Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[FireNexus]

Yeah, in most contexts "We will reward you by making you and your extended family exempt from X law" is considered corruption. But apparently being in the military means that you're above all that.

Corruption is typically when someone in a position of power abuses that power for the gain of them and theirs. When someone uses their power in a way that is in service to the interests which resulted in him being entrusted with that power in the first place, it isn't corruption. It's just governing. I'd say having a disciplined military with sufficient manpower to carry out their missions is broadly in service to the interests of the US, whatever questions about its size and scope you may have.

[Thanas]

So it turns out that Jeff Sessions spoke at least two times with the Russian Ambassador during the presidential campaign despite claiming he did not do so.

Sessions, a former senator from Alabama who was among Trump’s early and most vocal surrogates on the campaign trail, did not disclose the conversations when asked under oath during his Senate confirmation hearing in early 2017 about possible contacts between Trump’s campaign and Moscow.

[The Romulan Republic]

Lying under Oath: Impeachable when a Democrat does it!

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, obviously, holy shit the conflict of interest here:

Sessions lied about his possible connections to something that is currently under investigation- in order to get the job that will put him in charge of the investigation.

[Napoleon the Clown]

If the current Republican party had anything vaguely resembling a moral backbone Trump's administration would be getting indicted left and right, resulting in more arrests and indictments than Ronald Regan and Richard Nixon's administrations combined. Nearly everyone connected with Jester Cheetah is becoming implicated in some seriously shady shit, and at this rate I wouldn't be shocked if every person of consequence, and a good chunk of low-level lackies, turned out to have been getting up to shit that makes Nixon look like an honest, stand up kind of guy.

Of course, the current Republican party as a whole lacks any semblance of a moral compass or spine. Party before country.

[The Romulan Republic]

And also party before law, democracy, and basic empathy for fellow human beings.

[Gandalf]

If the current Republican party had anything vaguely resembling a moral backbone Trump's administration would be getting indicted left and right, resulting in more arrests and indictments than Ronald Regan and Richard Nixon's administrations combined. Nearly everyone connected with Jester Cheetah is becoming implicated in some seriously shady shit, and at this rate I wouldn't be shocked if every person of consequence, and a good chunk of low-level lackies, turned out to have been getting up to shit that makes Nixon look like an honest, stand up kind of guy.

Of course, the current Republican party as a whole lacks any semblance of a moral compass or spine. Party before country.

Whether or not the GOP has any sort of moral backbone is irrelevant. The populace should be the ones holding them to account.

[Vympel]

Lying under Oath: Impeachable when a Democrat does it!

It's worth pointing out that the Democrats would be far more credible in calling for Sessions to be brought up for perjury charges if James Clapper hadn't clearly perjured himself before Congress about NSA's illegal spying program on Congress and gotten off scott free. Virtually no one gets in trouble for this, ever. So as nice it would be to rid ourselves of Sessions, his just-happened recusal is all that we'll get.

The Basic Formula For Every Shocking Russia/Trump Revelation

9. It becomes “normalized” (that new favorite buzzword!) to cast any meetings or contacts with Russian officials as inherently sinister. Rather than just a basic function of a Senator’s ordinary duties, meeting with “The Russians” is increasingly viewed as evidence of nefarious intent, and perhaps participation in a grand global conspiracy.

10. Political ineptitude and clumsiness (as was very probably the case with Flynn) gets interpreted as something more calculated than it really is. Sessions could’ve avoided this ridiculous controversy by saying something to the effect of: “I did not meet with any Russian officials in my informal capacity as Trump campaign surrogate, but I did speak with Russian officials over the course of my ordinary Senatorial duties.” The problem is, such an admission would’ve probably blown up into a big political snafu; Democrats would’ve seized on it as evidence of Russian collusion. So Sessions tried to lawyer himself out of trouble with an ambiguous comment during sworn testimony. This allowed him to sneak through the confirmation process, but created an even bigger political storm later.

