A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon

doghouse said:
I'm pretty much the most intellectually honest poster on here.

The problem is your characterization of society is wholly false. The world is as close to a meritocracy as it's ever been, and people are quite upset by this. Of course they can't say that, because we've been told that's the ideal (and for the record I am 100% for meritocracy) and no one want's to admit they aren't that good at stuff.

Our dear departed OfficePants was actually right about one thing, though didn't know why or specifically what about. People are not equal, but it has nothing to do with race, class, creed, nationality or culture. It has to do with ability. Culture can alter outcomes, but it doesn't alter talent. Talented people will succeed given good situations. Non talented people will fail. I'd love to be a NFL MVP Quarterback, but that shit isn't in the cards because I'm not Tom Brady. Life is no different. Some people are good at it and some people aren't. I have employed a lot of people over the years, talent knows no color or society, the good ones come from all walks.

So this whole idiotic elite global cosmopolitans taking everything bullshit myth is fucking retarded. The answer is a lot more simple, you just fucking suck.

(Not you personally, the royal you)

Edit: And it's important to note I'm not anti any particular class unlike the rest of you, working, upper or otherwise. In fact, I'm arguing the opposite.



No, I'm a talent-ist.
Click to expand...
If you gotta say it then it's probably untrue, don't you think? Anyways, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I fully agree with meritocracy as well, however, I do not see how this has anything to do with destroying the local economy, following austerity measures from a central power which do nothing but strangle growth and letting in masses of uneducated, unskilled and often times, barbaric individuals. Yes, I am against giving incentives to failing businesses (see the whole Alitalia fiasco) or helping lazy people who could but chose not to work. Do you have experience in southern Europe? I can assure you we're as far from a meritocracy as you can be.

I partially disagree, there are several differences which are based on race, they range from anatomical ones (different facial structure, bone density, muscle composition, etc.) to mental ones (different IQ distribution, motor patterns, etc.). What you mean by talent is highly relative to the environment, you can be a brilliant entrepreneur, but if you live in the middle of nowhere in the Amazon forest, it makes no difference.

How am I against a particular class? I am opposed to anyone who has an unjust conduct, be it a farmer or a banker.
 
Rambo said:
a publicist calls your kid up and says "hey we've got dirt on your boss' enemy at work". who kid wouldn't go "great!"? this whole thing is so exceptionally stupid.
Click to expand...

You talk about him like he's a five year old. Any sane person would run it by their lawyer first, especially if they're inexperienced. Hell, if I even have the slightest doubt with anything at the office I always run it by compliance and legal first. If I were part of a presidential campaign I'd be even more cautious.
 
Last edited:
InstaHate said:
Depends on who the publicist is. If it is a publicist from a long-time rival foreign power and is explicitly identified as part of an effort of that foreign power to meddle in the election, then any kid with a decent head on his shoulders would back away quickly and maybe report it to the authorities.

That being said, stupidity =/= treason.
Click to expand...

Stupidity can be treason as well. Being an idiot is not a valid legal defence. It's also not a good quality for someone who's advising the leader of your country.
 
Deliberately chosen bad picture, but it looks like this job is taking a physical toll on Kushy. But at least no collo

IMG_2817.webp
 
Has anybody stumbled across alternative explanations of the sentence in the Junior email chain which references the Russian effort to aid Trump? The only interpretation I can think of is that members of the campaign were aware of it and wanted so badly to win that they didn't say anything.
 
InstaHate said:
Has anybody stumbled across alternative explanations of the sentence in the Junior email chain which references the Russian effort to aid Trump? The only interpretation I can think of is that members of the campaign were aware of it and wanted so badly to win that they didn't say anything.
Click to expand...
if you look at this as pay for play oppo research, which ultimately is what i believe it is, then it reads "we've got some dirt to help your campaign."
 
That speaks to the entire exchange (it's clearly opposition research, though it may be inappropriate opposition research), but I am looking for an alternative interpretation of this particular sentence: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump—helped along by Aras and Emin."

Given that Don Jr doesn't react to the knowledge that there is a Russian government effort to help his father, and that Goldstone mentions it so casually, it seems the most obvious interpretation is that Don Jr was already aware of this effort.

I trawled Breitbart, Fox News, and National Review for other ways to interpret that and came up empty handed. I did find an op-ed which argued that even if the Trump campaign were aware of the effort, it isn't a big deal because a) they didn't work with Russia and b) Clinton would have been worse, and if a foreign power was necessary to demonstrate that, so be it.

The kindest interpretation seems to be that Don Jr was the only one in the campaign aware of it and that Kushner and Manafort show up only knowing that someone is offering potentially damaging information about Clinton.

The kindest (reasonable) interpretation is that several members of the Trump camp were aware of a Russian effort to aid Trump's campaign, but that Trump himself was in the dark about it.

The most damning (reasonable) interpretation is that many in the Trump campaign, including Trump, were aware of the Russian effort and wanted to win so badly that they did nothing about it, and at the least Don Jr was willing to take direct advantage of it.

The most damning (but unreasonable) interpretation is that the Trump campaign actively worked with Russia in its efforts.

I suppose one interpretation is that Don didn't notice that sentence and that Goldstone was very careless letting slip the involvement of the Russian government or Goldstone was beginning to try and entrap the Trump campaign by making up a Russian effort to help Trump (still means than Don didn't notice that sentence...actually it was a separate paragraph...when he read it)
 
Not exactly; a line in the Don Jr email chain shifted how I feel about the matter. This sums up my thoughts on it nicely:

http://www.dressedwell.net/threads/the-trump-presidency.2421/page-75#post-201878

I do think that that extra meeting is nothing more than Trump hubris and a desire to provoke. But I also think that there was a successful Russian effort to influence the election (as I have for a while) and that a number of people in the Trump camp, likely including Donald himself, were at least aware of its existence and did nothing to stop it because they so badly wanted to win (this in light of the email chain).
 
Rambo said:
the question here is, how does this differ from other governments interests in effecting the outcome?
Click to expand...

Exactly how is this more toxic or sinister than the money the Saudis gave to Hillary's cause? They're not giving it for free and expect favours in return. They were influencing the election through the power of petro-dollar donations.

We've been through this time and time again, the Democrats and the MSM have nothing left to say, nothing left to offer other than Russians, Russians everywhere!

No one gives a rat's ass about Russia, everyone knows that the issue of our time is whether we will ultimately submit and be fully compliant to Islam or not. All the rest is BS and outside of the legacy media, the Democrats, Trudeau and the traitor political class in Europe, we all know it.

So carry on with the Russian narrative and continue the long march into political obscurity.
 
Rambo said:
the question here is, how does this differ from other governments interests in effecting the outcome?
Click to expand...

Why does it need to differ?

I know that it's fun for people on the left to point out the hypocrisies of the right and for those on the right to point out those of the left, and for all reasonable people eschewing ideological allegiance pointing at the hypocrisies of both. And maybe it is more than fun, but it should not dominate, much less spillover, into our dialogue of the issues about which one side or another is being inconsistent. In other words, Russia's involvement in the election is an entirely separate issue from the way we talk about their involvement and the motivations behind the way we engage with it.

Regardless of who benefits, the involvement of a foreign power in our democratic processes is an issue. The degree with which it is an issue is a product of a number of factors: how effective was the involvement? how direct was the involvement? how complicit were Americans in the involvement? what was the intent behind the involvement? what is our relationship with the foreign power who involved itself? what is the relationship of the foreign power with our allies?

Regardless of the answer to those questions, any interference is bad and should be addressed. How bad, though, depends on the answers.

It is honestly baffling to me that we can't, as Americans, all agree that it isn't good when foreign governments interfere with our elections (though it is deliciously ironic) and that we need to take significant measures to address it. Democrats are too busy trying to ensure that any efforts to address it also include the crucifixion of Trump, and the Republicans are all toeing the Trump line on Russia for fear of his very large contingent of diehard supporters, as well as in response to the general degree of antagonism American politics has devolved to.
 
InstaHate said:
Why does it need to differ?

I know that it's fun for people on the left to point out the hypocrisies of the right and for those on the right to point out those of the left, and for all reasonable people eschewing ideological allegiance pointing at the hypocrisies of both. And maybe it is more than fun, but it should not dominate, much less spillover, into our dialogue of the issues about which one side or another is being inconsistent. In other words, Russia's involvement in the election is an entirely separate issue from the way we talk about their involvement and the motivations behind the way we engage with it.

Regardless of who benefits, the involvement of a foreign power in our democratic processes is an issue. The degree with which it is an issue is a product of a number of factors: how effective was the involvement? how direct was the involvement? how complicit were Americans in the involvement? what was the intent behind the involvement? what is our relationship with the foreign power who involved itself? what is the relationship of the foreign power with our allies?

Regardless of the answer to those questions, any interference is bad and should be addressed. How bad, though, depends on the answers.

It is honestly baffling to me that we can't, as Americans, all agree that it isn't good when foreign governments interfere with our elections (though it is deliciously ironic) and that we need to take significant measures to address it. Democrats are too busy trying to ensure that any efforts to address it also include the crucifixion of Trump, and the Republicans are all toeing the Trump line on Russia for fear of his very large contingent of diehard supporters, as well as in response to the general degree of antagonism American politics has devolved to.
Click to expand...

Besides, Trump is in charge now and can influence the course of the country, Hillary is simply an old unemployed woman at the moment. Investigate Trump first, Hillary later. Or both at the same time if there are enough resources.

Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow

“This is a momentous decision,” said a current official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a covert program. “Putin won in Syria.”

Trump makes the best deals (for Russia):

“People began thinking about ending the program, but it was not something you’d do for free,” said a former White House official. “To give [the program] away without getting anything in return would be foolish.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.3d3038749ea4
 
Last edited:
Monkeyface said:
Besides, Trump is in charge now and can influence the course of the country, Hillary is simply an old unemployed woman at the moment. Investigate Trump first, Hillary later. Or both at the same time if there are enough resources.
Click to expand...
This too. I'd still care, though I'd care less, if a foreign power had backed the loser and the winner did nothing about it. If Clinton had won, I'd be more concerned about her relationship with the DNC during the primaries than I would be Russia's support of Trump, though I would hope that the government would then take steps to address foreign involvement.
 
InstaHate said:
if a foreign power had backed
Click to expand...
i suppose this all revolves around the perception of "backed". to me, the russia story has been completely debunked, and they just keep piling on the horseshit claims that amount to absolutely nothing. the new york times has already retracted the 17 agencies claim. something like 15 states have already come out and said their voting machines are hackable and have been cast. of course, we don't know by whom, or how many times. the die has been cast here. this horseshit npr article on the voting machine hacking is just a bridge too far for me:

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824432/if-voting-machines-were-hacked-would-anyone-know?ft=nprml&f=

the audacity of these russian cunts doing their jobs by breaking our inadequate security during our nation's most important festive ritual.
 
Monkeyface said:
Besides, Trump is in charge now and can influence the course of the country, Hillary is simply an old unemployed woman at the moment. Investigate Trump first, Hillary later. Or both at the same time if there are enough resources.

Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow

“This is a momentous decision,” said a current official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a covert program. “Putin won in Syria.”

Trump makes the best deals (for Russia):
Click to expand...

This is a significant step for peace in the region, it's good for the Syrian people and good for Europe. But of course the odious fake MSM has to spin it with a Russian angle. Contemptible.

Rambo said:
i suppose this all revolves around the perception of "backed". to me, the russia story has been completely debunked, and they just keep piling on the horseshit claims that amount to absolutely nothing. the new york times has already retracted the 17 agencies claim. something like 15 states have already come out and said their voting machines are hackable and have been cast. of course, we don't know by whom, or how many times. the die has been cast here. this horseshit npr article on the voting machine hacking is just a bridge too far for me:

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824432/if-voting-machines-were-hacked-would-anyone-know?ft=nprml&f=

the audacity of these russian cunts doing their jobs by breaking our inadequate security during our nation's most important festive ritual.
Click to expand...

To date, not one shred of evidence has been tabled to support the Russian hacked the election urban myth. Not one! And do you think that if they did have evidence it would not have been leaked by now?

The article includes this classic piece of scare mongering: "While the officials say they see no evidence that any votes were tampered with, no one knows for sure." It's so lame and ties in with the "evidence" on Russian hacking the utterly dead mainstream news runs with constantly: unnamed sources in the intelligence community advised that the Russians could have, must have, definitely did hack, but as there's no evidence we will just have to take these unnamed sources at face value. Innit! Trust us, we're the news!
 
Lord Buckley said:
This is a significant step for peace in the region, it's good for the Syrian people and good for Europe. But of course the odious fake MSM has to spin it with a Russian angle. Contemptible.



To date, not one shred of evidence has been tabled to support the Russian hacked the election urban myth. Not one! And do you think that if they did have evidence it would not have been leaked by now?

The article includes this classic piece of scare mongering: "While the officials say they see no evidence that any votes were tampered with, no one knows for sure." It's so lame and ties in with the "evidence" on Russian hacking the utterly dead mainstream news runs with constantly: unnamed sources in the intelligence community advised that the Russians could have, must have, definitely did hack, but as there's no evidence we will just have to take these unnamed sources at face value. Innit! Trust us, we're the news!
Click to expand...

What? The Russians hacked the DNC, and the emails certainly influenced the election. Hence, election tampering.
 
Rambo said:
i suppose this all revolves around the perception of "backed". to me, the russia story has been completely debunked, and they just keep piling on the horseshit claims that amount to absolutely nothing. the new york times has already retracted the 17 agencies claim. something like 15 states have already come out and said their voting machines are hackable and have been cast. of course, we don't know by whom, or how many times. the die has been cast here. this horseshit npr article on the voting machine hacking is just a bridge too far for me:

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824432/if-voting-machines-were-hacked-would-anyone-know?ft=nprml&f=

the audacity of these russian cunts doing their jobs by breaking our inadequate security during our nation's most important festive ritual.
Click to expand...

By completely debunked, do you mean to say that you believe there was never an effort on Russia's part (despite the Don Jr email chain referencing it), that the Trump campaign was never aware of it (again, despite the email chain), that if they were aware of it, they took steps to stop it (again, despite the email chain), and that the CIA, DHS, FBI, NSA, and DNI retracted their reports concluding that the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC as well as a troll/bot influence campaign or that those two reports were otherwise debunked?

Because otherwise, to me, all of that constitutes a pretty serious problem, largely because there is a good chance it successfully flipped the election (two states Trump won by less than .5%, and 5 by less than 1.5%). This was one of the closest electoral margins in our history (10th?)

Again, coverage of an issue is separate from the issue itself, and what is vexing to me is that one side wants to focus on the extremes of the issue (Trump colluded with Russia, Russia hacked voting machines, Trump is in Russia's pocket) while the other wants to focus on the coverage and treatment of the issue.

Maybe the poor coverage resonates more strongly with you because you are exposed to it more than I am (though I recently added Daily Caller to the list of news sites I like: AP, Reuters, RCP, WSJ, and Politico, with Politico the the most likely to get all sensationalist)? But I do agree that that is an issue in and of itself, and it is one which bothers me, especially as it probably comes at a cost to substantive coverage of other things the WH is doing (good and bad).

Fortunately, there are professionals whose job is to focus on the issue itself, and I am eager for Mueller to finish his investigation.
 
Monkeyface said:
I don't want that crap in my browsing history.
Click to expand...

Why, is someone watching over you to ensure you've been a good citizen and are on message?

InstaHate said:
By completely debunked, do you mean to say that you believe there was never an effort on Russia's part (despite the Don Jr email chain referencing it), that the Trump campaign was never aware of it (again, despite the email chain), that if they were aware of it, they took steps to stop it (again, despite the email chain), and that the CIA, DHS, FBI, NSA, and DNI retracted their reports concluding that the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC as well as a troll/bot influence campaign or that those two reports were otherwise debunked?

Because otherwise, to me, all of that constitutes a pretty serious problem, largely because there is a good chance it successfully flipped the election (two states Trump won by less than .5%, and 5 by less than 1.5%). This was one of the closest electoral margins in our history (10th?)

Again, coverage of an issue is separate from the issue itself, and what is vexing to me is that one side wants to focus on the extremes of the issue (Trump colluded with Russia, Russia hacked voting machines, Trump is in Russia's pocket) while the other wants to focus on the coverage and treatment of the issue.

Maybe the poor coverage resonates more strongly with you because you are exposed to it more than I am (though I recently added Daily Caller to the list of news sites I like: AP, Reuters, RCP, WSJ, and Politico, with Politico the the most likely to get all sensationalist)? But I do agree that that is an issue in and of itself, and it is one which bothers me, especially as it probably comes at a cost to substantive coverage of other things the WH is doing (good and bad).

Fortunately, there are professionals whose job is to focus on the issue itself, and I am eager for Mueller to finish his investigation.
Click to expand...

Have the DNC handed over the computer hard drives and servers to assist in the investigation?
 
Lord Buckley said:
Why, is someone watching over you to ensure you've been a good citizen and are on message?



Have the DNC handed over the computer hard drives and servers to assist in the investigation?
Click to expand...

You never know who might be watching, especially when immigrating.
 
Lord Buckley said:
Have the DNC handed over the computer hard drives and servers to assist in the investigation?
Click to expand...

If I recall, the DNC did not give the FBI access to the hacked servers. They quibbled a bit and eventually agreed on allowing a third party cyber security firm with clearance to do the diagnostics. I think the FBI should have been given direct access, but the DNC is shady AF.

Results of a quick Googling: Crowdstrike did the analysis and diagnostics. FBI was alright with it as they'd had similar arrangements with Crowdstrike. Still, DNC is shady. Had Clinton won, I'd be here talking about the DNC.
 
Last edited:
Monkeyface said:
What? The Russians hacked the DNC, and the emails certainly influenced the election. Hence, election tampering.
Click to expand...
no, someone or something with some russia ties hacked into the dnc servers, along with who knows how many other foreign governments/agencies/players. we never got a report on that last part.
 
InstaHate said:
By completely debunked, do you mean to say that you believe there was never an effort on Russia's part (despite the Don Jr email chain referencing it), that the Trump campaign was never aware of it (again, despite the email chain), that if they were aware of it, they took steps to stop it (again, despite the email chain), and that the CIA, DHS, FBI, NSA, and DNI retracted their reports concluding that the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC as well as a troll/bot influence campaign or that those two reports were otherwise debunked?
Click to expand...
to be clear on this, i believe there was hacking. i believe that some russian something hacked in, whether it was government sponsored or not we don't actually know. i also believe that every other damn country on earth hacked the servers for their own intelligence. are we to assume that just the dastardly ruskies did this to further their nefarious ends but not the chinese or israelis or the british? this seems completely ludicrous to me on its face.

InstaHate said:
Because otherwise, to me, all of that constitutes a pretty serious problem, largely because there is a good chance it successfully flipped the election (two states Trump won by less than .5%, and 5 by less than 1.5%). This was one of the closest electoral margins in our history (10th?)
Click to expand...
i think this is the ultimate crux of your problem here. not the hackers themselves but what the outcome was and whether or not it "influenced the election". i don't think it did. hillary was awful and i think she would have been voted out either way. did it help? maybe. does it matter? ultimately, i don't think it does and i don't think it moved the needle for the overwhelming majority of people. of course we'll never know.
InstaHate said:
Again, coverage of an issue is separate from the issue itself, and what is vexing to me is that one side wants to focus on the extremes of the issue (Trump colluded with Russia, Russia hacked voting machines, Trump is in Russia's pocket) while the other wants to focus on the coverage and treatment of the issue.
Click to expand...
well if we're talking about the issue itself you need to figure out which issue we're talking about so i know which to care about. if its this supposed "russian" collusion, then no. if its how our voting system is completely vulnerable and open to hacking at all? then yes i'm all in on that.
InstaHate said:
Maybe the poor coverage resonates more strongly with you because you are exposed to it more than I am (though I recently added Daily Caller to the list of news sites I like: AP, Reuters, RCP, WSJ, and Politico, with Politico the the most likely to get all sensationalist)? But I do agree that that is an issue in and of itself, and it is one which bothers me, especially as it probably comes at a cost to substantive coverage of other things the WH is doing (good and bad).
Click to expand...
no i honestly haven't been following any of the coverage at all because it got debunked from the get go. all this is fear mongering and a big nothingburger in my eyes.
InstaHate said:
Fortunately, there are professionals whose job is to focus on the issue itself, and I am eager for Mueller to finish his investigation.
Click to expand...
i was listening to john heilmann yesterday (he of the Game Change) books. said he thought the Mueller investigation would last the entire year into next year. your eagerness might have to be put on hold.
 
Monkeyface said:
You never know who might be watching, especially when immigrating.
Click to expand...

I went through that with the missus as she needed to get the penultimate security clearance. They wanted to know everything about me and one of the questions was do you use social media in anything other than your real name? Next question, if so, what pseudonym are you using and what are the websites? So using avatars and pseudonyms are no protection when the intelligence services come calling.

And then there were for 4 or 5 questions on gambling and they were all phrased to capture if in the last 10 years you had firstly been on a gambling website and whether you regularly, or even one time, placed a bet on a gambling website. So that's clearly a sign of degeneracy and selling state secrets to pay off your debt.

I've never gambled online, or otherwise, except at race meetings face-to-face with the horse and the degenerate gamblers who you know that their bet is a sure loser. So you can stack the odds towards your favour. But despite this I figured my status as someone who was not fully compliant with the MSM and the narrative as regards certain subjects might be a showstopper and my wife's career.

Fortunately it wasn't, but it was six months of torture and I started to get quite belligerent towards the end of it as regards my online presence, but ultimately they must have classed me as mostly harmless and just...




InstaHate said:
If I recall, the DNC did not give the FBI access to the hacked servers. They quibbled a bit and eventually agreed on allowing a third party cyber security firm with clearance to do the diagnostics. I think the FBI should have been given direct access, but the DNC is shady AF.
Click to expand...

Indeed they didn't and a possible leaker was murdered with no suspects or progress up until now in capturing the killer.

If you go back to the early posts on this thread, there were two very gung-ho members of the forum who advised they were members of the FBI/US intelligence services who were due to leave/retire, but were staying behind as Gladio operators/agents of common decency to hold Trump to account. They seem to have disappeared without trace(?).

If they were truly representatives of the US secret/intelligence services they are evidence that those services are compromised politically and therefore unfit for the task at hand. I notice they have vanished without further input to the forum. Perhaps they are worried about their jobs? One hopes so.
 
Rambo said:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-hillary-clinton-ukrainian-billionaire-and-g
Click to expand...

I read something similar on the Daily Caller:
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dail...ryone-is-ignoring-about-the-russia-dnc-story/

But I'm going to trust the judgment of the FBI over the judgment of a guy who's nom de plume is Tyler Durdern and of a website which self-identifies as the Huffington Post of the right (though it is a great alternative to Breitbart).

Rambo said:
to be clear on this, i believe there was hacking. i believe that some russian something hacked in, whether it was government sponsored or not we don't actually know. i also believe that every other damn country on earth hacked the servers for their own intelligence. are we to assume that just the dastardly ruskies did this to further their nefarious ends but not the chinese or israelis or the british? this seems completely ludicrous to me on its face.


i think this is the ultimate crux of your problem here. not the hackers themselves but what the outcome was and whether or not it "influenced the election". i don't think it did. hillary was awful and i think she would have been voted out either way. did it help? maybe. does it matter? ultimately, i don't think it does and i don't think it moved the needle for the overwhelming majority of people. of course we'll never know.

well if we're talking about the issue itself you need to figure out which issue we're talking about so i know which to care about. if its this supposed "russian" collusion, then no. if its how our voting system is completely vulnerable and open to hacking at all? then yes i'm all in on that.

no i honestly haven't been following any of the coverage at all because it got debunked from the get go. all this is fear mongering and a big nothingburger in my eyes.

i was listening to john heilmann yesterday (he of the Game Change) books. said he thought the Mueller investigation would last the entire year into next year. your eagerness might have to be put on hold.
Click to expand...

* yeah, I've been prepared to wait a while on Mueller. I am definitely happier with him taking his time with this instead of rushing to any conclusions

* I've always been very clear that I did not think there was any collusion, and that the extent of collusion narrative was exaggerated by the right (the majority of left leaning pundits I came across seemed to believe collusion was unlikely) while at the same time being overplayed by the left (but there were definitely some punting that narrative)

To me, there were two issues:

1. Our electoral process is vulnerable to manipulation and interference. This goes beyond mucking about with votes or voting machines.

2. Our administration is not going to address the primary culprit, Russia, because it is politically inopportune. Now you're skeptical of the US intelligence community, which I'll not begrudge you, so this isn't an issue for you.

And as a result of the DonJr email chain, there is now a third issue:

3. The Trump camp, and probably Trump himself, was aware of a Russian effort to support Trump and undermine Clinton from at least early summer 2016. They did nothing to stop it, or even bring it to the attention of the authorities, and then denied knowledge of it. Maybe Clinton would have done the same (and if she didn't, I'd wager it would be a practical consideration as opposed to one of propriety), but Clinton isn't president; if she were, we'd be having this conversation about Camp Clinton and not Camp Trump.

This isn't impeachable and it isn't collusion, but it is an issue I'd like to see the administration held accountable for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 20 (members: 0, guests: 20)
Back
Top Bottom