Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

Witness the Syria withdrawal timeline. As I predicted -- it's more aspirational than operational.
It's unfortunate we lost Mattis over this.

I think that the reason it's aspirational is Mattis' resignation sounding alarm bells. So if you believe that withdrawal needed to be slowed----greatly, i'm sure----- you can thank Mattis for successfully sending his message.

Bingo.

Except that I predicted that it was aspirational rather than operational before Mattis resigned.

It was not hard to predict that Trump would walk it back, without admitting he was doing it.

[old salt]

Interesting how quiet the Trump apologists, right wing true believers and those who claim they just like his foreign policy, have been so far about Trump's spouting, out of the blue, totally inaccurate Russia revisionist propaganda about why they went into Afghanistan.

I happened to watch the segment on Maddow last night on Trump's various spouting of Putinesque propaganda over the last couple of years, views that have no home here in the US, whether from the right or left. Totally out of any mainstream US awareness and very obscure, and quite untrue.

This is the sort of thing in which Maddow, or at least her team, do their most interesting work; providing multiple specific examples in a theme. It's indeed quite bizarre. What's the source of this propaganda and how is Trump seeing/hearing it? And obviously, why is he repeating it?

Salty, do you really still trust Trump to make decisions about foreign policy based in reality?

You must have missed my thoughts on our Syria withdrawal & Mattis departure.

That wasn't my question. But I see you sorta answered below.

The only thing more stupid than Trump's revisionist history is MSNBC's analysis of it.
Flash news for Maddow -- the CIA, DIA, NSA & NSC staffers read Sputnik & RT & check out what they read there.

Trump is distorting bits of info he has received in briefings, just like he does on other issues, shaping reality to appeal to his base & support his policies.
He's not getting talking points from Putin. They just happen to coincide.

So...you're saying that he actually takes briefings, reads documents, including what is clearly false propaganda and then decides, totally against what his "briefers" tell him is truth, to twist into falsehoods to fit his own narrative...which just happens to "coincide" with what Putin is putting out???

I'm concerned about "Trump unbound" now that Mattis & Kelly are gone.
Ok, So I guess your answer is you do not trust him to make decisions based in reality.

That's why I hope Webb is our next SecDef.
Bolton's a Russia hawk from the Cold War. Pompeo's trustworthy.

But does Trump actually listen to any of them? Or is this all a matter of just not following his orders, 'slow-walking' decisions, the way Anonymous described?
I'd be pretty shocked that Jim Webb would demean himself, but lord help us if there's no one other than a former Boeing exec in the job.

Graham & others in Congress still have influence. Over what???
Witness the Syria withdrawal timeline. As I predicted -- it's more aspirational than operational.
It's unfortunate we lost Mattis over this.

No, Trump saw the backlash on Fox...he was getting all sorts of rapid feedback, universally telling him it was a colossal mistake. And Mattis' resignation is what shocked them, not him, out of their lethargy. Graham has zero influence over Trump's thinking at this point.

The upcoming NATO conference will be interesting. If Trump inspires our nervous allies to invest more in their own defense, the next CinC will reunite stronger alliances, more assertive in burden sharing. If selected, Webb will bolster our Pacific alliances.

Ok, whole lot of wishful thinking in there...

...& you & Maddow are just throwing manure up against the wall, hoping something sticks.

How many times have you heard that Afghanistan was the USSR's Vietnam & the start of their unravelling ? That is CW. Trump didn't need to hear it in a briefing.
He got face to face PDB's from Pompeo when he was DCI. Who knows what nuggets are swirling around in Trump's mind, waiting to be distorted.
Trump was probably briefed on Montenegro before their NATO accession. Their tensions with Russian ally Serbia were probably mentioned.
He probably confused it with Franz Ferdinand & the Scottish rock band that uses that name.

Trump's NSC would have been negligent not to follow up on reports in Russian media about Polish-Belarussian tensions.

[Trinity]

So you’re voting idiot.

[old salt]

So you’re voting idiot.

Straight ticket.

[Trinity]

Lol.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting how quiet the Trump apologists, right wing true believers and those who claim they just like his foreign policy, have been so far about Trump's spouting, out of the blue, totally inaccurate Russia revisionist propaganda about why they went into Afghanistan.

I happened to watch the segment on Maddow last night on Trump's various spouting of Putinesque propaganda over the last couple of years, views that have no home here in the US, whether from the right or left. Totally out of any mainstream US awareness and very obscure, and quite untrue.

This is the sort of thing in which Maddow, or at least her team, do their most interesting work; providing multiple specific examples in a theme. It's indeed quite bizarre. What's the source of this propaganda and how is Trump seeing/hearing it? And obviously, why is he repeating it?

Salty, do you really still trust Trump to make decisions about foreign policy based in reality?

You must have missed my thoughts on our Syria withdrawal & Mattis departure.

That wasn't my question. But I see you sorta answered below.

The only thing more stupid than Trump's revisionist history is MSNBC's analysis of it.
Flash news for Maddow -- the CIA, DIA, NSA & NSC staffers read Sputnik & RT & check out what they read there.

Trump is distorting bits of info he has received in briefings, just like he does on other issues, shaping reality to appeal to his base & support his policies.
He's not getting talking points from Putin. They just happen to coincide.

So...you're saying that he actually takes briefings, reads documents, including what is clearly false propaganda and then decides, totally against what his "briefers" tell him is truth, to twist into falsehoods to fit his own narrative...which just happens to "coincide" with what Putin is putting out???

I'm concerned about "Trump unbound" now that Mattis & Kelly are gone.
Ok, So I guess your answer is you do not trust him to make decisions based in reality.

That's why I hope Webb is our next SecDef.
Bolton's a Russia hawk from the Cold War. Pompeo's trustworthy.

But does Trump actually listen to any of them? Or is this all a matter of just not following his orders, 'slow-walking' decisions, the way Anonymous described?
I'd be pretty shocked that Jim Webb would demean himself, but lord help us if there's no one other than a former Boeing exec in the job.

Graham & others in Congress still have influence. Over what???
Witness the Syria withdrawal timeline. As I predicted -- it's more aspirational than operational.
It's unfortunate we lost Mattis over this.

No, Trump saw the backlash on Fox...he was getting all sorts of rapid feedback, universally telling him it was a colossal mistake. And Mattis' resignation is what shocked them, not him, out of their lethargy. Graham has zero influence over Trump's thinking at this point.

The upcoming NATO conference will be interesting. If Trump inspires our nervous allies to invest more in their own defense, the next CinC will reunite stronger alliances, more assertive in burden sharing. If selected, Webb will bolster our Pacific alliances.

Ok, whole lot of wishful thinking in there...

...& you & Maddow are just throwing manure up against the wall, hoping something sticks.

How many times have you heard that Afghanistan was the USSR's Vietnam & the start of their unravelling ? That is CW. Trump didn't need to hear it in a briefing.
He got face to face PDB's from Pompeo when he was DCI. Who knows what nuggets are swirling around in Trump's mind, waiting to be distorted.
Trump was probably briefed on Montenegro before their NATO accession. Their tensions with Russian ally Serbia were probably mentioned.
He probably confused it with Franz Ferdinand & the Scottish rock band that uses that name.

Trump's NSC would have been negligent not to follow up on reports in Russian media about Polish-Belarussian tensions.

LOL, re your exchange with Trinity.

So, what you are saying is that Trump is incapable of rationality? He's taking tidbits of information he hears in briefings (really? we hear he refuses briefings, and or wants very short summaries, and doesn't read them) and then twists and distorts those nuggets and tidbits in his mind? To fit some sort of narrative all of his own making?

And when his advisors come back and say "Mr. President, what you just said isn't accurate" he just ignores them, thinks he's the very stable genius who understands better than they do?

