Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Ralin]

So, why are people acting like this specifically is some sort of outrage? Trump presumably knows whether he colluded with Russia and he's already repeatedly said that he didn't. At this point you can't make a claim like that without saying that the FBI and company are lying/delusional and unreliable. Whether that's true or false there's zero reason to expect that he would...what? Spontaneously confess and accuse Putin on live television?

[Raj Ahten]

So, why are people acting like this specifically is some sort of outrage? Trump presumably knows whether he colluded with Russia and he's already repeatedly said that he didn't. At this point you can't make a claim like that without saying that the FBI and company are lying/delusional and unreliable. Whether that's true or false there's zero reason to expect that he would...what? Spontaneously confess and accuse Putin on live television?

It's both the context and the boldness of it. The context being after calling the EU the biggest enemy the US has and trashing NATO Trump then while standing literally shoulder to shoulder with Putin says he believes him over the entire US government. All in all it shows a president who wants to shitcan everything that has maintained American power for 60 years. And the boldness if it is because Trump isn't even pretending to follow any kind of protocol or reassure anyone other Putin that he has their back. It's going against everything the US has stood for in the most in your face way possible. It would have been less ridiculous for him to flip the reporters the bird and make no statement at all and then moon the cameras on the way out the door.

[Tvpnbb]

So, why are people acting like this specifically is some sort of outrage? Trump presumably knows whether he colluded with Russia and he's already repeatedly said that he didn't. At this point you can't make a claim like that without saying that the FBI and company are lying/delusional and unreliable. Whether that's true or false there's zero reason to expect that he would...what? Spontaneously confess and accuse Putin on live television?

Russian interference in the election and Trump colluding with Russia are two different things. Trump could easily deny colluding with Russia but still accuse them of meddling with the election.

[Ralin]

Russian interference in the election and Trump colluding with Russia are two different things. Trump could easily deny colluding with Russia but still accuse them of meddling with the election.

Hmm, good point.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's the video of the post-summit press conference, for anyone who's interested in seeing a man betray his country on international television:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwxqOoIyWm0

[The Romulan Republic]

Democratic Senator Hoyer has joined Obama CIA chief in accusing Trump of Treason:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/39745 ... n-helsinki

Note that I personally disagree with this assessment. While Trump's actions certainly represent a betrayal of the United States, democratic principles, the rule of law, and his duty as President, it is my understanding from prior discussions that the precedent is that treason only applies to those who wage war on America, or who aid those America is at war with. So calling Trump's actions in Helsinki treasonous is at best sloppy language, at worst implicitly either advocating a broadening of the definition of treason or that we are at war with Russia- both exceedingly dangerous positions to take.

Its also odd to accuse the President of treason but then say we should not press for impeachment, though in this case I think Hoyer's thinking is probably fairly sound. Impeachment right now would likely fail due to the Quisling Congress, and just about the only thing more disastrous than not impeaching and convicting Trump would be trying and failing. Win in November, then impeach (I'm uncertain as to whether it would be wise for the Democrats to make impeachment an explicit campaign promise, but I'm leaning towards yes- this election will be won in large part on our ability to turn out the base, and everyone already knows that this midterm is a referendum on Trump).

But in any case, it is alarming to note that we are now at the point where major politicians and members of the intelligence community are publicly accusing the President of Treason. There are really only two places you can go from there: removing the President from office and charging him, or admitting that the rule of law in America is dead.

[Galvatron]

Somebody went through the entire Russian indictments from the other day and posted the highlights.

https://imgur.com/gallery/LP0KlNl

[Vympel]

So, why are people acting like this specifically is some sort of outrage? Trump presumably knows whether he colluded with Russia and he's already repeatedly said that he didn't. At this point you can't make a claim like that without saying that the FBI and company are lying/delusional and unreliable. Whether that's true or false there's zero reason to expect that he would...what? Spontaneously confess and accuse Putin on live television?

