Political Roundtable Part XVIII

[gtn130]

It doesn't matter. The public is misled by virtually every politician. It is why even minor scandals are such big news. For most politicians, if you lose the trust of the people based on a minor scandal, it will be easier for the people to assume you are untrustworthy and may have done even worse things. This is why the drunk driving October surprise on W almost cost him the election.

On the other hand, there are some politicians who are so well understood to be scoundrels, that the public accepts it and doesn't care much about minor skeletons in their closet. Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump are good examples of this.

What??? I'm showing you an example of not only the NYT not reporting on a major Trump scandal, but actually reporting that the scandal doesn't even exist!

On October 31, 2016, The New York Times published an article by Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers indicating that intelligence agencies believed that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was not aimed at electing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.[It was subsequently revealed that multiple United States intelligence agencies were conducting an investigation at the time into possible covert aid from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign. This led to criticism of Times' coverage of the election, and speculation that the Times reporting, and the Lichtblau article in particular, contributed to Trump's victory. On January 20, 2017, the Times published an article by the public editor acknowledging that the Times staff, including the editors and Lichtblau, had access to materials and details indicating that the Russian interference was aimed at electing Donald Trump, contradicting the October 31 article, and stating that "a strong case can be made that the Times was too timid in its decisions not to publish the material it had"

Please, tell me when you find any evidence of Trump coordinating with the Russia campaign in a way that materially influenced the election. Until then, I'm ignoring you.

It doesn't surprise me that Russia preferred Trump over Clinton. It doesn't surprise me that Trump was interested in dirt about Clinton. But it's not a story until Russia gave material aid to Trump in a quid pro quo.

You're moving the goal posts.

You don't need smoking gun evidence to sway an election, as you may have figured out when Wikileaks, a Russian proxy, published stolen emails and pretended it was a scandal

[nate33]

I will say it again and again. We have elections for a reason. Trump won it. Stop trying to overturn this fact. Get a good candidate and beat him in 2020. Use this dirt against him if you like.

What in the Flyin Fuke does this have to do with the election? Next you're going to tell us the earth is flat - get over it. Trump said so, and we elected him. Or something about global warming not existing - nah, you're not that stupid.

I bring up elections because that's how you unseat a president, which is clearly your goal. That's why you brought up the susceptible to bribery stuff. You think this can get him impeached.

You seem to think that investigating whether or not Trump's lawyer paying off a porn star is a technically campaign finance law violation is significant. It's not. It doesn't change anything. It's outright laughable that you are going to focus on campaign finance regulations with the Clintons are worth over $100M thanks to very shady circumvention of campaign finance law over the years. But I'm tired of arguing about it. Go on believing that this time you'll finally get him.

[gtn130]

Hilarious how Nate is using "politicians are bad" as a catch-all justification for everything Trump has ever done, now and in the future.

[gtn130]

When Trump cancels the 2020 election after nuking NK, Nate will be like, "folks, Trump won - everyone knew what they were getting into. Politicians lie!"

[nate33]

What??? I'm showing you an example of not only the NYT not reporting on a major Trump scandal, but actually reporting that the scandal doesn't even exist!

Please, tell me when you find any evidence of Trump coordinating with the Russia campaign in a way that materially influenced the election. Until then, I'm ignoring you.

It doesn't surprise me that Russia preferred Trump over Clinton. It doesn't surprise me that Trump was interested in dirt about Clinton. But it's not a story until Russia gave material aid to Trump in a quid pro quo.

Even if that's all true, aren't you at least a little concerned that Russia made the attempt to influence US elections, and our President has reversed the attempts to punish them for it - especially when it appears they will try to materially influence the next US elections?

No, because they do it all the time. Everybody does it. We do it. Basically, the entire focus of the spy industry is to dig up dirt on other countries and to use that dirt as leverage.

[nate33]

You don't need smoking gun evidence to sway an election, as you may have figured out when Wikileaks, a Russian proxy, published stolen emails and pretended it was a scandal

What evidence do you have that Wikileaks is a Russia proxy?

[Ruzious]

I will say it again and again. We have elections for a reason. Trump won it. Stop trying to overturn this fact. Get a good candidate and beat him in 2020. Use this dirt against him if you like.

What in the Flyin Fuke does this have to do with the election? Next you're going to tell us the earth is flat - get over it. Trump said so, and we elected him. Or something about global warming not existing - nah, you're not that stupid.

I bring up elections because that's how you unseat a president, which is clearly your goal. That's why you brought up the susceptible to bribery stuff. You think this can get him impeached.

You seem to think that investigating whether or not Trump's lawyer paying off a porn star is a technically campaign finance law violation is significant. It's not. It doesn't change anything. It's outright laughable that you are going to focus on campaign finance regulations with the Clintons are worth over $100M thanks to very shady circumvention of campaign finance law over the years. But I'm tired of arguing about it. Go on believing that this time you'll finally get him.

I'm f'g tired of it too - because we have something new every week. By itself, I agree there's nothing impeachable there. But every f'n week there's some f'n shyt that we have to deal with from this gdpos President that you're gleeful about like a little girl in a brand new skirt waving ponpons. So yeah, it's f'n tiresome as hell. Whether or not he can be impeached is irrelevant as far as my saying anything. I'm gonna speak up regardless because I give a f'n shyt.

[closg00]

One more thing about Stormy Daniels, the press is calling it an affair, what really was happening is that Trump was paying her for sex.
Remember this story?
https://nypost.com/2016/10/23/porn-star-says-trump-offered-her-10k-for-sex/

Daniels would not be having sex with DJT for free

[Ruzious]

Please, tell me when you find any evidence of Trump coordinating with the Russia campaign in a way that materially influenced the election. Until then, I'm ignoring you.

It doesn't surprise me that Russia preferred Trump over Clinton. It doesn't surprise me that Trump was interested in dirt about Clinton. But it's not a story until Russia gave material aid to Trump in a quid pro quo.

Even if that's all true, aren't you at least a little concerned that Russia made the attempt to influence US elections, and our President has reversed the attempts to punish them for it - especially when it appears they will try to materially influence the next US elections?

No, because they do it all the time. Everybody does it. We do it. Basically, the entire focus of the spy industry is to dig up dirt on other countries and to use that dirt as leverage.

My God man, that doesn't mean you don't try to stop it.

[gtn130]

You don't need smoking gun evidence to sway an election, as you may have figured out when Wikileaks, a Russian proxy, published stolen emails and pretended it was a scandal

What evidence do you have that Wikileaks is a Russia proxy?

Why are you moving the goal posts again?

Your original claim was that everyone knew exactly what they were getting into with Trump and politicians in general. I showed you that voters were in fact actively being misled by the NYT.


---

But here you go:

Clinton recently called WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a "tool of Russian intelligence," and current CIA Director Mike Pompeo has dubbed it a "hostile intelligence service."

"We assess with high confidence that the GRU [Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate] relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks," the January 2017 intelligence report said. "Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."

One of the first public relationships between Russia and WikiLeaks emerged in April 2012, when the Russian-government funded RT — forced this week to register with the U.S. as a foreign agent — gave Assange his own talk show. Assange, who facing allegations of sexual misconduct made by two Swedish women, fled Sweden and took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in June 2012. The show didn't last long, ending in summer 2012, but it's one of the first public signs of connections between WikiLeaks and Russia. The January 2017 U.S. intelligence report mentions the Kremlin's connection with WikiLeaks through RT.

"The Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks," the report said. "RT's editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media. Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become 'the only Russian media company' to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to 'new leaks of secret information.' RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-wikileaks-become-associated-with-russia/

[Ruzious]

Guys, as fun as this has been... it's taking too much time, and I have work to do. I'm out for a while.

[nate33]

You don't need smoking gun evidence to sway an election, as you may have figured out when Wikileaks, a Russian proxy, published stolen emails and pretended it was a scandal

What evidence do you have that Wikileaks is a Russia proxy?

Why are you moving the goal posts again?

Your original claim was that everyone knew exactly what they were getting into with Trump and politicians in general. I showed you that voters were in fact actively being misled by the NYT.


---

But here you go:

Clinton recently called WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a "tool of Russian intelligence," and current CIA Director Mike Pompeo has dubbed it a "hostile intelligence service."

"We assess with high confidence that the GRU [Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate] relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks," the January 2017 intelligence report said. "Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."

One of the first public relationships between Russia and WikiLeaks emerged in April 2012, when the Russian-government funded RT — forced this week to register with the U.S. as a foreign agent — gave Assange his own talk show. Assange, who facing allegations of sexual misconduct made by two Swedish women, fled Sweden and took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in June 2012. The show didn't last long, ending in summer 2012, but it's one of the first public signs of connections between WikiLeaks and Russia. The January 2017 U.S. intelligence report mentions the Kremlin's connection with WikiLeaks through RT.

"The Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks," the report said. "RT's editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media. Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become 'the only Russian media company' to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to 'new leaks of secret information.' RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-wikileaks-become-associated-with-russia/

I buy that Wikileaks is a "hostile intelligence service" - or hostile to the powers that be within U.S. government at least. And because it is hostile to the power structure of the United States, it makes total sense that Russia would be happy to give Assange a platform. But that's not the same thing as being a proxy for Russia.

[nate33]

Even if that's all true, aren't you at least a little concerned that Russia made the attempt to influence US elections, and our President has reversed the attempts to punish them for it - especially when it appears they will try to materially influence the next US elections?

No, because they do it all the time. Everybody does it. We do it. Basically, the entire focus of the spy industry is to dig up dirt on other countries and to use that dirt as leverage.

My God man, that doesn't mean you don't try to stop it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and stop it. I'm sure we have hundred of spies running around Russia and Eastern Europe trying to get leverage over Putin in the same manner, and I'm sure this leverage game has been going on for 50 years.

What's different this time is that Obama chose to use economic sanctions to fight back, rather than to continue to fight them in the top secret world of blackmail and coercion. Economic sanctions are a level of overt escalation that may or may not be appropriate. I'm not in a position to know. But there is definitely a downside to economic sanctions that could cause other problems with our economy and our relationships with our allies. (Or else, economic sanctions would have been tried long ago.)

My point is that there is nothing new to all this. Politicians are dirty. Spies spy on other countries. What's new is the intentional cherry-picking of specific instances to build a narrative that the Trump campaign is doing something new and sinister. They're not.

[gtn130]

I buy that Wikileaks is a "hostile intelligence service" - or hostile to the powers that be within U.S. government at least. And because it is hostile to the power structure of the United States, it makes total sense that Russia would be happy to give Assange a platform. But that's not the same thing as being a proxy for Russia.

I guess you're conceding your original point, then?

---

Anyway, here is Julian Assange attempting to coordinate Fox News content with Sean Hannity:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange reportedly sent messages to a fake Sean Hannity Twitter account offering "news" on a Democratic senator investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Have some good news about Warner,” he allegedly wrote to Dell Gilliam, a woman from Texas who set up a Twitter profile impersonating Mr Hannity after the Fox News host’s account was temporarily deactivated.

Mr Assange appeared to encourage Ms Gilliam, who named her new Twitter handle @SeanHannity__, to contact him over “other channels” to discuss Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-twitter-sean-hannity-fake-account-democrat-trump-russia-links-mark-warner-senate-a8185496.html

Doesn't seem like Wikileaks is too hostile to the Trump administration

[nate33]

I buy that Wikileaks is a "hostile intelligence service" - or hostile to the powers that be within U.S. government at least. And because it is hostile to the power structure of the United States, it makes total sense that Russia would be happy to give Assange a platform. But that's not the same thing as being a proxy for Russia.

I guess you're conceding your original point, then?

What part of "that's not the same thing as being a proxy for Russia" did you not understand?

Anyway, here is Julian Assange attempting to coordinate Fox News content with Sean Hannity:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange reportedly sent messages to a fake Sean Hannity Twitter account offering "news" on a Democratic senator investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“Have some good news about Warner,” he allegedly wrote to Dell Gilliam, a woman from Texas who set up a Twitter profile impersonating Mr Hannity after the Fox News host’s account was temporarily deactivated.

Mr Assange appeared to encourage Ms Gilliam, who named her new Twitter handle @SeanHannity__, to contact him over “other channels” to discuss Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/julian-assange-twitter-sean-hannity-fake-account-democrat-trump-russia-links-mark-warner-senate-a8185496.html

Doesn't seem like Wikileaks is too hostile to the Trump administration

So?

Wikileaks has a longstanding commitment to expose government corruption and government secrets. This FBI spying on Trump issue is one of the most terrifying examples of the secret power of government being used against a citizen in history. It doesn't surprise me at all that Assange is trying to expose it. And Sean Hannity is one of the few people in the media with the platform and the willingness to give Assange a platform.

[gtn130]

What part of "that's not the same thing as being a proxy for Russia" did you not understand?

I was referring to your point about everyone knowing what they signed up for with Trump. You've abandoned that point even after I called back to it.

So?

Wikileaks has a longstanding commitment to expose government corruption and government secrets. This FBI spying on Trump issue is one of the most terrifying examples of the secret power of government being used against a citizen in history. It doesn't surprise me at all that Assange is trying to expose it. And Sean Hannity is one of the few people in the media with the platform and the willingness to give Assange a platform.

Hahahaha, Ok, buddy.

WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign
The leak organization ignored damaging information on the Kremlin to focus on Hillary Clinton and election-related hacks.

“We had several leaks sent to Wikileaks, including the Russian hack. It would have exposed Russian activities and shown WikiLeaks was not controlled by Russian security services,” the source who provided the messages wrote to FP. “Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.”

The Russian cache was eventually quietly published online elsewhere, to almost no attention or scrutiny.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

Wikileaks, a TRANSPARENCY ORGANIZATION, cares not at all about the Kremlin and their long history of corruption and government secrets! Weird!

[nate33]

Not exactly a well-sourced story there: "According to a source who provided the records."

And I note that Wikileaks responded as follows:

“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant.”

Seems like a reasonable justification for not posting the leaks. You gotta find more evidence than that.

[gtn130]

Not exactly a well-sourced story there: "According to a source who provided the records."

And I note that Wikileaks responded as follows:

“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant.”

Seems like a reasonable justification for not posting the leaks. You gotta find more evidence than that.

Yes, if we ignore literally all other context dating back to 2015, one single article isn't smoking gun evidence. Good stuff, Nate! Always in good faith!

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Yeah-right, he paid out of his own pocket. Let's play can you imagine if Obama did it

This is just proof that the white evangelical are a bunch of hypocrites. People like whats her name in Minnesota talk about how Trump is a "man of God" and that now that he's accepted God in his life as President, everything he's done beforehand doesn't count. As a person who is deeply religious, those people truly disgust me with their hypocrisy.

Fixed that for you.

[stilldropin20]

Nate,

here's what i think. The top of the FBI has a major hard on for Trump right now.

1. They are pissed that he "released the memo" that made many of them look bad.
2. Think about Rod Rosenstein walking into the intel committe and threatening to "release their emails" on all of them.
3. Think about Wray coming out publicly and claiming "sources and methods" would be compromised.
4. When sources and methods were not compromised at all. Everyone already knew about the Fisa and how dirty it was. I wrote about last march on realgm for christ's sake. Worst kept secret in the FBI.
5. Think about Comey's Tweet.
6. Wray released a statement just today expressing "grave concerns" over the R memo to say nothing of the D memo.


1. So the FBI must have leaked this whole thing with Porter as retaliation. Remember, its the FBI that performs the background investigations for security clearances. So its the FBI that held this "dirt" on Trump administration. They purposefully leaked it to make trump look bad.

Then after Trump pretended to not know about it. Wray came out today said that the White house had been previously briefed. And even contradicted the White House's timeline. I mean. Come on, man. Wray is acting in bad faith as a political appointee because he knows Trump can not fire him because Mueller will consider "obstruction."

Talk about tangles the phuck up. The FBI was out to sink him from day one. he let them hang around long enough to launch a phony collusion investigation against him and now have him tripping over obstruction charges at every door he opens. Meanwhile they are deliberately leaking info like this dirt from the previous "Porter" security clearance investigation.

talk about a rock and a hard place. and D's are ready to impeach. All they need is about 25 seats in the house and 7 in the senate. I say 7 because Mccain, Flake, and Corker will happily caucus with D's to impeach and they can likely strum up 2-3 more R's to impeach.

Basically its the 4th quarter. Game 7. He is Lebron. Down 65 to to the GSW to start the 4th quarter. Thats how tight he is being squeezed from all sides right now.

I think he can get through it.

1. He cant lose the House in 2018. His best friends are the house intel committee. House judiciary committee. House oversight committee.
2. His most powerful allies are Nunes, Jim Jordan. and Trey Gowdy. He should promise to nominate 1 of them to FBI director (nunes). Another to AG (Gowdy). And another deputy director or depuity AG (jordan). Dangle that carrot out in front for them in year 2019 for each of them.
3. Obviously they would need to navigate him through all of these trap doors.

But how about Wray? Purposefully contradicting the White house? If the FBI had completed their investigation, if that's true? then why not just deny the security clearance for Porter??

Read on Twitter

One thing is clear and been clear. This FBI is out to sink trump. Even Wray. Wray is a political appointee. Weird that he would be so brazenly defiant. Which means they are all in with either route of "death of a thousand cuts" or worse, "show me the guy and I will show you the crime..." leading to eventual impeachment.

I dont even need to mention main stream media. This road will be tough. Land mines everywhere. Wray, Rosenstein, perhaps Mueller, and lower level FBI are going to leak away and dare trump to fire someone. Just so trump can get walk into another trap. They just dont want this man to Govern.

I will be fine with his presidency if he can do immigration reform and entitlement reform in 2018. Combined with Tax reform and the infrastructure bill that spends money here in the USA instead of on foreign wars, i feel like we covered a lot of ground. even if he is impeached in 2019, I think he would have made his mark. It will be the best 2 years in office for fiscal policy in over 50 years. By far. especially he is gets the wall fully appropriated. Still some work to do but if thats all we get i will be happy enough.

The cherry on top will be if Trump can last at least 4 years and get a stronger AG (like Guiliani) STAT, along with a better FBI director to go after all the Obama deep state hold overs for their 2016 election scandals. Then win re-election in 2020 resign off into the sunset and let professional politicians finish the job--just so CNN will STFU!!! My Gawd, remeber when CNN would cover Obama's kids regularly and fondly. The presidential puppies. At this point, i'm good with Mike Pence (the devil). Anything to shut these phuckers up!!

How do you see this playing thing out?

I'm not quite there yet. I think Rosenstein is compromised and definitely has to go, as did Comey. I'm not convinced about Wray yet.

I'm also fully confident that Trump will get through this. Once the IG report comes out, there's going to be so much evidence of malfeasance within the FBI that Trump will be able to clean house without concern about impeachment. Public opinion is already swinging Trump's way. A February 6th Reuters poll says that 73% of the public believes "members of the FBI and Department of Justice are working to delegitimize Trump through politically motivated investigations.”

The Democrats will never be able to impeach Trump over this, and if they try, it'll only hurt them in the polls.

Re FBI: absolutely. In fact, Trump needs to replace the entire top echelon. He really should have known better. I think he thought Comey was honest or something as if that even matters. Every single president needs strong allies at the AG, FBI, NSA and CIA. You need people in those positions that believe in your vision. Believe in what you ran on. While true they work for the "american people" and not the president, presidents are elected based on campaign pledges and its the will of the people to see those pledges through. And dept head under those directors should also "share the vision." Same for Trump, Obama, and the next president.

Unless Sessions is privately investigating all of this he needs to go with Rosenstein. New aggressive blood is needed that shares Trump's vision.
But
Its definately time to clean house.

Btw, I'm sure you heard...the its coming back to Obama, yates, and Rice. They knew. Of course they knew. it would be derelict of them to not know TBH. If they really suspected trump was conspiring to collude, they had an obligation to inform Obama and Yates. Problem is all the "evidence" was cooked up and bought and paid for by HRC/DNC. Which the CIA also knew. Clapper knew!! OF course he knew. Anyone with half a brain knows that all these people had to know and had to have been sharing info. I mean only the electoin of the next united states president was on the line. lol But like most liars, Clapper, Comey, and yates have their lies all mixed up on various testimony, emails and briefings tweets and media appearances.

Idiots. But they truly thought trump had no chance.

And the american people would not have know any of this if it wasn't for a few thousand people in Michigan and pennsylvania. Wow!! The american people got it right. Phew!!