Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

prawnsambo

everlast75 wrote: »

What I find amazing is the way the Trump supporters' view on collusion evolves.

1) There was no collusion
2) Anyway, even if there was - collusion is not a crime
3) Okay - if there was collusion, Trump knew nothing about it
4) Okay, he may have known about it, but didn't believe it
5) Anyway - every Country interferes in other Country's elections
6) Okay, there was collusion, and he knew about it, but it did not materially affect the results
7) If they collude to help our guy win, then is that such a bad thing?

Collusion is a useful red herring. As long as Trump and his supporters can keep sayiing "no collusion", nobody looks at the actual fact of Russian interference. And so the two have been conflated into the one which has a higher bar of detection and will take a lot longer (if ever) to prove.

irishash

everlast75 wrote: »

What I find amazing is the way the Trump supporters' view on collusion evolves.

1) There was no collusion
2) Anyway, even if there was - collusion is not a crime
3) Okay - if there was collusion, Trump knew nothing about it
4) Okay, he may have known about it, but didn't believe it
5) Anyway - every Country interferes in other Country's elections
6) Okay, there was collusion, and he knew about it, but it did not materially affect the results
7) If they collude to help our guy win, then is that such a bad thing?

The reason Trump will never admit to interference or collusion is because his ego cant stand the idea that some outside factor may have contributed to his election win. It must be that he and he alone had the nous and skill to defeat Hillary and claim the office of President.

As regards collusion, only an idiot would believe that the likes of Don Jr, Kushner, Manafort, et all, acted alone or together and never once said anything to Trump. Take the trump tower meeting. Between the time that Don Jr agreed to the meeting and it having taken place, he never once mentioned to his Dad that he had an avenue to some dirt on his rival? Is that really believable?

Is unwilling (read ignorance) collusion the same as intentional collusion? I would always say ignorance is never an excuse and so he should be held accountable should it be proved.

StringerBell

I think collusion, whether it happened at the highest level or not is very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not something I would get my hopes up for.

Obstruction of Justice sure, but collusion would be tough, plaudible deniability will play a big part you would imagine and that would be tried in the court of public opinion more so than court. This is why he doesn't bother focusing on expanding the tent and trying to be a president for all Americans, he is a president for his base. Everything he does is planned through how it will play with the base. Keeping them angry, keeping them fighting for him etc

The only realistic way of checking his madness until he is gone is by the Democrats getting their vote out for once and over time take back Congress starting with the house. They need to look at what the Republicans did and model themselves on that, focusing on local elections, state legislators etc and build a movement again.

This all starts with them energising their base and getting them out to vote, as we know there are more Democrats than Republicans in the US but one side is much better at getting it's vote out

26000 Elephants

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I read that document - or the bits that were left after it was heavily redacted. It certainly states categorically that the CIA believed that Iraq possessed a variety of WMDs. Where did the document come from?

The "key judgements" make this assertion, but they are not backed by the actual material in the document itself.

Its littered with "probably", "possibly", "chances are" and downright speculation:
"We have little specific information [...] but he probably has [up to] 500 tonnes { in CW stockpiles]

Any decision to go to war based on this document would have been willfully negligent.

Leroy42

But even the, correctly IMO, view that the CIA etc lied to help drive W Bush war with Irag, I fail to see how this is relevant to Trump. All it does is show that the security services can be used by the administration to do their bidding.

Trump supporters seem to be of the opinion that those very same agencies that lied so that the Republican president can go to war, are lying now in order to overthrow another republican president, whilst the GOP hold all the main offices.

That takes quite a leap and there is simply nothing to suggest it is true.

Professor Moriarty

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The "key judgements" make this assertion, but they are not backed by the actual material in the document itself.

Its littered with "probably", "possibly", "chances are" and downright speculation:
"We have little specific information [...] but he probably has [up to] 500 tonnes { in CW stockpiles]

Any decision to go to war based on this document would have been willfully negligent.

Yeah, but it categorically states that the CIA believes that there is a high probability that Iraq has WMDs. That would have been enough ammunition for Powell and Bush. Also, there may have been more concrete evidence in the redacted texts.

everlast75

This is incredible.

It is patently clear that Trump is either incapable, incompetent, delusional or compromised.

We have heard from Russia about plans which agreed for Syria, details of which his staff know nothing about.

Trump did not outright refuse to consider handing over a former Ambassador and 11 other individuals to Trump. In fact, he called it a great deal.

We have no idea what he agreed to.

We have no idea what was said.

It is imperative that we find out. To that end, the Dems tried to get the interpreter to attend before them.

Here is what happened;

https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1019931697968766976

prawnsambo

everlast75 wrote: »

This is incredible.

It is patently clear that Trump is either incapable, incompetent, delusional or compromised.

We have heard from Russia about plans which agreed for Syria, details of which his staff know nothing about.

Trump did not outright refuse to consider handing over a former Ambassador and 11 other individuals to Trump. In fact, he called it a great deal.

We have no idea what he agreed to.

We have no idea what was said.

It is imperative that we find out. To that end, the Dems tried to get the interpreter to attend before them.

Here is what happened;

https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1019931697968766976

To be fair, that would have massive consequences if it were carried. No president could ever have a private discussion with any foreign leader again.

I'm all for transparency, but carried to the end, it would just result in dysfunctional behaviour.

Any kind of agreement with those kinds of ramifications would soon become apparent anyway.

jooksavage

prawnsambo wrote: »

To be fair, that would have massive consequences if it were carried. No president could ever have a private discussion with any foreign leader again.

I'm all for transparency, but carried to the end, it would just result in dysfunctional behaviour.

Any kind of agreement with those kinds of ramifications would soon become apparent anyway.

No leader should ever assume their conversations with a foreign counterpart are private. There is frankly zero chance that Putin hasn't recorded his discussion with Trump - details of this could be released at any time. At very least the intel services need to be made aware of exactly what was discussed to determine if a leak like that would have harmful consequences.

prawnsambo

jooksavage wrote: »

No leader should ever assume their conversations with a foreign counterpart are private. There is frankly zero chance that Putin hasn't recorded his discussion with Trump - details of this could be released at any time. At very least the intel services need to be made aware of exactly what was discussed to determine if a leak like that would have harmful consequences.

Yes, but there's an element of Mutually Assured Deatruction with leaks of that sort. You are each hostage to the other and of course there's the abilty to deny in a one word against the other scenario.
There's a big difference between leaks about a meeting and actual transcripts.

StringerBell

The translator testifying in a closed session to a select committee would be appropriate in this scenario. A public hearing not so much imo due to the long term ramifications that would follow

Cheerful Spring

Leroy42 wrote: »

But even the, correctly IMO, view that the CIA etc lied to help drive W Bush war with Irag, I fail to see how this is relevant to Trump. All it does is show that the security services can be used by the administration to do their bidding.

Trump supporters seem to be of the opinion that those very same agencies that lied so that the Republican president can go to war, are lying now in order to overthrow another republican president, whilst the GOP hold all the main offices.

That takes quite a leap and there is simply nothing to suggest it is true.

It relevant because it was John Brennan former CIA head and James Clapper NSA head who pushed the FBI to investigate was Trump working for the Russians. They were well-known supporters of Clinton Campaign and were pissed off when she lost. Christoper Steele was also working to undermine Trump and wrote a fake dossier the Russians were using Trump to undermine the US election. Of course, Steele has no back up for anything he claims and it well established now he worked for a firm that also represented Hilary.

This all started because of the email leak it upset lot of people in a democratic establishment that their candidate was undermined. Brennan and his intelligence cronies blamed Russia even though the leak was done during the primary when Hilary was facing off against Sanders. The emails exposed the DNC was working against Sanders and exposed Hilary was not securing classified information.

It actually a Neo agenda whats happening right now very little to do with left and right. The same Warhawks are upset Trump wants better ties with Russia his public enemy number one for siding with Putin. You can see who coming out against Trump on the Republican side they are same neocons that have been there for decades like Newt Gingrich and John McCain.