No one in the FBI or elsewhere in the *sigh* Intelligence Community, has positively asserted that the Trump campaign has 'colluded' with Russia. That's simply the Democratic pipe dream for what will eventually be discovered. As noted above, this kerfuffle is an outrage fest that Trump refused to back the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election - i.e. essentially implicitly preferring Russian denials to his own intelligence agencies.

The idea that this is 'treasonous' is of course batshit crazy - oh wow holy shit what a scandal, one of the dumbest men in politics refused to cast a shadow over the legitimacy of his own election victory in a public forum. In front of Putin. Someone get me my fainting couch.

[Gandalf]

The idea that this is 'treasonous' is of course batshit crazy - oh wow holy shit what a scandal, one of the dumbest men in politics refused to cast a shadow over the legitimacy of his own election victory in a public forum. In front of Putin. Someone get me my fainting couch.

I love the idea that speaking less than positively of one's country is treasonous again. It takes me back to 2003 when one wasn't supposed to criticise Glorious America, for it would embolden terrorists, and thus be treasonous.

[Crossroads Inc.]

On the phone so not able to quote the whole article... But naturally Trump said he “misspoke” about the Russia thing: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/17/62989649 ... n-helsinki

Listening to NPR on the way to work, you can almost feel the sigh of relief from Republicans worries that they just MIGHT actually have to chastise Trump!!!
But don’t worry, it was a big misunderstanding and all is forgiven! Trump is super tough on Russia and totally stands behind the US intelligence community!

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And, of course, that Hiillary was the real Russian agent. [/sarcasm]

[The Romulan Republic]

So, why are people acting like this specifically is some sort of outrage? Trump presumably knows whether he colluded with Russia and he's already repeatedly said that he didn't. At this point you can't make a claim like that without saying that the FBI and company are lying/delusional and unreliable. Whether that's true or false there's zero reason to expect that he would...what? Spontaneously confess and accuse Putin on live television?

No one in the FBI or elsewhere in the *sigh* Intelligence Community,

Poisoning the Well by opening your post with ridiculing the intelligence community.

has positively asserted that the Trump campaign has 'colluded' with Russia. That's simply the Democratic pipe dream for what will eventually be discovered.

As I'm sure you well know, no one will ever be charged with "collusion", because there is no crime called "Collusion" in US law. This does not mean that no collusion occurred, or that nothing illegal occurred which would be covered by other terms, such as money-laundering, quid pro quo/campaign finance violations, or espionage. I will also remind you that it is public record that various members of the Trump campaign met with Russians purported to be tied to the Kremlin while seeking dirt on Hillary Clinton. The intent was certainly there. At best, you can argue that they unsuccessfully attempted to collude, but considering how eager Russia was to help Trump, and how eager the Trump team was to take that help, the notion that there was no coordination is increasingly laughable.

It is correct that no member of the Trump campaign has yet been indicted for conspiring with Russia during the election. However, the investigation is ongoing, and as I previously noted in this thread, the last batch of Mueller indictments refer to individuals "known and unknown" to the grand jury, including a Congressional candidate, who worked with or were in communication with the Russian hackers- in other words, more indictments, including of Americans, will likely be forthcoming.

Claiming that Trump is somehow vindicated by this is essentially just repeating White House propaganda.

As noted above, this kerfuffle is an outrage fest that Trump refused to back the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election - i.e. essentially implicitly preferring Russian denials to his own intelligence agencies.

Given your past denials on this topic, I would like to know: In light of the recent indictments, do you now acknowledge that the Russia government interfered illegally in the 2016 Presidential election for the purpose of aiding Donald Trump?

The idea that this is 'treasonous' is of course batshit crazy - oh wow holy shit what a scandal, one of the dumbest men in politics refused to cast a shadow over the legitimacy of his own election victory in a public forum. In front of Putin. Someone get me my fainting couch.

That is far from the only problem with his conduct in Helsinki (like the fact that he is more friendly to a hostile tyrant than to American allies, or the fact that this meeting, in which Russia claims various military agreements were reached, occurred with no witnesses except for a translator.

But I actually agree that disputing the conclusions of the intelligence community is not treason, as I previously noted.

