Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

True, chances are no Russians will face jailtime. But buried in the indictment are mentions of conspiracy with persons "known and unknown to the grand jury". This set of indictments has two purposes: highlight what the Russians did, and tie in any coordination to other targets of the probe. Mueller has internal documents from the troll farm, how he got them is the real story...

It underscores that obstruction of the special counsel is in fact a matter of sedition and treason, as well as an impeachable offense on its face.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It underscores that obstruction of the special counsel is in fact a matter of sedition and treason, as well as an impeachable offense on its face.

I think the criteria for impeachable offenses has already been met. What does this add to it, except for maybe convincing a few more radical centrists that perhaps we did in fact elect a bad man.

[rory_20_uk]

The "political class" would rather put up with a leader they dislike than try to fix a system that might lead to them not, y'know,having the cushy job that they've come to like - and in the meantime, Trump means almost all the rest of them get a free ride.

If the Dems got in, would they start impeachment? Might they too prefer to have Trump wreck as much as possible with the eye on the next major election?

[Beskar]

If the Dems got in, would they start impeachment? Might they too prefer to have Trump wreck as much as possible with the eye on the next major election?

Even though there are grounds for various actions and reprimands on the president, anything happening is next to zero. What will most likely happen is they will simply obstruct him or even.. persuade him to pass some democrat policies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think Beskar is correctly summing up the practical strategy being applied. He doesn't mention that the Dems and progressives are seeking to oust him in the next election, but that really doesn't need much mention as it is obvious. Trump's being an asshat certainly makes this less difficult.

The indictments of Russians for attempting to influence the elections are clear evidence in support of what most of us were sure of from the get go. Trump's public flailings about could have been China and the like during the campaign were his effort to keep the focus on Hillary. Apparently it worked, at least just enough. Did Russian media manipulation make a difference in swaying the minds of some voters? Mayhap.

The indictments, however, do not yet mean that Trump or persons working for him knowingly colluded to get Russian support to beat Hillary. Did the Russians try to do so? Very probably. Would Trump personnel have been dumb enough to be played by them? Very Probably. Knowing collusion? We shall see. That requires evidence of active effort to do so by both halves of the equation.

[Sarmatian]

I skimmed through the indictment, didn't read it thoroughly, but it could be summed up with "much ado about nothing".

There were some people who used faked and/or stolen identities to set up pages on social media. Russian government is not explicitly mentioned. No amounts of money were mentioned, except in one case - 1.25 million $ monthly, but that was not the amount spent but rather monthly budget of an organization that operates in many countries of the world. Even if the entire budget was spent on influencing American elections for two years without spending anything elsewhere and not paying a cent for staff and infrastructure, it's not even 30 million. Double or triple or quadruple that and it is still a drop in the ocean compared to the money spent on the elections by just two candidates.

And, still, even journalists can't draw conclusions and are still sticking with the story "Russia supported Trump" even when the indictment says that the same people who tried to rally support for Trump, also helped promote "not my president" when he won. The goal was never supporting Trump, but promoting political instability. Only now are some picking up on that. The problem is, the mass hysteria created about Russian support for Trump is now proving detrimental to serious discourse on the issue.

New York Times today had an editorial mentioning US meddling in the elections over the world. They had experts counting both overt and covert meddling in various elections since the WW2. They came up with 81 for USA and 39 for USSR/Russia, and at least in my humble opinion, those are quite conservative figures. This is nothing new, this is same old, same old, just digital instead of analog.

When you have mainstream media that's more interested in click bait qualities of an article rather than its substance, you're gonna get stories like this.

[HopAlongBunny]

I think Mueller just started what will be a long road.
The first thing to establish is that interference did occur; done.
Teasing out the threads from that fact will likely be like a dripping faucet.
Short-term it gives Mueller cover; dismissal just hits so many buttons now that its a national security issue.

[Montmorency]

I skimmed through the indictment, didn't read it thoroughly, but it could be summed up with "much ado about nothing".

