Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

Point taken regarding spelling.

Congress...

I don't know. I think the point where most Republicans move against him is the point where they realize they have more to lose from supporting him than from ditching him. Now that he's started threatening members of Congress from his own party, and is trying to undercut the legislature's authority, maybe.

I suspect Democrats, meanwhile, will mostly turn on him (in the sense of actually being willing to impeach him) when the Republicans do, I think. Because the leadership pretty clearly doesn't want to risk trying to impeach if they know they don't have the votes to actually pull it off.

[Flagg]

I'm not surprised. Probably nobody could articulate any material gain from continuing the support, the only reason I can see to keep doing it is leverage. Would it have been nice to extract some concessions from Russia in exchange for ending the program? Sure. But frankly, U.S policy in Syria has been a shitshow for a while (at one point CIA supported rebels were fighting against Pentagon supported ones) and in trying to topple Assad, they lost sight of the bigger picture, which is the merry band of transnational jihadists running around spreading instability across the region is at an all time high. What happens when they move onto the next battlefield? I'm not convinced we can force Assad to accept a settlement in our favor with the limited amount of support the U.S is willing to provide and the wisdom of handing out a bunch of weapons to Islamist to drag out the conflict when you don't know where they might turn up afterwards isn't obvious to me.

Yeah, I mean it's not going to stop the Saudi's from arming them but I agree with you in principle. Again, it's the total give that rankles me. Because not all of the opposition are "islamists", some are "Christists" and others just minority Sunni's sick of Assad oppression. Turns out the world is complex.

[Flagg]

That Trump's campaign colluded with Russia is basically admitted now, and public record.

The only questions are weather said collusion was technically illegal (though there's a pretty strong Obstruction case regardless), and weather the ass hats in Congress will actually do jack shit about it.

weather = rain, sun, clouds, etc.

Whether = doubt or choice between two alternatives.

And I honestly doubt Congress will do anything. I don't have that much faith in Congress doing what they can to stop corruption.

Yeah, I'll believe even a Democratic congress with a supermajority will impeach the fucker when I see it. So, never.

[Elfdart]

You do know that by using the "Syrian rebels=Al Qaida/ISIS" line, you are basically regurgitating Kremlin/Assad propaganda?

No I don't know that, but I do know that you're full of shit. Aside from the Kurds, who were backed primarily by US Special Forces, the Syrian rebels are mostly ISIS/ISIL/Daesh or Al Qaeda/Al-Nusra -all Saudi-backed Sunni fanatics. You know, lunatics who revel in barbarism like beheading boys, burning aid workers alive, crashing planes into buildings and other recreational activities. The notion that pointing out these facts is somehow Russian or Syrian "propaganda" is so fucking retarded that it deserves to be run over by the short bus.

Now, I'm not saying we should arm the rebels. I just really don't like that particular simplistic, propagandistic argument.

Well I don't like dishonest horseshit like the kind you're slinging around. You know, like dismissing facts as "Kremlin/Assad propaganda". As Matt Taibbi noted:

One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn't believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks.

Naturally, he was accused of being a Russian lackey too. I guess we Kremlin henchman just can't say no to borscht.

Trump deserves merciless ball-busting for any number of things, but cutting off CIA aid to Al-Nusra/Al Qaeda/etc isn't one of them*. The funny thing is, the very same news articles also mention that he intends to keep giving aid to the Kurds through the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that Cheetolini has never kept his word in his life, I don't see the problem here.

* Ditto for Trump not going balls-out to back Baltic and Ukrainian Nazis just because they're anti-Russian.

[Tiriol]

* Ditto for Trump not going balls-out to back Baltic and Ukrainian Nazis just because they're anti-Russian.

Baltic Nazis?

[Flagg]

* Ditto for Trump not going balls-out to back Baltic and Ukrainian Nazis just because they're anti-Russian.

Baltic Nazis?

I think he's finally gone so far left he done circled around and is total batshit now.

[Elfdart]

* Ditto for Trump not going balls-out to back Baltic and Ukrainian Nazis just because they're anti-Russian.

Baltic Nazis?

Yep.

Dovid Katz has written extensively on the whitewashing of Nazi collaborators in the Holocaust, particularly in the Baltic states — Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — which are members of NATO and the European Union. Katz is a regular contributor to the journal Defending History, a scholarly watchdog project whose mission is to “defend the history of the Holocaust from the onslaught of the New Far Right’s East European campaign (by states, their proxies, and other elites) to downgrade and obfuscate the Holocaust.”

On Lithuania’s Independence Day in March, Defending History reported that far-right nationalists held a march featuring neo-Nazi music and the Forest Brothers song “Let the Bolsheviks Know.” The participants marched to the presidential palace, where they held a ceremony attacking Lithuania’s oldest Holocaust survivor, Fania Yocheles Brantsovsky, 95. Defending History noted Brantsovsky has been “subjected to defamation by the state’s campaign of Holocaust revisionism.”

Efraim Zuroff, a well-known anti-Nazi activist and historian, also condemned the Forest Brothers film in an email to AlterNet. “The problem with the screening by NATO of the film on the Forest Brothers is that it presents these men as genuine heroes with a blameless past, when in reality many of them had murdered Jews during the Holocaust,” he said.

The Forest Brothers’ complicity in the Holocaust “was in fact one of the reasons that some of them joined the anti-Soviet resistance—to avoid prosecution by the Soviets for their collaboration with the Nazis,” Zuroff added. “They also committed crimes against innocent civilians in certain cases.”

