Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Susheel said:
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/29/581597193/fbi-deputy-director-target-of-partisan-ire-is-retiring-as-he-planned?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180129
Will just leave this here...
Click to expand...

This...is pretty much true. McCabe had already made it known that he planned to retire soon. The fact that he's doing exactly what he said he'd do isn't the sort of thing people should be attaching conspiracies to - there's more than enough other problems to deal with.
 
Mumbles said:
This...is pretty much true. McCabe had already made it known that he planned to retire soon. The fact that he's doing exactly what he said he'd do isn't the sort of thing people should be attaching conspiracies to - there's more than enough other problems to deal with.
Click to expand...

He had previously said he'd stay in his position until March. And, of course, before he started being the subject of attacks, he wasn't going to retire at all.
 
Trump Administration Admits It Cribbed Forbes Magazine To Create “Oligarch List”

The striking similarity between a newly-released Treasury Department report of Russian oligarchs and a 2017 list of wealthy Russians published in Forbes Magazine is no coincidence.

On Tuesday, a Treasury Department spokesperson confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the unclassified annex of the report was derived from Forbes’ ranking of the “200 richest businessmen in Russia 2017.”

The revelation is likely to invite criticisms of the thoroughness of the Treasury Department’s report and reinforce the notion that the list is primarily a who’s who of Russian elite rather than an official accounting of Kremlin-linked political corruption as some US lawmakers intended.
Click to expand...
 
And now there's a second dossier:

The FBI inquiry into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election has been given a second memo that independently set out some of the same allegations made in a dossier by Christopher Steele, the British former spy.
Advertisement

The second memo was written by Cody Shearer, a controversial political activist and former journalist who was close to the Clinton White House in the 1990s.
Unlike Steele, Shearer does not have a background in espionage, and his memo was initially viewed with scepticism, not least because he had shared it with select media organisations before the election.
However, the Guardian has been told the FBI investigation is still assessing details in the ‘Shearer memo’ and is pursuing intriguing leads.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-cody-shearer-memo

And to add to the entertainment value:

Among other things, both documents allege Donald Trump was compromised during a 2013 trip to Moscow that involved lewd acts in a five-star hotel.
Advertisement

The Shearer memo cites an unnamed source within Russia’s FSB, the state security service.
Click to expand...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It does set a precedent. If they let him off this then he can ignore any bill that he doesn't like.

So much for Congress, you have a Dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what's the distinction between a veto versus just ignoring a bill?

Is it just that a veto would be bad PR, so ignoring is hoping it will just go away?
 
blutoski said:
Out of curiosity, what's the distinction between a veto versus just ignoring a bill?

Is it just that a veto would be bad PR, so ignoring is hoping it will just go away?
Click to expand...
A lot of difference. See this link for a detailed description of the two types of veto.

Signing a bill into law means veto is no longer an option, and that the law must now
be followed, even by POTUS. He does not have the authority, once he has signed the bill into law, to change his mind.

ETA: That said, there are practical ways to ignore a bill that was signed into law when they are meant to dictate actions for the Executive Branch. It is arguable that Obama was going against the law with DACA.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You know the list of Russian Oligarchs the Trump administration released 12 minutes before the deadline of when they had to release it by law? They've admitted that they cribbed it from Forbes magazine
Click to expand...


At least the Trump State Department is plagiarizing from reputable sources. They should get brownie points for that much, anyhow. A practice the rest of the Trump Administration would do well to emulate.

I do find it interesting that their assumption is that anyone with a net worth of $1 billion or more in Russia is a priori an oligarch, but the ones who don't make that cut line are not. It may well be true, but it seems a bit impolitic for our State Dept. to be so blatant about it,
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
DoJ as in Rosenstein and anyone from Obama's admin.
Honestly, this is nothing except targeting Mueller.
Click to expand...

