The Trump Presidency

Your guy that sells bud to put his kid through school is making a willful decision to break a law that has strict penalities. Why should I feel bad for them? They are asessin risk and reward. If there was no penalty it wouldn't be worth it to sell it.
 
Hawk said:
Did they really lie?

Until then, it seems like pure fantasy.
Click to expand...

The disclosure comes as Trump campaign advisers are the subject of an FBI probe and two congressional investigations. Investigators are reviewing whether the Trump campaign and its associates coordinated with Moscow to meddle in the 2016 campaign. Manafort has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated and misguided (3rd rate burglary), and said he never worked for Russian interests. The documents obtained by AP show Manafort's ties to Russia were closer than previously revealed.

https://www.apnews.com/122ae0b5848345faa88108a03de40c5a

This was reported on Maddow during summer.

2 points here Hawk.

1) the same reporters that uncovered/explained Bridgegate are doing the heavy lifting on this Russia thing
2) never pick a fight with those that buy ink by the barrel
 
Hawk said:
Did they really lie? Or do they just have smarter lawyers than you/I?

Until then, it seems like pure fantasy.
Click to expand...

Morning Joe July 2016 —

Q: Are there any ties between you and Putin or his regime?

Paul Manafort: “No, there are not. That’s absurd.”
 
57Brave said:
Morning Joe July 2016 —

Q: Are there any ties between you and Putin or his regime?

Paul Manafort: “No, there are not. That’s absurd.”
Click to expand...

So he was supposed to say, "Well, I worked for a Russian oligarch (who paid me $10MM per year [damn good gig]) a decade ago and put together a pro-business position paper for said oligarch that incorporated Putin's government (aka the law of the land) ... so, technically, yes."

Still sending bloodhounds to the banks and coming back dry.
 
Hawk said:
So he was supposed to say, "Well, I worked for a Russian oligarch (who paid me $10MM per year [damn good gig]) a decade ago and put together a pro-business position paper for said oligarch that incorporated Putin's government (aka the law of the land) ... so, technically, yes."

Still sending bloodhounds to the banks and coming back dry.
Click to expand...

your charactorization pretty much hit the nail on the head so
yes, that is what he was supposed to say
 
Matthew Yglesias‏Verified account @mattyglesias 3m3 minutes ago

It would still be very easy for Trump to say something normal like, "Vladimir Putin's repressive political regime is bad."
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
................

yet ,,,

The Rude Pundit‏ @rudepundit 2m2 minutes ago

It is not outside the realm of possibility that Trump's greatest sales pitch/con job was to Putin: "Help me get elected and I help you."
 
57Brave said:
your charactorization pretty much hit the nail on the head so
yes, that is what he was supposed to say
Click to expand...

But, like I said last night, his lawyers are smart ... because his response wasn't technically a lie.

Manafort did not directly work for Putin and claiming that Deripaska is a part of Putin's regime is a subjective judgment.

Besides, though, as a campaign manager in the heat of a race where Russian foul play is a chief issue why would you needlessly self-insert into the debate?
 
his lawyers bought him 6 months

you're right he didn't work for Putin. He worked for either a guy that works for Putin or the guy Putin works for.
Yet to be determined

Look at the timeline of Trump statements on NATO.
pretty sure that was in the Ignatius article

Russia was not an issue until Maddow/ Bennen etc pointed out Manaforts ties with Deripaska

"you can look it up"
- Casey Stengel
 
57Brave said:
Matthew Yglesias‏Verified account @mattyglesias 3m3 minutes ago

It would still be very easy for Trump to say something normal like, "Vladimir Putin's repressive political regime is bad."

0 replies 0 retweets 1 like

................

yet ,,,

The Rude Pundit‏ @rudepundit 2m2 minutes ago

It is not outside the realm of possibility that Trump's greatest sales pitch/con job was to Putin: "Help me get elected and I help you."
Click to expand...

It would be very easy for a lot of countries to say that about us. This holier than thou attitude is one of the many reasons we are hated around the world.



If Putin really wanted to **** with us he would be exposing Trump. The controversy would destroy the illusion that our democracy is real which is one of the things Putin wants.
 
Surprised none of our local Trump apologists have a comment/defense of the display of tanks and other faux dictatorial trappings Trump wanted at inaugural.

You can look that up too, I have to go bck to work.
Some of us have to pay for Wall Street tax breaks
 
cajunrevenge said:
It would be very easy for a lot of countries to say that about us. This holier than thou attitude is one of the many reasons we are hated around the world.


If Putin really wanted to **** with us he would be exposing Trump. The controversy would destroy the illusion that our democracy is real which is one of the things Putin wants.
Click to expand...

oh I completely agree. Perhaps that is some good ( down the road ) that comes out of this
Let's get this settled first though
 
57Brave said:
his lawyers bought him 6 months

you're right he didn't work for Putin. He worked for either a guy that works for Putin or the guy Putin works for.
Yet to be determined

Look at the timeline of Trump statements on NATO.
pretty sure that was in the Ignatius article

Russia was not an issue until Maddow/ Bennen etc pointed out Manaforts ties with Deripaska

"you can look it up"
- Casey Stengel
Click to expand...

Again, the claim that Deripaska works for Putin (certainly not the other way around) isn't ever going to carry water. That's like trying to say Elon Musk works for Trump because Trump invited him to the White House and asked him to serve on a special economic counsel.

Now you could very well be right as far as the NATO statements are concerned, but it still feels like trying to fit puzzle pieces into the wrong puzzle. You are at the stage where you are hatcheting off the ends that don't quite line up and forcing them to fit. I'm not saying your evidence is bad, I'm just saying that it isn't near conclusive enough.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that it was the New York Times who originally exposed the supposed Manafort/Russian ties with the infamous ledger piece (aka Tom Clancy novella).
 
Hawk said:
You are okay with the Russians interfering in our election ... because they are 'expected to'?

Um, okay.

- We do interfere in elections all over the world - some with cause, some without. That being said, we should have better digital defense mechanisms in place if we're going to engage in that kind of activity. It's no secret that the Russians are just as adroit as we are when it comes to cyber warfare, if not a notch above, so not seeing this coming (or protecting from it) is a failure of leadership that needs to be placed at someone's feet.

- It would be a problem if Trump/his staff or advisors/the Republicans (that's a new one) intentionally colluded with the Russians to 'hack the election' (whatever the hell that means). But it's an even greater problem when those accusations are being thrown around with zero evidence. It undermines our institutions and lends a firm backhand to American democracy. Now you tell me what is more damaging to our processes: leaked emails or puffed up heavy breathing about treason?

- Drop the Fox News saw for god's sake. It sends you to the bottom of the pile.
Click to expand...

I wish we could just eliminate the word "treason" and the like from this kind of discussion. It's counterproductive and even chilling to the goal of transparency and getting a consensus handle on some kind of objective set of facts. I agree that some folks are going off the rails about the collusion aspect of this, and maybe--though this is not really known or even knowable at this point--about its overall import. But if Russian attempts at fiddling with our election process is going to be the status quo, it seems like we're doing ourselves a disservice if we don't seek to fully understand it. There are going to be partisan cudgels swung, but I also expect they'll be headed in both directions, and sometimes with some merit.

As for potentially undermining our institutions with zero-evidence accusations, seems like the guy in the Oval Office ought not to get a pass.
 
Hawk said:
Again, the claim that Deripaska works for Putin (certainly not the other way around) isn't ever going to carry water. That's like trying to say Elon Musk works for Trump because Trump invited him to the White House and asked him to serve on a special economic counsel.

Now you could very well be right as far as the NATO statements are concerned, but it still feels like trying to fit puzzle pieces into the wrong puzzle. You are at the stage where you are hatcheting off the ends that don't quite line up and forcing them to fit. I'm not saying your evidence is bad, I'm just saying that it isn't near conclusive enough.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that it was the New York Times who originally exposed the supposed Manafort/Russian ties with the infamous ledger piece (aka Tom Clancy novella).
Click to expand...

Respectfully, man, that's a pretty odd statement. I'm not trying to say what pieces fit where, or whether they're pieces at all, but the idea that the relationship between Russian oligarchs and Putin is analogous to wealthy American elites and the American president is less likely to hold water than the idea that someone working for Deripaska is ultimately working to further the interests of Putin.
 
Julio3000 said:
I wish we could just eliminate the word "treason" and the like from this kind of discussion. It's counterproductive and even chilling to the goal of transparency and getting a consensus handle on some kind of objective set of facts. I agree that some folks are going off the rails about the collusion aspect of this, and maybe--though this is not really known or even knowable at this point--about its overall import. But if Russian attempts at fiddling with our election process is going to be the status quo, it seems like we're doing ourselves a disservice if we don't seek to fully understand it. There are going to be partisan cudgels swung, but I also expect they'll be headed in both directions, and sometimes with some merit.
Click to expand...

I don't quite see how (or why) you might expect the average citizen to willingly divorce treason from the equation when these accusations of collusion have been framed to directly relate to free and fair elections and the democratic process. You might start with blaming Hillary Clinton for ratcheting up the hysteria with her inflammatory comments during a nationally televised debate. Once those kind of allegations are made on a public stage you can't just expect things to ease back down to a simmer in the interests of obtaining an 'objective set of facts'. Those might have been delivered prior to the lobbing that grenade.

Objectivity has long since ceased to exist within the parameters of any discussion related to this issue.

In a previous post you mentioned the importance of parsing Russian attempts to disrupt the election separately from the Trump campaign (now administration) colluding with the Russians to disrupt the election. After Comey's comments yesterday, it doesn't appear as though that is a distinction worth making any longer. As I've said now, on multiple occasions, determining the extent of Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign is a no-brainer. However, I've got to pray that, after 9 months of investigation (that, at one point, was signed off on by over a dozen intelligence agencies) if anything truly nefarious or illegal had transpired in relation to Trump's cabal we wouldn't still be sitting here under a virginal administration.

As for potentially undermining our institutions with zero-evidence accusations, seems like the guy in the Oval Office ought not to get a pass.
Click to expand...

Certainly not, although your President's accusations are supported with about just as much circumstantial evidence as those of his administration colluding with Volodya.
 
Julio3000 said:
Respectfully, man, that's a pretty odd statement. I'm not trying to say what pieces fit where, or whether they're pieces at all, but the idea that the relationship between Russian oligarchs and Putin is analogous to wealthy American elites and the American president is less likely to hold water than the idea that someone working for Deripaska is ultimately working to further the interests of Putin.
Click to expand...

So are you trying to tell me that you believe the relationship Putin enjoys with his titans of industry is materially different than the relationship the American president enjoys with our own kingmakers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top