This isn't such a fancy dancy issue as that. This is about allegations about interference in an election by a foreign power, something which is a crime in the states. How does this possibly relate to that? Because all these guys (including the president) lied about the fact they had met with the Russian ambassador. Flynn wasn't fired because he met with anyone, but because he lied about it - to the public, and to the vice president.
That's the issue: lies, misdirection, and perjury.
Josh:
There's been sufficient circumstantial evidence to believe that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the information to a third party to disclose. Not only did they have the means, but they had the motive. Which was to defeat Clinton and elect Trump. On whom they may or may not have compromising information and financial leverage.
I think Josh is closer to what "this is about" than lies or perjury. It's about discrediting Trump, implying but not proving he has compromised by a foreign power. Lots of presidents lie and misdirect and very few are impeached for it.
Josh: Regarding your quote above, I would put it to you that to accuse a presidential candidate and/or a recently elected president of being a Russian agent is a serious charge that requires solid evidence. Circumstantial evidence and having a motive isn't enough to convict someone in a criminal trial. It shouldn't be enough to remove a duly elected president from power.
The vast majority of the circumstantial evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC or interfered with the election comes from unnamed sources within the CIA, and redacted, carefully selected leaks to sympathetic reporters at CNN and MSNBC. There is no solid evidence Russia hacked the DNC. There is no solid evidence Russia interfered in the election.
I think Trump is winning the credibility battle with CNN/MSNBC in the eyes of the politically disengaged or nonpartisan Americans. I think he will also win a credibility battle with the CIA. There are a lot of Americans on the left and the right who hate the CIA. If I was an American, I'd be far more worried about CIA interference in the election than Russian.
If Trump is removed from power over this issue, things will get really bad down south, unless the evidence for it is solid and uncontroversial. He made no secret of his desire to "do business" with Russia during the election campaign. The 59 million people who voted for him knew he had contacts in Russia and did business there.
CNN/MSNBC and the DNC are counting on a resevoir of anti-Russian sentiment from the Cold War that they can activate in Americans. But they've spent the last 18 or so years telling Americans to be afraid of terrorists. And to many Americans, Putin/Russia are seen as fighting terrorism. Trump has a lot of rhetorical opportunities here, and his opponents should be careful playing this game.
2 + 2 = 5
Thank you for your viewpoint that is a regurgitation of the propaganda from the US MSM. It is total conjecture with the assumptions being based on a semi-repressed hatred of Russia.
The underlying story from the entrenched "progressives" in the DNC is that before Trump the US was an ideal democracy. This Russia stealing the election nonsense is the flip side of the Republican demands to see Obama's birth certificate. It is partisan crap that passes as news. The US MSM loves to publish half truths spouted by opposing politicians. It keeps the ratings up.
If he's winning the credibility battle, how come his approval ratings are in the toilet. And how come you don't include the New York Times and Washington Post in your CNN/MSNBC cabal. Those are the outlets Trump seeks to discredit because he doesn't believe in a free press. Wants no investigation into his illegalities and lies.
Well, approval ratings are polls, and they were widely off before. But it's just a guess, I could be wrong, and in some ways I hope I am. I'll gladly include the New York Times and (especially) the Washington Post in the CNN/MSNBC cabal. I agree Trump doesn't believe in a free press. But that's not unusual, neither did Obama.
This Russia stealing the election nonsense is the flip side of the Republican demands to see Obama's birth certificate.
Interesting take.
The vast majority of the circumstantial evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC or interfered with the election comes from unnamed sources within the CIA... I think [Trump] will also win a credibility battle with the CIA. There are a lot of Americans on the left and the right who hate the CIA. If I was an American, I'd be far more worried about CIA interference in the election than Russian.
Wikileaks is helping with that with the "Vault 7" leaks that came out on Tuesday. Particularly interesting are the revelations that when the CIA commits cyber attacks they can make those attacks look like they came from a foreign source.
CNN/MSNBC and the DNC are counting on a resevoir of anti-Russian sentiment from the Cold War that they can activate in Americans. But they've spent the last 18 or so years telling Americans to be afraid of terrorists. And to many Americans, Putin/Russia are seen as fighting terrorism.
