Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.

Who colluded more?

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

I heard one response from the bowels of the right-wing internet alleging that the Clinton campaign “did the same thing.” The evidence? A Politico investigation showing the DNC gathered information from a Ukrainian political operative. Conveniently left out, though, is that those efforts were to expose Paul Manafort’s very problematic ties to Russia—information that was released to the public and obtained lawfully by a Ukrainian anti-corruption probe.

Doesn't rebut the fact that a DNC operative got dirt from the Ukraine govt compared an expression of interest by Don Jr. of getting dirt from a Russian lawyer. Who colluded more?

Which is why I posted a link to the article. The next paragraph reads:

And that’s really the big point. When digging for “dirt,” you should not pursue information obtained illicitly, whether by Russian hackers or Nixonian Plumbers. And if by chance you stumble across it, you do what anyone running for office should do—report it to the authorities.

There is a difference between legally obtained information and illegally obtained information.

What information promised (but not delivered) in Goldstone's email was illegally obtained?

paulsurovell said:




What information promised (but not delivered) in Goldstone's email was illegally obtained?

Read the GD article. There was no evidence presented that what Goldstone was promising was not obtained unlawfully, and for that reason it should never have been accepted without such guarantees, and in fact no one asked for any such proof. Junior didn't care about the legality of it, which means he intended to expose himself to what were potentially illegally-obtained documents. So it actually doesn't matter what it was, and it shouldn't matter what it was, just that Trump Jr wanted it, and wasn't in the tiniest bit curious where it came from.

I have two problems with this thread. The first may be characterized as stylistic. It is not necessary to constantly re-post and entire conversation in order to reply or add a comment.

Secondly, and more to the substance, it seems like the premise is that there is no middle ground between ignoring what the Russians did and going to War over it. 

LOST said:

Secondly, and more to the substance, it seems like the premise is that there is no middle ground between ignoring what the Russians did and going to War over it. 

Glad you pointed that out.  Despite the accusations to the contrary, people who support an investigation are interested in what the TRUMP people did, and if that means finding out about their relations with the Russians, so be it.  Ignoring the middle ground is really just a smokescreen so that anybody running interference for Trump can claim "plausible deniability", even if it's obvious that's what's going on.

LOST said:

I have two problems with this thread. The first may be characterized as stylistic. It is not necessary to constantly re-post and entire conversation in order to reply or add a comment.

Secondly, and more to the substance, it seems like the premise is that there is no middle ground between ignoring what the Russians did and going to War over it. 

Yeah, but there's a deafening silence on whether it makes sense to push a personality like Trump into confrontation with Putin and whether that might increase the chances for war.

The truth is, that among the believers, it has become heresy to say anything that deflects from the hate-and-fear-Putin mantra.

Which is why no one on this thread will even criticize Begala's remarks, which are obviously insane.

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

What information promised (but not delivered) in Goldstone's email was illegally obtained?

Read the GD article. There was no evidence presented that what Goldstone was promising was not obtained unlawfully, and for that reason it should never have been accepted without such guarantees, and in fact no one asked for any such proof. Junior didn't care about the legality of it, which means he intended to expose himself to what were potentially illegally-obtained documents. So it actually doesn't matter what it was, and it shouldn't matter what it was, just that Trump Jr wanted it, and wasn't in the tiniest bit curious where it came from.

Read the article but found it lacking in logic and accuracy.

His/your premise is wrong. It's not illegal to use information illegally obtained.  If it was, the editors and publishers of the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, etc would be in jail for publishing the DNC/Podesta emails, illegally obtained (leaked).

Until the Supreme Court decision on the Pentagon Papers is overturned, that's the law.

paulsurovell said:

LOST said:

I have two problems with this thread. The first may be characterized as stylistic. It is not necessary to constantly re-post and entire conversation in order to reply or add a comment.

Secondly, and more to the substance, it seems like the premise is that there is no middle ground between ignoring what the Russians did and going to War over it. 

Yeah, but there's a deafening silence on whether it makes sense to push a personality like Trump into confrontation with Putin and whether that might increase the chances for war.

The truth is, that among the believers, it has become heresy to say anything that deflects from the hate-and-fear-Putin mantra.

Which is why no one on this thread will even criticize Begala's remarks, which are obviously insane.

You're right.  Start a movement to impeach Begala and we will all support you.

Red_Barchetta said:

paulsurovell said:

LOST said:

I have two problems with this thread. The first may be characterized as stylistic. It is not necessary to constantly re-post and entire conversation in order to reply or add a comment.

Secondly, and more to the substance, it seems like the premise is that there is no middle ground between ignoring what the Russians did and going to War over it. 

Yeah, but there's a deafening silence on whether it makes sense to push a personality like Trump into confrontation with Putin and whether that might increase the chances for war.

The truth is, that among the believers, it has become heresy to say anything that deflects from the hate-and-fear-Putin mantra.

Which is why no one on this thread will even criticize Begala's remarks, which are obviously insane.

You're right.  Start a movement to impeach Begala and we will all support you.

I've started a discussion to condemn his statement. Will you support me on that?

cramer -- thanks

Paul -- I do wish you'd just answer a question yourself rather than quote third parties. I'm not sure what was gained by quoting Hayden, who's neither a discussant on this thread, nor a Trump campaign official suspected of potential collusion with Russia, hence not relevant (nor is Begala, for that matter).

Absent a straightforward response, I'll have to do some guessing here and assume that you are admitting that the question of whether Russia actively meddled is of secondary concern to you.

As I've tried to argue previously, I think this is mistaken. Genuine peace -- between people, and between nations -- doesn't happen by denying and ignoring conflicts of interests, it comes by either resolving them or at least ameliorating them. And the US and Russia do have genuine conflicts, even putting aside the question of the 2017 election. Pretending these conflicts don't exist doesn't make them go away, and absent actually addressing them, the tension between our two countries won't go away either.

I also have to say I was rather taken aback by your reply to Lost where you said "there's a deafening silence on whether it makes sense to push a personality like Trump into confrontation with Putin and whether that might increase the chances for war."

With that kind of logic, how can you favor anything short of full-throated support for Trump? After all, it's not just Putin Trump might get pushed into confrontation with -- there's a whole world out there he could pick a fight with, and he has the launch codes. Perhaps every senator and every representative should vote in favor of whatever Trump wants, to avoid setting him off? And every citizen should be sure to vote for candidates who support Trump, and should of course vote for Trump himself in 2020?

I guess I do not see much of a possibility of a War between the US and Russia. But if Trump is really as unstable as Paul thinks then it is imperative to get rid of him.

LOST said:

I guess I do not see much of a possibility of a War between the US and Russia. But if Trump is really as unstable as Paul thinks then it is imperative to get rid of him.

He should be impeached for lots of things he's done, especially gutting the EPA. But his declared interest in better relations with Russia is not only not impeachable, it's his only good position.

paulsurovell said:

LOST said:

I guess I do not see much of a possibility of a War between the US and Russia. But if Trump is really as unstable as Paul thinks then it is imperative to get rid of him.

He should be impeached for lots of things he's done, especially gutting the EPA. But his declared interest in better relations with Russia is not only not impeachable, it's his only good position.

There you go again.  He doesn't 'want better relations' with Russia, he is using that as a facade to gets what he wants which is riches and accolades.  He doesn't care what it costs the rest of us.  You know this.  And yet you continue to demonstrate faith in him and talk down to everyone else.  He has relied on people like you his whole life to promote his interests.  

PVW said:

cramer -- thanks

Paul -- I do wish you'd just answer a question yourself rather than quote third parties. I'm not sure what was gained by quoting Hayden, who's neither a discussant on this thread, nor a Trump campaign official suspected of potential collusion with Russia, hence not relevant (nor is Begala, for that matter).

There is a context to your question.  And though I understand it's uncomfortable for you, Hayden's admission and Begala's statement describe the context.  And I'll note again the astonishing fact that none of the Russia story believers on this thread are willing to criticize Begala's insane statement.  That tells you something.

PVW said:

Absent a straightforward response, I'll have to do some guessing here and assume that you are admitting that the question of whether Russia actively meddled is of secondary concern to you.

Well, is it "meddling" or is it "a declaration of war" or is it the "crime of the century?" Hayden's statement is important because it moves us away from the demagoguery to the reality of what is being alleged. Which is something that we do in other countries. Actually, we go a step further and do regime-change wherever we please.

The context of what is being alleged matters.

PVW said:

As I've tried to argue previously, I think this is mistaken. Genuine peace -- between people, and between nations -- doesn't happen by denying and ignoring conflicts of interests, it comes by either resolving them or at least ameliorating them. And the US and Russia do have genuine conflicts, even putting aside the question of the 2017 election. Pretending these conflicts don't exist doesn't make them go away, and absent actually addressing them, the tension between our two countries won't go away either.

I have no problem with this.

PVW said:

I also have to say I was rather taken aback by your reply to Lost where you said "there's a deafening silence on whether it makes sense to push a personality like Trump into confrontation with Putin and whether that might increase the chances for war."

With that kind of logic, how can you favor anything short of full-throated support for Trump? After all, it's not just Putin Trump might get pushed into confrontation with -- there's a whole world out there he could pick a fight with, and he has the launch codes. Perhaps every senator and every representative should vote in favor of whatever Trump wants, to avoid setting him off? And every citizen should be sure to vote for candidates who support Trump, and should of course vote for Trump himself in 2020?

Interesting that you can't embrace the notion that Trump should not be pushed into confrontation with Putin.  Instead you turn it into  favoring "full-throated support for Trump."  Think about the logic -- or illogic -- of that.

You are right when you say "there's a whole world out there he could pick a fight with." In fact he's already doing that.  He's launched missiles at Syria (based on false media reports on chemical weapons), increased assistance for Saudi Arabian war crimes in Yemen, threatened to undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal, and he's encouraged Netanyahu to sabotage the two-state solution and create a humanitarian nightmare in Gaza.

But we don't hear much if anything about these matters in the corporate media. Only unproven allegations about Russia.

paulsurovell said:


There is a context to your question.  And though I understand it's uncomfortable for you, Hayden's admission and Begala's statement describe the context.  And I'll note again the astonishing fact that none of the Russia story believers on this thread are willing to criticize Begala's insane statement.  That tells you something.

paulsurovell said:

Which is why no one on this thread will even criticize Begala's remarks, which are obviously insane.

No one knows what "blow up" the KGB means. And Paul Begala is nothing more than a talking head at this point. He's never even held an elected office. Taking the most outlandish comment you can find and pretending like common thought isn't the most honest approach.

On Begala, I'll do you one better, and condemn all hosts, guests, and viewers of political talk shows. I'm strongly in favor of never watching television "news" shows. Every once in a while I'll be at an airport or bar or wherever that has one of these shows on, and I inevitably feel stupider and less informed after a few minutes of watching.

You are right when you say "there's a whole world out there he could pick a fight with." In fact he's already doing that.  He's launched missiles at Syria (based on false media reports on chemical weapons), increased assistance for Saudi Arabian war crimes in Yemen, threatened to undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal, and he's encouraged Netanyahu to sabotage the two-state solution and create a humanitarian nightmare in Gaza.

So you'll have to clarify here, because I'm not understanding your standard. When is it dangerous to push Trump on an issue, and when is it a good idea? In your quote here you note the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an issue you feel comfortable pushing Trump on, but I'm not sure why. 

Shouldn't we want Trump to have warmer relations with Netanyahu? Wouldn't it be good for both the US and Israel, and for Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians, to have better and warmer relationships? Why do you feel that pushing Trump on Russia will lead him to have a dangerous confrontation with Putin, but pushing Trump on Israel-Palestine will not push him into dangerous confrontation with Netanyahu? 

And please take this as just one example -- what I'm asking is, generally, in your view when should Trump be pushed on a given issue and when should we decry any talk about the issue as "hysteria," and what standard should we use to decide these questions?

paulsurovell said:

He should be impeached for lots of things he's done, especially gutting the EPA. But his declared interest in better relations with Russia is not only not impeachable, it's his only good position.

Gutting the EPA isn't an impeachable offense.  In fact, it was basically a campaign promise.

All of his policies aren't impeachable offenses, everybody knew what he would do if he was elected.  Unfortunately, some people didn't care enough about that.

"Better relations with Russia" is a silly standard, if it ignores the consequences.  President Obama wanted better relations, but not at the cost of our values.  

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

He should be impeached for lots of things he's done, especially gutting the EPA. But his declared interest in better relations with Russia is not only not impeachable, it's his only good position.

Gutting the EPA isn't an impeachable offense.  In fact, it was basically a campaign promise.

All of his policies aren't impeachable offenses, everybody knew what he would do if he was elected.  Unfortunately, some people didn't care enough about that.

"Better relations with Russia" is a silly standard, if it ignores the consequences.  President Obama wanted better relations, but not at the cost of our values.  

My view is that gutting the EPA is a high crime, essentially a crime against humanity.

Congress has the power to define what it considers to be high crimes and misdemeanors -- including campaign promises -- and there is no Constitutional authority to override it.

PVW said:

On Begala, I'll do you one better, and condemn all hosts, guests, and viewers of political talk shows. I'm strongly in favor of never watching television "news" shows. Every once in a while I'll be at an airport or bar or wherever that has one of these shows on, and I inevitably feel stupider and less informed after a few minutes of watching.

Here's a guest who appeared on Tucker Carlson's show tonight who you haven't seen on television before.  I highly recommend you take a look. His position on the Russia story and where Trump should be pushed is very similar to mine. Interestingly, Max Blumenthal is the son of Sid Blumenthal, one of Hillary's closest advisors.

PVW said:

You are right when you say "there's a whole world out there he could pick a fight with." In fact he's already doing that.  He's launched missiles at Syria (based on false media reports on chemical weapons), increased assistance for Saudi Arabian war crimes in Yemen, threatened to undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal, and he's encouraged Netanyahu to sabotage the two-state solution and create a humanitarian nightmare in Gaza.

So you'll have to clarify here, because I'm not understanding your standard. When is it dangerous to push Trump on an issue, and when is it a good idea? In your quote here you note the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an issue you feel comfortable pushing Trump on, but I'm not sure why. 

In the case at hand, I think it's dangerous to push Trump on the basis of unproven allegations into a policy of hostility and confrontation that by definition would increase the risk of war.  The "standard" that I'm relying on is essentially, a combination of policy: (1) based on factual information that is (2) proportional to those facts and (3) is designed to serve the interests of the United States.  Pushing Trump into a policy of hostility toward Russia fails on all three counts.

PVW said:

Shouldn't we want Trump to have warmer relations with Netanyahu? Wouldn't it be good for both the US and Israel, and for Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians, to have better and warmer relationships? Why do you feel that pushing Trump on Russia will lead him to have a dangerous confrontation with Putin, but pushing Trump on Israel-Palestine will not push him into dangerous confrontation with Netanyahu? 

And please take this as just one example -- what I'm asking is, generally, in your view when should Trump be pushed on a given issue and when should we decry any talk about the issue as "hysteria," and what standard should we use to decide these questions?

Netanyahu has opposed the international consensus (as well as US policy) on the expansion of Israeli settlements and the two-state solution, on the Iran Nuclear Deal and (just yesterday) the US-Russian cease-fire in Syria. Pushing Netanyahu on these issues meets the standard that I described above.

paulsurovell said:

Here's a guest who appeared on Tucker Carlson's show tonight who you haven't seen on television before.  I highly recommend you take a look. His position on the Russia story and where Trump should be pushed is very similar to mine. Interestingly, Max Blumenthal is the son of Sid Blumenthal, one of Hillary's closest advisors.

Interestingly, the Hillary Clinton campaign had to make clear last year that Max was not connected to her campaign in any way.  When Elie Wiesel passed in July last year, Max decided that it was time to speak ill of the dead, over political differences.

"Elie Wiesel went from a victim of war crimes to a supporter of those who commit them. He did more harm than good and should not be honored."

https://twitter.com/maxblument...

So much for trying to use the Hillary connection to boost his credibility about his Tucker comments.

paulsurovell said:

My view is that gutting the EPA is a high crime, essentially a crime against humanity.

Congress has the power to define what it considers to be high crimes and misdemeanors -- including campaign promises -- and there is no Constitutional authority to override it.

It's an open question on whether policy and political choices meet the "high crimes" standard for impeachment.

I noted that his policies are campaign promises because he's doing what everyone knew he was going to do.  There are too many people running around shouting "Impeach!" over those policies, who also were "too good" to support the only other candidate who could have won the election.  

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

My view is that gutting the EPA is a high crime, essentially a crime against humanity.

Congress has the power to define what it considers to be high crimes and misdemeanors -- including campaign promises -- and there is no Constitutional authority to override it.

It's an open question on whether policy and political choices meet the "high crimes" standard for impeachment.

I noted that his policies are campaign promises because he's doing what everyone knew he was going to do.  There are too many people running around shouting "Impeach!" over those policies, who also were "too good" to support the only other candidate who could have won the election.  

Not an open question whether Congress alone decides what is a "high crime" and if it decides that accelerating global warming is a high crime -- which in fact it is --  it can impeach and convict on that basis.

South_Mountaineer said:

Interestingly, the Hillary Clinton campaign had to make clear last year that Max was not connected to her campaign in any way.  When Elie Wiesel passed in July last year, Max decided that it was time to speak ill of the dead, over political differences.

"Elie Wiesel went from a victim of war crimes to a supporter of those who commit them. He did more harm than good and should not be honored."

https://twitter.com/maxblument...

So much for trying to use the Hillary connection to boost his credibility about his Tucker comments.

. . . and your response to what Blumenthal said in the video?

paulsurovell said:

Not an open question whether Congress alone decides what is a "high crime" and if it decides that accelerating global warming is a high crime -- which in fact it is --  it can impeach and convict on that basis.

So a Congress can make an after-the-fact declaration that a policy difference is a crime, and remove a President.  What could possibly go wrong with supporting that idea?

By the way, I was so offended by Trump's environmental views that I supported his Democratic opponent.  I think that counts for more than supporting the "impeach over policy" argument.

paulsurovell said:

. . . and your response to what Blumenthal said in the video?

He said a lot of things, but all of it was supporting Tucker's caricature of Trump opponents.

He does provide a clear demonstration of the anti-Hillary "liberals" who are rushing to Trump's defense (and making common cause with right-wingers like Tucker) to deflect their own responsibility for his election.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:


. . . and your response to what Blumenthal said in the video?

He said a lot of things, but all of it was supporting Tucker's caricature of Trump opponents.

He does provide a clear demonstration of the anti-Hillary "liberals" who are rushing to Trump's defense (and making common cause with right-wingers like Tucker) to deflect their own responsibility for his election.

He excoriated Trump and pointed out that liberals are making common cause with the CIA and neocon establishment that will ultimately be turned against anti-war Democrats by tarring them as "pro-Russian."  Basic Cold War McCarthyism.

We only know what was discussed (at least in part) of one of ~20 meetings between Russians and Trumpistas. Maybe they were all about adoption?

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:


. . . and your response to what Blumenthal said in the video?

He said a lot of things, but all of it was supporting Tucker's caricature of Trump opponents.

He does provide a clear demonstration of the anti-Hillary "liberals" who are rushing to Trump's defense (and making common cause with right-wingers like Tucker) to deflect their own responsibility for his election.

He excoriated Trump and pointed out that liberals are making common cause with the CIA and neocon establishment that will ultimately be turned against anti-war Democrats by tarring them as "pro-Russian."  Basic Cold War McCarthyism.

But seeing as you are, in turn, tarring anyone who doesn't think that the Trump-Russia collusion investigation is a "nothingburger" as a Basic Cold War McCarthyist, then how is it even possible to come to any kind of understanding?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

Not an open question whether Congress alone decides what is a "high crime" and if it decides that accelerating global warming is a high crime -- which in fact it is --  it can impeach and convict on that basis.

So a Congress can make an after-the-fact declaration that a policy difference is a crime, and remove a President.  What could possibly go wrong with supporting that idea?

By the way, I was so offended by Trump's environmental views that I supported his Democratic opponent.  I think that counts for more than supporting the "impeach over policy" argument.

So actions by a President are immune from impeachment if the actions were promised in the campaign?  Where is that in the Constitution?

Here's a law professor's case for impeachment for withdrawal from the Paris Accord (actually less of a crime than gutting the EPA).

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:


. . . and your response to what Blumenthal said in the video?

He said a lot of things, but all of it was supporting Tucker's caricature of Trump opponents.

He does provide a clear demonstration of the anti-Hillary "liberals" who are rushing to Trump's defense (and making common cause with right-wingers like Tucker) to deflect their own responsibility for his election.

He excoriated Trump and pointed out that liberals are making common cause with the CIA and neocon establishment that will ultimately be turned against anti-war Democrats by tarring them as "pro-Russian."  Basic Cold War McCarthyism.

But seeing as you are, in turn, tarring anyone who doesn't think that the Trump-Russia collusion investigation is a "nothingburger" as a Basic Cold War McCarthyist, then how is it even possible to come to any kind of understanding?

Glad to see that you actually do care.

No, it is not McCarthyist to believe the Russia story, I never came close to suggesting that.

It's McCarthyist to label anyone who disagrees with the Russia story as "pro-Putin," "pro-Trump," "a useful idiot" or any of the other labels that are used to smear and intimidate dissenters.