Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Vympel]

No, he pled to lying to the FBI, in exchange for becoming a proactive cooperator. It's possible that had he not pled, he would've been charged with more. That's generally how the FBI works: they flip the little fish in exchange for testimony or cooperation to land the big fish.

There's no evidence that this is what happened - i.e. that he could be charged with 'more' (i.e. apart from document destruction). The criminalisation of lying even when not material to any sort of offense has been a problematic feature of the US criminal justice system (and others of course) for a long time. The FBI has the power to prosecute even when there's no underlying criminality.

[Thanas]

No, he pled to lying to the FBI, in exchange for becoming a proactive cooperator. It's possible that had he not pled, he would've been charged with more. That's generally how the FBI works: they flip the little fish in exchange for testimony or cooperation to land the big fish.

There's no evidence that this is what happened - i.e. that he could be charged with 'more' (i.e. apart from document destruction). The criminalisation of lying even when not material to any sort of offense has been a problematic feature of the US criminal justice system (and others of course) for a long time. The FBI has the power to prosecute even when there's no underlying criminality.

There is also no evidence for your version of the truth and known Trump's ilk it twould be highly unlikely for the guy to be squeaky clean. Because the people Trump surrounds itself with are not.

[Simon_Jester]

No, he pled to lying to the FBI, in exchange for becoming a proactive cooperator. It's possible that had he not pled, he would've been charged with more. That's generally how the FBI works: they flip the little fish in exchange for testimony or cooperation to land the big fish.

There's no evidence that this is what happened - i.e. that he could be charged with 'more' (i.e. apart from document destruction).

Would you expect such evidence to be visible at this time? Papadopoulos's crimes, real or alleged, are part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The indictments and trials are only just beginning. Some information is confidential and likely to remain so.

In a case like this, the apparent, in our eyes, absence of evidence that Papadopoulos has committed any more serious crimes is not evidence of absence of the crimes in question. So it's still reasonable speculation.

The criminalisation of lying even when not material to any sort of offense has been a problematic feature of the US criminal justice system (and others of course) for a long time. The FBI has the power to prosecute even when there's no underlying criminality.

Now with this, I don't disagree. The catch is that if you don't criminalize lying to the police, it becomes difficult if not impossible to investigate anything, because nearly everyone has some kind of incentive to lie when there is no penalty for doing so.

[FireNexus]

Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. To your point, it’s not very good evidence in this case due to the known possible concealing factors, but let’s not give that idiotic saying any more cachet.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Except that there's no evidence that the people he spoke to were in fact affiliated with the Russian government (a "professor" from some unidentified place claiming to have unspecified connections to Russian government officials and some random woman absurdly claimed to be a relative of Putin when lol no she wasn't) and that even if they were, that said 'collusion' actually resulted in any criminal acts that could be prosecuted.

From a criminal justice standpoint, does it really matter if those parties weren't actually affiliated with the Russian government, if Papadopoulos (and whoever else in the Trump circle) really believed that they were? The evidence we've seen indicates if nothing else that Papadopoulos at least THOUGHT he had some sort of official contact with the Russian government; if Trump et al. sought to make use of that contact, they would still be liable on some sort of conspiracy charge even if they were mistaken about those contacts being official Russian entities. Attempts to collude aren't excused just because the people involved were idiots.

[Simon_Jester]

Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. To your point, it’s not very good evidence in this case due to the known possible concealing factors, but let’s not give that idiotic saying any more cachet.

Okay, if you plan to go full Bayesian, the absence of obvious, conspicuous evidence visible to the general public is weak evidence that only slightly increases the posterior probability of Papadopoulos having committed no other crime besides lying to the FBI (as Vympel asserts). But Vympel appears to have gone into the conversation thinking that this probability was 100%, as though he had unique access to strong evidence on the case.

In cases like this, the absence of evidence we never should have expected to see in the first place is such amazingly weak 'evidence of absence' that it is pretty much entirely irrelevant. It's like arguing "if that person is a virgin, why aren't they being visited by unicorns?" Given the myths regarding unicorns, the attention of such a beast would be evidence of virginity... but that doesn't mean that we can justly take the absence of unicorns as evidence of sexual activity!

...

I would argue that the fallacy the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is intended to correct is problematic enough to justify the phrase's use. And the fallacy is more common among the general population than the fallacy the phrase supports. I see a lot more people going "I don't see it, so it's not there!" when they shouldn't, than people going "Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there!" when THEY shouldn't.

[Thanas]

So Manafort had/has ties to organized Russian crime.


And this is what passes as a press briefing these days.

[TheFeniX]

.@PeterAlexander: "What are President Trump's flaws?"

Sanders: "Probably that he has to deal with you guys on a daily basis"

Man, you can't even get snark out of this administrator that makes any fucking sense.

[The Romulan Republic]

The more I follow this story, the more I realize that, despite getting less fanfare initially (because it was kept under wraps by the investigation), the Papdopolous story is indeed the bigger news here.

First, because while Manafort and Gates have only been indicted, Papdopolous has actually pled guilty.

Secondly, because while Manafort's and Gates' charges do not directly relate to Trump campaign collusion with Russia, Papdopolous's do- he was charged with lying to the FBI about Kremlin-affiliated Russian contacts.

