Trump's Russian Collusion

[jhu72]

William F. Buckley is turning over in his grave watching the modern Republican party.

[a fan]

I am pretty sure that you are breaking some sort of forum rule by actually responding on a point by point basis!

It was necessary to do that drive the point home. There's a massive difference between "having a particular point of view", and being so utterly one sided that you know what the writer is going to write for the next two years of Trump's foreign policy without having any idea what Trump is going to do.

I'd also be willing to wager that steak dinner, without knowing who is even running, that no matter what the next POTUS does in 2020....if it's a Democrat, VDH will find fault in everything he/she does. And everything Trump does will yet again either be awesome, or worse, when VDH disagrees, he simply won't put it in writing. A lovely trick that allows VDH or Trump supporters to say " I never said that I liked it when Trump did X or Y."

It's an intellectually bankrupt way of examining our foreign policy. And, worse, it encourages Trump to become more wild and irresponsible, since no one in his camp is willing to do anything other than say "hooray!".

[old salt]

... .. ...VDH = chum in the TDS shark tank.

[Typical Lax Dad]

... .. ...VDH = chum in the TDS shark tank.

“It was a surprise that silenced the courtroom when Manafort entered in a wheelchair wearing a green jumpsuit,” she said. “[He] has some sort of inflammation in his right foot. It was bandaged in a sock, slightly elevated when he was in the wheelchair.” Scannell also noted his condition had something to do with his diet.

Paul would have been better off dragging a dollar bill though a trailer park! I wonder if his diet includes foot longs!

[Trinity]

Manafort has had one meeting with Mueller for every time Fity got shot. 9. There’s no way he’s only talking about Republicans imho. The Swamp might really get drained. We all might be cheering Team America by the end of this.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Manafort has had one meeting with Mueller for every time Fity got shot. 9. There’s no way he’s only talking about Republicans imho. The Swamp might really get drained. We all might be cheering Team America by the end of this.

[a fan]

Manafort has had one meeting with Mueller for every time Fity got shot. 9. There’s no way he’s only talking about Republicans imho. The Swamp might really get drained. We all might be cheering Team America by the end of this.

Forever the optimist! Hat's off to you.

I'll be stunned if anyone gets indicted, or anything of note comes out of it.

And I'll be surprised if the Mueller Report is made public without redactions. Remember, Trump has to sign off on any releases to the public.

[jhu72]

Manafort has had one meeting with Mueller for every time Fity got shot. 9. There’s no way he’s only talking about Republicans imho. The Swamp might really get drained. We all might be cheering Team America by the end of this.

Forever the optimist! Hat's off to you.

I'll be stunned if anyone gets indicted, or anything of note comes out of it.

And I'll be surprised if the Mueller Report is made public without redactions. Remember, Trump has to sign off on any releases to the public.

We are talking about the same White House, the one that leaks like a submarine with a screen door, right?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Manafort has had one meeting with Mueller for every time Fity got shot. 9. There’s no way he’s only talking about Republicans imho. The Swamp might really get drained. We all might be cheering Team America by the end of this.

Forever the optimist! Hat's off to you.

I'll be stunned if anyone gets indicted, or anything of note comes out of it.

And I'll be surprised if the Mueller Report is made public without redactions. Remember, Trump has to sign off on any releases to the public.

How many indictments and guilty pleas have come down already? Mueller is done? I don’t know how anyone can draw that conclusion based on what has transpired so far?

[Trinity]

If he hides the report, we know he did it. The FBI just charged another Russian with attacking the 2018 election. Memo to Trump. Do your job. Defend democracy. Not a hoax. Not a witch-hunt.

[ggait]

And I'll be surprised if the Mueller Report is made public without redactions. Remember, Trump has to sign off on any releases to the public.

Things may get pretty wacky/interesting after the elections.

Recused Sessions will resign for sure, and Trump can probably get a replacement AG jammed through the Senate which likely will continue to be GOP controlled. That could mean that the new AG will take over as Mueller's boss, relieving Rosenstein of that duty without the need to Saturday Night massacre Rosenstein.

Mueller's report, by DOJ regulation, is confidential and only goes to the AG (or Rosenstein so long as the AG is recused). Totally up to the AG/Rosenstein where that report goes. The House will still be in GOP hands between Nov and January, but then is likely to flip once January comes.

I'm sure Mueller has a plan for how to slalom through this forest of trees. But expect a huge fight to ensue among the WH, Senate and House about the extent to which Mueller's report ever sees the light of day. One plan for Mueller would be to hold off on his report for a bit and instead start issuing new indictments (which are mandatory public record) post-election in order to lay foundation for his report which will come later.

And still, no one has any idea what Mueller does/does not have.

[dislaxxic]

WHO TOLD CARTER PAGE THAT JAMES WOLFE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE FISA LEAK?

..

[frmanfan]

Ms. Khusyaynova was fastidious, keeping detailed records of expenses for a budget that totaled more than $35 million from January 2016 to June 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/p ... tions.html

Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama raised in 2012. Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own networks, and a small-dollar donor operation modeled on the one used by Obama in 2012. She spent heavily on television advertising and her get-out-the-vote operation, but in the end, her fundraising edge wasn't enough to overcome Trump's ability to dominate headlines and the airwaves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/grap ... ndraising/

Obviously this Russian woman knows something about how to get the message out, something the eluded HRC, because obviously Russian meddling is the only reason Trump won.

[Trinity]

That’s how asymmetrical war works. Even though Putin was vehement in his denials.

[frmanfan]

I'm not saying they didn't try to stir things up, that is obvious that they did, but really, amidst the noise from all the other sources of campaign noise this is the stuff that swayed the election? Lots of people (some here) are still holding to this belief.

[Trinity]

Trump and this Russian share identical messaging.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm not saying they didn't try to stir things up, that is obvious that they did, but really, amidst the noise from all the other sources of campaign noise this is the stuff that swayed the election? Lots of people (some here) are still holding to this belief.

The DNC did not have the database of potential RNC voters to message to. Not to change their minds and vote for Hillary instead of Trump....a great deal of it was focused on discouraging Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary. You should take the time to read independent analysis. It was an effective campaign. Not the only reason Hillary lost. You "believe" the Russian efforts had no impact? That's your "educated" conclusion?

[MDlaxfan76]

Ms. Khusyaynova was fastidious, keeping detailed records of expenses for a budget that totaled more than $35 million from January 2016 to June 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/p ... tions.html

Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama raised in 2012. Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own networks, and a small-dollar donor operation modeled on the one used by Obama in 2012. She spent heavily on television advertising and her get-out-the-vote operation, but in the end, her fundraising edge wasn't enough to overcome Trump's ability to dominate headlines and the airwaves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/grap ... ndraising/

Obviously this Russian woman knows something about how to get the message out, something the eluded HRC, because obviously Russian meddling is the only reason Trump won.

How about trying this on for size, frmanfan:

Trump and the Russians shared (and continue to share) a common intent, to inflame maximum resentment, fear, anger, and hate especially in the older white, less educated, more rural US electorate. And there were/are no boundaries on either truth or hate in the crafting of the messaging. No boundaries at all.

Certainly Trump was and is masterful as an instrument for such messaging that appealed to the most powerful, base emotions.

HRC and the Dems had no similarly intense message that inflamed the sorts of raw emotions that Trump focused on heavily. Nor did they offer an inspiring narrative of 'change' ala what Obama had successfully done for two Presidential cycles (though not beyond his own personal message). IMO, HRC herself was a terribly flawed instrument for pretty much any counter message to what Trump was pushing (with or without sophisticated Russian amplification). I could go on and on about her flaws and the lack of clarity in the Dem messaging. I believe a conventional GOP presidential candidate in '16 would have beaten her far more handily than did Trump. It was a natural 'change' cycle.

We have no idea whether the Russian meddling, amplifying the messaging, moved the needle materially enough to make the crucial difference. But the margin was actually quite narrow in the handful of states that pushed Trump to electoral, not popular, victory. So, it's certainly plausible that the Russian meddling tipped the scales. What we do know know is that the original pushback that it was just a few people and involved only a couple hundred thousand dollars of spend was totally mistaken.

This was/is a very extensive, highly sophisticated technology operation that understood/understands how the social media algorithms select messaging to promote further, virally. Not to get too into the weeds, the more outrageous and inflaming the message, the more likely to generate individual responses, positive or negative. Such responses are the primary algorithm signal to auto-place those messages high in the feeds of the responder's network and to those in the network of those most like the responders. A few hundred 'trolls' whose all day, every day, job is to "respond" and to further inflame, targeted at the most outrageous, hateful, untruthful messaging and the amplification 'signal' is huge. Add to that automated, programmed 'responders' that are false identities ('bots') and the responses look like thousands and millions and thus are auto-selected and promoted by the social media's algorithms.

Now, if it doesn't bother you at all that the Russians and Trump are in such lockstep in their intent to inflame resentment, anger, fear, hate...and that they both share the same lack of any boundaries at all on truth or hate...if that doesn't make you queasy...

But let's not kid ourselves that this wasn't a very sophisticated and large-scale effort, with a very clear intent and highly provocative, divisive messaging in concert with and/or reinforcing Trump's intent and messaging.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not saying they didn't try to stir things up, that is obvious that they did, but really, amidst the noise from all the other sources of campaign noise this is the stuff that swayed the election? Lots of people (some here) are still holding to this belief.

The DNC did not have the database of potential RNC voters to message to. Not to change their minds and vote for Hillary instead of Trump....a great deal of it was focused on discouraging Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary. You should take the time to read independent analysis. It was an effective campaign. Not the only reason Hillary lost. You "believe" the Russian efforts had no impact? That's your "educated" conclusion?

This is an excellent point about the sophistication of the effort.

It targeted not only the worst impulses, resentments, fears, anger, and hate by those most likely to vote for Trump's messaging, it also sought to discourage Bernie voters from supporting HRC. I believe there was ample ammunition for such discouragement, but very little impetus amongst Bernie supporters to have been creating negative messages about HRC.

Interestingly, the false information campaign also sought to actually foment violent events, inflaming angry passions on the left, and turning around and amplifying those scenes and responses to those older, white, rural, less educated folks who would be most fearful or angry about such...

They even hired actors.

[MDlaxfan76]

What we're seeing now in organized, large scale voter suppression by the new-GOP and really outrageous negative ads by various GOP and/or Trump supporters (and to a lesser extent some Dem) makes me really nervous about the damage done by norm destruction in 2016 and since .

We're seeing all sorts of blatant behaviors from which the bulk of the former-GOP would have previously recoiled.

Anyone want to bet that if the GOP holds onto House and Senate this won't accelerate?

Anyone want to bet that, if so, and Trump 'wins' in '20, there won't be a move for extension of Presidential terms one way or another?