Confessions of a Late to the Party Russiagate Non-Skeptic
I don’t think this is worth your time, but when I post only at rjwaldmann.blogspot.com Dan pulls the post over here so I might as well.
Like many many (too many) people I am irritated by this article by Blake Hounshell.
Hounshell claims to have “doubts about whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia” I have a couple of questions. One is: Which word in “Trump colluded with Russia” didn’t you understand ? The answer is “colluded” which is repeatedly redefined in the article so it can dodge a hail of facts and remain unproven. The other (which I actually asked him) is:if in 2014, I had described the Trump tower meeting & preceeding e-mails (without inventing names) and asked “would you call this ‘collusion'” what would you say ?
There would be a follow up question if his answer were “no”: OK now describe an imaginary scenario which you would call collusion.
I think it is not possible for a mainstream journalist to note that we know that Trump jr colluded with Russians. The rules of journalism can’t all be followed in the present case in which the President regularly asserts things which are demonstrably false. There has to be a debate about whether collusion will be detected, even though it has been detected.
I think Hounshell’s interest is in whether there is a story out there. The fact that the story has already been told right in here where we all heard it is irrelevant. The question is whether there is a big scoop to be made. Another important question (which Hounshell barely addresses) is whether the collusion constitutes the crime of conspiracy and whether the colluders will be prosecuted.
I decided to write this post to point out an amusing contradiction in the article. Hounshell argues that, if there had been collusion, Trump would have openly blabbed about it since he has no self control & also that Donald Trump’s open collusion on TV isn’t collusion because it was open blabbing. I quote
Then there’s the Trump factor to consider. Here’s a man who seems to share every thought that enters his head, almost as soon as he enters it. He loves nothing more than to brag about himself, and he’s proven remarkably indiscreet in the phone calls he makes with “friends” during his Executive Time—friends who promptly share the contents of those conversations with D.C. reporters. If Trump had cooked up a scheme to provide some favor to Putin in exchange for his election, wouldn’t he be tempted to boast about it to someone?
There is, of course, plenty of public evidence that Trump was all too happy to collude with Putin. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” springs to mind …
The fact (noted six (6) paragraphs later) burns Hounshell’s argument to the ground, scatters its ashes to the nameless howling winds and sows salt where once it stood.
(I am quoting Noah Smith quoting someone else).
Hounshell’s argument rests on Catch 22 — Trump can’t collude without discussing the collusion in public and public requests can’t be collusion themselves or correspond to private collusion because they are public.
It may be true that Trump couldn’t conspire with Russia without talking about it in public, but it is certainly true that he talked about it in public. Again the question, can Hounshell imagine a scenario less devastating for his argument. Hmm well collusion typically involves a quid pro quo not just a request. Lets run the tape
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” He said this after Papadopoulos was informed by the Russians that they possessed Clinton-related emails.
Hmm “rewarded mightily”. Note the “by our press” makes no sense. Respectable newspapers don’t pay for stories and disreputable ones don’t have access to sums which would seem mighty to the Russian government. I think the “by our press” locked the door after the horse had escaped the horses mouth.
So what’s going on ?
1) Maybe Hounshell is Fukayaming
2) Someone suspects he is stuck in the pose of a cynical sophisticate who has seen worse before and is amused by how excited the non-cognoscenti are.
3) He is thinking of whether a journalist should invest in an effort to find another smoking gun. It would be very hard to top the two which have been smoking away for months. So there is no professional gain there — only crimes against democracy.
I think point 3 is the important one. There will be no dramatic proof that Trump is a crook for the same reason that there will be no dramatic proof that water is wet.
Sounds smarter than Glenn Beck, but it ain’t.
The liberal empire is threatened by the outsiders, who want nothing of nation building a nuclear power, now the propaganda machine sees enemies everywhere except the DNC.
Mc Carthy comes to mind and “who lost the chance to take over Russia?”
Nothing quite like the viewpoint of a russian troll on russian activities.
Meanwhile, of course there is no doubt that the Trump tower meeting and e-mails are clear examples of the collusion. You need brain damage not to see that.
Just like the admission that:
“And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”
is a clear case of obstruction of justice.
Collusion is not a crime.
Foreign governments attempt to influence other country’s elections all the time; the U.S. is probably the biggest offender. Hillary probably had many countries assisting her, in an attempt to curry favor to the sure fire winner.
There is even a way to register a foreign entity in the US for political purposes (Count 2 of the Indictment is “Failure to Register”), so if these guys had just filled out a form, the indictment would be even weaker.
So this whole fishing expedition is an attempt to trip someone up by lying or obstructing an investigation into something that is not even a crime, and to damage Trump politically.
You realize that almost everything you have just said is incorrect? Actually, it is frightening how anyone can not even attempt to hide behind something. Well, maybe with Collusion not being a specific offense, but you cannot be so lame to think that cooperation(another word for it) in violating federal election fraud is not a felony. Pretty lame bs though.
At least CoRev tried to hide behind sea level until he was called out.
You don’t even bother.
“You realize that almost everything you have just said is incorrect?”
Sammy seems to be repeating what he heard on Fox and Friends. Which is always the gospel truth at least in the mind of the Trumpster.
But foreign governments trying to influence the US is not new recall the XYZ affair during the first Adams administration, when the revolutionary government of France sent agents to influence the US against Britian and in favor of France. but of course social media and the death of the editor makes it far easier than in 1797 1798. Of course back then what newspapers there were were explicitly partisan being owned by the political organizations.
How long ago was XYZ? Snarky maybe?
Pierce is a smart man. First person I have heard talk about basing the indictments on election law.
“Oh, they’re smart fellers, they are. The indictments were rolled out perfectly. It is now absolutely impossible for the president* to fire either Rosenstein or Mueller without the worst possible political consequences. By basing the indictments on federal election law, Mueller has framed the case so as also to include anyone who accepted this criminal help.
And the material in the indictment—which you can read for yourself here—outlines a thoroughly complete campaign of ratfcking aimed exclusively at electing Donald Trump to be president of the United States. This was Donald Segretti on steroids, with the power of a huge apparatus behind them. A few excerpts……
It’s important to remember that every one of the tactics mentioned above—especially the voter-fraud canard—have been electioneering tactics used by the former Republican Party for at least two decades. All these Russians are alleged to have done is to weaponized further what already was in place and direct it toward the benefit of the Trump campaign.
The Trumpites (and now the president*, himself) already have mustered a response—namely, that there is no evidence presented here that directly proves any “collusion,” which remains their magic conjuring word that makes all the monsters go away. That may get them through the night, but they have to know that Mueller has the goods now, and that none of us know what other goods Mueller may have.
I can recall a scene from the late Jimmy Breslin’s Watergate book, How The Good Guys Finally Won, in which a lawyer working in the office of House Judiciary Council John Doar put together a series of index cards that created a timeline of Richard Nixon’s first day in the White House after the Watergate break-in. From the cards, you could see how Nixon and his men were concocting a strategy to bury the story and insulate the president from how they were doing it. At this point, Nixon was still saying he didn’t learn anything about the break-in until months later. Breslin talked about what the cards were saying,
“Oh, come on.”
We are still supposed to believe that the Russians concocted this amazing scheme to influence the election and the person on whose behalf they were operating the scheme didn’t know what they were doing?
Nor did the people running his campaign?
Oh, come on.
Really, come the fck on.”
Can I please not have someone come up with the straw man that the investigation is about “proving” that the Russians won the election for Trump? That is not the reason for the investigation at all. But I have read some in here claim that is the point.
It is all straw.
