The Fake News Lie that makes Trump look like a Boy Scout in compariso

[Pete at Home]

If someone in the Trump camp hacked the emails and leaked them to wikileaks that is a crime.  It doesn't make them a traitor to the country but it makes them a criminal.  If someone working for the DNC leaked the same thing it most likely makes them a whistle blower (with some potential overlap with a crime being committed, depending on how the emails were obtained).

If someone in the CIA disclosed where his superiors had hidden 1/3 of john f Kennedy's btain, that disclosure would also be a crime. It would also be a public service, neh?

You have actually brought up the best argument so far to support Mr dot com's claim: he is confessing to felony conspiracy to commit a crime.

[Pete at Home]

Crow is no partisan hack but like me sometimes gets an odd bee in his britches. I honest don't understand his PoV on that harmless remark.

I can only base my opinions on the words he chooses to share

What I said represents my struggle to form my own opinion, not a criticism of your opinion.

[Seriati]

My apologies then, I too hastily assumed you knew him personally as you seem to know a number of other members and former members.

[yossarian22c]

Had you ever head of "internet entrepreneur" Kim DotCom before today?

I certainly had. He is the founder of Megaupload. He's notorious actually, and was in the news several years back when they raided his mansion. I didn't follow the case but I presumed they had him in jail for mass copyright infringement or whatnot.

Julian Assange I have heard of too and when he says the data was leaked from the DNC I believe him and I don't believe the lying CIA.

I remember that story now, had completely forgotten the guys name though.  However I still take their word here with a significant grain of salt.  These are two men who basically had their lives ruined by things Clinton helped orchestrate as Secretary of State.  The Assange honey trap and the international pressure on (New Zealand?) to turn on DotCom.

Wikileaks could just "leak" the proof that it was Seth Rich since they have already implied it was him.  I don't see any reason to withhold evidence of his being the source if you are strongly implying that it was him.  Both men have motives to lie that are too strong to take them at their word with no supporting evidence.

[Fenring]

Wikileaks could just "leak" the proof that it was Seth Rich since they have already implied it was him.  I don't see any reason to withhold evidence of his being the source if you are strongly implying that it was him.  Both men have motives to lie that are too strong to take them at their word with no supporting evidence.

While there is good reason to doubt all sorts of actors at the moment, one thing you should keep in mind - and this is a significant point - is that while Assange has been known to blow smoke when speaking off the cuff, Wikileaks has, to date, never released faulty data or files that weren't the genuine article. So while you may be right to doubt cryptic tweets from Wikileaks, you would be on the wrong side of the facts to doubt them if they actually released data on the subject. But they won't do that because their confidentiality seems more important to them than any particular case.

[Gaoics79]

While there is good reason to doubt all sorts of actors at the moment, one thing you should keep in mind - and this is a significant point - is that while Assange has been known to blow smoke when speaking off the cuff, Wikileaks has, to date, never released faulty data or files that weren't the genuine article.

While by contrast, I note that James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, has never been prosecuted for perjury concerning his false testimony before congress. To my knowledge, no one has been prosecuted for illegal surveillance of Americans under the Obama admin. Indeed, the only response to the revelation of this illegal program was the attempted arrest and prosecution of the whistleblower.

So why in blazes would I believe a word these unrepentant (confirmed) liars have to say about anything?

And speaking of motives to lie, it's been increasingly apparent to me that U.S. policy has been to vilify Putin and Russia at every turn. This was obvious long before the election. I don't say that to suggest that everything that was said about Putin was a lie or that he was a nice guy - but that of all the bad men in the world (including several allies) someone high up in the U.S. government seemed to have a particular axe to grind against Russia and Putin in particular.

[JoshCrow]

And speaking of motives to lie, it's been increasingly apparent to me that U.S. policy has been to vilify Putin and Russia at every turn. This was obvious long before the election.

This is a fairly recent development, you should note. Until 2014 it was simply not the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset

The defining incident was the annexation of Crimea and the "operations" (for lack of a better word) in eastern Ukraine. Everything pivoted at that moment. I think the bottom line is that it proved Putin irredeemable to many in the West. I can't say I blame them - frankly I support the "vilification", since he is indeed a worthy villain.

[Pete at Home]

And speaking of motives to lie, it's been increasingly apparent to me that U.S. policy has been to vilify Putin and Russia at every turn. This was obvious long before the election.

This is a fairly recent development, you should note. Until 2014 it was simply not the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset

The defining incident was the annexation of Crimea and the "operations" (for lack of a better word) in eastern Ukraine. Everything pivoted at that moment. I think the bottom line is that it proved Putin irredeemable to many in the West. I can't say I blame them - frankly I support the "vilification", since he is indeed a worthy villain.

No question that he's a villain, although I'd have picked the radioactive tea as the proof, since if you read the European press rather than the US whitewashed version (our press is thoroughly infiltrated by the CIA), the Ukraine/Crimea story is not as black and white as you imply.  If you set aside the passenger jet incident, we're at least as culpable, as HRC intentionally and before the fact, set up an anti-democratic, anti-Russian coup d'etat.  Also, annexing the Crimea to Russia simply undoes what Kruschev did with the stroke of a pen 60 years ago.  Crimea was Russia's for centuries before that.

[Pete at Home]

Indeed, the only response to the revelation of this illegal program was the attempted arrest and prosecution of the whistleblower.

Only "only" if you don't count the production of an anonymous "rape" accuser.  Classic trick the CIA picked up from the KGB of yesteryear.

[Pete at Home]

but that of all the bad men in the world (including several allies) someone high up in the U.S. government seemed to have a particular axe to grind against Russia and Putin in particular.

Well he does have a legitimate axe to grind against us, and against the Clintons in particular (Kosovo).  Though you have to go European press to see where Putin makes that vendetta explicit.  He spoke of Kosovo in his Crimea annexation gloat.  And he grinds that axe pretty sharp, as you can see from the storm of refugees running away from his stooge's bombs and chem-fare.   It's Putin's poetic justice for what the West did in Kosovo -- show Germany and France what it feels like to be deluged in violent, raping immigrants.  Exactly what happened to Kosovo, albeit accelerated.

[Fenring]

I can't say I blame them - frankly I support the "vilification", since he is indeed a worthy villain.

I'd say he'd be a worthy adversary, if indeed he was an adversary. Certainly he puts Russia first, but I do not believe he 'has it in' for the U.S. as a motive unto itself. The U.S. is powerful and so of course a lot of his focus will be on America, just like pretty much everyone else in the world who wants to affect change around the globe. But far more focus is put on him by America than the reverse. You don't see him putting missiles along borders of G20 nations, or building offensive bases around the world. This doesn't mean he isn't a bad guy or a gangster, and certainly doesn't mean he should be trusted. Even if you want to call him a 'villain' in the general sense of his type of character, you shouldn't confuse that with the comic book meaning of villain, which often means a direct opponent of someone in particular. Joker and Riddler, for instance, are Batman villains, and are framed as being his opponents. In this sense I see no evidence that Putin is 'American's villain'. Oh, sure, he wants to achieve things and his news agencies try to point out all kinds of flaws in American policy, but in context they seem to do this only insofar as those particular policies harm Russian interests. I don't think I've ever seen an RT article, for instance, bashing some internal American policy that's harmful but has no bearing on Russia.

Incidentally (or perhaps more to the point) someone being a 'villain' in some capacity is not justification for trying to pin every bad thing on them, or sabre rattling about shooting down their planes. There are plenty of 'bad guys' around the world, but that alone is insufficient justification to take direct aggressive action against them. A country being run by a scumbag or gangster is not any legal ground to invading them, attacking them, undermining their government, or any number of other things. In fact, not only isn't it enough to show that someone is villainous, it isn't even enough to show they've done something reprehensible to another country like attack of bomb them. Unless they are directly threatening America or American allies I think it's a very hard sell to legitimize direct action against such people; and this isn't merely a legal point, but a moral one as well. When you look at North Korea, for example, there we have a case of direct threats being made and I could sympathize with a desire to go do something about it. Likewise I sympathize with Israel not being too thrilled with some of what Iranian officials have said about Israel in the past. But Russia? Putin has gone on record countless times saying he wants better relations with America and will step up to any process where that can be advanced. So show me the leaders who've tried to take him up on that to see if he means it? *crickets*

[JoshCrow]

Incidentally (or perhaps more to the point) someone being a 'villain' in some capacity is not justification for trying to pin every bad thing on them, or sabre rattling about shooting down their planes. There are plenty of 'bad guys' around the world, but that alone is insufficient justification to take direct aggressive action against them. A country being run by a scumbag or gangster is not any legal ground to invading them, attacking them, undermining their government, or any number of other things. In fact, not only isn't it enough to show that someone is villainous, it isn't even enough to show they've done something reprehensible to another country like attack of bomb them. Unless they are directly threatening America or American allies I think it's a very hard sell to legitimize direct action against such people; and this isn't merely a legal point, but a moral one as well. When you look at North Korea, for example, there we have a case of direct threats being made and I could sympathize with a desire to go do something about it. Likewise I sympathize with Israel not being too thrilled with some of what Iranian officials have said about Israel in the past. But Russia? Putin has gone on record countless times saying he wants better relations with America and will step up to any process where that can be advanced. So show me the leaders who've tried to take him up on that to see if he means it? *crickets*

You of all people taking Putin (Putin!) at his word is worth a laugh. I wish your skepticism towards the relevance of public posturing applied here, but it seems to have vanished.

To your larger point, you seem to be harping on 'direct action' whereas Jason's point which I was addressing was the media stoking fires against Putin. Surely you are not suggesting it is beyond the scope of American media to persistently and forcefully criticize a murderous power-mad despot. How quickly you pivot to invasion or 'undermining government' (whatever that means... are harsh words to be taken for 'undermining'?).

That's just the half of it. I find the idea of being a bystander to horrors carried out by other countries morally repellant. It's certainly not an attitude to crow about. That isn't to say we have to blunder off to war to knock over dictators (leaving chaos behind), but I would say pretty much any non-violent way to oppose such regimes can and should be taken. That includes even supporting a local rebellion, promoting regime change and making an international case (directly to the people of said country if possible) against the leader in question.

[Fenring]

You of all people taking Putin (Putin!) at his word is worth a laugh. I wish your skepticism towards the relevance of public posturing applied here, but it seems to have vanished.

Taking him at his word...about what? I don't know why these issues always have to be all or nothing with everyone. I neither have to 'take his word' for anything nor do I have to suggest that he 'needs to be stopped.'

To your larger point, you seem to be harping on 'direct action' whereas Jason's point which I was addressing was the media stoking fires against Putin. Surely you are not suggesting it is beyond the scope of American media to persistently and forcefully criticize a murderous power-mad despot. How quickly you pivot to invasion or 'undermining government' (whatever that means... are harsh words to be taken for 'undermining'?).

If that's what was going on I'd be very supportive of it. I believe the media does have a good positioning to be critical of abuses of power, corruption, and inhumane behavior. It's too bad, then, that they're corporate shills instead who have no motive except the bottom line. If some hypothetical media was taking the piss out of dictators I'd be all for it. For this media that we have right now - no, it's disingenuous propaganda being put out to further someone else's agenda, as Jason points out. It's certainly not with any intent to reform Russia or help create bridges between the two countries, because, you know, that would be the actual way to help the situation. Neither the U.S. powers that be nor the media want any sort of rapprochement right now, and any move to 'help our Russian friends improve their standards' would just be labeled as being in Putin's pocket. I wish we had what you're suggesting, but it's utterly implausible to read virtuous motives into the stories that have been put out about Russia.

That's just the half of it. I find the idea of being a bystander to horrors carried out by other countries morally repellant. It's certainly not an attitude to crow about. That isn't to say we have to blunder off to war to knock over dictators (leaving chaos behind), but I would say pretty much any non-violent way to oppose such regimes can and should be taken.

On this we would be in full agreement. I don't either like the idea of standing by while atrocities or other mayhem take place. It's our job to speak out, try to effect change, and improve overall conditions. And I also agree that non-violent methods of doing this should be preferred. So far we're on the same page.

That includes even supporting a local rebellion, promoting regime change and making an international case (directly to the people of said country if possible) against the leader in question.

And here's where we're not on the same page, because these are not non-violent methods. Having someone else shoot a gun instead of you doing it yourself isn't non-violence, it's just kicking the can. Regime change is nothing more than invasion through subversion, with the added benefit of not having to foot the bill of stationing an occupying force. Why do you think regime change is such a popular method? Because it costs next to nothing compared to invasion and can be spun as being 'legitimate' since it was just the locals, with 'a bit' of our help. Likewise, proxy wars are simply wars without legal declaration. In both cases I would simply call them dishonest methods. I do believe there are legitimate grounds for use of force in the world, and when there are sufficient grounds it should be employed out in the open. As Han Solo put in, "I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around." The worst part of it, though, is that it's done by lying to the American people. That is not how a republic is supposed to work.

If by "supporting a local rebellion" you mean to have supportive demonstrations, i.e. to give them our moral support, in that case I'm all for it. We should speak in favor of good changes. But actively participating in foreign rebellious activities to promote American interests is, afaik, illegal under international law, and immoral to boot. When Russia is even merely accused of releasing true data about the DNC they are "subverting democracy", but when the idea is brought up to literally overthrow foreign governments it's fine, because, as Arnie put it in True Lies, "Yeah, but they were all bad."

I would like to see the promotion of non-violent methods of working with other countries to improve human rights there, and to work with their governments to try to reduce abuses of their people. There are ways to do that, but until other nations cease being merely resources for us to farm, it won't happen. After all, you don't make $100 billion+ selling weapons when you're promoting peace.

[JoshCrow]

Taking him at his word...about what? I don't know why these issues always have to be all or nothing with everyone. I neither have to 'take his word' for anything nor do I have to suggest that he 'needs to be stopped.

Then don't enter into evidence the idea that Putin "went on the record" saying he wanted to be friends.

If that's what was going on I'd be very supportive of it. I believe the media does have a good positioning to be critical of abuses of power, corruption, and inhumane behavior. It's too bad, then, that they're corporate shills instead who have no motive except the bottom line. If some hypothetical media was taking the piss out of dictators I'd be all for it. For this media that we have right now - no, it's disingenuous propaganda being put out to further someone else's agenda, as Jason points out. It's certainly not with any intent to reform Russia or help create bridges between the two countries, because, you know, that would be the actual way to help the situation. Neither the U.S. powers that be nor the media want any sort of rapprochement right now, and any move to 'help our Russian friends improve their standards' would just be labeled as being in Putin's pocket. I wish we had what you're suggesting, but it's utterly implausible to read virtuous motives into the stories that have been put out about Russia.

Hogwash - there are so many people willing to write such stories pretty much pro bono if it will hurt a despot. It beggars belief that you think they are all just a bunch of shills. If I were a journalist, would you say that of me? You are hopelessly sweeping away all of journalism under the banner of being bought-and-sold. It's a position that is simultaneously indefensible (impeaching the moral character of everyone in mass media) and rhetorically indestructible from an argument standpoint, since there's literally no way to get inside the head of all employed journalists so that I can convince you that they are not all in the tank.

I leave you to this breathlessly cynical belief and hope you'll one day meet some journalists.

Having someone else shoot a gun instead of you doing it yourself isn't non-violence, it's just kicking the can.

If you witnessed a person being abused by their spouse, would you not counsel and encourage them to take action? Would you not provide them with support, both moral and even material? It is not 'handing them a gun' - it is to provide the support necessary for THEM to take the action in their own home. It does not mean you go over there and punch their spouse - it  is about teaching the victim that they don't have to fight back alone.

If by "supporting a local rebellion" you mean to have supportive demonstrations, i.e. to give them our moral support, in that case I'm all for it. We should speak in favor of good changes. But actively participating in foreign rebellious activities to promote American interests is, afaik, illegal under international law, and immoral to boot. When Russia is even merely accused of releasing true data about the DNC they are "subverting democracy", but when the idea is brought up to literally overthrow foreign governments it's fine, because, as Arnie put it in True Lies, "Yeah, but they were all bad."

Again, I view supplying support, both moral AND material, for a battered spouse or citizen to take action as morally justified. You could scold me for saying "it's none of your business what goes on in someone else's house/country", but as I am interested in all human business, I see it as self-evidently justifiable.

The question (really the only point worth arguing) is what materially supporting activities are warranted, and what crosses the line. The line depends, I think, on the situation at hand.

I would like to see the promotion of non-violent methods of working with other countries to improve human rights there, and to work with their governments to try to reduce abuses of their people.

That last sentence may be one of the most naive things I've seen you put to the page. Work WITH despots to try to reduce abuses of their people... gee, what a great idea.  Why didn't I think of just asking Mr. Putin to stop murdering or imprisoning his political opponents?

[Fenring]

Then don't enter into evidence the idea that Putin "went on the record" saying he wanted to be friends.

I can go on record saying that, because he did say that. You seem to be implying that I've asserted something beyond that such as his motive or 'real thoughts'. Why should we care about those? If a state leader claims he wants to forward a peace process, the only response is to take him up on it and see if he means it. If he doesn't or stonewalls you have your answer. It doesn't actually require trusting him to call him on it and try to start a peace process. That's kind of the beauty of diplomacy - you go through the forms and process of diplomacy and you can yield a positive result without anyone having to "trust" anyone else. The trust comes later from keeping to the terms of the treaty or agreement. Do you really think that the U.S. and China "trusted" each other during Nixon's presidency? It didn't matter; but now China is a valued trading partner, notwithstanding the fact that tensions occasionally flare up, which is normal. This all-or-nothing mentality of "he's a villain!" or "how can you trust him" isn't how diplomacy was ever understood before, and is really a false dilemma.

Sometimes even when you know someone isn't serious about a peace process, such as we see frequently in the mid-East, even so it is pursued relentlessly, and hopefully one day it can be a reality. And yet despite the frequent attempts to create a dubious peace in the mid-East, where are the attempts to do so with Russia? The fact is that peaceful relations with Russia aren't desired right now. It's not about ability, it's about will.

there are so many people willing to write such stories pretty much pro bono if it will hurt a despot. It beggars belief that you think they are all just a bunch of shills. If I were a journalist, would you say that of me? You are hopelessly sweeping away all of journalism under the banner of being bought-and-sold.

Actually, no. I never really said anything about journalists. In fact I've written here before that I think the problem lies elsewhere. That being said it would be an interesting, if tedious, exercise to study the landscape and learn all the major journalists for the various publications to see where each person falls on the spectrum, but offhand I'm not that interested in that. No, the issue when there's a problem always starts at the top, not with the workers. It's the editors in chief I'm more concerned with, but even they have their marching orders. Everything gets trickled down from the people holding the reigns, which in the case of media corps is probably very hard to trace. It boils down to principle shareholders in the end, but even then the rabbit hole of locating the actual individuals involved is deep. The best you could do is learn the board members, but that would still leave most of the story untold. It's not a project I'm capable of at any rate.

I feel bad for the journalists, even if on some level many of them are sellouts. They don't have the resources or even the mandate to do what journalists used to, and for the most part when they write about certain topics the best they can do is to repeat the information they're given in their own words. Sometimes you get in-depth analysis, which can be biased or good, but that's not quite 'reporting' even though it's certainly journalism. But the shilling I referred to is principally in regard to the general positions of the company and their willingness to act as an information clearinghouse rather than as a watchdog.
 

If you witnessed a person being abused by their spouse, would you not counsel and encourage them to take action? Would you not provide them with support, both moral and even material? It is not 'handing them a gun' - it is to provide the support necessary for THEM to take the action in their own home. It does not mean you go over there and punch their spouse - it  is about teaching the victim that they don't have to fight back alone.

The analogy is a good enough one for our purposes, because if you have a feeling there is domestic abuse next door you call the police. If you heard yelling and personally went next door, kicked down the door, and shot the abusing spouse you would go down for premeditated murder. Vigilante justice isn't generally condoned in terms of the rule of law, although in a comic-booky sense we can all perhaps sympathize for a 'heroic vigilante' in the case where the corrupt law is fragrantly not protecting people (such as in Gotham City). The difficulty on the world stage is that there is no lawfully mandated "international police" that can go into any nation and enforce 'the law'. So when you hear your Iraqi neighbor being abused, there is no one to call. So does that mean vigilantism is a viable moral/legal option? It's a fine question, and you'd have to ask yourself what America would look like if - as a thought experiment - the police was dissolved and it was every man for himself. Would you like a landscape where the toughest gang would go into your house and beat or kill you if you did something they found reprehensible? You might say "then I won't do anything bad!" but I somehow don't think that would make the scenario seem prettier. I mean, look at The Godfather, which by all accounts is a very accurate depiction of a territory enforced not by rule of law but by gang force. Sonny's brother-in-law was beating up his sister, and after threatening him once the abuse persisted and so Sonny took matters into his own hands, beating the guy senseless. The result of that was, among other things, Sonny eventually being gunned down by another gang, which in turn led to an all-out war amongst the families. This isn't mere story-telling on my part (after all, it was Puzo's), but I think a very instructive tale about what happens when the law consists of the toughest guy around beating up or killing whomever he wants - even if for 'good reasons'.

So the question always remains, what is a reasonable ground for invading or bombing another country? Should there be a set of laws governing this? In the case of the U.S. I would like to think that at least there should be internal laws governing it. In theory wars are declared by the Congress, for instance, even though in practice that's no longer true and military force can be employed unilaterally by the President. Being an opponent of Trump, I should think that you would have a problem with this as well.

I can acknowledge the validity for all manner of ranges of what people think would be justifiable to attack. I sympathize with extreme isolationists or pacifists who think there is never a justification (although I disagree), I sympathize with those who think that only direct self-defence should justify it, and I sympathize with your view, too, that we should be able to protect others from attack based on nothing more than our own consciences. However I also know that there is no "correct" answer here that negates the other ones.

You could scold me for saying "it's none of your business what goes on in someone else's house/country", but as I am interested in all human business, I see it as self-evidently justifiable.

The question (really the only point worth arguing) is what materially supporting activities are warranted, and what crosses the line. The line depends, I think, on the situation at hand.

If you could demonstrate completely honorable intentions then it strengthens the case for the use of force; it becomes a question of the lesser or evils - standing idly by versus doing some killing. Maybe sometimes going in and doing some killing really is the lesser of all evils, and that's fine if that's what's decided.

But using your analogy again, if I see someone advocating to bust in and stop a domestic abuse case, and note that the person advocating for it has a mad crush on the wife in question, suddenly we have a conflict of interest, where removing the husband from the equation advantages the person advocating intervention. And that's the reality in the world, where all the cases we've seen of intervention in other countries magically has direct material benefits to the country, or to private parties within the country, doing the attacking. The former is actually kind of understandable; if you're going to go clean up a mess it's somewhat logical to do so in a manner that advantages you in some way. But it's the latter that is worrisome and also, I think, foremost at the moment, which is private parties using the machinery of government to achieve what they can't achieve as private citizens. Can you imagine how hilarious it would be if the board of Coke requested the FBI to treat the board of Pepsi as terrorists and arrest them and shut down their operation? How convenient that would be for them! So yeah, whenever the use of force is advocated I would say that if the push for that is coming from interested parties it should be scrutinized very heavily before being accepted.

In related news, Tulsi Gabbard has announced she is going to stop accepting PAC/lobbyist money. Aside from the fact that I think she's going to run for President in 2020 or 2024 (and possibly win),  I hope she can help to get the ball rolling on campaign finance reform. My issue with financing military adventures around the world has less to do with the moral implications of using force and more to do with the foxes running the henhouse.

I would like to see the promotion of non-violent methods of working with other countries to improve human rights there, and to work with their governments to try to reduce abuses of their people.

That last sentence may be one of the most naive things I've seen you put to the page. Work WITH despots to try to reduce abuses of their people... gee, what a great idea.  Why didn't I think of just asking Mr. Putin to stop murdering or imprisoning his political opponents?

Again, you'd be surprised how little you need to trust someone like Putin to make political headway. Relations are built through trade and keeping of promises, not through blustering through the media. The more two economies (and peoples) become entwined the more things will naturally settle into an equilibrium without conflict. It's being said that in the modern age war amongst powerful nations is almost unthinkable; and in the cases where it is thinkable, that should be remedied asap in my opinion. Believe me Putin is concerned for the bottom line of his country more so than being a bully. If he feels it's superior strategy to play ball he will do so; he won't throttle his own power just for the fun of it. He wants the Russian economy to have better chances, and if he can get that it will be better for him than being the big fish in a little pond. He's not stupid.

[Fenring]

And sorry everyone for the ridiculously long post.

[godsblackestcrow]

I make no apology for the length of the following, nor for the length of time it took to edit out enough of the assonance to fit the character count limit.
 

 
Seriati:

You write like a literary student using words rather than substance to make your case.  I take issue with that.

I object--on your honor: you issued the substance of this complaint using literally naught but words. But have your way, Master: we will play the foolish Student as you script your play…
 
Pray Teacher, say: what issue have you with the way a literary Pupil words his say? You see no substance in the subtext wordwrights write under the page? Profess, professed Professor: issue us instructions in this issue with which you issue take.
 
Go on, Teach: crack this unruly case--corner a class Fool, raise your rule, beat a black black blue. Run red ink across my page.

Lol.

:lol:
 
(I miss the laughing emoji--the Smiley face which I like to imagine will still be bouncing up and down with laughter through the eternity of the ether... The rumor around parenthetical parts of the underground is that Mod Almighty anathematized that thematic ideogram during the Great Migration, ‘cause of a cacophony of complaints that came in claiming it was being abused by cackling crows with immoderacy unto a degree that was deemed obscene. Thus was lost Laughter, by Moderate Decree. The crows convened, considered the consternation of the Mods, and conspired to  a common cause: caw caw caw caw caw! Seriesly though, I’m glad I’ve got you laughing--that’s almost the entire substance of the subtext in my Ornery interactivity. In truth, I’m too terse of tongue to type out half of a fraction of my whole response to the things I’ve seen you say, but if you could imagine this text:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

...only doubled up, time and time again, just rolling all the way down the page, it might give you some sense of the fully sincere appreciation I’m inclined to express to my dying breath at the way you sometimes say your sway. Seriesly: if you’ll read the above text aloud, aspirating each H and vocalizing each assonant A, while picturing a crazy man who's staring at a screen in an otherwise empty room, seizing with laughter, for days--just hooting and cackling away--then you may get an idea of how happy it makes me to hear that you’re laughing too…lol.)

You clearly know little about law.

Caw caw caw.
 
We concurse: what I know is so sleightly versed, it might be contra legem

A public claim can not be evidence of collusion.

Oh, no? So--in your esteemed judgment--nothing said in public can be used against criminal conspirators in a court of law?
 
What an arresting claim.
 
Wouldn’t that make it impossible to convict a conspirator of committing collusion on the basis of evidence in the form of a public confession?

I get that District court judges have so ruled, an interesting Precedent - in my view unlikely to hold, may even be reversed by the liberal 9th Circuit.  And why?  Cause the flip side of it risks every the left holds dear, empowering everyone of the district judges to overrule facially legal rules because of what a politician once said exposes everything.
 
Think about it, Texas court bans all payments - Nationwide - to Planned Parenthood because of what a politician said in writing the bill that funds them and inputs that the bill was to fund abortion (illegal) despite that it doesn't do so facially.
 

Lol! That’s some Seriesly sophisticated reasoning. One almost cannot contend but that you prove your point, so adroitly have you considered both sides of things--this is nigh undeniably Principled Print dripping off of your pen, start to end.
 
Then again: take a second look at the sophistically-worded way you sort of sidestepped from the substance in this case (the stated fact of present precedent in Rule of Law in the question of whether the court will consider the campaign statements of the present President as evidence of what is evident), to a confabulate a far-fetched forecast of a fictive future in which the facts are more favorable to your favored point of view than they happen to be in present reality. Id est, it is noted that when the present state of facts doesn’t support your case, you just conjure up alternative facts to speculate into the conjectural record, to proclaim your point will prevail, as soon as your pretext takes shape.

Rejoicing in a nonsense standard that has district court judges replace the President's decision making with their own personal opinions is directly contrary to the rule of law,

Lol. Lookit--I’m sure your Ornery record shows that you’ve been an uncompromisingly consistent supporter of the unjudgeable, uninfringeable right of a President to rule by Executive Actions, across the years, Ser.
 
But please do note that you shifted the subject here from the original substance--the question of what will constitute evidence of our present President’s motives in the eyes of the courts--to a separate argument in which you appear to be defending the idea of federal government privileges over state rights (nowadays, for the present case, anyways). I’m not inclined to comment on my perception of any internal consistency I may or may not see in the new line of argument you conjecture, but I will observe that your answer has nearly nothing to do with the substance of the point to which you were responding. Regardless of whether or not (in the end) your team gets to abuse the power of the executive pen the way it has been getting abused by recent presidents, the precedent of using anything a criminal says against him in court is likely to remain established law.
 
In other words: you can deny that a man means what he said he meant until you’re literarily red in the face, but what a man says that he means will still be read in as evidence of what the man meant, by anyone not seeing too red to read what I mean.

Ahh... so it's foulest treachery when the Russian's hack the DNC or Hillary and reveal that they have been lying to the American population and directly manipulating the Presidential election

Nah...the foulest treachery is committed by biased partisans who pretend to have principles while they bend their ethics one way to catch crooks who aren’t on their team, and then bend their ethics the other way defending crooks who are on their side.

Holding however, the Trump admin responsible to a political standard, while exculpating the Clinton campaign on a legal standard is rank hypocrisy. Colluding with CNN to influence an election is FAR more likely to have an impact than colluding with the Russians would.  Whether Russian hackers, US hackers or some poor kid working for the DNC who mysteriously ended up murdered in a robbery where nothing was stolen, revealed a secret shouldn't make a bit of difference to your level of outrage, yet it only matters to the Dems if the Russians did it.

I’m sorry--you were pointing out my partisan hypocrisy, and you lost me in your haste to get to your party: remind me where I exculpated Clinton of anything?

What makes you think that was a personal comment?

Mostly the fact that your script was responsive of my cited text...but I also read the second person possessive pronoun you slipped in toward the end of the part I quoted as a hint...
 
(I don’t take offence, though, because I know I’m known to overstep the boundary--I’m just noting that you seem to be just as guilty of a libelously liberal use of the literary “ye” as me. Dost see?)
 
At any rate, whatever your aim, do note that your blindside is ever the same. Tell me: how goes the deluded propaganda campaign partisan hypocrites like Hannity are slandering all over Seth Rich’s grave?

If--nine years ago--Obama had publicly asked Cuba to commit espionage against McCain while on the campaign trail, and then Wikileaks released a load of stolen internal communications from the Republican campaign,...

If that had occurred, we'd still, nine years later be seeing new stories in the MSM detrimental to the Republicans from either direct quotes in the email or "meta analysis" proving some version of the Republicans are racist...

Nah. Republicans proved themselves racist way back when--in reality--they pushed a paranoid conspiracy narrative that the last President was born in Africa (with no reasonable cause excepting for the fact that the color of his skin raised racist Republican suspicions that he was a Manchurian Muslim Nigerian).
 
I’m sure you right-minded Republicans are all over the record vehemently defending Obama against that racist Republican hoax, though (just like I believe you when you say you would have been defending Obama from liars on the conservative Fake News airways, had he sold American foreign policy promises to Cuba in exchange for a little espionage to help him beat McCain, in the hypothetical case).

Did I miss where McCain actually committed a federal crime and the Bush administration refused to prosecute?  Where there was a secret meeting between two planes on a tarmac where the head of the Justice Department met secretly with McCain's wife

I’m fine with you fitting such script into my analogy, if you feel you need it there to follow along without froth at your lip (believe it or not, I initially banged out something sorta similar to your exact bit, but I bit it back in the edit, with a boatload of bombast, because it browbeat the issue til the beat didn’t fit…)
 
In such a case--to be honest--I confess I suspect I would probably find it hard to find McCain guilty of high crimes--even if there were evidence that he intentionally subverted national security protocols, and then obstructed attempts to investigate the evidence...mostly because he’s John *censored*ing McCain, and his history of service gives him patriotism credit in my book which I don’t extend to the rest of these popularity clowns. (As for the rest, the gist of my jest suggests that the guillotine is the only machine in history made just to measure off the height of Treachery in the High Crimes of any King or Queen--but I’d be fine here if we slightly spite the legacy of Liberty, and just lock ‘em both up, and throw away the key. As I understand it, the latter is lately established ornery American political idiomese.)
 
In any case, you do get that your bias is showing when you can’t follow the rhetorical direction of an analogy for fixating on subsidiary substance in a purely partisan way?  Why is it that you Orangey Americans are so intent on maligning McCain, anyways?

and then our National Security apparatus publicly announced that Cuba had been behind the leak in an act of espionage specifically targeting Republicans in order to influence our election…

And then failed to ever put forward actual proof of the fact, while actual questions about whether their claim was politically motivated in the first place persist?

By these “actual questions” I assume you mean <treasonously partisan> queries which were openly questioning whether the US national security apparatus were the real enemy of America, not “Cuba,” in such a case?
 
Such red herring queries--hypothetically--would probably just be Partisanship unto Treachery, Seriati--no matter what you Orange-Kool-Aid-drinking partisans may have non-hypothetically convinced yourselves (and most of the purple sheep, apparently) an alternative reality might be...
 
Unless, of course, such hypothetical questions came along with some substance of evidence that individuals in our national security agencies really were criminally conspiring to deceive the American people on such an issue, for purely political purposes. Feel free to script that “analogy” for me. 
 
In other words, Teach: put some substance into these treasonous conspiracies of all your allusively worded speech! The posture of your print presumes that your political opponents must proffer proof in an arrangement conforming to the proper pattern of a prosecutorial arraignment, lest what they say be used against them to convict on counts of Bias, Partisanship, and Hypocrisy in your book of judgment, but then you turn right around and postulate purely partisan paranoid propaganda that our national security agents went rogue and conspired to commit mysterious crimes against America--all on the basis of pretty much nothing but what you presumably read in your alt-right/KGB-troll-factory Fake News feed.
 
What is the composition of this Orange Kool Aid?

If you want to play this game, play it straight, cause throwing down a pre-judged version of nonsense that doesn't matched what happened just proves a bias on your part to me.

:lol:
 
Let me straighten you out, Ser, it seems you’ve mistaken our game. The part that we play remains ever the same, it’s every fool’s favorite, this script even is named--we fools call this folly: The Hypocrisy Game. You should know: you called this roll call, wrote our roles, and rolled curtain on our play...
 
We’ve been reading the way you’ve been writing blame--typing out terms like “bias” “partisan” and holy “hypocrisy,” as if you weren’t the hypocritest cat to scratch out slant always the same. You claim I’ve proved my bias, eh? And Seriesly: you want me to spit a straight game?
 

 
(Caw caw caw! Hear me clear my craw, don’t you know Imma crow?)
 
Straight up then (since we’re saying, you know?)--here’s what your proven part is on the level I’m reading you, yo:
 
Your book reads so red, it’s clear you’ve never read what you write right, cuz you can’t start a sentence straight--you’ve always left off reading right before you even get to the left half of the page! You’re so biased toward recto, you pen that part onto paper like it makes you erect, yo, and you’re literally averse to verso: I heard from the birds you “take issue” with subtext because you see that it’s what’s left underneath the partisan part of print you read every time you turn a page! Everybody knows the way you write is: never not right--only always in the wrong way!
 
You’ve proven yourself so slanted, when people tell you to get bent, their intent is only to set you straight! You sound so partisan, you’re like that guy who always parties on so hard that he talks sideways and clearly can’t see straight! Seriesly, you look more biased than the backside of Siamese twins who are joined at the hip--you partisan-parted double-wide hip o’ crit’ writ!
 
(Why you even step, child? You’re such a redhead, you’re bound catch a beatdown! Don’t be sore, you’re just ginger--ya know?)
 
Don’t get me wrong, Seriesly: I’m just trying to follow the substance of your lecture the way I’m reading it. The way I see it,  you’re so blatantly right, you’re unusually welcome Ornery.
 

[godsblackestcrow]

Jason:

Julian Assange I have heard of too and when he says the data was leaked from the DNC I believe him and I don't believe the lying CIA.

It should be noted that when we say "y"all," we're really not talking to all of youse. After all, what is traitorous slander for the American Gander, is just quackery, coming from a Canadian Goose.



Everybody lies. I believe what people say is truth when they provide proof.

[Pete at Home]

Thanks for floating the name Tulsi Gabbard.  Jacobin hates her, which is a strong point in her favor as a liberal.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party

She’s opposed US intervention in Syria since 2013, air strikes in Iraq, and arms sales to Saudi Arabia. She backed Sanders in the Democratic primary because of Clinton’s record of supporting “interventionist regime change wars.”

All of this has created the impression that Gabbard, unlike much of the Democratic Party, is antiwar.

She’s not.

Gabbard’s objections to US wars spring not from a concern for those parts of the world the US military bombs and invades, but exclusively from a concern about the Americans who fight them. As she told Truthout in 2012, her own military service in Iraq and Kuwait “changed my life completely” and revealed the “tremendous cost of war,” recounting the daily casualties and injuries to US troop she saw when she was deployed in a medical unit.

“The cost of war impacts all of us — both in the human cost and the cost that’s being felt frankly in places like Flint, Michigan, where families and children are devastated and destroyed by completely failed infrastructure because of lack of investment,” she told Glamour magazine in March last year.

This also formed the thrust of her speech at 2012’s (particularly militaristic) DNC, where she told the crowd, “As a combat veteran, I know the costs of war. The sacrifices made by our troops and our military families are immeasurable.”

There’s nothing wrong, of course, with expressing empathy for the soldiers who are sent to fight, lose limbs, and die in wars of choice launched by their political leaders. The suffering they and their families endure is heartbreaking, especially considering that many join the military because they lack any other economic opportunities. And the money spent on wars abroad would surely be better used on infrastructure at home.

But Gabbard’s almost singular focus on the damage these wars inflict domestically, and her comparative lack of focus on the carnage they wreak in the countries under attack, is troubling.

heaven forbid that an elected American political leader should focus the attention of her speeches towards the benefit of her constituents!  What twit wrote this?  She's speaking to her voters so she brings them the issues as they affect those voters.  It's called Representation, you Jacobin twinkies!

Oh.  She's a friend of Modi?  Ew.  Hate to go with Jacobin on anything, but Modi's a hard pill to swallow.  Don't think burning innocent Muslims alive is a good way to fight terror.

@Prometheus-eatingCrow -- Crows caw, ducks quack, and geese honk.

[godsblackestcrow]

Crows caw, ducks quack, and geese honk.

...and the wise owl hoots...



But keep to cover when you espy the darkest wings alighting from the sky--it's said that Zeus' eagle can rend the heavens with its screech...

[Fenring]

Here's some more fake news for you. Remember that claim being painted all over the media that Trump 'leaked' information to Russia about the ISIS laptop plot, and that this enraged Israeli intelligence because the U.S. had promised to keep the source a secret, and that supposedly betraying that trust compromised Israeli agents? This was a big deal to everyone reporting it.

Well here's a report from the NYT about where that intel actually came from:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/world/middleeast/isis-cyber.html?_r=0

Even one of the rare successes against the Islamic State belongs at least in part to Israel, which was America’s partner in the attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Top Israeli cyberoperators penetrated a small cell of extremist bombmakers in Syria months ago, the officials said. That was how the United States learned that the terrorist group was working to make explosives that fooled airport X-ray machines and other screening by looking exactly like batteries for laptop computers.

The intelligence was so exquisite that it enabled the United States to understand how the weapons could be detonated, according to two American officials familiar with the operation. The information helped prompt a ban in March on large electronic devices in carry-on luggage on flights from 10 airports in eight Muslim-majority countries to the United States and Britain.

So it was in fact a hacking operation that landed them the intel, not agents on the inside or anyone else who could be compromised. Unless I've misunderstood something it appears that the outrage over this was simply about Trump telling Russia, not about anyone being compromised or endangered. As a diplomatic decision maybe Trump blundered (I have no idea either way), but in terms of screwing up Israeli intelligence efforts, nope; fake news.

edit: I changed the source to NYT since my original source was just quoting them.

[TheDrake]

Going back to the original wire report from Reuters, I see (edited for relevance, I just don't feel like making different quote blocks).

Israeli intelligence experts are gravely concerned that U.S. President Donald Trump's sharing of classified information with Russia may have compromised an Israeli agent, but don't expect any long-term consequences for intelligence cooperation.

Israeli intelligence experts said they could not confirm whether an Israeli asset was the source. But they said Israel had developed a deep network of human and signal intelligence across the region and it was plausible that it had managed to infiltrate Islamic State as part of that long-running effort.

"Israeli intelligence agencies have shown that they can have such human sources," said Aviv Oreg, former head of the Al Qaeda and global jihad desk in the army's military intelligence department, who now runs a counter-terrorism consultancy.

"It would take a lot to put someone inside ISIS. If there is an agent, I'm sure it's the only one. If we have really lost a human source over there, it's a major loss and it will take years to regenerate another one," he said.

"Israel will be furious about it," he added, highlighting that it was likely to have implications for how Israel operates its human intelligence assets more broadly, and may make others unwilling to cooperate with it in the future.

So, this wasn't some unnamed made up source. I assume Aviv Oreg is a legitimate authority on Israeli intelligence, and the piece does indeed talk about hypotheticals. If, may, could, might.

From what I can tell, a lot of blogosphere outlets picked up the furious quote, probably out of context in most cases.

One of my favorites, the times of israel, we get a headline

‘Horrified’ Israeli intel officials ‘were shouting at US counterparts’ over Trump leak

But they also have some sources, obviously nobody active or present in the room, but they aren't made up people giving comments.

Shabtai Shavit, who led the Mossad in the 1990s, said that were he in charge of the intelligence organization today, he would not be inclined to share more information with his American counterparts. “If tomorrow I were asked to pass information to the CIA, I would do everything I could to not pass it to them. Or I would first protect myself and only then give it, and what I’d give would be totally neutered,” Shavit told The Times of Israel on Wednesday. “If some smart guy decides that he’s allowed to leak information, then your partners in cooperation will be fewer or just won’t be at all,” he warned.

Danny Yatom, another ex-Mossad boss, told an Israeli radio station that if reports were accurate, Trump likely caused “heavy damage” to Israeli and American security.

So nobody made this up out of whole cloth. There are a lot of if's that people were probably incapable of hearing. And at the end of the day, it sounds like the fact that intelligence was shared is confirmed, and that Israel most likely didn't want it shared regardless if they were named or not.

In terms of screwing up Israeli efforts, I wouldn't say that's not true. The Russians are now aware of an elint capability that Israel might have preferred not to reveal - and not just the Russians but others. Because this didn't stay behind closed doors, did it? So now Iran knows of that capability.

If you saw other reports than me that made unqualified, wrong claims, then I'd change my mind.

[Fenring]

Drake, it's all well to point out which parts of the narrative being put forward were true, but that's what propaganda tends to be: bits of truth mixed up with made-up innuendo and sometimes outright lies. I was hearing rhetoric referring to Trump "endangering" lives of intelligence agents, which indeed was based on innuendo that never had any scrap of truth to it. The quote above should qualify, knowing what we know now, as a probable knowing falsehood; at best, a very misleading statement.

It's true they could have gone with "Trump chooses to disregard Israel's request" and left it at that. It would have been a minor, but legitimate, blemish on him. But no - they got greedy and wanted to make him out to be a traitor to his allies.

And so we go back to what the story really was all along: Israel throws a hissy fit because they didn't want Russia to be told what they learned. You'd think any reasonable report might inquire about why information on stopping terrorists shouldn't be shared with absolutely everyone, to say nothing of a nation on the security council. I guess America isn't ready for "good guy Trump helps Russians prevent terror attacks despite tensions in Syria." I'm not saying that's the entirety of the story, but it's telling that it isn't even being presented as a part of it at all. What Trump did is still a diplomatic gaff.

[JoshCrow]

Fenring, your supposition is made moot by a single line of that self-same NYT report.

It was also part of the classified intelligence that President Trump is accused of revealing

Moreover, while cyber espionage CAN be conducted without assets on the ground, they sure help. I don't know how you can rule that out summarily. If there is an insider who is enabling the backdoor into the bombmakers that would indeed be an asset who is now endangered. And, either way, this is an intelligence operation that has been compromised, even without such an agent.

Your claim of "fake news" is weak sauce.

[Seriati]

JoshCrow, if you're going to highlight "part of" why not highlight "accused"?  Who is making this accusation?  Has it been confirmed by anyone?  In fact, the only official comments on it have stated that what he revealed was appropriate have they not?

[TheDrake]

And so we go back to what the story really was all along: Israel throws a hissy fit because they didn't want Russia to be told what they learned. You'd think any reasonable report might inquire about why information on stopping terrorists shouldn't be shared with absolutely everyone, to say nothing of a nation on the security council. I guess America isn't ready for "good guy Trump helps Russians prevent terror attacks despite tensions in Syria." I'm not saying that's the entirety of the story, but it's telling that it isn't even being presented as a part of it at all. What Trump did is still a diplomatic gaff.

Wouldn't that be putting an undeserved slant on it? Israelis were telling news organizations that they would be throwing a fit. So they reported that Israeli reaction was that of a fit. Mitigating that would be less responsible, IMO. Another way to put it would have been "Trump can't keep big mouth shut.", but that would have been a bit much, although super partisans like CNN surely came close.

In a thread titled "Fake News Lie", I think this doesn't pass muster. If the point was "Biased News Reporting" there's a lot more ground.

[Seriati]

Wouldn't that be putting an undeserved slant on it?

Of course, but its the slant it would have had if Obama had done it isn't it?  I mean honestly, imagine the reporting by this media if Trump had a plane load of cash delivered to Iran.  Or did the Tango in Cuba, taking many ackward and naive photos while a major terrorist attack hit an ally.  Can you even imagine how the media would react?  It'd be like Christmas in June.

Israelis were telling news organizations that they would be throwing a fit.

Were the Israelis calling the NYT and saying they would pitch a fit?  Or was it the other way around, with the Times calling every Israeli official they could find, telling them that Trump had released super duper secret information including the names of their spies (whether or true or not) and pestering them for a reaction?  What was the official Israeli response again?

So they reported that Israeli reaction was that of a fit. Mitigating that would be less responsible, IMO. Another way to put it would have been "Trump can't keep big mouth shut.", but that would have been a bit much, although super partisans like CNN surely came close.

Another way to handle it would have been to ask the White House about unconfirmed reports that Trump had revealed secret information to the Russians.  Rather than deliberately trying to undermine the US-Israeli relationship by publishing exaggerated rumors.

In a thread titled "Fake News Lie", I think this doesn't pass muster. If the point was "Biased News Reporting" there's a lot more ground.

No I think Fenring is correct.  Propaganda is effective because it always contains some elements of true, that's what defenders retreat to when questioned, when they attack they add the full force of the made up and speculative.

Turning a non-story into a story is literally fake news.

[Fenring]

No I think Fenring is correct.  Propaganda is effective because it always contains some elements of true, that's what defenders retreat to when questioned, when they attack they add the full force of the made up and speculative.

Turning a non-story into a story is literally fake news.

That was pretty much my point. In this case it's not that there was literally no story, but that the real story wasn't all that sensational and so they spiced it up. 'Biased news' would be the fact that in helping Russia it's framed as being an act of betrayal of Israel rather than an act of friendship to Russia. The 'fake' part, to me, is the insertion of "may have compromised" and so forth with regard to Israeli agents. It's not enough of a lie to be called "false" but also needs pass no standard to be called "true". Including those vague insinuations with the rest is why I called it 'fake news', but really propaganda is the better word, if a bit cliche. I put it here since there isn't a "fake news that should properly be called soft deceptive propaganda" thread.

[TheDrake]

I guess we'll just have to agree it is a matter of opinion. If you assume that news organizations are having secret interviews, cherry picking results, then nothing I can present will matter.

These aren't random officials that got quoted, they included former Mossad chiefs, and they were told to Israeli news sources, not CNN or NY Times.

“What Trump did is liable to cause heavy damage to Israel’s security, as well as the source, and U.S. security,’’ Danny Yatom, a former chief of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, told a Tel Aviv radio station. “Especially if this information reaches our good friends, the Iranians.”

This started being a story in the Israeli press around the inauguration. The concern voiced was that anything the US shared with Russia could wind up in the hands of Iran. The gaffe just set off the chain of events.

[Seriati]

I guess we'll just have to agree it is a matter of opinion. If you assume that news organizations are having secret interviews, cherry picking results, then nothing I can present will matter.

What's secret?  How do you think they get quotes?   They call everyone they can think of official or non-official and share whatever tidbits they think are most likely to generate a response.  They have extensive lists of contacts will to comment on the record and off, I bet you they even have them sorted by their political and other views.

These aren't random officials that got quoted, they included former Mossad chiefs, and they were told to Israeli news sources, not CNN or NY Times.

Maybe I haven't looked at them closely enough, most of the quotes I've seen from them include statements like, "if he told them that, then.." which make it clear they were told something by the reporters and speculated.  Did you see quotes from people with actual knowledge from internal rather than media sources?

[TheDrake]

They call people favorable to them, of course. When they can't get someone with weight, they say "a senior official" or "an unnamed source" which is why I've come to ignore any such quotes.

The people who would present an alternate point of view are likely so mistrustful that they aren't going to answer anyway.

The quote you just read demonstrates very little equivocation. It is still mostly opinion, would you suggest that nobody should report on general sentiment of knowledgeable people?

Here it is again:

“What Trump did is liable to cause heavy damage to Israel’s security, as well as the source, and U.S. security,’’ Danny Yatom, a former chief of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, told a Tel Aviv radio station. “Especially if this information reaches our good friends, the Iranians.”

What would your headline be if you picked up that quote on the wire?

Surely you don't believe this is so minor that it shouldn't have been reported.

[Fenring]

I guess we'll just have to agree it is a matter of opinion. If you assume that news organizations are having secret interviews, cherry picking results, then nothing I can present will matter.

Wait, you don't think news organizations cherry pick results? Are you telling me they'll print literally anything they hear, boring or not, important or not? Rather, I think you should be able to agree that the entire raison d'etre of a news organization is to cherry pick results so as to be able to present a story worthy of attention. That by itself isn't the problem. The problem is cherry picking with an eye strictly toward ratings and making copy, rather than an eye towards informing people of fact they should know. Even if we put aside pushing specific narratives and only ascribe all of this to whoring for ratings, that alone would incentivize fishing around for juicy scandals such as endangering Israeli agents.

“What Trump did is liable to cause heavy damage to Israel’s security, as well as the source, and U.S. security,’’ Danny Yatom, a former chief of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, told a Tel Aviv radio station. “Especially if this information reaches our good friends, the Iranians.”

This started being a story in the Israeli press around the inauguration. The concern voiced was that anything the US shared with Russia could wind up in the hands of Iran. The gaffe just set off the chain of events.

Look at that quote from Yatom again and tell me how it damages Israel for Iran to learn about the ISIS laptop scheme. It's a defensive piece of intel, about foiling a terror plot. Or is there some other secret piece of intel Trump shared? If so, how do the people giving sound bites know about it, unless they, too, are privy to classified info they shouldn't be? And by leaking to the press that intel they shouldn't know about has been given to Russia, are they not, too, betraying their country by speaking about it on the record? I think it's fairly clear that statements such as the one above are purely speculative and are meant as general political statements. I'll give the general formula: Iran is bad, Russia works with Iran, and anything good Russia gets helps Iran, which hurts us. It doesn't even matter what is given to Russia, Israeli intelligence would call it dangerous to them and helpful to Iran.

[TheDrake]

Isn't it obvious? When Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, them knowing the technique is compromised would be problematic.

And whether you agree with the concern or not is up to you. Personally, I'd prefer both Iran and Russia learn as little as possible about Western intelligence.

[Pete at Home]

And so we go back to what the story really was all along: Israel throws a hissy fit because they didn't want Russia to be told what they learned. You'd think any reasonable report might inquire about why information on stopping terrorists shouldn't be shared with absolutely everyone, to say nothing of a nation on the security council. I guess America isn't ready for "good guy Trump helps Russians prevent terror attacks despite tensions in Syria." I'm not saying that's the entirety of the story, but it's telling that it isn't even being presented as a part of it at all. What Trump did is still a diplomatic gaff.

Wouldn't that be putting an undeserved slant on it? Israelis were telling news organizations that they would be throwing a fit. So they reported that Israeli reaction was that of a fit. Mitigating that would be less responsible, IMO. Another way to put it would have been "Trump can't keep big mouth shut.", but that would have been a bit much, although super partisans like CNN surely came close.

In a thread titled "Fake News Lie", I think this doesn't pass muster. If the point was "Biased News Reporting" there's a lot more ground.

Biased news spins.  Fake news misinforms.  Here, the story misinforms the public.  People have been led to believe that Trump has put Israeli agents physically at risk.  It's pure sophistry and technicality to try to distinguish that sort of deception from fake news.

[D.W.]

One of the VERY FIRST things I read when this came up was that Israel would make a bigger deal out of this than it strictly warranted in order to gain currency to spend elsewhere when it comes to getting Trump to see things their way. 

While that opinion is possibly tin-foil hattery, it's also just as plausible as intentional miss-characterization by the press in order to mislead the reader/viewer.

[Pete at Home]

One of the VERY FIRST things I read when this came up was that Israel would make a bigger deal out of this than it strictly warranted in order to gain currency to spend elsewhere when it comes to getting Trump to see things their way. 

While that opinion is possibly tin-foil hattery, it's also just as plausible as intentional miss-characterization by the press in order to mislead the reader/viewer.

True that!  Certainly they followed that strategy with Obama, with collaboration of the conservative press.  It will be fun to watch 3 more years of anti-semitic and left wing reporters swallowing their bile and crying for poor little misunderstood Netanyahu.

[Seriati]

“What Trump did is liable to cause heavy damage to Israel’s security, as well as the source, and U.S. security,’’ Danny Yatom, a former chief of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, told a Tel Aviv radio station. “Especially if this information reaches our good friends, the Iranians.”

What would your headline be if you picked up that quote on the wire?

I'd investigate it like a good journalist.  Danny's been retired from politics for almost 10 years, and left Mossad over 15 years ago.  Is it possible he's still an inside source?  Maybe, but most likely not.

What was the context, Danny called into a radio program, no idea if he's a regular analyst of if this was a one time thing.

What does "What Trump did" refer to exactly?  I've not seen one quote that says want Danny meant by that, or that even explains what the radio program attributed to Trump prior to Danny's quote.

Do you have any actual information?  Cause what I see is a title with a convenient phrase being thrown at the back end of articles that are rampant speculation from other unnamed sources.  Do you see any instance where that is not the case?

Surely you don't believe this is so minor that it shouldn't have been reported.

Actually I guaranty it would not have been reported if Obama was in the White House.  The leak would never have occurred.  The NYT would never have run the story if it had occurred.  No one would have cared what a retired man in Israel told a radio host.

[Fenring]

One of the VERY FIRST things I read when this came up was that Israel would make a bigger deal out of this than it strictly warranted in order to gain currency to spend elsewhere when it comes to getting Trump to see things their way. 

While that opinion is possibly tin-foil hattery, it's also just as plausible as intentional miss-characterization by the press in order to mislead the reader/viewer.

Oh, I don't think it's tinfoil hat territory to suggest countries make hay out of minor things for publicity. That seems to me almost a given, to the point where I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. I don't think this 'fake news' item was the result of some coordinated conspiracy. It was Israel making a fuss to continue making their case against Russia and Iran (painting themselves as a victim), and taking the opportunity to stick it to Trump, who I assume isn't quite catering to them as much as is desired. On the American side of things the press loves an opportunity to make a big story out of a minor one, and of course it's free ratings to simultaneously ride the crest of a meme like Trump Is Bad.

The best part is that both parties have a built-in insurance policy when peddling stories like this. On the Israeli side it's not like you have swarms of people praising Iran and Russia, and so there's a pre-existing confirmation bias in favor of believing that anything good for those countries is bad for everyone else. On the American side the insurance is that even though a story about Trump may be overblown, the result is that something making him look somewhat worse than he actually is won't spark outrage among the NYT readers. They are already predisposed to hate anything Trump does, so an exaggerated case of him doing a bad thing won't generate blowback from the readership about the honesty of NYT reporting (just for example, you can take CNN or others just as easily). They will not so readily admit that something he did was vaguely bad but not as bad as they thought; credit isn't given in that direction freely.

[Pete at Home]

“What Trump did is liable to cause heavy damage to Israel’s security, as well as the source, and U.S. security,’’ Danny Yatom, a former chief of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, told a Tel Aviv radio station. “Especially if this information reaches our good friends, the Iranians.”

What would your headline be if you picked up that quote on the wire?

I'd investigate it like a good journalist.  Danny's been retired from politics for almost 10 years, and left Mossad over 15 years ago.  Is it possible he's still an inside source?  Maybe, but most likely not.

What was the context, Danny called into a radio program, no idea if he's a regular analyst of if this was a one time thing.

What does "What Trump did" refer to exactly?  I've not seen one quote that says want Danny meant by that, or that even explains what the radio program attributed to Trump prior to Danny's quote.

Do you have any actual information?  Cause what I see is a title with a convenient phrase being thrown at the back end of articles that are rampant speculation from other unnamed sources.  Do you see any instance where that is not the case?

Surely you don't believe this is so minor that it shouldn't have been reported.

Actually I guaranty it would not have been reported if Obama was in the White House.  The leak would never have occurred.  The NYT would never have run the story if it had occurred.  No one would have cared what a retired man in Israel told a radio host.

Breitbary would have run it all over facebook until Fox picked it up.

[Seriati]

Interesting compare and contrast in the world of fake news:

Donald Trump apparently took a meeting that originated from the following email teaser:

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.  The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father

Which, if true, would have been actual evidence of a crime by Hillary.  Surprise surprise he agreed to take the meeting, as would anyone in any campaign in the history of the US (including the Clinton campaign - not a speculation see below).  Meanwhile, this is not in any way a crime, it's literally not.  So how did the press react?  8 stories from CNN leading their feed, not a one of which is anything close to neutral or accurate.  NYT "broke" the "story" and was negative all day. 

Heck Tim Kaine claims to believe this rises to the level of treason (notwithstanding it fails to meet any reasonable standard for treason:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/tim-kaine-donald-trump-jr/

And for comparison, lest we forget, the Clinton campaign was intimately involved in the production of the fake Trump dossier that was generated by a foreign agent, with whom they had contact, which was also linked to Russian intelligence, yet I didn't see Kaine turn himself in for treason.  Not to mention, they actually took the materials from the foreign agents and distributed them to the media. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/19/is-russiagate-really-hillarygate/#71c49baf5cf6

Nothing to see here, no fake news.  lol, yeah right.

[D.W.]

First, Jr. not President Trump.

And while I agree there does need to be a way to get that info to light, it is indeed a "no no".  That doesn't mean you aren't correct about anyone taking that meeting.  Or, if they were smarter about it, having someone do so for them keeping their hands clean.   

I think the biggest part of the issue is how vehemently they've denied ANY contact with ANYONE related to Russia.  And, while not all that significant (though this one seems obvious to me as testing to see if the bait works) in content, it's the fact they all managed to forget or decided for themselves that these encounters didn't matter and could therefore be answered in a negative, because, actually airing the contacts may... give someone the wrong idea?  That's the true "WTF were you thinking?" part of this and, IMO why it's a scandal.  This campaign is establishing a pattern of deciding the rules (and possibly the law) doesn't apply to them, and has zero issue with changing their story as more info is uncovered.

It's not that anything all that damning has come out (that wasn't obvious to anyone with a clue already) it's how ineptly they are handling this relatively innocent (so far) stuff.  Even this rather juicy piece of info wouldn't have been a big deal if he had disclosed it when he was suppose to.  I mean, it wouldn't have been good, but it could have been handled / spun by any campaign / admin with their *censored* together. 

That aside, if you do want to play the "but look at the other side!" game, you've got a good tool in Hillary.   

[DonaldD]

Which, if true, would have been actual evidence of a crime by Hillary.

There are so many things wrong with this post that it is hard to know where to start... but maybe with hearsay.

"If true", at best, this would have only been evidence that the author of the email was told there was "information that would incriminate Hillary". Of course, the word "incriminate" could mean any number of things not even legally proscribed, the word itself might have been either directly quoted or just paraphrased, and we already know the email is not 100% accurate, because Russia is not a monarchy. The meeting as described by Trump junior, if he is to be believed, just illustrates the fact that hearsay is not the nail either a prosecutor or the press should hang their hat on when making a case.  A news organization that had made any such claim or even insinuation about Clinton based purely on that email would have then needed to make a retraction and correction later in the same day.

So no, the email in itself is not even weak evidence of any bad actions on Clinton's part, and it would have been irresponsible to make claims about Clinton purely based on the contents of that email.  I would like to say I am shocked that anybody here would even suggest that the media should have used that email as the only basis on which to write a story suggesting bad actions by Clinton - unfortunately, I'm not.

The one thing that the email is evidence of, is that Trump junior was told that a Russian government official - a representative of an adversarial foreign state - had offered to provide the Trump campaign with information that might "incriminate" the campaign's political opponent, a candidate for president.

[Gaoics79]

Donald, you know I actually don't have a problem with that. I don't see anything criminal or even unethical about meeting with a foreign agent to see evidence he claims to have incriminating an adversary. Paying for this information or promising favours *if* the information was actually used - maybe. But just meeting and listening? I just can't bring myself to care. Seems like another dud story to me. The Dems should keep at it. I'm sure something good will turn up eventually. The great thing about Trump is he keeps giving you more chances.

[Seriati]

Just to put this in perspective, this morning the CBS morning show was stating that these emails are proof that the Russian government supported the Trump campaign.  Anyone able to follow that logic leap?

What we have is a Russian lawyer, who used false promises to get in front of Trump Jr. to advocate for something else entirely.  Where is the Russian government in that?  Does Panetta's clicking on a phishing scam represent substantive proof that he was working with the fake "security" company that sent the phishing email?

And on this idea that the Trumps have said they never talked to the Russians.  Talk about revisionist history.  There is no one who lives in NYC who does not talk to Russians, there are 600,000 Russian Americans living in NYC alone.  They didn't have contact with the Russian government, though if this meeting had been legitimate maybe that would have changed.

And, important point, talking to Russian people is not illegal.  Talking to members of the Russian government is not illegal.  Getting position papers, even dirt from the Russians, government or otherwise is not illegal.  It's a farce to even claim its unethical against a backdrop where both sides  retain entire people to dig up dirt, any dirt, from any source and use it.

First, Jr. not President Trump.

Correct, sorry dropped the Junior.

And while I agree there does need to be a way to get that info to light, it is indeed a "no no".  That doesn't mean you aren't correct about anyone taking that meeting.  Or, if they were smarter about it, having someone do so for them keeping their hands clean.   

It's literally not a no no.  Prior to Trump, the idea that a politician or their proxies wouldn't take that meeting would never occur to you.  In fact, every single politician on the left would still take that meeting if the contact said they could provide damaging info on Trump.  Not one would turn it down.

I think the biggest part of the issue is how vehemently they've denied ANY contact with ANYONE related to Russia.

See prior note.  This is a huge goal post shift.  It's been 100% clear from day one that they've denied actual contact or coordination with the Russian government.  Even this contact was not purported to be with the government, or even necessarily to reveal anything illegal.

That's the true "WTF were you thinking?" part of this and, IMO why it's a scandal.

They were thinking that part of a every single campaign in America for the last 200 years is digging up dirt on your opponent and that every single politician or their proxies would take this meeting.  WTF are you thinking, buying into the media pretending this is novel or shocking?

This campaign is establishing a pattern of deciding the rules (and possibly the law) doesn't apply to them, and has zero issue with changing their story as more info is uncovered.

The only campaign is the media's relentless drive to paint this group as acting outside the ordinary, when so far there is literally no evidence that they are doing even as much as the Clinton campaign (remember, we have actual proof the Clinton campaign and the DNC colluded with various parties to manipulate the election, but ooh Trump scary!).

Even this rather juicy piece of info wouldn't have been a big deal if he had disclosed it when he was suppose to.

Out of curiosity what should the disclosure have been?  I have never seen any politicians disclosure of their investigation teams efforts, did I miss it?

In this case, would the disclosure have looked like this?  "Met with a Russian lawyer we thought had dirt on Clinton, turned out to be a trick to get Facetime to pitch us on Russian adoptions."  Can you show me the law that requires this disclosure?  Honestly, you seem to be shoehorning into a completely unrelated disclosure requirement - don't blame you, the media is pretending for all its worth.

That aside, if you do want to play the "but look at the other side!" game, you've got a good tool in Hillary.   

I picked Hillary because Kaine was calling Donnie Jr. a traitor for doing less than the Clinton/Kaine campaign did, seems super hypocritical.

I literally could have pointed at just about any national campaign by either party for virtually our 200 plus years of history and shown an example.  If something in present in 90 cases out of 100 and it's only been raised as a problem in 1 out of million, what does that actually tell you?

[Seriati]

Which, if true, would have been actual evidence of a crime by Hillary.

There are so many things wrong with this post that it is hard to know where to start... but maybe with hearsay.

I think you are confused.  If the meeting had been to deliver what the email claimed it would have put proof of criminal activity by Clinton into the Trump campaign's hands.  I never said it was true, or that such evidence exists.  I just commented that the email was promising to deliver evidence of a crime to the Trump campaign.

That's a meeting that any member of the Democratic party would take today if they thought someone in the Russian government was credibly promising to deliver evidence of a crime by Trump.

The rest of you post is really non-responsive.

I will note, you can't have it both ways, this email can't be an obvious fake and still be evidence of collusion with the Russian government.  It's odd choice of Putin to set up a meeting promising evidence with a private Russian lawyer who instead chooses to pitch for the rights of Russian orphans instead, if that's the kind of "collusion" you're concerned about then we are talking about different things.

[Seriati]

Just wanted to add this link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-jr-was-told-campaign-meeting-would-be-with-russian-government-lawyer-according-to-emails/2017/07/11/70b957e2-664c-11e7-9928-22d00a47778f_story.html?utm_term=.72806a95daa6

Not cause the article's any good, but because it has a chart.  If you've ever played six degrees of Kevin Bacon, this shows Putin to Trump in 5 steps.  Lol, take a look at the actual relationships they highlighted.  I guarantee you can get from Putin to any US politician in two or less steps through people both would trust, but hey crazy conspiracy theories sell papers.

[DonaldD]

Jason, your response to me was a bit of a non-sequitur - I said little about the relative importance of this particular meeting in the grand scheme of things, just pointing out that yes, it seems Trump junior, Kushner and Manafort, at least, were willing to meet with Russian officials in order to acquire dirt on Clinton.

I was simply responding to Seriati's claim that the email from Goldstone to Trump junior should have been given any weight as evidence against Clinton. 

[D.W.]

They were thinking that part of a every single campaign in America for the last 200 years is digging up dirt on your opponent and that every single politician or their proxies would take this meeting.  WTF are you thinking, buying into the media pretending this is novel or shocking?

I realize you are supporting your assertion this was nothing wrong/new, but I didn’t suggest anything of the sort.  Were this some US citizen who came forward with this info, I’d have zero interest and wouldn’t be shocked at all.

As for the revisionist history…  Maybe I’m just making the obvious mistake of listening to the words that come out of Trump’s, or his campaign/staff’s mouths regarding contact with any Russians.  And how absurd the idea is. 

The only campaign is the media's relentless drive to paint this group as acting outside the ordinary, when so far there is literally no evidence that they are doing even as much as the Clinton campaign (remember, we have actual proof the Clinton campaign and the DNC colluded with various parties to manipulate the election, but ooh Trump scary!).

I’m not going to defend Clinton.  Had she won… maybe I’d feel SOME obligation to defend her as I did, in the end vote for her.  And, while I get that it’s a trope in politics today to set the line at “the other side”, I don’t feel I have to.  Would “The Media” have been taking it easier on Clinton at this point had she won?  Ya, seems plausible.  I’m not saying you’re wrong on this.  I will say that I find it disturbing you take any comfort at all in this, and feel it excuses what is going on now.

Out of curiosity what should the disclosure have been?  I have never seen any politicians disclosure of their investigation teams efforts, did I miss it?

So here’s the part where I MAY be victim of being mislead by the media, and all the political thrillers I watch and read…  It is my understanding, that as part of the security clearance and vetting process, which Don Jr. (I believe) went through, that you must disclose, in writing, contacts you have had with foreign persons.  The extent of this, I don’t know about, the amount of info you must provide, I don’t know about.  The ability for those interviewing you to ask follow up questions, I don’t know about.  If he, and apparently several other key people in the campaign, omit these contacts (or forget about them…) then obviously nobody can eliminate them as without risk. 

This system is meant to protect us, and these people from being exploited or manipulated as much as it is to provide a legal “gotchya!” perjury charge should they be shady characters and lie about it.  Am I totally off in Tom Clancy land?  Is it all BS, that others in the media like to believe and our metaphorical ass is out there exposed and the idea of a background check, (something some of my tech sector friends have even had to go through) is a myth when it comes to the highest level of our government?  Thanks for not blaming me, but feel free to educate me.

I picked Hillary because Kaine was calling Donnie Jr. a traitor for doing less than the Clinton/Kaine campaign did, seems super hypocritical.

Fair enough.  I also find hypocrisy to be the most outrageous sin in today’s politics.  I would again highlight this is not about opo-research.  It’s about the source.  How people draw the line at Russia and think UK info is groovy kinda is a head scratcher to me.  Maybe the whole ally /   (I’m hesitant to call Russia anything but a competitor at this point in history) is the hang up?

[Wayward Son]

The disturbing part of the e-mails (which isn't fake news) is this:

During the email exchange, Trump Jr. was told by an intermediary that the “high level” information he would be offered about Clinton was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” and would be “highly useful for your father.”

The younger Trump appeared to relish the opportunity. “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer,” he wrote back.

So Trump Jr. was under the impression that the Russian government was trying to support his father, and it didn't set off any warning bells with him.  He apparently relished the idea of getting support from the Russians.

Doesn't this disturb anyone?  Do we really want our Presidential candidate teams looking for and accepting help from foreign governments, especially ones we are in conflict with?

It is also not clear that Trump Jr. did not break the law.  Per NPR:

The problem is that a federal law says foreign nationals cannot "directly or indirectly" give a "thing of value" to American political campaigns. Moreover, the law says no one is allowed to "solicit, accept, or receive" any thing of value from a foreign national to help a candidate.

Trump Jr.'s attorney Alan Futerfas says "Don Jr. did nothing wrong," but Robert Bauer, a Democratic campaign finance lawyer, says the law is not on Trump Jr.'s side.

"This is a case where a campaign may have been openly courting support from a foreign national in trying win an election. And that is squarely prohibited by the federal campaign finance laws," Bauer said.

This law, I understand from another segment, was written in response to the money Hillary received (and returned) from China (though don't quote me).

Trump Jr. may not have done any actual criminal behavior because he supposedly received nothing of value from the Russian lawyer.  But it seems pretty clear that Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort all had the intent of getting valuable information for the campaign from what they were told was the Russian government.

This time he failed, but not for lack of trying.  It remains to be seen if perhaps he, or someone else, succeeded later.

[D.W.]

Doesn't this disturb anyone?

I am disturbed they were so blatant about it.  Sadly, I'm not surprised at all, and would, as Serati suggested, expect any campaign to arrange some sort of follow up to this type of bait.

Not sure how you could stop it.  Considering how even our lackadaisical efforts are so easily ignored.