Remember also in 2012 when Mitt Romney was asked what the greatest threat to the U.S. was, and he said "Russia", only to be mocked by Obama who said the 80's wanted their foreign policy back.
If he's winning the credibility battle, how come his approval ratings are in the toilet.
His approval ratings, while negative, are relatively better than those of his recent presidential opponent and both of the parties. Not surprisingly, HuffPo doesn't track the media's approval rating, but I'd wager heavily it's just as poor.
Hillary Clinton: 40/55 http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-r...
Democratic Party 39/50 http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/democratic-party-favorable-...
Republican Party 37/51 http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/republican-party-favorable-...
Trump 44/50 http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
And unlike the other three, that approval rating has been stable for the last couple of months. The other ones have been getting worse. Regardless, I'm sure we'll have a clearer picture on where Trump's approval rating will go in a few months once he starts doing things and people realize that he (is/is not) (literally Hitler/a Russian agent).
Note that Obama and Bernie Sanders both have much higher approval ratings, at 57/39 and 52/32 respectively.
No, people aren't saying the the U.S. was an ideal democracy before Trump. But many are saying Trump is not equipped to do the job.
But again, that is not what this is about.
Are you suggesting this is false? That Flynn lied to Mike Pence, and Donald Trump assisted in keeping him in the dark about that? That is ultimately why he got fired.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-pence-m...
His job approval is the worst of any president less than two months in since polling began.
To compare it to the birth certificate thing is not only wrong, it is asinine.
Thanks Josh for your pithy and friendly insult. Go suck eggs.
His job approval is the worst of any president less than two months in since polling began.
So were his approval ratings as a presidential candidate. It would be more surprising if his job approval WASN'T the worst of any presidential candidate less than two months in. The point is as much as he's disliked, the people he is butting heads against (Obama excluded) are disliked even more than he is.
We should be clear about this. Trump was not elected by a majority of the popular vote. However hated Clinton, and/or any other Democrat was, they still received more of the popular vote than Trump.
That's their system, and they seem fine with it, but when someone starts talking about how well Trump was loved by the population, remember that he won an Electoral College victory, not a popular vote victory. In fact, of the times that a president has been elected with an Electoral College victory while losing the popular vote, Clinton had the largest margin of popular vote over the winning candidate.
Trumps great popularity doesn't really exist.
Matt Taibbi sums up the dangers for the press in pursuing these stories:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russia-story-is-a-minefield-...
"We have to remember that the unpopularity of the press was a key to Trump's election. Journalists helped solve the billionaire's accessibility problem by being a more hated group than the arrogant rich. Trump has people believing he shares a common enemy with them: the news media. When we do badly, he does well.
Trump calls us "enemies of the people" who purvey "fake news." Together with what vile ex-CNN turncoat Lou Dobbs calls the "global corporatists" who own the major media companies, we are said to comprise the "opposition party."
We can't afford to bolster these accusations of establishment bias and overreach by using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that is happening...
Hypothesize for a moment that the "scandal" here is real, but in a limited sense: Trump's surrogates have not colluded with Russians, but have had “contacts,” and recognize their political liability, and lie about them. Investigators then leak the true details of these contacts, leaving the wild speculations to the media and the Internet. Trump is enough of a pig and a menace that it's easy to imagine doing this and not feeling terribly sorry that your leaks have been over-interpreted.
If that's the case, there are big dangers for the press. If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.
The press has to cover this subject. But it can't do it with glibness and excitement, laughing along to SNL routines, before it knows for sure what it's dealing with. Reporters should be scared to their marrow by this story. This is a high-wire act and it is a very long way down. We might want to leave the jokes and the nicknames be, until we get to the other side – wherever that is. "
What is he saying... keep your head down? Stop doing your job because you are being targetted? That Donald Trump is in any way a source to be believed? If anything the credibility gap is not on the part of the media.
^ Well, I sort of took it as Let's Not Get Too Far Ahead Of The Story, Because If It Doesn't Pan Out Quite As Dramatically As Some People Are Predicting, It's Gonna Bite Us In The Ass.
Which is basically just good advice for journalists, no matter what the story.
