RussiaGate

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

WaPo: Sessions said he'd consider resigning if Trump fired Rosenstein

Washington (CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions told White House counsel Donald McGahn he would have considered leaving if President Donald Trump fired Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Russia probe, The Washington Post reported Friday.

The Post reported that Sessions called McGahn to glean details of an April 12 meeting that included Trump and Rosenstein, citing a person with knowledge of the call.

In that call, Sessions said he would have considered leaving his job if Trump had fired Rosenstein, according to the source. Another source told the Post, however, that Sessions' comment was less a threat and more an attempt to convey to the White House the difficult position that Trump firing Rosenstein would put him in.

CNN reported on April 12 that the White House was preparing an effort to undermine Rosenstein, who because of Sessions' decision to recuse himself from the investigation is the top authority in the Justice Department on the special counsel probe into Russian election meddling.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/politics/jeff-sessions-rod-rosenstein/index.html

 

[Elixir]

Oh really?
Here it is in your own words:



Maybe you can translate that from your native language in some manner that will tell us how you didn't say what you said.
You appear to be a very dishonest broker in conversation, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the overwhelming doubt, if you can explain why you say something, then tell us it wasn't what you asserted.

I said that US have been sponsoring attacks on Democratic processes in other countries. You are the one being dishonest here.

Buh bye barbie...

Nice fallacy. The most charitable explanation I can muster is that you really believe that's what your words meant in American English. In which case your posts are a waste of time.
Seeya'round the quote blocks..

 

[barbos]

You are completely ignoring the reality of Putin's predicament in the 2011 election. He came close to losing it, and there were election irregularities that may have helped him prevail.

There are always irregularities, especially when you want them to see.

There were widespread demonstrations against him that had nothing whatsoever to do with the US,

Well, that's a question. Russian opposition was funded by State Department at the time.

but he still resented the fact that she, as US Secretary of State, criticized his election.

He resented that US was trying to undermine him and Russia in general. So he undermined the undermineers in return.

Criticism is not meddling by any standard other than his own.

For fuck's sake. It was not just criticism, US has been fermenting revolutions in all Russia's allies at one point or other, flat out buying dictators in russian sphere of influence, lying about their ICBM defense in Europe. NATO moving, Criticism my ass

She broke no Russian laws.

Putin did not break any american law.

So he used Hillary Clinton as a scapegoat to explain the popular revolt against him.

He did not try to scapegoat her. He responded to her in kind. And no, despite to your proclamations, US did still does the meddling.

During the 2016 election in the US, he actively participated in a US presidential election in a way that broke many laws, most recently leading to indictments of Russian citizens by Mueller and additional sanctions by the US government. That went beyond criticism. THAT was meddling.

I am aware of such indictments. no need to appear as if I am not.

See Vladimir Putin's Bad Blood With Hillary Clinton

Surely you understand that, don't you? All you are saying is that everyone behaves badly, so behaving badly is ok.

Yes, that's how I think it works in reality. If you keep pissing someone off, eventually they will react.

Ah, so you still don't understand. I wasn't saying that Putin had no right to be angry and resentful. Nor was I saying he had no right to react. I was saying that he had no right to react in the way he did--by meddling in the US election that went way beyond just criticizing. He was not responding to her in the way that she responded to him.

You really really need to educate yourself on the subject of US undermining democracy when it suits them.

He actually ordered Russian military and intelligence agencies to intervene directly.

Says who?

Not only that, but we now know that he had these agencies intervene in other Western elections, including the Brexit vote and the presidential elections in France.

Says who?

You are so used to hearing this kind of tu quoque justification for bad behavior--a very common method of distraction used forever in Russian propaganda tirades--that you don't see what is wrong with it. Nobody here is trying to defend bad behavior by the US in the past, because we all recognize that it was bad behavior.

No, you don't recognize it at all. You still believe you were right, in fact you are not even aware of the bad behavior. At best you say, "I am sorry" and keep on doing it again and again and again. That's how neocons operate.

I suppose it's useless to point out to you that tu quoque is a logical fallacy, yet you still insist on using it to defend a conclusion. As for being aware of the "bad behavior", you need to be more specific. There was no credible evidence of any US meddling in Russia's 2011 election. No one denies that the US has a history of overthrowing governments it didn't like during the Cold War, as did Soviet regimes. None of that by either side was justifiable behavior.

Yes, it's useless, because it's false.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What is “false”? That tu quoque is a fallacy?

 

[Malintent]

What is “false”? That tu quoque is a fallacy?

It is not so much a fallacy itself as a vehicle for applying an ad hominem fallacy. Tu Quoque (meaning "you too") is the ancient form of "I know you are but what am I".

It can be a logical fallacy on its own when drawing a contradictory conclusion based on the behavior of the person making the claim for which you are rejecting... however the root fallacy of your contradictory claim is still basically ad hominem.

edited to add: "your" being the speaker in general, not a specific poster.

 

[Elixir]

My bad - I should not have used the word "fallacy". The correct word would have been falsehood or lie.

However, I would claim that a government sponsored attack on our Democratic processes is an act of war, dissolving the treaty.

Then US is at war with the half of the World.

Barbos' assertion quoted above is bullshit, plain and simple. I called him on it and he claimed not to have said it, or that he meant something other than what he said. That's why I chose not to engage a dishonest broker in conversation.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What is “false”? That tu quoque is a fallacy?

It is not so much a fallacy itself as a vehicle for applying an ad hominem fallacy. Tu Quoque (meaning "you too") is the ancient form of "I know you are but what am I".

It can be a logical fallacy on its own when drawing a contradictory conclusion based on the behavior of the person making the claim for which you are rejecting... however the root fallacy of your contradictory claim is still basically ad hominem.

edited to add: "your" being the speaker in general, not a specific poster.

I know. Thanks. I was being facetious. Barbos has no idea what Copernicus (or I) was referring to and thus has no idea what he was calling “false.”

 

[Underseer]

There are always irregularities, especially when you want them to see.

Well, that's a question. Russian opposition was funded by State Department at the time.

but he still resented the fact that she, as US Secretary of State, criticized his election.

He resented that US was trying to undermine him and Russia in general. So he undermined the undermineers in return.

Criticism is not meddling by any standard other than his own.

For fuck's sake. It was not just criticism, US has been fermenting revolutions in all Russia's allies at one point or other, flat out buying dictators in russian sphere of influence, lying about their ICBM defense in Europe. NATO moving, Criticism my ass

She broke no Russian laws.

Putin did not break any american law.

So he used Hillary Clinton as a scapegoat to explain the popular revolt against him.

He did not try to scapegoat her. He responded to her in kind. And no, despite to your proclamations, US did still does the meddling.

During the 2016 election in the US, he actively participated in a US presidential election in a way that broke many laws, most recently leading to indictments of Russian citizens by Mueller and additional sanctions by the US government. That went beyond criticism. THAT was meddling.

I am aware of such indictments. no need to appear as if I am not.

See Vladimir Putin's Bad Blood With Hillary Clinton

Surely you understand that, don't you? All you are saying is that everyone behaves badly, so behaving badly is ok.

Yes, that's how I think it works in reality. If you keep pissing someone off, eventually they will react.

Ah, so you still don't understand. I wasn't saying that Putin had no right to be angry and resentful. Nor was I saying he had no right to react. I was saying that he had no right to react in the way he did--by meddling in the US election that went way beyond just criticizing. He was not responding to her in the way that she responded to him.

You really really need to educate yourself on the subject of US undermining democracy when it suits them.

He actually ordered Russian military and intelligence agencies to intervene directly.

Says who?

Not only that, but we now know that he had these agencies intervene in other Western elections, including the Brexit vote and the presidential elections in France.

Says who?

You are so used to hearing this kind of tu quoque justification for bad behavior--a very common method of distraction used forever in Russian propaganda tirades--that you don't see what is wrong with it. Nobody here is trying to defend bad behavior by the US in the past, because we all recognize that it was bad behavior.

No, you don't recognize it at all. You still believe you were right, in fact you are not even aware of the bad behavior. At best you say, "I am sorry" and keep on doing it again and again and again. That's how neocons operate.

I suppose it's useless to point out to you that tu quoque is a logical fallacy, yet you still insist on using it to defend a conclusion. As for being aware of the "bad behavior", you need to be more specific. There was no credible evidence of any US meddling in Russia's 2011 election. No one denies that the US has a history of overthrowing governments it didn't like during the Cold War, as did Soviet regimes. None of that by either side was justifiable behavior.

Yes, it's useless, because it's false.

Wait, are you saying that Putin is an innocent victim of a conspiracy by the State Department?

 

[barbos]

Wait, are you saying that Putin is an innocent victim of a conspiracy by the State Department?

I m saying they are both worthy of each other.

 

[Underseer]

Wait, are you saying that Putin is an innocent victim of a conspiracy by the State Department?

I m saying they are both worthy of each other.

That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

 

[barbos]

Wait, are you saying that Putin is an innocent victim of a conspiracy by the State Department?

I m saying they are both worthy of each other.

That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

It's not her conspiracy. It's neocon conspiracy. She is neocon though.

 

[Malintent]

Wait, are you saying that Putin is an innocent victim of a conspiracy by the State Department?

I m saying they are both worthy of each other.

That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

It wasn't a conspiracy.. it was her in the state department calling for senate to levy sanctions on Russia, that were levied, which the Russians obviously were unhappy at her about. Motive for revenge against her personally.

If Trump was outspoken about sanctioning Russia for this activity or that, and Clinton was all "Putin is a great guy", then Russia would have fucked Trump instead of Clinton... and our houses filled with repugnants would have impeached her the second they found out.

 

[Underseer]

Just in case you guys forgot, Jill Stein also has ties to Russia and was probably a witting or unwitting Russian operative. Now she's refusing to turn over Russia-related documents.

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/russia-jill-stein-senate-intelligence/

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just in case you guys forgot, Jill Stein also has ties to Russia and was probably a witting or unwitting Russian operative. Now she's refusing to turn over Russia-related documents.

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/russia-jill-stein-senate-intelligence/

I weakly agree with Stein/Green Party on this section:

For instance, the committee asked for all communications between the campaign and “Russian media organizations, their employees, or associates” between February 6, 2015, and the present.

Stein’s campaign is willingly providing these.

The committee also asked for communications from the “campaign’s policy discussions regarding Russia” during the same time frame.

Verheyden-Hilliard wrote that the campaign will decline to produce these materials “on the basis of constitutional privilege arising from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” She also wrote that internal campaign communications of this nature are “not pertinent to the subject of Russian interference” in the elections.

I don't know about this section:

The request also calls for “all communications with Russian persons, or representatives of Russian government, media, or business interests, including but not limited to any communications, discussions, or offers related to opposition research, from February 6, 2015 to the present.”

Stein’s campaign told The Intercept that they have already provided to the committee all communications with people affiliated with the Russian government and Russian media, but not with all people of Russian descent.

In the view of the Stein campaign, this is a request that unfairly puts all people of Russian descent under suspicion.

The campaign is adamant that it will “not be disclosing names of persons with whom they have ever communicated, including American political supporters, targeted because they happen to be Russian immigrants or of Russian descent. We reiterate here that the responding parties will not participate in a hunt for identification of persons based on nationality or descent.”

I sort-of think it would be best for the committee to ask about communications with specific people, if they're Americans. If Russian govt officials, she claims to have already given all that. So maybe Mueller's investigation needs to come up with a list of persons of interest who are reasonably suspicious, even if not Russian govt officials, such as even Manafort...anyone in the list of 100 or whatever persons and ask for communications with those persons.

 

[Underseer]

That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

It wasn't a conspiracy.. it was her in the state department calling for senate to levy sanctions on Russia, that were levied, which the Russians obviously were unhappy at her about. Motive for revenge against her personally.

If Trump was outspoken about sanctioning Russia for this activity or that, and Clinton was all "Putin is a great guy", then Russia would have fucked Trump instead of Clinton... and our houses filled with repugnants would have impeached her the second they found out.

Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.

 

[Underseer]

I weakly agree with Stein/Green Party on this section:


I don't know about this section:

The request also calls for “all communications with Russian persons, or representatives of Russian government, media, or business interests, including but not limited to any communications, discussions, or offers related to opposition research, from February 6, 2015 to the present.”

Stein’s campaign told The Intercept that they have already provided to the committee all communications with people affiliated with the Russian government and Russian media, but not with all people of Russian descent.

In the view of the Stein campaign, this is a request that unfairly puts all people of Russian descent under suspicion.

The campaign is adamant that it will “not be disclosing names of persons with whom they have ever communicated, including American political supporters, targeted because they happen to be Russian immigrants or of Russian descent. We reiterate here that the responding parties will not participate in a hunt for identification of persons based on nationality or descent.”

I sort-of think it would be best for the committee to ask about communications with specific people, if they're Americans. If Russian govt officials, she claims to have already given all that. So maybe Mueller's investigation needs to come up with a list of persons of interest who are reasonably suspicious, even if not Russian govt officials, such as even Manafort...anyone in the list of 100 or whatever persons and ask for communications with those persons.

This isn't Mueller requesting the documents. If he requested documents in a way that was unconstitutional, wouldn't the courts stop him?

 

[barbos]

That's not what it sounded like you were saying at all.

It sounded like you were saying that that mean ol' Hilary was running a conspiracy against Putin through the State Department.

This is an interesting twist on the usual "let's talk about Hilary instead" thing.

Do you have any links to provide proving this Hilary conspiracy against Putin?

It wasn't a conspiracy.. it was her in the state department calling for senate to levy sanctions on Russia, that were levied, which the Russians obviously were unhappy at her about. Motive for revenge against her personally.

If Trump was outspoken about sanctioning Russia for this activity or that, and Clinton was all "Putin is a great guy", then Russia would have fucked Trump instead of Clinton... and our houses filled with repugnants would have impeached her the second they found out.

Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.

You have any doubts that US funds or rather funded opposition in Russia?

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.

You have any doubts that US funds or rather funded opposition in Russia?

It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.

Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.

See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?

 

[barbos]

Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.

You have any doubts that US funds or rather funded opposition in Russia?

It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.

Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.

See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?

Here you go again with your ridiculous theories. I did not know that 63% of votes constituted a narrow margin and needed an explanation on the part of Putin. If that's the case then surely Hillary needs an explanation too for her narrow defeat? right? And russian government hackers come very handy at that, right?
The fact is, Putin and Hillary hate each other. I don't know what started it, but that's irrelevant. State Department has been trying to undermine Putin and hence Russia as whole for the most of his tenure, even during Bush who had decent relation with Putin.
So there were two aspects here, neocons who hate Russia and Hillary (neocon as well) extra hates Putin.

 

[Underseer]

Yes, she and many other Americans wanted sanctions and that's why Putin is angry, but the conspiracy theory in question is about Hilary Clinton funding opposition politicians in Russia. That's a little different.

You have any doubts that US funds or rather funded opposition in Russia?

I doubt every fact. If you want to make a claim, you'll have to provide evidence for the claim.

- - - Updated - - -

It is important to note that barbos is working from the position that Putin has articulated since his narrow (some say fraudulent) election victory in 2012. He has always maintained that the US State Department, which was run by Hillary Clinton at the time, "funded" his opposition. In English, however, "funded" implies full financial support rather than just paying into a fund for some NGOs that promoted democracy--a linguistic distinction that is probably lost on barbos. Why is this an important point for Putin? Well, he had gone through a year of very tough public protests, and he needs a narrative to explain why he didn't win by a huge margin. See Sputnik's Putin: US Always Interfered in Russian Elections. Putin considered the NGOs that received some support from the US to be part of his political opposition, since they promote democratic principles such as fair elections.

Of course, the Russian government is allowed to fund nonpartisan NGOs in the US, and its Sputnik news outlet is allowed to publish Russia's positions in the US, even though the US Voice of America is blocked in Russia. Russian officials can attend political rallies in the US, and they even attended official Republican Party events during our 2016 campaign. However, foreigners are prohibited from actually giving material aid to US political parties or engaging in campaign strategy activities. Unlike Russia, the US has never attempted to flood Russia with fake news stories or hacked emails that were intended to change the outcome of an election.

See the Washington Post article Did the United States interfere in Russian elections?

Here you go again with your ridiculous theories. I did not know that 63% of votes constituted a narrow margin and needed an explanation on the part of Putin. If that's the case then surely Hillary needs an explanation too for her narrow defeat? right? And russian government hackers come very handy at that, right?
The fact is, Putin and Hillary hate each other. I don't know what started it, but that's irrelevant. State Department has been trying to undermine Putin and hence Russia as whole for the most of his tenure, even during Bush who had decent relation with Putin.
So there were two aspects here, neocons who hate Russia and Hillary (neocon as well) extra hates Putin.

You never provided proof of your conspiracy theory, while he backed up his claims with evidence.

Arguing about what constitutes a "narrow" victory isn't going to change any of that, and I'm not sure why you thought it would.