[Ziggy Stardust]

No one in the FBI or elsewhere in the *sigh* Intelligence Community, has positively asserted that the Trump campaign has 'colluded' with Russia. That's simply the Democratic pipe dream for what will eventually be discovered. As noted above, this kerfuffle is an outrage fest that Trump refused to back the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election - i.e. essentially implicitly preferring Russian denials to his own intelligence agencies.\

This all seems like a massive strawman, considering that the outrage, such that it is, over the summit had nothing to do with Trump not admitting to collusion, but rather over Trump not confronting Russia over tampering in the election, which are two completely different things. It is, in fact, a distinction you yourself have been at great pains to point out in previous discussions on the Russia investigation, which makes it feel ... odd that you seem to have suddenly forgotten it.

For the record, I agree with you that all of the talk of "treason" is moronic to the extreme; it irks me when people throw that term around over something as non-substantial as Trump being stupid in a press conference. And I agree with you that the outrage is overblown. But, still, given some of your posting history on this topic, it would seem less dishonest if you actually approached the arguments faithfully, instead of using a strawman. Hell, it's not like the "treason" line needs your help in sounding absurd, it's already ridiculous on its face.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

So, why are people acting like this specifically is some sort of outrage? Trump presumably knows whether he colluded with Russia and he's already repeatedly said that he didn't. At this point you can't make a claim like that without saying that the FBI and company are lying/delusional and unreliable. Whether that's true or false there's zero reason to expect that he would...what? Spontaneously confess and accuse Putin on live television?

Russian interference in the election and Trump colluding with Russia are two different things. Trump could easily deny colluding with Russia but still accuse them of meddling with the election.

That's exactly what Trump is claiming. Watching him trying to backpedal and say he really meant that Russia did interfere is both painful and hilarious at the same time!

[Vympel]

Poisoning the Well by opening your post with ridiculing the intelligence community.

The Intelligence Community deserves all the ridicule it can take, and more. They're total scum. That the Democrats have done such an amazing propaganda job that many have decided to make the most dishonest, reactionary, authoritarian and anti-democratic forces in your entire government the moral center of their politics is a bad thing, actually.

As I'm sure you well know, no one will ever be charged with "collusion", because there is no crime called "Collusion" in US law. This does not mean that no collusion occurred, or that nothing illegal occurred which would be covered by other terms, such as money-laundering, quid pro quo/campaign finance violations, or espionage. I will also remind you that it is public record that various members of the Trump campaign met with Russians purported to be tied to the Kremlin while seeking dirt on Hillary Clinton. The intent was certainly there. At best, you can argue that they unsuccessfully attempted to collude, but considering how eager Russia was to help Trump, and how eager the Trump team was to take that help, the notion that there was no coordination is increasingly laughable.

Parsing whether collusion has legal meaning (as noted, it doesn't) has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is correcting the misconception that the Helsinki kerfuffle had anything to do with what we commonly call 'collusion'.

It is correct that no member of the Trump campaign has yet been indicted for conspiring with Russia during the election. However, the investigation is ongoing, and as I previously noted in this thread, the last batch of Mueller indictments refer to individuals "known and unknown" to the grand jury, including a Congressional candidate, who worked with or were in communication with the Russian hackers- in other words, more indictments, including of Americans, will likely be forthcoming.

Claiming that Trump is somehow vindicated by this is essentially just repeating White House propaganda.

At no point did I say that Trump had been 'vindicated'.

Given your past denials on this topic, I would like to know: In light of the recent indictments, do you now acknowledge that the Russia government interfered illegally in the 2016 Presidential election for the purpose of aiding Donald Trump?

Of course not. Indictments are the mere assertions of the prosecutor. They are not evidence of anything. Basic criminal law principles. The indictments are further obviously political documents for public consumption, the evidence behind them obviously never intended to be tested in a court of law, because everyone knows those Russians are never showing up to trial on US soil.

That is not to say it's a somehow extraordinary or inconceivable claim, since such operations are quite common, but its simply not an acknowledged fact just because an indictment says so.