11. A Trump official’s least egregious quality ends up being portrayed as his most egregious quality. There were any number of reasons to be highly worried about the presence of Mike Flynn in the Trump administration, from his bellicose posture toward Iran, to his outlandish views on the alleged threat posed by Islam. Conversing with the Russian ambassador about reducing tensions would very clearly not have been on the “reasons to be worried about Flynn” list. Likewise, Jeff Sessions is a troubling figure for a whole host of reasons, ranging from his hawkishly retrograde attitude about Drug Prohibition to his dicey history on racial matters. That he spoke to the Russian Ambassador in September 2016 would not be on the “reasons to be worried about Sessions” list.

[Pelranius]

If Sessions didn't list the conversations on the "Foreign Contacts" section of his background check (I think all non elected officials, i.e. people not POTUS and various Congress critters on relevant committees all have to fill out some form), he's in very, very deep trouble.

[Napoleon the Clown]

If the current Republican party had anything vaguely resembling a moral backbone Trump's administration would be getting indicted left and right, resulting in more arrests and indictments than Ronald Regan and Richard Nixon's administrations combined. Nearly everyone connected with Jester Cheetah is becoming implicated in some seriously shady shit, and at this rate I wouldn't be shocked if every person of consequence, and a good chunk of low-level lackies, turned out to have been getting up to shit that makes Nixon look like an honest, stand up kind of guy.

Of course, the current Republican party as a whole lacks any semblance of a moral compass or spine. Party before country.

Whether or not the GOP has any sort of moral backbone is irrelevant. The populace should be the ones holding them to account.

Their voters will back them in the generals no matter how corrupt they get, because they're not evil, baby-killing, gun-stealing, Jesus-hating Demoncrats. Absolute best case scenario that's at all realistic is that primary challengers with morals come in and Republicans back them.

Yes, I do consider anyone who votes for any of the current crop of Republicans after this entire shitshow to be an accessory to the corruption.

[The Romulan Republic]

Lying under Oath: Impeachable when a Democrat does it!

It's worth pointing out that the Democrats would be far more credible in calling for Sessions to be brought up for perjury charges if James Clapper hadn't clearly perjured himself before Congress about NSA's illegal spying program on Congress and gotten off scott free. Virtually no one gets in trouble for this, ever. So as nice it would be to rid ourselves of Sessions, his just-happened recusal is all that we'll get.

Perhaps, but you'll note that this isn't actually a defence or refutation of any of allegations against Sessions (saying "but someone else is guilty too" never is, though it may be an effective form of deflection via character attack).

9. It becomes “normalized” (that new favorite buzzword!) to cast any meetings or contacts with Russian officials as inherently sinister. Rather than just a basic function of a Senator’s ordinary duties, meeting with “The Russians” is increasingly viewed as evidence of nefarious intent, and perhaps participation in a grand global conspiracy.

Depends on weather he was meeting them in his capacity as Senator, or as a campaign surrogate. I'd trust Sessions' word on that as far as I could kick him (which since kicking Senators is illegal, means zero). And I'll note that you are basically parroting the official excuse from Sessions himself.

And in either case, he lied.

10. Political ineptitude and clumsiness (as was very probably the case with Flynn) gets interpreted as something more calculated than it really is. Sessions could’ve avoided this ridiculous controversy by saying something to the effect of: “I did not meet with any Russian officials in my informal capacity as Trump campaign surrogate, but I did speak with Russian officials over the course of my ordinary Senatorial duties.” The problem is, such an admission would’ve probably blown up into a big political snafu; Democrats would’ve seized on it as evidence of Russian collusion. So Sessions tried to lawyer himself out of trouble with an ambiguous comment during sworn testimony. This allowed him to sneak through the confirmation process, but created an even bigger political storm later.

Aww, he had to "lawyer himself out of trouble" (i.e. commit perjury) to get a job where he would then have an enormous conflict of interest because those mean partisan Democrats gave him no choice.

Does it hurt, bending so far over backwards to make excuses for Trumpolini's regime?

11. A Trump official’s least egregious quality ends up being portrayed as his most egregious quality. There were any number of reasons to be highly worried about the presence of Mike Flynn in the Trump administration, from his bellicose posture toward Iran, to his outlandish views on the alleged threat posed by Islam. Conversing with the Russian ambassador about reducing tensions would very clearly not have been on the “reasons to be worried about Flynn” list.

You mean "conducting clandestine foreign policy negotiations that undermined the then-President while he was still a private citizen"?

Likewise, Jeff Sessions is a troubling figure for a whole host of reasons, ranging from his hawkishly retrograde attitude about Drug Prohibition to his dicey history on racial matters. That he spoke to the Russian Ambassador in September 2016 would not be on the “reasons to be worried about Sessions” list.

You know damn well that's not all this is about. I refuse to believe that you are that stupid, and can therefore only conclude that you are being disingenuous.

And you'll note that I never said a thing about the larger Russia/Trump conspiracy allegations. I insinuated that Sessions is guilty of perjury (which he very likely is), mocked the Republicans for being hypocrites on this point (they are), and pointed out the massive conflict of interest inherent in Sessions' position.

So while I'm more than willing to have that argument again, that you immediately leaped in with an attempt to rebut the larger charges of conspiracy when I did not bring it up comes off as something of a case of protesting too much.

Edited to fix quotes and punctuation error.

[FireNexus]

Perhaps, but you'll note that this isn't actually a defence or refutation of any of allegations against Sessions (saying "but someone else is guilty too" never is, though it may be an effective form of deflection via character attack).

That was a direct refutation of your "impeachable when a Democrat does it" statement. And an effective one at that. While the remainder of his post seems to be bog standard deflection of the fact that this is a big scandal that only gets bigger as you look closer, your Kneejerkedly partisan "hurr hurr only when Dems do it!" Is demonstrably wrong. People in power never get real consequences other than a forced resignation when they get caught lying to Congress. Until the President gets caught lying under oath, we can't be sure that the double standard you're implying exists.

That said, I think you may ultimately end up being right once they catch Trump with his hand in the perjury cookie jar.

[The Romulan Republic]

It still isn't a refutation of the charges against him. Merely saying, in effect, that "yeah he's guilty, but he'll likely get off because Democrats do to".

And hell, he probably will get off, for now at least, regardless of weather a Democrat would in his place, because the Republican Party still largely backs the administration, even when one of them has massive conflicts of interest, appears to have committed perjury, and may just possibly be complicit in espionage against his country to win an election.

My mockery was in reference to the Bill Clinton impeachment for perjury that the Republican Party so enthusiastically supported, not meant to literally suggest that Democrats were always caught while Republicans never were.

[Thanas]

So Trump's commerce secretary pick is the vice-chairman of a bank owned by Vladimir Putin.

[The Romulan Republic]

Could you include a source?

Not that I really doubt it. Its just more of the same from the Putin/Trump regime.

[Vympel]

Perhaps, but you'll note that this isn't actually a defence or refutation of any of allegations against Sessions (saying "but someone else is guilty too" never is, though it may be an effective form of deflection via character attack).

Nor was it intended to be, but you seem dead set on pretending it is to deflect from the point, which is how Washington's political culture renders lying before Congress a totally ok thing to do, on a bipartisan basis.

Depends on weather he was meeting them in his capacity as Senator, or as a campaign surrogate. I'd trust Sessions' word on that as far as I could kick him (which since kicking Senators is illegal, means zero). And I'll note that you are basically parroting the official excuse from Sessions himself.

It's absurd to cast a meeting with the Russian ambassador to the United States in any capacity as somehow nefarious unless you have some actual evidence it is.

And in either case, he lied.

Duh.

Aww, he had to "lawyer himself out of trouble" (i.e. commit perjury) to get a job where he would then have an enormous conflict of interest because those mean partisan Democrats gave him no choice.

Did you even read the article, given it references Sen. McCaskill's (Democratic Senator) embarassing lie that she had never met the Russian Ambassador (which she tweeted out to attack Sessions), only to have it revealed that she had - twice - and she then made up the exact same dumb excuses Sessions did for the lie?

Maybe - just maybe - creating a gigantic hysteria about the Russians:

- Trump Has A Secret Internet Connection to a Russian Bank!
- The Russians Hacked CSPAN!
- The Russians Hacked a Vermont Power Utility!
- Putin killed Andrew Breitbart!
- Vitaly Churkin recruited Trump as a Soviet agent in the 1980s!

isn't particularly healthy for America's poltical culture, never mind its foreign policy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /98630572/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/erin-bur ... -sessions/

Does it hurt, bending so far over backwards to make excuses for Trumpolini's regime?

I find it hilarious that you protest that this isn't about the Democrats' Russia fever dreams (i.e. from your comments below that you clearly understand that Michael Tracey's article is about the standard pattern of 'Trump/Russia' stories, not about making excuses for Trump), but here you recast my post as 'making excuses for the Trump regime' anyway.

It's a laughable smear, and transparent. Just because someone doesn't go along with every hysterical flight of fancy that Trump's political opponents dream up doesn't make them a 'defender' of Trump.

You mean "conducting clandestine foreign policy negotiations that undermined the then-President while he was still a private citizen"?

What 'clandestine foreign policy negotiations' did he engage in? You're talking as if you know what they spoke about. That must mean you're privy to some pretty amazing high level information, given such a thing hasn't been released.

You know damn well that's not all this is about. I refuse to believe that you are that stupid, and can therefore only conclude that you are being disingenuous.

Of course that's what it's about. See below re: Mnuchin. This is all part and parcel of the Democrats:

a. Exculpating themselves for losing to an orange TV clown with a foreign boogey-man;
b. Attacking Trump's awful presidency without having to change a damn thing about their terrible Clinton lizard person neoliberal fuck-the-poor, fuck the middle-class policies and fuck the Sanders-left policies that helped Trump get elected in the first place.

And you'll note that I never said a thing about the larger Russia/Trump conspiracy allegations. I insinuated that Sessions is guilty of perjury (which he very likely is), mocked the Republicans for being hypocrites on this point (they are), and pointed out the massive conflict of interest inherent in Sessions' position/

So while I'm more than willing to have that argument again, that you immediately leaped in with an attempt to rebut the larger charges of conspiracy when I did not bring it up comes off as something of a case of protesting too much.

Edited to fix quotes and punctuation error.

Absolutely absurd. Everyone and their dog knows that the reason Sessions has come under scrutiny is because his lie involves Russia. That's just blindingly obvious. No one started 'perjury' talk - or even 'resignation' talk - when Trump's similarly awful appointee to the Treasury Steve Mnuchin misled Congress. Now why is that? Oh, because lies in service of rich corporations are A-OK in the diseased political culture of Washington.

[FireNexus]

It still isn't a refutation of the charges against him. Merely saying, in effect, that "yeah he's guilty, but he'll likely get off because Democrats do to".

And hell, he probably will get off, for now at least, regardless of weather a Democrat would in his place, because the Republican Party still largely backs the administration, even when one of them has massive conflicts of interest, appears to have committed perjury, and may just possibly be complicit in espionage against his country to win an election.

My mockery was in reference to the Bill Clinton impeachment for perjury that the Republican Party so enthusiastically supported, not meant to literally suggest that Democrats were always caught while Republicans never were.

It doesn't have to be a refutation of those charges. And that section didn't seem to even intend to be. Your statement was fucking wrong, and he proved it. So just fucking admit it and stop trying to move the goddamned goal posts

Everybody knows what your mockery was in reference to. Some of us could wipe our own asses when it happened. But Clinton was the President, and the only one since Nixon caught red-handed perjuring himself in any capacity. Not ever statement in opposition to a point of yours has to dismantle your whole fucking philosophy to be valid.

Please, for once, take criticism with a grain of humility and concede that it was inaccurate but the hypocrisy of the GOP is well-established in many ways. You'll never sharpen your debating skills if you refuse to back down on any inconsequential comment. And please quote me next time so i can get an alert. Almost missed this one due to burial.

