The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.ADDED: An awful lot of people are quick to call Trump crazy, and here he is calling Comey crazy. Everybody's crazy now. Maybe the idea of insanity doesn't mean much anymore — doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
१९ मे, २०१७
"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job."
Said Donald Trump to Russian officials — "according to a document summarizing the meeting," according to the NYT. He's also said to have said: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२०१ टिप्पण्या:
201 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Pence and Priebus are leaking again.
Well it takes one to know one.
Nut job is good. I went with emotional basket case.
Democrats should NOT be providing the leadership for impeachment. This is the Republican's shit sandwich and they should be the ones to eat it. If they can not provide a majority to vote for impeachment, then Dems shouldn't make up for the difference.
So... uh... what proof do we have this? This is a ridiculously improbable thing, so we should expect a very high bar of evidence to report it.
So, show it.
If you leak somebody being accurate, and saying what they think, it helps them.
Provided they say the same thing normally.
and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting.
Uh-huh. Sure, I believe that.
Funny, how in this day of ubiquitous cell phone cameras, a NYT reporter couldn't snap an image of said document, & then blanking out any info identifying the source.
Names get named, documents get released, or it's all booyah.
Dems need to put pressure instead on Pence and Ryan, including whether the leaks are coming from them. Clearly there is a Republican move afoot to push Trump out.
Someone in the White House leaked this document right after POTUS left on his foreign trip.
Low blow.
Crazygate.
Maybe Comey is crazy. You've got to consider that possibility.
The President should fire a crazy person.
With all due respect to the human individuals who actually suffer from a psychiatrist disorder.
America is a Quiet Riot.
Ma mama weer all crazee now
Ma ma mama weer all crazee now
Woo!
I don't want to drink my whiskey like you do
I don't need to spend my money but still do
Well don't stop now come on
Another drop now so come on
I want a lot now so come on
That's why
That's why
I say
Ma mama weer all crazee now
Ma ma mama weer all crazee now, yeah
"Maybe Comey is crazy. You've got to consider that possibility."
-- Maybe someone told Trump about Comey's plan to hide in the curtains and he thought, "That's nuts."
What is Bezos's beef with Trump?
The President should fire a crazy person.
Unfortunately Congress is off limits to him.
"I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off." Trump just does not say something like this. It makes him subservient. It also is such a perfect proof of the conspiracy theory regarding Russia that it cannot be true.
I am surprised that Trump left Pence all alone in Washington. The Republican establishment now has free rein to behind the scenes stage manage Trump's exit. I hope Dems are smart enough to not do their dirty work.
If True:
1. Trump is crazy for even discussing this issue with the Russians.
2. Is Trump not aware that people keep notes of everything he does and says?
3. Trump's political judgment is terrible when if comes to matters like this.
4. Who are his advisors? Didn't anyone indicate that this might backfire?
5. It's pretty tough to work in an organization where a large percentage of your subordinates want to destroy you, and will break all confidences to do so.
If True.
All that said, he was within his authority to fire Comey.
LOL, if true, Trump thinks that firing Comey relieved the "great pressure" on him from the Russia Investigation? That seems crazy. He jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
"I hope Dems are smart enough..."
Keep hope alive!!!!
"I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off."
-- Other interpretation: He means it has taken off like an airplane, not that the pressure has been taken off.
Considering the media falsely reported, was it Hatch? McConnell's? joke about Trump being paid by Russians as an actual fact/accusation, we have to wonder if this quote is real, if they have it in the right context.
It is the Republican establishment that is trying to take Trump out. Dems have no power to do such a thing. And obviously the Dems are not doing these leaks. Those associated with Pence and Priebus (if not them directly) are behind these leaks. It is Pence and establishment Republicans who have the most to gain when Trump is disposed of.
"And obviously the Dems are not doing these leaks."
-- If the leaks are even truthful; Rosenstein's threat to quit was leaked, and not true.
'The point is that the Republicans can now say, “We need to let the Mueller investigation take its course” whenever the subject of Russia comes up.' J. Goldberg NRO
President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
How lame has the NYT become?
An anonymous leaker, reading an anonymously written "document" to a gullible NY Times stenographer, that just happens to impugn Trump. Wow, what a penetrating news source.
I would like to read from an anonymous document to the Althouse gang: "Memo to File: Bay Area Guy is very handsome and smart, and attractive to the ladies."
That is all.
It is politically best for Dems that Trump remains an albatross around the Republican's necks. Dems don't need to get rid of Trump. As long as he is there the right wing agenda is dead in the water. It is The Republican establishment that has every reason to want to get rid of Trump.
Wait Is someone actually releasing transcripts of the private meetings of the President of the United Stars? How is this ok?
"How is this ok?"
-- Because you're allowed to punch Nazis.
Hmm, doesn't sound like Trump. Be interesting to find out where the "document" came from.
Sounds like a commercial for a discount stereo store.
"This is a ridiculously improbable thing"
That was yesterday. This is today.
I guess it takes one to know one or is this another example of projection from the showboater?
Comey imagined a requirement of "intent" in a law that specifically excludes intent, and ludicrously claimed that no prosecutor would find Hillary's crimes prosecutable.
Crazy is the VERY charitable evaluation, compared to any reasonable alternative.
J Edgar Hoover left some big shoes to fill.
"That was yesterday. This is today."
-- No. It is still very improbable that Trump talked like a cartoon villain unaware that the good guy was secretly recording his confession to later play back and convince everyone the villain is truly evil.
I demand a high-level of proof for a scenario that was too simplistic for even GI Joe to take seriously.
Hmm, doesn't sound like Trump. Be interesting to find out where the "document" came from.
The same place the Bush National Guard documents came from.
I mean, no attribution? A document with no author, either by name or even approximate official position to know what was going on? Sure.
How long did Comey intend to keep "investigating" the stupid idea that the Russians meddled significantly in the 2016 election?
The Intelligence Community is not investigating a crime. Rather, it is investigating Trump's associates in order to find links to Russia -- so that ultimately some crime might be discovered.
This investigation is being done with the sole goal of removing President Trump from office.
Spicer confirmed the report, I saw reported.
No offical accounts of private conversations in the Oval between Barack and foreign leaders ever happened.
Trump is impulsive, mercurial, filterless, and tactless. But anybody who has been paying attention has known all this about him for quite awhile. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Trump, all this leaking is getting absolutely insane. I mean, what in gods name is going on? Is this the new normal? Just this endless stream of leaks all around Trump from ever-present anonymous sources? It's surreal, the only thing weirder than Trump is the reaction to Trump.
I want Althouse to show she video of Clinton debate prep hug. You have to prepare to deal with the crazies.
"I demand a high-level of proof for a scenario that was too simplistic for even GI Joe to take seriously."
That's precious.
"Spicer confirmed the report, I saw reported."
Me, too.
Cool, got a link? Because last time the White House "confirmed a report" in the media, it turned out, that wasn't actually what they said.
Commentary Magazine has an article out that puts great stock in the memo. Say that Spicer "does not dispute" it and other comments that lend it credibility. Truly bizarre.
It's blatantly obvious that Comey's FBI has done nothing at all to investigate leaks.
On the contrary, lots of leaks seems to be coming from the FBI's highest ranking officials.
I used to assume that the FBI has investigated the Clinton Family Foundation. Now I assume that the FBI has not investigated it at all.
This will go from "This is a ridiculously improbable thing" to some variation of "Obama did worse" in 5...4...
According to According to etc.
Welcome to the Twilight Fringe. It's a Choice.
It is not Dems leaking, it is Republicans around Trump who are.
Can you Althouse Hillbillies at least realize/acknowledge that?
The nature of wartime propaganda is that what works best is volume, sheer sustained mass of messages, plus reach, total saturation in all media.
That is what all of this is, and that is the appropriate approach to analysis of current events.
I'm finding a lot of "Spicer did not dispute" not "Spicer verified."
Those are different things, you know.
It does sound like Trump to me, and it is easy to believe that Comey's style of theatrics would seem outlandish to him.
But, yeah, that this is on a transcript - not just summarized in more polite terms - and promptly leaked is disturbing.
More unnamed sources again. Does the NYT ever rely on named sources? I'm beginning to wonder. Any accused man deserves to know and face his accuser(s).
NYT fail.
"It is not Dems leaking, it is Republicans around Trump who are. "
-- Several stories are just false (Rosenstein is quitting! Trump to be indicted due to golden dossiers!) There are Republican leaks; the more dangerous stuff is the stuff made up wholecloth the media believes and reports.
Who the hell called the fire department? Lock 'em up!
Suppose that the Russian collusion story is total BS. If so, Trump would know it's BS; the Russians would know it's BS; and Comey would (or should, if he's not crazy) know it's BS. Then, it might make perfect sense for Trump to think Comey is crazy; and it would make sense that Trump is facing tremendous pressure not to do anything to work with Russia.
Those who choose to see Trump in a bad light start by believing that there is something to the Russian collusion story, and that Trump has something to hide. But what if there is nothing to the story, and what if any rational FBI director would know by now that there is nothing to the story. Then it makes sense that Trump would think Comey is crazy and fire him.
The assumption always seems to be that Trump's actions make him look guilty of something. But if Trump is guilty of nothing, then you can see why Trump might really believe that Comey is crazy and that this phony scandal is putting tremendous pressure on Trump not to work with the Russians.
No.
If you don't comment, you neither dispute it or verify it.
If Spicer ignored the question, that is not verifying it.
This also sounds fake to me. Again, show me a document- take a picture of it and leak it to the press. It doesn't prove the document existed, but it is at least weightier than reading it to someone, and it would at least allow someone with actual experience in these matters to examine it and give an informed opinion on whether or not it was visually accurate for such an item.
This is a recurring theme here- the printing of rumors with supporting hard evidence, and it also exists in the present WaPo story in a different way- why would someone leak that a White House official was under investigation, but then decline to name the individual? Does that make any sense- the infraction of leaking such a detail isn't compounded by being specific. Either the leaker is lying outright, or the leaker is repeating hearsay from someone else. There is a vast difference between, for example, "Joe Schmoe, a WH official, is under investigation vs "Someone , a WH official, is under investigation"- either one could be an outright lie or completely truthful, but which one is most likely to proven wrong conclusively? This is why I give more weight to detailed leaks, not vague ones.
@Matthew I misread - too hasty. You are right.
I predict that the current strategy to bring down Trump will fail/backfire precisely because of the anonymity issue. There is too much integrity lost to distinguish a protected, vulnerable source from an outright liar.
Crazy Comey! Great branding job. And he was fired for it.
If you could find someone who is outright lying about Trump you might have a point. Your problem is the outright liar is always Trump. Or the White House.
Can we get the White House documents on the conversations among Obama, Rice, Jarrett and Rhodes on the Iran deal? Tapes would be better.
@Hari: The Russia Trump story -- like the man made global warming story -- is too big to fail now.
So why is this considered significant? Assuming for the moment that the memo exists, says what has been claimed it says, and is accurate, I see two possible conclusions:
1) Trump was bullshitting. While it can add to his reputation as a bullshitter, it doesn't change anything. A complete nothing-burger.
2) Trump is revealing the truth, at least as he sees it. If so, this candid statement completely exonerates him. If he believes Comey is crazy, then removing him from office is not only justified, but necessary.
The lefties here make it clear that this is not a nothing-burger. Okay. I won't argue.
Hari at 3:22 PM
Suppose that the Russian collusion story is total BS. .... you can see why Trump might really believe that Comey is crazy and that this phony scandal is putting tremendous pressure on Trump not to work with the Russians.
Well stated.
A presumption of guilt (e.g. Pro-Choice) and preponderance of "according to".
It's all elective. Elective regime changes. Forcing CAIR. Elective wars... what are they good for? Demographic gerrymandering. Population replacement. Redistributive change. Elective abortion. Ostensibly, social justice... run amuck.
Nothing about Obama et al sharing classified technology (a boat. a helicopter) and nuclear secrets. The Press, mainstream or otherwise, is not independent.
