Author Topic: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers  (Read 10795 times)

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #100 on: December 15, 2016, 12:55:30 PM »
RealClearPolitics seems to have a good article summarizing the issue, too.

Quote
It's just a different sort of partisan issue. The Democrats are once again being useful idiots for the tea party's coup d'etat. I predict that in 9 months you will be pretending that you didn't support this.

I am not clear on what you think I'm supporting, since the article I quoted was on what we already know about Russian hacking and their possible intentions.  There is nothing to "support" in that.  ???

What I do support is the bipartisan investigation into Russian influences on our elections, and finding out ways we can minimize that.  And I very much doubt I will change my support of that in 9 months.

I don't see how this could support "the tea party's coup d'état."  At best, I would think such Russian propaganda helps the tea party at this time.

You don't get that you are being duped into laying groundwork for a Trump impeachment that leaves Pence in power?  Or you don't get that getting rid of Trump is the Tea Party's next step to consolidating power?

Don't I get that getting rid of Trump is the Tea Party's next step in consolidating power?  Why, no, I don't. :)

Pence, from what I've heard, is far more a "traditional" Republican than Trump.  Sure, he's harder line on abortion and such, but he's not for eliminating the government and all the other crazy ideas that the Tea Party espouses.  Pence was the bone Trump threw to non-Tea Party Conservative Republicans.

So I see no advantage for the Tea Party to have Trump impeached.

Furthermore, it is likely that Pence will be running the government anyway, with Trump only making the "important" decisions and writing tweets at 3 AM.  If the Tea Party wanted to exert power, why not do it in the background with plausible deniability?  ("Hey, Trump made that bad decision, not Pence! ;) )

Not to mention that impeaching Trump would require getting a sizable number of Republican votes, which, regardless of the reason, would piss off most of Trump's supporters.  And we know some of them are bat-s**t crazy.  A dangerous move for the Republican Party and for the individual Republicans who would vote for it.

And just how many Tea Partiers dislike Putin, anyway?  I have seen a lot of praise for Putin coming from the far Right for at least a year or two.  Having Trump working for Putin could make some far Right conservatives quite happy right now.  ::)

So, no, I don't see the impeachment of Trump as helping "consolidate power" of the Tea Party.  They could do it in any number of easier ways.  Assuming, of course, that Trump isn't actually the embodiment of the Tea Party right now.

And Trump is laying the groundwork for his own impeachment quite well, without anyone's help. (Can anyone say "conflict of interest?"  I knew you could. :) )   

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #101 on: December 15, 2016, 02:14:56 PM »
Quote
Trump is laying the groundwork for his own impeachment quite well, without anyone's help. (Can anyone say "conflict of interest?" )

Coming across a lot of chatter about how conflict of interest is going to be Trumps Achilles heel however the arguments are coming for the same place as "Trump will never get elected" came from.

I think Trump and his base support (whoever that includes) are still being underestimated and would not be surprised if once again the rules end up not applying or being applied to Trump
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 02:18:10 PM by rightleft22 »

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #102 on: December 15, 2016, 02:32:32 PM »
It's even a little more far fetched.  The president isn't bound by the same rules.  They have voluntarily complied in the past.

As to those crossing their fingers in hopes that the electoral college will not vote him into office...  I find it disturbing to cheer for an outcome that would almost certainly tare our country apart.  If there's something I can imagine that will be more damaging than a Trump presidency it's somehow refusing to allow him to take office.

He may drop trou on the nation/office, but I doubt he'll break laws and get thrown out.  :)

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #103 on: December 15, 2016, 02:42:06 PM »
That's assuming he knows the laws well enough to not cross too far over the line.

Nixon thought he did, and he was more knowledgeable about politics than Trump... :)

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #104 on: December 15, 2016, 03:19:37 PM »
Fair point.  I just assume any more there is a team of people around going.  "Sir!  No, you can't DO that!"  But... I suppose you need to listen to them for that to work.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #105 on: December 15, 2016, 03:35:34 PM »
How long before Trump reveals something classified on Twitter. ;)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #106 on: December 15, 2016, 03:44:08 PM »
How long before Trump reveals something classified on Twitter. ;)

At least it will be available for FOIA requests  :P

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #107 on: December 15, 2016, 03:48:25 PM »
Until he classifies Twitter.  ::)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #108 on: December 15, 2016, 03:55:50 PM »
And Trump is laying the groundwork for his own impeachment quite well, without anyone's help. (Can anyone say "conflict of interest?"  I knew you could. :) )

Trump is generally correct in regards to the PotUS and "conflict of interest" however. It has never been "tested in court" as to whether it is possible for the PotUS to have one. The Constitution says nothing on the matter, and it can be argued that Congress doesn't have the authority to restrict the activities of the PotUS (in his personal life) unless it actively endangers the nation.

And whose definition of "conflict of interest" are going by anyway? If you want to be strict about it, then nobody serving in Congress or certain tiers within the Executive Branch should ever own Treasury Bonds, lest they try to enact legislation or rule findings that benefit the performance of said bonds.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #109 on: December 15, 2016, 04:04:53 PM »
Trump is generally correct in regards to the PotUS and "conflict of interest" however. It has never been "tested in court" as to whether it is possible for the PotUS to have one. The Constitution says nothing on the matter, and it can be argued that Congress doesn't have the authority to restrict the activities of the PotUS (in his personal life) unless it actively endangers the nation.