[The Romulan Republic]

I did not move goal posts. It is possible, I'll acknowledge, that I misunderstood Vympel's point at first. It is also possible that I simply wished to cover all my bases, to acknowledge his point while still defending my own. In which case, I suppose I could have been more clear. But I think this is a case of miscommunication which you have both misconstrued (through error or deliberately) as dishonesty on my part.

In any case, I'm not even arguing the point that Democrats also get away with lying to Congress sometimes. In fact, I'll formally concede it if it makes you feel better. Though I will ask weather it ever occurred to you that my point was not to seriously argue that Democrats, and only Democrats, ever get punished for perjury (an obviously ridiculous claim), but to mock the Republican Party's double-standard (which I do not think you will deny they are guilty of)?

Christ, you two have made quite the mountain out of an off-hand quip based on a reference that, as I pointed out and you acknowledged, ought to be obvious to everyone.

However, that I do not immediately concede every point you think I should does not mean I am incapable of accepting criticism, or that I am being dishonest. Though I admit that I am not particularly inclined to listen to the debating advice of someone who seems either unwilling or unable to converse with me for more than one post without resorting to flames and character attacks.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, and apologies for forgetting to quote you again. Sometimes its simpler to just fire off one quick summary than go through a post line by line, and I've gotten in the habit. Didn't notice until after it was done.

[Terralthra]

Stars above, TRR, you'd be a lot easier to get along with if you'd admit to being wrong when it's pointed out instead of posting a 4-paragraph diatribe about how it doesn't matter that you were wrong. The sooner you learn to accept being wrong about even inconsequential things, the more quickly you will actually grow as a person.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would hardly characterize that post as a "diatribe".

In any case, I already conceded a point I never actually made because someone insisted on taking it literally. What more do you want? I conceded. That should be the end of it.

Now can we please get back to the actual topic?

[Raj Ahten]

So the latest Trump bullshit? Claiming Obama had his phones tapped at Trump tower. Also demanding that Congress investigate the matter. It wold be funny if his base didn't lap it up like everything else he says. Every right wing radio conspiracy is now official White House policy. Trump seems incapable of even riding a wave of positive coverage these days. Every time he does something "presidential" like read off a teleprompter in front of congress everyone is eating out of his hand. Guess he has to distract from Russian allegations somehow and acting like a responsible human being surely isn't his style.

If Trump is paranoid about his phone calls being listened to maybe his people shouldn't have been calling Russian officials all the time and expect the calls to be private. That's like calling a mob boss and being surprised the FBI has the line tapped. Of course US intelligence is listening to the Russians. As long as half the call is outside the US agencies can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with such communications.

Trump Seeks Inquiry Into Unproved Allegations That Obama Tapped His Phones

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and NOAH WEILANDMARCH 5, 2017

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump, a day after leveling a widely disputed allegation that President Barack Obama had ordered the tapping of his phones, on Sunday demanded a congressional inquiry into whether Mr. Obama abused the power of federal law enforcement agencies before the 2016 presidential election.

In a statement from his spokesman, Mr. Trump called “reports” about the wiretapping “very troubling” and said that Congress should examine them as part of its investigations into Russia’s meddling in the election.

“President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016,” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said in the statement.

Mr. Spicer, who repeated the entire statement in a series of Twitter messages, added that “neither the White House nor the president will comment further until such oversight is conducted.”

A spokesman for Mr. Obama and his former aides have called the accusation by Mr. Trump completely false, saying that Mr. Obama never ordered any wiretapping of a United States citizen.

“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” Kevin Lewis, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, said in a statement on Saturday.

Mr. Trump’s demand for a congressional investigation appears to be based, at least in part, on unproved claims by Breitbart News and conservative talk radio hosts that secret warrants were issued authorizing the tapping of the phones of Mr. Trump and his aides at Trump Tower in New York.

In a series of Twitter messages on Saturday, the president seemed to be convinced that those claims were true. In one post, Mr. Trump said, “I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”
First Draft

On Sunday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy White House press secretary, said the president was determined to find out what had really happened, calling it potentially the “greatest abuse of power” that the country has ever seen.

“Look, I think he’s going off of information that he’s seen that has led him to believe that this is a very real potential,” Ms. Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “And if it is, this is the greatest overreach and the greatest abuse of power that I think we have ever seen and a huge attack on democracy itself. And the American people have a right to know if this took place.”

Senior law enforcement and intelligence officials who worked in the Obama administration have said there were no such secret intelligence warrants regarding Mr. Trump. Asked whether such a warrant existed, James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, “Not to my knowledge, no.”

“There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time as a candidate or against his campaign,” Mr. Clapper added.

Mr. Trump’s demands for a congressional investigation were initially met with skepticism by lawmakers, including Republicans. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said he was “not sure what it is that he is talking about.”

“I’m not sure what the genesis of that statement was,” Mr. Rubio said.

Pressed to elaborate on “Meet the Press,” Mr. Rubio said, “I’m not going to be a part of a witch hunt, but I’m also not going to be a part of a cover-up.''

[FaxModem1]

The Independent

Donald Trump campaign adviser suggests he had a back channel to WikiLeaks
He denies he knew WikiLeaks were going to publish emails stolen from Clinton campaign and calls FBI investigation a 'witch hunt'

Samuel Osborne @SamuelOsborne93 3 hours ago19 comments




888

Click to follow
The Independent US
roger-stone.jpg
Roger Stone advised Donald Trump during his presidential campaign and reportedly remains 'a confidant to Trump' Spencer Platt/Getty Images
A former adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign has suggested the billionaire had a back channel to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the election.

Roger Stone, who reportedly remains "a confidant to Trump" following the campaign, said he had a "perfectly legal" way of communicating with Mr Assange, whose organisation released thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta.

One of a series of profanity-filled tweets Mr Stone sent during an argument on Twitter said: "you stupid stupid b***h - never denied perfectly legal back channel to Assange who indeed had the goods on #CrookedHillary [sic]"

In another tweet to the same person, he said: "bring it! Would enjoy crush u in court and forcing you to eat s**t - you stupid ignorant ugly b***h ! [sic]"

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
Follow
Liam Stack ✔ @liamstack
Here are some things Trump advisor Roger Stone spent Saturday night saying to random people on Twitter
9:30 PM - 4 Mar 2017
7,819 7,819 Retweets 9,745 9,745 likes
14h
Liam Stack ✔ @liamstack
Here are some things Trump advisor Roger Stone spent Saturday night saying to random people on Twitter pic.twitter.com/96k2QbIXwt
Follow
Liam Stack ✔ @liamstack
Roger Stone has now deleted those two tweets where he called someone a stupid bitch, FYI.
9:36 PM - 4 Mar 2017
250 250 Retweets 786 786 likes
Mr Stone has called the FBI's investigation into whether there was improper contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials a "witch hunt."

He suggested the FBI was monitoring his communications and told CBS News: “Sure they’ll get my grocery lists, they may get the emails between my wife and I, but here’s what they won’t get — any contact with the Russians."

He denied any connection to Russia and refuted allegations he knew WikiLeaks were going to publish emails stolen from Mr Podesta, adding: "It's a witch hunt. I know it is."

Follow
Roger Stone @RogerJStoneJr
Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary
7:24 AM - 21 Aug 2016
346 346 Retweets 463 463 likes
Two months before WikiLeaks began publishing new emails from Mr Podesta everyday, Mr Stone tweeted: "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary"

READ MORE
US Congressman offers withering response to Trump's wiretap claims
Donald Trump considering drastic cuts to US climate agency budget
Trump spends almost a third of his time in office at Mar-a-Lago resort
Donald Trump claims Barack Obama 'wiretapped' Trump Tower
US intelligence officials concluded "with high confidence" Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the hacks of the Democratic National committee to help Mr Trump win the election.

It is not the first time Mr Stone has admitted to having "back channel communication" with Mr Assange.

Last year, he told CBS4 News: "I do have back-channel communication with Assange, because we have a good mutual friend.

"That friend travels back and forth from the United States to London and we talk. I had dinner with him last Monday."

However, he denied he had met or spoke to Mr Assange.

At the time, the Clinton campaign released a statement to say: “It is disturbing that Roger Stone, a longtime Donald Trump confidante, has confirmed the fact that he has “back-channel communications” with Wikileaks, an organisation that is working with the Russian government to affect the American presidential election.”

So, there's that.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure which of those two stories is the more disturbing, but I think its the Obama one.

Trump affiliates having ties to people who interfered in the election is nothing new. Appalling, but not new.

Trump trying to push for an investigation of Obama on Trumped-up allegations... is he angling for a pretext to arrest major Democratic leaders? Was "lock her up" more than just hot air?

[Alkaloid]

TRR, I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like someone should say this to you.

If you genuinely want the Democrats to win the next US election, the single best thing you can do would be stop posting, and if you present anything in person like you do online, talking, about politics. If you can't do that, at the very least you need to take a step back and take a long look at the way you communicate. I don't think you realise but the sort of rhetoric you use will actively make undecided people want to avoid being on your side because frankly, you sound like the sort of person who loses.

I don't know if you've ever looked at any sort of theory on communication, but if you do one of the things that is stressed is that the way you present a message is as important as the message itself. I know it sucks, but an entirely sensible, rational argument will often be ignored by people in favour of lunacy if the lunatic argument is packaged more attractively. In this case, Donald Trump and his team presented themselves as powerful and accomplished, and they won. It was mostly lies, but that doesn't matter because they won.

You regularly present as a spineless, panicky coward and that taints every argument you make in favour of the Democrats. I'm not meaning to call you a coward here, I'm just making the point that that is how you appear. In the post above this, you were commenting on Trump demanding an investigation into Obama. You didn't look at Trumps history of making legal threats he never follows through on, promises to imprison Hillary Clinton he never followed through on and his regular bumbling when it comes to dealing with the legalities of his new position and come to the conclusion that it's likely the same bluster. You, with little to no evidence, instead invented a sinister Trumpian plan to arrest major Democratic leaders and declared yourself to be afraid of it.

Now I'm not saying that's impossible. I'd be entirely unsurprised if Democrat strategists and Obamas lawyers are making sure all of their i's are crossed and t's dotted right now, but you'll notice they aren't screaming about it from the rooftops.They might plan for it, but if you ask them about it tomorrow they'll laugh at it or refuse to comment because they want to look capable. They can't afford to look scared of Trump even if they are because doing that sends a message that he is stronger, more capable than they are.

You are by an enormous margin the most frequent poster in threads about Trump and almost none of these posts are interesting or constructive. They're almost all terrified histrionics about how the dictatorship is coming or complaining about how Trump only won because the election system is illegitimate. In the words of Josh Lyman, "no one likes the guys who complains to the referee", and that's all you do. Sanders was robbed, Clinton was robbed, now Trump is coming and he's going to make us all shoot the Mexicans and it's just not faiiiiiiir!

As much as he presents as the stereotypical inept, thuggish authoritarian not mentally equipped to comprehend the complexities involved in governing, let alone actually do it you present as the stereotypical 'spineless liberal', whining about the unfairness of the world but without the courage to do anything to change it, entirely willing to roll over and beg rather than fight for your beliefs. You have predicted WWIII about six times in the last eighteen months over incidents that in terms of global diplomacy are next to meaningless, but you never seem to have reasoned concern, only a vague but intense fear.

I'd suggest you pick some of your posts at random from a few months ago. Read them out loud if it helps. Don't look to see if you agree with the content, think in terms of 'would I respect a person who said this'. If I were a betting man I'd say almost no one who reads what you post on this board does. I'm positively left wing by US standards, I'd have voted for Sanders over any of the other candidates but I cringe when I see you've created threads or posted in one, especially regarding US politics.

You want an example of how to come over well, look at the popular liberal media personalities. They rarely mention fear, and when they do they couch it in humour. They mention political concepts or policies which might be objectively scary, but they contextualise people who fetishize them as stupid. You don't beat an authoritarian by bleating about him, that just makes people respect him more than they respect you. You beat him by laughing at him and proving he can't stop you.