@EMichael thanks for the comments. At this point the post&thread is mostly you. I also agree with all of your comments. In particular am tired of “the straw man that the investigation is about “proving” that the Russians won the election for Trump.” I think the correct response is to ask if the straw-man-down-knocker claims anyone ever thought that Nixon beat McGovern because of the Watergate break-in. Trolls can be very bold, but I honestly doubt any will dare claim that liberals claimed that the break-in caused Nixon’s victory. Then ask if they think the Watergate investigation was persecution of Nixon.
Or also Iran-Contra. Do they think the Sandinistas would have won in the end without Iran-Contra ? Also do they know that Daniel Ortega is currently president of Nicaragua, so he won in the end with Iran-Contra ? Doesn’t make it OK to embezzle money from the US Treasury.
UH Oh lot of pixels nutpicking those who set up straw men.
@ILSM I honestly can’t detect any relationship between your comment and my post. The comment really seems to me to be computer generated — it has something to do with Trump & Russia as does my post. If you are not a bot, please tell me Black Panther’s fictional nation of origin (not a challenge for any human who is exposed to advertizing but I repeat myself).
@sammy. The fact that Trump stumbled into obstruction of justice doesn’t mean he was tripped. You take the inconvenient fact that your guy has clearly committed multiple felonies and ascribe it to some mysterious conspiracy to make him do things.
Your claim that the indictment is based on FARA violations is simply false. It also alleges identity theft, campaign finance violations, wire fraud and banking fraud. This is a simple matter of fact (I am discussing what the indictment alleges not asserting that I know defendants are guilty). Your plainly false assertion on a very simple and unambiguous matter of fact *should* cause the rest of us to ignore your trolling from now on. I have noticed that you are very successful in provoking responses. In fact, with this paragraph, I personally have just responded to your comments. I promise it is the very last time. I will try to ignore you from now on, but hereby promise & swear on my honour that, even if I fail to ignore you, I will not waste any more valueless pixels in angrybear comment threads expressing my irritation.
I love the Watergate thing. Exactly on point.
Hillary Campaign Colluded With British Labourites
“At least 70 British Labour activists have swarmed the city of Charlotte in North Carolina after answering the call from a local Clinton organiser, while officials from the British GMB trade union have been out campaigning in Philadelphia and other volunteers from the UK are spread out across key swing states such as Ohio and Wisconsin.”
And here I thought tyrrell was dead.
Y’know, you might want to research this kind of sh!t before you post things that are attached to your name.
Hint: Mueller is not investigating Farage for his campaigning for Trump., but for other things.
Oh, this is another example of the corev school of writing. Find anything, anything remotely connected, and “make” a point.
You should stop.
The link to the supposed original UK Buzzfeed story goes to some public records search site, not what it is supposed to go to, but maybe it works for you.
Here you go:
‘Your claim that the indictment is based on FARA violations is simply false. It also alleges identity theft, campaign finance violations, wire fraud and banking fraud. This is a simple matter of fact (I am discussing what the indictment alleges not asserting that I know defendants are guilty). Your plainly false assertion on a very simple and unambiguous matter of fact”
Go back and read my comment. I simply stated “Count 2 is “Failure to register”
too cute by half
the only ‘black panther
I care about was
that the BS media
sell this comic cod
as a role model for
minority youth is odd
even for the msm BS machine.
I will help you:
Welcome to a discussion with CoRev’s protege’.
One bit of advice:
Ilsm is not a ‘bot. His comments are way to complex. His participation on the blog predates you, or even me. I think he was once an administrator. Now “Joel” on the other hand……….
When you don’t have an argument you resort to snark and ridicule. And 90% of your comments are snark and ridicule, which shows your knowledge and debating skills.
I don’t understand where you get the arrogance. Are your truths so self evident that they don’t even need defending?
In this case? Yes.
Sorry, my responses generally run at the same level as the posts I am addressing.
In your case, you made a post regarding “British Labour activists” that was almost childish in its thought process. I thought my reply was fairly nice.
You want better responses? Don’t post bs.
“You want better responses?”
Yeah, I do. You suspect Trump did something wrong by colluding with foreign countries to aid his campaign. Yet Hillary OPENLY used foreign nationals to aid in her campaign. Why the double standard?
