinction between the NY Times quote and the title of that document.

"Whether anyone around Mr. Trump was involved in Russian efforts to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" and "to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 Presidential election and related matters" seem quite comparable lines.

"Appointment of special council to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters" is a hell of a lot broader than just whether or not Trump or his people were involved in helping Russia to undermine Hillary Clinton specifically.

So any quid-quo-pro deals about, for example, property developments in, say, Moscow in exchange for, e.g. cooperation down the line in a presidential run or, for example, any compromising material the Russians might have on some people because of, oh, I don't know, some kind of scatological fetish anyone might have - not naming names!- actually have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton specifically, but still fall under the scope of the title of the order, but not under the scope of the investigation as the NYT would have you believe.

[Steely Glint]

Bit of a sore spot?

Nah.

[RandBlade]

He's claimed to have been on the cover more than any other which is nowhere near correct. The record by a very long shot is Nixon ... largely but not entirely due to Watergate.

Hopefully he can ultimately face the same fate as the man whose record he so desperately wants.