The Trump Presidency

[Julio3000]

Hold up. Why do you think Russia got involved in Syria to begin with?



You asked me what my solution would be. I replied. I'm curious as to how you derive certainty from that.

Again, I'm still waiting on an alternative from you that isn't entirely comprised of sitting on ones hands.

Hold up. Why do you think Russia got involved in Syria to begin with?

They got directly involved, but they were an ally and supporter already, so I think it's a fudge to say that they weren't involved before.

You asked me what my solution would be. I replied. I'm curious as to how you derive certainty from that.

I can't speak to your certainty, but you make two assumptions which I think are tenuous:

1) That Obama's failure to act necessarily led to a worse outcome, as compared to significant intervention
2) That invading or eliminating Assad would have necessarily led to a better outcome. Seems like it might just lead to another Iraq, this time with both Iran AND Russia outside the tent, pissing in.

Again, I'm still waiting on an alternative from you that isn't entirely comprised of sitting on ones hands.

There is no alternative that I strongly favor. I don't think there are any good options, and yes, that is a consequence of Obama's failure to act earlier (and yes, there are still caveats to that statement).

I think that there is no public appetite for large-scale military intervention involving significant American boots on the ground. That's been pretty consistent since the beginning. I think that the urge to just do . . . something. . . may come from the heart but isn't necessarily practical. I'm not enthused about yet anther open-ended commitment in the region. We have how many of those already?

Establishing no-fly and safe zones would require some kind of long-term ground commitment, and would involve conflict and casualties across the board, but it's something that has to be considered, at least. There would certainly be a risk of getting tangled up w/Russia, but less so than if we went full Leeeroy Jenkins. If our European allies and Arab League countries would be willing to commit, it could potentially help put pressure on Assad to get out, which I agree should be the ultimate goal, but not at any price.

Doing nothing is another option, also unappealing. Either way, we're going to be there fighting ISIL.

[Julio3000]

Either are possible. I'd like to wait and see before concluding either is the truth.

But just as a matter of plausibility, what do you think? A guy with a track record of fabrication makes an unsourced claim about something which he has no reason to know, and you're unwilling to just say "yeah, that doesn't pass the smell test."

That's to say nothing of the substance. Nothing that's been reported supports Trump's wiretapping claims. I've not seen any specific claim of anything that was either illegal or even improper (other than possibly the leak to the WaPo about Flynn, and that remains to be seen). Nunes even said that he saw nothing illegal.

Speaking of Nunes, I wonder why the WH won't let the Intel Committee see the documents that they showed him?

[Julio3000]

Well, here's a positive development. A good call by Trump, and hopefully a sign that McMaster isn't going to be marginalized.

[thethe]

You are right. Believing that is crazy.

It doesn't matter what I believe. Actual business owners and investors believe this

[Julio3000]

"A White House official said that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He’s no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said."

So they are straight-up saying they appointed a national security advisor who needed a minder? What a goat rodeo.

Same official says "we all knew Flynn had issues."

Classic.

[sturg33]

It doesn't matter what I believe. Actual business owners and investors believe this

What's a "business"??

[57Brave]

can anyone explain this ?

.@marcorubio says Assad had "incentive to act with impunity” after Tillerson’s remarks on Syria shifting US posture.

[Julio3000]

can anyone explain this ?

.@marcorubio says Assad had "incentive to act with impunity” after Tillerson’s remarks on Syria shifting US posture.

I think that Tillerson's statement was an aggravating factor and an unnecessary sop to Russia, but Assad has long enjoyed the ability to act with impunity.

[57Brave]

What did he say ?

[thethe]

But just as a matter of plausibility, what do you think? A guy with a track record of fabrication makes an unsourced claim about something which he has no reason to know, and you're unwilling to just say "yeah, that doesn't pass the smell test."

That's to say nothing of the substance. Nothing that's been reported supports Trump's wiretapping claims. I've not seen any specific claim of anything that was either illegal or even improper (other than possibly the leak to the WaPo about Flynn, and that remains to be seen). Nunes even said that he saw nothing illegal.

Speaking of Nunes, I wonder why the WH won't let the Intel Committee see the documents that they showed him?

I understand what it looks like. I'm just saying to wait for the facts to come out before passing jusgement. Susan rice needs to be supeonaed

[Julio3000]

I understand what it looks like. I'm just saying to wait for the facts to come out before passing jusgement. Susan rice needs to be supeonaed

Just so we're on the same page, what is it that you're alleging she did wrong?

[thethe]

Just so we're on the same page, what is it that you're alleging she did wrong?

Involved in the leaking of classifield surveillance. Names were unmasked and then leaked. Watch was her involvement in that? What did Obama know.

Also, why exactly were they surveillance for over a year? Was the information they had at the time sufficient for unmasking the names?

[goldfly]

seriously, when will agent orange stop campaigning and stop talking about the election?

[Julio3000]

Involved in the leaking of classifield surveillance.

Oh, when was that?

Names were unmasked and then leaked. Watch was her involvement in that?

I referenced the Flynn leak to the WaPo. That's potentially legit. Are there others that you know about? And is leaking the Flynn story, which brought to light his untruthfulness and led to his firing, the most noteworthy story here? And, FWIW, the WSJ has reported that she wasn't involved in l'affaire Flynn.

What did Obama know.

About what? The only crime you've credibly alleged happened after he was no longer President.

Also, why exactly were they surveillance for over a year?

Nobody has said that "they" were. Nunes said names were unmasked, or even guessed by context, in the course of legal surveillance, not that "they" were under surveillance.

But perhaps they were talking to the subjects of criminal or counterintelligence investigations, or to foreign nationals who were legally under surveillance. What reason is there to believe otherwise?

Was the information they had at the time sufficient for unmasking the names?

I'll repeat: that's not the National Security Advisor's call. That's decided by the intelligence agencies.

[thethe]

I'll wait till the facts come out. Nobody knows the truth right now and we are going to believe what we want

[57Brave]

Trump Says He Thinks Susan Rice Committed a Crime, Isn’t Sure Which One
By Osita Nwanevu
656982292-president-donald-trump-holds-a-listening-session-on
Donald Trump at the White House on March 23.

Molly Riley/Pool/Getty Images

In a Wednesday interview with the New York Times, President Trump accused former national security adviser Susan Rice of having committed a crime by requesting the "unmasking" of the names of Trump associates who were caught up in the legal surveillance of foreign targets. Unmasking can be done legally, and Trump did not say specifically what crime Rice may have committed; he also accused other Obama officials, vaguely, of involvement in nefarious activities. From the Times:

He declined to say if he had personally reviewed new intelligence to bolster his claim but pledged to explain himself “at the right time." ... When asked if Ms. Rice, who has denied leaking the names of Trump associates under surveillance by United States intelligence agencies, had committed a crime, the president said, “Do I think? Yes, I think.”

Trump also took time during the interview to defend Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who is currently under fire over a Times report that several sexual assault lawsuits against him that were quietly settled. “I think he’s a person I know well—he is a good person,” he told the Times’ Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman. “I think he shouldn’t have settled; personally I think he shouldn’t have settled.”

Osita Nwanevu is a Slate editorial assistant.

Slate
..................

If you voted for this train wreck please .... ah never mind

[Julio3000]

I'll wait till the facts come out. Nobody knows the truth right now and we are going to believe what we want

That's fine. I'll be glad to see her testify if asked.

Just so we're clear: the investigation into Russian interference in the election and possible Trump campaign collusion is based on multiple FBI investigations and two Republican-led congressional committees. What you're alleging about Susan Rice is so far based on Hannity, Breitbart, the Washington Times, and the Daily Caller. So, yeah. We'll wait 'til the facts come out.

[Garmel]

What you're alleging about Susan Rice is so far based on Hannity, Breitbart, the Washington Times, and the Daily Caller. So, yeah. We'll wait 'til the facts come out.

While I agree that all of this Susan Rice stuff could be nonsense you can't go by who's covering it to determine what's real and what's not real. When a democrat gets in trouble the media circles the wagons. There is horrible bias in the media.

[Julio3000]

While I agree that all of this Susan Rice stuff could be nonsense you can't go by who's covering it to determine what's real and what's not real. When a democrat gets in trouble the media circles the wagons. There is horrible bias in the media.

Fair enough, but I'm not going by who's covering it, per se. I'm going by what they're writing. They're either (in the case of the Daily Caller) making unsupported and unsourced allegations of wrongdoing, or conflating routine legal activity with criminality and conspiracy. Three could be more to come, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[thethe]

That's fine. I'll be glad to see her testify if asked.

Just so we're clear: the investigation into Russian interference in the election and possible Trump campaign collusion is based on multiple FBI investigations and two Republican-led congressional committees. What you're alleging about Susan Rice is so far based on Hannity, Breitbart, the Washington Times, and the Daily Caller. So, yeah. We'll wait 'til the facts come out.

Well that's because trumps case has been investigated for months and still no evidence has surfaced. The Susan rice investigation is a relatively new case so why would you expect your fact pattern to be any differebt?