5 ms·

The claims are not extraordinary. The Trump Tower meeting [0] is clear evidence Trump campaign members' interest in colluding with foreign agents. Donald Trump

The claims are not extraordinary. The Trump Tower meeting [0] is clear evidence Trump campaign members' interest in colluding with foreign agents. Donald Trump personally had a fig leaf of deniability about that meeting but in interviews [1] he expressed his willingness to collude. The Trump campaign, at minimum Paul Manafort, colluded with agents of Russia [2]. I'm not going to research how strong the public evidence that Russia was behind the DNC hack but again, it's not an extraordinary claim. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304 [2] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia-campaigns-konstantin-kilimnik-d2fdefdb37077e28eba135e21fce6ebf

rendall 5y ago
Before you continue with a flood of poor and circumstantial evidence that's hard to sort through and falsify, the claim that a President colludes with a foreign power is extraordinary.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Not at all. In wealthy enough circles, power has no nationality. This is just capitalism in action. Where it gets interesting is the ways that power can take advantage of HUNGER for power and money. Trump was a kompromat machine, but remarkably easy to influence as the guy doesn't care about anybody or anything other than himself. He doesn't even particularly care about the Republican Party, then or now.
- extra88 5y ago
  If that's "a flood," you must live in a very dry place. A. He wasn't president at the time. B. While it's natural to assume that a candidate is aware of, and is ultimately responsible for, everything his campaign does, I've distinguished between his campaign colluding and Trump personally colluding. C. Everything that has already been made public about the campaign makes further claims that are less well documented not extraordinary. > poor and circumstantial evidence that's hard to sort through and falsify Allow me to spoon-feed an important part to you. Don Jr. publicly released emails about the Trump Tower meeting, those are real and not circumstantial evidence in his desire to collude and others in the campaign attended the meeting with foreknowledge of this. Google 'don jr "i love it"' and there are a zillion news stories about them, I don't know how you missed them at the time. An NPR story linked to a complete PDF [0] of what Don Jr released. Here's the beginning of a NY Times story [1] about them: > The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton. > The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” > If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication. > He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” [0] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3892196/Donald-Trump-Jr-Email-Exchange.pdf [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html
  - rendall 5y ago
    And there you go with the exact flood I predicted. Here is my reply. Simple. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official-russia https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - extra88 5y ago
      This strikes me as whataboutism. It has nothing to do with the message to which you replied. Your link is primarily about the press being insufficiently skeptical about sources in stories related to foreign intelligence. At yet it contains lines like this: > No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as misinformation, when the evidence more likely shows that material like the Hunter Biden emails is real, just delivered from a disreputable source. [emphasis added] Taibbi is revealing his bias at the same time he's claiming bias influenced the contents of a report. I'm all for healthy skepticism in the public and especially as a part of journalists doing their jobs. Journalists absolutely consider what sources have to gain or what axes they may have to grid. But reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie is just as bad as assuming it's true. And when there's a public statement or report, that is news and needs to be reported on.
      - rendall 5y ago
        The guidelines require assumption of good faith. So, if we look at the same evidence and I find it lacking, your first goto assumption should not be "well, you have a cognitive bias while I am free of such". > reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie While true, this is a non-sequitur. "The government" is not a monolith. Some in "the government" insist that Russia hacked the DNC, usually Democrats, while others in "the government" insist that it's nonsense

rendall 5y ago

Before you continue with a flood of poor and circumstantial evidence that's hard to sort through and falsify, the claim that a President colludes with a foreign power is extraordinary.

Applejinx 5y ago
Not at all. In wealthy enough circles, power has no nationality. This is just capitalism in action. Where it gets interesting is the ways that power can take advantage of HUNGER for power and money. Trump was a kompromat machine, but remarkably easy to influence as the guy doesn't care about anybody or anything other than himself. He doesn't even particularly care about the Republican Party, then or now.
extra88 5y ago
If that's "a flood," you must live in a very dry place. A. He wasn't president at the time. B. While it's natural to assume that a candidate is aware of, and is ultimately responsible for, everything his campaign does, I've distinguished between his campaign colluding and Trump personally colluding. C. Everything that has already been made public about the campaign makes further claims that are less well documented not extraordinary. > poor and circumstantial evidence that's hard to sort through and falsify Allow me to spoon-feed an important part to you. Don Jr. publicly released emails about the Trump Tower meeting, those are real and not circumstantial evidence in his desire to collude and others in the campaign attended the meeting with foreknowledge of this. Google 'don jr "i love it"' and there are a zillion news stories about them, I don't know how you missed them at the time. An NPR story linked to a complete PDF [0] of what Don Jr released. Here's the beginning of a NY Times story [1] about them: > The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton. > The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” > If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication. > He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” [0] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3892196/Donald-Trump-Jr-Email-Exchange.pdf [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html
- rendall 5y ago
  And there you go with the exact flood I predicted. Here is my reply. Simple. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official-russia https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - extra88 5y ago
    This strikes me as whataboutism. It has nothing to do with the message to which you replied. Your link is primarily about the press being insufficiently skeptical about sources in stories related to foreign intelligence. At yet it contains lines like this: > No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as misinformation, when the evidence more likely shows that material like the Hunter Biden emails is real, just delivered from a disreputable source. [emphasis added] Taibbi is revealing his bias at the same time he's claiming bias influenced the contents of a report. I'm all for healthy skepticism in the public and especially as a part of journalists doing their jobs. Journalists absolutely consider what sources have to gain or what axes they may have to grid. But reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie is just as bad as assuming it's true. And when there's a public statement or report, that is news and needs to be reported on.
    - rendall 5y ago
      The guidelines require assumption of good faith. So, if we look at the same evidence and I find it lacking, your first goto assumption should not be "well, you have a cognitive bias while I am free of such". > reflexively assuming anything from the government is a lie While true, this is a non-sequitur. "The government" is not a monolith. Some in "the government" insist that Russia hacked the DNC, usually Democrats, while others in "the government" insist that it's nonsense