And whose definition of "conflict of interest" are going by anyway? If you want to be strict about it, then nobody serving in Congress or certain tiers within the Executive Branch should ever own Treasury Bonds, lest they try to enact legislation or rule findings that benefit the performance of said bonds.
If they go for him, it'll probably be through the Emoluments clause of the Constitution. Though apparently the Democrats are going to introduce a Bill specifically applicable to the President.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #110 on: December 15, 2016, 04:16:22 PM »
If they go for him, it'll probably be through the Emoluments clause of the Constitution. Though apparently the Democrats are going to introduce a Bill specifically applicable to the President.

Then Trump can claim a legal defense on the basis of being "Grandfathered" under the old laws, it was legal at the time he assumed office, so any "business relationships" he had with the government at that time(and possibly up to the time such a law was enacted as law, which is highly unlikely during his presidency). Which isn't to mention the Pinkerton stuff and whatnot.

But the odds of any such bill getting anywhere are between slim and none. Not only would they need Republicans to sign onto it in order to get a majority, but they'd have to likely overcome a Presidential Veto on top of that, so they'd need a 2/3rds majority to enact the law. But in that case, the writing is probably on the proverbial wall for Trump(in regards to impeachment), and he'll either generate a media !$%^storm, or simply resign, if not both. He could certainly threaten to do so if they over-ride his veto. Depending on how popular he is at that time, that could be good or bad for Congress as a whole.

But we also still go back to the "is it constitutional for Congress to enact such a law in regards to the President?" Which would mean it needing to be "tested" in court. It would be interesting to see how THAT process would work out. Because of Grandfather provisions and everything else. So even if Congress did pass such a law, and overcame a Trump Veto, so it became law, would they then be (legally) capable of immediately impeaching Trump on grounds of being in violation, or would they need to wait for the Judicial Branch to make a decision on the matter?

What happens if Congress decides not to wait and impeaches Trump anyway? Even more hilarious: What happens if they did impeach him, only for SCotUS to come back later and say the Law wasn't legally binding on the PotUS? Does that mean the impeachment is overturned?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #111 on: December 15, 2016, 04:28:56 PM »
Scotia can't overturn impeachment on substantive grounds

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #112 on: December 15, 2016, 04:31:03 PM »
While I suspect the Bill is just being contemplated (at this time) to embarrass the GOP, if it gets anywhere it would be a bi-partisan effort. In that case, I don't think 2/3rds would be that hard to come by.

If it got far enough to serve as the basis for impeachment, I think the only defense worth trying is that Trump had no conflicts. It's too political a process for anything but actual innocence to be a defense. Not to mention it's likely that the Court will decline to place strict limits on the grounds for impeachment. Congress probably just needs a fig leaf.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #113 on: December 15, 2016, 05:04:00 PM »
You guys are getting confused.  Congress doesn't have to pass a law to impeach or remove the President. 

It's incredibly bizarre to me, to be debating impeachment before he's even taken office.  Especially, when many of you didn't see any grounds to impeach the current President when he ignored laws, changed laws without Congressional approval, entered into "treaties" over known objections in the Senate, and tried to create his own laws with excesses of executive authority. 

How about you start with describing the criminal act you think requires impeachment?

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #114 on: December 15, 2016, 05:08:58 PM »
I think making a law he's clearly in violation of would make it more palatable to impeach him.

I think it's inevitable to be in violation of the Emoluments clause. He seems to be making no effort to avoid it. I think it's reasonable grounds for impeachment.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #115 on: December 15, 2016, 05:17:38 PM »
I think making a law he's clearly in violation of would make it more palatable to impeach him.

Really?  Cause it violates a foundation principal of our legal system to make past conduct illegal and punish it.  Did you guys really get upset at the idea that he would pursue Clinton's acts that were illegal when she did it, and turn around and want new laws made to make his legal actions illegal?

Quote
I think it's inevitable to be in violation of the Emoluments clause. He seems to be making no effort to avoid it. I think it's reasonable grounds for impeachment.

Quote
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

This one?  In what way?

Sounds like a stretch to me.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #116 on: December 15, 2016, 05:45:53 PM »
I think the argument would be that he'd be in violation for ongoing actions. Properly formulated, it would have provisions for a time frame to get into compliance.

I'm pretty sure a multi-million dollar contract from a foreign government could be considered a present.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #117 on: December 15, 2016, 06:27:15 PM »
Quote
It's incredibly bizarre to me, to be debating impeachment before he's even taken office.  Especially, when many of you didn't see any grounds to impeach the current President when he ignored laws, changed laws without Congressional approval, entered into "treaties" over known objections in the Senate, and tried to create his own laws with excesses of executive authority.

Well, Seriati, you ain't seen nothing yet. :)

Obama was a constitutional lawyer, who had a pretty good idea how far he could push the limits of Presidential authority.  Donald Trump is a businessman who has no idea of what is considered proper as far as the Constitution is concerned, and is used to being a dictator in his own companies.

Since he hasn't actually done anything yet, it is certainly premature to talk about impeachment.  But the potential is there.  Boy, is it there...

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #118 on: December 15, 2016, 09:09:45 PM »
Part of the reason that Trump is vulnerable to impeachment is that the Republican establishment hates him almost as much as the Democrats.  So if he steps over the line in a way where he looses a big group of his supporters I don't see Paul Ryan and the other Republicans fighting any head winds to keep him in office.  I think they would be perfectly happy with Pence.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #119 on: December 15, 2016, 09:16:38 PM »
There are lots of issues that could creep up and bite Trump in the ass.  Some of his companies have large loans with foreign banks (including the Bank of China).  Let's say Trump makes a trade agreement with China (or officially recognizes the one China policy) and six months later the his companies loans get refinanced at a lower interest rate.  It could just be a standard business deal but it will look a lot like a quid pro quo.  Combine that with something that would drop his popularity in the USA and bye bye Trump, hello Pence.  The key here is republican leaders can go against Trump without directly benefiting the democrats.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #120 on: December 15, 2016, 11:21:14 PM »
You guys are getting confused.  Congress doesn't have to pass a law to impeach or remove the President.

Indeed, SCotUS has been pretty clear in their view that Impeachment is not a criminal or any other kind of legal/judicial process, but rather, that it is a political one, and as such tends to keep clear of getting involved.

However, the Constitution makes it clear that Impeachment is only supposed to happen in the event of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" which tends to indicate that first an office holder would need to be found to be in violation of a law. Whatever that law may be. Which is where things get weird if it is later determined that the law they were found to be in violation of, was itself struck down for being in violation of the Constitution.

Quote
It's incredibly bizarre to me, to be debating impeachment before he's even taken office.  Especially, when many of you didn't see any grounds to impeach the current President when he ignored laws, changed laws without Congressional approval, entered into "treaties" over known objections in the Senate, and tried to create his own laws with excesses of executive authority.

As already largely alluded to, the Republicans don't really care for Trump, and would likely try to dump him as soon as he becomes a liability, which being Trump, will likely be sooner rather than later.

The Democrats currently hate him. So getting a 2/3rds majority to rule in favor of impeachment on Donald Trump could become a very easy undertaking if Trump botches things up enough.

This is unlike the scenario with Obama where the Democrats were almost whole-hog supporters for virtually everything that he was doing, even if it wasn't actually legal. There was no way in hell that the Republicans would have managed to succeed in impeaching Obama, as they would have needed a dozen or more Democratic Senators to vote in favor of doing so. Since that wasn't going to happen, making the attempt wasn't worthwhile.

Further, the Republicans remember what happened with Clinton, and knew the press would rake them over the coals if they even discussed going the motions of making an attempt to do so against Obama.

With Trump, the media loves to hate him, and if he's truly making a cluster out of things, the Media isn't going to cover his back, they'll be there as cheerleaders in favor of the impeachment proceedings.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #121 on: December 16, 2016, 09:30:36 AM »
I think the argument would be that he'd be in violation for ongoing actions. Properly formulated, it would have provisions for a time frame to get into compliance.

I'm pretty sure a multi-million dollar contract from a foreign government could be considered a present.

What you are actually alluding to?  Multi-million dollar business deals are not presents, and they are already subject to restrictions on the gift portion (pay to play, foreign corrupt practices act).  Where is the gift to Trump that you think raises this concern?  I still think its incredibly funny to try and construe business deals as a gift, but to think that enormous contributions to a charity controlled by a politician as something else.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #122 on: December 16, 2016, 09:52:50 AM »
Quote
It's incredibly bizarre to me, to be debating impeachment before he's even taken office.  Especially, when many of you didn't see any grounds to impeach the current President when he ignored laws, changed laws without Congressional approval, entered into "treaties" over known objections in the Senate, and tried to create his own laws with excesses of executive authority.

Well, Seriati, you ain't seen nothing yet. :)

Obama was a constitutional lawyer, who had a pretty good idea how far he could push the limits of Presidential authority.

I've never seen anything in his actions that show me that he respected the Constitution.  Its not clear to me that what the President taught was really focused on the Constitution, rather than on activism under the Constitution.  People who hate something are often well versed in its details after all.

In any event, a claim that he has special knowledge (which isn't that special, since tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lawyers are equally qualified) is meaningless if there is no  evidence that its used.  What kept him in office is not a "special" Constitutional knowledge that allowed him to cleverly stay within Constitutional constraints (which is something he routinely failed to do, which is why his SC record isn't so hot), but rather that he had an impeachment proof minority in the Senate who would never have agreed to impeach him no matter what he did.

Quote
Since he hasn't actually done anything yet, it is certainly premature to talk about impeachment.  But the potential is there.  Boy, is it there...

Lol, well glad you at least acknowledge that we shouldn't impeach someone before they actually do something impeachable.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #123 on: December 16, 2016, 11:11:06 AM »
What you are actually alluding to?  Multi-million dollar business deals are not presents, and they are already subject to restrictions on the gift portion (pay to play, foreign corrupt practices act).  Where is the gift to Trump that you think raises this concern?  I still think its incredibly funny to try and construe business deals as a gift, but to think that enormous contributions to a charity controlled by a politician as something else.
You keep acting like impeachment is a legal process, so the facts need to fit a legal framework. It's a political process, so they don't need to prove that any given deal was an outright gift but simply advantageous enough to Trump to count as an attempt to influence. And just make the suggestion strongly enough that enough congress-critters feel comfortable with supporting an impeachment.

And you're still playing "but, Clinton..."

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #124 on: December 16, 2016, 11:21:31 AM »
You keep acting like impeachment is a legal process, so the facts need to fit a legal framework. It's a political process, so they don't need to prove that any given deal was an outright gift but simply advantageous enough to Trump to count as an attempt to influence. And just make the suggestion strongly enough that enough congress-critters feel comfortable with supporting an impeachment.