StringerBell

Whatever about the US not being boards jurisdiction, is it possible to stop anybody from repeating lies over and over that have already been proven false?

There is always someone who bites and gets into the never ending cycle.

Professor Moriarty

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It relevant because it was John Brennan former CIA head and James Clapper NSA head who pushed the FBI to investigate was Trump working for the Russians. They were well-known supporters of Clinton Campaign and were pissed off when she lost. Christoper Steele was also working to undermine Trump and wrote a fake dossier the Russians were using Trump to undermine the US election. Of course, Steele has no back up for anything he claims and it well established now he worked for a firm that also represented Hilary.

This all started because of the email leak it upset lot of people in a democratic establishment that their candidate was undermined. Brennan and his intelligence cronies blamed Russia even though the leak was done during the primary when Hilary was facing off against Sanders. The emails exposed the DNC was working against Sanders and exposed Hilary was not securing classified information.

It actually a Neo agenda whats happening right now very little to do with left and right. The same Warhawks are upset Trump wants better ties with Russia his public enemy number one for siding with Putin. You can see who coming out against Trump on the Republican side they are same neocons that have been there for decades like Newt Gingrich and John McCain.

Let's not forget that the Donald has his own merry band of 'Warhawks'. Pompeo and Bolton spring to mind.

Leroy42

Surely minutes of the meeting would need to be entered into the Top Secret records in any case. In this instance, the interpreter would be the source. No need for a committee.

jooksavage

Jesus, Trump is all over the place. In four days he's taken the following positions:

1) I've listened to Putin. He says the Russians weren't responsible for the cyber attack. I don't see any reason why it would be Russia
2) I meant to say I don't see see why it wouldn't be Russia
3) Is Russia hacking an ongoing concern? No.
4) I mean yes.
5) I hold Putin personally responsible for the cyber attacks and I was very strong with him at the summit
5) The real enemies are the journalists who accurately report the things I say and do.

everlast75

jooksavage wrote: »

Jesus, Trump is all over the place. In four days he's taken the following positions:

1) I've listened to Putin. He says the Russians weren't responsible for the cyber attack. I don't see any reason why it would be Russia
2) I meant to say I don't see see why it wouldn't be Russia
3) Is Russia hacking an ongoing concern? No.
4) I mean yes.
5) I hold Putin personally responsible for the cyber attacks and I was very strong with him at the summit
5) The real enemies are the journalists who accurately report the things I say and do.

Walter Mitty stuff

Leroy42

So Cheerful Spring, its got nothing to do with the CIA back with Bush was POTUS, it is all down to people in charge recently that want Clinton to win, (yet somehow didn't actually make that happen!).

Not sure I understand what you original point about the CIA and Iraq is all about so.

pixelburp

In tangential news, the FBI have obtained secret wiretaps involving Alexander Torshin (including conversations with convicted money launderer Alexander Romanov). The wiretaps are originally part of a prominent campaign by Spanish authorities against organised crime - particularly of Russian origin.

Now, no more concrete info was given about the nature of these requests, but given Torshin's relationship with Russia, the NRA and his meeting with Trump Jr back in 2016, it's hard not to conclude his is all part of the ongoing Mueller probe.

The Spanish prosector behind the investigation is the source of the headline's quote, noting the Donald Trump Jr. 'should be concerned', though again it's arguably a fairly ambiguous statement.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-son-concerned-wiretaps-show-trump-jr-met-putin-ally-231215529.html

Cheerful Spring

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Cheerful Spring, its got nothing to do with the CIA back with Bush was POTUS, it is all down to people in charge recently that want Clinton to win, (yet somehow didn't actually make that happen!).

Not sure I understand what you original point about the CIA and Iraq is all about so.

Has everything to do with the CIA Brennan only stepped down in 2017. He pushed this Russia collusion business since the hacking of Clinton and Podesta's emails. They are trying their best to undermine Trump victory over Clinton. They are doing this by claiming his a Manchurian candidate and is being blackmailed by the Russians. These guys can't accept Trump won legitimately. They think the Russians played a part in Trump victory.

I don't trust the US intelligence services well certain people in these agencies have bias and agendas and a lot of these people will never want good relations with Russia. They still have cold war mentally that Russia if left unchecked will dominant in the Middle East and Europe.

robinph

prawnsambo wrote: »

To be fair, that would have massive consequences if it were carried. No president could ever have a private discussion with any foreign leader again.

I'm all for transparency, but carried to the end, it would just result in dysfunctional behaviour.

Any kind of agreement with those kinds of ramifications would soon become apparent anyway.

They are not supposed to have any private conversations with anyone. Everything they say and do is meant to be recorded.

If it gets released publicly or not is another matter, but nothing the head of state does should be done without the state knowing about it. He's working for the USA, the USA needs to know what he is up to and agreeing to. I of course don't mean that everything he says should be made public or even handed over to any other body of government if there isn't reason to, just that it needs to be recorded.

Cheerful Spring

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's not forget that the Donald has his own merry band of 'Warhawks'. Pompeo and Bolton spring to mind.

Pompeo may less so Bolton definitely a Warhawk, but they seem to be kept in check by Trump. Trump in public publically slapped Bolton for saying they were looking for a Libya style deal for North Korea. Bolton went quiet ever since.

Leroy42

Yes, but your basis for not believing the CIA was that they lied about WMD in the lead up to the Iraq war. Then you went and said that it was people not connected to that leadership at all and haven't been able to explain why a CIA which was used by the WH for its agenda had now swung around to be working against the WH?

It has nothing to do with wanting good relations or not. You might want to have good relations with your colleague but if you find they are actively seeking to have you fired it makes it difficult.

Trump wants to simply brush all this off the table, like it never happened. What incentive is their for Putin not to try it again? What now is to stop China, UK, EU or wherever from trying the same tactic?

The evidence of Russia involving itself is everywhere. From the latest indictments, to Trump Jr meeting, to woman recently arrested. The CIA have given all the intel to Trump and yet Trump has done nothing to stop it, nothing to hold Trump to account.

You can cry about conspiracies all you like, but even Trump accepts that the intelligence agencies are right on this. Yet you, with no access to any of the core evidence, have decided that since the CIA lied back for the Iraq war to help the then POTUS it must be lying now, but in a totally different way and that Trump knows this because...well he just does.

Cheerful Spring

jooksavage wrote: »

Jesus, Trump is all over the place. In four days he's taken the following positions:

1) I've listened to Putin. He says the Russians weren't responsible for the cyber attack. I don't see any reason why it would be Russia
2) I meant to say I don't see see why it wouldn't be Russia
3) Is Russia hacking an ongoing concern? No.
4) I mean yes.
5) I hold Putin personally responsible for the cyber attacks and I was very strong with him at the summit
5) The real enemies are the journalists who accurately report the things I say and do.

His being forced into saying things he doesn't believe in. Trump doesn't trust US intelligence people he knows they have biases but he can't come out and say that because he is undermining his own presidency then. He always saying could be Russians or could be others too. This an honest answer but the US media and Trump enemies don't want to hear that was someone else least there is a possibility it wasn't the GRU that hacked the DNC.

Professor Moriarty

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Pompeo may less so Bolton definitely a Warhawk, but they seem to be kept in check by Trump. Trump in public publically slapped Bolton for saying they were looking for a Libya style deal for North Korea. Bolton went quiet ever since.

Well, Pompeo wanted to bring down the Iran deal and succeeded. Bolton may not have as public a role but he has The Donald's ear. As does Haspel the waterboarder.

Leroy42

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

His being forced into saying things he doesn't believe in. Trump doesn't trust US intelligence people he knows they have biases but he can't come out and say that because he is undermining his own presidency then. He always saying could be Russians or could be others too. This an honest answer but the US media and Trump enemies don't want to hear that was someone else least there is a possibility it wasn't the GRU that hacked the DNC.

So we have a POTUS that can be easily manipulated and will do things he doesn't believe in to get/stay in power. Yet he somehow think that Russia couldn't have got to him?

jooksavage

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

His being forced into saying things he doesn't believe in. Trump doesn't trust US intelligence people he knows they have biases but he can't come out and say that because he is undermining his own presidency then. He always saying could be Russians or could be others too. This an honest answer but the US media and Trump enemies don't want to hear that was someone else least there is a possibility it wasn't the GRU that hacked the DNC.

And how do you know what he believes in? How do you know what he thinks about his intel agencies if he can't say it out loud?

His assessment was not "honest" because it's not informed by anything except the voices in his head. 2 weeks before his inauguration he was presented with evidence that Putin himself was involved in the hack and he "grudgingly accepted" the findings of his intelligence agencies. He's the one who put forward "others too" theory about the hack, not the NSA, FBI or CIA. "Honest". Jesus Christ.

dinorebel

irishash wrote: »

The reason Trump will never admit to interference or collusion is because his ego cant stand the idea that some outside factor may have contributed to his election win. It must be that he and he alone had the nous and skill to defeat Hillary and claim the office of President.

As regards collusion, only an idiot would believe that the likes of Don Jr, Kushner, Manafort, et all, acted alone or together and never once said anything to Trump. Take the trump tower meeting. Between the time that Don Jr agreed to the meeting and it having taken place, he never once mentioned to his Dad that he had an avenue to some dirt on his rival? Is that really believable?

Is unwilling (read ignorance) collusion the same as intentional collusion? I would always say ignorance is never an excuse and so he should be held accountable should it be proved.

I would think Don Jr doesn't tie his shoelaces without asking daddy first.

Professor Moriarty

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

His being forced into saying things he doesn't believe in. Trump doesn't trust US intelligence people he knows they have biases but he can't come out and say that because he is undermining his own presidency then. He always saying could be Russians or could be others too. This an honest answer but the US media and Trump enemies don't want to hear that was someone else least there is a possibility it wasn't the GRU that hacked the DNC.

So you think the CIA and FBI are lying? Or you think they don't know what they are talking about?

Cheerful Spring

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but your basis for not believing the CIA was that they lied about WMD in the lead up to the Iraq war. Then you went and said that it was people not connected to that leadership at all and haven't been able to explain why a CIA which was used by the WH for its agenda had now swung around to be working against the WH?

It has nothing to do with wanting good relations or not. You might want to have good relations with your colleague but if you find they are actively seeking to have you fired it makes it difficult.

Trump wants to simply brush all this off the table, like it never happened. What incentive is their for Putin not to try it again? What now is to stop China, UK, EU or wherever from trying the same tactic?

The evidence of Russia involving itself is everywhere. From the latest indictments, to Trump Jr meeting, to woman recently arrested. The CIA have given all the intel to Trump and yet Trump has done nothing to stop it, nothing to hold Trump to account.

You can cry about conspiracies all you like, but even Trump accepts that the intelligence agencies are right on this. Yet you, with no access to any of the core evidence, have decided that since the CIA lied back for the Iraq war to help the then POTUS it must be lying now, but in a totally different way and that Trump knows this because...well he just does.

CIA is a massive agency that has a long history of fighting against the Soviet Union and Russia the biases are ingrained in the fabric of the agency. John Brennan was never a friend of Trump he even called him a traitor for talking with Putin this week. There plenty of people in the agency who love to see Trump gone. I never said the CIA is working against Trump I saying the agency potentially could be using tactics to undermine Putin and Russia. It's the US media who are doing the most to undermine Trump legitimate win and they bring onto their news shows disgruntled talking heads who wanted Clinton to win and they regurgitate the Russians helped Trump win.

Indictments are not convictions. Trump is still in office so Russia collusion is still unproven. Trump Jr met with Russians so want what does that prove? Women recently arrested? Should they arrest Israelis for wanting more influence? Do you think their no US spies in Russia?

Actually, he doesn't listen to what he says it could be Russia or could be others too. The climb down was saying why would Russia do this. He just expressing more willingness it could be now, but I don't think he believes it though.