Trump gives classified info to russians

Post Reply New Topic

Because I think think a lot of things being said are untrue, incorrect, inaccurate, conflated and exaggerated - regardless of liking or disliking Trump or Russia.

If this was 2003 I would be saying the same thing about the supposed Hussein Bin Laden collusion and Iraq having a secret stockpile of WMD's. That wouldn't be because I was pro-Hussein or pro-Bin Laden or pro-Iraq or an apologist. I would have just thought the whole thing was baloney. There were independent expert analysts who knew all about Hussein and Bin Laden who said the two wouldn't be in collusion with each other based on their ideologies and how they operate and I would have been in agreement with them. There were independent expert analysts saying there was insufficient and incorrect intel that Iraq had a WMD stockpile and I would have agreed with them.

Now when I first heard that Russia had hacked the election, I was alarmed. But when I found out what the details were, I became skeptical. Not because I thought Russia were the good guys and wouldn't do something like that. But because I thought Russia was too sophisticated to operate that way. And there were independent expert analysts of cyber hacking and cyber warfare who said the same thing and explained why it was unlikely and I agreed with them. It wasn't that Russia wouldn't do something like that, it was if Russia did do something like that, they wouldn't have operated that way. It was just too amateurish and sloppy. And I thought the official report on it that was issued by the intelligence community was flimsy and lacked substance.

That's objective deductive reasoning free of feelings for or against Russia.

I think the Trump in collusion with Russia accusations that morphed out of that carries the same pattern. It's simply looking at something and objectively deducing whether it's true or false, likely or unlikely, credible or lacking credibility, regardless of liking or disliking Trump or Russia.

Now take North Korea for example. NK experimenting with nukes is plainly obvious. There's very solid evidence that's what's happening. There isn't a situation where the evidence of this is intangible and based on speculation and conjecture. There aren't all these anonymous sources being cited. No one is saying pertinent evidence can't be divulged that this is happening because it's classified or it would compromise national security and so on. We the public know exactly what North Korea is doing regarding testing nuclear weapons and test launching missiles. I don't think anyone is deputing it whatsoever. I'm sure there is some classified information regarding this that isn't being released. But it's not like the whole thing is classified or vague or insubstantial or based on conjecture and speculation or based on circumstantial or anecdotal evidence.

Now there's one WP member who has expressed fear that what's going on with NK is going to result in WWIII and a nuclear apocalypse and I argued against the likelihood of that happening. Does that make me an apologist for North Korea? No.

I would have argued against a Hussein and Bin Laden alliance and argued against Iraq having a stockpile of WMD's and argued against the US invading Iraq. Would that have made me an apologist for Iraq and Hussein? No.

I don't think that the Kremlin was behind the crude phishing scam email that had "this was us Russians" fingerprints all over it. Does that make me an apologist for Russia? No. It's just using Occam's razor.

I already answered that. Reuters, PBS, CSPAN, NPR, AP, BBC, USA Today, World News. Plus I run stuff through Snopes and Politifact.

Plus I run news sources through tools like https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Now I don't think CNN is all that unreliable or even all that far to the left overall. Except when it comes to Trump.

Being critical of the President is fine. Reuters, PBS, CSPAN, NPR, AP, BBC, USA Today, World News and the like produce articles that are objectively critical of the President. But they don't produce mountains of sensationalist hit pieces because they have a vendetta based agenda like CNN does.

I really don't understand how anyone could consider that reliable.

As a matter of fact, it was CNN and MSNBC that had cast doubt on Bush's WMD bullsh*t.
And considering what I know about Trump who has slandered others, weaseled his way out of paying his workers and contractors, cheated on his taxes, ran confidence scams like Trump University, about how Russian oligarchs are the only people who will lend him money, how he has a boner for strongmen but disdains democratic governments, etc, I have to say, no, I don't believe I was duped about Russia, because Trump fits right in with such a conspiracy.

If the phishing of the DNC was sloppy, have you considered the possibility that it was made to look sloppy? That, and these hackers are hardly Russian intelligence agents, but cutouts who are harder to trace back to Putin. Putin is a spymaster whose business has long entailed using people who can't be traced back to him, as does our own CIA.

I am delighted you aren't to the far right on the issues you've named off. But the fact is, those people who support Trump in my country are the very same people who take the opposite political stance you do.

I think it's extremely likely the sloppiness was intentional, because the sloppiness is what left a trail.

One part of using Occam's razor, is the more assumtions that have to be made, the less likely the possibility.

There are three possibilities.

One is any garden variety hacker from anywhere did it and left a false trail. It's like the only reason there would even be a trail would be to create a false lead.

Or the Kremlin hired some hackers who were too inept to cover their tracks. The hacker agency or whatever you call it was supposedly Fancy Bear (yeah good cover, fancy bear sounds so very Russian). So what's Fancy Bear's operating history? If they're that sloppy would the Kremlin have hired them? If they're not that sloppy, then it wasn't them.

Or it was made to look like a trail leading to Putin so that it would be concluded that Putin set himself up to look guilty on purpose so that the FBI CIA whoever would conclude that wasn't really Putin when it was, but somehow that backfired and Putin making it look like it was Putin actually made it look like it was Putin instead of having the hoped for reverse psychology effect.

As to possibility number one, the entire Iraq having WMD's which lead to the invasion of Iraq and many deaths, was started by one person pulling a prank.

Putin has used hackers as cutouts in his interference against elections in Ukraine, France, Germany, and elsewhere. So why not in America?

Having other similar situations to compare with this one could make a big difference. So I would have to know what the particulars were. I randomly picked France and got this Snopes article. I don't have time to study it now, but here it is: http://www.snopes.com/2017/05/10/french ... sian-hack/

One thing that just crossed my mid though, is if Putin is doing this all over the place, it seems to make him interfering with our election less of a special case to me. Like the idea he did it because of some special relationship with Trump, seems less likely to me if he's done it so many times with other candidates.

That special relationship with Trump has more to do with stroking Trump's ego, and telling him what he want to hear in order to manipulate him. In reality, their bromance is one sided, with Trump being played for a sucker. The whole idea behind all this Russian meddling is to break down Anti-Russian alliances, and replace democratic governments with strongmen who are ultimately answerable to Putin.

That seems more like a disproved rumor considering Trumps actions against Putin's ally Assad by bombing his airbases.
That's a major demonstration of Trump going against Putin. So what's something that stands out showing Trump is doing Putin's bidding?

In fact, Assad had had warning from Trump through Putin to remove all aircraft and other equipment prior to the bombing. If anything, the bombing of the Syrian airfield was more show for the west who disapproved of Assad's attacks on civilians.

Oops, sorry, I must have missed it.

I miss stuff all the time. A couple of days ago I thought one of my posts had been deleted. Nope I just kept missing it in the thread.

Well, at least we don't disagree on everything, but if it's not too much to ask, can you address the question I asked regarding the (very real) encirclement of Russia by forces hostile to it? Why, since 1989/1990 and the absorption of the GDR by West Germany, has it been an almost constant feature in world politics? As an example, why did Barack Obama when he was President, think it to be such a good idea to place a "missile defence shield" as they called it in Poland? The excuse was "to deter Iran, and intercept any missiles coming from that general direction", but as anyone who knows anything at all about geography will be able to tell you, this makes no sense whatsoever. A more logical choice for the interception of missiles coming from Iran, would have been Turkey, which is a) much, much closer to Iran (they actually share a border), and b) actually lies on the path that any such missile would travel on its way to Western Europe. This "defence shield" was CLEARLY aimed at undermining Russia's strategic forces, and thus creating an advantage for the West. It was a destabilising move. What were they thinking?

According to what I read the warning was given so that personnel could be evacuated. And that it was done through military channels using a special (pre-Trump) deconfliction line established for that sort of thing, rather than like Trump personally phoning Putin.

But the question still remains, was the order to have the airbase bombed something Putin wanted Trump to do? And what has Trump done that indicates Putin is controlling him?

Putin was already in charge when Obama had placed those missiles in Poland, I would imagine at Poland's request. It's the man in charge of a country who frightens people, not necessarily just a particular country. There wasn't this sort of fear when Yeltsin was in charge of Russia among their neighbors.