And you're still playing "but, Clinton..."

That being said, and fully agreed upon. It still doesn't mean people can't rightfully call others out as being hypocrites when they exercise the political option on something like that.

Edit to add: As a political process, rather than a legal one, normal rules of evidence don't apply, also "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't needed. The list goes on and on beyond that. However, for the politicians to at least give the appearance of the impeachment proceeding "being legitimate," they at least need to pay lip service to such things.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 11:24:02 AM by TheDeamon »

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #125 on: March 27, 2017, 10:55:56 PM »
When even Darth Vader thinks emperor Palputin went too far - Dick Cheney decries the Russian influence (or attempted influence) on the US election: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/dick-cheney-russia/index.html

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #126 on: March 28, 2017, 12:30:53 AM »
When even Darth Vader thinks emperor Palputin went too far - Dick Cheney decries the Russian influence (or attempted influence) on the US election: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/dick-cheney-russia/index.html

Cheney's statement is hardly out of left field. He comes out of the same cracker jacks box as McCain and other warmongers-for-profit do. 

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #127 on: March 28, 2017, 07:10:14 AM »
You think Cheney wants war with Russia, and that's the only reason why he pretends to think that possible Russian interference in the USA election is important?  Wow, it's getting so that everybody must have nefarious reasons for thinking that Russian interference in western elections is an evolving problem.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #128 on: March 28, 2017, 10:00:57 AM »
You think Cheney wants war with Russia, and that's the only reason why he pretends to think that possible Russian interference in the USA election is important?  Wow, it's getting so that everybody must have nefarious reasons for thinking that Russian interference in western elections is an evolving problem.

Everyone? No, just the same old gang that work together to get things done. It's as if three different Madison avenue ad men came to tell you that each thought you should buy Cheerios. Well, if all of these different people are saying the same thing, one would have to be pretty paranoid to suggest that they don't earnestly believe it! What are the odds they work for the same company? Conspiracy theory!

It's seriously not rocket science. Doesn't mean I'm indisputably right, but the line of argument is quite clear.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #129 on: April 05, 2017, 10:45:03 AM »
Here's a good article about sabre rattling and conducting irrelevant, corrupt wars:

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/by-jingo-an-act-of-war/

The article is distinctly anti-war, and so may stick in the craw of any fans of Iraq 2.0 and subsequent wars, but you may at least be relieved to note that it's a non-partisan piece. Here's a passage I especially liked:

Quote
Almost everyone I know who follows such matters is also critical of U.S. (hypocritical) efforts to promote democracy, a formulation wildly popular among Hillary Clinton style Democrats to enable attacking Muslim countries that have somehow offended either Israel or the Washington Establishment. But what is particularly disturbing about the constant denigration of Russia and Vladimir Putin in the media and among the political class is the regular invocation of war doctrine, that hacking a server by a foreign power, if it took place, is in the same category as the attack on Pearl Harbor. That World War 3 would be a nuclear holocaust does not seem to have occurred to politicians seeking a punchy line so they can get cited in The Washington Post. It leads one to the inevitable conclusion that war is far too serious a business to be left to politicians.

But what particularly offends me personally about those eager to go toe to toe with the Russians is their complete venality and fundamental cowardice. As a Vietnam era vet, I understand full well how it feels to have your life disrupted to go off and possibly die to fight a war that was totally meaningless. Our crowd of politicians is fond of talking about war as if it were some kind of diversion being featured on a monopoly board and that is precisely because they have no skin in the game. They somehow fancy that a shooting war will somehow not happen, that Russia will back down in a confrontation with force majeur, and they deep down feel completely immune to the consequences that might result from their ill-advised actions. And they are unfortunately in large part correct to feel so, as no one was ever held accountable for Iraq. Consequences that apply to the “little people” in the U.S. do not apply to them.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #130 on: May 30, 2017, 09:20:46 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/russians-trump-campaign-information/index.html
Quote
(CNN) Russian government officials discussed having potentially "derogatory" information about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and some of his top aides in conversations intercepted by US intelligence during the 2016 election, according to two former intelligence officials and a congressional source.
The article does go on to say that it was at least possible that this intercepted information was actually disinformation, but there is no real way to know.

So, in addition to releasing potentially damaging information about Clinton staffers and associates, Russia seems to have had (or at least pretended to have had) access to damaging information about Trump and his associates - but chose NOT to release that information in order to keep its leverage over a possible future Trump administration.

If true, this puts into perspective the naïve claim that Russia releasing 'factual' information concerning Clinton associates was actually a good thing, since, as expected, Russia was able to choose which damaging information the US public got access to prior to the election.

Clearly, Russian actions had no effect on the election, those non-existent actions were actually beneficial anyway, and there is no need to investigate anything concerning Russian attempts to subvert US democracy.


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #131 on: May 30, 2017, 10:06:11 AM »
Clearly, Russian actions had no effect on the election, those non-existent actions were actually beneficial anyway, and there is no need to investigate anything concerning Russian attempts to subvert US democracy.

This is a strawman, isn't it? Who claimed that Russian actions had NO effect on the election? In fact, who would even try to argue that they should have no effect? The idea that nations should have no effect on each other is perverse. That is a separate matter from whether they subverted the election, which is the claim people are actually making. You enter into strange territory when you claim that releasing true information about corruption is 'damaging' to America, on the grounds that they had other true information that they supposedly withheld. I'm sure Russia has lots of information they keep to themselves for various reasons. Your direct short circuit from "they didn't play all their cards" to "Trump is their patsy" is a huge exercise in confirmation bias. But again, let's say for instance Putin really did prefer Trump to win (and who could blame him): so what? So Russia releases accurate news stories that will hurt Clinton? How is that foul play? So really it comes back to the leak/hack, and whether Russia was behind it.

Funny thing, I've heard that the Clinton team was prepping the "Russia interfered" meme from the moment she lost the election; this is from that book that came out about her imploding campaign called "Shattered" (I think this story is from the book, I haven't read it). I find it interesting that the 'DNC hack' is being pinned on Russia after a corrupt election campaign imploded in itself, while previously no one ever pointed at Russia when Wikileaks would release information. I don't recall anyone calling Edward Snowden a Russian plant. Hey, maybe he is one, but no one saw fit to push that narrative. But mysteriously the same camp that was pushing the "Putin is the devil' campaign during the election continued to push it after the election. What a surprise. Like I said in the other thread, Donald, when an interested party is pushing a narrative that's a pretty good reason to view it with suspicion.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #132 on: May 30, 2017, 11:42:10 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/russians-trump-campaign-information/index.html
Quote
(CNN) Russian government officials discussed having potentially "derogatory" information about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and some of his top aides in conversations intercepted by US intelligence during the 2016 election, according to two former intelligence officials and a congressional source.
The article does go on to say that it was at least possible that this intercepted information was actually disinformation, but there is no real way to know.

So, in addition to releasing potentially damaging information about Clinton staffers and associates, Russia seems to have had (or at least pretended to have had) access to damaging information about Trump and his associates - but chose NOT to release that information in order to keep its leverage over a possible future Trump administration.

If true, this puts into perspective the naïve claim that Russia releasing 'factual' information concerning Clinton associates was actually a good thing, since, as expected, Russia was able to choose which damaging information the US public got access to prior to the election.

Clearly, Russian actions had no effect on the election, those non-existent actions were actually beneficial anyway, and there is no need to investigate anything concerning Russian attempts to subvert US democracy.

False equivalency.  The information released on HRC demonstrated perjury before Congress.  There's no possibility that the stuff on Donald Trump contained anything like that, since he has never testified before Congress.  The information suggested as "leverage" involved salacious garbage, basically slut-shaming Trump, which is kind of funny when you think about it, since the man's affairs are public matters before he ever became the champion of the family values crowd.  The idea that professional water sports are the equivalent of, say, HRC perjuring herself before Congress, or her brilliant plan to bring Iran to its knees with a 100% air war, is a classic example of the sort of lopsided wishful thinking that led to Trump's election in the first place.


Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #133 on: May 30, 2017, 11:49:09 AM »
You think Cheney wants war with Russia, and that's the only reason why he pretends to think that possible Russian interference in the USA election is important? 
:o ??? ::) :'( :D ;D

Just to be clear, "possible Russian interference in the USA election" references Wikileaks disclosing stuff that HRC swore before Congress wasn't out there?
Quote
Wow, it's getting so that everybody must have nefarious reasons for thinking that Russian interference in western elections is an evolving problem.

Right.  Because when you bend the facts to obfuscate who did what to whom, we should all assume that you're being completely straightforward.  And when you turn your former Darth Vader/Great Satan Dick Cheney into a paragon of civic virtue in order to go after a Darther Vader/Greater Satan/Bigger Dick, we aren't supposed to laugh helplessly.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 12:00:27 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #134 on: May 30, 2017, 11:55:20 AM »
What you are actually alluding to?  Multi-million dollar business deals are not presents, and they are already subject to restrictions on the gift portion (pay to play, foreign corrupt practices act).  Where is the gift to Trump that you think raises this concern?  I still think its incredibly funny to try and construe business deals as a gift, but to think that enormous contributions to a charity controlled by a politician as something else.
You keep acting like impeachment is a legal process, so the facts need to fit a legal framework. It's a political process, so they don't need to prove that any given deal was an outright gift but simply advantageous enough to Trump to count as an attempt to influence. And just make the suggestion strongly enough that enough congress-critters feel comfortable with supporting an impeachment.

It's a political process, but we're all supposed to act like we believe that it was a purely legal process.  This is what Yeats called "the ceremony of innocence."  It sounds silly, until you consider that the alternative is "the blood-rimmed tide."

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #135 on: May 30, 2017, 12:15:42 PM »
Here's how the Clinton Admin "investigated" evidence that its own campaign had been funded with money from the People's Republic of China: they handed it over to Janet Reno. [chortle]

Quote
In addition to partisan complaints from Republicans, columnists Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, and Morton Kondracke, as well as a number of FBI agents, suggested the investigations into the fund-raising controversies (which some[who?] dubbed Chinagate) were willfully impeded.[53][54][55]
FBI agent Ivian Smith wrote a letter to FBI Director Freeh that expressed "a lack of confidence" in the Justice Department's attorneys regarding the fund-raising investigation. He wrote: "I am convinced the team at... [the Department of Justice] leading this investigation is, at best, simply not up to the task... The impression left is the emphasis on how not to prosecute matters, not how to aggressively conduct investigations leading to prosecutions." Smith and three other FBI agents later testified before Congress in late 1999 that Justice Department prosecutors impeded their inquiry. FBI agent Daniel Wehr told Congress that the first head U.S. attorney in the investigation, Laura Ingersoll, told the agents they should "not pursue any matter related to solicitation of funds for access to the president. The reason given was, 'That's the way the American political process works.' I was scandalized by that," Wehr said. The four FBI agents also said that Ingersoll prevented them from executing search warrants to stop destruction of evidence and micromanaged the case beyond all reason.[56]
FBI agents were also denied the opportunity to ask President Clinton and Vice President Gore questions during Justice Department interviews in 1997 and 1998 and were only allowed to take notes. During the interviews, neither Clinton nor Gore were asked any questions about fund-raisers John Huang, James Riady, nor the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fund-raising event led by Maria Hsia and attended by John Huang and Ted Sioeng.