Democrats are [still] hunting babies and exposing witches.
"The President should fire a crazy person." Maybe the President is crazy too. You've got to consider that possibility.
There is nothing wrong with keeping your sources confidential from the point of view of a journalist- so I wouldn't criticize that in and of itself. My complaint is that the things being printed are either completely vague and nothing more than rumors, or when they do reference documentary evidence, it never comes with visual reproduction of such documents. I mean, almost everyone in the US these days has immediate access to a high resolution camera in their damned pockets. The lack of such visual evidence is always going to be suspicious, and I have theorized that you don't see much of it any longer because of what happened to Rather and Mapes in 2004- either the leakers are afraid of getting caught in their lies, or the reporters don't really trust their sources enough to go with the visual evidence they are given.
It's on a White House document, more evidence for an obstruction charge. Thank goodness for the leakers.
Pence and Priebus are leaking again.
Could be. This is playing out like an episode of House of Cards. Also, I've noticed that at Drudge the coverage has shifted from unashamedly pro Trump to something more skeptical.
If Comey's last testimony to Congress was as inaccurate as it was claimed in regards to Weiner's laptop, then, yes, Comey might well be a bit deranged- or maybe staggeringly incompetent.
You are certain it is on a White House document, Inga. Certain of that? Why didn't they take a picture of it?
Theory:
Some of the negative stories are disinformation to make the press look crazy. Some are to find leakers.
Most are Deep State leaks.
Why would you talk to the Russians about our internal matters that way? Why? Why would you talk to anyone about it other than your advisers, your lawyers, the investigators or the American people? Why discuss this with high-level Russians for God's sake?
I think the answer to my own question, if this is true, why did he talk to the Russians is because he wanted to be the big man with them. He wanted their approval.
Lets See:
1) There's what Trump actually said in the meeeting
2) There's some ones "Summary" of what Trump supposedly said
3) There's an "American official"s *verbal* version of what "the summary" supposedly said
4) There's a reporter's version of the what the "American Official" supposedly said.
The NYT printed No. 4. And that's what everyone is going "nuts over" and treating like the Gospel truth.
"Some of the negative stories are disinformation to make the press look crazy."
Which one?
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump really called Comey a 'nut' and a 'grand-stander' - I seriously doubt he said "it takes the pressure off me".
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article151565947.html
"WASHINGTON
Investigators into Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential elections are now also probing whether White House officials have engaged in a cover-up, according to members of Congress who were briefed Friday by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
That avenue of investigation was added in recent weeks after assertions by former FBI Director James Comey that President Donald Trump had tried to dissuade him from pressing an investigation into the actions of Trump’s first national security adviser, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, members of Congress said, though it was not clear whom that part of the probe might target."
@rcocean, I think (2) and (3) have the most chance of being similar. The document was reported as having been read. Although it was not reported as 'read verbatim'
Trump really needs to do something about leaks. In the next Russian meeting, restrict the "meeting Summary" to only a few people and see what happens.
In Watergate (July 1972) there was a burglary. 5 men (Sturgis, McCord, Martinez, Gonzalez, Barker) were caught during the burglary. 3 men who worked on the outside, with walkie-talkies (Hunt, Liddy & Baldwin) were caught weeks later.
Within 5 months, 8 guys were indicted and then convicted. For the next 2 years, their superiors up the political chain of command were indicted and convicted.
In Russia Gate (November 2016),
-- has anybody been convicted?
-- has anybody been indicted?
-- has a crime been actually committed? (arguably whoever hacked Podesta e-mails, arguably whoever hacked the DNC e-mails)
Is that all we have -- other than stupid stories in the NY Times fueled by anonymous sources about memos?
@ Brookzene
Is it possible the Russians see Donald Trump as a threat (i.e. Military buildup, energy extraction, etc.) and are upset that somehow they are the bad guys in this press scenario? After all, the Russians know damned well they are not doing what they are accused of doing.
Or do you think the Russians are pleased as punch to be the scapegoat for Hillary's terrible campaign. Why should they enjoy being patsies?
@ rcocean
Hard to find leakers if the leaks are lies.
"I think (2) and (3) have the most chance of being similar."
(2) is not what Trump said. Its what someone summarized as what Trump said. How accurate is it? We don't know.
(3) is simply what an "American Official" SAYS is in summary. How accurate is that? And what was left out? We don't know.
But we don't even know if what the New York times printed is what the source actually said. We can't verify it, because we don't know who she/he is. So all we're getting is at best a 3rd hand version of what Trump *supposedly* said. And we don't know what else Trump said that might provide context.
"After all, the Russians know damned well they are not doing what they are accused of doing."
Everyone knows they tried to interfere with our electoral process, every intelligence agency has said so. But keep sticking to the story.
Didn't the Russians already offer to provide a transcript of the meeting? Wouldn't that clear all of this up?
"Hard to find leakers if the leaks are lies."
Yeah, that's true too. What is the whole fucking thing is made up? At least with Comey we have a memo that supposedly exists.
Keep making excuses for Trump.
Heh-
Someone just told me to check the news when I get a chance. A real bombshell. Trump is cooked.
First thing I do is check Drudge.
Ugh.
I have no time for fake news.
"Didn't the Russians already offer to provide a transcript of the meeting? Wouldn't that clear all of this up?"
Except they didn't record it. They took notes. And of course, no one would believe them anyway.
Not to defend our former ex-Commies in Russia (I have no great love for Putin), but.....
1. Russia does have a problem with alleged terrorist muslims in Chechnya
2. Russia is not a big fan of ISIS.
It does make sense, in some regard, to work with Russia to defeat the common enemy, ISIS.
We worked with Russia in WWII to defeat the common enemy, Germany.
"I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off." This is supposed to mean that Trump believes that he has stopped the investigation or crippled it? Only conspiracy-minded Democrats think like this. After Comey comes the FBI's number two, who is married to a Democratic politician. To me this is proof positive that this comment was made up by a Democrat.
Bay Area Guy said...
