Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in Washington Post

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Xenophon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:50 pm

Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in Washington Post

Post by _Xenophon »

Some of you may have already read it but The Washington Post released an excellent piece today highlighting the rejection of the Russia interference narrative by Trump and what it has meant.

"Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked"

They have laid out the details very meticulously and so there is a lot to go through (I think it will require more than one reading), including some good relationship charts and an excellent timeline for keeping the sequence of events clear in your mind. Most of the information isn't entirely new but this is one of the cleaner compilings of all the information I have seen.

One of the more interesting bits in the piece is that it appears Trump doesn't seem to connect how his actions fuel distrust even among his own party. Essentially his second meeting with Putin at the G-20 secured the 98-2 vote on additional Russian sanctions. He seems completely unable to compromise his way into at least some of the positive things he wants from a US-Russian relationship.

The remark underscored the frustration and disenchantment that have taken hold on both sides amid the failure to achieve the breakthrough in U.S.-Russian relations that Trump and Putin both envisioned a year ago.

As a result, rather than shaping U.S. policy toward Russia, Trump at times appears to function as an outlier in his own administration, unable to pursue the relationship with Putin he envisioned but unwilling to embrace tougher policies favored by some in his Cabinet.

A Pentagon proposal that would pose a direct challenge to Moscow — a plan to deliver lethal arms to Ukrainian forces battling Russia-backed separatists — has languished in internal debates for months.


He is so good at getting the reverse of what he wants sometimes I might almost be convinced that he is reverse-psychologing the country into recognizing Russia as the threat they are.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _MeDotOrg »

From the article:

Told that members of his incoming Cabinet had already publicly backed the intelligence report on Russia, Trump shot back, “So what?” Admitting that the Kremlin had hacked Democratic Party emails, he said, was a “trap.”

As Trump addressed journalists on Jan. 11 in the lobby of Trump Tower, he came as close as he ever would to grudging acceptance. “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” he said, adding that “we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”

As hedged as those words were, Trump regretted them almost immediately. “It’s not me,” he said to aides afterward. “It wasn’t right.”

Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House.

The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president — and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality — have impaired the government’s response to a national security threat. The repercussions radiate across the government.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
_Xenophon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:50 pm

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _Xenophon »

MeDotOrg that was one of the original segments I had thought about pulling forward in the OP. Eventually I cut it and a few others out because there are so many huge chunks worth looking at that my post had become unnecessarily bloated.

The OP article also revived for me the underlying notion that this has been known and understood for quite some time before the election and reminded me of the complicity of the GoP in some ways and the failure by Obama to treat this as a national security issue.In an effort to appear non-partisan Obama did not respond correctly to this and favoring the Party over Country the GoP essentially blocked retaliatory action.

“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.

Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.


Schiff said that the administration’s justifications for inaction often left him with a sense of “cognitive dissonance.”

“The administration doesn’t need congressional support to issue a statement of attribution or impose sanctions,” Schiff said in a recent interview. He said many groups inadvertently abetted Russia’s campaign, including Republicans who refused to confront Moscow and media organizations that eagerly mined the troves of hacked emails.

“Where Democrats need to take responsibility,” Schiff said, “is that we failed to persuade the country why they should care that a foreign power is meddling in our affairs.”
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _subgenius »

"The 80s called...."
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Water Dog
_Emeritus
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _Water Dog »

Last edited by Guest on Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _Chap »

Water Dog wrote:The Russia Collusion story is completely coming apart. It will go down as one of the greatest frauds in the history of humanity.


Right on! I mean, the Donation of Constantine has nothing on it!

But somehow, I think I'll wait to see what comes from Mueller, ya'know? What with Flynn pleading guilty to minor charges and pledging cooperation, an' all? A bit too soon to write him off completely, perhaps?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _MeDotOrg »

Water Dog wrote:An idiotic article based on unsubstantiated gossip from beginning to end, literally from the very first sentence. The Russia Collusion story is completely coming apart. It will go down as one of the greatest frauds in the history of humanity.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an ... tzer-prize

Greenwald is a big backer of Wikileaks and Julian Assange, and is dismayed the United States Justice Department is going after Wikileaks. And Wikileaks has been remarkably one-sided in its criticism of Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton, and Russia v. United States.

Remember what Wikileaks wrote to Donald Trump Jr. on election day:

The Atlantic wrote: “Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do,” WikiLeaks wrote at 6:35pm, when the idea that Clinton would win was still the prevailing conventional wisdom. (As late as 7:00pm that night, FiveThirtyEight, a trusted prognosticator of the election, gave Clinton a 71 percent chance of winning the presidency.) WikiLeaks insisted that contesting the election results would be good for Trump’s rumored plans to start a media network should he lose the presidency. “The discussion can be transformative as it exposes media corruption, primary corruption, PAC corruption, etc.,” WikiLeaks wrote.

I think there is a lot of ground between the Washington Post and New York Times getting a few facts wrong and a vast conspiracy by the media to manufacture news to destroy the Trump Presidency.

There's an old expression: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you.

I think the corollary today is: Just because you think Donald Trump is an idiot doesn't mean you are out to get him. I would submit as evidence his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson or H.R. McMaster. This whole situation is starting to remind be a little bit of the O.J. Simpson case, where Ron Fuhrman's denial of using the n-word became F. Lee Bailey's way to cast doubt over the entire Los Angeles Police Department.

Imagine trying to find a jury pool if Trump were ever to face a trial. How do you say you've never heard of him, or you don't have strong opinions?

When Ronald Reagan was shot, he said to the doctors "I hope you're all Republicans." People talked about Reagan's ability to joke in a situation like that. But behind the joke is a simple truth. Reagan didn't ask the people who had his life in their hands if they were Democrats. Where were all the critics of Robert Mueller when he was appointed to the position? Virtually everyone said he was a fine choice. The application of equal justice under the law is a lot more important to Robert Mueller than the Constitution is to Donald Trump.

I find a bit of irony in all of the questioning of the FBI. During the 60's, the FBI was wiretapping Martin Luther King. J. Edgar Hoover once called future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter "the most dangerous man in the United States." When the FBI starts wiretapping Rush Limbaugh and Bob Mueller calls Clarence Thomas 'the most dangerous man in the United States', let me know.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _EAllusion »

My main criticism of this article is it is remarkably shy about the most natural explanation for Trump's behavior, which is that he welcomes future Russian interference on his behalf in 2018/2020 and/or his campaign participated in Russia's interference attempts in 2016.
_Xenophon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:50 pm

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _Xenophon »

EAllusion wrote:My main criticism of this article is it is remarkably shy about the most natural explanation for Trump's behavior, which is that he welcomes future Russian interference on his behalf in 2018/2020 and/or his campaign participated in Russia's interference attempts in 2016.

I don't disagree, I think most of the explanation of Trump and Co.'s behavior is still technically in the speculative area and they tried to stick primarily to the facts that are widely available now. Frankly most of the best evidence of collusion (if there is any) sits with Mueller now and it is a waiting game.

I thought the purpose of the article was mainly to say, regardless of what you think Trump's involvement is, Russia seriously and legitimately sought to influence the election and the government as a whole is not responding correctly to that. I'm not sure it will win anyone over but that was my take on their goal.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in

Post by _EAllusion »

Xenophon wrote:I don't disagree, I think most of the explanation of Trump and Co.'s behavior is still technically in the speculative area and they tried to stick primarily to the facts that are widely available now. Frankly most of the best evidence of collusion (if there is any) sits with Mueller now and it is a waiting game.


The problem with this interpretation of the article, in my opinion, is that it does throw out motives for Trump such as diplomatic efforts to help buttress against China/Korea, deterrent realpolitik against Russia (!?), Iranian strategy, or his pride not allowing him to admit he won with Russian aide.

This is very generous to Trump given that there's a more obvious, and much more damning explanation that goes unnamed.

I think if you are going to speak to Trump's state of mind at all, which the article does speculate on through quotes about him, then there is a a natural explanation out there with flashing red sirens around it.

I think what happened is that the article is heavily sourced by anonymous people working or who have worked in the whitehouse. That alone is enough to paint a deeply troubling picture, but a side-effect of it is that people in the White House end up giving the most sympathetic picture they can give in their quotes, which Washington Post then runs with.
Post Reply