Why would Russia tinker with the presidential election?

[Red_Wiggler]

Sometimes presidential misdeeds actually call for impeachment; witness Nixon. And Trump’s misdeeds are far greater than Nixon’s. The political part of Trump not being impeached is Trump not being impeached mostly for partisan purposes.

[D_Anconia]

@BobLibDem

I think the only legitimate debate about DJT should be whether he deserves death or life in prison.

We don’t execute our political opponents in this country.

[KarlGauss]

@HurricaneDitka

Sure, but that illustrates perfectly that impeachment is just a political machination, having very little to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the person being impeached. It would be an exercise of political power, not a fact-finding effort

You use the word ‘political’, add ‘machination’ to ensure it becomes pejorative, and conclude it has ‘very little to do with the actual guilt or innocence’. Well done. You have made a fine showing of interpreting the Constitution as ‘political’ when it suits you.

Can we now have an example of an appeal to the Constitution that serves your purpose? Maybe something about the 2nd Amendment?

[BobLibDem]

@D_Anconia

We don’t execute our political opponents in this country.

I don’t believe in capital punishment and I don’t think that he deserves the martyr status that would follow, but his punishment wouldn’t be for being a political enemy, it would be for being a criminal and a traitor.

[Czarcasm]

@D_Anconia

We don’t execute our political opponents in this country.

What about criminals?

[E-DUB]

Impeachment is undeniably a political act. It certainly has been since the nineties, and arguably earlier. No less an authority than Gerald Ford said that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the house deems it to be at the time.

But it hardly constitutes a defense of trump to say that the Republican disgust threshold is much higher now than it was when Nixon or Clinton was in office.

[KarlGauss]

@E-DUB

Impeachment is undeniably a political act.

Yes, but more than that it is a Constitutional prerogative. Invoking that prerogative may be political but the process is Constitutional.

It is more than simply political. To label it otherwise is to be political.

[HurricaneDitka]

@asahi

So if there’s authentic, videotaped evidence of Trump raping and murdering someone and the congress decides that it’s time to impeach him, impeachment in such a case is nothing more than a political machination?

FTR, I’m not saying that there is such evidence or that even as odious as Trump he is that he’s capable of such a crime - just a hypothetical.

I can certainly imagine hypotheticals wherein the decision to impeach was not the subject of political machinations, but those hypotheticals have nothing to do with the current reality. The current reality is that the primary driver of the Dems decision to impeach or not is how it might affect their chances in the 2020 election. If they think it will help, they’re going to impeach, and if they think it’s going to hurt the Party’s chances (which seems to be the more popular viewpoint currently), they’re not going to impeach. It’s an almost-entirely-politicized decision-making process (with a lot of echoes of “party over country” IMHO).

[octopus]

@asahi

Putin was worried that Hillary Clinton would succeed in strengthening NATO alliances and pulling Ukraine and other traditionally Eastern Bloc states away from Russia. More specifically, he was worried that Clinton would succeed in leading global efforts to sanction Russia’s kleptocratic oligarchs through the enforcement and spread of Magnitsky Act type laws around the world, which would effective limit the oligarchs’ ability to stash money away in other countries. A related concern is that American influence could reach the Russian street and lead to an anti-Putin uprising.

Putin’s response has been to reassert Russian power and disrupt American influence abroad, but he has also dared to do what other competitors, including China, haven’t dared to: he has openly tried to destabilize the United States internally. I mean, one could argue that China has but not to the extent or so brazenly as Russia has; the Chinese have been more subtle. But Putin’s attempt to tilt the election was its way of sowing discord, which was really the true goal. Most Russians, like most Americans, were expecting Hillary to win the election. They realistically hoped that they could make it so that Hillary was so politically poisoned that she couldn’t accomplish anything, and that Americans would spend more time fighting itself than fighting Russia. When Trump actually won the election, Putin succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

But understand something: Russian involvement in American politics is far deeper than what has been acknowledged to this point. They clearly formed a trans-Atlantic oligarchal/plutocratic alliance and the Republican party and conservative grassroots organizations are effectively their political partners. We knew that Russian oligarchs didn’t like working with Obama and didn’t want to work with Hillary Clinton for the same reason, but they assumed they would have to. Particularly over the past decade, the Russian oligarchs, like the American oligarchs, have seen any democratic-type party as a threat to their interests. They have a mutual interest in crushing institutionalized democracy, and that is why their partnership will only grow stronger.

China doesn’t need to interfere as much to weaken the US to gain relative strength. China can play the long game. They don’t have the weakness that classically liberal democracies have. As long as they economically colonize carefully they should have the resources they need to outproduce anyone. IP advantages? Like the US can keep a secret.

Hopefully Chinese and Russian meddling combined with the rise of China knocks us off our perch of complacency. Maybe we’ll, as a nation, start remembering the world is a competitive place. Or maybe the Russians will exploit secessionist movements and other ignorant/stupid factions in the US and Europe and leave the west divided and neutered.

[octopus]

@KarlGauss

You use the word ‘political’, add ‘machination’ to ensure it becomes pejorative, and conclude it has ‘very little to do with the actual guilt or innocence’. Well done. You have made a fine showing of interpreting the Constitution as ‘political’ when it suits you.

Can we now have an example of an appeal to the Constitution that serves your purpose? Maybe something about the 2nd Amendment?

When the word “is” is up for debate due to politics is it surprising sentences in the constitution are?

[asahi]

@HurricaneDitka

I can certainly imagine hypotheticals wherein the decision to impeach was not the subject of political machinations, but those hypotheticals have nothing to do with the current reality. The current reality is that the primary driver of the Dems decision to impeach or not is how it might affect their chances in the 2020 election. If they think it will help, they’re going to impeach, and if they think it’s going to hurt the Party’s chances (which seems to be the more popular viewpoint currently), they’re not going to impeach. It’s an almost-entirely-politicized decision-making process (with a lot of echoes of “party over country” IMHO).

There’s no question that Democrats see a political opportunity in exposing what they see as Donald Trump’s corruption - I don’t think anyone here is going to argue to the contrary.

However, it is simultaneously true that many Democrats are gravely concerned about the future of a country in which the president of the United States can effectively, with the help of people who were hired to be objective enforcers of the law, declare himself to be above the law. Indeed I think even a fair number of Republicans are seriously concerned about that as well, but for personal reasons have been more reserved in their opposition to Trump.

Both can be true at the same, though. Democrats saw opportunity in exposing Nixon, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t also have serious reservations about boundless presidential power.

[Czarcasm]

@octopus

When the word “is” is up for debate due to politics is it surprising sentences in the constitution are?

It was the right that politicized that ancient action. Got any points pertinent to this century?

[begbert2]

@HurricaneDitka

I can certainly imagine hypotheticals wherein the decision to impeach was not the subject of political machinations, but those hypotheticals have nothing to do with the current reality. The current reality is that the primary driver of the Dems decision to impeach or not is how it might affect their chances in the 2020 election. If they think it will help, they’re going to impeach, and if they think it’s going to hurt the Party’s chances (which seems to be the more popular viewpoint currently), they’re not going to impeach. It’s an almost-entirely-politicized decision-making process (with a lot of echoes of “party over country” IMHO).

It is my opinion that Trump has committed actual crimes. As in, he’s actually broken the law of the united states. If it’s okay to impeach him over murder, it’s okay to impeach him over the crimes he has committed. Any impeachment process carried out now would be no more political than if he mowed down a crowd of nuns and orphans with a machine gun on the national news. If he was subsequently incarcerated or even executed for his crimes (for obstruction of justice? Hardly), that too would be non-political.

The reason we’re not impeaching him isn’t because he’s innocent of the crimes he’s committed. It’s because the republicans in the senate think that crime and criminals are okay if condoning crime and criminals helps them politically. House democrats refraining from impeaching him is a politically motivated act, in a way that actually impeaching him wouldn’t be.

[HurricaneDitka]

@begbert2

It is my opinion that Trump has committed actual crimes. As in, he’s actually broken the law of the united states. …

Which “actual crimes” do you opine that he has committed?

[D_Anconia]

@BobLibDem

I don’t believe in capital punishment and I don’t think that he deserves the martyr status that would follow, but his punishment wouldn’t be for being a political enemy, it would be for being a criminal and a traitor.

There is no evidence, none, that President committed a capital offense.

[Buck_Godot]

@XT

This was claimed up thread. What evidence do you have that the US is taking a massive hit wrt international relations? We have taken something of a hit wrt China, but our relations with them have been rocky. In practical terms, how has our relations with Europe actually changed? What about our Asian partners? Has that changed? Australia? Canada? I’m not seeing any sort of practical, real world change to be honest. Several world leaders have TALKED about pivoting to other partners and away from the US, but where is the evidence they actually are doing it? Are the Europeans building up their own military in anticipation of going it alone, without the US? How about Japan? South Korea? Are they talking about snuggling up to the other up and coming superpower, China? Doesn’t seem likely, though some European countries do seem to be toying with the idea (Italy and Greece spring to mind).

It honestly does seem like an incredible claim to me as I don’t see evidence of it actually happening…and this is WITH this orange haired idiot in charge. But, even with that, I don’t see countries taking real, practical and visible steps away from the US and towards…something else. But if you have some evidence of this happening, I’m all ears.

The biggest problem is that the first thing the Trump did when entering office is to tear up NAFTA all of the treaties made under Obama purely out of spite. What this means is that the US can only be held to its word through the term of the current president. If we’re lucky, future presidents may be able to claim Trump was an aberration and they can be trusted, but if this policy isn’t heartily repudiated by both sides once Trump leaves office, we will be limited to treaties of four years or less.

[DrDeth]

@Velocity

Hillary was a pretty hawkish person. Trump was much less savvy about geopolitics and possibly easier to take advantage of. Made sense for Moscow to favor Trump.

Incidentally, if future elections feature a hawkish Republican vs. a dovish Democrat, I’d expect Russia to back the Democrat.

Yes, true, the Kremlin was also backing Sanders.

[XT]

@Buck_Godot

The biggest problem is that the first thing the Trump did when entering office is to tear up NAFTA all of the treaties made under Obama purely out of spite. What this means is that the US can only be held to its word through the term of the current president. If we’re lucky, future presidents may be able to claim Trump was an aberration and they can be trusted, but if this policy isn’t heartily repudiated by both sides once Trump leaves office, we will be limited to treaties of four years or less.

Two things. First, this isn’t actually true…there are binding and non-binding treaties. The US CAN be held to the binding ones but they have to be approved by Congress (advice and consent of the Senate or something along those lines). Secondly, again, what’s the real world impact? Seems like we have basically the same treaty to me, with a few cosmetic changes that were more about Trump saving face and having something to go back to the uninformed that he’s a great negotiator. There wasn’t any actual change, before, during or after. Just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

But, certainly, countries negotiating with the US need to be aware of how we look at agreements verse treaties. My WAG is…they actually are aware of this distinction and know the risks of agreements that might be good for the current administration but not binding on the next one, who might overturn or do an about face. This has always been the case, however, and isn’t anything new with Trump.

[begbert2]

@HurricaneDitka

Which “actual crimes” do you opine that he has committed?

I mentioned obstruction of justice by name in a parenthetical comment about how the crimes he’s committed almost certainly don’t justify execution. You remember that one, the one that Mueller is giving every indication that he thinks Trump is guilty of but won’t state officially because of current DoJ policy.

That’s one crime I’m of the firm personal belief he’s committed. There could be others that he’s committed too, I don’t know, I’m not his keeper, prosecutor, or evidence hider.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Buck_Godot

The biggest problem is that the first thing the Trump did when entering office is to tear up NAFTA all of the treaties made under Obama purely out of spite. What this means is that the US can only be held to its word through the term of the current president. If we’re lucky, future presidents may be able to claim Trump was an aberration and they can be trusted, but if this policy isn’t heartily repudiated by both sides once Trump leaves office, we will be limited to treaties of four years or less.

Treaties, approved by the Senate, are generally more enduring than a single presidential administration. When the “treaty” is really just an ‘executive agreement’ (I think that’s the correct description of our position on the Paris Climate Accord) then no, people can’t really expect that they’ll remain in force beyond the current administration. I seem to remember writing about that here a while ago … Yes, here it is:

@HurricaneDitka

I was writing a response to your long earlier post, but I’ve gotten sidetracked from that, and wanted to respond briefly to this:

There’s a very good reason that the Constitution requires treaties be ratified by a super-majority of the Senate. It’s so that before the US commits itself to some action on the international stage, we ensure that there’s broad-based and durable domestic support for that action, so that it won’t be undone next election and we won’t look schizophrenic and our allies won’t be left confused and unsure if the US is really committed to a course or action.

Obama short-circuited that process and committed us to an action that did not have a broad-based and durable base of support in this country. Do you, at least now, understand why that was not a good idea?