Well - except for Concord Consulting showing up to answer the previous indictment represented by high powered law firm Reed Smith and embarassing Mueller by challenging him to put his money where his mouth is and provide discovery. Lesson there: don't issue indictments you never intend to take to court.

That is far from the only problem with his conduct in Helsinki (like the fact that he is more friendly to a hostile tyrant than to American allies, or the fact that this meeting, in which Russia claims various military agreements were reached, occurred with no witnesses except for a translator.

But I actually agree that disputing the conclusions of the intelligence community is not treason, as I previously noted.

It's not like Trump or Putin could practically reach an agreement on anything involving the military without informing their bureaucracy in that regard. The NSC said they were 'reviewing the discussions', whatever that means.

This all seems like a massive strawman, considering that the outrage, such that it is, over the summit had nothing to do with Trump not admitting to collusion, but rather over Trump not confronting Russia over tampering in the election, which are two completely different things. It is, in fact, a distinction you yourself have been at great pains to point out in previous discussions on the Russia investigation, which makes it feel ... odd that you seem to have suddenly forgotten it.

For the record, I agree with you that all of the talk of "treason" is moronic to the extreme; it irks me when people throw that term around over something as non-substantial as Trump being stupid in a press conference. And I agree with you that the outrage is overblown. But, still, given some of your posting history on this topic, it would seem less dishonest if you actually approached the arguments faithfully, instead of using a strawman. Hell, it's not like the "treason" line needs your help in sounding absurd, it's already ridiculous on its face.

Dude, my post is about how the outrage is not about the 'collusion' allegation! It's right there in the post. You're also missing the context of why I'm talking about the 'collusion' narrative in the first place (read the post I'm quoting). I don't see how you could read it in the way that you did - it's completely backwards.

[Galvatron]

Collusion arguments aside, we should be at DEFCON 4 right now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON#Levels

[The Romulan Republic]

Poisoning the Well by opening your post with ridiculing the intelligence community.

The Intelligence Community deserves all the ridicule it can take, and more. They're total scum. That the Democrats have done such an amazing propaganda job that many have decided to make the most dishonest, reactionary, authoritarian and anti-democratic forces in your entire government the moral center of their politics is a bad thing, actually.

The intelligence community is not without blame, nor do I or Democrats in general consider it the "moral center of our government." That is the Constitution of the United States, and the will of the people as expressed through the right to vote.

However, it does not follow that any claim put forward by any part of the intelligence community can be immediately dismissed out of hand because of past misconduct, regardless of evidence, simply because it originated with the intelligence community. That is not honest debate- it is debate by ad hominem.

And the most dishonest, reactionary, authoritarian and anti-democratic force in our government is without question Donald Trump. In addition to the collusion issue, it is not the "intelligence community" that is waging a systematic campaign to make America a strong-man dictatorship.

Parsing whether collusion has legal meaning (as noted, it doesn't)

There is no crime called "collusion" in US law. However, there are many acts which may be covered by the label of "collusion" that are crimes. Like campaign finance law violations, quid pro quo, money laundering, and coordinating the hacking of political opponents and the distribution of hacked documents and fake news. Some of which the recent indictments claim occurred between the GRU and unnamed Americans, and which Donald Jr. and other top Trump officials were clearly open to exploring given their publicly available email records.

Never mind the fact that Trump publicly called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails during the election (hiding behind the lame excuse of a "joke"), and that he is currently actively stymying, with the help of Congressional Republicans, efforts to protect America's elections against further intervention. The latter, at least, is not a crime, but is definitely aiding Russia's efforts to interfere in American elections, and its being done in the light of day.

Rather than addressing these facts, you quibble over terminology and attack the character of your opponents. This is dishonest, and gives the impression not that you disbelieve the accusations, but that you are as well aware as I of what happened over the last three years, and are actively trying to muddy the waters.

has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is correcting the misconception that the Helsinki kerfuffle had anything to do with what we commonly call 'collusion'.

Actually, whether Trump colluded with Russia during the election has a great deal of bearing on his actions in Helsinki. It illustrates a pattern of behavior, and suggests that Putin holds an extraordinary level of influence over him.

At no point did I say that Trump had been 'vindicated'.

You referred to collusion allegations as a "Democratic pipe dream".

Of course not. Indictments are the mere assertions of the prosecutor. They are not evidence of anything. Basic criminal law principles. The indictments are further obviously political documents for public consumption, the evidence behind them obviously never intended to be tested in a court of law, because everyone knows those Russians are never showing up to trial on US soil.

That is not to say it's a somehow extraordinary or inconceivable claim, since such operations are quite common, but its simply not an acknowledged fact just because an indictment says so.

How about dozens of indictments which lay out in detail the methods by which such crimes were committed, the persons involved, and the times at which they occurred, backed up by the near-unanimous conclusions of both the intelligence community and the press, and by the desperate attempts of Republicans to crush any investigation into it with blatant lies and obstruction of justice? Just for a start?

It happened, and denying it has as much basis as the views of a 9/11 Truther who thinks the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Well - except for Concord Consulting showing up to answer the previous indictment represented by high powered law firm Reed Smith and embarassing Mueller by challenging him to put his money where his mouth is and provide discovery. Lesson there: don't issue indictments you never intend to take to court.

Source and link please- I don't doubt some event that bears a passing resemblance to what you describe occurred, but I very much doubt that they successfully "embarrassed" Mueller as you claim, or that this seriously calls into question the credibility of the allegations.

It's not like Trump or Putin could practically reach an agreement on anything involving the military without informing their bureaucracy in that regard. The NSC said they were 'reviewing the discussions', whatever that means.

The only bit of consolation in this state of affairs is that Trump has not yet reached the point where he can do whatever he wants unilaterally. His services to Russia thus far are mainly in terms of propaganda and obstructionism that benefits their interests (like refusing to take action to enforce sanctions or protect elections).

[aerius]

Well - except for Concord Consulting showing up to answer the previous indictment represented by high powered law firm Reed Smith and embarassing Mueller by challenging him to put his money where his mouth is and provide discovery. Lesson there: don't issue indictments you never intend to take to court.

Source and link please- I don't doubt some event that bears a passing resemblance to what you describe occurred, but I very much doubt that they successfully "embarrassed" Mueller as you claim, or that this seriously calls into question the credibility of the allegations.

USA vs. Concord 18-032

Full transcript of the proceedings is available on this link:
https://www.docdroid.net/ytSx83s/usa-v- ... 18-032.pdf

Relevant except:

THE COURT: As I understand it, looking through the
papers filed by both parties, you and your firm represent
Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, is that correct?
MR. DUBELIER: Correct.
THE COURT: You do not represent any other defendant
in the case?
MR. DUBELIER: We do not.
THE COURT: Not any other individual defendant in the
case?
THE DEFENDANT: We do not.
THE COURT: What about Concord Catering? The
government makes an allegation that there's some association.
I don't mean for you to -- do you represent them, or not,
today? And are we arraigning them as well?
MR. DUBELIER: We're not. And the reason for that,
Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the
government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich. That
company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period
alleged by the government. If at some later time they show me
that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for
purposes of today, no, we do not.
THE COURT: Okay. And just so I'm clear as I read
your submission, it's your belief that Concord Management and
Consulting, LLC, has not been properly served under Rule 4, is
that correct?
MR. DUBELIER: That's correct.

That's just amateur hour shit, bonus points for the defendant's lawyer breaking out the classic line.

[Vympel]

The intelligence community is not without blame, nor do I or Democrats in general consider it the "moral center of our government." That is the Constitution of the United States, and the will of the people as expressed through the right to vote.

However, it does not follow that any claim put forward by any part of the intelligence community can be immediately dismissed out of hand because of past misconduct, regardless of evidence, simply because it originated with the intelligence community. That is not honest debate- it is debate by ad hominem.

And the most dishonest, reactionary, authoritarian and anti-democratic force in our government is without question Donald Trump. In addition to the collusion issue, it is not the "intelligence community" that is waging a systematic campaign to make America a strong-man dictatorship.

The crimes of the intelligence community are a matter of historical record and in terms of gross criminality and level of harm inflicted on the people of the world, they far exceed those of Donald Trump. So yes, I will express scorn for them when the opportunity arises.

There is no crime called "collusion" in US law. However, there are many acts which may be covered by the label of "collusion" that are crimes. Like campaign finance law violations, quid pro quo, money laundering, and coordinating the hacking of political opponents and the distribution of hacked documents and fake news. Some of which the recent indictments claim occurred between the GRU and unnamed Americans, and which Donald Jr. and other top Trump officials were clearly open to exploring given their publicly available email records.

Never mind the fact that Trump publicly called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails during the election (hiding behind the lame excuse of a "joke"), and that he is currently actively stymying, with the help of Congressional Republicans, efforts to protect America's elections against further intervention. The latter, at least, is not a crime, but is definitely aiding Russia's efforts to interfere in American elections, and its being done in the light of day.

Rather than addressing these facts, you quibble over terminology and attack the character of your opponents. This is dishonest, and gives the impression not that you disbelieve the accusations, but that you are as well aware as I of what happened over the last three years, and are actively trying to muddy the waters.

This just has no bearing on the discussion at this point. You want to get on your soapbox about what you think constitutes the 'collusion' narrative, that's fine, but nobody outside of blinkered Democratic partisans actually sincerely believes obvious bullshit like "Trump was actually serious when he asked the Russians to hack Hillary's emails during the election" is of any significance whatsoever to the issue at all.

Actually, whether Trump colluded with Russia during the election has a great deal of bearing on his actions in Helsinki. It illustrates a pattern of behavior, and suggests that Putin holds an extraordinary level of influence over him.

Yeah, Putin's got so much influence over him. That's why he sent lethal arms to Ukraine, bombed Syria, destroyed the Iran deal, and attempted to destroy Germany's deal with Russia over Nordstream 2. The influence is off the scale.

You referred to collusion allegations as a "Democratic pipe dream".

Because I think they are. That doesn't mean Trump has been 'vindicated' as a matter of fact, that collusion allegations will actualy bear fruit is a pipedream is my opinion.

How about dozens of indictments which lay out in detail the methods by which such crimes were committed, the persons involved, and the times at which they occurred, backed up by the near-unanimous conclusions of both the intelligence community and the press, and by the desperate attempts of Republicans to crush any investigation into it with blatant lies and obstruction of justice? Just for a start?

It happened, and denying it has as much basis as the views of a 9/11 Truther who thinks the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Indictments do not become something other than the mere assertions of a prosecutor just because there are many of them. Basic criminal law principles, again.

The reference to the intelligence community and the press is particularly curious - as if the press generally does anything but mindlessly parrot what some spook shits in their mouth anyway?

Source and link please- I don't doubt some event that bears a passing resemblance to what you describe occurred, but I very much doubt that they successfully "embarrassed" Mueller as you claim, or that this seriously calls into question the credibility of the allegations.

As aerius indicated, Mueller's indictment against Concord was such a shitheap that they indicated a company that didn't even exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged. So basic lawyer shit like company extract searches are beyond them, I guess.

This sort of incompetence should probably come as no surprise to actual lawyers, because by seeking to indict a Russian legal entity (and not a person) they exposed themselves to that entity showing up in court and making them look foolish, which is exactly what happened:

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/05/the-big ... ler-probe/

Or, short version: indicted entity shows up to court, demands discovery, Mueller's team, desperate to find its ass with two hands at this unexpected turn of events (i.e. maybe having to actually run the damn trial and do things like present evidence) absurdly seeks an adjournment to determine whether the indicted entity had been properly served. Now, you don't need to be a lawyer (though it helps) to know that whether you've been properly served doesn't mean shit if you voluntarily show up to court with your hand raised and says "let's do this":

“Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery,” Dubelier and Seikaly wrote.

See, that’s the kind of quality a Biglaw firm brings to the table.

And it seems U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich agreed the government’s position was pettifoggery. On Saturday, she ordered, with no further explanation, that the Wednesday arraignment would continue as scheduled.

Concord Management’s decision to go with Reed Smith is already paying dividends.

Pettifoggery. Ouch.

[Crossroads Inc.]

So... This just HAPPENED

To Iranian President Rouhani:
NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

[Gandalf]

American President blusters. Film at eleven.

What am I missing?

[Dominus Atheos]

If anyone is wondering why, this probably has something to do with these reports from earlier today:

Donald Trump is reportedly fuming over North Korea’s failure to honor his handshake

Jul 22, 2018, 12:40 pm

“Very disappointing.” “A joke.” “Pretty much meaningless.”

Among experts on North Korea, there was near universal agreement that Donald Trump’s much ballyhooed summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un was a colossal failure and an utter waste of time.

The joint statement signed by both leaders contained exactly zero new commitments, and in fact undercut previous negotiations by failing to provide any timeline for North Korea’s promised denuclearization efforts.

Suzanne DiMaggio, a senior fellow at New America, offered this sobering assessment: “The summit statement is big on hyperbole and short on substance – it reads like it was written by the North Korean negotiating team.”

Naturally, Donald Trump and his administration were quick to celebrate the Singapore summit as a resounding success, and dismissed the combined decades of experience telling him otherwise by pointing out he shook on it.

On Sunday, the Washington Post published a lengthy story detailing some of the inner conversations within the White House about the fallout from the North Korea talks, and — surprise! — the North Korea experts were right.

Well over a month has passed since Trump handed a massive public relations victory to North Korea, and since then, officials in Pyongyang have done little else besides embarrass and humiliate their Washington, DC counterparts. Several follow-up meetings that were scheduled have been canceled or indefinitely postponed. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been stood up at least twice by North Korean officials, and when the Pentagon sent several officials to meet with representatives from North Korea last week at the demilitarized zone, they were left waiting for three hours before finally being told the meeting wouldn’t be happening at all.

Meanwhile, several of the promises Trump claimed to have extracted from North Korea have gone unfulfilled. A missile-testing facility that Trump said would be destroyed remains untouched. Not a single Korean War service member’s remains have been returned to the United States, despite Trump’s claim that 200 fallen soldiers have already been repatriated. And there is evidence that North Korea is working to conceal the true scope of its nuclear weapons program despite its purported commitment to denuclearization.

All of which has led Trump to privately fume over being outmaneuvered and hustled by the world’s most notorious dictator, even as he continues to insist publicly that the negotiations were a resounding success. According to the Washington Post, Trump has requested daily briefings about the status of the ongoing discussions with North Korea, and is angry that the media’s assessment of his sham summit has largely come to pass. Perhaps next time he should insist upon a pinky promise.

Before agreeing to the summit, Trump spent weeks threatening Kim Jong Un with nuclear weapons. Experts now have begun to express concern that Trump’s notoriously short temper might jeopardize what little diplomacy actually exists between the two countries.

“I worry that Trump might lose patience with the length and complexities of negotiations that are common when dealing with North Korea and walk away and revert back to serious considerations of the military option,” Duyeon Kim, an expert on Korea from the Center for a New American Security, told the Washington Post.

"But that's about North Korea, a completely different country" you're probably saying.

Yes, yes it is.

[Galvatron]

American President blusters. Film at eleven.

What am I missing?

I don't remember any other presidents blustering quite like that.

In other news, he now says that the Russian election meddling is, well, here it is...

With the click of a button, he tweeted that "Russia" -- shorthand for the Russian interference campaign in 2016 -- was "all a big hoax."

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/22/media/ ... index.html

[Gandalf]

Meh. A different period calls for a different type of bluster.

[Vympel]

I don't remember any other presidents blustering quite like that.

Well yeah - the main difference between Trump and previous Presidents and other politicians in relation to sabre-rattling is that Trump's blustering is more comical and overt.