You do not understand?
After I mentioned Farage?
That is beyond frightening.
Run far away from this one.
See, when you don’t have an argument……..
“voters to “re-declare American independence.”
To that end, he enlisted the help of a British nationalist.
Nigel Farage, the former leader of the UK Independence Party and a chief proponent of the British exit from the European Union earlier this summer, joined Trump on stage at a rally here to draw similarities between the UK’s vote to leave the European Union and Trump’s insurgent campaign.
After savaging President Barack Obama for urging British voters to remain in the European Union ahead of the “Brexit” referendum — “He talked down to us. He treated us as if we were nothing,” Farage said —
“I will say this: If I was an American citizen, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if she paid me,” Farage said, as Trump’s supporters roared with approval.”
“oh, the humanity….
This is the point.
If you were to make a list of the foreign entities that had an opinion or tried to influence the 2017 presidential election. Over the last 200 years. Or the number of elections that the US tried to influence. Over the last 200 years. You would exceed the character limit of the blog.
Unions liked Hillary. The media liked Hillary Hollywood liked Hillary. Minorities liked Hillary. Universities liked Hillary. They ALL tried to “influence” the election. 13 Russian bloggers inventing fake facebook personas is weak sauce indeed.
The question is obviously one you do not understand. Waste of time for me to talk to you until you go find the question.
What question? I tried to find a “?” in your last comment and I found none. Look, I appreciate a debate with a someone of thoughtful opinion. I can learn something.. I would put you in that category except for the 90% snark.
The entire thread is the question.
The vast majority of your comments pay no attention to the purpose and authority of the investigation.
yeah, turn Mueller on the task of whether Hillary used Foreign persons to aid her campaign and you would/should get the same result.
Tomorrow I am going to take on a easier task.
Teaching my neighbor’s two year old algebra.
See, when you lack an argument….. snark.
Not snark. Truth.
Do you know that if your supposition regarding Clinton were true, it would mean absolutely nothing regarding to this investigation?
Now, that is another fact. And another reason not to talk to you.
You win. Those 13 troll bots swung the election to Trump. I will just have to console myself with all those Supreme Court appointments, cabinet posts, and executive orders that Trump has.
No, you just refuse to listen. It is not all about the troll bots. And it is not even about the results(see the 15 or so posts that talk about that strawman).
But you could care less if our democracy is attacked as long as you get “all those Supreme Court appointments, cabinet posts, and executive orders that Trump has”.
You just put yourself in the McConnell class of non-patriots.
” An earlier Post piece reported, in fact, that McConnell “made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.” In other words, McConnell not only refused to condemn a foreign spy operation, he threatened to retaliate against his country’s efforts to defend itself. (McConnell has argued that a letter he later co-signed with other congressional leaders constituted an appropriate reaction to Russian meddling, but the letter in question literally did not use the word “Russia.”)
Barack Obama deserves blame for deciding not to go forward with an aggressive response to Russia on his own—and honestly, for believing there was any chance in the first place that McConnell would have any interest in undermining foreign support for the Republican presidential candidate. But Mitch McConnell also deserves a lot of blame for being a craven hack who didn’t defend his country when he had the chance. One might even argue that what he did was unpatriotic, and that it should disqualify him from continuing to serve as one of the government’s most powerful figures. ”
Thanks for the link. As I suspected it did not support your claim that volunteers from UK were sent to Wisconsin and other locales. All there is the 70 who showed up in NC just before the election, apparently properly registered. As EMichael notes, Trump had Farage, who got a lot more publicity and probably influence than this minor group. This is not remotely comparable to the covert Russian activities.
learn something every day!
russia gate is largely
repeat the same unfounded
voluminous red herrings
talking points BS from
the link I put above
and it becomes true
worked for Stalin, Hitler
Mao used pain
proof by verbosity
Gish gallop was used to
out shout evolutionists