First, Vympel, apologies for the delayed response. To respond:
Vympel wrote:No, its a conspiracy theory, designed for by political hacks for the consumption of partisan idiots. I see no reason to mince words.
So it would appear that, contrary to what you subsequently claim, you are in fact arguing that the allegations of inappropriate ties to/collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump campaign are an effort to frame Trump/Putin ("designed... by political hacks" would imply a deliberately fabricated story, not merely a faulty conclusion). An effort that would have to involve numerous members of the intelligence community, from multiple agencies, as well as high-level Obama administration officials and Democrats.
This is a far more radical claim than any, I believe, that I am advancing. I am simply contending that their are ties between the Trump campaign/administration and Russia (fact), clear, highly-publicized public displays of sympathy between the two (fact), that Russian hacking/leaks were used to manipulate the media on Trump's behalf (something that is widely accepted and confirmed by multiple intelligence agencies, though I don't doubt that you will continue to dismiss their conclusions), and that while none of this is proof of collusion between Trump and Russia, it
is enough for a reasonable person to be suspicious and want further investigation.
You are the one insisting that any such allegations
must be false, and so self-evidently false that only a partisan propagandist or a conspiracy theorist would advance them.
Such a claim demands evidence.
For the avoidance of doubt, the conspiracy theory I'm speaking of is: the notion that Trump and Russia colluded to undermine Hillary's campaign.
At least we're on the same page as to what is being debated, then.
The accusations against Trump re: NATO are total bullshit. He has simply made mainstream what foreign policy wonks have been talking about for years - namely, that the US pays a disproportionate amount of NATO's commitments, that other countries are not meeting theirs, and that NATO is obsolete since the Cold War and requires reform. These are not 'pro-Russian' arguments, though they were characterised as such by the Clinton campaign and wilfully swallowed by an understandably hostile national security media.
He, and others close to him (perhaps most recently his Sec Def- we have a thread on it currently) have suggested cutting funding for NATO/support to NATO allies, which as I understand it would be effectively reneging on our treaty obligations.
Rubbish. To quote Glenn Greenwald:
So, literally, the lead story in the New York Times today suggests, and other people have similarly suggested it, that Trump was literally putting in a request to Putin for the Russians to cyberattack the FBI, the United States government, or get Hillary Clinton’s emails. That is such unmitigated bullshit. What that was was an offhanded, trolling comment designed to make some kind of snide reference to the need to find Hillary’s emails. He wasn’t directing the Russians, in some genuine, literal way, to go on some cybermission to find Hillary’s emails. If he wanted to request the Russians to do that, why would he do it in some offhanded way in a press conference? It was a stupid, reckless comment that he made elevated into treason.
Glenn Greenwald has his own biases. Given his close ties to the Snowden case, I would not be surprised to find that he has an inherent distrust of anything coming from the US intelligence community, and a predisposition to side with their accusers.
Now, I could buy that Trump's one comment in question, by itself, was a simple joke in very,
very poor taste, but it does not exist in isolation.
No doubt
if serious requests were made, they were made behind the scenes. But Trump has a habit of flaunting his misdeeds in public, in what is arguably a very deliberate strategy of what TV Tropes might call "Refuge in Audacity"- of being so brazen in his bullshit that its impossible to call him on it. See his bragging (on tape, to a reporter) about sexually harassing and assaulting women, or his bragging about getting away with not paying taxes that I recall coming up during the election.
Remember that this is a man who
famously bragged that he could publicly shoot someone and not lose a vote. This is what Trump does.
I do agree with Greenwald on one point, though: what Trump did was not treason. Treason has a very, very specific definition. Possibly conspiracy to commit espionage against the US though, or whatever the correct legal term for that is.
Which individuals? What Russian officials? What was said, and about what? Because Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador was totally innocuous and clearly aimed at reducing tensions with Russia. If the Trump administration was at all competent, they would have simply ignored the ginned up hysteria in Washington and said "yes, Flynn did talk to Russian officials, we want to hit the ground running on improving relations."
It is inappropriate for a private citizen to negotiate with a foreign government in a manner undermining the current administration. Flynn and his boss were not yet in office at the time.
It is also demonstrative of the sympathies and ties that exist between the Trump camp and Putin's regime.
Again - there's a reason the leakers aren't releasing the transcripts and only leaking vague details. Its not hard to figure out.
Perhaps because their is an ongoing investigation, and they don't want to reveal everything they know yet? Or because some of the sources are classified/undercover?
This is classic conspiracy theorist rhetoric by the way- make vague insinuations meant to imply a conclusion (the presence of the conspiracy/fraud) that "we all know", while offering a conspicuous lack of specifics.
They weren't improper at all. Even Michael McFaul, Obama's ambassador to Russia, stated as such:
https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/831364994709151744
They were
made improper because the Washington establishment has decided that even talking to Russian diplomats in a remotely conciliatory manner is treasonous, because "they hacked the election". Its utterly absurd.
What do you mean by hacking the election?
If you mean actually hacking voting machines to change the results, no one prominent, to my knowledge, is alleging that. I am certainly not doing so. I suspected it at the time, but I freely acknowledge that their is no proof of it.
If you mean hacking the DNC to leak material that would be damaging to Clinton, then yes. That's pretty much established fact.
As to McFaul- well, their may be differences of opinion within an administration. Or perhaps the ambassador to Russia was trying to be, you know, diplomatic toward Russia? Just speculating.
There's no remotely compelling evidence whatsoever that Trump is a Russian puppet. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know anything about geopolitics or international relations. If Trump was a Russian puppet, the very last thing he would be doing is packing his administration with Iran hardliners, because a hard line stance against Iran is fundamentally incompatible with Russian interests. That's just a matter of objective fact. This isn't a case of 'framing' Trump in some sort of vast conspiracy, but a case of individuals within the IC seeking to undermine his appointees and administration generally with selective leaks of truthful, context-free information.
The Iran issue has already been addressed by another poster, so I'll leave that and move on to the next point.
You are right that we do not, as yet, have inarguable proof of collusion. But their are reasons, besides dishonesty, why the full evidence might not yet have been revealed, and their is enough circumstantial evidence to make people suspicious.
To my knowledge, also, the American intelligence community is not in the habit of openly trying to undermine a sitting President, certainly not in so public a manner and to the point of insinuating that he is guilty of espionage against his own country. It does not make sense that they would do so without what they believe to be very strong grounds.
It makes even less sense that the notoriously cautious and compromising Obama would support such an effort.
I will concede that "puppet" may have been too strongly worded, if only because Trump is too much of a raging narcissist to be effectively controlled by anyone. But their is at least significant evidence that Trump has close ties to Russia, and that Russia deliberately, and illegally, aided his campaign because they felt that doing so would suite their interests.
There's nothing 'automatic' about my dismissal. Its based on a careful evaluation of the actual facts rather than hyperbolic insinuations about them.
It is not hyperbolic to look at the pattern of public sympathy between Russia's government and the Trump campaign/administration, the ties some of his people have to Russia (most notably perhaps Manafort, who previously worked with the Russian puppet regime in the Ukraine), and the Russian hacks of the DNC, and conclude that their may have been collusion, and that the evidence is enough to warrant further investigation.
I am aware that I have a reputation for hyperbole on this board. But I will remind you that these same allegations have been advanced by people who are respected professionals in their field, and do not have the same reputation for hyperbole. Certainly Obama does not have a reputation for hyperbole, and I can scarcely imagine the cautious compromiser who occupied the White House before Trump ordering an investigation into these allegations on a whim, or for purely partisan reasons.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.
I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