Yes he was charged with lying to the FBI - as in, if he had told the truth he wouldn't have been charged with anything.

Terralthra and Simon_Jester already addressed this, but... you are familiar with the concept of a plea deal, yes? Or with investigators not revealing everything in an ongoing investigation?

Since I assume that you are, in fact, aware of these concepts, I can only regard your assertion that this proves that Papadopolous committed no other crimes. as deliberate dishonesty.

I will add that, weather such contacts are technically criminal or not, you have not refuted the fact that Papadopolous's email records show that he was in contact with Kremlin-affiliated Russians for the purposes of aiding the Trump campaign.

Thus, collusion.

Except that there's no evidence that the people he spoke to were in fact affiliated with the Russian government (a "professor" from some unidentified place claiming to have unspecified connections to Russian government officials and some random woman absurdly claimed to be a relative of Putin when lol no she wasn't) and that even if they were, that said 'collusion' actually resulted in any criminal acts that could be prosecuted.

See above.

Also, regardless of weather such persons were affiliated with the Kremlin or not, Papadopolous's intent is fairly clear.

That sounds like Seth Abramson's bullshit. Reading Seth Abramson's unhinged tweet storms unironically is not recommended. He's a fantasist and a hack, and he doesn't do any original reporting.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/ ... mps-r.html

Ah, so you imply that I am copying someone who I don't recall ever hearing of, so that you can discredit my arguments by attacking their credibility?

That's not even ad hominem- its ad hominem by proxy.

I had though you might show a little reticence, perhaps even a hint of shame, about engaging in your usual Russia apologism after this week's revelations, but apparently not. You will insist on riding this train wreck over the cliff, even though your position has less credibility than a 9/11 Truther's at this point.

[Gaidin]

The criminalisation of lying even when not material to any sort of offense has been a problematic feature of the US criminal justice system (and others of course) for a long time. The FBI has the power to prosecute even when there's no underlying criminality.

What if you're applying for a federal job and lie on your application? The law he actually broke is quite broad.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

It accounts for terrorism, and gets judges and lawyers that were lied to that then lie to other people off the hook. But yes. If you lie in the act that is otherwise not a crime. Like, as I said, applying for and getting a job, and all the forms that might entail, you usually find the law they're hitting him with tagged on the end.

[Dominus Atheos]

No, he pled to lying to the FBI, in exchange for becoming a proactive cooperator. It's possible that had he not pled, he would've been charged with more. That's generally how the FBI works: they flip the little fish in exchange for testimony or cooperation to land the big fish.

There's no evidence that this is what happened - i.e. that he could be charged with 'more' (i.e. apart from document destruction). The criminalisation of lying even when not material to any sort of offense has been a problematic feature of the US criminal justice system (and others of course) for a long time. The FBI has the power to prosecute even when there's no underlying criminality.

I'm always amazed to see how many civil libertarians pop out of the woodwork whenever a wealthy and/or white person and/or whose politics they agree with is being abused by police. Where were you when I was posting news articles about poor minorities being arrested for "resisting arrest"?

[Vympel]

I'm always amazed to see how many civil libertarians pop out of the woodwork whenever a wealthy and/or white person and/or whose politics they agree with is being abused by police. Where were you when I was posting news articles about poor minorities being arrested for "resisting arrest"?

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not a civil libertarian, have never expressed an affinity for libertarian beliefs, and your implication that this is somehow a race-based concern as opposed to a statement of the obvious re: the consequences of lying to authorities can go fuck itself. It's wildly out of line.

As for your absurd thought policing about 'where I was' when you were posting news articles - I didn't know I had to report to the commissar regularly to have my political beliefs audited by giving out a sufficient number of meaningless affirmations of my viewpoint.

As for the implication I agree with whatever the fuck Papadopoulos' politics are - I'm an ardent lefitst who's expressed nothing but contempt for Trump, the Republican party and the right wing in general - I've made ample posts making that plain for the better part of 15 fucking years on this board. It's the most ridiculous accusation I've ever seen, given my history.

Has Trump's Presidency made the political climate so diseased that whenever someone shits on whatever nonsense Democratic partisans are sniffing these days, they automatically become a right winger?

Terralthra and Simon_Jester already addressed this, but... you are familiar with the concept of a plea deal, yes? Or with investigators not revealing everything in an ongoing investigation?

Since I assume that you are, in fact, aware of these concepts, I can only regard your assertion that this proves that Papadopolous committed no other crimes. as deliberate dishonesty.

You make the most awful fucking arguments - I didn't say anything that could be construed as "this proves Papadopoulos committed no other crimes". I said there was no fucking evidence of any greater criminality, which is an entirely different thing. Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

I will add that, weather such contacts are technically criminal or not, you have not refuted the fact that Papadopolous's email records show that he was in contact with Kremlin-affiliated Russians for the purposes of aiding the Trump campaign.

Define 'Kremlin-affiliated', then prove they actually are.

Thus, collusion.

Define 'collusion'. What criminal statute are you referring to? Collusion to do what? Get dirt on Hillary? That's not getting anyone impeached.

See above.

See what above?

Also, regardless of weather such persons were affiliated with the Kremlin or not, Papadopolous's intent is fairly clear.

LOL - so regardless of whether it was farce or not, it proves this fool's 'intent'? So fucking what? Where does that get you? Is Trump going to be impeached now? Nevermind the relevant email chains show how off-putting this idiot's efforts were to more senior staff?

Ah, so you imply that I am copying someone who I don't recall ever hearing of, so that you can discredit my arguments by attacking their credibility?

That's not even ad hominem- its ad hominem by proxy.

I figured of course you've heard of him, he's the moron that put out this 'wearing a wire' shit in the first place. Every single one of your Russiagate conspiracy freaks think he speaks gospel. Alternately, you got it second hand from someone who heard it from him. The point is its entirely baseless speculation.

I had though you might show a little reticence, perhaps even a hint of shame, about engaging in your usual Russia apologism after this week's revelations, but apparently not. You will insist on riding this train wreck over the cliff, even though your position has less credibility than a 9/11 Truther's at this point.

What do I have to be ashamed of? That I derive endless enjoyment from popping the conspiracy balloons you keep floating, all of them flowing from the sad fact that you've constructed an entire worldview around a conspiracy theory as a 'silver bullet' to get rid of Trump as opposed to any sort of remotely politically effective program?

I don't need to 'apologise' for Russia. I just enjoy pointing and laughing as you run around spewing unhinged nonsense about how Putin got Trump elected - a comforting, evidence free, conspiracy laden, blatantly xenophobic fairy tale about foreign boogeymen that you and your ilk tell yourselves so you don't need to face the fact that your political system is a joke that saw an orange TV clown elected to the highest office in the land.

You've let a bunch of loser political consultants who don't want to lose their jobs and prestige for their massive incompetence sell you a fairytale about a Siberian Candidate in a drama that's unfolding like the plot of a Coen Brothers movie.

EDIT: oh, and I also have a problem with a xenophobic panic in one nuclear armed super power about the only other country with a comparable arsenal - one where elected public officials and pundits routinely traffic in grossly irresponsible 'act of war' rhetoric. Go figure.

[Vympel]

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-t ... oking-gun/

A useful summary of how threadbare the Papadopoulos case currently is, and what a silly figure Papadopoulos himself apparently is:

Let’s assume for a moment that Papadopoulos is being truthful that the “thousands” of Clinton e-mails allegedly in Russia’s possession were revealed to him by a “professor,” unnamed in the indictment but since publicly identified as Joseph Mifsud of the London Academy of Diplomacy. The indictment does not say that Mifsud is a Russian operative—it only cites Papadopoulos’s account that he “claimed to have substantial connections with Russian government officials.” (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps Mifsud does have the “substantial connections,” he allegedly claimed, and did also tell Papadopoulos about the e-mails. For his part, Mifsud has rejected Papadopoulos’s story except for confirming that they met. Mifsud also denies links to the Russian government, saying his Russia ties are strictly academic. But if he is lying, and is a Kremlin cutout, consider how he would have been outed: According to The Washington Post, Papadopoulos identified Mifsud in an e-mail that “was among more than 20,000 pages that the Trump campaign turned over to congressional committees after review by White House and defense lawyers.” In other words, if the Trump campaign was made aware that the Russians had Clinton’s e-mails, then they willingly provided the US government with information to identify their intermediary’s Kremlin source.

What we do know is that Papadopoulos has a record of embellishing his credentials. And more importantly, we already know that he reported false claims to the campaign about his contacts as he tried to position himself as the middleman to Moscow. He transmitted one of the false claims knowingly: Papadopoulos e-mailed his superiors that he had met with the Russian ambassador in London, which prosecutors say never happened. He also told them he had been introduced to a “Female Russian National” identified as “Putin’s niece,” who turns out to have no relations to Putin. Whoever the “Female” is, we are told she was also “introduced” as someone “with connections to senior Russian government officials.” We learn as well that the professor then connected Papadopoulos to a person who “told [Papadopoulos] he had connections to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

No other person claiming ties to the Russian government enters the picture. The special counsel offers no determination on whether any of these people actually have the deep Kremlin ties that they allegedly claimed. In short, the indictment’s claims about the alleged Russian-tied figures aren’t even based on what prosecutors claim to believe about them, but on what Papadopoulos says he was informed. All we know about them is Papadopoulos’s description of who he was “told” they were, who they were “introduced” as, or who they “claimed” to be.

It is possible that all of Papadopoulos’s claims will prove to be true. If they are, investigators will hopefully determine not just what the Trump campaign knew but what the Russian government had on offer. Both sides—the Clinton camp funding the Steele dossier and meeting with Ukrainian officials, the Trump camp taking a June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer promising incriminating information on Clinton—have shown their willingness to accept “oppo” from abroad. But trafficking in stolen e-mails would raise the bar.

It is also possible Papadopoulos is lying, or was misled. If the latter, he would be far from alone. As I wrote for The Nation in October, the Russiagate controversy is short on concrete evidence and suffused with innuendo, supposition, and unverified—or even demonstrably false—claims. Mueller may end up reversing that trend, but at this point in his probe, it appears that not much has changed.

[Gandalf]

Aside from "got sweet dirt on Clinton," what else is this collusion supposed to be? Because I'm not sure why that's a huge issue.

[The Romulan Republic]

Aside from "got sweet dirt on Clinton," what else is this collusion supposed to be? Because I'm not sure why that's a huge issue.

You don't think a candidate coordinating with the government of a hostile foreign nation to tip the scales of an election in his favour, then actively working to impede the investigation and cover it up, is significant?

Would you feel that way if the victim of such an attack were another nation, and the perpetrator the United States?

There are also concerns that they may have shared data that was used to target add campaigns, and that they may even have coordinated on the DNC hacks, but these are IIRC not yet proven.

[The Romulan Republic]

You make the most awful fucking arguments - I didn't say anything that could be construed as "this proves Papadopoulos committed no other crimes". I said there was no fucking evidence of any greater criminality, which is an entirely different thing. Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

Of course I do.

You said: "Yes, he was charged with lying to the FBI - as in, if he had been told the truth, he wouldn't have been charged with anything."

I took this as an attempt to dismiss the larger suspicions of collusion against the Trump campaign, because Papadopolous was not charged with anything besides lying. I still think that that was probably your intent. But I will concede that you did not literally say that he did not commit any other crimes. My apologies.

But in any case, your argument is still absurd, for reasons others have stated. The notion that he would not have been charged with anything else is an assumption that presumes a deal was not made to reduce the charges in exchange for his cooperation (despite all evidence to the contrary), and that we have been told all pertinent details in an ongoing investigation.

Shear idiocy.

Define 'Kremlin-affiliated', then prove they actually are.

Here you go:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/ ... index.html

Define 'collusion'. What criminal statute are you referring to? Collusion to do what? Get dirt on Hillary? That's not getting anyone impeached.

Maybe not, but its still collusion, still unethical, and still proof that Trump does not deserve the office he holds.

You know as well as I do, no doubt, that there is no criminal statute called "collusion". Collusion basically means that his campaign cooperated with the Russians in an unethical manner. That may, or may not, include various criminal acts.

I am also well aware that no one has yet proven that Trump himself committed a crime. This is no concession on my part or point scored upon your's, since I never claimed otherwise to begin with. However, I stand by what I said: that recent developments prove collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russia. This certainly reflects badly on Trump, and lends credence to the investigation, as well as to suspicions that there may be further collusion, including possible illegal acts, as yet unrevealed.

At any rate, it takes considerable hubris, not to mention stubbornness and stupidity, to continue to insist that there is absolutely nothing there, and to characterize anyone who suspects otherwise as a "Russiagate conspiracy freak", to use your words.

See what above?

Hopefully I have now clarified my arguments.

LOL - so regardless of whether it was farce or not, it proves this fool's 'intent'? So fucking what? Where does that get you? Is Trump going to be impeached now? Never mind the relevant email chains show how off-putting this idiot's efforts were to more senior staff?

Intent means... intent. I'm not sure what's unclear about that. Are you going to keep asking me to define obvious things in an effort to obfuscate the issues?

It shows that he intended to coordinate with Russia to benefit the Trump campaign, and that, your Trumpian attempts to downplay his connection to the campaign aside, he did so with the knowledge of top campaign staff. Do you deny that?

No, of course that won't be enough to impeach Trump. Contrary to your claims, my argument is not based only on grasping at straws to justify Trump's impeachment. I am, rather, concerned with all facets of corruption and misconduct on the part of the Trump campaign and administration, even those that do not directly lead to Trump's impeachment.

It might help if you confined yourself to addressing what I actually said, rather than making sweeping, stereotypical assumptions about my motives so that you can "refute" claims I never made.

I figured of course you've heard of him, he's the moron that put out this 'wearing a wire' shit in the first place. Every single one of your Russiagate conspiracy freaks think he speaks gospel. Alternately, you got it second hand from someone who heard it from him. The point is its entirely baseless speculation.

So your argument is literally: "All you "freaks" are the same, so you must be copying this random guy, in order to fit the stereotype I'm using to ad hominem you?"

That's... pathetic. I won't even dignify that by calling it debating.

And, hey, if this is going to degenerate into petty name-calling, I'm quite happy to reply in kind, you worthless Putin-cocksucker. Even if I know from experience that I am the only one who will likely get criticized for my "tone".

What do I have to be ashamed of? That I derive endless enjoyment from popping the conspiracy balloons you keep floating, all of them flowing from the sad fact that you've constructed an entire worldview around a conspiracy theory as a 'silver bullet' to get rid of Trump as opposed to any sort of remotely politically effective program?

Ah, so you're not being a tool for Vladimir Putin, you're just posting this crap to spite me?

And, again, it might help if you limited yourself to addressing my actual arguments, not straw man arguments based on assumptions about my motivations.

I don't need to 'apologise' for Russia. I just enjoy pointing and laughing as you run around spewing unhinged nonsense about how Putin got Trump elected - a comforting, evidence free, conspiracy laden, blatantly xenophobic fairy tale about foreign boogeymen that you and your ilk tell yourselves so you don't need to face the fact that your political system is a joke that saw an orange TV clown elected to the highest office in the land.

Translation: "I despise America and Americans, and want to put the entire blame for Trump on the American people, and so will make excuses for anything that does not fit that narrative."

I expect that that's a big part of the motivation for most internet Putin apologists. Doesn't change the fact that they are regurgitating the propaganda of one of the most dangerous despots on the planet.

