The beginnings of the counter intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections was directed, in part, at ascertaining whether the Russians had recruited any knowing or unknowing assets to assist them. It was one of the first deeply disturbing things about Trump’s reaction to the investigation, that he was trying to shut it down and prevent any scrutiny of his campaign. There is no way he could know that no one in his campaign could have unknowingly helped a Russian agent who was manipulating them.
Is obvious witness intimidation still a bad thing?
Or is it yet another thing that’s OK if Trump Does It?
Even “manipulate” seems a bit strong, which to me has connotations of working towards a *specific *outcome. But no matter. Surely flattery will get you somewhere with Trump. If the president on occasion acts in such a way due to this than he otherwise would have, I find that plausible. What I don’t find plausible is that Putin or anyone else has great sway over what Trump does. This implication by some, and maybe I’m misreading this, that major decisions are being made by Trump not because of what he wants, or his administration recommends, but because of what a foreign power wants.
As for the pissing tapes, I don’t understand what you’re saying. How does one manipulate another with something that doesn’t exist? As for Putin holding out the prospect of Trump Tower, I guess you are saying that Putin is saying, “hey Trump work with me now and I’ll work without on the Tower after you are out of office.” Sure, that’s possible, but it’s just conjecture, isn’t it?
Presumably, if an event happened (Trump paying hookers to pee on a bed), Trump may be TOLD that there is video of it, even if there is not.
All you need is for Trump to be aware that a video just might exist, and just might fall into the wrong hands if he does not do a favor for Russia.
Like others have said… Follow The Money.
Is there only one bank that will still loan Trump money? Check
Has Trump gotten loans from this bank that deals very much with Russian money laundering? Check.
Is Trump very, VERY concerned that people think he’s rich? Check
Would Trump be screwed if it was found out he actually owes tons of money to Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes and in reality has negative equity? Check.
Do those people who Trump may owe billions to therefore have a huge hold over him? Check.
Find out. Follow The Money.
I wonder if that Sekret Skwirl Server is connected to the internet… maybe via AOL. If it is, just hack the damn thing. You just KNOW the password is MAGA2020 or close to it.
This is a reasonable assessment, the most rational explanation, unless the White House actually considered the call to be a matter of foreign policy. Both rationales (it’s a matter of foreign policy; it is embarrassing) are compatible.
My understanding is that the executive order says you can’t classify information to cover up a crime. Whether Mr. Trump committed a crime as opposed to a mere abuse of power is debatable. I believe the Justice Department (essentially Mr. Trump), when reviewing the whistleblower complaint, took the position that he did not commit a crime.
I didn’t want to try and defend Mr. Trump but here I am, oh well.
So it is possible that officially, the administration looked at the call and classified it as a matter of foreign policy. Undoubtedly some officials worried that Mr. Trump’s demands might be an abuse of power, but ostensibly Mr. Trump will try and argue that he wants to cut down on corruption in Ukraine before selling them missiles, and this is a valid foreign policy, and that is what he was doing. If he is accused of classifying the call to cover for criminal conduct, his first line of defense will be that no criminal conduct occurred and thus he did not violate his own executive order.
Just because it is political doesn’t mean it isn’t foreign policy. I think the whole Ukraine-hacked-the-DNC thing is bogus, just like you do. I trust the intelligence community (and Mr. Mueller) who pointed at Russia. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump seems to think that the question is still open. He also seems to think that Hunter Biden may have done something contrary to Ukrainian or U.S. law. Assuming the worst, that rogue elements in Ukraine interfered and may again interfere with the U.S. election and that Joe Biden’s family has corrupt ties to Ukraine, it almost makes sense not to sell Ukraine a bunch of missiles until they crack down on this stuff.
I think both conspiracy theories are a waste of time and fall apart under scrutiny, but Mr. Trump plausibly made the call as a matter of foreign policy. Maybe you want to try and prove that Mr. Trump has common sense and knows conspiracy theories, ubiquitous in my local media, hold no water.
If the House wants to impeach Mr. Trump over that, they will have to convince themselves that Mr. Trump knew the conspiracy theories were baseless. That he isn’t a gullible fool, but a calculating mafioso intent on abusing his authority to put down his opponents. Trump will be out there making himself out to be a conspiracy-spouting fool, either because he really is one, or because the alternative is to be impeached.
You don’t impeach the president if he is unfit for office, you impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Remember that.
If “dozens” of staffers disagreed with the president, it’s not a stretch to think they slow-walked the followup with Mr. Barr. Maybe Mr. Barr himself knew early on but plays deaf because he is a little more aware of the political and legal implications than the president claims to be.
I think it’s a very bad policy, but if Mr. Trump honestly believes Ukraine needs to investigate these two cases and cut down on corruption before we can sell them missiles, that is a policy decision.
I’m all for Congress or at least a committee having access (unlike Nixon). Claims of executive privilege should fall to the wayside when a credible claim of wrongdoing is presented. I don’t think public dissemination of evidence is necessary until our elected representatives decide to effectively charge the president. I would rather have the American populace play jury than prosecutor, judge, or defendant.
~Max
When following the $, don’t miss this transaction:
Strange real estate deal raises specter of Putin buying Trump
Jackie Speier, San Francisco Chronicle (Opinion), 14 DEC 2018
While true, that’s not the allegation. My understanding it that it is itself a crime to “upclassify” material not involving code-word level national security information and place it onto the code-word level server. The motivation is presumably to avoid disclosure of politically-embarrassing material, and that is explicitly prohibited by the Executive Order in question (again, in my understanding). That’s … a big freakin’ deal, actually. The allegation is that Trump (sorry, no “Mr.” from me today) misused that computer system in order to conceal an abuse of power.
Does someone have a reference to the executive order in question?
~Max
Crud. :smack: Missed the editing window, but this should have been made explicit:
Congresswoman Speier (D, CA-14) serves on the House Intelligence Committee.
My bad. Sloppy copyediting on my part.
That is only part of it:
But I would like to hear how Hunter Biden is a topic of US foreign policy, for an investigation supposedly run by Barr that he doesn’t know about.
Oh my god, you have never worked in government, have you? The Hatch Act clearly makes a dividing line between political activities and official business - and one of them is prohibited on the taxpayer’s dime. There’s literally a law about this.
Refusing to spend money that Congress appropriated for a purpose is an illegal impoundment. What you are proposing that Trump may have been thinking, that he doesn’t have to spend the money if he thinks he should not, is also illegal.
What are you accusing my motivations of being?
See impoundment, above. An illegal policy. You’re making no headway here.
I prefer that Americans play the role of voters and have a decent amount of information about what their government is doing. I know you’re going to misrepresent that statement: not total information, but that includes information that doesnt jeopardize the nation’s security (which is not the same as protecting the President’s image). And let’s keep in mind that until Trump, these call memos were fairly widely circulated within government, and brief read outs were given to the public. Trump stopped that, clearly in the interests of not embarrassing himself after his first few calls. Which is inexcusable.
This Repubican wants to see his ass impeached, his Presidential benefits [pension, Secret Service detachment et al] removed, and tried and convicted of any and all illegal actions he has done or been part of. I would like to see any family member and employee dealt with accordingly as well. I want to see anybody who is guilty of criminal activities that he encouraged [remember, he said he would get legal aid to anybody causing disruptions for his cause] tried as well.
This would mean that Trump wants to curry favor with the Russian mob… why? For no reason at all? Why would you conclude there is no reason for him acting that way when we know much of his real estate empire was bankrolled by Russian interests?
I mean - I get it. When you imply “I refuse to believe this until someone has delivered a notarized copy of the evidence to my home address”, I find this transparently fallacious and dishonest, but I do comprehend the tactic. What I can’t understand is how one can look at the mountain of evidence indicating that Trump owes Russian entities deeply, and look at the other mountain of evidence documenting Trump making policy or statements favorable or deferential to Russian entities, and try to suggest that they definitely aren’t connected.
It might not be explicit commands. It might be the fact that Russia owns the NRA, and the NRA owns the Republicans, and Trump has a mutual ownership agreement with the Republicans.
This is a laughably trivial question. He talks to a hundred people a day, they talk to a hundred people a day, most of those people go to enormous lengths to conceal his conversations. According to multiple reports, he routinely uses a personal unsecured cell phone and sought numerous back-channel communications to Russia and other entities, claiming that normal diplomacy demands such back-channel conversations.
(You will correctly argue that diplomacy does require back-channel conversations; I will correctly argue that the abundance of back-channel conversations provides ample opportunity for Trump to receive continual and concealed communications - be they commands or chitchat - from foreign entities).
Webpage with abstract: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=30722
[PDF link from above webpage: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=30722]
Executive Order 13526: Classified National Security Information
“‘This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation’s progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation’s security and demonstrating our commitment to open Government through accurate and accountable application of classification standards and routine, secure, and effective declassification are equally important priorities.’ Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, and amendments thereto, including Executive Order 13292 of March 25, 2003, are hereby revoked as of the effective date of this order.”
<golf clap> 
Thank you for providing a data point in favor of my hope and belief that there are still some self-identified GOPers who maintain a sense of principle. Hearing from folks like you makes me think that the country might actually survive this mess.
Your argument is flawed as it has been conclusively proven that Putin and Trump coordinate activities, as repeatedly shown in the Mueller Report. Here’s one famous example:
(Emphasis mine, JT. Page 49 of https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf )
So, here is the US government stating, after two years of research, that it is their belief that the two were working in concert (and there are other examples - Access Hollywood and the Podesta dump within 3 hours, anyone?) and you’re claiming you need to see a contract?
It cracks me up that Pompeo has the balls to criticize the House impeachment hearings as “threatening” State Department employees into testifying.
Mike Pompeo, who served on the Benghazi investigation committee, which issued 70 subpoenas, and voted to hold a witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights as being in contempt of Congress.
I bet he’s still sore that Hillary Clinton’s testimony made him look like a pathetic, crazy bitch.
You haven’t even got to the long record of crimes that tronp committed in front of, for the benefit of, or with those people, and against the US interests, who would then have him by the short hairs.
The investigation itself isn’t a matter of foreign policy, tying it to military aid is.
I don’t believe that law applies to the President, I think there is an exception in the statute for the President and Vice President.
I remember reading that he was waiting on a Pentagon review or something, but the review had in fact been completed before he withheld the military aid. I am curious and would like to look at the text of the law that made such appropriations before arriving at your conclusion.
I did not accuse you of having any particular motivations. I, myself, was thinking a president who believes conspiracy theories is unfit for office, but impeachment doesn’t help in that situation.
It would seem that we fundamentally disagree on the importance of secrecy in diplomacy and diplomatic relationships. I don’t think voters should follow along the diplomatic process like a protective father follows his daughter’s courtship. When ministers and heads of state negotiate, they necessarily start out with conflicting interests. Should the public be privy to the negotiations it only fuels speculation and pressures the negotiators to take harsher, uncompromising positions.
As I see it, a treaty is like a collaborative work of art where each artist has their own crowd of supporters for their particular style. There are multiple drafts and the process is difficult and painstaking. If everybody is looking over the artist’s shoulder, offering unsolicited criticism, it can be much more difficult to cooperate with other artists. Even if the feedback is delayed, the prospect of having your drafts and process scrutinized can have a chilling effect on compromise and collaboration. I apply this analogy to the diplomatic process.
Now there are times when an artist is accused of stuffing fan-supplied gold flakes in his pockets or otherwise abusing his position. Such claims ought to be investigated and actions taken if necessary. That does not mean you let everybody flood into the room to watch the artist and offer unsolicited criticism. You don’t suddenly pull out the videotapes and offer them for public consumption. You have a couple people from the crowd go into the back room and do an investigation, then they come out and say “we found our artist stealing gold flakes” followed by a short clip of the act in progress, then you replace the artist with an understudy.
Which is a shame but not necessarily impeachable or illegal. I wonder if Congress has the authority to require such records and readouts?
~Max
Well thanks for quoting me in context.
Just kidding. You used only one word and then added an emoji to my quote. I don’t use emojis.
Everyone is manipulating here, while stating their opinions. You are different? You sure manipulated my post.