Let's not forget that the putsch in Ukraine brought admirers of Stepan Bandera to power, including Svoboda to run several ministries.

I despise Trump, but not to the point where I've become so unhinged at the results of the last election that I'm going to support Nazis, ISIS or Al Qaeda.

[Exonerate]

Yeah, I mean it's not going to stop the Saudi's from arming them but I agree with you in principle. Again, it's the total give that rankles me. Because not all of the opposition are "islamists", some are "Christists" and others just minority Sunni's sick of Assad oppression. Turns out the world is complex.

Then let the Saudis arm them, I want no part of it. The CIA program supported the Free Syrian Army, which is by this point is mostly Islamists, the Christians and other minority groups are under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces. There are no "Christists" in Syria, unless you're aware of any groups who want to found a government based on Christianity and treat everybody else as second-class citizens at best or forcibly convert them under threat of death. Assad's government was a secular government held together by a coalition of Alawites and other minority groups. The minorities are mostly fighting in alignment with Assad right now because they don't want the Islamist rebels to take over and fuck them.

[Flagg]

Yeah, I mean it's not going to stop the Saudi's from arming them but I agree with you in principle. Again, it's the total give that rankles me. Because not all of the opposition are "islamists", some are "Christists" and others just minority Sunni's sick of Assad oppression. Turns out the world is complex.

Then let the Saudis arm them, I want no part of it. The CIA program supported the Free Syrian Army, which is by this point is mostly Islamists, the Christians and other minority groups are under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces. There are no "Christists" in Syria, unless you're aware of any groups who want to found a government based on Christianity and treat everybody else as second-class citizens at best or forcibly convert them under threat of death. Assad's government was a secular government held together by a coalition of Alawites and other minority groups. The minorities are mostly fighting in alignment with Assad right now because they don't want the Islamist rebels to take over and fuck them.

Read revelation and tell me Christians don't want exactly that.

[Vympel]

Unbelievable, Vympel.

We now have solid evidence that top Trump officials met with a known high-level Kremlin lawyer for the express purpose of collaborating to defeat Hillary Clinton (and I'm sure its just a coincidence that this happened shortly before the leaks of hacked information right before the DNC, and that they definitely offered Russia nothing in return, quid pro quo, even though they reportedly discussed sanctions). And yet you're still beating the apologist drum. Do you have no shame at all?

ROFLMAO. Except that the lawyer in question isn't a 'Kremlin lawyer' at all - and is a low-level personality, at that. There's no evidence at all she's a Kremlin operative. I even posted an article from a well known anti-Putin liberal journalist, explaining all this, but you're too high on your own TrumpRussia supply to consider it - or even bother reading it, either.

You're liking a walking exhibit on the debilitating effects of propaganda. You read hysterical bullshit and you can't even read it properly, so any random Russian magically becomes an agent of the Kremlin.

If you were American, I'd call you a Quisling. As it is, I'll content myself with calling you a liar and an imbecile.

What am I lying about, exactly?

I "love" how you seem to think finding evidence of the second one somehow disproves the first one, rather than making it more plausible in a still-ongoing investigation.

I didn't say anything about disproof. I was noting the flagrant goal post shifting. Sorry that's too hard for your minute brain to comprehend.

And where do you think the "dirt" they were looking for came from? Maybe... Russian hacking?

Why would Russians need to hack to give Trump incriminating evidence on Hillary Clinton's dealings with Russians, genius (which was what this boozy English publicist offered)? No one mentioned anything about hacking in this news. It's something you made up, and it's obviously stupid as hell.

Not treason, but probably violations of laws related to bribery/campaign finance, as well as possibly espionage laws (I'm honestly not sure on that last one).

No, it's not. That's something legal grifters have made up to get stupid Democratic partisans to spin fantasies about Trump being perpwalked out of the White House. You know, just like the Logan Act and the Emoulments Clause.

As to the rest... you got a credible source for the claim that the Clinton campaign collaborated with Russians?

Yeah, it's called the Steele Dossier. Maybe you've heard of it?

And, moreover, that top members of the campaign collaborated with a hostile government rather than getting information from private individuals, for example? Because otherwise, there's really no comparison. And no, Trumpian and Kremlin news outlets don't count.

I like it how you say this in blinding ignorance of the fact that the 'Russian lawyer' isn't from the Kremlin.

If the Steele dossier, please quote the relevant passage and/or provide a link.

That the Steele dossier was originally paid for by Republicans and then paid for by Democrats - through Fusion GPS - is an uncontroversial fact. Or do you think Steele worked for free?

Oh, and you've got to love how every time more evidence of Trump's crimes comes to light, his apologists immediately come out with "B-b-b-but... Hillary Clinton!" (or Obama). As if "someone else did something bad" too has ever been a defence for a crime.

It's not, but if you're going to argue that Trump Jnr's meeting with a Russian to get oppo on Hillary Clinton is inappropriate, you should have to explain in a coherent fashion why it's ok for someone else to do the exact same thing - your ignorant dumbass attempts to pretend the Russian lawyer was from the Kremlin, notwithstanding.

"respected Russian journalists"... Like who?

Like Alexey Kovalev, or the author of the Bloomberg article I linked to, you complete idiot.

I mean, its not like Putin has a history of murdering any Russian journalists who don't toe his line...

Oh, wait.

You get more incoherent and embarassing the longer this goes on. You've basically turned into a simpering Democrat-meme making machine. What does this ridiculous false talking point of "Putin murders journalists!" (no one anywhere with a clue about Russia actually believes that - there's literally no evidence for this) have to do with anything I'm saying?

Yeah, yeah, we get it. American bad, Russia against America, therefore Russia good.

Its must be a nice, comfortingly simple world-view.

The only person promoting manichean nonsense here is you I'm afraid.

[Flagg]

Yeah, I mean it's not going to stop the Saudi's from arming them but I agree with you in principle. Again, it's the total give that rankles me. Because not all of the opposition are "islamists", some are "Christists" and others just minority Sunni's sick of Assad oppression. Turns out the world is complex.

Then let the Saudis arm them, I want no part of it. The CIA program supported the Free Syrian Army, which is by this point is mostly Islamists, the Christians and other minority groups are under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces. There are no "Christists" in Syria, unless you're aware of any groups who want to found a government based on Christianity and treat everybody else as second-class citizens at best or forcibly convert them under threat of death. Assad's government was a secular government held together by a coalition of Alawites and other minority groups. The minorities are mostly fighting in alignment with Assad right now because they don't want the Islamist rebels to take over and fuck them.

Read revelation and tell me Christians don't want exactly that.

No, that's stupid, past self. Shut up, stupid.

[AniThyng]

Read revelation and tell me Christians don't want exactly that.

No, that's stupid, past self. Shut up, stupid.

Heh, yeah. Doubly ironic because the Koran is far more explicit (read: literal, in a practical sense) than the Bible on how an Islamic government is to be conducted and how non Muslim's are too be treated - fairly (if we take a charitable interpretation), but still basically second class citizens. It's not just "islamists" but actual Muslim moderates with these ideas and that's what gives "islamophobia" reasonable legs outside the extremist right wing camp.

Edit: in fact I think those protections apply only to people of the book...not...you know, even more extreme heresies like Buddhism or atheism or what have you...

[The Romulan Republic]

ROFLMAO. Except that the lawyer in question isn't a 'Kremlin lawyer' at all - and is a low-level personality, at that. There's no evidence at all she's a Kremlin operative. I even posted an article from a well known anti-Putin liberal journalist, explaining all this, but you're too high on your own TrumpRussia supply to consider it - or even bother reading it, either.

You're liking a walking exhibit on the debilitating effects of propaganda. You read hysterical bullshit and you can't even read it properly, so any random Russian magically becomes an agent of the Kremlin.

Umm...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/worl ... b-kgb.html

Quoting the first paragraph:

MOSCOW-The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year after his father had won the Republican nomination for president had once represented Russia's top intelligence agency in court, according to at least two public records.

So ties to Russian intelligence at the very least.

Of course, I fully expect that you'll say something to the effect that the New York Times is fake news, and part of the Democratic conspiracy against Trump and Putin.

As to your implication that I am generally hostile towards Russian people, it is a cheap, defamatory ad hominem. I oppose their government, just as I oppose my own American government currently. That is all.

What am I lying about, exactly?

Your persistent denialism of even the possibility of any collusion between Trump and Russia, no matter how much evidence mounts up? More specifically, I'd say that your attempts to imply that I am an anti-Russian bigot, and to argue that Clinton getting information from Ukraine was equivalent to Trump's campaign colluding with Russia, are pretty disingenuous.

Though in fairness to you, I suppose it could be possible that you are simply a sincere imbecile.

I didn't say anything about disproof. I was noting the flagrant goal post shifting. Sorry that's too hard for your minute brain to comprehend.

Maybe some people are engaging in goal-post shifting, and possibly I misread you. But this:

I love it how the claims of 'collusion' have changed from 'the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC and John Podesta's emails (aka 'hack the election') to "the Trump campaign was willing to get dirt on Hillary from Russians".

It certainly seems to me to be implying that the claims of Trump conspiring with Russia had somehow been dropped or discredited, based on the recent revelations. Which is obviously ridiculous.

Why would Russians need to hack to give Trump incriminating evidence on Hillary Clinton's dealings with Russians, genius (which was what this boozy English publicist offered)? No one mentioned anything about hacking in this news. It's something you made up, and it's obviously stupid as hell.

You are correct that simply offering information the Russian government lawfully possessed on any hypothetical dealings between Clinton and Russia would not require hacking, obviously. And my apologies if I mistakenly conflated unrelated arguments.

That said, while that, in and of itself, would not prove collusion on hacking of the DNC/election, it does at least show that the Trump campaign at high levels was meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Clinton. This email, moreover, was clearly part of a chain of communications, and the timing of the meeting (shortly before the infamous DNC info released right before the Democratic Convention) is highly suspicious.

In light of this, I think it highly plausible that their was collusion on hacking, that will subsequently be revealed.

No, it's not. That's something legal grifters have made up to get stupid Democratic partisans to spin fantasies about Trump being perpwalked out of the White House. You know, just like the Logan Act and the Emoulments Clause.

Yeah, every allegation against Trump is just something made up by Democrats.

I mean, you basically sound like a White House spokesperson here.

Yeah, it's called the Steele Dossier. Maybe you've heard of it?

Yeah, and I've memorized everything in it, and there's no way that you could possibly misrepresent its contents.

I'm actually willing to concede this point, because I've now heard this corroborated from sources I trust more than your word. But I don't think it would have been unreasonable to ask for a specific quote or link.

Besides, its still not remotely comparable to colluding with an adversary of the US, especially if said collusion did involve illegally obtained information. Nor, again, would "Clinton did it too" in any way justify Trump's actions, which in any case are now of greater significance in light of the fact that he, not she, is the sitting President.

I like it how you say this in blinding ignorance of the fact that the 'Russian lawyer' isn't from the Kremlin.

Are you sure we're not referring to two different lawyers?

That the Steele dossier was originally paid for by Republicans and then paid for by Democrats - through Fusion GPS - is an uncontroversial fact. Or do you think Steele worked for free?

I would still like a source/link.

And, hey, being paid for by people from both parties would make it, if nothing else, a little less likely to be just a piece of partisan propaganda.

It's not, but if you're going to argue that Trump Jnr's meeting with a Russian to get oppo on Hillary Clinton is inappropriate, you should have to explain in a coherent fashion why it's ok for someone else to do the exact same thing - your ignorant dumbass attempts to pretend the Russian lawyer was from the Kremlin, notwithstanding.

Um... no?

I never argued that it was okay for someone else to do the exact same thing (your dishonest attempt to pretend that what Clinton did is the same in order to deflect and derail this discussion notwithstanding). Since I never made that claim, I am under no obligation to defend it.

That said, I oppose any illegal interference by any nation in another nation's free elections, as a matter of principle.

Like Alexey Kovalev, or the author of the Bloomberg article I linked to, you complete idiot.

I don't know them well enough to say how credible they are, honestly. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss them, though your endorsement hardly lends me confidence.

You get more incoherent and embarassing the longer this goes on. You've basically turned into a simpering Democrat-meme making machine. What does this ridiculous false talking point of "Putin murders journalists!" (no one anywhere with a clue about Russia actually believes that - there's literally no evidence for this) have to do with anything I'm saying?

As you said above reg. the Steele dossier, Putin murdering journalists is not really a controversial fact.

But I know full well that you will deny or defend anything Putin and Trump are accused of, because you are clearly as much an ideological hack as the most die-hard Tea Partier.

As to its relevance, I believe my point was that its difficult to trust sources in Russia, as (even if not directly under Putin's thumb) they may be (with good reason) afraid of reporting on Putin in a fully transparent or critical manner.

The only person promoting manichean nonsense here is you I'm afraid.

Um... no?

I had to look up "Manichean", but here's the definition Google offered-

"an adherent of the dualistic religious system of Manes, a combination of Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and various other elements, with a basic doctrine of a conflict between light and dark, matter being regarded as dark and evil. adjective. 2. of or relation to the Manicheans or their doctrines."

Which is hardly applicable to my arguments here, certainly not in the manner that you seem to intend. I am not claiming an "America good, Russia bad" duality, or anything of the sort. My views of right and wrong, of good and evil, are not determined by national boundary or just factional allegiance. I have never claimed that anyone against America is bad, or that everything America does is good. And in this context, as a reply to my accusation, its basically just a more verbose way of saying "I know you are, but what am I." Which is literally school-yard level "debate."

[Flagg]

Read revelation and tell me Christians don't want exactly that.

No, that's stupid, past self. Shut up, stupid.

Heh, yeah. Doubly ironic because the Koran is far more explicit (read: literal, in a practical sense) than the Bible on how an Islamic government is to be conducted and how non Muslim's are too be treated - fairly (if we take a charitable interpretation), but still basically second class citizens. It's not just "islamists" but actual Muslim moderates with these ideas and that's what gives "islamophobia" reasonable legs outside the extremist right wing camp.

Edit: in fact I think those protections apply only to people of the book...not...you know, even more extreme heresies like Buddhism or atheism or what have you...

I just fell into the trap of being sick of the rampant Islamaphobia in the US.

[Ralin]

Edit: in fact I think those protections apply only to people of the book...not...you know, even more extreme heresies like Buddhism or atheism or what have you...

But it does have a strong baked in political and financial incentive to interpret 'People of the Book' as broadly as possible.

[Vympel]

Umm...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/worl ... b-kgb.html

Quoting the first paragraph:

MOSCOW-The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year after his father had won the Republican nomination for president had once represented Russia's top intelligence agency in court, according to at least two public records.

So ties to Russian intelligence at the very least.

Oh my god, who cares - so she represented a military unit founded by the FSB in court 15 fucking years ago in mundane property case - clearly this means you're right that she's a "Kremlin" operative, all evidence about her obviously small time nature to the contrary. It's ridiculous.

As to your implication that I am generally hostile towards Russian people, it is a cheap, defamatory ad hominem. I oppose their government, just as I oppose my own American government currently. That is all.

But being tangentially involved with the government makes you a priori a Kremlin operative in perpetuity, right.

Your persistent denialism of even the possibility of any collusion between Trump and Russia, no matter how much evidence mounts up?

If only there was any evidence. Which of course, there isn't. Still.

More specifically, I'd say that your attempts to imply that I am an anti-Russian bigot, and to argue that Clinton getting information from Ukraine was equivalent to Trump's campaign colluding with Russia, are pretty disingenuous.

It is indeed equivalent, and you have yet to explain the relevant difference.

Maybe some people are engaging in goal-post shifting, and possibly I misread you. But this:

It certainly seems to me to be implying that the claims of Trump conspiring with Russia had somehow been dropped or discredited, based on the recent revelations. Which is obviously ridiculous.

Goalpost shifting refers to the argument changing what constitutes 'collusion' from a matter actually involving a crime to merely getting dirt on Hillary Clinton.

You are correct that simply offering information the Russian government lawfully possessed on any hypothetical dealings between Clinton and Russia would not require hacking, obviously. And my apologies if I mistakenly conflated unrelated arguments.

That said, while that, in and of itself, would not prove collusion on hacking of the DNC/election, it does at least show that the Trump campaign at high levels was meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Clinton. This email, moreover, was clearly part of a chain of communications, and the timing of the meeting (shortly before the infamous DNC info released right before the Democratic Convention) is highly suspicious.

In light of this, I think it highly plausible that their was collusion on hacking, that will subsequently be revealed.

Of course you do. I don't.

Yeah, every allegation against Trump is just something made up by Democrats.

I mean, you basically sound like a White House spokesperson here.

I didn't say anything about accusations or Democrats. I was pillorying the dumbass noveaux-legal arguments spread by grifters to make people think criminal charges in certain obscure circumstances are somehow plausible. Whether its attempts to twist campaign finance law to apply to oppo research (lol get fucking real), the never-applied Logan Act or the even more obscure Emoulments Clause, the grift by these hucksters never ends. It's a scam.

Yeah, and I've memorized everything in it, and there's no way that you could possibly misrepresent its contents.

That's clearly and not at all a sign of a very unhealthy obsession.

I'm actually willing to concede this point, because I've now heard this corroborated from sources I trust more than your word. But I don't think it would have been unreasonable to ask for a specific quote or link.

If you know all about the Steele dossier you should know where it comes from. Who paid for it has been part and parcel of all reporting on it for months.

Besides, its still not remotely comparable to colluding with an adversary of the US, especially if said collusion did involve illegally obtained information. Nor, again, would "Clinton did it too" in any way justify Trump's actions, which in any case are now of greater significance in light of the fact that he, not she, is the sitting President.

What the hell is an 'adversary'? That's a meaningless word that has no legal force, and no one need be beholden to it. The mere fact that the US State Department doesn't like the Russian government is legally meaningless.

Are you sure we're not referring to two different lawyers?

See above. Your assertion she's a 'Kremlin' lawyer is nuts.

I would still like a source/link.

And, hey, being paid for by people from both parties would make it, if nothing else, a little less likely to be just a piece of partisan propaganda.

LOL, how? Both of them paid for it in an attempt to destroy Donald Trump. Of course its partisan propaganda, which is why it's never been verified and full of amateurish errors.

Um... no?

I never argued that it was okay for someone else to do the exact same thing (your dishonest attempt to pretend that what Clinton did is the same in order to deflect and derail this discussion notwithstanding). Since I never made that claim, I am under no obligation to defend it.

That said, I oppose any illegal interference by any nation in another nation's free elections, as a matter of principle.

How is someone providing dirt on a political candidate illegal then? What law does that break?

I don't know them well enough to say how credible they are, honestly. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss them, though your endorsement hardly lends me confidence.

Or you could take two seconds and check who they are.

As you said above reg. the Steele dossier, Putin murdering journalists is not really a controversial fact.

Only amongst imbeciles who blather this ridiculous accusation in the embarassingly incompetent and herd-like US media. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Vladimir Putin has ever 'murdered' a journalist - which presumably means ordered their deaths. Not a shred.

It's an idiotically reductive and sophmoric understanding of Russia and its law and order problems. More journalists were killed under Yeltsin than have been killed under Putin, did Yeltsin 'murder' those journalists?

Oh hey, Berzhinsky again:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

No, Putin doesn't 'kill' journalists. Russia's fucked up society and law and order culture does, and if Putin disappeared tomorrow that won't change.

But I know full well that you will deny or defend anything Putin and Trump are accused of, because you are clearly as much an ideological hack as the most die-hard Tea Partier.

Says the guy who memorised a dossier of salacious gossip about pee-parties.

By all means, find me this evidence of Putin 'murdering' journalists please.

As to its relevance, I believe my point was that its difficult to trust sources in Russia, as (even if not directly under Putin's thumb) they may be (with good reason) afraid of reporting on Putin in a fully transparent or critical manner.

Which is just as ignorant as your 'Putin murders journalist' canard.

The fact is you don't read any Russian journalists, so you don't know their politics, what they've said in the past, or even where they fucking live. Leonid Berzhinsky lives in Germany, ffs.

Um... no?

I had to look up "Manichean", but here's the definition Google offered-

"an adherent of the dualistic religious system of Manes, a combination of Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and various other elements, with a basic doctrine of a conflict between light and dark, matter being regarded as dark and evil. adjective. 2. of or relation to the Manicheans or their doctrines."

Which is hardly applicable to my arguments here, certainly not in the manner that you seem to intend. I am not claiming an "America good, Russia bad" duality, or anything of the sort. My views of right and wrong, of good and evil, are not determined by national boundary or just factional allegiance. I have never claimed that anyone against America is bad, or that everything America does is good. And in this context, as a reply to my accusation, its basically just a more verbose way of saying "I know you are, but what am I." Which is literally school-yard level "debate."

It happens to be quite obviously true. At every turn you promote the most trite, ignorant and reductive claims about Russia and Putin and the moment you're called out on it - supported by thoughtful pieces by actual Russian journalists who know way more than you or the collection of sheep-like official stenographers on which you rely for information, you immediately leap to calling your opponent an apologist and a quisling.

