Politics: The Undiscovered Country

[Zoraptor]

While it isn't in the same class as Trump's (apparent, not like the media and anonymous sources has a 100% record on accuracy where Trump is concerned) request Steele did, supposedly, use a lot of sources in the British State Apparatus such as MI6/ GCHQ. And while his sources almost certainly contravened the Official Secrets Act neither he nor they got investigated which could imply state collusion; or alternatively most of his stuff was made up and the OSA doesn't apply to fantasy.

In this case though Skarpen is probably referring to Ukraine's decently documented decision to overtly back Hillary last election. It's unclear whether Hillary herself requested that interference but it's pretty much universally accepted that 'the Democrats' asked for/ met/ helped and received help from Ukraine. Not great for The Narrative though plus Hillary lost, so story lacked legs.

[ManifestedISO]

neither decently documented nor universally accepted

Quote

Once he won the presidency, though, that changed. Ukraine has become a repeated and obvious political playing card for Trump over the past several years, in part because of its oppositional role to Russia. When questions about Russia have arisen, Trump and his allies have often tried to redirect America’s gaze to Ukraine.

The earliest iteration was an effort to wave away questions about Russia’s role in the 2016 election by suggesting that Ukraine was engaged in something equivalent. It was a line of argument that leveraged a January 2017 article from Politico, describing how a consultant working for the Democratic National Committee had sought information from Ukrainian officials largely centered on Paul Manafort, previously a political consultant in that country but at the time Trump’s campaign chairman.

When news broke about Donald Trump Jr.'s having embraced an offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton that he believed came from the Russian government, the incident with the DNC contractor was lifted up as a counterpoint. Trump Jr.'s only media interview in the immediate aftermath of the revelation of the Trump Tower meeting was with Fox News’ Sean Hannity — who opened his show by walking through the DNC-Ukraine story in his own loaded, spottily accurate way.

Where this particular look-at-Ukraine effort fails is largely in scale. What’s alleged is that one contractor — who stopped working with the DNC in July — worked with staff at the Ukrainian embassy to examine Manafort’s record. Such research wasn’t part of her role with the party, and there’s no evidence that the DNC was broadly aware of her efforts. There’s no evidence that the Ukrainian government was actively engaged in a large effort to aid the Democrats or Hillary Clinton’s campaign. By contrast, U.S. intelligence officials uncovered evidence that Russia was trying to aid Trump at the highest levels — and was actively doing so in various ways.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/20/trump-has-been-openly-trying-leverage-ukraine-his-political-benefit-months/

[smjjames]

53 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

While it isn't in the same class as Trump's (apparent, not like the media and anonymous sources has a 100% record on accuracy where Trump is concerned) request Steele did, supposedly, use a lot of sources in the British State Apparatus such as MI6/ GCHQ. And while his sources almost certainly contravened the Official Secrets Act neither he nor they got investigated which could imply state collusion; or alternatively most of his stuff was made up and the OSA doesn't apply to fantasy.

I thought that was just Steele pulling strings and using sources from his time in M16 or however it works?

57 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

In this case though Skarpen is probably referring to Ukraine's decently documented decision to overtly back Hillary last election. It's unclear whether Hillary herself requested that interference but it's pretty much universally accepted that 'the Democrats' asked for/ met/ helped and received help from Ukraine. Not great for The Narrative though plus Hillary lost, so story lacked legs.

It looks more like it was an outgrowth of something about Manafort, plus as manifestediso quoted, it's one of scale and theres no evidence that the Ukranian government was directly involved, as it was for Russia.

Funny how it keeps coming around and hitting Ukraine.

[Zoraptor]

It would be near impossible for Steele to have used sources developed at MI6 without breaking the Official Secrets Act. Steele's dossier doesn't really work for a number of reasons because of that, either he broke the OSA, his information was all old or it was made up (not necessarily by him of course, but anonymous sources do tend to love gilding the lily).

1 hour ago, ManifestedISO said:

neither decently documented nor universally accepted

The Ukrainians were pretty open about what they were doing and why they were doing it as, to them, that sort of quid pro quo isn't a big deal- and it played very well domestically to be publicly seen to be sticking it to Yanukovich and Russia, plus they'd have backed Paris Hilton over someone who had Manafort as a campaign manager. That the Ukrainian government supported Hillary is probably better documented than Russia supporting Trump, but it simply didn't get reported. And let's be frank, if a recently ex Trump staffer was fishing for information from Russia that happened to benefit Trump neither you nor WaPo (nor I for that matter) would think that was innocent.

And it's not like the Ds were not using foreigners to dig up dirt, that too is well documented per Steele.

But OK, it isn't universally accepted since D partisans don't accept it. Kind of funny how Politico becomes a pro Trump rag to WaPo (whose stories based on Anonymous Sources are tremendously well corroborated and documented, just the best corroboration and documentation) when they have the temerity to actually say something against the Ds for once. I wonder how strenuously WaPo looked for corroboration and documentation... and I'd bet I spent longer typing this sentence than they spent looking. That article can be summed up as "Didn't happen, can't prove it happened, and if it did it wasn't serious". Only left out 'they deserved it', albeit that's kind of implied by 'but Trump did worse!'. Which itself is of course classic whataboutism*; but what about what Trump did?

*still hate the term, it's plain moronic and unironic usage is a lazy and pathetic admission that you don't have a coherent argument but prefer to hide behind buzz terms.

[smjjames]

45 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

It would be near impossible for Steele to have used sources developed at MI6 without breaking the Official Secrets Act. Steele's dossier doesn't really work for a number of reasons because of that, either he broke the OSA, his information was all old or it was made up (not necessarily by him of course, but anonymous sources do tend to love gilding the lily).

The Ukrainians were pretty open about what they were doing and why they were doing it as, to them, that sort of quid pro quo isn't a big deal- and it played very well domestically to be publicly seen to be sticking it to Yanukovich and Russia, plus they'd have backed Paris Hilton over someone who had Manafort as a campaign manager. That the Ukrainian government supported Hillary is probably better documented than Russia supporting Trump, but it simply didn't get reported. And let's be frank, if a recently ex Trump staffer was fishing for information from Russia that happened to benefit Trump neither you nor WaPo (nor I for that matter) would think that was innocent.

And it's not like the Ds were not using foreigners to dig up dirt, that too is well documented per Steele.

But OK, it isn't universally accepted since D partisans don't accept it. Kind of funny how Politico becomes a pro Trump rag to WaPo (whose stories based on Anonymous Sources are tremendously well corroborated and documented, just the best corroboration and documentation) when they have the temerity to actually say something against the Ds for once. I wonder how strenuously WaPo looked for corroboration and documentation... and I'd bet I spent longer typing this sentence than they spent looking. That article can be summed up as "Didn't happen, can't prove it happened, and if it did it wasn't serious". Only left out 'they deserved it', albeit that's kind of implied by 'but Trump did worse!'. Which itself is of course classic whataboutism*; but what about what Trump did?

*still hate the term, it's plain moronic and unironic usage is a lazy and pathetic admission that you don't have a coherent argument but prefer to hide behind buzz terms.

Re the Ukrainian government supporting Clinton: Yes, but there’s no evidence that the government was actively pushing to interfere in any coordinated effort like Russia did. Also, they were far from the only country who openly preferred Clinton over Trump with varying levels of subtlety. 

[ktchong]

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by ktchong

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, smjjames said:

Re the Ukrainian government supporting Clinton: Yes, but there’s no evidence that the government was actively pushing to interfere in any coordinated effort like Russia did. Also, they were far from the only country who openly preferred Clinton over Trump with varying levels of subtlety. 

Ukrainian domestic media had plenty of claims that they were interfering to stop pro Russian Trump. There is of course some wiggle room for those claims being incorrect- currying favour, domestic factors like showing they were sticking it to Russia, whether those making the claims were representative of the Ukrainian govt in general. But in the end, Manafort got got during the election cycle in large part due to information originating from Ukraine, so their own claims of what they are doing are supported.

[Guard Dog]

Trump is accused of colluding with a foreign government. It is later proven he didn't. How does he celebrate being absolved of the accusation? By colluding with a (different) foreign government.  The only thing that makes this more bizarre is the accusing party used opposition research compiled by a member of a foreign intelligence service.

You see what I mean about the whole thing being a sewer infested by s--t covered rats? All the rats are trying to tell you the other rats stink. But all you smell is s--t no matter what.   

[Malcador]

Well, sort of stuck with them. Barring outright violence can't see things changing.  But hey, at least you're not Brazil.

UK politics is being pretty entertaining at least -  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Malcador

[213374U]

Yeah, not just entertaining. It's downright hilarious to see Corbyn talk of "contempt of democracy" while cowering in fear at the prospect of holding an early election. Well, not that kind of democracy, of course!

Not even the promise of a four-day working week can save his sorry ass now. And, as usual, the defeat of a trash politician only heralds something even worse: a return to Blairism.

Yay politics.

[smjjames]

13 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Yeah, not just entertaining. It's downright hilarious to see Corbyn talk of "contempt of democracy" while cowering in fear at the prospect of holding an early election. Well, not that kind of democracy, of course!

Not even the promise of a four-day working week can save his sorry ass now. And, as usual, the defeat of a trash politician only heralds something even worse: a return to Blairism.

Yay politics.

Not being entirely familiar with the term, what does Blairism mean exactly? It does seem to connotate kissing ass to the US since Tony Blair was pretty much called Bushs poodle or something along the lines of that.

[213374U]

Blairism is just the British variant of the cancer that has largely killed the European left. A focus on optics, sloganeering and lack of a consistent set of principles outside of strong support of NATO and the EU, with a bit of crony capitalism thrown in for good measure.

[smjjames]

Ah, Neoliberalism then, the European variant anyway.

[Gfted1]

Trump releasing transcript.

[Skarpen]

http://www.thegwpf.com/european-climate-declaration-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

So much for consensus on climate catastrophe. 

This are the guys I can get behind on climate issues. Not some deranged teenager screaming idiocy.

 

[Hurlshort]

20 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Trump releasing transcript.

Great. The victim complex stuff is annoying, but seems like a good choice to just air it out.

[Malcador]

Well, he says he will.  That may change in the next couple of hours.

[Gromnir]

8 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Trump is accused of colluding with a foreign government. It is later proven he didn't. 

 

*sigh*

statement is manifest untrue. is more than a little evidence o' collusion. oh, and collusion and conspiracy ain't synonymous, so don't go there. if this were a corporate collusion case, then maybe you bring up synonymous, but ain't.

as we have noted multiple times, the folks who understandably parrot barr summary 'o no collusion and no obstruction are making a terrible mistake.

Fed Judge: ‘Difficult to Reconcile’ Mueller Report with AG Barr’s Statements

knowing meeting with and encouraging a foreign power to provide dirt on a political rival is behaviours consistent with collusion, but mueller found insufficient for criminal conspiracy charge. find where in mueller report trump were cleared o' "collusion." we will wait.

too many people with a lewandowski understanding o' the mueller report, a problem which we actual sympathize with as report is ponderous and dense and legal technical.

no recommendation o' criminal conspiracy charges is different... and is the nightmare expressed by more than a few commentators after release o' mueller report. if trump, who mueller found to be unreliable and deceptive, were not subject to any kinda prosecution for his dealing with russia, then what happens in the future? with bar set so high for criminalization o' conspiracy, what stops a candidate from dealing with foreign powers to gain advantage over political rivals... other than conscience? as long as a candidate didn't active and repeated plan and coordinate with the foreign power, they is able to meet with and collude with russia or ukraine or whomever? is ok to let foreign power know you will meet with 'em to get dirt. is ok to meet and accept what you believe or hope is such dirt. 

IF accusations 'bout trump and ukraine is true, which is not the immediate relevant issue btw, then is kinda bizarre, but believable. the stuff russians got prosecuted for and mueller kept trying to warn Congress 'bout to no avail is what trump did. day after end o' mueller investigation, trump active leverages US taxpayer monies appropriated by Congress in an effort to get a foreign power to investigate a political rival?

what?

and same day news breaks suggesting the subject o' whistleblower is trump and relates to using money to encourage a foreign leader to pursue an investigation o' a political rival, the doj makes a bizarre claim in fed court: the President, and by necessity anybody tangential related to the President or his business and/personal activities, is not subject to criminal process for as long as the President remains in office.

what?

btw, not prosecute is hardly same as prove a defendant didn't do that which he/she is accused. we mentioned the ben roethlisberger situation recent in the nfl thread. da in announcing no prosecution made as clear as possible his belief ben were a bad guy who did a terrible thing... which is what mueller tried to do in his report and even during his evasive testimony. one thing mueller did make clear, which nobody wanted to listen to or focus 'pon, not even democrats, were that the trump campaign were deceptive and irresponsible in their dealings with russians, and that mueller were much concerned 'bout how candidates would deal with foreign powers in future elections.

sadly, what trump no doubt learned from mueller situation is that he is functionally untouchable save by impeachment, which dem leadership has been reluctant to pursue. 

oh, and 'cause am getting figurative hoarse from repeating, the biden stuff and ukraine calls and all the other guesses and demands for transcripts and whatnot is all freaking side issues. there is a credible and urgent whistleblower complaint which is being withheld by the dni 'cause o' urging from somebody not in dni chain of command. how is this fact quickly becoming tangential? 

have heard people suggest the reason nixon left office were smoking gun evidence. that ain't history. after tapes were successful subpoenaed and made public, 'cause a President can't avoid all criminal process (duh,) only 1/3 o' americans were in favor o' continuing impeachment. reason nixon actual ended Presidency is his efforts to obstruct Congress. republicans final came to realization that nixon efforts to impede investigation and to undermine Congress were a breaking point beyond which they could not tolerate. Americans were angered by stonewalling more than they were bothered by the break-in.

nixon were a far better President than trump, and more successful, but his efforts to trample the Constitution were a bridge too far for Congress. thank goodness enough republicans shook off partisan politics to do what were right for the country.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Gromnir
comma fails and duplicate pronouns

[Bartimaeus]

Wanted to pick a bone with that statement by GD as well, but I feel like we've gone over it so many times already that there was little point.

Nancy Pelosi is formally opening an impeachment inquiry (today?). It seems her party + the latest corruption allegations have swayed her to act.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

http://www.thegwpf.com/european-climate-declaration-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

So much for consensus on climate catastrophe. 

This are the guys I can get behind on climate issues. Not some deranged teenager screaming idiocy.

 

Is there any Climate Warming hawk you wouldn't consider deranged? (that's kind of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, mind)

In similar news to what's going on, the whistleblower apparently wants to talk to both the Senate and House intel committees, possibly as early as this week. I suppose that there could be a chance of the whistleblowers identity being revealed because cameras are going to be swarming, but I'm pretty sure that they have procedures in place to shield that kind of thing.

Edited September 24, 2019 by smjjames

[Malcador]

16 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Wanted to pick a bone with that statement by GD as well, but I feel like we've gone over it so many times already that there was little point.

Nancy Pelosi is formally opening an impeachment inquiry (today?). It seems her party + the latest corruption allegations have swayed her to act.

Kind of silly when the GOP are servile, no?

GWPF have some interesting history.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Malcador

[ManifestedISO]

transcript from Helsinki was altered, by WH; press conference video of Acosta was doctored, by WH; little reason to expect complete transcription with Zelensky

contents of complaint are all that matter; if 'multiple acts' are indeed documented, falsifying the Ukraine call transcript may be one ... 

[Bartimaeus]

@Malcador

Not at all: election season is coming and the impeachment process is long, and there are so many different angles to come at it between allegations of money laundering, emoluments, obstruction of justice, anything that remotely looks like collusion (like this latest incident), general behavior unfitting of the office... Clinton's impeachment died in the Senate, but helped on some level lead the way to the barest of victories by Bush a couple of years later. Democrats desperately need the presidency in 2020 or risk losing any semblance of control of the Supreme Court for a generation or two - they're going to pull out all the stops here.

Getting impeached in the House will also thankfully be recorded in our history books, regardless of the Senate process, and based on the madness we've had to endure over the past 2 and a half years, I'm thinking that that is a good thing.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[Skarpen]

14 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Is there any Climate Warming hawk you wouldn't consider deranged? (that's kind of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, mind)

One that would have some ideas and solutions that aren't complete lunacy or powergrab rather than fearmongering and brainwashing kids. Oh and not being a hypocrite would be nice. I'm a little fed up with climate warriors that fight pollution with littering or anti red meat advocates that engage in mass steak grilling.

[smjjames]

3 minutes ago, ManifestedISO said:

transcript from Helsinki was altered, by WH; press conference video of Acosta was doctored, by WH; little reason to expect complete transcription with Zelensky

contents of complaint are all that matter; if 'multiple acts' are indeed documented, falsifying the Ukraine call transcript may be one ... 

It wasn't that the Helsinki transcript was altered, it's that there wasn't one. Wouldn't be surprised either if they altered or simply omitted bits of the Zelensky transcript.

Edited September 24, 2019 by smjjames