And I think its pretty rich for you to attack me as a conspiracy theorist while basically arguing that the entire investigation into Trump is a concoction of Democratic operatives, stopping just short of parroting the Trumpers' "Fake News" and "Deep State" rhetoric.

As to "evidence"- given your dismissal of the Manafort and Papadopolous indictments, I do not believe that there is any standard of evidence that would satisfy you. If there is, however, please state it.

Finally- condemning and fearing a hostile dictator does not make one a xenophobe. As I said, my arguments are against Putin, not the Russian people or foreigners generally. I consider the accusation of xenophobia libel..

You've let a bunch of loser political consultants who don't want to lose their jobs and prestige for their massive incompetence sell you a fairytale about a Siberian Candidate in a drama that's unfolding like the plot of a Coen Brothers movie.

Because Steele and Robert Mueller and James Comey are Democratic politicians/operatives.

Oh, wait...

EDIT: oh, and I also have a problem with a xenophobic panic in one nuclear armed super power about the only other country with a comparable arsenal - one where elected public officials and pundits routinely traffic in grossly irresponsible 'act of war' rhetoric. Go figure.

You know as well as I do that I do not support war with Russia.

Your whole post is heavily-based on ad hominems, laden with outright lies. It is not an argument- it is yet another attempt to derail the discussion by turning it into an attack on my (speculated/presumed) motives and character.

[Simon_Jester]

When upper-class individuals who have at least a taste of power and status start pleading guilty to charges in federal court rather than lawyering up and trying to fight the charges, it is way, WAY too late to claim with a straight face "no, nothing to see here."

[Vympel]

Of course I do.

You said: "Yes, he was charged with lying to the FBI - as in, if he had been told the truth, he wouldn't have been charged with anything."

I took this as an attempt to dismiss the larger suspicions of collusion against the Trump campaign, because Papadopolous was not charged with anything besides lying. I still think that that was probably your intent. But I will concede that you did not literally say that he did not commit any other crimes. My apologies.

But in any case, your argument is still absurd, for reasons others have stated. The notion that he would not have been charged with anything else is an assumption that presumes a deal was not made to reduce the charges in exchange for his cooperation (despite all evidence to the contrary), and that we have been told all pertinent details in an ongoing investigation.

Shear idiocy.

Of course, it's 'sheer idiocy' - except no one can explain what the 'charges' he could've been charged with instead.

Define 'Kremlin-affiliated', then prove they actually are.

Here you go:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/ ... index.html

What in that link answers my challenge? Mifsud has denied having any such "Kremlin" links. His links are based off his position in academia. Where's the evidence?

Maybe not, but its still collusion, still unethical, and still proof that Trump does not deserve the office he holds.

Whoopdeeshit? What has that got to do with this argument? And do you hold the same standards for Clinton, since we know the Clinton campaign paid for Steele's ridiculous 'dossier' - i.e. dirt on Trump from Russians. How is that not similarly unethical?

You know as well as I do, no doubt, that there is no criminal statute called "collusion". Collusion basically means that his campaign cooperated with the Russians in an unethical manner. That may, or may not, include various criminal acts.

Refer above. What's the relevant difference between the Clinton campaign paying for Russian dirt on Trump? That they used a British spy as an intermediary? Is that supposed to matter to half of the country that voted for Trump?

I am also well aware that no one has yet proven that Trump himself committed a crime. This is no concession on my part or point scored upon your's, since I never claimed otherwise to begin with. However, I stand by what I said: that recent developments prove collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russia. This certainly reflects badly on Trump, and lends credence to the investigation, as well as to suspicions that there may be further collusion, including possible illegal acts, as yet unrevealed.

And yet you continue to insist on the basis of no evidence that the Russians got Trump elected. It's almost as if you traffic in nonsense and only walk it back when expressly called out on it.

At any rate, it takes considerable hubris, not to mention stubbornness and stupidity, to continue to insist that there is absolutely nothing there, and to characterize anyone who suspects otherwise as a "Russiagate conspiracy freak", to use your words.

The shoe fits. This hysteria has generated the most ugly political climate in recent memory. Twitter is full of xenohpobic freaks accusing respected journalists like Glenn Greenwald of being Russian agents for calling out the hysteria. You've got Keith Olbermann ranting about 'Russian scum' from his basement (for some reason being broadcast by GQ on youtuve). And now you're all having a collective freakout about poorly made memes which are supposedly 'Russia linked' somehow 'influencing' the election, as if anyone inclined to share such things was ever going to vote Clinton.

Intent means... intent. I'm not sure what's unclear about that. Are you going to keep asking me to define obvious things in an effort to obfuscate the issues?

I didn't ask you to define intent:

LOL - so regardless of whether it was farce or not, it proves this fool's 'intent'? So fucking what? Where does that get you? Is Trump going to be impeached now? Never mind the relevant email chains show how off-putting this idiot's efforts were to more senior staff?

So what are you on about?

It shows that he intended to coordinate with Russia to benefit the Trump campaign, and that, your Trumpian attempts to downplay his connection to the campaign aside, he did so with the knowledge of top campaign staff. Do you deny that?

Again - so fucking what? Do you deny that there's ample email correspondence indicating that his efforts were not appreciated?

I also love it how like a good little Democratic robot you think everyone calling you out on your bullshit is 'Trumpian'.

No, of course that won't be enough to impeach Trump. Contrary to your claims, my argument is not based only on grasping at straws to justify Trump's impeachment. I am, rather, concerned with all facets of corruption and misconduct on the part of the Trump campaign and administration, even those that do not directly lead to Trump's impeachment.

Sure you are. That's why you continuously assert the Russians got Trump elected.

It might help if you confined yourself to addressing what I actually said, rather than making sweeping, stereotypical assumptions about my motives so that you can "refute" claims I never made.

I don't need to make assumptions about your motives. They're plain as day.

So your argument is literally: "All you "freaks" are the same, so you must be copying this random guy, in order to fit the stereotype I'm using to ad hominem you?"

That's... pathetic. I won't even dignify that by calling it debating.

And, hey, if this is going to degenerate into petty name-calling, I'm quite happy to reply in kind, you worthless Putin-cocksucker. Even if I know from experience that I am the only one who will likely get criticized for my "tone".

ROFLMAO. Keep living down to every single stereotype of a "MUH TRUMP RUSSIA!" conspiracy loon. Anyone who shits on your fantasies must be a Putinist, right?

The neo-McCarthyism is strong!

Ah, so you're not being a tool for Vladimir Putin, you're just posting this crap to spite me?

And, again, it might help if you limited yourself to addressing my actual arguments, not straw man arguments based on assumptions about my motivations.

"You're being unfair about my motivations and anyone who says I'm wrong is a Trumpian Putinist!"

The comedy writes itself!

Translation: "I despise America and Americans

More McCarthyite ranting:

"YOU HATE MURICA!"

Why don't you post a picture of an Eagle crying?

and want to put the entire blame for Trump on the American people, and so will make excuses for anything that does not fit that narrative."

You're the ones who elected him, you fucking idiot. The entire blame for Trump is on the American people. Entirely. He's not some foreign agent parachuted in by some evil foreign mastermind, he's a distinctly American phenommenon with distinctly American origins.

And don't rant about the electoral college and the popular vote, either - you're responsible for that system existing in the first place. Or is that Putin's fault too?

Let's run off the things that are supposedly not America's own fault:

- Paving the way for Trump with the Bush Presidency (which numerous Democratic idiots are now rehabilitating as a golden age, even though Bush's crimes easily exceed those of Trump so far);
- Fox News
- Billions of dollars of free air-time to Trump from the media;
- the DNC deliberately legitimising and boosting Trump's candidacy thinking he would be easy to defeat;
- the incompetence of Hillary Clinton's campaign and failure to campaign in battleground states;
- the Democrats abandoning their working class base in favour of pursuing rich donors;
- growing income inequality and poverty
- a dysfunctional health care system and a failure to enact single player health care;

I could go on, really.

I expect that that's a big part of the motivation for most internet Putin apologists. Doesn't change the fact that they are regurgitating the propaganda of one of the most dangerous despots on the planet.

LOL, so it's propaganda that your country is responsibile for electing a racist reality TV show host?

And I think its pretty rich for you to attack me as a conspiracy theorist while basically arguing that the entire investigation into Trump is a concoction of Democratic operatives

No, the notion that PUTIN! is responsible for Trump getting elected is a concoction of Democratic operatives.

stopping just short of parroting the Trumpers' "Fake News" and "Deep State" rhetoric.

For people who aren't ignoramuses, the Deep State as a concept has existed long, long before Trump. Also, you might want to read Shattered, since it explains that Robby Mook and John Podesta literally came up with the "but Russia!" excuse for their defeat the moment they lost the election.

As to "evidence"- given your dismissal of the Manafort and Papadopolous indictments, I do not believe that there is any standard of evidence that would satisfy you. If there is, however, please state it.

Why would I need to dismiss the Manafort indictment? Nothing in it has anything to do with the 2016 election or 'Russian collusion'. It relates to corrupt conduct which was a: well known before the indictment and b: depressingly common amongs tthe entire Washington lobbying circuit.

Iv'e covered Foreign Lobbying for 20 years and I'm amazed Manafort got busted

As for Papadopoulos, the 'evidence' speaks for itself. He's clearly a ridiculous figure who got fooled into thinking some random woman was Putin's neice and who lied to the campaign to make himself look more competent than he was. This is all in the indictment. Did you even read it?

Finally- condemning and fearing a hostile dictator does not make one a xenophobe. As I said, my arguments are against Putin, not the Russian people or foreigners generally. I consider the accusation of xenophobia libel..

LOL, "libel". Yeah you're not a xenophobe, you just accuse everyone who doesn't truck with your xenophobic conspiracy theory about foreign assaults on your ( ) shining democracy on a hill of being in on the conspiracy.

Because Steele and Robert Mueller and James Comey are Democratic politicians/operatives.

Steele was paid by the Clinton campaign to get dirt on Trump from Russians, you fucking imbecile. Of course he fits the definition of a Democratic operative - are you that stupid?

As for Mueller and Comey, since when have either of them said anything like "Russia got Putin elected"?

You know as well as I do that I do not support war with Russia.

Your whole post is heavily-based on ad hominems, laden with outright lies. It is not an argument- it is yet another attempt to derail the discussion by turning it into an attack on my (speculated/presumed) motives and character.

Says the guy who repeatedly accuses me of being a Trumpian and a Putinist. Hypocrisy much?

As for the question of war - that you personally don't support war with Russia doesn't change the fact that this Russia hysteria has made a great power conflict more likely to the benefit of absolutely no one except arms manufacturers, the national security state, and people who want to control internet discourse.

[Simon_Jester]

Vympel, all this quote spaghetti is making me dizzy. It's a great way to end up 'responding' to something someone says, in a way that feels a lot like refuting them, while not representing your own position in a clear fashion.

In an attempt to find out what you actually think... Can I ask a few simple yes/no questions?

1) Are you in this thread with intent to prove that Russian agents were not involved in any corrupt dealings by the Trump campaign?

2) Are you in this thread with intent to prove that even if Russian agents were thus involved, it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care?

I can respond meaningfully to a 'yes' answer to either (1) or (2). And if those are both 'no' questions...

3) If the answers to (1) and (2) are 'no,' are you in this thread for any purpose besides casting mockery on people who do believe that Russian agents were thus involved?

[Vympel]

Vympel, all this quote spaghetti is making me dizzy. It's a great way to end up 'responding' to something someone says, in a way that feels a lot like refuting them, while not representing your own position in a clear fashion.

In an attempt to find out what you actually think... Can I ask a few simple yes/no questions?

1) Are you in this thread with intent to prove that Russian agents were not involved in any corrupt dealings by the Trump campaign?

I'm here to inject some much needed realism and perspective on the developments in the continuing farce that is this entire affair by pointing out that what people think is 'proof' of 'TrumpRussia collusion' actually isn't anything of the kind.

2) Are you in this thread with intent to prove that even if Russian agents were thus involved, it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care?

Not really - but while you mention it no, it obviously doesn't really matter, nor should anyone care that much.

Even if someone were to actually prove 'Russian agents' were involved with 'corrupt dealings', there's no indication that what numerous paranoid loons decry as Russian 'interference' changed a single solitary vote, and the efforts in that regard have only gotten more comical with the passage of time - witness the latest 'few thousand dollars worth of poorly made memes that only GOP lunatics would share on Facebook' embarassing mass political panic.

And what's the cost of all this? Well:

Twitter determining a twitter account is linked to the Russian government based on ridiculously broad criteria:

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/925808054221901825

Politicians using war rhetoric (one example of an avalanche):

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ ... ent-244414

and a flare-up in flagrant neo-McCarthyism in the political discourse (this article being from August 2016).

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dem ... ory-in-us/

And it only got worse thereafter:

https://twitter.com/govhowarddean/statu ... 28?lang=en

3) If the answers to (1) and (2) are 'no,' are you in this thread for any purpose besides casting mockery on people who do believe that Russian agents were thus involved?

Refer above. Mockery is just a bonus. And maybe people who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid as hard as TRR might realise that they're wasting an entire political moment on Birtherism / BENGHAZZZEEEEE For Democrats.

[Gandalf]

You don't think a candidate coordinating with the government of a hostile foreign nation to tip the scales of an election in his favour, then actively working to impede the investigation and cover it up, is significant?

Would you be less fussed (or fussed at all) if this had been with people from Canada or the UK as opposed to Russia?

Would you feel that way if the victim of such an attack were another nation, and the perpetrator the United States?

Are you referring to countries to where American media organisations are surprisingly powerful? Or are you referring to when the CIA installs a guy to replace the democratically elected one and blood flows in the streets? Because that response will vary.

[Simon_Jester]

1) Are you in this thread with intent to prove that Russian agents were not involved in any corrupt dealings by the Trump campaign?

I'm here to inject some much needed realism and perspective on the developments in the continuing farce that is this entire affair by pointing out that what people think is 'proof' of 'TrumpRussia collusion' actually isn't anything of the kind.

So... yes, or no?

2) Are you in this thread with intent to prove that even if Russian agents were thus involved, it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care?

Not really - but while you mention it no, it obviously doesn't really matter, nor should anyone care that much.

Even if someone were to actually prove 'Russian agents' were involved with 'corrupt dealings', there's no indication that what numerous paranoid loons decry as Russian 'interference' changed a single solitary vote, and the efforts in that regard have only gotten more comical with the passage of time - witness the latest 'few thousand dollars worth of poorly made memes that only GOP lunatics would share on Facebook' embarassing mass political panic.

This is far less certain than you make it out to be. The election was narrow enough that tapping the vote totals the other way by, say, 0.5% nationwide, or for that matter 0.5% in a few specific states, would have flipped the outcome. Very small amounts of help could be sufficient to turn the tide.

Furthermore, nations have laws against their politicians accepting funding and aid from foreign sources for a good reason. "Your Honor, the amount of help I accepted wasn't very important" isn't a valid defense against this. Because once you normalize "accept help from agents of a foreign government," you've rung the bell. You can't unring it. You're not going to be able to restrict future foreign help to "but only foreign help small enough that it doesn't change the outcome of an election or matter in any other way." Sooner or later you will have foreign agents and outright spies tipping your elections by covertly providing (real or fabricated) evidence or (obvious or deniable) support to the candidate of their choosing.

Even if this hasn't already happened with Trump (which is neither proven nor disproven), if we say "oh, what Trump's people did in 2016 was okay because it didn't change anything," sooner or later it will happen. If not with Russia, then with China, or Britain, or some other country that has an incentive to meddle in our elections.

...

Now, none of this is about the object-level, down-in-the-weeds discussion of who had what help or anything like that. My point is simply that the level of Trump campaign involvement with Russia in this election cycle is already enough to matter. And that's purely on the strength of the allegations we know to have been made by a government prosecutor with a reputation for honesty and competence.

I'm not (in this specific reply to this part of your quote) commenting on the truth or falsehood of any accusation.

I'm pointing out that the accusations are a serious matter that merit not being laughed at. Charges have been filed. Against people who can easily afford good lawyers that would rip apart a weak charge. If you won't take that seriously, where the hell do you ever draw the line?

---

And what's the cost of all this? Well:

Twitter determining a twitter account is linked to the Russian government based on ridiculously broad criteria:

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/925808054221901825

Twitter is a private corporation, not a government. If people are offended that Twitter is being oppressive... well honestly, my reply is this:

https://xkcd.com/743/

Politicians using war rhetoric (one example of an avalanche):

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ ... ent-244414

and a flare-up in flagrant neo-McCarthyism in the political discourse (this article being from August 2016).

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dem ... ory-in-us/

And it only got worse thereafter:

https://twitter.com/govhowarddean/statu ... 28?lang=en

If Howard Dean is getting the same level of power and standing in America that McCarthy did through making insinuations or false allegations, this is the first I've heard of it. Honestly, going from "accusations of being in bed with the Russians are big enough to power McCarthy" to "only big enough to power Howard Dean" would be a huge improvement.

While we're at it, who's being blacklisted? Where are the anti-Russian organizations methodically winnowing through everyone in Hollywood, the media, and industry to fire everyone involved with Russia?

This is to McCarthyism what an ant farting is to a hurricane.

3) If the answers to (1) and (2) are 'no,' are you in this thread for any purpose besides casting mockery on people who do believe that Russian agents were thus involved?

Refer above. Mockery is just a bonus. And maybe people who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid as hard as TRR might realise that they're wasting an entire political moment on Birtherism / BENGHAZZZEEEEE For Democrats.

The thing is, Birtherism and Benghazi obsession never resulted in federal charges being filed.

Birtherism was a complete and utter fabrication. Benghazi obsession is as close to a complete fabrication as makes no difference. There is nothing there to investigate.

Here, there is in fact something to investigate. There were in fact important members of the Trump campaign who took considerable amounts of money from Russia. Trump himself has extensive business and social ties in Russia. These things actually happened. Obviously, no crime can be proven without an investigation, because no crime can ever be proven without an investigation. But there is, at a minimum, something there.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Even if someone were to actually prove 'Russian agents' were involved with 'corrupt dealings', there's no indication that what numerous paranoid loons decry as Russian 'interference' changed a single solitary vote

Let me start off by saying that I agree with you insofar as at the moment we don't have enough evidence to confidently say that there was collusion and that the media is misrepresenting many of the facts of the issue.

However, I want to pose two questions (one of which I already asked earlier in this thread, but it got lost amid the quote spaghetti):

1) Even if the people that Papadapoulos had contact with were not actually agents of the Kremlin or otherwise influential in Russian politics, it appears that Papadapoulos actually believed that they were. IF he did believe they were, and IF the Trump campaign also believed this and attempted to coordinate actions with those agents in the mistaken belief that they were actually acting in concordance with the Russian government, does it actually matter that these people weren't really Russian agents? Clearly the effects of such actions would not be as severe as if they really were Russian agents, but simply from the perspective of apportioning blame to the Trump campaign, it seems to me that they would be just as guilty. If they actually believed they were colluding with the Russian government, even if they were mistaken, they are still guilty. I mean, every once in a while in the news there is a case of someone trying to hire an assassin to kill their spouse on CraigsList, and getting busted because the "assassin" they were in contact with was anything but, but they are still guilty of conspiracy to commit murder (or whatever the correct legal phrasing is).

2) Let's say hypothetically that the people that Papadapoulos contacted WERE actually Russian agents, and the Trump campaign did incontrovertibly collude with them. But, as you say, it didn't change a single solitary vote. Why does that let the Trump campaign off the hook for the collusion? Even if the impact of such collusion ends up being negligible, that doesn't mean that Trump et al. are somehow absolved of responsibility. Using our CraigsList assassin analogy again, the conspirators planning a murder are still guilty of their crimes even if they fail in the murder attempt but the target dies in an unrelated car accident.

(Notice the IFs in the above, by the way ... I'm not trying to say we actually have evidence this is the case, I'm posing this as more of a hypothetical).

[Broomstick]

Even if this hasn't already happened with Trump (which is neither proven nor disproven), if we say "oh, what Trump's people did in 2016 was okay because it didn't change anything," sooner or later it will happen. If not with Russia, then with China, or Britain, or some other country that has an incentive to meddle in our elections.

Given the disproportionate influence America has in the world, every country has some incentive to meddle in US elections or other aspects of the US political process and government.

[Simon_Jester]

Indeed, Broomstick- which is yet another reason for the US's domestic policing to be vigilant against such things.

Just as it would be grossly stupid for a democracy in, say, Latin America to NOT be wary of American foreign interests trying to influence their elections- and I'm not just talking about the US government, I'm talking about everything from oil companies to fruit companies.