[Exonerate]

Note that I'm not using "Islamist" as shorthand for Islamic or Muslim, but the strain of thought that advocates for a government based on Islam. It's not necessarily violent or extreme (although since we're talking about groups who have taken up arms in rebellion, I suppose they are by definition militant), but IMO once you've enshrined religion as the centerpiece government, everything becomes a contest in what it is more correct in terms of Islam... which is an argument that fundamentalists seem to be winning. And as a matter of principle, I disagree with the idea of a government founded on religion or ethnicity.

[Flagg]

Note that I'm not using "Islamist" as shorthand for Islamic or Muslim, but the strain of thought that advocates for a government based on Islam. It's not necessarily violent or extreme (although since we're talking about groups who have taken up arms in rebellion, I suppose they are by definition militant), but IMO once you've enshrined religion as the centerpiece government, everything becomes a contest in what it is more correct in terms of Islam... which is an argument that fundamentalists seem to be winning. And as a matter of principle, I disagree with the idea of a government founded on religion or ethnicity.

No I understand. I kneejerked because my FB feed has been inundated with Islamaphobic bullshit, and having lived a block from a Mosque for several years and having a Muslim dentist whose office is staffed by mostly Muslims who are the kindest, most caring dental professionals I've ever dealt with, especially the receptionist who gave my mom a lot of moral support when she was going through chemo and radiation while I was having my infected teeth removed. The dentists sole concern was my comfort during the extractions and he refused to let me tough it out when the lidocaine didn't work on a couple teeth, doing everything possible to block the pain and saying that my situation was so wrong and unfair that I shouldn't have to suffer even more if he could do anything about it given the fact that I'm already in constant pain. He's the only doctor who treated me like that due to the faulty hernia mesh. My own fucking PCP won't even use the word "mesh".

So no need to explain, I kneejerked like an idiot.

[Tiriol]

* Ditto for Trump not going balls-out to back Baltic and Ukrainian Nazis just because they're anti-Russian.

Baltic Nazis?

Yep.

Dovid Katz has written extensively on the whitewashing of Nazi collaborators in the Holocaust, particularly in the Baltic states — Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — which are members of NATO and the European Union. Katz is a regular contributor to the journal Defending History, a scholarly watchdog project whose mission is to “defend the history of the Holocaust from the onslaught of the New Far Right’s East European campaign (by states, their proxies, and other elites) to downgrade and obfuscate the Holocaust.”

On Lithuania’s Independence Day in March, Defending History reported that far-right nationalists held a march featuring neo-Nazi music and the Forest Brothers song “Let the Bolsheviks Know.” The participants marched to the presidential palace, where they held a ceremony attacking Lithuania’s oldest Holocaust survivor, Fania Yocheles Brantsovsky, 95. Defending History noted Brantsovsky has been “subjected to defamation by the state’s campaign of Holocaust revisionism.”

Efraim Zuroff, a well-known anti-Nazi activist and historian, also condemned the Forest Brothers film in an email to AlterNet. “The problem with the screening by NATO of the film on the Forest Brothers is that it presents these men as genuine heroes with a blameless past, when in reality many of them had murdered Jews during the Holocaust,” he said.

The Forest Brothers’ complicity in the Holocaust “was in fact one of the reasons that some of them joined the anti-Soviet resistance—to avoid prosecution by the Soviets for their collaboration with the Nazis,” Zuroff added. “They also committed crimes against innocent civilians in certain cases.”

Let's not forget that the putsch in Ukraine brought admirers of Stepan Bandera to power, including Svoboda to run several ministries.

I despise Trump, but not to the point where I've become so unhinged at the results of the last election that I'm going to support Nazis, ISIS or Al Qaeda.

Oh dear... So because some sources claim the Forest Brothers were Nazis and that a march featured "Neo-Nazi music", it's OK to condemn Baltic states as Nazis and leave them out hanging?

Better not to answer that, though, since this will only serve as a tangent. It does highlight a disturbing thought process, though, that letting allies and possible allies to Russia's tender mercies is OK because Nazis. It's not like there might be some reason for Eastern European "ultra"nationalism, like former Soviet Union and now belligerent Russia.

[Flagg]

Russia fucking occupied a chunk of Ukraine and annexed it because they could. Now it is fomenting rebellion against the legally elected government of Ukraine. The last country to do something like that was... Iraq. Now I'm not supporting full on military intervention and conflict with Vlad the Trump Impaler's rogue state, but I am supporting and advocating sending the Ukrainian resistance arms to fight off foreign invaders. I don't care if there are Nazi's helping resist Russian aggression just like I didn't care if Islamists backed by Saudi Arabia were helping kick the US out of it's illegal occupation of Iraq. They are the fanatics who fight and die on the front lines. Their numbers will dwindle and we can "Red Wedding" (Without the murder. I know, I'm no fun. ) the cunts if/when they win.

[Thanas]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... for-office

The sense of things falling apart in Washington is palpable – and a matter of growing, serious international concern. Donald Trump’s latest asinine act of gesture politics, the forced resignation of his chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has shone a spotlight on the extraordinary chaos inside the White House. Even normally sober, experienced Washington observers now refer to the West Wing as a viper’s nest of seething rivalry, bitter feuds, gross incompetence and an unparalleled leadership vacuum.



Like some kind of Shakespearean villain-clown, Trump plays not to the gallery but to the pit. He is a Falstaff without the humour or the self-awareness, a cowardly, bullying Richard III without a clue. Late-night US satirists find in this an unending source of high comedy. If they did not laugh, they would cry. The world is witnessing the dramatic unfolding of a tragedy whose main victims are a seemingly helpless American audience, America’s system of balanced governance and its global reputation as a leading democratic light.

As his partisan, demeaning and self-admiring speech to the Boy Scouts of America illustrated, Trump endlessly reruns last year’s presidential election campaign, rails against the “fake news” media and appeals to the lowest common denominator in public debate. Not a word about duty, service, shared purpose or high ideals was to be found in his gutter-level discourse before a youthful gathering of 30,000 in West Virginia. Instead, he served up a sad cocktail of paranoia and narcissism. It was all about him and what he has supposedly achieved against the odds.

Which, for the record, is almost precisely nothing. After more than six months in office, and despite full Republican control of Congress, Trump cannot point to a single substantial legislative achievement. The bid to repeal the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which finally went down in flames in the Senate last week, was the most spectacular and telling of Trump’s failures. His executive orders, such as the racist ban on Muslim travellers and last week’s bigoted attack on transgender people in the military, have mostly run foul of the courts or been pre-emptively ignored by those charged with implementing them.

Trump has instead squandered the political goodwill that traditionally accompanies a presidential honeymoon, shocked and outraged many middle-of-the-road voters who initially gave him the benefit of the doubt, thoroughly alienated Republican party traditionalists, who had tried in vain to swallow their doubts, and undermined the authority of the office of the president. Trump, a supposedly ace chief executive, has now lost a chief of staff, a deputy chief of staff, a national security adviser, a communications director and a press secretary in short order. To lose one or even two of his most senior people might be excused as unfortunate. To lose all five suggests the fault is his.

Perhaps John Kelly, the retired general hired to replace Priebus, can restore some semblance of order to the White House. It looks like a tall order. Kelly has no political experience beyond his brief tenure at the department of homeland security. Perhaps he will find an ally in HR McMaster, another army veteran, who is Trump’s national security adviser. But there is no good reason to believe the internal feuding, and Trump’s inability or disinclination to halt it, will end.

Anthony Scaramucci, the recently appointed, foul-mouthed communications director, has unfinished business with Steve Bannon, Trump’s top strategist. Trump seems determined to undermine his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Then there is the self-interested leverage exerted by Trump family lightweights Ivanka Trump, Donald Jr and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. On top of all that, Kelly must work out how to handle the ever-expanding investigations of special counsel Robert Mueller into the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia. A good start would be to halt scurrilous White House efforts to dig up dirt on Mueller and his team.

Yet even if Kelly succeeds in cracking the whip, curbing the in-fighting and containing the Russia scandal, he still has to deal with Trump himself. He has proved far more interested in settling scores, berating adversaries and showing off than in advancing a coherent domestic policy agenda. The next prospective car crash, following the Obamacare pile-up, is a September deadline for a federal budget and linked tax reforms and increased military spending promised by Trump. A budget deal proved impossible last spring and may do so again. If there is no agreement, a government shut-down looms, an outcome in line with current Washington trends. Lazy, feckless Trump has no interest in the onerous business of lobbying Congress or working the phones. He wants quick, easy wins or else he walks away.

This latter is one of several disturbing truths about Trump absorbed, to varying degrees, by Washington’s friends and allies in the past six months. Naive, misguided Theresa May and Liam Fox, the Brexit trade secretary, still seem to think Trump’s word can be trusted and that he will deliver a favourable trade deal. It is one of many delusions explaining why Britain’s government is so disrespected. In sharp contrast, Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, heads the realist, pragmatic group of leaders who are learning to deal with a post-Obama world where the word of the American president cannot be trusted. In this new world, longstanding US commitments and treaties may not be honoured and future collaboration on key policies, such as climate change, Russia and Chinese military expansionism, is held hostage to presidential whim and the blinkered perspectives of the Ohio bar-room.

Merkel suggested earlier this year that the US (and Britain) could no longer be wholly relied upon. While not entirely true, for instance in the case of Anglo-American security guarantees for Germany and its sheltered exporters, it was plain what she meant. And this lesson has been understood by America’s enemies, too. In provocatively firing off another long-range, possibly nuclear-capable missile last week, North Korea seems to be testing how far it can go, geographically and politically. It is counting on Trump proving to be the blowhard that, until now, he has appeared to be.

Recent months have produced a litany of Trump threats and boasts over North Korea. There was no way, he said, that Pyongyang would deploy an ICBM capable of hitting the mainland US. “It’s not going to happen,” he tweeted. Wrong again, Donald. It did. By conducting its own satellite launch last week, ignoring western concerns, Iran has similarly thumbed its nose at Washington. Iran’s leaders should understand there would be “very serious” consequences if they pursued their ballistic missile programme, Trump had warned. Additional hints from Rex Tillerson, US secretary of state, and Jim Mattis, Pentagon chief, about regime change in Iran further darkened the strategic horizon. But guess what? Tehran took no notice at all. It went ahead anyway.

Or take Russia. Having played Trump to its advantage, Moscow’s open hand is turning into a clenched fist as it threatens reprisals over a new Congressional sanctions package. It was not hard to see this tactical switch coming, once it was clear Trump could not deliver the sort of concessions on Ukraine Putin craves. Except, in his fecklessness and blind vanity and courting Putin to the end, Trump didn’t see it coming at all. You can almost see Putin’s lip curl.

The common factor in all these situations is Trump’s self-induced powerlessness and ignorance, his chronic lack of credibility and presidential authority and consequent perceptions of US and western weakness. And in the case of all three actual or potential adversaries – North Korea, Iran and Russia – these perceptions are highly dangerous. Precisely because US responses, actions and reactions can no longer be relied upon or predicted, by friends and enemies alike, the potential for calamitous miscalculation is growing. This uncertainty, like the chaos in the White House and the extraordinary disarray of the American body politic, stems from Trump’s glaring unfitness for the highest office. As is now becoming ever plainer, this threatens us all.

[The Jester]

Grand Jury Assembled.

Grand jury assembled in Trump-Russia investigation

A special counsel investigating claims of Russian meddling in the US election has reportedly empanelled a grand jury.

The US media reports suggest Robert Mueller's inquiry has taken the first step towards possible criminal charges.

According to Reuters news agency, the jury has issued subpoenas over a June 2016 meeting between President Donald Trump's son and a Russian lawyer.

The president has poured scorn on any suggestion his team colluded with the Kremlin to beat Hillary Clinton.

In the US, grand juries are set up to consider whether evidence in any case is strong enough to issue indictments for a criminal trial. They do not decide the innocence or guilt of a potential defendant.

The panel of ordinary citizens also allows a prosecutor to issue subpoenas, a legal writ, to obtain documents or compel witness testimony under oath.

Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation has always been a concern for the Trump administration. Now it's deadly serious business.
With the news that a grand jury has been convened in Washington DC, and that it is looking into the June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr and Russian nationals, it's clear the investigation is focusing on the president's inner circle.

This news shouldn't come as a huge shock, given that Mr Mueller has been staffing up with veteran criminal prosecutors and investigators. It is, however, a necessary step that could eventually lead to criminal indictments. At the very least it's a sign that Mr Mueller could be on the trail of something big - expanding the scope beyond former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and his questionable lobbying. It also indicates his investigation is not going to go away anytime soon.

In the past, when big news about the Russia investigation has been revealed, Mr Trump has escalated his rhetoric and taken dead aim at his perceived adversaries. The pressure is being applied to the president. How will he respond?

At a rally in Huntington, West Virginia, on Thursday evening, Mr Trump said the allegations were a "hoax" that were "demeaning to our country".
"The Russia story is a total fabrication," he said. "It's just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of American politics, that's all it is."
The crowd went wild as he continued: "What the prosecutor should be looking at are Hillary Clinton's 33,000 deleted emails."

"Most people know there were no Russians in our campaign," he added. "There never were. We didn't win because of Russia, we won because of you, that I can tell you."

Mr Trump's high-powered legal team fielding questions on the Russia inquiry said there was no reason to believe the president himself is under investigation.

Ty Cobb, a lawyer appointed last month as White House special counsel, said in a statement: "The White House favours anything that accelerates the conclusion of his work fairly.

"The White House is committed to fully co-operating with Mr Mueller."

Earlier on Thursday, the US Senate introduced two separate cross-party bills designed to limit the Trump administration's ability to fire Mr Mueller.
The measures were submitted amid concern the president might dismiss Mr Mueller, as he fired former FBI director James Comey in May, citing the Russia inquiry in his decision.

Thursday's reports suggest former FBI director Mr Mueller's investigation is focusing on 39-year-old Donald Trump Jr's June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer.

According to Reuters, the special counsel is examining whether anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign encouraged the Russians to start releasing material about the Clinton campaign.

A source told the news agency the president himself was not currently under investigation.
But the special counsel was seeking to determine whether Mr Trump knew of his son's meeting before it happened, or if he was briefed on it afterwards, the source said.

The US first son's emails show that he was told the meeting would yield damaging material on Mrs Clinton, provided by the Kremlin.
Mr Trump and his aides have dismissed the encounter as "opposition research" that happens in any political campaign.

Mr Trump Jr's initial, misleading statement - that the meeting was about Russian adoptions - was issued with the president's advice.

The US intelligence community, including the CIA and NSA, has determined that Russia sought to boost Mr Trump's chances of victory in November 2016 presidential election, which Moscow denies.

Mr Trump has at times expressed doubt about the determination made by his own intelligence agencies.

Mr Mueller was appointed in May by the deputy attorney general of the Department of Justice.

Several congressional inquiries are examining the same allegations.

Mueller's putting a lot on the line by doing this. It would be an incredible error in judgment to do so without already having uncovered stuff that's pretty damning.

[The Romulan Republic]

About damn time.

Although this coming now, when tensions are so high with NK... I wouldn't put it past the Orange One to start a conflict to try to derail the investigation, unite the country behind him, and claim greater executive power in the name of national security. Seeing as how he is, you know, a sociopath, and it looks as though Muller is closing in on, if not him personally, then at least some of his subordinates (and possibly family).

[The Jester]

He'd need a green light from Congress, wouldn't he though? I know that hasn't been SOP for a couple decades now, but the optimist in me would think that North Korea wouldn't fall under the War on Terror blanket.

[LaCroix]

Good luck finding an unbiased jury, though.
All over the US, people are hoping they get selected for jury duty (might be a first).