Is that all we have --
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up. And the evidence of the cover-up is that we can find no evidence of the crime.
QED
And if this is true - and why wouldn't it be? - Trump may not be a traitor but he's not much of a patriot either.
I'm still trying to figure out why Trump would fire Comey to "obstruct" the Russia investigation when:
1) He wasn't the target and
2) knew that firing Comey would NOT stop the investigation.
I'm also not clear what crime Trump was trying to stop the investigation of. Now one has told us who & what.
Berkeley wrote : Theory:
Some of the negative stories are disinformation to make the press look crazy. Some are to find leakers.
Most are Deep State leaks.
Much like an old-fashioned radioisotope labeling experiment. Cool!
"Birkel" not Berkeley
Lol
Here's what Spicer actually said:
“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer said in a statement to the press. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”
How does that confirm the NYT story?
The Bezos and Slim animus towards Trump must be severally understated.
@ Brookzene: "Everyone knows..."
Where Dunning-Kruger goes to meet Gell-Mann.
Rosenstein must be a Russian Mole, because he is the one who has done all the damage to Comey's little sinecure.
"Maybe the idea of insanity doesn't ... amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."
Yes, but this is OUR hill. And these are OUR beans ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnIDLELMkzU (from "The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!")
What's happened so far:
1) Trump gets elected
2) MSM and Dems start screaming about "Collusion/Trump/Russia" but have no evidence
3) Repubs cave and Senate/House start "investigating"
4) Dems demand Session recuse himself because he met with Russian Ambassador.
5) Repubs cave and Sessions recuses himself
6) Comey tells Trump he's not a target - but refuses to say so in public
7) Trump fires Comey because he's a "grand-stander and incompetent"
8) Dems demand special counsel because Trump might have obstructed by firing Comey
9) Six months later and still no evidence of Collusion.
9) Repubs cave and appoint special counsel.
Next???
Here's the only link I could find to Spicer's comment.
@ Brookzene: "Everyone knows..."
Not my best construction. However, the truth be told...they're on the record.
Comey, under oath, before Congress, on March 20:
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.
A Counter-intelligence investigation ain't a criminal investigation, and, according to Andy McCarthy, isn't a springboard to a future criminal investigation.
I still remember the reporter who published the scoop that Dan Quayle thought Latin was the language of Latin America. I know people to this day who believe that Dan Quayle was that stupid and unknowledgeable. Did Dan Quayle say something to that effect? Well, yes he did. To a bunch of reporters. On a plane to a Latin American country. Said something to the effect of (not exact quote- I wasn't there.)"I don't know if I'm set for a trip to Latin America. I haven't brushed up on my Latin." It was said in a joking manner, and everyone present laughed because in context with the rest of the discussion, it was funny. And obvious that he knew they didn't speak a dead language there.
Unlike the president the press worshiped, who really did think and say that Austrians spoke Austrian. I've got to wonder if the reporting on that is in the archives of the NY Times or Washington Post. Unlike Quayle's joke, reported as fact, and to this day widely believed to be true because of that report, most people who rely on the MSM don't know of the true fact of Obama being totally ignorant of German speaking Austria.
So, do you think I'm inclined to believe reported about Trump? My next to last choice in the Republican nominating process? Not a chance.
Reason he wasn't last is I couldn't see choosing the Democrat Kasich as a Republican candidate.
I mean, Why would either mogul risk his business being the owner of another media business with a proven 95% record of distortion?
Mind boggling
If you don't comment, you neither dispute it or verify it.
Which is the right thing to do if you have no knowledge of whether it exists or not.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 2:38 PM
Tags: Comey, crazy, insults, Russia, Trump troubles
112 comments:
Once written, twice... said...
Pence and Priebus are leaking again.
5/19/17, 2:39 PM
On the subject of crazy people, Once is standing by to think of a response, type it out, send it, all within a minute of AA's post.
How perfect is that?
Breaking: Breitbart says it was a paraphrase. What Trump said was:
I'll have more flexibility after Comey's gone.
Coming at the TDS a bit sideways is this. Republican congressional fund raising is setting records: "The NRCC has raised $46 million during the first four months of the year. For comparison, during the last off-year in 2015, the committee raised only about $25 million during the same four-month period." If donors did not like what is going on they would be holding on to their cash.
Can we really be so certain that the Republicans are trying to sabotage Trump? Sure there's a segment that's not happy with Trump, but most are smart enough to know that Trump's administration presents a real opportunity to accomplish some long held Republican goals.
I think many of these "leaks" are, at best, mis-statements and, at worst, lies. Remember that Obama expanded the leaking possibilities exponentially before he left office.
If somebody wishes to prove to me that this whole story is an anti-Trump lie, concocted by Trump-hating New York Times, that's fine and I'd be interested.
The twin problems right now are: 1) it sounds exactly like the Trump we have come to know, and 2) if Trump himself wanted to deny it, I don't think he could do it convincingly or competently. There have been too many of these now, where Trump's credibility is just shot through.
Look for a smokescreen or a whitewash if there's no obvious coverup.
@ Brookzene
Your construction is precisely what the MSM has pushed. I won't waste pixels typing that the DNC computers were never examined by the federal investigators. And that any report from the DNC-hired computer firm is self-serving.
Whoops.
"Everyone knows..." is a Kinsley gaffe.
The media had better watch its pussy.
Brookzene said...
"After all, the Russians know damned well they are not doing what they are accused of doing."
Everyone knows they tried to interfere with our electoral process, every intelligence agency has said so. But keep sticking to the story.
5/19/17, 3:51 PM
Great! Finally someone claims to know what Russia did to "interfere with our electoral process." Explain the Actions Russia took that interfered.
After you explain that to me, then I can attempt to imagine exactly what motivation President Trump had to seek the Russians cooperation in the election.
Trump still obsessed with defending Flynn.
You know, Trump was right about this. Comey is a real nut job.
Brookzene:
"Left still obsessed with destroying Trump."
FTFY
When Ronnie fired PATCO, the commies knew he was serious.
This, telling them that guy is nuts, would that make them suspect Intel they got from the FBI?
Try to interfere? What country doesn't? Mexico does. The ChiComs do. And Obama does and did as president.
We aren't sacrosanct here.
You must be young, Brook.
We Children born during the Cold War and who paid attn, meh.
The Commies have been interfering for decades.
If you want less interference, for starters, tighten up the voter laws.
How naive are you?
Can't pick and choose.
Queen Elizabeth's driver was a spy if I remember correctly.
The House UN-American Committee? Right idea, wrong coast.
Do you have no inkling at all what went on in this country from the 30s?
Have you never watched the series The Amerikans?
"Great! Finally someone claims to know what Russia did to "interfere with our electoral process." Explain the Actions Russia took that interfered."
Ha! And you are a hasty reader too!
I said the record of those who have said the Russians interfered with our election is extensive, starting with Rex Tillerson, Nikki Halley, James Mattis...
But keep kidding yourselves, patriots!
You missed the word "tried." You wrote it.
Ayres, Marshall, no prob.
Ex-pres who stood with the disenfranchised Marxists in the 80s, no prob.
Ex-rapist who sold us down the Yangtze, no prob.
"Ayres, Marshall, no prob.
Ex-pres who stood with the disenfranchised Marxists in the 80s, no prob.
Ex-rapist who sold us down the Yangtze, no prob."
Trump patriots always want to re-fight the last wars. No wonder. They're losing this one so badly.
Whatever the defense, it's always some variation of "President Trump should not be held accountable."
Brookzene said...
"Great! Finally someone claims to know what Russia did to "interfere with our electoral process." Explain the Actions Russia took that interfered."
Ha! And you are a hasty reader too!
I said the record of those who have said the Russians interfered with our election is extensive, starting with Rex Tillerson, Nikki Halley, James Mattis...
But keep kidding yourselves, patriots!
What specific action/s did Russia take?
This is a simple question. Yet, all I ever get is circular logic. Name the action.
I think it's interesting that Drago has been making himself scarce lately. All that talk about "Democrats going to jail" for wrongly unmasking people, lol. Achilles too pushed this fantasy.
Make America Great Again™
Not!
Accountable for what?
And here I thought that recent book on Evita's campaign cleared it up.
If it was ok then, what's the issue?
Ohhhh, I get it. Dems have to be first.
"What specific action/s did Russia take?"
I'm not an investigator!
I'm just telling who said the Russians meddled. Ask them. Start with Tillerson and Mattis.
I'm very close to telling you people...I told you so.
So now we know, Not even the loony lefties know what they are so positive about.
I am positive that virtually every one with knowledge of the matter said the Russians meddled in our elections. The record is clear. What's so hard about that?
Damn, you're still in denial about that? Wake up!
Seek immediate medical help if you have an erection for Donald Trump that lasts beyond the Comey firing and memo.
Brookzene said...
I much prefer benzene.
Darrell said...
"I much prefer benzene."
Still sniffing it?
Inga doesn't know the difference between methane and benzene. Or Ben Zene or Ben Gay, for that matter.
Brookzene (3:26pm):
"If you could find someone who is outright lying about Trump you might have a point. Your problem is the outright liar is always Trump. Or the White House."
Patterico, a Republican never-Trumper, found the press repeating four outright lies about Trump in one day: Big Media's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Day: many accusations get thousands of retweets, while the retractions get mere hundreds. We could easily add dozens more such fraudulent stories, for instance, he didn't remove the bust of MLK from the Oval Office, but many people think he did, because the press lied to them.
I wonder how many accusations "sound{s} exactly like the Trump we have come to know" (Chuck, 4:31pm) because they are bald-faced lies designed to match the previous bald-faced lies spread by the same lying sons-of-bitches in the media, the Democratic Party, and anti-Trump faction of the Republican Party?
"Patterico, a Republican never-Trumper, found the press repeating four outright lies about Trump in one day: Big Media's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Day:"
Here's "Patterico's" (whoever he is) four outright lies found in the press about Trump:
1) GORSUCH SUPPOSEDLY FOUNDING “FASCISM FOREVER” CLUB
2) TRUMP RENAMING BLACK HISTORY MONTH AS THE SAME THING IT WAS ALWAYS CALLED
3) GORSUCH OP-ED CRITICIZED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE
4) TRUMP ADMINISTRAITON (SIC) CHANGES SANCTIONS TO BENEFIT FSB
Yes, those "media lies" certainly got a lot of currency. Trump's own lies are hardly known compared to these four doozies.
> according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official.
So a summary document, leaked by some unnamed somebody, summarized by the NYT. I mean, come one, Althouse, isn't this twitching your BS detector even a little bit?
Inga wrote: "I think it's interesting that Drago has been making himself scarce lately."
Not as interesting as when you made yourself scarce for months and months. or was it you posting under all those suedo-nyms?
I see up above, various regular Atlhouse commenters immediately jumping to the conclusion that this report must be wrong. Can't possibly be true, unless someone has some proof.
Well, I don't think there is much doubt about the provenance of the memo. Spicer seems to have admitted it; the sources were high-ranking senior administration staff who had the written notes of the meeting. Quoting it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0
Matthew Sablan; YoungHegelian; johns; David; even lower-case "chuck"! Lower-case chuck, how could you write that! Any of you have any doubt about the provenance of the reported meeting summary now?
An honest person who had never heard of Patterico would spend 10 minutes looking at his site and then say thank you for pointing me to a really useful political website giving the never-Trump Republican position: "whoever he is" is what a pathetic shill writes.
An honest person would also admit that "the outright liar is always Trump" was at best a gross exaggeration, and retreat to the claim that it's "usually" or "almost always" Trump.
Finally, an honest person would admit that when an inflammatory lie gets 2,288 retweets and 980 likes, and the correction admitting that it was entirely false gets 75 retweets and 32 likes, and when that pattern occurs repeatedly, we have a problem.
"Blogger Brookzene said...
I am positive that virtually every one with knowledge of the matter said the Russians meddled in our elections."
I have knowledge of the matter. More than Benzene, apparently. Assange has far more intimate knowledge of who leaked than anyone else. He say the Russians weren't the leakers.
Ha ha ha ha! Assange! Pure comedy gold! LMMFAO!
Ignore the noise, resist the temptation to continue your underestimation of Trump and think about this, maybe Hillary and the other Obama crooks will be the ones who go to prison. Comey should be worried too. Robert Mueller has to be aware that the previous special counsels destroyed their reputations by lacking self restraint and discipline. However, if I'm wrong and the crooked media and the crooked Dems manage to overthrow our recently elected president then we all lose whatever our party affiliation.
Some suggested reading.
"The blizzard of lies and distraction blowing through Washington is not just any routine stuffstorm, but a calculated attempt to bring down a president – our president, not the establishment’s president. And more than that, it’s an attempt to ensure that we never again have the ability to disrupt the bipartisan D.C. cabal’s permanent supremacy by inserting a chief executive who refuses to kiss their collective Reid.
This is a coup against us. It’s a coordinated campaign by liberals and their allies in the bureaucracy and media to once and for all ensure their perpetual rule over us. We need to fight it, here and now, so we don’t have to fight it down at the bottom of this slippery slope."
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/05/18/this-is-a-coup-against-our-right-to-govern-ourselves-n2328059
Speaking of crazy...
https://youtu.be/5C2bSVFbRw8
"I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue."
Brookzene said...
Ha ha ha ha! Assange! Pure comedy gold! LMMFAO!
5/19/17, 7:36 PM
This is what is called "no response" to having your argument effectively refuted.
Trump on:
Lindsay Graham: "A nut job"
Glenn Beck: "A real nut job"
Bernie: "A total nut job"
Kim Jong Un: "Could be a total nut job"
Putin: "Very smart"
"BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump really called Comey a 'nut' and a 'grand-stander' - I seriously doubt he said "it takes the pressure off me"."
-- He didn't. The quote is something like: "There's a lot of pressure about Russia. That's taken off." Which could mean, if it was a real quote, either firing Comey relieved the pressure or the pressure is really taking off.
Chuck: I do and will until it is verified. This sounds strikingly similar to a golden dossier that was promptly shut down the moment people were given the primary source documents; much like Flynn's illegal phone call suddenly became a routine call that the only problem was that he lied to or mislead Pence; or the tape that showed Republicans worrying about Putin paying Trump that, in full context, was a joke making fun of the absurdity of that notion; or that Trump stole a kid's hat and threw it away from him.
The pattern is that the media quotes a document or describes a situation, spins it up for days, weeks, etc., and then when we see the full thing... it's not what we were told it was.
National Guard Memos all over again. Show me; I've used up my good will being duped by various other anti-Trump stories.
"This is what is called "no response" to having your argument effectively refuted."
It's called not worth the dignity of a response. But let's pretend it is anyway.
Assange saying the Russians were not the source of the leaks is about one shade more credible than the Russians saying they were not the source of the evidence. Why should we believe him? How is he in any way a good faith player? What did he offer to back up what he said? Does anyone get to cross-examine his statement? Big fat no all the way around on that.
Tillerson, Haley, Mattis, the CIA, the FBI, NSA, James Clapper, Office of Director of National Security, Office of Homeland Security, are some of the players who have gone on record as saying the Russians meddled in the 2016 election. Against these intelligence and political sources you say "Julian Assange." And we're all supposed to think because of what Assange said the Russians did not interfere in our elections. He's more credible than our own intelligence sources, including members of Trump's cabinet. You wonder why I laughed at your sorry efforts at refutation?
GTFOH.
Last month CIA Director Mike Pompeo stated: "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is — a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia."
Pompeo said that the U.S. Intelligence Community had concluded that Russia's "primary propaganda outlet", RT, had "actively collaborated" with WikiLeaks.
So if we know that WikiLeaks often cooperates with Russia, that proves that a particular WikiLeak revelation must have come from the Russians, not from (e.g.) a disgruntled BernieBro with access to Democratic Party files? There seems to be a gap in the logic here.
Still non-responsive, Benzene.
Assange says the Russians weren't behind the DNC leaks.
Pompeo didn't say they were.
You need to be specific when you say Russia "meddled" in the 2016 elections. How? Exactly what are you accusing them of doing? Where is your evidence?
Why should we believe him? How is he in any way a good faith player? What did he offer to back up what he said? Does anyone get to cross-examine his statement? Big fat no all the way around on that.
This could be said about any of the anonymous anti-Trump leaks we've getting lately.
Consistency, Benzene! Strive for consistency!
"You need to be specific when you say Russia "meddled" in the 2016 elections. How? Exactly what are you accusing them of doing? Where is your evidence?"
Why do I have to be specific? I'm waiting on three, maybe four investigations, like all the rest of us. Including one that looks like it's going to be a criminal investigation.
"Still non-responsive, Benzene."
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? You are the one who is non-responsive. Why should we believe Assange against our patriotic Americans? People who have actually risked their lives or otherwise gone to bat for our country. What is it that you find so compelling about Julian Assange?
Speak up.
"So if we know that WikiLeaks often cooperates with Russia, that proves that a particular WikiLeak revelation must have come from the Russians, not from (e.g.) a disgruntled BernieBro with access to Democratic Party files? There seems to be a gap in the logic here."
Who said that was the reason we believe the leak came from the Russians? I assume that's just ancillary information. You're the one with the gap in logic.
"Why do I have to be specific? I'm waiting on three, maybe four investigations, like all the rest of us."
Good Lord! You don't even have a crime and you want an investigation? Is this the court of the Red Queen? Here's a clue for you, Benzene: people who want to change the outcome of an American election aren't patriots.
"Exactly what are you accusing them of doing? Where is your evidence?"
I'm accusing you of being an enabler of Russian meddling in USA elections, and other nations as well.
The Russians meddled. My evidence is the expert word of American intelligence officials, including at least two Trump cabinet members, and Trump's Secretary to the United Nations.
That you would deny this at this stage of the game says a lot about your fanboy devotion to Trump even at the expense of the security of the free world. I guess you got ideological priorities.
No, Benzene, you're the one with the gap in logic. You say (without providing any links to show how accurate your assertion is) that a lot of important people say that the Russians interfered in the election, but you pretend that you've somehow refuted the idea that Assange might (might!) be telling the truth in saying he didn't get some particular leaked info from the Russians. Do you really not see the problem there?
And do you not see that your silence about my 7:25pm comment shows that you are indeed not an honest person?
"Good Lord! You don't even have a crime and you want an investigation?"
You nitwit. I didn't say I wanted an investigation. I said there IS an investigation - at least THREE of them.
"Here's a clue for you, Benzene: people who want to change the outcome of an American election aren't patriots."
I think it's going to be very clear who the patriots are and who they aren't in the coming months. But we'll see. Pretty sure Trump doesn't really give a damn about anything but himself. I think that's true of a lot of his supporters.
"And do you not see that your silence about my 7:25pm comment shows that you are indeed not an honest person?"
Fine you don't think I'm an honest person. I don't give a fuck.
"Good Lord! You don't even have a crime and you want an investigation?"
Complain to the Asst Attorney General. Complain the Senate and the House. Didn't Trump even say he wanted an investigation?
You know, this is too easy.
I think it's already quite clear who are the patriots and who are not. Those who are willing to tell bald-faced lies about easily-checked facts, and don't give a damn when they are caught doing so, have a lot of nerve pretending to be patriots. You don't give a fuck because you are a contemptible fuck.
Donald Trump will probably be installed as a forever-president of the United States of America because all the Democrats are gonna be locked up, chained naked and starving, eating their own feces, yeah that's the ticket.
You can't stop it, might as well enjoy the ride.
You chose this path.
"Those who are willing to tell bald-faced lies about easily-checked facts"
I presume you mean Trump.
Fact is, like Gene as Willy Wonka, I only half-heartedly told you "no don't do that" or "no don't eat that" or "no don't go in that room" because part of me wanted to see you piss on the what-you-thought-were-graves-but-are-instead-deadly-locusts, against what the Bible says.
These locust-pissers don't pack a punch, not really. They are just pissers, on locusts, not much to brag about or to put too much stock in.
Poor Brookzene just can't stop lying while accusing others of lying. "I presume" is an obvious lie: he knows that is not what I meant. If he'd written "You should include Trump among the liars" or "Do you mean Trump when you mention liars?" I would have said yes, Trump is a liar. When it comes to relatively harmless bullshitting, he may even be a bigger liar than Hillary or Obama, which is saying a lot. When it comes to cold-blooded lying-for-advantage and expecting their lies to be believed, they come out way ahead, as does 90% of the press, 90% of Democratic politicians, 80% of never-Trump Republicans, and of course all their sycophants on blogs and Twitter and in blog comment-sections, like lying weasel Brookzene.
These comments are becoming a lefty feeding frenzy.
Glad I worked today.
I do agree with Howie Carr, that Republicans in Congress are looking too spineless to support next year.
The Republicans are all wringing their hands and whimpering how “troubled” and “disturbed” and “concerned” they are by these allegations of … what exactly? The solons claim to be hearing “echoes” of Watergate. It’s all the usual suspects — John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and now Kelly Ayotte’s replacement in the RINO chorus line, Ben Sasse of Nebraska.
Most of these people have always hated Trump. They were hoping the summer White House would be reopening next weekend at Walker Point in Kennebunkport.
The Deep State appears to be winning right now.
Brookzene said...
"You need to be specific when you say Russia "meddled" in the 2016 elections. How? Exactly what are you accusing them of doing? Where is your evidence?"
Why do I have to be specific? I'm waiting on three, maybe four investigations, like all the rest of us. Including one that looks like it's going to be a criminal investigation.
Investigation of what? Exactly? How can there be an investigation without a target. All the leftist repeat the mantra, like you, they have no notion of what it means, no clue as to what actions the Russians had taken.
Hard to imagine that after almost an entire year there is no evidence produced by an investigation that has no target in mind. The FBI, and the NSA, and the CIA. are all elbow deep in an investigation, and not a single soul knows what to look for. The conclusion is the goal is a never ending investigation, that can be used as a cudgel to nullify the election. The facts prove the deep state is the guilty party in meddling in our election, not Russia.
"Hard to imagine that after almost an entire year there is no evidence produced by an investigation that has no target in mind."
What are you talking about, 'after almost an entire year'?
The Senate Intelligence Committee just is getting underway.
The House Intelligence Committee is further along but was derailed by Nunes, the Republican Committee Chair, going to the White House to provide them information he shouldn't have, and then having to recuse himself.
Mueller's just starting.
Fools, the lot of them.
This is the system forgetting perspective and playing with fire. They are playing a game as with pieces on a board, but I dont think they are taking the audience into account.
This really is how civil wars start.
The US is not immune. It will be especially terrible I think, as the people no longer regard each other as human, and I dont just mean online.
No one is going to nullify the election. At worst if Trump continues to be as wreckless as he's been, or if he actually did collude with the Russians (which I don't have an opinion on) or if he did or does obstruct justice, he damn well could be impeached. He'll have nobody to blame but himself if that happens.
Extremely important, according to people who seem to know, is what we can expect from the Russians in 2018 and beyond, and how do we defend ourselves. Sen. Sasse has been sounding this alarm and it does seem very important.
The Russians aren't America's friends.
"Investigation of what? Exactly? How can there be an investigation without a target."
At least one current high level Trump advisor is now under investigation (talking heads seem to think it's Kushner).
"At least one current high level Trump advisor is [allegedly] now under investigation." How many similar stories have to turn out to be utterly false before Trump-haters will start adding the qualifications that basic honesty requires?
The Russians arent enemies either. Russia has few interests in contention with the US. It is economically and in terms of global influence a very secondary player. Its effectively broke, cutting its defense budget by a quarter, and it ran out of money to keep going in Syria. It could not even afford to keep two dozen aircraft operational on one foreign airbase.
There are no tank armies capable of invading Western Europe. It can't even afford to occupy the Ukraine, as that would be a fatal economic sink. Its fought itself to stalemate against them, for heavens sake, for the grand prize of a slice, not even the whole, of a hopeless rustbelt.
Russia has no grand ambitions, it can't afford them. I have no idea why they are a bogeyman. If you want a bogeyman, look at China.
"How many similar stories have to turn out to be utterly false before Trump-haters will start adding the qualifications that basic honesty requires?"
What similar stories are you talking about?
I pointed to a Patterico story about the press pushing four utterly false stories in one day, alluded to another (MLK bust), and Brookzene can't figure out why sensible people know that at least half of the stories about Trump that can be checked have turned out to be entirely false, so that there's an excellent chance that this is one of them. Why would that be? He wouldn't be a sleazy, lying partisan, possibly paid to post here, possibly posting out of the badness of his heart, would he?
The world should worry about the US, not Russia, and Americans should worry about each other, because it is each other that they hate, beyond any foreigner.
If the US tears itself apart it will be a global economic catastrophe. From which God knows what consequences will come.
The system in Washington and New York must mitigate its greed and pride, and submit to reform. Else the rage of the people will lead them into something terrible.
"Russia has no grand ambitions"
Right. That whole Crimea thing was a misunderstanding. And that war is certainly over. Syria isn't even happening.
"There are no tank armies capable of invading Western Europe."
I suppose they aren't doing any cyber attacks on the US or Europe or elsewhere for that matter. Putin's just a good ol' guy minding his and Russia's own business. Very convincing.
As far as Russia is concerned, Syria is over.
They have withrawn their fleet, such as it was, and most of their aircraft. Turkey is no longer concerned with them, Erdogan is rattling his saber against the US these days - consider why that is so.
It is useful to follow the news about matters other than US politics.
Russia seized the Crimea and a fraction of the Donbass, against, what, the immense power of the Ukraine? What other mighty state is it going to threaten, Andorra?
The system in Washington and New York must mitigate its greed and pride, and submit to reform. Else the rage of the people will lead them into something terrible.
I see the fools here who have no idea of the plans the Administrative State has for them and I wonder if it is too late.
Howard Jarvis, a political hero of mine, said, "You can't ask pigs to step away from the trough. You have to kick away from them."
I fear we are losing that battle.
Some people need the simplest things explained to them, so here goes:
Stalin was a horrible vicious man, one of the worst human beings who ever lived, and leader of a very powerful and dangerously well-armed nation. Nevertheless, we allied with him to defeat Hitler, judging (with good reason) that he was even worse and his nation even more dangerous. Similarly, many people think it's reasonable to ally with Putin (bad as he is) to defeat ISIS and al Qaeda, who are by any measure far worse. Is that really so hard to understand? People who support working with Putin are under no illusions about how bad he is, they are just aware that we sometimes have to work with bad regimes against worse ones. Treating them as if they are too stupid to understand that Russia is not a friend, or an entirely trustworthy ally, and that Putin does a lot of horrible things, is just stupid.
"There are no tank armies capable of invading Western Europe."
Isn't it amusing that the left finally gets upset at Russia when Russia no longer has real power ?
Cyber attacks?
What, hacking politicians email?
I must have missed all those attacks on peoples power grids - oh wait, there hasnt actually been one.
That is a poor mans weapon. A very poor mans weapon. For heavens sake even North Korea has conducted cyber attacks.
They are not going to do anything but harrass people, if that.
They are not going to rule in Warsaw through cyber attacks, or even in Riga.
Consider that the Polish army alone probably has more operational tanks than Russia can bring to bear on its western border.
And consider further what Russia really wants - higher oil prices. Thats their economy, thats what their mafia leadership feeds from. They are in trouble because oil prices collapsed three years ago, which, note, pretty much ended their post -Crimea ambitions.
What the Russians (and a lot of others) really want from the US is for the EPA to crack down on fracking, and pipelines, and all sorts of related infrastructure. That is, do something so ridiculously stupid or narrowly focused that, well, pretty much identifies them, right? Now who, let us speculate, in US politics, wants to do that?
Follow the money and you will never go wrong.
Mommy, I smell fish!
Brookzene Hillary Clinton is a liar, a grifter, a criminal and a traitor and patriots do not vote for a Hillary Clinton. So what is your excuse?
Now as for the so called collusion, how did exposing a liar, grifter, criminal and traitor impact the election in a negative way? Here is a clue, patriots voted for the one who isn't a liar, grifter, criminal and traitor.
As for Comey, Trump was right to fire him. His mistake was not firing him on day one. Comey tanked a criminal referral by acting way beyond his pay grade and thus effectively immunizing the Clintons,Lynch and others from criminal investigations and probable prosecutions. In short, he obstructed justice. If Comey were to be charged for the numerous counts of obstruction of justice and were he convicted he would be spending the rest of his life behind bars. The same can be said of the Clintons. Perhaps in your fevered state exposing a criminal is a crime but in the world of the sane it isn't.
Blogger buwaya said...
And consider further what Russia really wants - higher oil prices. Thats their economy, thats what their mafia leadership feeds from. They are in trouble because oil prices collapsed three years ago, which, note, pretty much ended their post -Crimea ambitions.
As an alternative, they could see the Middle East go up in flames, with Iranian, Saudi, etc., tankers getting shot up in the Gulf, pipelines being sabotaged, missiles flying; just think how that will pump up Russia's pockets, by tightening the spigot.
On the bright side, the US is prepared to swing. Canada. Pipelines. Mexico would benefit. It would give an excuse to go shoot a couple of thousand people in Venezuela and a couple of thousand people in Libya and get them back to work pumping oil. China may even take the leap to expand on fracking as far as they're able.
Then again, Europe could too, and get off the Soviet teat for gas. I mean Russian of course, but there's no difference, the czars would have played the game the same way.
But instead let's talk about pound cake and ice cream.
"I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off."
Maybe Trump instead should of sent word directly to Putin through Medvedev that he'd have "more flexibility" after Comey's firing?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा