Althouse: Trump has a script?

July 20, 2017

Trump has a script?

"Trump goes off-script and fumes about Sessions and Russia probe." (Politico.)

364 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 364 of 364

Fabi said...: Yesterday at 2:01 on the Milo thread, Chuck. You actually called her a "nasty fucking asshole".; 7/20/17, 4:37 PM
KittyM said...: @Drago I know that if I say I am not some other poster, that won't prove anything to you. But honestly honestly honestly I am not someone else. I don't even know who you are referring to. Chuck?

I'm sorry I misunderstood you but to defend myself quickly, I was responding to your statement "For instance, how a majority of democrats believe the Russians literally hacked our election". I thought you meant by "hack" the efforts in general to affect the outcome of the election, whereas it turns out you mean manipulating the ballot box, which I think very few people believe. The other stuff is bad enough!

The article goes on to say: "The hacking and subsequent release of stolen Democratic National Committee emails last year were “unacceptable efforts and behaviors by a foreign nation state,” Bossert said on Thursday. He stressed, though, that there had been no manipulation of ballot counts."; 7/20/17, 4:39 PM
Drago said...: Majority of Dems believe Russia changed vote tallies.

Vote tallies.

I'm sure a certain commenter will identify an innocent reason for that, though none exists beyond lunacy.; 7/20/17, 4:40 PM
Fabi said...: "Profile not available"; 7/20/17, 4:40 PM
KittyM said...: @Drago "The standard lefty "I don't know anything about that obvious stuff that everyone else knows so we can just pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't matter so I can return to my talking points"....Again, pretty standard lefty tactics."

What are my talking points? What are you talking about? I only just joined this board yesterday!

Why do you call me a "standard lefty"? You don't know anything about me or my political views apart from the fact that I am Trump-critical.; 7/20/17, 4:42 PM
Drago said...: The fact that you claim ignorance of lefty blogs disallowing opposing viewpoints.; 7/20/17, 4:44 PM
KittyM said...: @Drago If "Majority of Dems believe Russia changed vote tallies." then the majority of Dems are idiots, because there is no serious evidence of that.

But there is very serious evidence of Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win. That is so serious and so bad that I find it absolutely fascinating how many posts here sort of skirt over this issue by for example in your case talking about what the majority of Dems think. I mean, who cares what the majority of Dems think? I don't get it.; 7/20/17, 4:46 PM
Drago said...: KittyM: "@Drago If "Majority of Dems believe Russia changed vote tallies." then the majority of Dems are idiots,"

Lol

Nice try.

No evidence of any kind, serious or not.

None. Zero.; 7/20/17, 4:49 PM
KittyM said...: @Drago "The fact that you claim ignorance of lefty blogs disallowing opposing viewpoints"

I don't know what to tell you. I genuinely don't know any lefty blogs that disallow opposing viewpoints. That doesn't mean there aren't any; it just means I don't know any.

This is so boring. Let's stop now.; 7/20/17, 4:49 PM
Fabi said...: "But there is very serious evidence of Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win."

Please list one single piece of this evidence. It doesn't even have to be "very serious evidence" -- whatever that means.; 7/20/17, 4:49 PM
Heywood Rice said...: The tax forms most assuredly do allow you to pay more than the minimum. Anybody suggesting otherwise is misinformed.
Pay more if you like.

But you won't.

Well last year I contributed, or should I say invested, money that probably should have gone to taxes, to Bernie Sanders and several candidates for congress, as well as going door to door and since people with severe mental illness are shall we say, under served. I opened my home to one of the homeless schizophrenics who wander the the streets of this god fearing red state --like the damned-- right here in the wealthiest most powerful civilization that has ever existed and let me just say that I consider it a privilege to be able to do so.; 7/20/17, 4:50 PM
Drago said...: I would classify that last bit of rhetorical sleight of hand regarding non-existent evidence of vote tally changes as "Chuck-worthy".; 7/20/17, 4:53 PM
Fabi said...: I'd say it was "ellamentary", Drago!; 7/20/17, 4:54 PM
Paco Wové said...: "But there is very serious evidence of Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win."

Is there? What did they do, and how do you know those actions (assuming they occurred) were done to help Trump? Can you spell it out for me, please?; 7/20/17, 4:57 PM
KittyM said...: @Fabi I only know all the same things you've read. But again, "President Donald Trump’s chief counterterrorism adviser said Thursday that the Russian government clearly tried to manipulate the 2016 election...“There’s a pretty clear and easy answer to this and it’s 'yes,'” Thomas Bossert said when asked whether the Russians worked to manipulate the U.S. election" This guy sounds like an expert to me.; 7/20/17, 4:58 PM
KittyM said...: Oh hi Paco Wové! See my post to Fabi.; 7/20/17, 4:59 PM
Fabi said...: An opinion is not evidence.; 7/20/17, 5:06 PM
KittyM said...: @Fabi Well, it's the opinion of the chief counterterrorism adviser to the United States who *has* seen the evidence.; 7/20/17, 5:08 PM
Paco Wové said...: Thanks, but unfortunately that doesn't answer my questions. You take "the Russian government clearly tried to manipulate the 2016 election" and turn it into "Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win". I consider that an unacceptable leap.; 7/20/17, 5:08 PM
Michael K said...: " allow a wide range of opinion to be posted. "

OK. You are lying and that means you are a troll.

How much does it pay?

Is it more than Minimum Wage ?; 7/20/17, 5:14 PM
KittyM said...: @Paco Wové It's bizarre to me the focus on the exact wording of my posts and not the massive great scandal that a hostile power was meddling / manipulating / involving itself in the election of this sovereign country. So so weird.

I promise I am trying to express myself clearly.

"the Russian government clearly tried to manipulate the 2016 election" "Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win" Bth those statements are in my opinion true.

I don't know what has happened to the right wing in this country that so few of the posters here seem to care about this. It is truly shocking to me.; 7/20/17, 5:15 PM
Birkel said...: Concern troll is concerned. Tiresome.

Let us stipulate the following:
Every intelligence agency in the world constantly meddles in the affairs of every other country in the world.

Every war college and military plans for war against every other country in the planet.

And not one vote is alleged to have been changed by any country in the most recent U.S. elections, even though Mexico encouraged Mexicans to illegally vote for Hillary.; 7/20/17, 5:15 PM
johns said...: Kitty is the creepiest troll yet. No insults, all obsequious and playing dumb to ask questions to undermine others. But the tell is how precisely focused her questions are on the point she wants to undermine.; 7/20/17, 5:16 PM
Paco Wové said...: So, is the argument that the released DNC e-mails revealed the Democrats to be such malignant shits that it depressed voter turnout?; 7/20/17, 5:16 PM
Drago said...: KittyM: "@Fabi Well, it's the opinion of the chief counterterrorism adviser to the United States who *has* seen the evidence."

I'm going to need a little bit more than just their assurances.

Since our intelligence agency professionals have no qualms whatsoever in leaking reams of classified info it shouldn't be a problem.

And isn't it interesting that the ONLY information that hasnt leaked is the underlying basis for the assertion AND that Donald Trump had never been the subject of a criminal or counter-intelligence probe.

Isn't that interesting.

I'd say it's very very interesting.; 7/20/17, 5:16 PM
KittyM said...: @Michael K I promise you I am not. I am a long-time reader of this blog and I just got up the courage to post for the first time yesterday.

I wanted to engage with people who have differing points of view. Yesterday I had some great exchanges.

Today, not so much. Very disappointing. I don't like being accused of being a troll, I don't like being accused of being a "standard lefty", and I certainly don't like being accused of lying.

I have posted here in good faith and tried to share some views. That is all.; 7/20/17, 5:18 PM
Unknown said...: "So so weird.

I don't know what has happened to the right wing in this country that so few of the posters here seem to care about this. It is truly shocking to me."

LOL, welcome to the Althouse comments sections! I expect nothing more from these Trumpists, I've been around long enough to witness twisting of the human pretzels here time after time.; 7/20/17, 5:18 PM
Drago said...: "I don't know what has happened to the right wing in this country that so few of the posters here seem to care about this. It is truly shocking to me."

We were mocked by the entire left for caring about Soviet/Russian activities our entire lives and fighting the Dems/left as recently as the 2012 campaign and even up to last fall.

Now all the pro Soviet useful idiots on the left want to lecture us.

Gee, no thanks.; 7/20/17, 5:19 PM
Paco Wové said...: "It's bizarre to me the focus on the exact wording of my posts"

Words mean things. You took somebody saying that Russia "tried to manipulate" and turned it into "Russia meddled to help Trump win". These are very different statements. Even granting your part A ("Russia meddled"), what is your evidence for part B ("to help Trump")?; 7/20/17, 5:21 PM
Fabi said...: I understand that, KittyM, but his statement itself does not constitute evidence -- at all. I'll wait for the actual evidence, if any exists.; 7/20/17, 5:22 PM
Drago said...: Personally I'd like to know alot more about Hillary/Obama ceding uranium reserves to the Russians while receiving massive amounts of cash to bill and hill.

Also the podesta family connections to Russia entities are also quite interesting

But not to the lefties/"lifelong republicans", apparently.; 7/20/17, 5:22 PM
KittyM said...: @johns Again, I don't know what to tell you. I am just an ordinary private person on my computer who finally decided to join in the discussion after lurking for ages.

"But the tell is how precisely focused her questions are on the point she wants to undermine." What do you mean by "the points she wants to undermine"? I am trying to discuss American politics. I'm asking questions about the things that interest me. I'm particularly interested in understanding opposing viewpoints. I don't need to ask questions about views I agree with, obviously.; 7/20/17, 5:24 PM
Unknown said...: "Today, not so much. Very disappointing. I don't like being accused of being a troll, I don't like being accused of being a "standard lefty", and I certainly don't like being accused of lying. "

My dear Kitty, you were given a grace period of 24 hours. This is how you'll be recieved around here on a regular basis. Expect it, don't be shocked or disappointed. I knew the warm welcome wouldn't last long, lol.; 7/20/17, 5:24 PM
Heywood Rice said...: ...even though Mexico encouraged Mexicans to illegally vote for Hillary.

Where's evidence for this?; 7/20/17, 5:25 PM
Drago said...: "This is how you'll be recieved around here on a regular basis."

Particularly if you continue to misrepresent testimony.; 7/20/17, 5:27 PM
Unknown said...: "What do you mean by "the points she wants to undermine"? I am trying to discuss American politics. I'm asking questions about the things that interest me. I'm particularly interested in understanding opposing viewpoints."

Hahahaha! Oh Lordy. They don't like when you express an opinion or a fact that doesn't fit in the Trumpist narrative. Only conspiracy theories from Gateway Pundit are accepted as fact, don'cha know?; 7/20/17, 5:28 PM
Unknown said...: "Particularly if you continue to misrepresent testimony."

How did Kitty "misrepresent testimony" oh wise one?; 7/20/17, 5:29 PM
Birkel said...: Oddly, we conservatives know the Lefty talking points without effort. Tell you what, KittyM, you argue my point for me and I will argue yours for you. Maybe that will help you.

State a conservative case and I will respond with a Leftist argument.

I will faithfully represent your best points without snark.

Go?; 7/20/17, 5:30 PM
KittyM said...: @Drago "We were mocked by the entire left for caring about Soviet/Russian activities our entire lives and fighting the Dems/left as recently as the 2012 campaign and even up to last fall...Now all the pro Soviet useful idiots on the left want to lecture us."

I must say, thetis very enlightening of you. I can totally understand how frustrating annoying that must be.

But surely, this is your time to shine! To say, "Godamm it, we've been saying this for years! Finally, the evidence that we were right!" It doesn't make sense to me that you would instead dispute all the evidence when it is finally there and turn around and say, 2Oh well, that's not so bad, Putin's OK, let's be friends!"

@Paco Wové Again, I just "know" what I've read like the statement by that counter terrorism dude.

@Fabi Fair enough.

@Unknown. I see what you meant yesterday! Tough crowd!; 7/20/17, 5:31 PM
Paco Wové said...: KittyM – unfortunately there are a lot of hair-trigger tempers around here. If you find somebody being a jerk, the best thing to do is just ignore them. Personally, I welcome having a civil and well-spoken anti-Trump person around here.; 7/20/17, 5:31 PM
Drago said...: See Paco @5:21; 7/20/17, 5:32 PM
Birkel said...: Google Vicente Fox, antiphone. I do not take assignments.; 7/20/17, 5:32 PM
Heywood Rice said...: Oddly, we conservatives know the Lefty talking points without effort.

Yes, this is what's known as the "straw man" phenomina.; 7/20/17, 5:33 PM
Paco Wové said...: "Paco Wové Again, I just "know" what I've read like the statement by that counter terrorism dude."

But Counter Terrorism Dude didn't say "Russkies hacked to help Trump!" You added that bit. It wasn't there in the original statement. Don't you see the difference?; 7/20/17, 5:35 PM
Drago said...: Still waiting for that "not serious" evidence of Russia altering vote tallies.

I don't expect the trolls to pony up.; 7/20/17, 5:38 PM
Birkel said...: Ready for my turn as a Leftist, KittyM?

We can exchange ideas and you can learn as you claimed to want.; 7/20/17, 5:38 PM
Chuck said...: Fabi, thanks. I see now where I called the commenter "Rockport Conservative" a "nasty fucking asshole."

As you'll see below, my name-calling was in response to a nasty snarky attack on me in which the commenter implied that if only I had looked at the WNPR website, I'd have seen the NPR logo on the page, and I'd think better about claiming that WNPR (Connecticut Public Radio) is separate from NPR.

And so now I say again; I was right.

I HAD looked at the WNPR home page. I knew what it said. I had the NPR logo on that page in one place, not two as "Rockport Conservative" wrongly claimed. And the one place that we see the NPR logo was at the very bottom of the page, lined up with logos from Public Radio International, PRX, and American Public Radio. The various (other) sources that supply programming to the independently-operated WNPR of Connecticut.

Here is my post. I am going to bold the whole thing, with the comment that I was replying to in italics:

Blogger Chuck said...
Rockport Conservative said...
I guess Chuck didn't visit the WNPR site. It has NPR written all over it. Connecticut Public Broadcasting, as well. At top and the bottom we definitely do see the familiar NPR symbol. Not NPR? Then NPR should sue for the use of their name.

"I guess Chuck didn't visit the WNPR site."

You nasty fucking asshole. I did; and here is what anyone will find at www.WNPR.org:

You will find "The Colin McEnroe Show" listed, as a WNPR produced show. You will find the NPR logo at the bottom of the page alongside PRI, APM, PRX and other public radio production company logos. Because the station purchases lots of shows, from outside production outlets. The dipshits at Breitbart simply like to pick on "NPR" because they hear about "NPR" on Tucker Carlson or the old O'Reilly Factor.

I do not see the NPR logo at the top of the page at all.

For a smartass comment, yours was certainly a dumbass effort.

7/19/17, 2:01 PM

I take nothing back out of that. If "Rockport Conservative" is an 80-year old lady, she's a dumb, lazy, careless old lady with no good basis for her sarcasm.

That was a comments page filled to the brim with dumbass comments trying to contend with me about whether Milo's interview had been spiked by NPR. Including "Rockport Conservative's" dumbass comment, among many others. I'm still angry about the determined ignorance displayed by Milo, Breitbart and the Althouse commentariat.

It was I who had posted the earlier reference to the WNPR webpage. I didn't overlook it, or fail to comprehend it. I knew it, and its contents, and meaning, better than "Rockport Conservative" did.; 7/20/17, 5:38 PM
KittyM said...: @Birkel God, why is your world divided into just these two categories: "lefty" and "conservative"?? The world we live in and American society is so much more complex and interesting than that! I don't want to "exchange talking points". If you think you know what my views are on everything, what then is the point of discussing anything?

I thought this was a forum for a deeper look at current affairs from all points of view. I thought I'd hear interesting and new ideas. Very disappointing, guys.

And you are so wrong about me and my politics, Birkel, it's hilarious.; 7/20/17, 5:39 PM
Fabi said...: It is a tough crowd, KittyM -- and that improves one's rhetorical skills.; 7/20/17, 5:40 PM
Unknown said...: "I see what you meant yesterday! Tough crowd."

Think of the comments section as an alley, full of rusty nails, stinky sardine cans, foul water puddles and a bunch of yowling, snarling, hissing, mangy alley cats. You are a still a clean, sweet, well groomed Kitty. Ya tend to get dirty when you run the alleys of the comments sections. There are some cats who sit on top of the wooden fence or garage roofs that like to keep their fur well groomed. Occasionally you will get to rub up against one, they don't have fleas, unlike the rest.

Just my observations after commenting here for several years.; 7/20/17, 5:41 PM
Birkel said...: So, you don't want to help me by forcing me to faithfully represent the views of Leftists?

And you don't want to place yourself in the other side of the issue to explore an alternative point of view?

You seem so concerned.; 7/20/17, 5:42 PM
Heywood Rice said...: I do not take assignments.

Ok, I'll just take your word for it.; 7/20/17, 5:43 PM
Drago said...: You may find that if you do not misquote testimony you will be accused of misquoting testimony less.

I hope that bizarre and difficult concept is easier to understand now.; 7/20/17, 5:44 PM
Birkel said...: Hey UnknownInga51. How are your 31 kids and 67 nieces for every possible rhetorical position of Absolute Moral Authority doing?; 7/20/17, 5:44 PM
Fabi said...: "I thought this was a forum for a deeper look at current affairs from all points of view. I thought I'd hear interesting and new ideas. Very disappointing, guys."

We're sorry!; 7/20/17, 5:44 PM
Birkel said...: antiphone
I gifted you a free bing.com subscription since your Google is broken.; 7/20/17, 5:45 PM
KittyM said...: @Paco Wové Thanks for the kind words above and the good advice. I'm glad to have "met" you here and am happy to chat!

"But Counter Terrorism Dude didn't say "Russkies hacked to help Trump!" You added that bit. It wasn't there in the original statement. Don't you see the difference?"

Yes. I do see the difference. But in the same article it talks about "the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Moscow meddled in the 2016 election with the intent of helping Trump win."

I think the assumption when this is discussed in general is that Russia meddled in order to help Trump, based amongst other things on the fact that they stole DNC emails, so their manipulations were all against the Democrats. i haven't heard about another version where they meddled for some other reason. Although I do think Putin is happy to just cause chaos.; 7/20/17, 5:46 PM
Unknown said...: "Hey UnknownInga51. How are your 31 kids and 67 nieces for every possible rhetorical position of Absolute Moral Authority doing?"

You see? Then you get commenters this one who likes to dox commenters. Kitty, you have not really arrived until you've been doxxed.; 7/20/17, 5:47 PM
Unknown said...: "We're sorry!"

You should be.; 7/20/17, 5:48 PM
Michael K said...: "I don't like being accused of being a troll, "

It helps not to lie about things many of us know well.

For years, I followed Kevin Drum from his blog called "Calpundit" to Washington Monthly and then finally to "Mother Jones."

I like Kevin and consider him honest. He and I agree on very little but we used to exchange the occasional email and I commented on his blog and on Wash Monthly.

In 2004, he heard about the Bush ANG story and actually went to Texas to research it. He wanted it to be true but finally concluded it was not true and probably a hoax.

That was months before Dan Rather and his producer did such a pratfall with Microsoft "Times New Roman" fonts.

After 2004, Bush Derangement Syndrome really got going and was almost as bad as Trump Derangement.

The Wash Monthly blog deteriorated in the comments to resemble Ritmo here. Obscene and personal insults, etc.

Finally they began to delete my comments. I emailed Kevin about it but he replied he had no control.

I was then blocked and as recently as last winter I could not even wish Kevin well when he developed Hodgkins Disease.

Mother Jones also blocks any non-leftist comment.

If you are new to them, they might allow comments until you ;post something non-leftist. Your comments will soon be on "Moderation: and then disappear,

HuffPo used to do the same thing but have tolerated my comments until they went nuts about Trump and I gave up reading it.

There are lefty commenters here and Inga, for one, has posted some worthwhile discussion about healthcare.

The rest repeat what has to be talking points as they are always the same.

I few post links but they are always to leftist sites or, sometimes, they are are even contrary to the point the lefty thought he/she was making.

Maybe you think the lefty sites accept comments as you have no experience being tagged as a nonbeliever.

I just am suspicious that you are another sock puppet. Your opinions are familiar.; 7/20/17, 5:50 PM
Heywood Rice said...: I gifted you a free bing.com subscription since your Google is broken.

Is that assigned reading? I was just catching up on what the term "argument by assertion" means.; 7/20/17, 5:51 PM
FullMoon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/20/17, 5:51 PM
Fabi said...: That was a brilliant riposte, Inga -- I may never recover from that one!; 7/20/17, 5:52 PM
n.n said...: We're still recycling the innuendo, creation, and invention from foreign sources, DNC-affiliated journolists, establishment actors, and remnants of the Obama administration who are bitterly upholding the status quo. The persistence of elective wars, elective regime changes, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (e.g. welfare profits, gerrymandered districts) , catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, redistributive change (e.g. Obamacare, 1% service), abortion rites/Planned Parenthood, "=" or selective exclusion, etc. are that important.; 7/20/17, 5:53 PM
FullMoon said...: You see? Then you get commenters this one who likes to dox commenters. Kitty, you have not really arrived until you've been doxxed.

7/20/17, 5:47 PM

Doxxed:
search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

That happened when you were Allie OOp, right? Someone posted your real name? Who did it, anyway? Just curious. Anybody know?; 7/20/17, 5:57 PM
Unknown said...: "Who did it, anyway."

I wouldn't know, I'm guessing bad mangy cats?😼; 7/20/17, 6:00 PM
Birkel said...: I long ago stopped providing links for committed Leftists because I learned they will not read the link, will deny the information at the link or will misinterpret what they read at the link.

Google Vicente Fox and educate yourself or don't. But complaining that I won't do for you merely confirms what I already knew.; 7/20/17, 6:01 PM
Drago said...: Uh oh. Doxxed means posting actual information about an anonymous poster.

If Unknown is claiming to have been doxxed, then that would mean she is confirming she has 31 kids and 67 nieces which she uses for every possible rhetorical position of Absolute Moral Authority.

I think that unlikely, but apparently the "science is settled".; 7/20/17, 6:04 PM
Unknown said...: "Personally, I welcome having a civil and well-spoken anti-Trump person around here."

He likes ones that won't fight back. Eventually every lefty who comments here gets into a heated conversation and learns to fight fire with fire, or leaves and never comes back.; 7/20/17, 6:09 PM
Unknown said...: That goes for anti Trumpist Republicans too.; 7/20/17, 6:10 PM
Heywood Rice said...: ...complaining that I won't do for you merely confirms what I already knew.

Oh I'm not complaining, but if you can't be bothered to support your own arguments why bother entering into a debate, or a discussion or that matter?; 7/20/17, 6:12 PM
Birkel said...: It's hard to be civil when conservatives LITERALLY want grandma to die. Conservatives will cause Guam to flip over. Conservatives will cause the seas to rise 100 feet and kill millions. Conservatives will use weather machines to flood New Orleans and cause cannibalism in the Super Dome. Conservatives will cause millions of people to die.

You stay civil when all that is happening.

/Lefty; 7/20/17, 6:13 PM
Earnest Prole said...: As I predicted a month or two ago, the investigation has now been extended to Trump's finances, and if a special counsel can't gin up something with that then he needs to get into another line of work.; 7/20/17, 6:13 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Chuck at 2:35 PM

Implicit in all of this is that Rod Rosenstein, in naming a Special Counsel, is in on the corruption too.

The reason why Rosenstein chose Robert "The FBI White-Washer" Mueller to become the Special Counsel is that Rosenstein considered Mueller to be the best person in the world to white-wash the FBI.

Mueller's acceptance of this appointment is itself proof that Mueller is **CORRUPT**. Mueller should recuse **HIMSELF** despite his blantant conflicts of interest, but he does not do so, because he is **CORRUPT**.; 7/20/17, 6:15 PM
Birkel said...: It is true, or not. Google or don't.

I cannot fix your ignorance unless you pay me to do that work. I am expensive. As a conservative I am a billionaire, of course.; 7/20/17, 6:16 PM
Unknown said...: "As I predicted a month or two ago, the investigation has now been extended to Trump's finances, and if a special counsel can't gin up something with that then he needs to get into another line of work."

Money laundering anyone? I suspect that's where the flames are.; 7/20/17, 6:16 PM
Birkel said...: To be fair, everybody predicted the expansion of the investigation. That was the whole point of getting the special counsel appointed.; 7/20/17, 6:20 PM
Birkel said...: UnknownInga51 thinks this time, for sure, Trump has missed the bed.; 7/20/17, 6:21 PM
Birkel said...: Pissed the bed; 7/20/17, 6:21 PM
Unknown said...: ".... thinks this time, for sure, Trump has missed the bed."

Trump missed the bed and fell on his head, roll over, roll over. I sing that to my 45 grandchildren.; 7/20/17, 6:26 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: In my previous comments in this thread, I affirmed my opinion that Robert Mueller is **CORRUPT**.

I don't want anyone here to have the wrong impression that Mueller is the only **CORRUPT** official in this situation.

Another **CORRUPT** official is our former Director of Intelligence James Clapper.

During the 2016 election race, Clapper's favored candidate Hillary Clinton made repeated false statements that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had meddled in the election.

**CORRUPT** DNI James Clapper knew that his favored candidate Clinton was telling a lie and was using that lie to defeat Donald Trump, the candidate whom **CORRUPT** Clapper did not like.

Although the Director of National Intelligence is supposed to serve the entire US population and not only serve the Democratic Party, **CORRUPT** DNI Clapper remained silent about Clinton's lie.

**CORRUPT** Clapper wanted Clinton to defeat Trump and so he silently alloweed Clinton to continue telling her lie to the electorate.

**CORRUPT** DNI Clapper played a leading role in conducting the bogus Russiagate "investigation".; 7/20/17, 6:26 PM
Fabi said...: Trump once left the toilet seat up, so there's still that to be investigated.; 7/20/17, 6:28 PM
Birkel said...: Comey is corrupt too, to be fair.; 7/20/17, 6:29 PM
Unknown said...: But Trump is NOT CORRUPT!

Hahahaha!; 7/20/17, 6:30 PM
FullMoon said...: Eventually every lefty who comments here gets into a heated conversation and learns to fight fire with fire, or leaves and never comes back.

7/20/17, 6:09 PM

Or comes back with a new disguise.

Inga said...

Stop and think how ridiculous you've become. I'm fine with becoming persona non grata. Your blog has become the cesspool it once was. I'm pretty much done here. 6/30/17, 6:33 PM; 7/20/17, 6:31 PM
Unknown said...: Back to that Full Moon? What's wrong honey, did a hornet sting you in the ass today?; 7/20/17, 6:32 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Kitty M at 3:57 PM

The view that for example Robert Mueller is corrupt: It's a fairly "out there" viewpoint (which, I hasten to add, doesn't make it not true!). But you must know that most Americans wouldn't agree with you. I certainly don't agree with you. But we both have the same "facts". So, how do you get there?

Robert "The FBI White-Washer" accepted this appointment even though he has blatant conflicts of interest.

He is the former FBI Director, but he is supposed to "investigate" the validity of the FBI's "investigation" of RussiaGate.

He is a close personal friend of "Crazy Comey the Leaker", who also was an FBI Director, but Mueller is supposed to investigate Comey's leadership of the bogus "investigation".

Mueller did not have the personal integrity to refuse this appointment. It was more important for him to accept the opportunity to white-wash the institution he led for many years and to white-wash his personal friend and fellow former FBI Director.

However, Mueller is not the most **CORRUPT** officials in this situation. For example, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan are even more **CORRUPT** than Mueller.; 7/20/17, 6:53 PM
Michael K said...: I don't mind lefties if they actually contribute to the discussion.

They just post snarky ripostes that they think are clever and demonstrate their superior intellect.

Then there are the angry ones like Ritmo.

That removes any purpose to the discussion and I leave. I suspect some others do, too.

If you post intelligent arguments with links to something other than Daily Kos or Democratic Underground, we can talk.

I was banned from Wash Monthly because I don't think what they describe as "single payer" or "Medicare for all" works.

The French system, which I favor, is often described by others who don;t knwo what they are talking about as "Single Payer."

It's not. It's funded by payroll deduction.; 7/20/17, 6:56 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Kitty M at 4:01 PM

I find Chuck's posts articulate and enlightening. It seems to me that he engages respectfully with the other commenters and moves the discussion forward while remaining on topic.

I agree with you about that.; 7/20/17, 6:57 PM
Paco Wové said...: KittyM:

"But in the same article it talks about "the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Moscow meddled in the 2016 election with the intent of helping Trump win.""

Ah, I see where you got that from now. It was in the Politico article (as commentary) but not in the article that I read initially. That requires a longer response than I have time to formulate now.; 7/20/17, 6:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Paco: KittyM – unfortunately there are a lot of hair-trigger tempers around here. If you find somebody being a jerk, the best thing to do is just ignore them. Personally, I welcome having a civil and well-spoken anti-Trump person around here.

I second that. We definitely want to encourage a better class of anti-Trumpers around here, and I appreciate the amiable Miss Kitty's ability to respond to even testy responses (like, e.g.,that irascible Angel-Dyne dame's) without taking it all personally.; 7/20/17, 7:00 PM
Heywood Rice said...: Robert "The FBI White-Washer" accepted this appointment even though he has blatant conflicts of interest.

Hate to nitpick, but shouldn't that be **CONFLICTS OF INTEREST**.; 7/20/17, 7:02 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: antiphone at 7:02 PM

Hate to nitpick, but shouldn't that be **CONFLICTS OF INTEREST**.

I stand corrected.; 7/20/17, 7:11 PM
Tommy Duncan said...: Blogger johns said...

Kitty is the creepiest troll yet. No insults, all obsequious and playing dumb to ask questions to undermine others. But the tell is how precisely focused her questions are on the point she wants to undermine.

Eddie Haskell

Or perhaps Edie Haskell; 7/20/17, 7:11 PM
Jon Ericson said...: That concludes the kitty comments.
Next up: Pedro.; 7/20/17, 7:33 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: It would surprise you to know Trump has a script?

Trump most definitely has a script. It goes something like, "Terrific, wonderful, the greatest, disaster, loser, dummy, beautiful." All you have to do is insert himself before the positive adjectives and someone else before the negative ones.; 7/20/17, 7:33 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: They just post snarky ripostes that they think are clever and demonstrate their superior intellect.

Well, they could post dunderheaded, unreasoned and unevidenced articles of faith to reach out to those of inferior intellect. But they probably don't have any reason to converse with you.

BTW, how many times a day do you think of me? You literally mention me every time you drop by.

Sounds like someone needs to change his Grindr profile to, "Not taken, but unrequitedly smitten!"; 7/20/17, 7:39 PM
Known Unknown said...: Make a profile, Kitty.

I challenged readering to do the same, and he/she/xe did, and I don't think anyone thinks of readering as a troll.; 7/20/17, 7:44 PM
Unknown said...: No Kitty, don't make a profile, it won't matter. Everyone who doesn't conform to the majority opinion here is considered a troll and will be called one daily.; 7/20/17, 7:48 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: OK. You are lying and that means you are a troll.

How much does it pay?

Is it more than Minimum Wage ?

KittyM: You'll notice that this Michael K guy has two deficiencies that make his comments worthless.

1. He's an inveterate elitist snob. Obsessed with issues of payment, salary, wealth, and whatever other anti-social values the nursemaid who raised him instilled in him.

2. He thinks criticism of Trump - especially as they concern his lack of self-control or capacity for forethought - are wrong and reveal terminal character defects on the part of the critic.

A possible third deficiency is how sensitive he is. This might not be the worst problem, if he was as sensitive about how he treats others. But it's a truly one-way street with him. He lacks almost any understanding of reciprocity whatsoever.

Fair warning! Enjoy!; 7/20/17, 7:50 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: What Unknown said @7:48.

Worse, there are even computer-illiterate peanut gallery rejects who populate the ranks of this place and will levy erroneous accusations of "sock puppetry" without any knowledge of what it means. Just because they like the way it rolls off the keyboard, apparently.; 7/20/17, 7:53 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I second that. We definitely want to encourage a better class of anti-Trumpers...

Good point. And what a way to encourage it. The pro-Trumpers are such classy people!; 7/20/17, 7:55 PM
Known Unknown said...: "No Kitty, don't make a profile, it won't matter. Everyone who doesn't conform to the majority opinion here is considered a troll and will be called one daily."

Well, the reason it does matter is that during the election this site was hit with several PNAs in succession who were obviously bought commenters pushing a mostly anti-Trump line. They never had profiles. They would last for about 4 days to a week and a new one would trundle along with no purpose to engage people honestly.; 7/20/17, 7:56 PM
Birkel said...: Toothless and Farmer F

Using dunderhead within 24 hours of each other.

Neat!; 7/20/17, 7:58 PM
grackle said...: Just now I read that President Donald Trump’s chief counterterrorism adviser said Thursday that the Russian government clearly tried to manipulate the 2016 election, and declared that the Obama administration’s retaliatory sanctions didn’t go far enough.

Would it be too much trouble for the commentor to provide a link? So the readers can read the source for themselves. Or, would this request be a “smear?”; 7/20/17, 8:01 PM
Gospace said...: KittyM said...

But there is very serious evidence of Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win.

There IS very serious evidence of the Ukraine meddling in the US Election to help Clinton win. But- it didn't help her. So why isn't that being investigated with the same ferocity as claims with NO evidence that Trump and Republicans colluded with Russia?

If it's criminal for Russia to meddle, it's criminal for the Ukraine to meddle. Where's the investigation of Ukraine? Why aren't newspapers harping on it? Is it because, as another blogger frequently states, they're simply Democrat operatives with bylines? It sure looks that way from here.; 7/20/17, 8:02 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Even granting your part A ("Russia meddled"), what is your evidence for part B ("to help Trump")?

The facts that:

1. Trump was a novice whereas Hillary had years of experience being briefed about and personally coming to understand how untrustworthy Putin was.

2. The number of fawning statements that Trump put out there about Putin.

3. Don Jr's admission that the Family had substantial Russian business interests and relied upon them to save keep them in good stead during the height of the recession that wiped out lending sources for other, "less-connected" billionaires.

Not solid? Circumstantial enough to be obvious. If you were a manipulative KGB agent which of the two candidates do you think would be easier to bend to your will?

Today Trump ended support for the anti-Assad moderate rebel forces in Syria. He has effectively created a Shi'ite land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean, just as Putin wants.

The pattern you are ignoring is clear and obvious. Also, what kind of a U.S. president is so desperate to impress a Russian leader as to leak to him sensitive intel from Israeli sources infiltrating ISIS? We are losing valuable, allied espionage and counter-terrorism assets by the minute under this Trump fool. They are figuring out that they can't trust him to keep his mouth shut in the most basic of ways and will now cut him off from their intel. Trump miserably flunks basic diplomacy and foreign asset protection 101.; 7/20/17, 8:06 PM
grackle said...: Just now I read that President Donald Trump’s chief counterterrorism adviser said Thursday that the Russian government clearly tried to manipulate the 2016 election, and declared that the Obama administration’s retaliatory sanctions didn’t go far enough.

Would it be too much trouble for the commentor to provide a link? So the readers can read the source for themselves. Or, would this request be a “smear?”

But there is very serious evidence of Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win.

As a reader I am curious about the source. We need a link to the “serious evidence.” Sorry to be so smear-y, but links are kind of needed for this particular assertion to be taken seriously.; 7/20/17, 8:17 PM
Unknown said...: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/20/tom-bossert-blames-russia-election-hacks-240763

"ASPEN — President Donald Trump’s chief counterterrorism adviser said Thursday that the Russian government clearly tried to manipulate the 2016 election, and declared that the Obama administration’s retaliatory sanctions didn’t go far enough.

“There’s a pretty clear and easy answer to this and it’s 'yes,'” Thomas Bossert said when asked whether the Russians worked to manipulate the U.S. election — a widely held conclusion that his boss in the Oval Office has repeatedly questioned."

Maybe Kitty is out on the prowl ( kidding!) Here is a link, it took me 30 seconds or less to find it.; 7/20/17, 8:22 PM
Unknown said...: WaPo reporting that Trump is looking to grant PARDONS for his family, aides and even himself! LOL, oh my lord, Trump is INNOCENT of any corruption or wrongdoing. Hahahahaha!

Sorry for the all caps, yes, I'm yelling.; 7/20/17, 8:31 PM
Birkel said...: As stated above, every intelligence service of every country in every election tries to affect the elections all over the world, always, everywhere. But only always.

We must investigate why Democrats nominated the most unlikable candidate of all time, because the Russians forced them to do so. Also, why did they give her a neurological condition that forced her to collapse periodically?

President Bush should have pardoned Scooter Libby.; 7/20/17, 8:58 PM
Unknown said...: "We must investigate why Democrats nominated the most unlikable candidate of all time, because the Russians forced them to do so."

You people voted for Trump, don't blame the Russians.; 7/20/17, 9:00 PM
grackle said...: Maybe Kitty is out on the prowl ( kidding!) Here is a link, it took me 30 seconds or less to find it.

Thank you, unknown, but I found several articles on the same subject; there’s all kinds of articles about it flying around the web. I am just curious to which specific article prompted her belief. And I am still waiting for a response from the commentor. Just for the record, you know.

But there is very serious evidence of Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win.

And I’m still waiting for a link to the “serious evidence.” Sorry to be so smear-y, but links are kind of needed for this particular assertion to be taken seriously by us Trump supporters. We kind of prefer that things are less amorphous and more specific.; 7/20/17, 9:02 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: You people voted for Trump, don't blame the Russians.

Hey! Nothing they do is ever their fault!; 7/20/17, 9:02 PM
Michael K said...: He's an inveterate elitist snob. Obsessed with issues of payment, salary, wealth, and whatever other anti-social values the nursemaid who raised him instilled in him.

Good Grief ! Is McDonalds shift over early ?

The obvious envy and resentment drips from your stupid comments.

Now, if you will excuse me,; 7/20/17, 9:09 PM
Birkel said...: Oh, UnknownInga51, it's ok that the American people judge Hillary the most unlikable candidate for president ever and you voted for her. We understand.; 7/20/17, 9:10 PM
Sebastian said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/20/17, 10:24 PM
Sebastian said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/20/17, 10:25 PM
Sebastian said...: "The LLR said: "I also think that Robert Mueller enjoys nearly universal respect, and a reputation beyond reproach."

I reproach it thus:

1. Mueller has a conflict of interest since the investigation involves his friend Comey, and therefore he should recuse himself.
2. Mueller has a conflict of interest since the investigation is likely involve misconduct by the FBI, which he used to lead, and therefore he should recuse himself.
3. Mueller should have refused the assignment, since it is not based on any reasonable interpretation of the applicable statute, which requires that a specific crime be involved.
4. Mueller has assembled a team that includes many partisan Democratic lawyers, conveying the appearance of unfairness from the very outset.
5. Early reports suggest that Mueller has expanded the investigation well beyond the election, and instead is about to pursue an unlimited witch hunt. (Even some lefties have noticed and begun to utter whispers of "reproach.")

Of course, my reproach partly has to do with the constitutional absurdity of an "independent" counsel, and with the silly cowardice of Sessions and Rosenstein. But to call Mueller beyond reproach is an instance of swamp think.; 7/20/17, 10:26 PM
Birkel said...: That is the same Mueller that never bothered to investigate the IRS scandal in which Americans were deprived their Constitutional rights by a coordinated effort of government employees, right?; 7/20/17, 10:33 PM
Jon Ericson said...: This is NPR.; 7/20/17, 10:38 PM
pacwest said...: KittyM,
You have had several regular commenters on this blog try to engage you in a calm and rational manner, yet you don't discuss the points they make, just boomerang back to your original talking points. I had hoped for more. You seem to be very naive (you honestly don't know what a concern troll is?), or alternatively Drago and others are right. I hope the former, but am beginning to assume the latter. And I hope I am wrong.
At any rate, best wishes in your endeavors.; 7/20/17, 11:18 PM
Achilles said...: TTR said...

"Today Trump ended support for the anti-Assad moderate rebel forces in Syria. He has effectively created a Shi'ite land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean, just as Putin wants. "

An honest description of this policy change would be that the arms are going to the Kurds in Syria rather than the radical Sunnis in Syria.

Are you now a supporter of arming groups in the Middle East? Or just when you get to bash trump?; 7/21/17, 12:52 AM
Achilles said...: The pattern you are ignoring is clear and obvious. Also, what kind of a U.S. president is so desperate to impress a Russian leader as to leak to him sensitive intel from Israeli sources infiltrating ISIS?

Obama leaked stuxnet to make himself look cool. Obama had a movie made about how we captured Bin Laden to make himself look like a hero. Obama leaked the capture of the underwear bomber to make himself look cool. Obama leaked his "kill list" to make himself look cool.

You just make yourself look like a stupid hypocrite posting something this weak.

We are losing valuable, allied espionage and counter-terrorism assets by the minute under this Trump fool. They are figuring out that they can't trust him to keep his mouth shut in the most basic of ways and will now cut him off from their intel. Trump miserably flunks basic diplomacy and foreign asset protection 101.

These the same intelligence agencies you wanted investigated for torturing everyone and lying about WMD's?

I think Israel is overjoyed that Trump is president and Obama is not. Trump also won't send US taxpayer dollars and campaign staff to MEDDLE in Israel's elections.; 7/21/17, 1:03 AM
KittyM said...: @pacwest. Oh hi! I honestly have never heard the phrase "concern troll" before. I still don't know what it means. So I definitely have to agree that this makes me "very naive" about the life of blogs and boards such as this one. Obviously, I don't think I am naive about politics (but doesn't everyone think that?).

"You have had several regular commenters on this blog try to engage you in a calm and rational manner..." Agreed!

"...yet you don't discuss the points they make, just boomerang back to your original talking points" I'm really sorry you think that. That was not my intention - far from it. In fact, judging my own performance here, I rather thought I was spending too much time doing the opposite - engaging with individual commenters and answering their individual points. I was thinking that I shouldn't do that so much; that I should try to let those comments go and try and focus on the wider topic.

In the sense that I feel strongly about things, I suppose I'm bound to repeat myself! But FWIW I was trying my best to engage in good faith and move the conversation along.

It's interesting that you thought that, though, since on my side, I felt that those who were engaging with me were quite "stuck" on the same points: mostly, harping on about "evidence" or telling me how lefty I am.

I wonder if you could comment on that aspect of posting here. The thing is (uh oh, now I am repeating myself from earlier) I feel like we're all reading the same stuff or at least we all have access to the same information. When a number of commenters asked me for evidence of Russia meddling in the election, I don't quite know how to answer satisfactorily. I am not a member of the intelligence community. But the news that has been published for months now says that there is a consensus in the Senate, the House, the CIA etc etc that Russia did these things.

I understand that some people here just fundamentally reject all this. I don't know how to continue a conversation then.

Anyway, Drago and the others are wrong about one thing: I am a real person who is really typing this in good faith. I have been reading Althouse blog since the year Obama's first term as president. I remember when she used to do those video decisions - what were they called? It sounds stupid, but I am a little intimidated by the "rough and tumble" of online forums which is why it took me so long to join in. In fact, for months I have been thinking of starting to post here.

I don't know how long I will stay around as I can see how much time it sucks up. It's kind of addictive! But I appreciate very much your civil and helpful posts.; 7/21/17, 1:30 AM
KittyM said...: @grackle "And I’m still waiting for a link to the “serious evidence.” Sorry to be so smear-y, but links are kind of needed for this particular assertion to be taken seriously by us Trump supporters. We kind of prefer that things are less amorphous and more specific."

Here is a link to a fascinating interview on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/russia-hacked-american-faith-democratic-process/
Please read it all, it is fascinating but of course very disturbing. It includes this exchange, that explains why the problem is not changing the tallies:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I want to press you on this, because you’re saying that the Russians were not able — they weren’t worried that the Russians were going to be able to change the final vote count.

MASSIMO CALABRESI: That’s right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But were able to get in, in a remarkable way, into state voter files, into election systems.

MASSIMO CALABRESI: And this is what’s so important, because the Russians had over time become bolder and bolder about their intrusions, and had not tried to hide the fact that they were breaking into systems.

The Russians are very skilled cyber-actors, among the best in the world. So the fact they were remaining in the open was a clue to the larger purpose of the operation. And it’s crucial to keep this in mind. The first and primary goal of the Russian operation against the election was to undermine American faith in the democratic process, the first and abiding goal.

Every secondary goal that came had to first fulfill undermining our faith in the democratic process. And so what the cyber-security officials at the White House and across government at the FBI and intelligence community concluded was that these intrusions were less about the specific effect that they could have than they were on undermining the faith of the Americans in elections generally.; 7/21/17, 1:36 AM
grackle said...: I’ve been mulling over the Russia collusion situation. The “tell” for me is the fact that the Obama administration’s intelligence officials had knowledge of the Russian tampering, such as it was, since at least 2008.

But they apparently never worried about it and certainly never went public with it – until late in 2016 right before the election. Why weren’t they concerned years ago about the Russian tampering?

I think Obama knew that the Russians would never tamper against Obama – but only against Obama’s opponents. After all, Obama’s era was very good for the Russians. They had a free hand in the Ukraine, expanded influence in the Middle East and used Russian oil to blackmail Western Europe(while Obama nixed drilling here).

This was all the result of the “flexibility” that Obama whispered in Prime Minister Medvedev’s ear: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility. It needs to be noted that Obama already had considerable flexibility and was promising even more flexibility.

Putin wasn’t about to tamper with American elections against his good buddy, Obama. But against Obama’s opponents? Sure thing. And THAT explains why the Obama administration kept quiet about Russian tampering for several years.; 7/21/17, 2:06 AM
grackle said...: I’m going to try again. The commentor made a couple of assertions earlier:

Just now I read that President Donald Trump’s chief counterterrorism adviser said Thursday that the Russian government clearly tried to manipulate the 2016 election, and declared that the Obama administration’s retaliatory sanctions didn’t go far enough.

I then made a reasonable request: Would it be too much trouble for the commentor to provide a link? So the readers can read the source for themselves. Or, would this request be a “smear?

The readers and I are still waiting patiently for that link. Until I get a link I’m going to keep asking.

Here’s the other assertion by the commentor:

But there is very serious evidence of Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win.

My request regarding the above quote: As a reader I am curious about the source. We need a link to the “serious evidence.” Sorry to be so smear-y, but links are kind of needed for this particular assertion to be taken seriously.

The commentor has provided a link to an NPR interview, whether to honor my request for a link to “serious evidence” or merely at random is unclear. So I will ask her directly: Is this NPR interview the “serious evidence?” Meanwhile we still need that link that was about “Trump’s chief counterterrorism adviser.”; 7/21/17, 2:25 AM
pacwest said...: Kitty,
I'm having one of those sleepless nights. Hope this catches your eye later. A couple of things. Unknown is right. You are in for a shit storm on this blog. Hope you can hold up. A concern troll is someone who comes on a right leaning blog like this a says something like 'I think Trump is doing a good job, but I am very concerned by this Russia collusion which sure looks like it happened.' A simplistic explanation but you get the idea.

You realize by now that you are in a minority here, so there will be a lot comments directed towards you, some quite vitriolic, and very little agreement with your positions. It's why blog comments tend to be echo chambers. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a constant stream of abuse. Not sure how Chuck manages to handle it, but glad he hangs around.

If you've been lurking for several years you know there are some pretty smart people commenting here. I've been a regular reader since the start of the Iraq war and just recently started commenting myself. It was a lot more balanced back then though. I've never been able to find a comment area that wasn't an echo chamber of late, although this one comes as close as any.

Always willing to check my premises. Hope this works out for you.; 7/21/17, 3:11 AM
KittyM said...: @grackle Hi there. Apologies for leaving you hanging yesterday.

You made a perfectly reasonable request for a link so that the commenters could read it for themselves. Of course I don't consider this a smear. I actually wasn't quite sure what the "policy" was on linking to other articles. I am so glad that it is encouraged as I am always coming across interesting articles that I would like to share!

I read that particular article in Politico. I think another commenter found it already but here is the link: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/20/tom-bossert-blames-russia-election-hacks-240763

"...So I will ask her directly: Is this NPR interview the “serious evidence?”"

Yes it is. Or rather, it is an interview with a journalist who has investigated this topic and seen the evidence/ spoken to sources etc.

"A new cover story for TIME magazine takes a deep dive into what we know now, connecting the dots of how, why and how far they went. It’s titled “Inside the Secret Plan to Stop Vladimir Putin’s U.S. Election Plot.” And the author, TIME magazine’s Massimo Calabresi, is here with me now."

Once again, sorry not to get back to you with that link yesterday. Thanks for reminding me.; 7/21/17, 3:19 AM
KittyM said...: @pacwest Hey there! I'm on here too right now, though there are other things I should be doing. OMG so addictive, as I said.

Yes, I do realise that I will be in the minority here. But that's exactly *why* I want to be here: to present other arguments and to hear a different side from people who really mean it. I was very moved and inspired by an extract from John Stuart Mill which I read recently about the need to hear arguments from all sides, passionately argued by true believers.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

I was also persuaded by talk immediately after the election about the "bubble"; the idea that we are all talking only to people who share our views. It seems pretty "bubbly" in here, but so far I have noticed three voices - Chuck, Unknown, and TTR - who express views more in line with my own. I'll keep going.; 7/21/17, 3:38 AM
KittyM said...: @pacwest One more thing. "You realize by now that you are in a minority here, so there will be a lot comments directed towards you, some quite vitriolic, and very little agreement with your positions. It's why blog comments tend to be echo chambers. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a constant stream of abuse."

It's strange how difficult and strange it is to be on the receiving end of just a bit of aggression so far here. I mean, I don't know anyone IRL here so really why should I care what anyone says? But you're right that it's actually quite unpleasant, surprisingly so.

But I think I should persevere for a bit.; 7/21/17, 3:44 AM
Mutaman said...: "Trump wants progress. How can anyone oppose progress?"

when it involves breaking the law.; 7/21/17, 5:21 AM
Chuck said...: Birkel said...
That is the same Mueller that never bothered to investigate the IRS scandal in which Americans were deprived their Constitutional rights by a coordinated effort of government employees, right?

That's a lie.

Under Mueller, the FBI did begin an investigation. In September, 2013, Mueller retired as Director. The investigation continued. It was concluded the following year, with an announcement that while the investigation remained open, they were not referring any charges to the Justice Department. Mueller was gone before that report was prepared.

I'm with you on a couple of points; I do not understand how there weren't a number of criminal prosecutions coming out of that scandal. I do not understand how Lois Lerner was not indicted. But as to those questions, I expect that there are solid answers. Unsatisfying (to me) answers, perhaps. But I don't expect that 100 or so FBI agents all conspired to cover up crimes within the IRS.; 7/21/17, 7:18 AM
Chuck said...: Birkel said...
...
President Bush should have pardoned Scooter Libby.

Yes; agreed. "Commutation" was not enough. Not nearly enough. I'd have liked a full pardon, complete with a scathing report from an office like the White House Counsel or the Office of Legal Counsel on Libby's complete lack of wrongdoing.; 7/21/17, 7:25 AM
Paco Wové said...: KittyM: Links are always appreciated,especially if you can HTML format them.

As regards the broader topic, I suppose the reasons the Russkies-are-hacking! thing doesn't bother me as much as it does you are: 1) it's nothing new; this has been a long-term and growing problem as other countries become more sophisticated in their cyber-warfare capabilities (as an aside, I work for a well-known multinational corporation, and I've been told by our IT people that cyber-espionage attempts against the company are relentless, increasing, and have been since at least 2010), and 2) I see no evidence that it materially affected the election.

One thing that is unusual about this, assuming the Russkies did indeed do it, is that the Russian government (and presumably Putin) apparently have such an animus against Hillary Clinton. I guess that "reset" button backfired in more ways than one.; 7/21/17, 7:31 AM
LakeLevel said...: A thought just occurred to me. The day will come soon when left wing billionaires of the tech and non-tech variety (think Google, Bezos, Soros) will have the power to unleash artificial intelligence bots for political purposes. These things could quickly overwhelm political discourse, creating the need to ban them from discussions. Well Kitty, are you a human? Prove it. You seem to not quite be able to pass the Turing test.; 7/21/17, 8:11 AM
KittyM said...: Paco Wové: I appreciate your two points about why you are less "aarrrrggghhhh" than me on the Russian issue. And I agree with you on both: I'm sure you're right that cyber-warfare has been a thing now for while and I agree with you that Trump might have won anyway.

Or at least, to the last point, I think that Trump certainly would have persuaded millions of voters to vote for him even without the DNC email scandal. So if, like me, you think he is not a good choice for president, you have to struggle and think about that fact and not dismiss it with the idea that if Russia hadn't meddled, then maybe Hillary would have squeaked in. Do you know what I mean? Another example would be Brexit, which I personally think is an idiotic decision for the UK. It would have been better if the vote, which was pretty tight, had gone the other way. But even if it had, I would have had to deal with the fact that so many people voted for Brexit.

But back to Russia: even though I agree with your two points, I simply cannot get over my "Arrrgghh" nor do I want to. In that interview that I linked to above, the journalist explains that Russia's first objective was to create mistrust of our democratic system. That is the true endgame. And that is scary, we should really all rally around to guard against that and defend our precious democratic institutions. Already, many posters here have lost faith in the system. So we can see that Russia had some success already.; 7/21/17, 8:15 AM
Birkel said...: No, it's not a lie that Mueller performed no investigation of the IRS.

Your perception of Mueller is akin to the Bush joke in which he went around the White House looking for WMD. Yes, technically, Bush looked for WMD. But nobody confused that with anything serious.

Mueller looked by asking people who said "nothing here" and he accepted it. He is a Swamp Creature. Like Comey.; 7/21/17, 8:23 AM
Birkel said...: Russia accomplished he goal by getting Leftists to attack the institutions they pretend to defend. And I am supposed to care about Russia by freaking out.; 7/21/17, 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Drago: Oh yes. The standard lefty "I don't know anything about that obvious stuff that everyone else knows so we can just pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't matter so I can return to my talking points".

Again, pretty standard lefty tactics.

Never attribute to sophisticated trollery what can be explained by naïveté.

Don't you know any people in real life, Drago? The stuff Kitty posts is pretty standard for millions of well-meaning people, who most certainly aren't slick lying operatives with an agenda. I think she's perfectly sincere in her belief that, for example, "European leaders" are champions of press freedom, and perfectly honest in her expressions of ignorance about the appalling lack of free-speech rights in the Western countries that she thinks are models of non-authoritarian government.

It may drive me crazy that somebody doesn't recognize a plate of codswallop when her face is rubbed in it, but I don't think she's dishonest thereby. I think that because I know lots of lots of people irl like that. And they blank out and pass over information that they can't fit into their currently existing world view because that's what people do. People's maps of what's going on in the world don't change because someone provides them with a link that refutes or affirms this or that random fact, because political viewpoints are systems, not indices of facts. It's not just a matter of running a search-and-replace in the ol' mental catalogue. The whole system has to be re-jiggered, and that is usually a very gradual process.; 7/21/17, 8:43 AM
Paco Wové said...: "it with the idea that if Russia hadn't meddled, then maybe Hillary would have squeaked in."

I know that is a very common idea, but I don't see the mechanism. How did "Russian meddling" change the vote? I see and hear lots of dark intimations like this, but in the causal chain "Russia meddles" --> "B" --> "Trump wins" what is "B"? Somebody please spell it out for me.

"Russia's first objective was to create mistrust of our democratic system."

That I can readily believe. But surely that mistrust has been growing steadily since at least 2000, regardless of what Russia does or doesn't do. Mistrust in the democratic process in this country has far, far more to do with the behavior of elected officials, the major political parties, and the judiciary in this country than it does with foreign influence (which is nothing new, either).; 7/21/17, 8:51 AM
Birkel said...: Angel-Dyne,

Respectfully, when somebody says they've been reading Althouse for some while but only recently got the courage to comment and proclaim they do not know what concern trolling is -- while being very concerned and displaying no understanding of Althouse's own points on matters -- it's quite reasonable to disbelieve each of those things.

This is a low trust environment.

Further, the type of people you describe read Althouse and decide to start commenting on a regular basis? I'm not saying it never happens, I'm saying it's a less likely alternative than standard issue concern trolling.

The people I know who think as you describe, and there are lots, don't frequent political sources AT ALL. To a person that is true.; 7/21/17, 9:13 AM
grackle said...: To KittyM: Thanks for that link to the Politico article. I find it interesting that it confirms my theory that Obama knew about the Russian tampering for years but never stopped it because the tampering was understood by Obama to be against Obama’s opponents.

As for the “serious evidence” link … I’m still not sure of your meaning when you write, “Yes it is. Or rather …” Either the NPR article is what you were referring to by “serious evidence” or it is not. Would it be too much to ask for an answer that is not ambiguous?; 7/21/17, 9:24 AM
KittyM said...: @Paco Wové - "I know that is a very common idea, but I don't see the mechanism. How did "Russian meddling" change the vote? I see and hear lots of dark intimations like this, but in the causal chain "Russia meddles" --> "B" --> "Trump wins" what is "B"? Somebody please spell it out for me."

Oh, I only mean that the emails that were leaked probably worked against the Democrats in the election with some voters. In other words, some voters who might otherwise have voted for Hillary didn't after the email scandal broke. That's all.

"But surely that mistrust has been growing steadily since at least 2000, regardless of what Russia does or doesn't do. Mistrust in the democratic process in this country has far, far more to do with the behavior of elected officials, the major political parties, and the judiciary in this country than it does with foreign influence (which is nothing new, either)."

And to this, too, I'm gonna have to say I agree in so far as the mistrust and frustration has been growing (see Tea Party) and seen around the world. People all over are fed up with establishment and ripe for a "strong man" of some sort.

But unlike you, I think that is precisely what makes Russia's meddling so dangerous. That people are open to being manipulated and open to the message that democracy doesn't work, everyone is corrupt, what's the point.. etc etc etc.

And I still think there is a MASSIVE difference between living in the US and living in Russia and the rule of law and our love for democracy is the difference. So anything that moves us away from that should be opposed vigorously. Just saying, as you seem to be, "Oh well, that's just how it is, been like that for ages" is not good enough imo. And yes, maybe we should have done more, earlier. But then is then, now is now. If we have only just woken up to the danger now, surely it's still better late than never when it comes to defending our freedoms.; 7/21/17, 9:44 AM
grackle said...: I don't quite know how to answer satisfactorily. I am not a member of the intelligence community. But the news that has been published for months now says that there is a consensus in the Senate, the House, the CIA etc etc that Russia did these things.

Some advice for the commentor: You don’t have to be “a member of the intelligence community,” to recognize bullshit.

Tip: Look to see if the stuff you read is based on unnamed or anonymous sources, you know, like most of the articles about Trump in the MSM. That have been published for months now. If it is … then that article is bullshit. A really good example of that would be that NPR article you cited. BTW, an answer on my “serious evidence” question would be appreciated. When you get around to it.

As for … … consensus in the Senate, the House, the CIA …if you want to get at the truth of things, never accept consensus over fact. Instead, rely more on sources that are willing to go on record and can be independently confirmed. Look into things a little, instead of swallowing the MSM bait hook, line and sinker.; 7/21/17, 9:53 AM
KittyM said...: @grackle "As for the “serious evidence” link … I’m still not sure of your meaning when you write, “Yes it is. Or rather …” Either the NPR article is what you were referring to by “serious evidence” or it is not. Would it be too much to ask for an answer that is not ambiguous?"

Sorry to be confusing. Again, I didn't mean to be ambiguous; I was trying to be exact. I meant that that interview was my idea of "serious evidence" because I believe what she says about what she knows. But I thought that *you* would probably not consider it "serious evidence" because it is a link to an interview with someone saying what she knows, but it is not a link to the evidence itself. If you see what I mean!; 7/21/17, 9:59 AM
Paco Wové said...: "And I still think there is a MASSIVE difference between living in the US and living in Russia and the rule of law and our love for democracy is the difference."

It's fascinating to see how people can agree on some fundamental axioms, but then depending on their life experiences and exposures go on to quite opposed viewpoints. E.g., I would argue that establishment resistance to Trump's legitimate authority as President, because he is Trump, is a much, much bigger threat to "the rule of law" than anything Russia might have done last year.

"the emails that were leaked probably worked against the Democrats"

You mean, once voters learned more about the Democrats, they lost support? ☺ (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

That's all I have time for now. Thanks for responding.; 7/21/17, 10:16 AM
Birkel said...: An interview by one reporter of another reporter who swears, scouts honor, that the one reporter saw the evidence provided by people who would know (Top Men?) is not evidence.

Here, I'll do the interview myself:
Q: Drago, do you have evidence.
A: Yes I have seen the evidence and it is damning (or exonerating) but my sources wouldn't let me share it with you.
Q: Sounds pretty authentic and damning (or exonerating).
A: Exactly.

Don't let grackle's advice to avoid bull shit get in your way. Very concerned.; 7/21/17, 10:23 AM
Birkel said...: Which policies, specifically, does Putin prefer from Trump, that he wouldn't have gotten from Hillary? And vice versa?

Trump wanted more drilling for oil and natural gas. Hillary wanted less. Which does Putin prefer?

Trump wanted to arm Eastern European allies. Hillary did not want to arm European allies? Which does Putin prefer?

I have given two policies that Putin would strongly prefer Hillary's choice, had she had a chance to make the choice. You give me two substantive policy issues that Putin prefers from Hillary, over Trump.

I would like anybody in the whole wide world to exchange their substantive lists. Oddly none is forthcoming from any quarter.

Smells like bull shit coming from the other side.; 7/21/17, 10:28 AM
Meade said...: Consensus is just another word for the things we choose to feel together.; 7/21/17, 10:54 AM
grackle said...: I meant that that interview was my idea of "serious evidence" because I believe what she says about what she knows. But I thought that *you* would probably not consider it "serious evidence" because it is a link to an interview with someone saying what she knows, but it is not a link to the evidence itself. If you see what I mean!

Yes, I am afraid I Do know what the commentor means ….

The commentor wrote … there is very serious evidence of Russia meddling in the US election to help Trump win.

The commentor now cites an NPR interview as the source for the “serious evidence” she found to be so compelling, that she bases her viewpoint on.

When we read the article we find that the NPR interview is un-sourced. No surprise there. The NPR interview refers to an article published in Time magazine by the interviewee but offers no link to that Time magazine article. Which is typical of NPR’s usual subterfuge.

More advice to the commentor: Do some research before accepting the political conventional wisdom from the MSM. Look to see if the stuff you read is credible. I think you may find that you are left with very little to work with.

… because it is a link to an interview with someone saying what she knows …

But what if “what she knows” is un-sourced bullshit? Are we suppose to take your comments seriously when all you can offer as justification is un-sourced bullshit?

Tip #2: Never make an assertion that cannot be backed up with named sources. Or real, credible, verifiable facts.; 7/21/17, 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: KittyM: And to this, too, I'm gonna have to say I agree in so far as the mistrust and frustration has been growing (see Tea Party) and seen around the world. People all over are fed up with establishment and ripe for a "strong man" of some sort.

No, the last thing "Tea Party" types were looking for was a "strong man". I've been defending you here, Kitty, but I do find your inability to recognize even the crudest propaganda tropes for what they are rather frustrating. For somebody who is all hepped up about "manipulation", you come across as an astoundingly uncritical consumer of information.

But unlike you, I think that is precisely what makes Russia's meddling so dangerous. That people are open to being manipulated and open to the message that democracy doesn't work, everyone is corrupt, what's the point.. etc etc etc.

Entertaining the possibility that one is being manipulated by the "Russia meddling" narrative would be a good exercise in critical thinking, too.

And I still think there is a MASSIVE difference between living in the US and living in Russia and the rule of law and our love for democracy is the difference. So anything that moves us away from that should be opposed vigorously. Just saying, as you seem to be, "Oh well, that's just how it is, been like that for ages" is not good enough imo. And yes, maybe we should have done more, earlier. But then is then, now is now. If we have only just woken up to the danger now, surely it's still better late than never when it comes to defending our freedoms.

No, that isn't what Paco is saying. He is merely pointing out certain facts about life that ought to inform your judgment regarding the news you consume.

But that you misread it so wildly illustrates the real problem some people have with "engaging people of differing viewpoints", which you claim to want to do. (And I think it's a sincere claim.) All your responses hear are essentially straw men, arising from a real inability to get out of your own box of assumptions about the meaning and import of the whole "Russia hacking". Your response to him here is a barrage of assumptions and projections that really have nothing to do with Paco's own stated opinions, or opinions that could be logically inferred from anything he wrote.

In short, you give the impression that you're talking to yourself, and the effect is very strange.; 7/21/17, 10:58 AM
Unknown said...: "I've been defending you here, Kitty, but I do find your inability to recognize even the crudest propaganda tropes for what they are rather frustrating. For somebody who is all hepped up about "manipulation", you come across as an astoundingly uncritical consumer of information.

In short, you give the impression that you're talking to yourself, and the effect is very strange"

Still being fairly polite, too funny. Come on, show your real face.; 7/21/17, 11:59 AM
Unknown said...: I suspect that Kitty thought she could convince the Trumpists here to give her opinions and arguments some credence if she is very polite and politely states her case. Not so Kitty, won't happen. Whatever you say, whatever supporting evidence you provide, no matter how polite you are, or how accurate your sources, they won't believe a thing you have to say. They don't trust mainstream sources. They see the Press as the enemy, as does their leader, Trump. These people mostly are firmly indoctrinated Trumpists, with a few random independent thinkers.; 7/21/17, 12:05 PM
grackle said...: Whatever you say, whatever supporting evidence you provide, no matter how polite you are, or how accurate your sources, they won't believe a thing you have to say.

Absolutely not so in my case. I always defer to “accurate” sources – if of course they ARE actually “accurate.” In the case of KittyM, so far, not a source in sight.; 7/21/17, 12:18 PM
Birkel said...: When the alleged accurate sources with supporting evidence are reporters interviewing other reporters about what unnamed "sources" told them about documents the unnamed "sources" had "seen" we are supposed to take that as serious argument?

Pull the other one.; 7/21/17, 12:46 PM
Unknown said...: Grackle, name some accurate sources.; 7/21/17, 1:11 PM
Birkel said...: Leftists: All truths are relative. Biology is not determinative of anything.

Leftists: There are accurate sources and they are all on the Left.

Choices are for suckers.; 7/21/17, 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Birkel: Respectfully, when somebody says they've been reading Althouse for some while but only recently got the courage to comment and proclaim they do not know what concern trolling is -- while being very concerned and displaying no understanding of Althouse's own points on matters -- it's quite reasonable to disbelieve each of those things.

Obliviousness is a lot more common than you suggest here, Birk. I'm a long-time reader, too, and I'm clueless about the contents of some long-running exchanges and their associated tropes here, because I only dip into threads that catch my interest, and ignore the rest.

This is a low trust environment.

You write as if there's some grave consequence to extending a probationary "trust" to a dishonest agent here. What's she gonna do? Rat us out to the DNC stasi? Gain our trust so she can lure us into a dungeon to be tortured by team of sadistic Lifelong Republicans? (If a concern troll wanted to do some real damage - doxxing, whatever - having not trusted them wouldn't protect you. And bothering to troll you would be entirely unnecessary.)

Bore and annoy us to death? Well, nobody ever took Ritmo or the various Unknown Inga-bot 3000s seriously, and they continue to shit up the threads regardless. Not because anybody "trusted" them, but because some people lack the self-control to just ignore them.

If it transpires that Kitty really is a concern troll, then I'll just dump 'er in the killfile with the other gits. Somebody earlier was portentously asserting that she was trying to "undermine" the forum by "playing dumb" and "asking questions", lol. Oooooh, scary.; 7/21/17, 1:35 PM
Unknown said...: I wonder if Kitty may have thought she could "disarm" folks here, by being polite and offering a reasoned argument. It was inevitable that her innocence/naiveté whould soon be doubted for more sinister motive. Commenters like Kitty threaten the Birkel, Drago, Michael K types because they know if they treat her the same way they treat other Lefties, while she remains poilte, they come off looking like assholes.; 7/21/17, 2:05 PM
Birkel said...: Angel-Dyne,
I offered to take up the Leftist position, honestly and with integrity, if she would only take up the conservative position and we could have a debate that might help her understand the other side more fully. I didn't even get a response.

I'm quite sure you and I could accurately, faithfully and without any snarkiness present the Leftist point of view. It's easy to do as we're surrounded by the Leftist point of view all the time. So it would be a great learning experience if that were truly what KittyM wanted to do. I didn't even get a response.

What's she going to do? Is she going to think that all conservatives are big old meanies because I don't pretend to believe her? If I suspend my disbelief, what have I accomplished. These things cut both ways.

To each, their own. I'm not trying to control you or yours. Not anything of interest, to me, to pretend.; 7/21/17, 3:23 PM
Birkel said...: UnknownInga51,

If you're going to insult me after years of your fellow travelers insinuating that I am part of an insidious plan to murder old people, young people, people of color, women, foreigners and so many other groups, you'll have to do better than ass hole. The thing about insults is that once you call a person all the worst names available there's really just no place left to go. Your side is like a crack addict who just can't smoke enough to recapture the high that came with first calling people who don't follow a collectivist ideology Nazis. You've inoculated us to your insults.

You're crying wolf so often now, and out Give a Damn is busted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o40fwZgSFPI; 7/21/17, 3:31 PM
grackle said...: Grackle, name some accurate sources.

I will – as soon as I make an assertion of fact or a statement of fact. What I won’t be doing is making amorphous, vague anti-Trump declarations that can be shot down by simply asking for a link.; 7/21/17, 7:12 PM