Trump Part 17

[vuk]

As I said - give your proof that Hedges, Cohen, Greenwald, Max & you stating "there was no collusion" is NOT propaganda -

either i am not communicating properly or you are failing to grasp what i'm saying because you keep misrepresenting my position. no point in continuing with this, but you may want to hand in a resume to princeton if you are so sure of your superiority over people like cohen.

 

[matthewr]

you keep bringing everything DOWN to this tedious realm and keep avoiding the big picture. the discussion hedges and cohen had is at a much higher level and far more important than whatever minutiae you seem to think is worth obsessing over here.

I watched the Hedges video which was, frankly, bizarre. They not only mischaracterised the "Russiagate" issue using Trump's talking points but managed to discuss the demonization of Putin for 30 mins without raising the fact that he is a corrupt gangster, authoritarian who has journalists he doesn't like killed.

 

[Ciunas Audio]

either i am not communicating properly or you are failing to grasp what i'm saying because you keep misrepresenting my position. no point in continuing with this, but you may want to hand in a resume to princeton if you are so sure of your superiority over people like cohen.

OK, so you are no saying as Max does that "there was no collusion" - if that is correct & I am misstating your position, then say that now.

 

[vuk]

I watched the Hedges video which was, frankly, bizarre. They not only mischaracterised the "Russiagate" issue using Trump's talking points but managed to discuss the demonization of Putin for 30 mins without raising the fact that he is a corrupt gangster, authoritarian who has journalists he doesn't like killed.

matthew.

it's like a football analysis show not explaining what a goal is. the audience understands the context and baseline positions/perceptions. they were talking about the history of US/russian relations and this new, bizarre twist. this is why i find hedges interesting, because it's not just a rehash of what's trending, but an attempt at a deeper analysis and bird's eye view.

 

[Rob998]

Meanwhile:

https://mobile.twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1133760318159675399

Precis: China threatening to cut off supplies of rare earths to the US in retaliation to Trumps tariffs. Stock market not reacting in a positive manner...

 

[Ciunas Audio]

I watched the Hedges video which was, frankly, bizarre. They not only mischaracterised the "Russiagate" issue using Trump's talking points but managed to discuss the demonization of Putin for 30 mins without raising the fact that he is a corrupt gangster, authoritarian who has journalists he doesn't like killed.

I agree that Putin is a warlord, gangster, autocrat but I also do think that the US demonise anyone who stands up to their bullying.
But that is spurious where Max & vuk are concerned - AFAIR, they both want to give Trump a free pass on Russia collusion & are making this their wider picture excuse/reason. The fact is that they are constantly misusing the findings of the Mueller report as a propaganda device just like Barr, Trump, etc.

 

[Enfield boy]

And they'll do the same with steel to the UK once our smelters go cold.

Meanwhile:
https://mobile.twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1133760318159675399
Precis: China threatening to cut off supplies of rare earths to the US in retaliation to Trumps tariffs. Stock market not reacting in a positive manner...

 

[vuk]

I agree that Putin is a warlord, gangster, autocrat but I also do think that the US demonise anyone who stands up to their bullying.
But that is spurious where Max & vuk are concerned - AFAIR, they both want to give Trump a free pass on Russia collusion & are making this their wider picture excuse/reason. The fact is that they are constantly misusing the findings of the Mueller report as a propaganda device just like Barr, Trump, etc.

can you please stop putting words in my mouth? i said, i'd had enough of this. i am not looking to give trump a pass of any kind -- you keep trying to frame the conversation in a very limited way (often as a vehicle of moral accusation -- look at what a baddie max is!) and it's not interesting to me.

 

[Ciunas Audio]

can you please stop putting words in my mouth? i said, i'd had enough of this. i am not looking to give trump a pass of any kind -- you keep trying to frame the conversation in a very limited way (often as a vehicle of moral accusation -- look at what a baddie max is!) and it's not interesting to me.

I not putting words in your mouth - I simply asked you very clearly to clarify your position regarding "No collusion", Russiagate
It really is that simple so I don't know what your problem is?

 

[vuk]

I not putting words in your mouth - I simply asked you very clearly to clarify your position regarding "No collusion", Russiagate
It really is that simple so I don't know what your problem is?

i have written paragraphs and paragraphs explaining my position in great detail and yet you keep pressing for a simplistic answer. one wonders why. there was clearly no collusion of the sort CNN, MSNBC and the others were hyping for over 2 years. if you want to consider relatively trivial things like the trump tower meeting, then that's another question -- a pretty boring and inconsequential one. it seems that mueller took the same pragmatic/realistic view and that's why there was no indictment. you really should be pestering him if you're that obsessed.

 

[Ciunas Audio]

OK, I see
Yes, I believe the Mueller investigation was very restricted (& I don't know why, exactly) to something Trump was never accused of, AFAIR.. Did CNN, MSNBC,etc. accuse Trump of conspiring directly with the IRA, GRU in election tampering? That's what Mueller's investigation was restricted to.

 

[maxflinn]

John, the US economy is booming. Trump stands a very strong chance of being re-elected.

The more the Democratic leadership flog the dead Russiagate horse, the more this chance increases.

 

[Ciunas Audio]

I just find that it's propaganda that you & vuk say "no collusion" based on an investigation into a very specific & limited charge. "No collusion" is a very wide statement yet you both spread this propaganda knowing that Mueller's report comes nowhere near supporting such a claim of innocence.

So as long as you guys keep claiming "no collusion" I will challenge you - get used to it

 

[gordon]

From Mueller's mouth today.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

"Insufficient evidence" does not mean "no collusion."

If there was "no collusion" or "broader conspiracy," then then why would Trump obstruct justice. Mueller's report outlines Trump's attempts to obstruct justice, and explains that he did not bring charges because he didn't believe he had the authority to do so. Today he was less cryptic.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

 

[Enfield boy]

When the votes are counted it doesn't really matter because Trump, Blair or whoever will know, "OK, I lied, you know that I lied but you cannot prove, in a court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt that I lied. Therefore I told the truth."

 

[Ciunas Audio]

Yes, & the "insufficient evidence" was the result of the obstruction orchestrated by Trump & his troop of gangsters.

 

[Enfield boy]

The ploy, the terms of reference etc. all worked.
Those who wish to expose the truth need to work harder and there needs to be something better to fill the gaping void once he's gone. Business as usual will not cut the mustard.

 

[matthewr]

there was clearly no collusion of the sort CNN, MSNBC and the others were hyping for over 2 years. if you want to consider relatively trivial things like the trump tower meeting, then that's another question -- a pretty boring and inconsequential one.

Points of order:

1. We don't know if there was no collusion of the Putin has compromised Trump variety because the counterintelligence information is still not known other than to Mueller and the intelligence agencies. We do know suggestive things like that fact that Trump and members of the campaign were at one point worried about "tapes" coming out of Russia and we can be sure that much of the Steele Dossier was reasonably accurate.

2. The phrase "of the sort CNN, MSNBC and the others were hyping for over 2 years" could be replaced by "which the Whitehouse wishes to reduce to simplisitic notions of secret agents so they can deny it". This is pretty much the Trump talking point they use to claim the report exposes it all as a big hoax and fake news.

3. There is a bunch of proof pointing to pre-election collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia essentially trading sanctions relief for election, ahem, assistance negotiated via Manafort. Much of this proof is literally in the Mueller report and can be read by anyone.

There is a reasonable case for criminal charges against the Trump campaign and members thereof for aiding and abetting of election fraud and computer crimes -- by any definition, a collusive crime. The main weakness of this case is caused by successful obstruction of justice and witness lying and possibly by the classified nature of some of the evidence.

E.g. Papadopulous is a blabbermouth and extremely eager to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign but we are expected to believe that when he finds out the GRU has hacked the DNC emails he doesn't tell Trump? A reasonable person would, I think, assume that this means Trump knew about the hacking (although Mueller cannot prove it) and then at the very least encouraged it which is (apparently) enough for aiding and abetting.

I know you don't think it's that important in the grand scheme of things but some of us do.

PS How about them Raptors?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

there was clearly no collusion of the sort CNN, MSNBC and the others were hyping for over 2 years.

As an academic, used to rigour in writing, I'm surprised you would use such an unqualified form of words here. If it were me, rather than 'clearly there was no collusion...' I'd feel more comfortable arguing that 'there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion...'.I have a problem with the 'clearly' and with the 'no collusion', just to spell it out.

It's not a trivial or pedantic point. A large part of the Mueller report relates to the obstruction of justice, where the report seems (I haven't read it in forensic detail) pretty unequivocal that obstruction took place, and there is enough evidence to prosecute a case. So, on the one hand, we have proof of obstruction, and on the other we have insufficient proof of collusion. Your claim ('there was clearly no collusion') doesn't admit the possibility that the 'insufficient proof' derives from the 'obstruction'. So I'd give you a C for this, sorry.

 

[Suffolk Tony]