I respectfully submit that having the PRC actually fund a presidential campaign is more serious than claim that Russia disclosed embarrassing facts about one candidate.

Same could be said with Reagan's back-channels with revolutionary Iran.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 12:19:01 PM by Pete at Home »

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #136 on: May 30, 2017, 12:41:50 PM »
Quote
This is a strawman, isn't it?
No, it was sarcasm.
Quote
Who claimed that Russian actions had NO effect on the election?
Ignoring that the internet provides voice to people with basically every opinion even barely conceivable, you could start with the president and members of his administration and work your way down. You would have to have been hiding under a rock for 6 months NOT to have been subjected to people very forcefully making that claim.

I see, however, that you didn't take issue with the second part of the sarcastic sentence...

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #137 on: May 30, 2017, 12:46:27 PM »
No, it was sarcasm.

Well it was sarcasm with the intent to take the piss out of the view that Russia had no influence at all on the election, which itself is a strawman position. The defences being offered tend to be of the "Russia didn't hack the election" variety, not the "no particle from any Russian touched any particle affiliated with the election" variety. It's a strawman to assert that the case to be made is that Russia had some sort of effect on the election. The only relevant case is whether they subverted it, or a candidate colluded with them to subvert it.

Quote
I see, however, that you didn't take issue with the second part of the sarcastic sentence...

I have no objection to investigations when there's suspicion of wrongdoing.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #138 on: May 30, 2017, 12:59:50 PM »
When since 1945 has Russia *not* had some effect on a US election?

Given that the US intelligence services almost certainly used a Russian-tainted patsy to distract from their assassination of a US president, it's difficult to believe their "Russian connection" allegations against a US president that they have openly declared war on.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 01:02:40 PM by Pete at Home »

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #139 on: May 30, 2017, 02:48:32 PM »
Quote
Well it was sarcasm with the intent to take the piss out of the view that Russia had no influence at all on the election, which itself is a strawman position.
No, it isn't actually - since the election was decided by a margin of a few hundred thousand votes over 3 states, just about any interference that had a negative effect on Clinton's votes could very possibly have swayed the election.

Yet there are many people, even people on this board, who pooh-poohed the claim that the Russian intervention could possibly have led to the Trump victory.  Because the margin was so thin, it's really, really hard to argue that although the Russian interference had an appreciable effect on vote totals, it was insufficient to sway the election.

That you have this information but still think the point was a straw man just means your blinders are on or you haven't done the math (or both).

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #140 on: May 30, 2017, 02:54:03 PM »
Yet there are many people, even people on this board, who pooh-poohed the claim that the Russian intervention could possibly have led to the Trump victory.  Because the margin was so thin, it's really, really hard to argue that although the Russian interference had an appreciable effect on vote totals, it was insufficient to sway the election.

That you have this information but still think the point was a straw man just means your blinders are on or you haven't done the math (or both).

This is a real shifting goalpost. Now you're saying that even if Russia's contribution to Clinton's defeat was minor it may still have been enough to push it over the edge to allow Trump to win. Well in that case I'm sure you can cite to a thousand and one causes and contributors to her losing votes, and claim that each of them "subverted" the election because they made her lost. Yes, indeed, each and every factor contributes to whatever degrees that it does. Singling out one of them from many and saying "it was the cause!" even though it may have only had a minor effect is, if I recall correctly, the fallacy of division (that a property of a complete system can be attributed to a single part of that system).

If you were to forward the simple claim that Russia may have contributed to her defeat, there's really no contest there. Sure, maybe they did. That's neither illegal nor does it require an investigation. What you really want to claim, though, is that something untoward was going on involving Trump and colluding with the enemy, and that's a completely different kettle of fish.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #141 on: May 30, 2017, 03:17:40 PM »
Quote
Well it was sarcasm with the intent to take the piss out of the view that Russia had no influence at all on the election, which itself is a strawman position.
No, it isn't actually - since the election was decided by a margin of a few hundred thousand votes over 3 states, just about any interference that had a negative effect on Clinton's votes could very possibly have swayed the election.

Lol.  That's a real cherry pick.  Any influence that could move a "few hundred thousand votes over 3 states" when extrapolated would move what, at least 5 million votes across the country (300k for 3 states = 5 million for fifty)?  That's not a small amount that's like a 1 in 25 voter shift.  Of course, the elections in those states were much smaller totals.  What percentage is attributable to illegal influence?  I'm guessing zero by the way.

If Clinton's campaign hadn't had contempt for the average voters, cheated and manipulated there wouldn't really have been anything damaging to release.  It's not like there were not deliberate real and fake releases about Trump that tried to be damaging.  Were they manipulations as well?   In your analysis how many voters did they sway?

Quote
Yet there are many people, even people on this board, who pooh-poohed the claim that the Russian intervention could possibly have led to the Trump victory.

The Clinton campaign's stupidity led to a Trump victory.  Blaming the "Russians" for releasing the campaign's own damaging and stupid emails (by the way there's still almost no actual released evidence showing the Russians did it) is kind of rich.  Why not put the blame where it really belongs?  On an arrogant campaign, or a party that subverted the will of its own voters?

Quote
Because the margin was so thin, it's really, really hard to argue that although the Russian interference had an appreciable effect on vote totals, it was insufficient to sway the election.

Well the truth had an impact.  Which part of the truth is the "Russian interference"? 

What was the impact of the CNN interference?  You know where they manipulated their role as a neutral arbiter in a debate to try and tip the scales - which is an actual abuse of trust in a duty they owe to the American people and the two parties.  I guess you'd only care about that if they had been supporting a Republican (and don't lie, it would be the biggest scandal in electoral history if the parties were reversed). 

Quote
That you have this information but still think the point was a straw man just means your blinders are on or you haven't done the math (or both).

Or it still means that you're arguing by implication and refusing to actually acknowledge what the real causes were. 

What was the statistical impact of Clinton refusing to hold a press conference for nine months with a fawning media?  What was the statistical impact of Clinton not running on any identifiable issues?  What was the statistical impact of Clinton never once putting forward any plausible explanation for her server?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #142 on: May 30, 2017, 03:33:23 PM »
What was the impact of the CNN interference?  You know where they manipulated their role as a neutral arbiter in a debate to try and tip the scales - which is an actual abuse of trust in a duty they owe to the American people and the two parties. 

Not only that, but in addition to networks colluding with Hillary and the DNC to defeat Sanders, they also conspired against Trump. And not just 'lefty' networks, but even FOX and his own party. They were all trying to humiliate and sink him as a unit. And yet despite all this and all the advantages Hillary had going in, she lost, and it's to be blamed on whatever influence Russia may allegedly have had? Give me a break.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #143 on: May 30, 2017, 04:16:56 PM »
Donald, while you're at it, I think that the insinuation of "the Russians are tampering with our election" may well have had more of an effect on the electorate than the actual information released.   I'll bet that more than four times as many Americans know of the claim that "the Russians hacked our elections" than can name any of the specific bits of "damaging information" from Wikileaks that you're trying to attribute to the elecction.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #144 on: May 30, 2017, 08:27:59 PM »
Quote
This is a real shifting goalpost
I can't imagine why you would think so. You took exception with my sarcasm, and now you seem to be imbuing my sarcastic statement with a level of meaning nowhere in evidence in my posts.

Ask yourself what, specifically, I wrote, instead of what you now think I must have meant.

BTW, for clear evidence that some people don't think the Russian propaganda and the release of emails had any effect on the election whatsoever, look no further than Seriati's post below. "What percentage is attributable to illegal influence?  I'm guessing zero by the way."

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #145 on: May 30, 2017, 08:40:03 PM »
BTW, for clear evidence that some people don't think the Russian propaganda and the release of emails had any effect on the election whatsoever, look no further than Seriati's post below. "What percentage is attributable to illegal influence?  I'm guessing zero by the way."

Is "Russian propaganda" illegal?

As for the release of the emails, Seriati seems to be assuming that this was wikileaks, not Russia.  And you've introduced nothing AFAIK that puts that into question.  Yes, Putin had motive to hate Clinton (Kosovo and the Ukraine), but Wikileaks had even more hatred of the Clinton-Obama-international surveillance syndicate, and the whole operation is the logical next step in Wikileaks history.

Occam's razor points to Wikileaks.  Wikileaks points to Wikileaks.  Putin points to Wikileaks.  The only people pointing to Russia are either trying to cover Clinton's ass, or trying to bring down Trump by any means necessary, or (like Cheney) trying to protect America's international surveillance apparatus.  Snapshot of the latter: https://www.facebook.com/urbrax/posts/10213387551473699?pnref=story

How can you not see that  the Obama-Clinton-US intelligence-World Press tetrarchy was and remains Wikileaks' principal antagonist and target?

« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 08:45:45 PM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #146 on: May 31, 2017, 12:16:43 AM »
I can't imagine why you would think so. You took exception with my sarcasm, and now you seem to be imbuing my sarcastic statement with a level of meaning nowhere in evidence in my posts.

Ask yourself what, specifically, I wrote, instead of what you now think I must have meant.

Uh, generally sarcasm is when you say a thing and imply its opposite. If I say "Yeah, I believe you" it would mean "I do not believe you" in real terms. I guess if you're using some kind of unconventional sarcasm then maybe that isn't the best method for clarity. Here, I'll feed you back your statement and how I interpret you real view that you seem to be pointing to with the sarcasm:

Quote
Clearly,

You believe those who make such claims are mistaken about the clarity of the matter -

Quote
Russian actions had no effect on the election,

You believe Russian actions had an effect on the election -

Quote
those non-existent actions were actually beneficial anyway,

You believe those actions did exist, and their results were not beneficial -

Quote
and there is no need to investigate anything concerning Russian attempts to subvert US democracy.

You believe there is a need to investigate Russian attempts to subvert US democracy.

Are any of these points things you do not believe? These are the statements I assumed you were making with your sarcasm, which are each the opposite of what you sarcastically wrote. So what level of meaning do you think I was imbuing your comment with other than these?


Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #147 on: May 31, 2017, 12:48:39 AM »
What was the impact of the CNN interference?  You know where they manipulated their role as a neutral arbiter in a debate to try and tip the scales - which is an actual abuse of trust in a duty they owe to the American people and the two parties. 

Not only that, but in addition to networks colluding with Hillary and the DNC to defeat Sanders, they also conspired against Trump. And not just 'lefty' networks, but even FOX and his own party. They were all trying to humiliate and sink him as a unit. And yet despite all this and all the advantages Hillary had going in, she lost, and it's to be blamed on whatever influence Russia may allegedly have had? Give me a break.

Not to mention the biggest opponent of all to the Trump campaign -- Trump himself.  Good gravy, what an anti-candidate.  Didn't even try to fundraise, much less to actually plan his campaign.  Spewed random twitters.   There's literally no political position or policy that he ever advocated that he did not contradict at some other point.

When I heard he'd actually been elected, I lay in bed sick for a day.  But the news and facebook, like a big brainwashing machine just kept spinning faster and faster, I couldn't help seeing what all those people were voting against when they put in for Trump.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #148 on: May 31, 2017, 09:26:10 AM »
BTW, for clear evidence that some people don't think the Russian propaganda and the release of emails had any effect on the election whatsoever, look no further than Seriati's post below. "What percentage is attributable to illegal influence?  I'm guessing zero by the way."

Is "Russian propaganda" illegal?

Pete caught the significant piece on his first go through.  What law do you think prevents the Russians (or anyone else) from producing propaganda?  Or just straight up stating their opinions about who we should elect?  Do you think there is a law against a country threatening to go to war or to murder our citizens if we elect a certain person?  There was no illegal Russian propaganda.

We had a crime in the breach of the DNC's and Podesta's security.  It's been widely acknowledged that Podesta fell for, pardon me borrowing President Obama's term a "junior varsity" level phishing scam.  There's every evidence that the DNC was penetrated more than once, by more than one actor and also was the subject of deliberate leakers.  Against that background, the fact that their own words - and be honest its the true emails, especially Podesta's, not any "fake" propaganda -  damaged them is hardly surprising or even troubling.  Wow, we should all be upset that the "Russians" "manipulated" the election by showing how the DNC and the Clinton campaign were manipulating the election.  There is no evidence that would convince a non-partisan that the Russians were the only people to have the emails.  There is no evidence AT ALL that establishes a Russian Wikileaks distribution (other than vague implication).  Wikileaks released the data, and they've implied they got it from a leak.

I got no beef with prosecuting the hackers.  Go at it.

I have a right to protest treating this an event worthy of war level rhetoric by  members of the Democratic Party against the worlds second greatest military power, without something real in the proof department being released.  I have every right to protest undermining the elected government of the US with a political investigation mascarading as a legitimate investigation, how quickly the left has forgotten the perils of McCarthyism. 

Quote
As for the release of the emails, Seriati seems to be assuming that this was wikileaks, not Russia.

Two things.  First, I have no assumption as to who gave Wikileaks the information.  They've implied it was a leaker, but it could have been Russian or other hackers directly or indirectly.

Second, I honestly don't care.  I'm not a fan of secrecy in government, or even really inside political parties.  We need to be able to keep secrets related to national security secure, but the urge to over-classify should be resisted.  In this case, quite frankly, even if the Clinton campaign insiders really had that high a level of contempt for their own voters, let alone the other sides', there is no excuse for them to put it in writing.  It's practically the first rule of communication, assume what ever you write will be broadcast globally.  The fact that knowing what the Clinton campaign really thought about its voters could be so decisive is directly related to a certain delusional attitude that voters have, where they are the "good guys" therefore they don't have to justify everything they believe in cause everyone knows their side is "good" and the other is "evil," revealing the evil at the core opened some eyes.  Well at least until the media did damage control and forced the issue back out of sight.

I had a specific conversation with several of my friends pre-leaks about why they were voting for Clinton and what issues she was campaigning on, and without exception not a one of them could name five issues related to her campaign.  It was all some iteration of they believed she was a good person, who would "do the right thing" and was highly qualified.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2017, 09:31:42 AM by Seriati »

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« Reply #149 on: May 31, 2017, 10:56:31 PM »
Fenring, let me point you in the right direction:
Quote
Now you're saying that even if Russia's contribution to Clinton's defeat was minor
This characterization of what I wrote is where you are going wrong - the Russian involvement was not minor, in that it likely did lead to Clinton's defeat.  We can also really not know the full extent of the effect of Russian involvement both in leaks and in propaganda efforts, as it was on-going for several months, but the effect of the email leaks so close to the election, in conjunction with the concurrent announcement of Comey's reopening of the FBI investigation in the week leading up to the election, was coincident with a shift of several percentage points in the national polls.

Now, Seriati attempted to waffle his position by limiting his statement to "illegal influence" - of course, whether there is a law against Russian attempts to subvert the US electoral process is beside the point - just as impeachment is political, so are most interactions between sovereign powers. But my point was not that the Russian actions were illegal - just that they existed, and had an effect.  Bringing up "illegal" is just a distraction.

So, people not believing that the Russian intervention had an effect - check.
People believing that a one-sided release of prejudicial information by a foreign power is actually good for democracy - check.
There's no need to investigate - check.