The Day Trump Told Us There Was Attempted Collusion with Russia

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Frank Underwood, Aug 6, 2018.

  1. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    August 5, 1974, was the day the Nixon Presidency ended. On that day, Nixon heeded a Supreme Court ruling and released the so-called smoking-gun tape, a recording of a meeting, held two years earlier, with his chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman. Many of Nixon’s most damaging statements came in the form of short, monosyllabic answers and near-grunts—“um huh,” the official transcript reads, at one point—as he responds to Haldeman’s idea of asking the C.I.A. to tell the F.B.I. to “stay the hell out of” the Watergate investigation. The coverup is clearly of Haldeman’s design. Nixon’s words are simple: “All right. Fine.” Then, “Right, fine.”

    Haldeman’s idea seemed clever. He believed the F.B.I. was close to concluding that the break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate hotel was the work of a C.I.A.-led operation, which had something to do with Cuba and the Bay of Pigs. Nobody would have to actually lie, he seems to suggest—it wasn’t “unusual” for the C.I.A. to warn the F.B.I. to drop an investigation that could harm national security. “And that will fit rather well because the F.B.I. agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that’s what it is. This is C.I.A.”

    Nixon’s strongest statement to Haldeman is, surprisingly, a word of caution. “Don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it,” he says. “Say that we wish, for the country, don’t go any further into this case, period!” When Nixon released the tape, he acknowledged that it would lead to his impeachment. Three days later, he resigned the Presidency.

    Listening to the tape today, it’s hard not to imagine an alternate strategy, one that Nixon’s aide, Roger Ailes—hired at Haldeman’s request—would surely have endorsed. Nixon could have released the tape himself and declared it as proof of his innocence, pointing out that he did, in fact, tell Haldeman not to lie. He could have argued that he didn’t mean “yes” when he said “um huh”—that the transcript should have read “unh-unh,” a clear sign that he was against the whole scheme. Instead of embracing impeachment, congressional Republicans could have supported an effort to do just what Haldeman and Nixon had attempted: end the investigation.

    On August 5, 2018, precisely forty-four years after the collapse of the Nixon Presidency, another President, Donald Trump, made his own public admission. In one of a series of early-morning tweets, Trump addressed a meeting that his son Donald, Jr., held with a Russian lawyer affiliated with the Russian government. “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere,” he wrote. “I did not know about it!”

    The tweet contains several crucial pieces of information. First, it is a clear admission that Donald Trump, Jr.,’s original statement about the case was inaccurate enough to be considered a lie. He had said the meeting was with an unknown person who “might have information helpful to the campaign,” and that this person “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children.” This false statement was, according to his legal team, dictated by the President himself. There was good reason to mislead the American people about that meeting. Based on reporting—at the time and now—of the President’s admission, it was a conscious effort by the President’s son and two of his closest advisers to work with affiliates of the Russian government to obtain information that might sway the U.S. election in Trump’s favor. In short, it was, at minimum, a case of attempted collusion. The tweet indicates that Trump’s defense will continue to be that this attempt at collusion failed—“it went nowhere”—and that, even if it had succeeded, it would have been “totally legal and done all the time.” It is unclear why, if the meeting was entirely proper, it was important for the President to declare “I did not know about it!” or to tell the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to “stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now.”

    The President’s Sunday-morning tweet should be seen as a turning point. It doesn’t teach us anything new—most students of the case already understand what Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner knew about that Trump Tower meeting. But it ends any possibility of an alternative explanation. We can all move forward understanding that there is a clear fact pattern about which there is no dispute:

    • The President’s son and top advisers knowingly met with individuals connected to the Russian government, hoping to obtain dirt on their political opponent.

    • Documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee and members of the Clinton campaign were later used in an overt effort to sway the election.

    • When the Trump Tower meeting was uncovered, the President instructed his son and staff to lie about the meeting, and told them precisely which lies to use.

    • The President is attempting to end the investigation into this meeting and other instances of attempted collusion between his campaign staff and representatives of the Russian government.
    It was possible, just days ago, to believe—with an abundance of generosity toward the President and his team—that the meeting was about adoption, went nowhere, and was overblown by the Administration’s enemies. No longer. The open questions are now far more narrow: Was this a case of successful or only attempted collusion? Is attempted collusion a crime? What legal and moral responsibilities did the President and his team have when they realized that the proposed collusion was underway when the D.N.C. e-mails were leaked and published? And, crucially, what did the President know before the election, after it, and when he instructed his son to lie?

    Earlier on Sunday, Trump wrote another tweet, one that repeated a common refrain: journalists are the enemy of the people. “I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People,” it read. In a way, he did provide a great service. He allowed us to move away from a no-longer-relevant debate about whether or not he and his campaign had done anything wrong. Our nation can now focus on another question: What do we do when a President has openly admitted to attempted collusion, lying, and a coverup?

    Source: https://www.newyorker.com/news-desk...-us-there-was-attempted-collusion-with-russia
     
  2. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    It's no secret that I've been skeptical about aspects of Russia-gate, particularly as it relates to the official narrative of the intelligence community. These are agencies that literally lie for a living, so everything they say is suspect to me. However, this latest revelation from Trump finally proves that his son met with a Russian lawyer for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. This is precisely the type of evidence I've been waiting for. Not only does it prove collusion, it also proves it was covered up. Being the colossal idiot that he is, I'm surprised Trump's just now admitting it. He's so defensive too with his "I didn't know about it" remark. I'm glad he foolishly tweeted that because it leaves no doubt in my mind now.

    As for the email hacks, they clearly need to improve their server security. Also, both parties should be required to make their emails public in the name of transparency. As the saying goes, you can't blackmail an honest man. The DNC was clearly doing things they shouldn't have been either. Collusion and election meddling need to be stopped across the board.
     
  3. Snarky's Ghost

    Snarky's Ghost Soap Chat Oracle

    Message Count:
    4,301
    Trophy Points:
    5,636
    Location:
    Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +5,626
    Member Since:
    September 2000
    Even Haldeman said the Bay of Pigs reference had to do with the JFK assassination --- which is probably why Richard Helms, normally a cool customer, blew up after receiving Nixon's veiled threat about that whole Bay of Pigs "thing" (odd, since the Bay of Pigs had supposedly been publicly known for a decade). Nixon told Haldeman that Erlichman knew all about it.

    And the Watergate burglars in 1972 were a who's who of people who were in Dallas, and even on Dealey Plaza, 9 years earlier.

    Respected Republican Senator Howard Baker admitted years later to 60 MINUTES producer Don Hewitt (who'd also produced the Kennedy-Nixon televised debate in 1960) that he was having lunch one day with Nixon in the White House when Baker suddenly asked Nixon what he knew about the JFK assassination, and Nixon responded without looking up: "you don't want to know." And that was all. Baker said a cold chill went down his spine.

    Good times.

    Nixon and Haldeman in better days which never existed:
    [​IMG]
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Snarky's Ghost

    Snarky's Ghost Soap Chat Oracle

    Message Count:
    4,301
    Trophy Points:
    5,636
    Location:
    Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +5,626
    Member Since:
    September 2000
    JFK Assassination Triggered More Than Kennedy’s Death

    "The government’s failure and refusal to come clean about the Kennedy assassination, among other major traumas to this country, has resulted in this great cynicism, public cynicism about authority in this country and has led to the rise of Donald Trump and the whole notion that you can’t believe establishment media outlets and official voices, authoritative voices.."

    https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/27/jfk-assassination-triggered-kennedys-death/

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    883
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Breezy fragrant vineyards of Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +1,659
    Gender:
    Male
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    As if the Junior's leaked emails ("I love it...! Especially later in the summer...") published over a year ago wasn't sufficient evidence of the true nature of the Trump Tower Treason Meeting. We needed the Dotard to shoot himself in the foot on Twitter to be able to definitively tell.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    I don't recall seeing his leaked emails. I only remember them peddling the lie that it was about Russian adoptions. You're certainly more immersed in the minutia of the case than I am.
     
  7. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    883
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Breezy fragrant vineyards of Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +1,659
    Gender:
    Male
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    Minutia?! It was a critical piece of information that broke 3 days after we learned of the meeting itself and clearly exposed the original lie. Way back in June 2017. Certainly no less of a definitive proof than Donnie Two Scoops shooting his mouth off on social media last weekend, which he can always conveniently blame on a staffer, should push come to shove.

    Idiot Junior ended up leaking the incriminating emails himself on his Twitter feed after The New York Times had called him to ask for comment before they published their story, as if - if he did it himself - he was somehow going to diminish the impact of being exposed as a liar.

    Perhaps one should hold back "skepticism" before they acquaint themselves with the "minutia".

    [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    What can I say? It was a critical piece of information I never saw. Apparently, it got lost in the shuffle among all of the other critical pieces of information that have gone nowhere.

    Unlike some people, I follow more than just Russia-gate 24/7. I got flack for being skeptical of collusion, now I'm getting flack because I didn't see Junior's emails. Whether it be Don Junior's leaked emails or Trump's Twitter statement, does it matter why I believe they attempted collusion? You want me to have an open mind, yet criticize me for something I never saw.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  9. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    883
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Breezy fragrant vineyards of Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +1,659
    Gender:
    Male
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    It wasn't a "critical piece of information" in terms of what it has been able to accomplish regarding bringing people to justice up to this particular moment, but in terms of exposing the true nature of the Trump Tower meeting - the very point of this thread - and it had done so way, way, way back 14 months ago.

