[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2018-July-13, 03:43, said:

I believe that she used to post at Fire Dog Lake back in the day.

Sarah Kendzior retweets her content with some frequency.

Thank you, Richard. Do you have any ideas about the meaning of this part of her article?

Quote

And that realization I had and the government surely also had would have changed the importance of evidence Mueller received via means unrelated to Peter Strzok.

That evidence likely implicates the President directly.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2018-July-13, 08:46, said:

Thank you, Richard. Do you have any ideas about the meaning of this part of her article?

Nope. I saw similar comment made by here last week. Spent 20 minutes or so trying to figure out what she was talking about and then gave up.

[barmar]

y66, on 2018-July-13, 08:30, said:

Guest post from Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

This is exactly what I meant about us being in a post-truth era while Trump is in charge. The nature of his lies is a quantum change from traditional politics. He doesn't just shade the truth, omit unfavorable details, or spin things -- he just makes stuff up and talks total BS.

And it's not just in his speeches. Remember when he signed that executive order to stop separating kids from their parents? I heard that the number actually increased by 50% (from about 2000 to 3000) since that. But it could be just because we didn't have accurate earlier numbers, and the updated number is higher.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-12, 10:22, said:

Another bit of self-delusion, Trump said today "I think they like me a lot in the UK", where on earth does he get that from ? I would suggest the like/hate axis at least 80:20 against him. Is he really being told this by the yes men around him ?

They must love him, they made a blimp of him. We love all the charaters represented as blimps in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade, don't we?

[Aberlour10]

Another fake news by the great leader of the free world lol .He claimed that "Germany is getting 60 to 70 per cent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline" - in reality around 23 per cent of German energy use is from oil and gas imports from Russia.Does he really belive that his mobster methods to pressure Gemany to buy US fracking gas will be successfull?

There were doubts in the german goverment concerning the North Stream 2 pipeline. After this NATO summit and the terrific appearance by Mr Trump, this project will be realized for sure,.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2018-July-13, 08:47, said:

Nope. I saw similar comment made by here last week. Spent 20 minutes or so trying to figure out what she was talking about and then gave up.

From what I've read, it seems to revolve around what is being proposed now, with the U.S. recognizing al-Assad and withdrawing from Syria in exchange for Russian promises to remove Iranians. It makes sense that Russia would want this, but how it helps the U.S. is speculative. Surely, if Kushner, Flynn, and Trump are involved, it has to do with a payoff - but how and why?

The only thing I can think of would be pipeline access, but I really don't know enough about the region to know if that would be a legitimate possibility.

[Winstonm]

Connect the dots.

Rosenstein told Dennison days ago about the indictment.
The indictment specifies that a candidate for Congress asked for and received from the Russians their stolen information.
Out of nowhere, Dennison, a day before the indictment is unsealed, tweets this:

Quote

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump

Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida is one of the finest and most talented people in Congress. Strong on Crime, the Border, Illegal Immigration, the 2nd Amendment, our great Military & Vets, Matt worked tirelessly on helping to get our Massive Tax Cuts. He has my Full Endorsement!

11:02 PM - 12 Jul 2018

Dennison had never before mentioned Gaetz in a tweet.
Was Dennison preemptively trying to support Gaetz because he knows Gaetz is the candidate of the indictment?

(Note: On page 15 and page 16 of the indictment, this is found: "On or about August 16, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Gucifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Gucifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's opponent.")

I suspect whomever the indictment is talking about is in the process right about now of finding a good attorney.

[Winstonm]

A sobering account by Axios of the importance and scope of the latest Mueller indictiment.

Quote

And none of that is even the most alarming, damning news in the filing in U.S. District Court in D.C. Mueller, who personally signed the document, saved that for page 25:

Two of the officers conspired "to hack into the computers of U.S. persons and entities responsible for the administration of 2016 U.S. elections, such as state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and U.S. companies that supplied software and other technology related to the administration of U.S. elections."
And they actually pulled it off: "In or around July 2016, [Russian military officer Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev] and his co-conspirators hacked the website of [an unnamed] state board of elections ... and stole information related to approximately 500,000 voters, including names, addresses, partial social security numbers, dates of birth, and driver’s license numbers."

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2018-July-13, 22:15, said:

Was Dennison preemptively trying to support Gaetz because he knows Gaetz is the candidate of the indictment?

Obstruction of justice?

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2018-July-14, 11:05, said:

Obstruction of justice?

Hard to know. According to a NYT article, the link to which is in the Lawfare article I am posting below, many Congressional Democrats were affected by release of damaging information, so the indictment may not be Gaetz.

Lawfare has an excellent article on the meaning and importance of this current indictment.