Actually, Rosenstein was appointed to the FBI job by Trump last April. Previously, he was U.S. Attorney for Maryland, a position to which he was appointed by GW Bush. He's a Republican. Trump is going after "his" own people if he doesn't think they are sufficiently subservient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein
 
Bob001 said:
Actually, Rosenstein was appointed to the FBI job by Trump last April. Previously, he was U.S. Attorney for Maryland, a position to which he was appointed by GW Bush. He's a Republican. Trump is going after "his" own people if he doesn't think they are sufficiently subservient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein
Click to expand...
You misread "and". I can see how that happened.

Rosenstein [full stop] and any Obama people.
 
Putin asked about the "Kremlin List" - the planet is actually lucky to have one of his caliber where he is. He essentally just says "let them bark". Catastrophic if he would sink to the level of the utterly stupid and repulsive clowns on "the hill".

 
Refusing to answer a question is a huge tell, Devin.

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee refused to answer when a colleague asked him if he had coordinated his incendiary surveillance memo with the White House, The Daily Beast has learned.

During Monday’s contentious closed-door committee meeting, Rep. Mike Quigley, a Democrat, asked Nunes point-blank if his staffers had been talking with the White House as they compiled a four-page memo alleging FBI and Justice Department abuses over surveillance of President Trump’s allies in the Russia probe.

According to sources familiar with the exchange, Nunes made a few comments that didn’t answer the question before finally responding, “I’m not answering.”
Click to expand...
 
And Trump's lawyers make a move to block a Trump interview: "Mueller hasn't met the threshold required to interview Trump." So far just a statement on CNN, no links yet.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Putin asked about the "Kremlin List" - the planet is actually lucky to have one of his caliber where he is.
Click to expand...

Putin is a great guy, isn't he? Sure he kills his political enemies and critics an pursues an expansionist nationalist policy, but he does it in a classy way.
 
Mycroft said:
Putin is a great guy, isn't he? Sure he kills his political enemies and critics an pursues an expansionist nationalist policy, but he does it in a classy way.
Click to expand...

Dictators wouldn't have their power without having lots of fans.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Fine, list them, who's lying and who's snookered
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Seriously?

Skeptic Ginger said:
and why are they not paying attention to the curious fact that either the whole FBI is corrupt :rolleyes: or the behavior surrounding the memo is simply not credible.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting false dichotomy. One that makes it seem like you should cool your head a bit.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you aware of the arguments surrounding releasing this memo? You'd have to have been born not yesterday, but try 5 minutes ago to not see a fraud here.

As for, "a "lie" rather than simply selective truths chosen with the intent to mislead," how is that not a lie? OMG, you spelled it out, "intent to mislead."


I think this semantic argument has run its course.
Click to expand...

You have an odd understanding of what "lying" is. The long standing general rule is that statements have to be intentionally false for it to count as a lie. True statements, on the other hand, don't ever count as lies, even when they're made selectively and with the intent to mislead. The term "half-truth," for example, in no way implies that any lies were involved. Nor does deceiving a person require lying to them.
 
OMG, semantics!! Who cares if it's a lie or a half-truth?! Either way, it is dishonest.

Republicans have made it clear that they want to purge the FBI and even toss investigators into prison. Trump and his regime are going to imprison political enemies. Democracy is on hold, if not dead.
 
Mycroft said:
Putin is a great guy, isn't he? Sure he kills his political enemies and critics an pursues an expansionist nationalist policy, but he does it in a classy way.
Click to expand...


99074f54e3b17f64e.gif


Looking forward to your mandatory cheerleading for Mr 2% Nawalny. Just make sure to never actually look up his positions - hint: he's a Nazi by Pussy Hat standards... :thumbsup::rolleyes:
 
quadraginta said:
At least the Trump State Department is plagiarizing from reputable sources. They should get brownie points for that much, anyhow. A practice the rest of the Trump Administration would do well to emulate.

I do find it interesting that their assumption is that anyone with a net worth of $1 billion or more in Russia is a priori an oligarch, but the ones who don't make that cut line are not. It may well be true, but it seems a bit impolitic for our State Dept. to be so blatant about it,
Click to expand...

The best people!
 
Aridas said:
:You have an odd understanding of what "lying" is. The long standing general rule is that statements have to be intentionally false for it to count as a lie. True statements, on the other hand, don't ever count as lies, even when they're made selectively and with the intent to mislead. The term "half-truth," for example, in no way implies that any lies were involved. Nor does deceiving a person require lying to them.
Click to expand...

So a pathological liar isn't really a liar because they believe their own lies?
 
thaiboxerken said:
OMG, semantics!! Who cares if it's a lie or a half-truth?! Either way, it is dishonest.
Click to expand...

I've fully and explicitly pointed out that the deceit part is still very relevant. I've not supported the various false statements being pushed, though. Down to giving various direct quotes from the people that showed that mislead is the actual and far more accurate claim, rather than the "lying" that certain people are trying to change it to.

thaiboxerken said:
Republicans have made it clear that they want to purge the FBI and even toss investigators into prison.
Click to expand...

Purge the FBI, maybe. Toss investigators into prison? Highly questionable. Discredit and remove investigators? Yes.

thaiboxerken said:
Trump and his regime are going to imprison political enemies. Democracy is on hold, if not dead.
Click to expand...

Want to imprison political enemies? Likely so. Can they? That's more complicated. They fairly certainly have a number of the tools that they would need, but, given Trump, the main targets would likely be high profile people that would be rather difficult to make... disappear quietly. These tools have been around for multiple Presidencies, though, other than the judiciary that they're stacking.

Is Democracy on hold? Not yet, probably. In danger? Certainly.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So a pathological liar isn't really a liar because they believe their own lies?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Still too set on claiming that the Democrats called the Republicans liars to pay attention to what they actually said?

ETA

From the wiki on Pathological lying as it relates to pathological liars -

Lying is the act of both knowingly and intentionally or willfully making a false statement.[8] Normal lies are defensive and are told to avoid the consequences of truth telling. They are often white lies that spare another's feelings, reflect a pro-social attitude, and make civilized human contact possible.[6] Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
:
You have an odd understanding of what "lying" is. The long standing general rule is that statements have to be intentionally false for it to count as a lie. True statements, on the other hand, don't ever count as lies, even when they're made selectively and with the intent to mislead. The term "half-truth," for example, in no way implies that any lies were involved. Nor does deceiving a person require lying to them.
Click to expand...

You do not have to tell a lie to be guilty of lying. When there is an attempt to deceive, or conceal/obfuscate the truth, the person/persons doing so are generally guilty of lying.
 
Trakar said:
You do not have to tell a lie to be guilty of lying. When there is an attempt to deceive, or conceal/obfuscate the truth, the person/persons doing so are generally guilty of lying.
Click to expand...

When used rather loosely or casually, this is passable. On the other hand, in this particular case, if we trace back the issue...


Skeptic Ginger said:
The Democrats who have seen the classified material say the GOP is lying.
Click to expand...
Aridas said:
If I recall, "lying" wasn't the claim so much as being horribly misleading.
Click to expand...

Followed by, of course, lots of trying to shift the issue around on Skeptic Ginger's side, even after -

Aridas said:
We've got quotes from the Democrats who have seen it that describe it as, for example, Adam Schiff's “a profoundly misleading set of talking points drafted by Republican staff attacking the FBI and its handling of the investigation” that's being used “to selectively and misleadingly characterize classified information in an effort to protect the President at any cost.” The Democrat counter-memo was described as having the purpose of “setting out the relevant facts and exposing the misleading character of the Republicans' document so that members of the House are not left with an erroneous impression of the dedicated professionals at the FBI and DOJ.” All that would tend to point at "horribly misleading" being a far more accurate description of their complaints about the memo than "lying."
Click to expand...

The saddest thing here, of course, is that Skeptic Ginger and I have been quite clearly in agreement the whole time that the memo and the GOP's moronics with it are extremely untrustworthy, but she keeps reacting as if I'm somehow trying to defend them, rather than trying to keep what the actual criticisms are clear and accurate.
 
Aridas said:
Purge the FBI, maybe. Toss investigators into prison? Highly questionable. Discredit and remove investigators? Yes.
Click to expand...

There was a story published over the last day or two which you will find linked in one of these threads, in which it's claimed that Trump has discussed prosecuting Mueller.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
There was a story published over the last day or two which you will find linked in one of these threads, in which it's claimed that Trump has discussed prosecuting Mueller.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I still refuse to treat "Trump" and "Republicans" as interchangeable. The two aren't completely in lockstep yet and I think that that's one of the areas that most of them would balk at. Purging the FBI, I can see broad support among Republicans for, given how much they've demonized Democrats and forgotten the meaning of professionalism in favor of blind party loyalty. Prosecuting Mueller? Not so much, without good legal cause and a strong belief among the Congresspeople that their party won't suffer massive political consequences. Undermine him politically and put lots of political pressure on him to give up? That, on the other hand, has far, far less risk. It's rotten to the core and makes their hypocrisy pretty much irrefutable, but it plays to and furthers the us versus them polarization that the GOP's been employing to keep and strengthen their political power.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074f54e3b17f64e.gif[/qimg]

Looking forward to your mandatory cheerleading for Mr 2% Nawalny. Just make sure to never actually look up his positions - hint: he's a Nazi by Pussy Hat standards... :thumbsup::rolleyes:
Click to expand...


That's a really low bar. Everyone to the right of Vladimir Lenin is a Nazi by Pussy Hat standards.
 
Aridas said:
Yeah... I still refuse to treat "Trump" and "Republicans" as interchangeable.
Click to expand...
Lets see...

- Trump is a registered republican
- Trump was nominated by the republican party to be their candidate
- Trump's approval rating among republican voters is currently at >80%
- Each and every republican senator voted for the tax plan championed by Trump, and almost all of them voted to scrap Obamacare
- Each and every cabinet member proposed by Trumphas been approved by the majority of republican senators

So tell me, why exactly should we assume that Trump and "republicans" are not interchangeable?

Granted, there have been a few (such as Flake) who have occasionally spouted comments about how the "GOP should stand up to Trump", but that hasn't really been more than empty rhetoric, and when rubber meets the road he votes in favor of whatever Trump wants.
The two aren't completely in lockstep yet and I think that that's one of the areas that most of them would balk at.
Click to expand...
They may claim they are somehow independent of Trump. They may not like the idea of being politically linked to a racist orangutan. But that doesn't mean they will actually act.
 
cmikes said:
That's a really low bar. Everyone to the right of Vladimir Lenin is a Nazi by Pussy Hat standards.
Click to expand...

There is also the fact that Putin gets rid of reasonable opposition as unreasonable opposition makes him look better. The same happened in Syria.
 
Craig4 said:
This is why everyone who voted for Trump needs to be arrested for solicitation of prostitution. Unless you're in a couple of counties in Nevada it's unlawful to engage the services of a Russian whore.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the metaphor doesn't work. A Russian whore services you, not Russia.
 
Childlike Empress said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/99074f54e3b17f64e.gif[/qimg]

Looking forward to your mandatory cheerleading for Mr 2% Nawalny. Just make sure to never actually look up his positions - hint: he's a Nazi by Pussy Hat standards... :thumbsup::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the one size fits all for excuse for Kremlin apologists, isn't it? Russia can't give back the Crimea because it would be giving it to Nazis. Russia must take over chunks of the Ukraine because it's run by Nazis. Russia can't let the opposition party win because they're kinda like Nazis.

Nazi, nazi nazi! They seem to be wherever Kremlin appologists look! Heck, even American anarchists (many of whom are oddly sympathetic to the Kremlin) can't help but see Nazis wherever they look. I bet it won't be long before Russia is blocking Kurdish nationalism because they found Kurdish Nazis!

It's all very silly.
 
Aridas said:
....The saddest thing here, of course, is that Skeptic Ginger and I have been quite clearly in agreement the whole time that the memo and the GOP's moronics with it are extremely untrustworthy, but she keeps reacting as if I'm somehow trying to defend them, rather than trying to keep what the actual criticisms are clear and accurate.
Click to expand...
I'm objecting your refusal to call a lie a lie, and I do believe the semantics argument had run its course.
 
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom