Wednesday, June 05, 2019
No collusion? Witch hunt? Hardly
Let's go over some clear and undeniable facts. The Russians, not a 400-pound guy in a Manhattan apartment, engage in a great deal of illegal interference against our country's election system. This, in my view is an attack on our country. Countries that do that should be penalized, and we should make it clear we won't tolerate it. Even the beneficiary candidate has a moral duty to issue a "thanks, but no thanks" message to such a country. But instead, the beneficiary candidate starts acting as if he welcomes the interference,, even going so far as to suggest a further crime they might commit, of delivering the missing e-mails of Hillary Clinton. You also have Trump's staff getting the Republican platform changed from its prior anti-Putin stance to a more pro-Russian stance, you get all kinds of contacts during the campaign between Russian agents, contacts about which Trump official lied repeatedly. You had a campaign chairman who had previously worked for a pro-Putin dictator in Ukraine. You had a national security adviser who was an agent of the Turkish government and had inappropriate connections with the Russians. You had an attorney general who lied about contacts with the Russians and had to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. You have a President who acts as if everything is normal and tries to keep Russia from suffering any harm from the crimes they have committed, and even at a conference in Helsinki took the side of the Russians against the word of all of his intelligence agencies that Russia didn't do it. And you're telling me that what was wrong was that they investigated the possibility that there might have been not collusion (there was plenty of that), but an actual criminal conspiracy between people in the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Oh, and I didn't even mention the Trump Tower meeting with Don, Jared, Manafort, and Veselnitskaya. Mueller didn't find enough evidence to issue conspiracy charges, although if they had been really a dirty cop in the pay of the Democrats he would have found a way to invent some. Oh, and you find Trump trying to shut down the investigation on multiple occasions, and if he had had a more cooperative staff it would have worked. But to say that do investigate all of this was a big no-no, and only someone who didn't like Trump's immigration policy would initiate such an investigation to keep Trump policies from being enacted? That's ridiculous. Anyone in their right mind would want to know what was going on, at least anyone who doesn't own a MAGA hat. We can all be thankful there wasn't some quid pro quo between the Trump staff and the Russians, and, if anything, we should be grateful to Mueller for assuring us of at least that. But that still leaves a lot of conduct on the part of the President and his aides that is, quite frankly, profoundly corrupt. To say "no collusion" as if this is a clear bill of health for the President is a shameful distortion of the truth and the product of clever marketing and propaganda. People like Justin Amash and 800 former federal prosecutors came to a very different conclusion when the actually read the Mueller report.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
But instead, the beneficiary candidate starts acting as if he welcomes the interference,, even going so far as to suggest a further crime they might commit, of delivering the missing e-mails of Hillary Clinton.
I thought the joke was pretty funny myself. We all knew Hillary would never be held accountable for her blatant corruption and misconduct.
A favorite pastime of mine is spotting all the Russian trolls commenting on US Newspapers' websites. As a person fluent in Russian, I can usually spot them a mile off. There are subtle "tells" in the sentence structure they employ and in their vocabulary. Russian sentences are built quite differently than their English language counterparts, and even if one learns the other language, it is nearly impossible to expunge one's natural inclination to use the conventions of one's native language.
For instance, I frequently find pro-Trump posters using double or even triple negatives. These are frowned upon in English sentences, but are encouraged in Russian. The more negatives you throw into the mix, the stronger the negativity.
Adjectives are often broken up and scattered through the sentence in Russian, which is almost unheard of in English, which because of the lack of case endings, they must be kept together to preserve the sense. Not so in Russian. And, tellingly enough, the Russian trolls scatter their adjectives in pro-Trump postings.
Pronouns are optional in Russian, because they are implied in the verb endings. Not so in English. And (you guessed it) in pro-Trump postings by Russian trolls, they frequently forget to include the pronouns.
So please do not tell me that there is not a continuing effort even today to affect the American political process by a hostile Russian government, using the internet as one of its primary weapons.
We are at war right now, and most Americans are too stupid to realize this, or else they prefer to live in comfortable denial.
When I heard Mueller, I concluded
1) He believed he could not indict the president.
2) He also believed he could not directly accuse someone of a crime that he could not indict.
3) He believed he had a duty to collect evidence of criminal activity.
4) Action on the evidence could be advanced by other processes. One process is impeachment. The other promise is criminal charges after the president leaves office.
5) Since he had evidence of wrong-doing and he could neither indict nor accuse, his report had to be indirect with subtle hints. He could not even lay out this much.
The problem is this is too subtle of a message. Those on the left can't sell this subtlety. Those on the right can ignore the nuances. There is no middle ground to champion Mueller's message.
Starhopper,
Can you give some examples of Russian tells in posts? Especially the scattered adjectives and missing pronouns. I know a little Spanish, but not Russian, other than Boris and Natasha.
@Legion
"I thought the joke was pretty funny myself. We all knew Hillary would never be held accountable for her blatant corruption and misconduct."
Yes, criminals often claim later that their criminal plans were just a joke.
Did Hillary sell those emails? Have you ever done work on your home computer? How many emails do you receive? Do you delete emails?
Have you had your email usage patterns investigated by the FBI, twice, with no charges filed?
Is there some reason we should care about Clinton at this time beyond an historical footnote of one of the worst run campaigns in modern history?
What matters is that Trump surrounded himself with criminals, he lied publicly about his Russian business deals, he publicly praises an organization dedicated to publishing stolen classified secret documents, praises dictators, his campaign conspired with the Russians and even Bannon says Trump was in on the conspiracy.
In the Mueller report there are some 10 glaring commissions of crimes by Trump.
Trump, besides being the most criminal and traitorous president in our history, is also the most incompetent, driving us faster and faster toward a cliff of bankruptcy, bankruptcy scam profits being his core business model, the business model of a criminal.
So please do not tell me that there is not a continuing effort even today to affect the American political process by a hostile Russian government, using the internet as one of its primary weapons.
Sticking to only the Internet for now, precisely what would you propose? Isolate the American internet from the rest so only computers or phones in the United States can post on American sites? As methods for detecting bots improve, so too will the bots themselves.
Of course, misinformation on the Internet doesn't bother me a whole lot. If it did, I would be in a lot of trouble. Americans don't need outside help to flood the web with garbage.
"precisely what would you propose?"
I am proposing that the public be aware of such ongoing hostile efforts, and that our elected officials stop denying that such attacks are occurring. We need to get our collective heads out of the sand.
The problem is only going to get worse with the advent of doctored videos and still images that are indistinguishable from the real thing except by experts.
What do I propose? I seriously propose that we all need to regain our trust of the much (and quite unfairly) maligned "mainstream" media. It remains the most reliable source of peer-reviewed, vetted information, regardless of whatever "bias" you might attribute to it. You may think the Washington Post "leans left" but I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find any deliberate factual error in its content. (Yes, we all know of the infamous case some years ago of an invented child in a WaPo story, but even there that only proves my point. Once the fraud was detected, the peer condemnation was swift and decisive. There was no cover up.)
The meddling from across the southern border is huge. Millions of non-citizens with loyalty to Mexico, Guatemala, etc are in this country doing what they can to influence the elections and policy decisions.
"doing what they can to influence the elections"
Do you have any evidence of this happening? And if so, is it a matter of isolated individuals behaving badly, or is there some sort of conspiracy with a "puppet master" directing events?
Starhopper,
Biased media doesn't simply take the form of deliberate factual errors. It's also the stories they choose to focus on, the connotations and slants they use in their writing, etc. They tend to focus on stories that align with their political outlook, and ignore or downplay those that don't.
I will trust the media when it earns that trust. They have a long, long way to go. That's why I have to use a variety of media to cross check.
"That's why I have to use a variety of media to cross check."
I can't agree. When I seek medical information, I go to my doctor. I do not go to quacks and homeopaths. When I wish to learn more about the cosmos, I go to the astronomers, and not to the UFO nuts and moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists. When I want to know what's going on in the world, I turn to professional journalists, and not to Alex Jones or Sean Hannity.
I am a big believer in peer review.
Starhopper: When I seek medical information, I go to my doctor.
Doctors are about profit. I would watch that if I were you.
Do you have any evidence of this happening?
Non-citizens have lobbied for the same protections and benefits that were once only reserved for citizens.
I can't agree
Then you don't have a complete picture of what is going on, and you have your news filtered to you based on what they want you to talk about. If you're fine with that, cool.
Hannity is opinion, not news. He is not relevant to anything I'm talking about.
"you have your news filtered to you"
I do not regard peer review and journalistic professionalism as being "filtering" - at least, not in a negative sense. It is a filter when it comes to unverified stories, sloppy reporting, mixing opinion with fact, and making stuff up. These things are being filtered out, and that's a Good Thing.
"I can't agree"
You don't blindly trust someone who says they are a doctor without verifying his diagnosis. Nobody actually does that. Some of the verification is done by YOU. You aren't a child. You have a mind, experiences and resources. You have some ability to sniff out medical BS and quackery by yourself. Same with journalists. A person can spot a headline with a biased axe to grind. A person can spot a hit piece designed to make a group of people look bad. A person can spot lies of omission.
That's you NOT relying on the professionals.
These things are being filtered out, and that's a Good Thing.
I'm sure Nick Sandmann will be glad to hear it.
It was journalistic professionalism that filtered out the truth of what happened to Nick Sandmann. Non-professionals reported what happened.
What I propose would be to teach people how to think critically again. It seems we gave up on that in schools recently and replaced those types of subjects with trendy new ones.
Too many people swallow news stories uncritically without realizing that "reporters" aren't any more of an expert than they themselves are or that they may have an axe to grind. We should take any news story with a grain of salt.
We used to have a saying "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see". That goes for any source of news.
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see".
We never had a very high opinion of that saying in the intel business, where SIGINT (signals intelligence, a.k.a. "what you hear") was considered the most reliable source of information. IMINT (imagery intelligence, i.e. "what you see") was inferior to SIGINT, and least trusted of all was HUMINT (human intelligence, a.k.a., spies, agents, etc.).
Journalists are a human intelligence source. lol
The Russians have been interfering with our elections since the 1920s. With the advent of the Internet they certainly have more methods available to them. But to suddenly have a "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" reaction is just opportunistic.
Plus, the idea that Trump changed the Republican platform "from its prior anti-Putin stance to a more pro-Russian stance" is a popular line but doesn't pass the smell test. Trump is saying nice things to and about Putin, and then cutting the legs out from under him. He's taking a hard line stance against Russia's allies (Iran, Venezuela); he's encouraging eastern Europe to re-arm themselves and to get American bases in them, specifically to protect against Russian aggression; he's trying to export American energy sources to Europe to undercut Europe's dependence on Russia which destroys Russia's main export; etc.
I'm not a fan of Trump. There's plenty of real things to criticize him for, we don't need to make up silly conspiracy theories.
"Journalists are a human intelligence source. lol"
No, they are not. (Professional) journalists have sources, but are not themselves such. The analogous entity in the intel world would be an analyst, who gathers data from his sources and reports on what he learns from it.
How different the situation in the "alternative" media. There the "journalists" (scare quotes to indicate they don't deserve the title) are all too often their own sources. Especially the conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, who basically just make stuff up.
Especially the conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, who basically just make stuff up
I find it difficult to take this too seriously when you have no left-wing names among the list.
Not saying you are necessarily wrong, but having no leftists on there makes me wonder if you aren't susceptible to being hoodwinked from the left side of the aisle. That seems to be a common weakness among many, they aren't capable of perceiving garbage from both sides.
I find this fascinating. Name for me a "left wing" journalist who just makes stuff up. I honestly know of none.
Unfortunately, conspiracy theory knows no ideology. There are left wing news sources that love to dabble in some rather outlandish theories about Republicans stealing elections. But even there, they tend to stick to actual facts (such as verifiable voter suppression tactics), and merely misinterpret (or over-interpret) them.
Rachael Maddow for instance, is the most boring news person on the air, never saying in 2 minutes what she can stretch out for 15. But I've never heard her make anything up.
Sometimes, a newsman is condemned for what was thought to be falsehoods, but later turn out to be the Gospel Truth. I'm thinking of Dan Rather and the story about Bush and the Air Force Reserve. Long after Rather being forced out of the CBS anchor position, he was ultimately vindicated and his story judged to be 100 percent accurate.
"That seems to be a common weakness among many, they aren't capable of perceiving garbage from both sides."
Do you acknowledge the possibility that the preponderance of garbage is coming from one side? Or do you think that is impossible?
I honestly know of none.
Well that was a quick point to have proven. At least I'm aware of the shortcomings on my own side.
However, I don't want to drag into another political insult party, so I'm bowing out.
"political insult party"
Huh? This conversation has nothing to do with politics. We're discussing journalism.
Apples and oranges. Chalk and cheese.
Starhopper,
How do you distinguish between "making stuff up" and widely reporting on a made up story?
You do know who Nick Sandmann is right?
"You do know who Nick Sandmann is right?"
I remember hearing the story when it happened, but had not memorized the name, and had not given the story a nanosecond's thought after it was over (I'm frankly amazed that people are still discussing it.). So I had to google him when Legion mentioned him. My first thought was, "Who is he talking about?"
We never had a very high opinion of that saying in the intel business,
Well a bunch of newspapers, Edgar Allan Poe and Marvin Gaye agree with me
But really. Should I believe what a bunch of spooks tell me?:-)
I remember hearing the story when it happened, but had not memorized the name, and had not given the story a nanosecond's thought after it was over (I'm frankly amazed that people are still discussing it.). So I had to google him when Legion mentioned him. My first thought was, "Who is he talking about?"
It's kind of relevant since you brought up the Washington Post. They are being sued for $250 million by the family.
Off to bed now, so no more replies today.
But really? Is this a story you honestly think is worth futzing over? Sounds like the ultimate nothing burger.
Fair warning. If you continue discussing it tomorrow, I will tune you out. BORING!
Shutting down... now!
But really? Is this a story you honestly think is worth futzing over? Sounds like the ultimate nothing burger.
It's not specifically worth discussing. But I'm sure Rush's fans would have a similar response to the time he got sued for making stuff up.
"Is this a story you honestly think is worth futzing over? Sounds like the ultimate nothing burger."
Since it demonstrates the point that professional journalism propagates misinformation via lies of omission, it's relevant enough. It only sounds like a nothing burger to you because you don't know anything about the story. We know. Put your head in the sand if you want to.
SteveK said...
"Is this a story you honestly think is worth futzing over? Sounds like the ultimate nothing burger."
Since it demonstrates the point that professional journalism propagates misinformation via lies of omission, it's relevant enough. It only sounds like a nothing burger to you because you don't know anything about the story. We know. Put your head in the sand if you want to.
there is no basis in fact for that whine. Right wingers are always so sensitive about beineg expossed,
there is no basis in fact for that whine. Right wingers are always so sensitive about beineg expossed
What he said was completely accurate.
Why do you always feel the need to be so hostile? Jesus, take it down a notch. Just because we have different political views than you doesn't make us stupid or evil.
"Just because we have different political views than you doesn't make us stupid or evil."
Exactly so. And since practically no one on Earth shares my own political views (which call for a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire), I would have to call way too many people both stupid or evil under such standards.
@Legion
"Why do you always feel the need to be so hostile? Jesus, take it down a notch. Just because we have different political views than you doesn't make us stupid or evil. "
In principle, sure, but there are some political and religious views that do seem to bring out major facets of stupidity and evil.
I stress facets because people are complex, highly multifaceted.
There are a number of standup routines out there along the lines of "religion made me talk like an idiot", kinda funny. Some political leanings seem to bring out rather stupid sounding facets of people such as climate change (both the deniers and the doomsdayers), abortion (both the life at conception and the woman's body folks).
Trump (he's a criminal and incompetent and driving us headlong to another Republican economic meltdown, sorry, there really is not a flipside on this one, if you don't understand his destructive criminality you have drunk the koolaide).
Oh, yes, and the SJW folks certainly have their fair share of stupid political views. As for evil, right now Islam pretty much takes it hands down, both politically and religiously, since those countries infected with the poisonous doctrines of Muhammad are both politically and religiously Islamic.
Yet, as stupid and even sometimes evil as the things these folks say and do are, still, probably most individuals are very intelligent and generally thoughtful decent people, typically, in most other aspects of life.
Let me get back to what my original point was, which is that there were plenty of suspicious interactions between the Trump people and the Kremlin, and that our government officials had every reason in the world to investigate it. It was wrong for the President to stop the investigation, and if he was innocent he should have simply allowed it to finish instead of screaming "Witch Hunt" at every turn. Not every piece of prima facie evidence in support of an in appropriate relationship really proves anything, but I just find the idea ridiculous that the existence of such an investigation was some Hillary driven plot.
Starhopper,
And since practically no one on Earth shares my own political views (which call for a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire), I would have to call way too many people both stupid or evil under such standards.
The Holy Roman Empire lasted a long time. There's a good argument to be made for monarchy. Historically much more stable than democracies or republics. And (as shown in the OP) people don't have to worry about who tried to steal an election.
Victor,
there were plenty of suspicious interactions between the Trump people and the Kremlin, and that our government officials had every reason in the world to investigate it.
I think the question is "Why didn't the previous administration warn Trump about suspicious Russian interference in his campaign instead of spying on his campaign and in effect him?" They extended that courtesy to the other party.
It was wrong for the President to stop the investigation, and if he was innocent he should have simply allowed it to finish instead of screaming "Witch Hunt" at every turn.
The President did not "stop the investigation". Mueller found no crimes, so he was in fact innocent. You're right that screaming "Witch Hunt" drew a lot of attention and seemed odd. But was that a crime?
Not every piece of prima facie evidence in support of an in appropriate relationship really proves anything, but I just find the idea ridiculous that the existence of such an investigation was some Hillary driven plot.
A very sober assessment. So just as the previous administration had enough concern to investigate suspicious behavior and that was OK, then you should have no objection to the present administration investigating suspicious behavior. It seems the intelligence agencies are drawing the spotlight at the moment, not Hillary. So, do you think the Executive Branch should not be exercising oversight of the intelligence agencies? I think since we live in a democracy, the more sunlight on how our government operates, the better.
There doesn't have to be a Hillary-driven plot for there to be a Hillary-benefitting plot. Peter Strzok's text messages in of themselves warrant an investigation, let alone all the other breadcrumbs and red flags. Where there is smoke, ensure there is no fire.
If there was no foul play, then no one should mind an investigation into the early days of how the Russian story being tied to Trump actually occurred. I certainly look forward to the findings.
"Peter Strzok's text messages in of themselves warrant an investigation,"
Why? Most of the country agreed with him that Trump should not be president.
It's ok for investigators to have absolute contempt for the criminals they investigate. It is also OK for investigators to consider criminal politicians to be a menace to our democratic republican system and seek to stop their criminal activity.
It is a good thing when investigators work hard to put a criminal behind bars, and feel well satisfied they have done so.
Criminals like Trump and Capone are difficult to convict. They operate using private one on one meetings that exclude any sort of record keeping. They have ways of walling off their criminal enterprises.
Eventually, all the FBI could get Capone on was tax evasion.
I expect FBI agents to have contempt for the criminals they pursue, such as Trump.
"no one should mind an investigation into the early days of how the Russian story being tied to Trump actually occurred."
Really? The Russian money flowing in by the words of his own son? Open conspiracy with the Russians on national TV? Huge numbers of contacts between Trump's people and the Russians? Trump's public and ongoing lies about his Russian business deals during the campaign? His own son and other top members of his campaign conspiring with Russians in Trump Tower, then (according to Steve Bannon) going to meet with Trump?
Really? Are you kidding me?
Of course the FBI investigated Trump, he is an obvious criminal, like Capone. His personal lawyer is in prison right now. Trump surrounded himself with criminals, just look how many of his people have already been convicted. Of course Strzok had contempt for Trump and wanted to put Trump behind bars, that is what FBI agents do, they recognize obvious criminals and they go after them until they can make the arrest and support the conviction.
Even Steve Bannon has openly stated Trump was in on the conspiracy and Trump runs a criminal enterprise.
What part of this don't you get?
"And people [wouldn't] have to worry about who tried to steal an election."
Well, not quite. The emperors of the HRE were elected. (And I would imagine that over its 1000 year history, more than one election was likely "stolen".)
What part of this don't you get?
If that's all there is to it, then the investigation will show it to be so.
Well, not quite. The emperors of the HRE were elected. (And I would imagine that over its 1000 year history, more than one election was likely "stolen".)
Ahh. Right you are. Prince-electors decided who would be emperor. But at least I wouldn't have to worry about my vote being stolen since I'm not a member of any political dynasty nor likely to get appointed by the Church.;-)
Totally off topic, but I am half way through a most enjoyable, but majorly flawed, book by Peter Kreeft, The Philosophy of Tolkien.
Its biggest problem is its title, since it's not really about Tolkien at all, but rather about C.S. Lewis, as seen through the lens of Tolkien. Now there's nothing wrong with that - in fact, it's extremely interesting. But the title verges on false advertising.
At any rate, I highly recommend it (even without finishing it yet). I enjoy Kreeft's many Youtube videos, and this book is written in the same style as his lectures. In fact, I can't read it without hearing his voice saying the words!
If you're interested in C.S. Lewis as a philosopher (and this is, after all, a blog about Lewis) and enjoy The Lord of the Rings, you'll appreciate this book. I am.
Victor Reppert said...
" there were plenty of suspicious interactions between the Trump people and the Kremlin, and that our government officials had every reason in the world to investigate it."
Indeed, especially given that it is against the law for a presidential campaign to accept help from a foreign government, and the Trump campaign was actively and frequently meeting with Russian government contacts and Trump was actively negotiating with the Russians to receive money from a major deal in Russia and all the while lying to the his credulous base, who he played for suckers.
It would have been a gross dereliction of duty to fail to send in people and launch a serious investigation into these glaring red rockets warning of traitorous criminal activity by Trump.
"if he was innocent he should have simply allowed it to finish instead of screaming "Witch Hunt" at every turn"
Indeed, but of course Trump is guilty and has now taken his bankruptcy scam criminality all the way to a branch of the federal government.
" I just find the idea ridiculous that the existence of such an investigation was some Hillary driven plot. "
Of course it is ridiculous, but that is red meat for his knuckle dragging base, Hillary is his shiny object, when confronted about his crimes Trump blurts out "Hillary" and his spittle drippers go apeshit in agreement.
Pick a Universe any universe
The fine argument tuning is one of the most important arguments for the existence of God. This argument has shown the propensity to garner the most respect from established scientific sources of any God argument,It makes use of scientific data more than any argument,, Atheists are certain hat the multiverse argument takes this out. That is the received opinion among those in the scientific know. In this article I explicate the folly of that idea,
"Pick a Universe any universe The fine argument tuning"
Marked as spam. Not even remotely related to the topic of the thread.
Just a spam advert link dumped into a combox.
bmiller said...
I think the question is "Why didn't the previous administration warn Trump about suspicious Russian interference in his campaign instead of spying on his campaign and in effect him?" They extended that courtesy to the other party.
Because unlike Clinton, members of Trump election committee welcome the help of the Russians and tried to actively cooperate with them?
The President did not "stop the investigation". Mueller found no crimes, so he was in fact innocent.
Incorrect. Mueller refused to say Trump committed crimes because Mueller could not charge Trump, and felt it was unfair to informally accuse Trump of crimes when Trump could not defend against the accusation in court.
Because unlike Clinton, members of Trump election committee welcome the help of the Russians and tried to actively cooperate with them?
Not good enough. They should have told him.
Legion of Logic said...
Not good enough. They should have told him.
They should have told Trump that Trump was welcoming the help of the Russians and that Trump's campaign was actively trying to cooperate with the Russians? Because Trump didn't know?
Post a Comment