Quote

Finally, the factual allegations in this document significantly improve the possibility of criminal conspiracy charges involving Americans. Until this action, there was little indication in the public record that the hacking operation persisted beyond the date the documents were released. While there were questions about whether the Trump campaign participated in some way in coordinating the release of these documents, the presumption based on public evidence was that the hacking scheme—that is, the violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which constituted the most obvious criminal offense—was complete. This left a bit of a puzzle for “collusion” purposes. If the crime was completed at the time the hacking and theft were done, what crime could constitute conspiracy?....This indictment, by contrast, offers a potential factual breakthrough. It tells us that the prior factual premise was wrong: the alleged conduct violating the CFAA continued to occur throughout the summer of 2016. That affects the earlier analysis in two ways. First, it makes clear that the Russians did intend to release the information at the time the hacking occured. Second, and perhaps more important, the indictment alleges that the criminal hacking conspiracy was ongoing at the time individuals in the Trump campaign were in contact with charged and uncharged Russian conspirators, raising the possibility of more straightforward aiding and abetting liability.

[Winstonm]

If you ever wondered what a "non-denial denial" looks like, here it is:

Quote

Asked if Russia had compromising material on the American president, Putin replied, “it’s difficult to imagine utter nonsense on a bigger scale than this. Please disregard these issues and don’t think about this anymore again.

[kenberg]

I have this weird feeling we might be in for a change. Call me crazy, it won't be the first time. Trump goes to Europe and insults everyone in sight, then he goes off to Helsinki to see his BFF Putin.

There was a cartoon book in the 1960s, if anyone can remember the author please tell me. A 6 year old boy, Munro, is drafted and nobody will listen to him, try as he might. He tells them again and again that he is only 6. Eventually he breaks down in tears and a sergeant ridicules him, tell s him he is no soldier he is just being a little child. And then, after these words are spoken, everyone realizes, hey, he is just a little child.

In real life, it seemed there would be no end to Nixon. And then, and it suddenly wen from impossible to obvious, he was gone.Even glaciers move.

There must be, there really must be, Republicans who look at all of this and say "Huh? What the hell?" . Munro was a 6 year old child, and Trump is, well, whatever he is. Munro did not belong in the Army, and Trump does not belong in charge of foreign policy. There have to be other people who can see this, you really don't have to be some elite radical to be a bit worried.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2018-July-16, 12:48, said:

Trump does not belong in charge of foreign policy. There have to be other people who can see this, you really don't have to be some elite radical to be a bit worried.

Trump Sheds All Notions of How a President Should Conduct Himself Abroad

Quote

“No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant,” Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, said in a statement.

John O. Brennan, who served as C.I.A. director under President Barack Obama, said, “Donald Trump’s news conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous.”

Some do. I truly hope many other folks do also.

McCain's statement on Trump's news conference with Putin

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2018-July-16, 14:59

[Winstonm]

Wow, we may be well past the looking glass now, with this news from Daily Kos about the Butina arrest and information.

Quote

31. On October 4, 2016, U.S. Person 1 sent an email to an acquaintance. The email covered a number of topics. Within the email, U.S. Person 1 stated, “Unrelated to specific presidential campaigns, I’ve been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key POLITICAL PARTY 1 leaders through, of all conduits, the [GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION].” Based on my training, expertise, and familiarity with this investigation, I believe that this email describes U.S. Person 1’s involvement in BUTINA’s efforts to establish a “back channel” communication for representatives of the Government of Russia.


We can presume that POLITICAL PARTY 1 is the Republican Party; that’s made clear from the rest of the document. So the question is, which “key leaders” of the Republican Party had secured a “VERY” private line of communication to the Kremlin, in October of 2016?

[johnu]

PassedOut, on 2018-July-16, 14:53, said:

Trump Sheds All Notions of How a President Should Conduct Himself Abroad

McCain's statement on Trump's news conference with Putin

I have criticized Dennison in the past, but in his defense, he remembered the note from his advisors from several months ago

Congratulates Putin On Election Win

and did not congratulate Putin a 2nd time on his recent "election" victory. Well done Dennison.

[hrothgar]

I want to thank the British and their fine tradition of personal vindictive for finally coming up with an suitably appropriate description of our current President: The Butterscotch ***** Gibbon

[hrothgar]

I want to thank the British and their fine tradition of personal vindictive for finally coming up with a suitably appropriate description of our current President: The Butterscotch Shiite Gibbon

[y66]

From Trump's Helsinki Bow To Putin Leaves World Wondering: Why? by Ron Elving at NPR:

Quote

Much of America was watching, and much of the world. And you could hear the question arising from countless places at once:

"What is going on?"

Not once, not twice, but repeatedly the U.S. president refused to demand satisfaction, or an apology, or a promise that such interference would cease. Instead, he said the two nations needed to get along and the probe of Russian interference was getting in the way.

Both countries were responsible for the difficult state of relations between them, Trump said. There was no mention here of Russia invading Crimea and East Ukraine, nor its actions in Syria or aid to Iran or its nerve agent attacks in the United Kingdom.

Then the moment came, in Monday's news conference, for Trump to reveal what the Putin meeting had produced on the issue of Russian interference. Instead, Trump began talking about Hillary Clinton's missing emails and the "brilliant campaign" he had run in 2016 — citing the tally from the Electoral College.

It was as if the need to keep that Election Night feeling alive was greater than the need to deal with the geopolitical situation at hand and defend the international rule of law. Greater also than the need to support NATO and its mission to hold Putin accountable.

And greater than the first commitment of any president to protect the national security and preserve the democracy of the United States.

From the Editorial Board at the NYT:

Quote

Other than according Mr. Putin the honor of a meeting that begins to erase the ostracism he suffered for invading Ukraine, it is hard to see what Mr. Trump accomplished. The two men talked about forging a new treaty to replace the New Start Treaty, which constrains nuclear weapons and is to expire in 2021, and also discussed cooperating on Syria, though they seem to have passed up a chance for concrete action.

There has been no sign that the United States has derived any benefit from Mr. Trump’s obsequiousness toward Mr. Putin, though Mr. Trump himself has now at least gotten a shiny new soccer ball.

It remains a mystery why the president, unlike any of his Republican or Democratic predecessors, is unwilling to call out Russian perfidy. He has no trouble throwing his weight around when he is in the company of America’s European allies, attacking them as deadbeats and the European Union as a “foe,” or when he excoriates the news media as “enemies of the people.” Put him next to Mr. Putin and other dictators, and he turns to putty.

All that’s clear is that a president who is way out of his depth is getting America into deep trouble.

[y66]

From Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

Is President Donald Trump destroying the ability of the U.S. government to function normally at all?

That’s the question Dan Drezner raised in a smart column before the Helsinki summit demonstrated just how badly the administration is running.

I think there are three separate issues here:

One is the White House itself, which is pretty clearly understaffed, with a succession of under- or unqualified people in key posts and, despite some attempts at normalcy when Chief of Staff John Kelly came on board, a strong tendency to revert to chaos. With, as we saw throughout Trump’s European trip, ugly and embarrassing — and dangerous — results. Remember too that we’re only seeing the process failures, but the classic White House job of coordinating the various executive-branch departments and agencies is almost certainly just not getting done, with all kinds of unpredictable results, many of which are scary indeed.

A second is the general failure of the Republican Party to cultivate and train its next generation of party professionals. Some of that preceded Trump; some of it is getting worse as a result of his presidency. It also varies by policy area. In national security and foreign policy, Republicans never did come to terms with the George W. Bush administration’s failure in Iraq. It took Democrats years — and considerable turmoil — to bounce back from Vietnam; Republicans have ignored the problem of having so many of their experts discredited by what happened in Iraq, and that creates a whole different set of problems than purging people did for Democrats. At any rate, it’s hard to see a cadre of Republican professionals emerging from the Trump administration to become the leaders of the next Republican presidency, and it’s not as if Congress is producing a replacement group of governing experts.

Then there’s the deterioration of neutral expertise within the various executive-branch departments and agencies. Drezner has anecdotal evidence that it’s happening, and I’m sure it is. On the other hand, I heard similar stories during Republican administrations (and occasionally Democratic ones) going back to Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. So far, I haven’t seen any systematic evidence of just how bad the problem is. That’s not to make light of the problem; once the U.S. government resumes doing such things as negotiating trade deals, it’s going to need experts that know all the technical details of how to do it. It’s not clear to me so far, however, whether we’re talking about some fairly normal deterioration or a sudden collapse in government capacity.

While liberals clearly have reason to worry about government’s capacity, conservatives — even small-government conservatives — should worry about it, too. It’s as necessary to have expertise to wind down government involvement in any particular task as it is to ramp up that involvement. The idea that chaos and bad government inevitably lead to a demand for less government is simply wrong … as anyone who remembers the electoral consequences of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and a rather large recession could remind us.

Less competent is the new great?

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2018-July-16, 12:48, said:

There was a cartoon book in the 1960s, if anyone can remember the author please tell me. A 6 year old boy, Munro, is drafted and nobody will listen to him, try as he might. He tells them again and again that he is only 6. Eventually he breaks down in tears and a sergeant ridicules him, tell s him he is no soldier he is just being a little child. And then, after these words are spoken, everyone realizes, hey, he is just a little child.

Fake news! The boy was only 4 years old.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054100/

It was written by the celebrated political cartoonist Jules Feiffer, and won the Oscar for Best Short Subject, Cartoon.