The Trump Presidency

Julio3000 said:
Seriously, you read the AP article, right? Manafort's own words in the docs were about working to the benefit of the Putin government, which was obviously in the interest of his prospective client.

Why play dumb about this?
Click to expand...

EJ Dionne

" The months since the election have produced no small number of “regretful Trump voter” stories. And these narratives have grown even more prominent as news outlets have sought to dramatize the gap between the health-care plan Trump described on the stump, and the one he is trying to push through Congress

But while such “#Trumpgrets” do exist, they are aberrations: Only 3 percent of Trump voters regret their decision — and fewer than 1 percent wish they had voted for Hillary Clinton last fall — according to a new poll from Penn State’s McCourtney Institute of Democracy and YouGov.

What’s more, the poll doesn’t find all that much ambivalence among the 97 percent of non-regretful Trump backers. "
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm not a hardliner. I'm just observing what's confirmed by volumes of literature, and, without putting too fine a point on it, the consensus of the world outside of Moscow.
Click to expand...

Then the scope of your reading material and ability to gauge consensus doesn't extend very far.

New York Times, December 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/russias-oligarchy-alive-and-well.html
Yet Russia’s oligarchy (that is, the control of the state and economy by a small group of well-placed, extremely wealthy insiders) is alive and well. The supposedly all-powerful Mr. Putin actually devotes much of his time to refereeing bitter disputes between oligarchs like Igor I. Sechin, the head of the state oil company Rosneft, and Gennady N. Timchenko, a co-owner of Russia’s largest oil trading company and an independent natural gas producer. These latter-day oligarchs, many of whom have built vast business empires on the back of longstanding connections to Mr. Putin, are part of a political tradition that dates back to the rapid expansion of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy in the 1400s.

[...]

The most authoritative description of Russia’s peculiar style of rule can be found in an unusual place: a little-known academic essay by the Harvard medieval historian Edward L. Keenan, originally prepared for the State Department in the mid-1970s. Professor Keenan’s vivid account of the conspiracies, secrecy and power politics of the Muscovite czarist court will be readily recognizable to viewers of “Game of Thrones.” Most important, Professor Keenan punctures the myth of an all-powerful czar.


[...]

Unfortunately, our understanding of Mr. Putin’s regime and its most important players remains heavily distorted by our disappointment that Russia has failed to develop along Western lines. By fixating on Mr. Putin’s authoritarian streak, hostility to outside influences and resistance to Western-style reforms, we generally overlook that his value to the system, like that of the czars who preceded him, is based on maintaining the balance among competing vested interests. Just as it was five centuries ago, the main battles inside the Kremlin among these groups are about power, money and access to special privileges, not ideology.

---

The Lithuania Times, August 2014
http://en.delfi.lt/central-eastern-...-rule-who-really-governs-russia.d?id=65432116

In Lithuania and in the West, Putin's system of rule is still often described as a monolith pyramid. In the eyes of society, Putin manages to present himself as an irreplaceable leader-statesman (‘tsar’, according to the West), solely making key decisions. But such an understanding of ruling processes in Russia is one of the main mistakes which prevents from obtaining a deeper insight into the regime's origins and foundations.

[...]

The Russian authorities do not comprise a strict vertical structure, ruled by one person. The vertical image is nothing more than a propaganda cliché. The Russian authorities are a conglomerate of clans and groups which compete with one another for resources and power. Putin's role in this system remains the same – that of an arbiter and moderator.

[...]

[T]he ‘Politburo 2.0’ has amassed a number of elite groups which, to some extent, can be divided into 'power', 'political, 'technical' and 'businessmen'. On the one hand, these groups support the 'Politburo 2.0’, on the other – they constantly fight among themselves for influence on the ‘Politburo 2.0’ and also try get their members inside it,” this is how the real Russian authorities were described in 2012, after Putin became President again, by Minchenko Consulting (a centre owned by Yevgeny Minchenko, a prominent Russian political consultant), which conducted a large study and interviewed over 60 various experts and people in close relations with the authorities.

[...]