Are you saying he's totally delusional?

Ok, maybe. But where does he get the consistent notion that "Russia/Soviet Union is right", "America is stupid" reading of history? Is that his overarching delusion?

Sure, it's a common hypothesis that the failure in Afghanistan depleted resources and morale in the Soviet Union, but the notion that Russia was "right to invade Afghanistan" has NEVER been suggested by any part of the American body politic, left or right.

So...where did he get that notion? Why that delusion?

Hey, maybe he truly is a total nut job, twisting truth to fit some crazy notions purely of his own fevered mind. Maybe.

Or are these notions are being fed to him by those seeking to manipulate him?
Whether he's corruptly aware of what he's being fed or simply delusionally vulnerable due to subtle manipulation through misinformation, it sure looks more probable than he's just looney tunes and coming up with these interpretations all alone.

[a fan]

So you’re voting idiot.

Straight ticket.

One thing I will say is that the Trump era has brought out your sense of humor, old salt. I love it.

[old salt]

MDLF76:
So, what you are saying is that Trump is incapable of rationality? He's taking tidbits of information he hears in briefings (really? we hear he refuses briefings, and or wants very short summaries, and doesn't read them) and then twists and distorts those nuggets and tidbits in his mind? To fit some sort of narrative all of his own making?

And when his advisors come back and say "Mr. President, what you just said isn't accurate" he just ignores them, thinks he's the very stable genius who understands better than they do?

Are you saying he's totally delusional?

Ok, maybe. But where does he get the consistent notion that "Russia/Soviet Union is right", "America is stupid" reading of history? Is that his overarching delusion?

Sure, it's a common hypothesis that the failure in Afghanistan depleted resources and morale in the Soviet Union, but the notion that Russia was "right to invade Afghanistan" has NEVER been suggested by any part of the American body politic, left or right.

So...where did he get that notion? Why that delusion?

Hey, maybe he truly is a total nut job, twisting truth to fit some crazy notions purely of his own fevered mind. Maybe.

Or are these notions are being fed to him by those seeking to manipulate him?
Whether he's corruptly aware of what he's being fed or simply delusionally vulnerable due to subtle manipulation through misinformation, it sure looks more probable than he's just looney tunes and coming up with these interpretations all alone.

It's been widely reported that Pompeo personally delivered PDB's to Trump in a format which held Trump's brief attention span & presented the info in a way that dealt with his aversion to reading briefing material. That is where they developed the rapport which prompted Trump to name him as Secy of State.

Trump's remarks about Afghanistan & Montenegro were not made in defense of Russia.
He was defending his policy on Afghan withdrawal & his criticism of NATO.
He wasn't saying it was right for Russia to invade Afghanistan. He was grasping for an analogy to our situation.
He was making a case for pulling out of an unwinnable war.

How is Putin feeding Trump his talking points. Who's manipulating him. Is Trump watching RT, reading Sputnik or receiving & absorbing briefings on Russia ?
Trump will grasp at anything to defend his position. It only needs to be tangentially related. He's playing to an audience less informed than he is that rejects criticism of him, in part, because of silly overreaches like this.

Trump learned history from Prof Archie Bunker.

[a fan]

Maddow went full tinfoil months ago.

[seacoaster]

"He wasn't saying it was right for Russia to invade Afghanistan. He was grasping for an analogy to our situation."

No, no and again no. I sort of wish you'd stop this sort of twisted sophistry to explain the President's near total lack of grasp for world affairs and recent history. This is what he said:

"But Russia should be fighting. The reason Russia was in, in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt. They went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union,"

There weren't "terrorists...going into Russia." And the Soviet Union was not "right to be there." It is widely acknowledged that Brezhnev ordered Soviet armies into Afghanistan because of the fall of the Communist government, which had itself taken power in a coup in 1978. There is, then, no "analogy to our situation."

I really do appreciate the viewpoint that you bring to these fora (with which I often, to be sure, disagree), and the articles you frequently append in support (which I would otherwise almost certainly not see). But the back-bending Calypso dance you sometimes do to explain Trump's mouthfuls of lies and stupidity is just nutty.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"He wasn't saying it was right for Russia to invade Afghanistan. He was grasping for an analogy to our situation."

No, no and again no. I sort of wish you'd stop this sort of twisted sophistry to explain the President's near total lack of grasp for world affairs and recent history. This is what he said:

"But Russia should be fighting. The reason Russia was in, in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt. They went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union,"

There weren't "terrorists...going into Russia." And the Soviet Union was not "right to be there." It is widely acknowledged that Brezhnev ordered Soviet armies into Afghanistan because of the fall of the Communist government, which had itself taken power in a coup in 1978. There is, then, no "analogy to our situation."

I really do appreciate the viewpoint that you bring to these fora (with which I often, to be sure, disagree), and the articles you frequently append in support (which I would otherwise almost certainly not see). But the back-bending Calypso dance you sometimes do to explain Trump's mouthfuls of lies and stupidity is just nutty.

Just sad or pitiful also comes to mind.

[old salt]

"He wasn't saying it was right for Russia to invade Afghanistan. He was grasping for an analogy to our situation."

No, no and again no. I sort of wish you'd stop this sort of twisted sophistry to explain the President's near total lack of grasp for world affairs and recent history. This is what he said:

"But Russia should be fighting. The reason Russia was in, in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt. They went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union,"

There weren't "terrorists...going into Russia." And the Soviet Union was not "right to be there." It is widely acknowledged that Brezhnev ordered Soviet armies into Afghanistan because of the fall of the Communist government, which had itself taken power in a coup in 1978. There is, then, no "analogy to our situation."

I really do appreciate the viewpoint that you bring to these fora (with which I often, to be sure, disagree), and the articles you frequently append in support (which I would otherwise almost certainly not see). But the back-bending Calypso dance you sometimes do to explain Trump's mouthfuls of lies and stupidity is just nutty.

Get a grip. Trump's making an analogy to Russia to justify our withdrawl. He's saying (in error) that we both invaded to go after terrorists, we both stayed too long & both withdrew too late. He's defending his policy, not Russia's. He's spinning history to justify his controversial decision.

Re Russia fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, maybe he recalls GungaDan Rather embedded with the Mujahideen, Charlie Wilson's War, & OBL's origins in Afghanistan fighting the Russians (with our assistance). Trump's not smart enough, or informed enough to be doing what you accuse him of.

[MDlaxfan76]

"He wasn't saying it was right for Russia to invade Afghanistan. He was grasping for an analogy to our situation."

No, no and again no. I sort of wish you'd stop this sort of twisted sophistry to explain the President's near total lack of grasp for world affairs and recent history. This is what he said:

"But Russia should be fighting. The reason Russia was in, in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt. They went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union,"

There weren't "terrorists...going into Russia." And the Soviet Union was not "right to be there." It is widely acknowledged that Brezhnev ordered Soviet armies into Afghanistan because of the fall of the Communist government, which had itself taken power in a coup in 1978. There is, then, no "analogy to our situation."

I really do appreciate the viewpoint that you bring to these fora (with which I often, to be sure, disagree), and the articles you frequently append in support (which I would otherwise almost certainly not see). But the back-bending Calypso dance you sometimes do to explain Trump's mouthfuls of lies and stupidity is just nutty.

Get a grip. Trump's making an analogy to Russia to justify our withdrawl. He's saying (in error) that we both invaded to go after terrorists, we both stayed too long & both withdrew too late. He's defending his policy, not Russia's. He's spinning history to justify his controversial decision.

Re Russia fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, maybe he recalls GungaDan Rather embedded with the Mujahideen, Charlie Wilson's War, & OBL's origins in Afghanistan fighting the Russians (with our assistance). Trump's not smart enough, or informed enough to be doing what you accuse him of.

I don't think anyone's claiming that Trump is "smart enough" or "informed enough", at least not by our IC.

But your explanation is simply not sufficient to explain why he comes up with such ignorant, provably wrong statements that so consistently comply with Russian propaganda, and so directly conflict with truth and our IC's counsel.

Is he getting his "ideas" directly out of the mouths of dictators? We actually really don't know, and that's sure as heck troubling. Has any other President ever gone to such lengths to have private conversations with dictators and adversaries with no record of what was communicated? Easy answer: NO.

But not all of this needs to be coming directly from say Putin, or Erdogan, or MBS, etc. It could well be that Trump's social media feed includes Russian troll sources. Heck, he retweets such sources!

If I was a GRU intelligence officer (or an ex KGB spy master) it certainly would occur to me to seek to entice Trump to follow sources into which I control the propaganda flow.

I recall you and some others for many months claiming that there was no evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. When that position became untenable, the position became that they had no impact.

But social media does have impact. It shapes our perceptions of reality. Some of us are more susceptible than others.

[old salt]

There you go again -- projecting onto me things I never said. I never disputed that Russia tried to influence our election. I questioned their effectiveness in impacting the result & want to see proof of collusion. After all these months, now that nothing new has been brought forward proving collusion, you're still conflating the Trump Tower meeting with collusion, ...while dismissing the dossier as mere opposition research.

Show us the Russian social media that Trump might be reading, in which the Russian govt maintains the USSR invaded Afghanistan to go after terrorists.
That's not Russia's position even now when they're trying to revise their history of their Afghan war.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... abbf5a46c0

“The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia.”

This is simply not true. The Soviet Union ventured into Afghanistan as part of its effort to prop up communism abroad, not because terrorists were striking the Soviet homeland.

“The most shameless Soviet propagandist never claimed that Afghan terrorists were attacking Russia,” said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University. “You can read all Soviet media in the 1980s and never find anything this ridiculous.”

There was ultimately a problem with extremism in Afghanistan, but it developed largely after the USSR left, and the mujahideen groups that sprang up to fight the Soviets devolved into the Taliban.

I think it's more likely Trump saw the movie version of Charlie Wilson's War.

[MDlaxfan76]

There you go again -- projecting onto me things I never said. I never disputed that Russia tried to influence our election. I questioned their effectiveness in impacting the result & want to see proof of collusion. After all these months, now that nothing new has been brought forward proving collusion, you're still conflating the Trump Tower meeting with collusion, ...while dismissing the dossier as mere opposition research.

Show us the Russian social media that Trump might be reading, in which the Russian govt maintains the USSR invaded Afghanistan to go after terrorists.
That's not Russia's position even now when they're trying to revise their history of their Afghan war.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... abbf5a46c0

“The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia.”

This is simply not true. The Soviet Union ventured into Afghanistan as part of its effort to prop up communism abroad, not because terrorists were striking the Soviet homeland.

“The most shameless Soviet propagandist never claimed that Afghan terrorists were attacking Russia,” said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University. “You can read all Soviet media in the 1980s and never find anything this ridiculous.”

There was ultimately a problem with extremism in Afghanistan, but it developed largely after the USSR left, and the mujahideen groups that sprang up to fight the Soviets devolved into the Taliban.

I think it's more likely Trump saw the movie version of Charlie Wilson's War.

That movie certainly didn't raise that notion in the slightest. It's not as if Trump wasn't actually an adult at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And yes, the Trump Tower meeting was clearly attempted collusion. And then obstruction of justice, cover-up. And yes, clearly the attempts to do a business deal in Moscow while publicly denying such while on the campaign trail and then subsequently, the ongoing lies, all evidence of kompromat and obstruction of justice.

Your denials are just silly.

Give it time, Salty.
There's much more to come.

[old salt]

I take it you've yet to locate any Russian social media claiming the USSR invaded Afghanistan to get Chechen terrorists.

What's silly are yours & Maddow's whacky conspiracy theories.

I'm prepared to believe anything about Trump & his cronies, if & when there's evidence, but too much of this stuff is wishful thinking & just trying too hard.

[HooDat]

I take it you've yet to locate any Russian social media claiming the USSR invaded Afghanistan to get Chechen terrorists.

What's silly are yours & Maddow's whacky conspiracy theories.

I'm prepared to believe anything about Trump & his cronies, if & when there's evidence, but too much of this stuff is wishful thinking & just trying too hard.

sometimes the Dems can't get out of their own way. ...ok frequently.....

I will say this for Pelosi - she seems to be trying real hard. I think she is going to be facing internal challenges along the lines of a Dem version of the Tea Party though.....

[Trinity]

She can count and understands the Senate convicts, not the new House Democratic Caucus. Trump’s erratic and ignorant behavior has not yet horrified the GOP sufficiently. They obviously don’t care about the Emoluments Clause. Or conflicts of interest. At all.

[MDlaxfan76]

I take it you've yet to locate any Russian social media claiming the USSR invaded Afghanistan to get Chechen terrorists.

What's silly are yours & Maddow's whacky conspiracy theories.

I'm prepared to believe anything about Trump & his cronies, if & when there's evidence, but too much of this stuff is wishful thinking & just trying too hard.

Really? I'm supposed to search for Russian troll propaganda in social media?

Come on, did you know what troll garbage was Russian during 2016? I sure as heck didn't.

Heck, it took the FBI quite awhile to figure it out as well. Facebook and Twitter etc were downplaying it as well, but ultimately we learned that it was a huge amount, really insidious. Any chance Trump "follows" any of those trolls who are still out there?

BTW, pretty darn good refutation of Trump's BS by Liz Cheney just now on "This Week".

You say you're "willing to believe", yet you just above said there's NO evidence of collusion, when there clearly is evidence of attempted collusion and cover-up of same.

I won't speak for how "whacky" Maddow's speculations are or are not, but my simple hypothesis is that Trump is dishonest, corrupt, delusional, and an ego-maniac. And the Russians used, and are still using, those four factors to their advantage. Beginning with the financial years ago. Likewise, Trump has always surrounded himself with dishonest and corrupt toadies, and the Russians and others have used them as well.

Exactly how that all played out we are learning in pieces, but I don't think this is likely to wrap up with Trump not being shown to have been aware of various lies he was telling about his relationships with Russians, including his knowledge of their efforts to manipulate the election in favor of him, damaging Clinton, and exacerbating political divides. Indeed, he and his closest aides welcomed those efforts and then covered them up.

Flynn, (I think) also had a worldview that was so focused on his hate of Islamists that he wrongly conflated those radicals and their ideology into a War of Civilizations that overwhelmed his comprehension of other threats. Add to that his anger at those who disagreed, and his seeking of personal financial gain, and then his willingness to lie in furtherance of this goals, and he was sucked into that corrupt orbit. A shame, but this is Trumpworld.

[MDlaxfan76]

As I don't follow social media trolls, but am able to google, here's the beginning of what I found.

The first is a translation in the Guardian of an interview done in Kommersant back in 2015 that demonstrates quite well the kind of propaganda has been spewing for quite some time, with the positioning that Russia should be seen as the 'good' nation and the US as "evil", with Russia a reliable foe of terrorism.

And that's the view they have been seeding into the American body politic, also for quite some time, and to good effect. Indeed, this is also quite likely what the NRA effort was all about, including the funneling of money to key Republicans.

Here's an interesting discussion in 2017 in the House subcommittee on Terrorism. It seems a bit weird to those of us who are a bit older to see Republicans making the pro-Putin-Russia argument, with Dems the hawks versus Putin's Russia.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18 ... 171107.pdf