US Politics: Lock Him Up!

[All-for-Joffrey]

Oh Christ, well thanks for proving the article's point. 

Quote

Or you know things like multiple Russian officials dying under odd circumstances

And this is related to Russia-US relations or election interference how? Assassinations are Putin's favorite past time. They're not new. They happen all the time. Believe it or not other countries also have their own domestic politics and power struggles. Again, see the piece in the article about baselessly "connecting the dots" on tenuous evidence. Conspiracy Theory 101. 

Quote

the dossier prepared by an ex-British Intelligence member outlining multiple ties between Trump and Russia

The dossier that began during the primaries when several anti-Trump factions of the GOP hired said ex-British intelligence officer for military research and was then continued as DNC opposition research? The dosiser that pretty much every US media outlet had but refused to publish (except BuzzFeed) because it was so fucking sketchy and they couldn't actually confirm anything that was in the dossier? The dossier that alleged that the Russians had a tape of Trump doing water sports? The dossier that BuzzFeed noted (upon publishing it) contained several glaring basic inaccuracies about Russia and spelling errors of the names of Russian locales? Unverified documents with salacious accusations aren't exactly what you want to be building your case on, are they? 

 multiple members of his cabinet and campaign having long standing ties to the Kremlin, two members of his cabinet lying under oath about contact with Russian officials, Trump constantly praising Putin and asking that the kremlin continue to supply hacked intelligence to Wikileaks publicly.

The rest of these statements are fair and accurate. Stop conflating them with all the other nonsense you mentioned. You make yourself look like a joke. And that's exactly why the Russia nonsense is all we ever hear about and is taking away attention from highlighting and mitigating the dangers of Trump's actual policy agenda. Also keep on mind that with the whole "Putin puppet" narrative, you're ignoring the fact that there has been no actual change in US policy toward Russia, and as the article points out, has even caused Trump to appoint people like McMaster and Fiona Hill to the NSC who are more appropriately critical of Putin. 

And yes, I think Masha Gessen, for obvious reasons, has an infinitely better grasp on how Putin's Russia works than you (or I) do. To be sure, as I said, there are real scandals here -- namely the disclosure of the hacked DNC/Podesta documents and the contacts between Trump campaign staffers/Kremlin-affiliated Russians, but you're elevating this to some Benghazi-level nonsense with this bullshit. So...cut it out? 

 

[Mexal]

41 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

So TLDR: Can we stop making the US politics thread so fucking basic? It used to be one of the best places to read US political discussions on the internet in my opinion. Now it's kinda shit.  #MakethePoliticsThreadGreatAgain

A few things.

1. I don't give a shit if you don't like the articles I post or my snide commentary. You can choose to read them or not. You can choose to post your own analysis or not. I didn't post a cable news article. I posted the NY Times article which was written 2.5 hours after Wikileaks posted. The BBC article? 2.5 hours after Wikileaks posted. Hareetz? 2.5 hours after Wikileaks posted. So before you talk shit, do a little research, look at the time stamps then make a comment. There is a clear distinction in timing of the posts and it doesn't take a rocket science to see it. So stop with the attitude. All you had to do was prove your point with some links but instead you had to be an asshole about it.

2. The NSA's tools and the CIA's tools are now in the public domain. If you want to talk about privacy (or lack there of), go ahead, but at the same time, understand that every single government, hostile or not, now knows all of our cyber espionage capabilities and will figure out ways to avoid them or manipulate them. Remember, a foreign power just hacked one political party and actively helped another get into power. But go ahead, bitch, be happy this is all public. I'm fucking scared.

3. What am I supposed to take away from that? It's one opinion born on the fact she has no sources, no access to classified information and is making assumptions just like everyone else is. Why should I take her word when she calls a report, signed by all 17 US intelligence agencies, laughable because it didn't post the classified sources/proof that was the backbone of their conclusions? This is one opinion in a sea of them and while I appreciate adding it to my list of reads, I will not take it as gospel. There has been enough smoke around this fire to keep it stoked.

I'm going to continue to read what I read. I will continue to post articles. You can draw whatever conclusions you want. But what I will not do is conform to your expectations of this thread in a time that is unlike any in recent US history. If Obama was still in power and all we had to discuss was wonky bullshit, then fine, but this is not that time and until you recognize that, you are going to be continually disappointed by our level of discourse.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

@All-for-Joffrey - The fact that you think I am hysterical about this is, well, hysterical.  

 I think that it is disturbing that the CIA has these capabilities, but I am frankly not shocked.

I think it's cute that you think I'm a "presumable liberal".  But, I guess it depends where you are standing.

I do think there will be a different narrative about this particular leak than there is about other leaks coming out of the administration.  

All of these leaks are f*cking scary - both the substance of what they are leaking and the fact that the leaks are happening themselves.  On multiple levels.

[All-for-Joffrey]

8 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I think the reason the discussion has become more basic is because the game became more basic on November last year. Or to put it another way: When Trump tries to use the CIA leak within the next 24 hours to promote the narrative that the deep state is against the people, are we then allowed to talk about it here? Or should we generally stay above those topics and pretend that US politics hasn't devolved into a struggle to control the story, moreso than ever?

I mean, that was a pretty explosive accusation and certainly warranted all the scrutiny -- though not to the extent that it was still dominating news (and social media) coverage moving into Monday when he signed the new travel ban or they unveiled the ACA replacement. But exclusively allowing Trump's tweets to drive the narrative and make everything about Russia conspiracies 95% of the time (as evidenced by Manhole Eunuchsbane's post above) is incredibly damaging -- especially when it leads people to support regressive policies (IE: the two posters at the top of the page who condemned the CIA leaks.) The Obama conspiracy tweet was an exception given the explosive nature, but people need to start treating Trump's tweets like routine White House press releases under other administrations (IE: 90% of them aren't all that important and shouldn't be driving an entire news narrative.) 

And your assumption that Trump will use the leaks to push the Obama conspiracy narrative is interesting. It's not out of the realm of possibility but if he's aware of/comments on it at all -- I think it'd be more characteristic of him to stand by the national security state given his previously stated views. But hey, if he wants to use it to push the Obama conspiracy narrative while enacting meaningful surveillance reform, that would actually be a plus. (It won't happen though.) 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Oh Christ, well thanks for proving the article's point. 

 

And this is related to Russia-US relations or election interference how? Assassinations are Putin's favorite past time. They're not new. They happen all the time. Believe it or not other countries also have their own domestic politics and power struggles. Again, see the piece in the article about baselessly "connecting the dots" on tenuous evidence. Conspiracy Theory 101. 

 

The dossier that began during the primaries when several anti-Trump factions of the GOP hired said ex-British intelligence officer for military research and was then continued as DNC opposition research? The dosiser that pretty much every US media outlet had but refused to publish (except BuzzFeed) because it was so fucking sketchy and they couldn't actually confirm anything that was in the dossier? The dossier that alleged that the Russians had a tape of Trump doing water sports? The dossier that BuzzFeed noted (upon publishing it) contained several glaring basic inaccuracies about Russia and spelling errors of the names of Russian locales? Unverified documents with salacious accusations aren't exactly what you want to be building your case on, are they? 

[/quote]  multiple members of his cabinet and campaign having long standing ties to the Kremlin, two members of his cabinet lying under oath about contact with Russian officials, Trump constantly praising Putin and asking that the kremlin continue to supply hacked intelligence to Wikileaks publicly.[/quote]

The rest of these statements are fair and accurate. Stop conflating them with all the other nonsense you mentioned. You make yourself look like a joke. And that's exactly why the Russia nonsense is all we ever hear about and is taking away attention from highlighting and mitigating the dangers of Trump's actual policy agenda. Also keep on mind that with the whole "Putin puppet" narrative, you're ignoring the fact that there has been no actual change in US policy toward Russia, and as the article points out, has even caused Trump to appoint people like McMaster and Fiona Hill to the NSC who are more appropriately critical of Putin. 

And yes, I think Masha Gessen, for obvious reasons, has an infinitely better grasp on how Putin's Russia works than you (or I) do. To be sure, as I said, there are real scandals here -- namely the disclosure of the hacked DNC/Podesta documents and the contacts between Trump campaign staffers/Kremlin-affiliated Russians, but you're elevating this to some Benghazi-level nonsense with this bullshit. So...cut it out? 

 

So because it's standard operating procedure for Putin, it has no relation or relevance to a possible connection between Trump and Putin? Keep deluding yourself.

The dossier is sketchy in parts, but there's enough meat there that the Intelligence Community felt it was important enough for then President Obama to see. I'm not saying it's necessarily valid, but there are segments that have held up under scrutiny.

You make yourself look like a joke with all this hand-waving. There is too much smoke here to ignore, which seems to be what you're suggesting we do. You think that there not being any change to Obama's directives regarding Russia is proof of no scandal? That's funny. The only reason that hasn't changed is because there is a fucking scandal. One cabinet member already resigned over it. Another had to recuse himself from any investigation that may take place. But yeah, there's no scandal.

[Mexal]

One more point I missed in my original post. I perfectly understand the chronology. Read my post again.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So because it's standard operating procedure for Putin, it has no relation or relevance to a possible connection between Trump and Putin? Keep deluding yourself.

The dossier is sketchy in parts, but there's enough meat there that the Intelligence Community felt it was important enough for then President Obama to see. I'm not saying it's necessarily valid, but there are segments that have held up under scrutiny.

You make yourself look like a joke with all this hand-waving. There is too much smoke here to ignore, which seems to be what you're suggesting we do. You think that there not being any change to Obama's directives regarding Russia is proof of no scandal? That's funny. The only reason that hasn't changed is because there is a fucking scandal. One cabinet member already resigned over it. Another had to recuse himself from any investigation that may take place. But yeah, there's no scandal.

There is more to this.

1. The FBI wanted to hire Steele on further. That goes to show they thought he was credible and wanted him to continue to dig.

2. There has been elements of the dossier that have been confirmed.

Now, if you want to be like Joffrey up there, you can dismiss it all because it's anonymously sourced in mainstream media articles, but it's been reported by multiple organizations.

[Jaxom 1974]

It's almost as if All For Joffrey is emulating his name same a little over much, eh?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

I mean, that was a pretty explosive accusation and certainly warranted all the scrutiny -- though not to the extent that it was still dominating news (and social media) coverage moving into Monday when he signed the new travel ban or they unveiled the ACA replacement. But exclusively allowing Trump's tweets to drive the narrative and make everything about Russia conspiracies 95% of the time (as evidenced by Manhole Eunuchsbane's post above) is incredibly damaging -- especially when it leads people to support regressive policies

I'm not suggesting that this is the most important story circling the Trump Administration. The ACA Repeal is certainly more important at the moment. That said, to ignore it or hand-wave it away is ridiculous

[James Arryn]

I don't think the 'assassinations are his hobby' argument disarms Putin's danger the way it was apparently intended to. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

1. I don't give a shit if you don't like the articles I post or my snide commentary. You can choose to read them or not. You can choose to post your own analysis or not. I didn't post a cable news article. I posted the NY Times article which was written 2.5 hours after Wikileaks posted. The BBC article? 2.5 hours after Wikileaks posted. Hareetz? 2.5 hours after Wikileaks posted. So before you talk shit, do a little research, look at the time stamps then make a comment. There is a clear distinction in timing of the posts and it doesn't take a rocket science to see it. So stop with the attitude. All you had to do was prove your point with some links but instead you had to be an asshole about it.

You do realize those time stamps are updated when they update the articles right?

2. The NSA's tools and the CIA's tools are now in the public domain. If you want to talk about privacy (or lack there of), go ahead, but at the same time, understand that every single government, hostile or not, now knows all of our cyber espionage capabilities and will figure out ways to avoid them or manipulate them. Remember, a foreign power just hacked one political party and actively helped another get into power. But go ahead, bitch, be happy this is all public. I'm fucking scared.

Those are the exact same BS arguments that people made about the Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden leaks. (And the Russia conspiracy narrative reinforces those types of regressive, national security state arguments.) This isn't about cyber espionage against the Russian ambassador for instance. These are broad-brush programs that US intelligence apparatuses use to target private companies and individuals, often with rubber stamp warrants or without warrants period. If they don't want their shit out there, they need to stop aggressively invading people's privacy. 

3. What am I supposed to take away from that? It's one opinion born on the fact she has no sources, no access to classified information and is making assumptions just like everyone else is. Why should I take her word when she calls a report, signed by all 17 US intelligence agencies, laughable because it didn't post the classified sources/proof that was the backbone of their conclusions? This is one opinion in a sea of them and while I appreciate adding it to my list of reads, I will not take it as gospel. There has been enough smoke around this fire to keep it stoked.

Dude, practice some reading comprehension. She's not denying that Russia hacked the DNC or John Podesta. She outright acknowledges this. Though ironically we know this from private security firms and not US intelligence agencies since they refuse to declassify that even though it's already in the public domain. She's calling the intelligence report that was released in January "laughable" because they didn't declassify anything to bolster their case despite all the build up to the report-- even on the DNC hacks, which they should have. (Just look at the credibility issues it's created for them.)  Again, this "you don't have access to classified information" argument is and has always been BS that's literally gotten us into wars fueled by false premises from the intelligence community. (See: Gulf of Tonken, Iraq, etc.) As for sources, you do realize she's a Russian dissident journalist right? She has plenty of fucking sources thank you very much. 

And none of this is "wonky bullshit." The surveillance state is not "wonky bullshit." The travel ban is not "wonky bullshit." ICE acting blatantly unconstitutionally in their drive to deport undocumented immigrants is not "wonky bullshit." Healthcare is "wonky" by default but repealing it can literally kill people so I would hardly call it "bullshit." This isn't bullshit. Unlike Russian conspiracy theories, these are actually human rights issues that actually affect people. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

Quote

You make yourself look like a joke with all this hand-waving. There is too much smoke here to ignore, which seems to be what you're suggesting we do. You think that there not being any change to Obama's directives regarding Russia is proof of no scandal? That's funny. The only reason that hasn't changed is because there is a fucking scandal. One cabinet member already resigned over it. Another had to recuse himself from any investigation that may take place. But yeah, there's no scandal.

Again, practice basic reading comprehension. I'm not hand waving anything and I'm not suggesting you ignore the Russia parts that are actually there. I'm saying that you shouldn't turn this into a Benghazi-level conspiracy theory. (Though it's a telling feature of the Russia hysteria that you automatically accuse anyone who calls out the unsubstantiated parts of your accusations as being either a Putin stooge or at least hand-waiving/ignoring the actual areas of collaboration that are indeed problematic.) I even said that I think the author underplays the investigations into the Trump campaign-Russia contacts which are entirely anonymously sourced. Remember, the thing that prompted my post in the first place were your assertions/insinuations that whoever leaked the CIA documents is obviously in cohoots with Trump to discredit Obama as part of the Grand Russia Conspiracy theory. 

[All-for-Joffrey]

Quote

I don't think the 'assassinations are his hobby' argument disarms Putin's danger the way it was apparently intended to.

Gee, I don't know, maybe because it was because it wasn't intended to disarm Putin's danger at all? Maybe because it was intended to point out the absurdity of the conspiracy theories people are generating around all this when no serious journalist or intelligence official has even suggested that the deaths are linked to US-Russia relations or electoral interference? (Let alone even confirm that it was actually murder at play.) Honestly, this crap kind of reminds of all the shit  floating around the far-right internet about how the Clintons secretly murdered a bunch of people by connecting the dots to a bunch of apparently unrelated deaths. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

It can't be characterized as a "Benghazi-level conspiracy theory" until it has been investigated by Congress at least 3 times, despite the fact that none of the previous "investigations" turned up any smoking guns. The article you posted as well as much of your own post is rife with hand waving. It's chock full of "nothing to see here, you're just being hysterical". How about we wait for the investigation before we start passing those sorts of judgments? 

[Cas Stark]

23 minutes ago, Mexal said:

There is more to this.

1. The FBI wanted to hire Steele on further. That goes to show they thought he was credible and wanted him to continue to dig.

2. There has been elements of the dossier that have been confirmed.

Now, if you want to be like Joffrey up there, you can dismiss it all because it's anonymously sourced in mainstream media articles, but it's been reported by multiple organizations.

It depends on what you think the FBI's motive was, as a lot in the dossier seems pretty out there, such as offering someone a 19% stake in Rosneft as a bribe, and other things that appear to be erroneous and/or unverifiable.  So, without more information it could be argued either way, the FBI was interested and pursuing the dossier because they were politically motivated or the FBI was interested because they found it was credible that Trump and the Russians were colluding over the election.  Me, personally, I find that is pretty far fetched and thought the dossier seemed to be not very well done.  It's also of course true that a lot of non Trump people including Democrats have ties to Russia and do business with Russia.  Just a thought.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

You do realize those time stamps are updated when they update the articles right?

Being condescending is a bad look. The time stamps I'm referring to is when they were first released. I know, I reading it when it happened. 

2 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Those are the exact same BS arguments that people made about the Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden leaks. (And the Russia conspiracy narrative reinforces those types of regressive, national security state arguments.) This isn't about cyber espionage against the Russian ambassador for instance. These are broad-brush programs that US intelligence apparatuses use to target private companies and individuals, often with rubber stamp warrants or without warrants period. If they don't want their shit out there, they need to stop aggressively invading people's privacy. 

That is your opinion. I have mine. I think every foreign actor knowing our full capabilities and how to avoid them, especially in a world that's becoming more heavily reliant on cyber espionage, is a worse outcome. If you don't believe Snowden didn't hurt our ability to hunt and track terrorists, you haven't spoken to a single intelligence professional in your life. At the end of the day, I'm not naive enough to believe that we didn't have these capabilities. I'm smart enough and plugged in enough to know they exist and they're necessary. Now they're significantly less effective yet for you and me, nothing changes. You will continue to live your life, you will continue to use your Samsung TV or your Iphone/Android, you will continue to call your family members and text your friends. We have no reason to try to avoid them because we're not doing anything wrong. But you will also be less safe because the only people who actually care enough to go through the effort to bypass them are the people who are out to do you and me harm.

2 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

And none of this is "wonky bullshit." The surveillance state is not "wonky bullshit." The travel ban is not "wonky bullshit." ICE acting blatantly unconstitutionally in their drive to deport undocumented immigrants is not "wonky bullshit." Healthcare is "wonky" by default but repealing it can literally kill people so I would hardly call it "bullshit." This isn't bullshit. Unlike Russian conspiracy theories, these are actually human rights issues that actually affect people. 

All of those issues are also legitimate and we should discuss them, which we have. But do not downplay the current Russian connections as bullshit when the National Security Adviser resigned 28 days (shortest term ever for a NSA?) into the presidency for lying and the Attorney General recused himself for being caught lying 3 weeks later. Do not downplay the current Russian connections when Trump has lied 15 times about his relationship with them, when Donald Trump Jr has talked about how much Russian money has flooded into Trump Organization and when our President, our Command in Chief, has not relinquished a single % of his stake in any of his 400+ businesses while still refusing to produce his tax returns. All of these issues matter, including Russian conspiracy theories as you like to call them.

[Mexal]

6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It depends on what you think the FBI's motive was, as a lot in the dossier seems pretty out there, such as offering someone a 19% stake in Rosneft as a bribe, and other things that appear to be erroneous and/or unverifiable.  So, without more information it could be argued either way, the FBI was interested and pursuing the dossier because they were politically motivated or the FBI was interested because they found it was credible that Trump and the Russians were colluding over the election.  Me, personally, I find that is pretty far fetched and thought the dossier seemed to be not very well done.  It's also of course true that a lot of non Trump people including Democrats have ties to Russia and do business with Russia.  Just a thought.

FBI was politically motivated how? Steele brought the memos to journalists because the FBI wasn't showing any urgency at the time to investigate it because they were too focused on emails. Lets also not forget that the Director of the FBI, against DOJ guidelines and the Attorney General, sent an election changing letter to Congress 11 days before voting announcing new found emails without having analyzed any of the emails to see if they were duplicates. That doesn't sound like a FBI that was politically motivated against Trump.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

FBI was politically motivated how? Steele brought the memos to journalists because the FBI wasn't showing any urgency at the time to investigate it because they were too focused on emails. Lets also not forget that the Director of the FBI, against DOJ guidelines and the Attorney General, sent an election changing letter to Congress 11 days before voting announcing new found emails without having analyzed any of the emails to see if they were duplicates. That doesn't sound like a FBI that was politically motivated against Trump.

We don't have enough information. If the FBI wasn't interested in the dossier for several months, then what changed?  It has been reported that multiple media outlets had been attempting to confirm all or parts of the dossier for months and had nothing.  Neither Trump's GOP opponents or the Clinton campaign appear to have had sufficient faith in the dossier to make it public...so it seems odd, with no other context, that somehow it became credible to the FBI, at least to me it does.

My understanding on the letter is that Comey believed the NYFBI was going to leak the information about the emails found as part of their own investigation and that is why he went public.  It may be true or not, but it makes sense to me and it would have been even more damaging if Huma's email stuff was leaked to the NYC papers by the FBI because then the story would have been FBI covering up for Clinton, even if that wasn't the case.  I also don't think the letter changed the election.   I don't think wikileaks changed the election either.  Clinton lost because she was anticipating a landslide and so she failed to shore up her base in Wisconsin, PA and Ohio, it's really that simple, a little more turnout there and she would have won.

[The guy from the Vale]

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

We don't have enough information. If the FBI wasn't interested in the dossier for several months, then what changed?  It has been reported that multiple media outlets had been attempting to confirm all or parts of the dossier for months and had nothing.  Neither Trump's GOP opponents or the Clinton campaign appear to have had sufficient faith in the dossier to make it public...so it seems odd, with no other context, that somehow it became credible to the FBI, at least to me it does.

My understanding on the letter is that Comey believed the NYFBI was going to leak the information about the emails found as part of their own investigation and that is why he went public.  It may be true or not, but it makes sense to me and it would have been even more damaging if Huma's email stuff was leaked to the NYC papers by the FBI because then the story would have been FBI covering up for Clinton, even if that wasn't the case.  I also don't think the letter changed the election.   I don't think wikileaks changed the election either.  Clinton lost because she was anticipating a landslide and so she failed to shore up her base in Wisconsin, PA and Ohio, it's really that simple, a little more turnout there and she would have won.

And you think Comey or wikileaks didn't depress turnout amongst Dem-leaning voters in the Midwest? Like, at all? Because the margins were razor thin.

[aceluby]

Come on guys.... this is classic rewriting the script.  They did it with Bush with false equivalencies and no investigations after a decade of doing it before.  Now they are doing it again after years of investigations that turned up nothing while doing nothing about actual corruption today, trying again to use false equivalencies to justify their hypocrisy.

So now we're in for Russia=Benghazi, and that turned up nothing, so there is obviously nothing to see there.

It's just simple math.

/sarcasm