---

The School of Asian and Russian Studies, June 2005
http://www.sras.org/privately_enforced_capitalism

Most western observers would point out that he cracked down and even arrested many oligarchs, that he seems most interested in his own power. But the oligarchs who lost favor were not well-connected, traditional oligarchs. Furthermore, they were political opponents of Yeltsin and Putin. Putin is simply favoring the old Nomenklatura, which he comes from. There should be no doubt that Putin's power is based on the oligarchs as much as the oligarchs' power is based on President Putin.

You've told me, in effect, that Russia--which is a kleptocratic autocracy, regardless of the specific orientation of the kleptocrats--is not really that different than the US. You walked it back, but I think your words stand pretty clearly.
Click to expand...

No, I have not.
 
Julio3000 said:
But doing political work for a billionaire oligarch =/= effectively working in Putin's interests. Dude.
Click to expand...

Again, a mispresentation. I said that he never worked for Putin. Nice attempt to blur the lines though.

My original statement: "Manafort did not directly work for Putin and claiming that Deripaska is a part of Putin's regime is a subjective judgment."
 
Julio3000 said:
Seriously, you read the AP article, right? Manafort's own words in the docs were about working to the benefit of the Putin government, which was obviously in the interest of his prospective client.

Why play dumb about this?
Click to expand...

Manafort worked for Putin!

Oh, wait, Manafort didn't actually work for Putin, he worked for a guy who was rich in Russia.

Well everybody who has money in Russia gets it from Putin, so technically he works for Putin because they are beholden to him.

I don't know. For some odd reason it felt appropriate to try and inject perspective into a discussion that didn't have any.
 
Hawk said:
Again, a mispresentation. I said that he never worked for Putin. Nice attempt to blur the lines though.

My original statement: "Manafort did not directly work for Putin and claiming that Deripaska is a part of Putin's regime is a subjective judgment."
Click to expand...

Ok. And I take it that it's a subjective judgement that you'd disagree with.

I was responding to this statement:

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.

I think the Musk comparison is simply off the mark, and at the root of that is the difference between the relationship between American "captains of industry" and the President vs the relationship between the oligarchs and Putin. I'm comfortable with my opinion on that score. I mean, they're similar in the sense that they're, I dunno, both animals. One's a chimpanzee and one's a chipmunk. IMO, the differences are so great as to make the comparison useless. We disagree.

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?

...

it's disingenuous to proceed as though there is no comparison to be made at all between the power struggles of the American/Russian bourgeoisie (Marxist variety) and their respective governments. Obama may not have put polonium in David Koch's coffee, but I wouldn't characterize Obama era policy decisions made in relation to enterprises the Koch Brothers had ties to as particularly friendly.

If I misinterpreted these statements and misrepresented the degree to which you were comparing the systems, I am sorry. I thought there was a pretty clear inference there.

As to the statement itself, about Manafort, you are technically correct. Per these revelations, he was not employed by Putin. Your further statements about Deripaska are debatable, and I'll leave it there.
 
Hawk said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/...he-air.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=opinion&_r=0

“There’s a smell of treason in the air,” presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said. “Imagine if J. Edgar Hoover or any other FBI director would have testified against a sitting president? It would have been a mind-
boggling event.”

'Treason' mentions elimination mechanisms failing.
Click to expand...

Matthew Yglesias‏Verified account @mattyglesias 13s14 seconds ago

Connecting the dots between Trump, who hired Paul Manafort, and Russia, which also hired Paul Manafort, is disappointingly easy.
..........................................................................................................................................

"treason" is a possibility.
Like Sharia Law is a possibility or being overwhelmed by kneeling brown people.
 
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...

Yeah, still sending bloodhounds to the banks.

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Treasury Department agents have recently obtained information about offshore financial transactions involving President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, as part of a federal anti-corruption probe into his work in Eastern Europe, The Associated Press has learned.

Information about Manafort's transactions was turned over earlier this year to U.S. agents working in the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by investigators in Cyprus at the U.S. agency's request, a person familiar with the case said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to publicly discuss a criminal investigation.

...

As part of their investigation, U.S. officials were expected to look into millions of dollars' worth of wire transfers to Manafort. In one case, the AP found that a Manafort-linked company received a $1 million payment in October 2009 from a mysterious firm through the Bank of Cyprus. The $1 million payment left the account the same day — split in two, roughly $500,000 disbursements to accounts with no obvious owner.

There is nothing inherently illicit about using multiple companies as Manafort was doing. But it was unclear why he would have been involved with companies in Cyprus, known for its history of money laundering before joining the European Union, with unclear sources of the money flowing in to them and with such secrecy surrounding the firms' connections to Manafort.
Click to expand...

So, using offshore shell companies in a Russian-money laundering haven isn't a particularly good look, but it's not proof of wrongdoing.

Isn't it fair to say that investigations, particularly of complicated international financial transactions, aren't resolved overnight?
 
Hawk said:
Then the scope of your reading material and ability to gauge consensus doesn't extend very far.
Click to expand...

That's possible. My reading is admittedly one-sided. I'd suggest Karen Dawisha's Putin's Kleptocracy, Masha Gessen's The Man Without a Face(which features a nice retelling of the Bob Kraft Super Bowl ring story), and Bill Browder's Red Notice, which covers the Magnitsky affair.

I agree with the conclusion of the NYT editorial that the oligarchic system has deep roots in Russia, and that it will outlive its current master. That's still kinda eliding the point that there is a master. This article casts Putin as a referee among competing power centers. Ok, this may make it difficult to do business in a frictionless way, but it's hardly suggesting that he's not the boss--a distant first among equals. If Sechin disagrees with Timchenko who disagrees with Medvedev, they're all his creatures (at least two of them are) and owe their position to his patronage. They're beefing with each other, not bucking the boss.

From the second piece:

Putin's role in this system remains the same – that of an arbiter and moderator. And it is an influential one – he, at least during conflicts, has the final say.

That whole article is an extensive unpacking of how Putin serves as an arbiter amongst influential groups--which he ultimately creates and maintains through the spoils of state capitalism.

The third article, which is the only one to make this type of assertion:

There should be no doubt that Putin's power is based on the oligarchs as much as the oligarchs' power is based on President Putin.

was written in 2005. Khordokovsky had been arrested but not prosecuted him. Who inherited his empire? Not a member of the old-school nomenklatura, but Igor Sechin, who'd worked for Putin since the St. P mayor's office the 90s and remains probably his closest ally. I think it's safe to say that there's lots of water under the bridge since 2005.

To wit, this is the conclusion:

It appears that with the election of President Putin, the Nomenklatura oligarchs have solidified their position. Therefore, the questions are: how long Putin will stay in office? Who will replace him? And will Putin or his predecessor find a way to deal with the oligarchs if it is indeed in their interests to do so? The first two questions are of course impossible to answer. It does appear that Putin is still popular with the oligarchs and they have a history of helping to reelect friendly presidents, so I see no reason why they would not do so next time, should Putin find a way to run again. However, with the loss of media control, it is unclear what kind of impact the oligarchs could actually have on an election. President Putin spent $0 on the last election. He simply did not campaign. Favorable media coverage by government-controlled networks was enough.

Not exactly timely.

So if you want to say that the "power vertical" is an exaggeration, maybe you're right, but nothing here says that it's a myth.
 
zitothebrave said:
Maybe, but I highly doubt that if a democrat did this for Obama you'd say the game. Certainly Garmel who liked your post wouldn't be saying the same.
Click to expand...

I'm just telling you that it's a story that's not going to go anywhere.

You can whine about partisanship to your heart's content, but, again, it's a non-story.
 
a crystal clear violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act

and nothing will be done about it

cause you know

party over country
 
Hawk said:
To reduce this guy to being a 'Putin critic' and, likewise, blame his death directly on Putin, is pretty simple-minded -- not to mention a blunt disservice to what the man was actually trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

There is a lot more going on here...and it's a craaazy story (short writeup here)...Whatever the case, he just got murdered on the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top