    This is something I will never understand. This kind of taking everything that has happened up to this particular point as definitive. And the presenters on cable news networks let Trump loyalists who go on the air to defend him get away with this way too often.

    I recall you doing this already in the summer of 2017, a mere few months into the Mueller probe when I pointed out to you how many years the Watergate took (and this Russia mob-linked international crime syndicate dwarfs that little domestic incident at the Watergate Hotel).

    And especially in a probe where shoes have been dropping left and right, people have been getting indicted and pleading guilty or going on trial. And the momentum shows no signs of abating.

    Getting flack? Criticizing? Can't we ever have a discussion and disagree with each other without instantly taking the disagreement personally? Yes, it gets frustrating when your point is not echoed and affirmed on the board as much as you'd like. But you said yourself in our PM discussion last week "we'll never see eye to eye". So, that's exactly what we're doing here.

    Yes it matters, because we have known they attempted (and most likely conducted) collusion for over 14 months, during which time you posted threads like "Russia Probe Jumps the Shark." Now that you've finally come down from your pedestal and expect credit for something you should've acknowledged a long time ago, you're feeling victimized for not getting it.

    I'm merely saying that if you paid a little more attention to what you now sarcastically dismiss as "minutia" or "critical point that went nowhere" (certainly no more or less of a "minutia" that the sentence in the Trump tweet), perhaps you would be a little more concerned about your house being on fire.

    Your country (and many other countries in the world) are currently under assault by the Russians. It's not a question of "open mind" (the ship has sailed on what those bastards are doing a long time ago), but "open eyes."

    You've raised some valid points. But there is a time and place for that. Standing on the side and making fun of people about the way they hold the hose will not save your house from burning down.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    I guess I should be lynched for missing it then.

    In my case, it's not a defense of Trump. Mueller said Trump is not a criminal target as of now. Of course that can change, but it's not "getting away" with something to point out a fact.

    And I have posted about many of those shoes myself, and even said the charges against people like Manafort, Gates, and Papadopoulos were legitimate.

    I've also said many times that I withhold judgement on each allegation until I've seen the evidence. I didn't see Junior's emails, but I read about Trump's Tweet.

    It's just an observation. Either I'm wrong for my skepticism, or I'm wrong for being late to the party. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

    Down from MY pedestal? What about the pedestal everybody else is on? The one that says it's okay for Dems to enrich themselves through deals with Russian oligarchs. The one that says it's okay for Dems to meddle in their elections. The one that smears a leftist for being at a dinner with Putin, even though other politicians (including Dems) have met with him directly.

    As for the thread about the Russia probe jumping the shark, it was about how many news organizations were relying on hyperbole and sensationalism. Some incredibly disingenuous pundits have even conflated Russian interference with 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, which I find ridiculous. I also posted a thread about how journalists were being fired for posting false Russia stories that had to be retracted. Russia-gate is a ratings grabber, but that doesn't mean all reporting on it has been 100% true. I try to discern between the truth and the bullshit.

    For the most part, I'd say I've kept informed on most of the Russia-gate developments and have even posted about them. And contrary to what you may think, I do think it's important to prevent foreign governments from interfering in any country's elections. But after watching a former CIA Director laugh on Laura Ingraham's show as he admits the US meddles in foreign elections "for a good cause," it has caused me to become a bit jaded on the subject. Not to mention the more violent means of regime change the US implements, which we get away with.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  11. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    While Trump (and Don jr.) have left no doubt as to the intention of the Trump Tower meeting, the origin of the hacked emails isn't nearly as cut and dried.

    And since people now think it's treasonous to question the US intelligence community, here's a former CIA officer turned whistle blower's take on the DNC server scandal:

     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  12. Gabriel Maxwell

    Gabriel Maxwell Soap Chat Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    883
    Trophy Points:
    1,186
    Location:
    Breezy fragrant vineyards of Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +1,659
    Gender:
    Male
    Member Since:
    July 13, 2008
    Oh, no, no, no. Please lynch me for pointing out we've had the breakthrough evidence you hail in the OP for over a year now and it went far beyond a tweet remark. And I see that's already set you off in the familiar territory, but it's a hot Saturday and I'd rather spend it at the swimming pool than in this thread. It takes me too long to come up with responses like the one above, regardless of my English proficiency level. So, in the spirit of not wasting our time - yes, yes, yes, you're right, whatever.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,317
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    The problem wasn't you pointing out that Don Jr's emails verified it over a year ago, it was the condescending way you went about it.

    And as for "familiar territory," I guess I'm supposed to listen to people rattle off my perceived flaws and biases while allowing everybody else to keep their own in check. Good to know.

    I don't need to be told I'm right. I just don't like being talked down to because I was unaware of something, especially by people with their own admitted hangups and biases.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page