Wow.
This. CNN has been pushing this fake story for a year now and people have started really calling them on it of late.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The N.Y. Post is reporting that Scaramucci threatened a libel suit. Also that CNN bought out the contracts of the three reporters who were let go.
Even the Trump White House can’t endorse that video. Huckabee Sanders said people should watch it even if it isn’t true - how’s that for a ringing endorsement?
And this is the problem with this reaction by CNN. They think the narrative will be “See, we don’t have an anti-Trump bias. When things are actually done improperly, we will punish anyone.”
What the right wing hears is “See, they’re finally admitting their anti-Trump bias! Since one story was bad, all stories about Trump and Russia must be fake.” Nevermind that they’ve not retracted anything else.
To be very clear, I assert that drewder’s interpretation is completely wrong. One story that was not properly vetted does not destroy mounds and mounds of evidence.
And the same would be true if this was about someone conservatives thought was evil.
Except there is no evidence
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Except there is so evidence
Do either of you guys have links?
The truest visions of religion are illusions, which may be partially realised by being resolutely believed. For what religion believes to be true is not wholly true but ought to be true; and may become true if its truth is not doubted.
Reinhold Niebuhr
Can’t find links to stories that lay out the points neatly, but the fact is that multiple times, the Trump campaign accurately predicted releases of info from the Russians that were harmful to the Democrats. Twice with Roger Stone, and once with Rudy Giuliani, that I can think of off the top of my head.
There’s also all the circumstantial evidence about payments to Manafort, Flynn, almost-secret meetings with the Russians between Sessions, Kushner, Page, etc., while they were working on the Trump campaign.
We don’t yet have the smoking gun that ties them together, but there is a ton of information that we do have, that the Russians were informing the Trump campaign about their activities to interfere in the election, and the Trump campaign, at a minimum, did nothing to alert anyone else or to stop it.
That’s why there is an investigation.
Thanks, drewder.
This is a matter where is pays to talk with precision. It appears to be a foregone conclusion that Putin sought to tilt the 2016 election toward Trump. From this, a couple obvious questions arise:
-
Do we understand the full extent of this Russian campaign? The evidence that the Russians hacked various computers and used the take from those operations to denigrate Clinton’s campaign is overwhelming. But did the Russians do other things, like try to recruit people inside Trump’s campaign? As a counterintelligence matter, are we protecting the United States, and its people of either party who may be targeted by the Russians, adequately?
-
We also know that some Trump advisers have acted weird when Russia came up. From Flynn lying to the White House about phone calls; to Roger Stone engaging in some kind of Twitter messaging with Guccifer 2.0, who hacked the DNC and is apparently a Russian persona, so such communications are just fucking weird; and various other strangeness. Did these activities cross the line into breaking the law, even if they were not intentionally working to promote Russian interests? Seems a valid question.
-
There’s also the question of whether these, or other people actually cooperated with the Russian influence campaign. As you point out, I think the evidence is very, very thin that there was any kind of knowing effort by the Trump campaign to enlist the help of Russians to defeat Clinton. It seems far more plausible that both the Trump campaign and the Russians both wanted to defeat Clinton, but they had no coordination of any efforts to do so. They were just headed down the same highway in entirely different vehicles, though maybe they saw each other driving the same direction.
However, here’s where the political bullshit sets in. A lot of Trumpists take the lack of evidence on issue #3 to urge that the investigations into 1 and 2 be shut down. But 1 and 2 remain fully valid questions, and in fact very important ones, even if issue 3 is totally put to bed.
For example, let’s say it is shown with high confidence that Trump’s campaign wasn’t working with the Russians. But that doesn’t mean that the Russians didn’t try to recruit Carter Page (who may have done nothing wrong!) as an intelligence asset. And if they did, we should find out who was running that operation so we can either arrest the Russian spies who tried to do so, or block them from trying to recruit other Americans for other purposes. We should get to the bottom of that, and other matters.
There’s a thorough explanation of why all those articles you linked to probably have some good points in them, but your conclusion is wrong. I fully expect a reply that says something to the effect of, “See, even you agree there’s no evidence!!!” or some other blather.
From the Forbes article:
“Note that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had “lots of meetings” with Russian officials including Ambassador Kislyak during the campaign, Bill Clinton delivered a $500,000 speech to a Russian oligarch in 2010. The insider Democratic lobbying behemoth, Podesta Group, charged a Kremlin-associated bank $170,000 for lobbying in 2016 for removal of sanctions and $60,000 to Uranium One in 2015 to lobby for a huge uranium deal in favor of Russia. Manafort directed his wealthy Ukrainian/Russia clients to the Podesta Group, which cashed in more than a million dollars in lobbying fees. Democrat heavyweight Lanny Davis represented a fugitive oligarch, who also happened to be a Manafort client.”
Should Democrats be investigated for “colluding” with Russians?
Sure, but those aren’t relevant to the question. Using Ravenman’s excellent summary, these point out that we have no solid evidence of his #3 point, while the question that carnivorousplant asked for cites for was his #2 point.
It would be more accurate to say that there is little evidence that’s been produced for the public to see and hear. The evidence is still in the early stages of being gathered. News gathering organizations are trying to find out what investigators are learning. It’s what news gathering organizations do. I’m presuming that this is closer to what you were trying to say.
It is only the Trump one-dimensional world that talking to Russians ought to be grounds for criminal investigation. I’m in favor of diplomacy, even with adversaries. What is grounds for concern for anyone is if the Russians are using such routine meetings with a hidden agenda to get people to betray their country, or use the Americans involved as stooges for their political efforts to weaken this country.
I would also add that Americans involved in meetings with Russians may have various ethical or legal obligations not to hide them. If John Smith meets with officials from the Russian embassy, great. But if Smith then applies for a security clearance, he better disclose them. If Smith forms a business relationship with Russian companies, he better register as a foreign agent and declare his income and whatnot.
It seems pretty clear that at least a few of Trump’s senior advisers did not do these things. If they had, maybe there would be no problem. If the Podesta Group properly declared all this business, then fantastic. If they concealed it, then they ought to be investigated.
Got it?
Yes.
Anyone working for the Russians immediately before or during the Presidential campaign should be investigated.