There were some people who used faked and/or stolen identities to set up pages on social media. Russian government is not explicitly mentioned. No amounts of money were mentioned, except in one case - 1.25 million $ monthly, but that was not the amount spent but rather monthly budget of an organization that operates in many countries of the world. Even if the entire budget was spent on influencing American elections for two years without spending anything elsewhere and not paying a cent for staff and infrastructure, it's not even 30 million. Double or triple or quadruple that and it is still a drop in the ocean compared to the money spent on the elections by just two candidates.

And, still, even journalists can't draw conclusions and are still sticking with the story "Russia supported Trump" even when the indictment says that the same people who tried to rally support for Trump, also helped promote "not my president" when he won. The goal was never supporting Trump, but promoting political instability. Only now are some picking up on that. The problem is, the mass hysteria created about Russian support for Trump is now proving detrimental to serious discourse on the issue.

New York Times today had an editorial mentioning US meddling in the elections over the world. They had experts counting both overt and covert meddling in various elections since the WW2. They came up with 81 for USA and 39 for USSR/Russia, and at least in my humble opinion, those are quite conservative figures. This is nothing new, this is same old, same old, just digital instead of analog.

When you have mainstream media that's more interested in click bait qualities of an article rather than its substance, you're gonna get stories like this.

We've been over this.

1. "Meddling" is not new. This mode of meddling is new, and carries new implications for normal political process.
2.(Fairly productive) Russian attempts to install Russia-friendly right-wing governments throughout the world is alarming in itself, assuming you don't hate America/Western Europe more than anything.
3. US misconduct excuses nothing of Russian misconduct, without reflexively excusing the US misconduct in turn and leaving one flapping in the breeze.
4. We know Russia supported Trump - they supported him for the purpose of creating political instability. Further muddying the waters after the election (continuous since that time, up to now), especially after Trump has his foreign policy maneuvering checked by Congress and media, is a logical and consistent step.
5. Targeted efforts outside legal constraint may be more effective than across-the-board spending in a heavily-monitored organization. As far as full-time employees, the indictment refers to "hundreds" at the IRA while the Clinton campaign maintained 3900-4200 (~900 + ~3000) and the Trump campaign ~900.
6. This story does not relate to the other elements of the Russian effort to undermine the election, and it's rather inelegant to deride them individually as unimpressive if you know the totality is greater.
7. To repeat, we are still under attack, and there is nothing on the public agenda to counter ongoing Russian efforts. It might be easier to acknowledge nonchalance if the government had already taken effective action against the ratf***ing.


If ultimately a concrete and knowing quid-pro-quo is revealed and Trump judged guilty of various crimes, I hope you wouldn't feel the need to point out that it's either not that a big deal since there hadn't (hopefully) been an explicit Trumpian coup attempt, a civil war, or thousands of political dissidents disappeared, or else that we deserve it all for having similarly compromised the leadership of other countries.

[CrossLOPER]

This is nothing new, this is same old, same old, just digital instead of analog.

As mentioned before, it's the mode through which this is being done, rather than whether it's been done before. What we are seeing is that mass manipulation can not only be spread easily and cheaply through social media without physical intrusion, but also automated.

[Montmorency]

I think the criteria for impeachable offenses has already been met. What does this add to it, except for maybe convincing a few more radical centrists that perhaps we did in fact elect a bad man.

Yes, but this restrains Trump's alternatives more than ever. It gives Mueller security. Now it's not just a matter of an "anti-Trump witch hunt", but of national security.



Give me a better metaphor, sports people.

The "political class" would rather put up with a leader they dislike than try to fix a system that might lead to them not, y'know,having the cushy job that they've come to like - and in the meantime, Trump means almost all the rest of them get a free ride.

If the Dems got in, would they start impeachment? Might they too prefer to have Trump wreck as much as possible with the eye on the next major election?

Possibly, but it might short-circuit this loop. We don't need Vichy Democrats.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: