Conservatives, let's try a little thought experiment

[com7fy8]

So conservatives, how about we try to conduct this test with the Russia evidence that we have available?

I might be some sort of a conservative, but this does not automatically mean I voted for Donald.

First, I expect a candidate to be an example and leader and role model in how to relate with other people and how to communicate while running for office. If a candidate does not meet this basic qualification, the person can't bribe my vote by, for example, bringing up the economy.

And if a candidate is not effectively defending the lives of unborn Americans . . . end of conversation. If a person does not have the basic character to effectively defend our unborn children, Jesus says, "he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much", in Luke 16:10. And without Jesus, He says > "you can do nothing," in John 15:5.

So, if a person's character is a mess, to begin with, I don't need to spend my attention and time on a lot of details of the mess which a mess produces.

What about how America has been giving all its work to China? This seems to have a way of not getting much public attention, while ones are calling so much attention to Donald and Russia. I would say there has been some amount of collusion and conspiracy and ignoring voters, if so much work and business has gone to China. But this gets how much attention? ?

"Maybe calling attention to Donald and Russia is part of a conspiracy to keep attention away from the issue of how America is trillions in debt and is one the pole of China because China was allowed to buy that debt."

President Barack Obama was in office for eight years, but how much did he do about China? But I understand ones might say that Congress was Republican and they kept Barack from doing all he could. But . . . voters put in Barack and voters put in the Republicans. And the trillions of America's debt, I think I was told, was purchased by China, and this could have been used to obligate America to give work to China.

And, in any case, how does America pay off its debt while work goes to China, and Americans buy Chinese so their money goes to China so it is not available to pay off the debt?

Maybe it is easier to handle an issue about Russia, so attention is kept from the China thing which could be too hard to handle . . . especially if without Jesus "you can do nothing".

Did Conservatives alone choose to add to the trillions of debt? What sort of character makes people able to keep doing this? I suspect this has been the result of both liberals and conservatives; so why act like they are competing?

Let the one without sin cast the first stone? This goes for me; I have my own correction that I need.

 

[Veritas]

As opposed to just both side listening to what their own media tell them, and ignoring anything that disagrees.

Is that why you used Wikipedia, WAPO, NYT, USAToday, etc. as your sources?

 

[Kentonio]

Is that why you used Wikipedia, WAPO, NYT, USAToday, etc. as your sources?

Since when are the NYT and WAPO considered liberal media? And how is Wikipedia even considered a media source in the sense we're talking about here? It's an online encyclopedia for goodness sake, the clues in the name.

 

[HereIStand]

Since when are the NYT and WAPO considered liberal media? And how is Wikipedia even considered a media source in the sense we're talking about here? It's an online encyclopedia for goodness sake, the clues in the name.

The NYT and WAPO are establishment media. Right now, they're part of the anti-Trump media echo chamber.

 

[Kentonio]

The NYT and WAPO are establishment media. Right now, they're part of the anti-Trump media echo chamber.

Ah I see, like if everyone tells you you're acting crazy, it must mean they're all out to get you..?

 

[HereIStand]

Ah I see, like if everyone tells you you're acting crazy, it must mean they're all out to get you..?

More like, as Gore Vidal once noted, in Soviet times, Russians didn't believe what was in Pravda, but Americans believed what was in the New York Times. Looks like it's still the case, at least as far as the American establishment is concerned. Only now the French have joined them?

 

[Kentonio]

More like, as Gore Vidal once noted, in Soviet times, Russians didn't believe what was in Pravda, but Americans believed what was in the New York Times. Looks like it's still the case, at least as far as the American establishment is concerned. Only now the French have joined them?

On how many occasions did Pravda issue apologies and corrections for incorrect reporting? It's one of the key indicators of a legitimate media, a willingness to accept responsibility for mistakes and correct the record. Both WaPo and the NYT are respected globally as legitimate news media (although of course with a pro-American stance). The idea that either is an establishment mouthpiece is laughable.

Just remind me again who Woodward and Bernstein worked for during Watergate when they brought down an establishment President?

 

[Tree of Life]

The idea was that given we life in a time when people are deeply entrenched into partisan views of the world (which we are if we're honest), it would be interesting to try and put yourself in an opposing mindset and try and get a glimpse through the partisanship.

Incidentally, for all the people repeating 'its not a thought experiment!', you're mistaken. A thought experiment is an extremely loose definition of using imagination to investigate things. It's not a cast iron, defined process. If I ask you to imagine you're a liberal and view evidence through those eyes, and ask for someone to provide a conservative version so I can do the same, that very much IS a thought experiment.

Not really. Your conclusion to this "thought experiment" is: "So conservatives, what's your evidence (preferably with some material corroberation, not just 'Trump said..') that makes you truly believe there is nothing to the Russia story?"

So what you've done here is bait people into thinking this will be an interesting exercise, but then simply feed them your arguments and evidence of your view, and then asked them to, in light of your evidence, defend their view with evidence.

 

[HereIStand]

On how many occasions did Pravda issue apologies and corrections for incorrect reporting? It's one of the key indicators of a legitimate media, a willingness to accept responsibility for mistakes and correct the record. Both WaPo and the NYT are respected globally as legitimate news media (although of course with a pro-American stance). The idea that either is an establishment mouthpiece is laughable.

Just remind me again who Woodward and Bernstein worked for during Watergate when they brought down an establishment President?

Establishment mouthpieces is exactly what they are. That they publish corrections doesn't change that.

Nixon was never popular with the establishment. They looked down on him and still do.

 

[Belk]

Since when are the NYT and WAPO considered liberal media? And how is Wikipedia even considered a media source in the sense we're talking about here? It's an online encyclopedia for goodness sake, the clues in the name.

I don't know about WAPO but the NYT has been considered liberal for a long time. That is not to say they are not factual but they support the liberal view of the world.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm a big believer in trying to look at allegations from both sides to try and work out which appears to fit the evidence available. So conservatives, how about we try to conduct this test with the Russia evidence that we have available?

From the Democratic position, the case looks like this:

There have been rumours of financial ties between Trump and Russia for many years. Trump travelled to Russia to try and negotiate a Trump Hotel in Moscow. Trump Jr publicly stated in the past that 'Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.' (A summary from USA Today of previous Trump-Russian ties can be seen here: Donald Trump's ties to Russia go back 30 years)

During the primaries, Trump surprised everyone by suggesting closer ties with Russia. For a Republican party with a strong record of opposition to Russia at both a policy and ideological level, this was extremely unusual. Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort had considerable ties to pro-Russia former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page has long time ties to Russia, including leaving a strategical consultancy firm back in 1998 because of his 'strong pro-Russian stance. Russian intelligence attempted to recruit Page in 2013. He was under (and is still under) US intelligence investigation over those ties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page#Foreign_policy_and_links_to_Russia).

During opposition research into Trump's previous financial dealings, a former British spy hired by a US research company used his Russian connections to dig for information, and discovered substantial claims of links between Russia and Trump, including the existence of 'kompromat', embarrassing material collected by Russian intelligence that could potentially be used to blackmail Trump. The spy and the research agency consulted and provided this information to the FBI and to senior members of the congressional intelligence committee including Republican John McCain. This information was leaked to Buzzfeed and released to the public where is became known as the Steele Dossier. To date, none of the information in the 'dossier' has been publicly disproven. Parts of the dossier have been confirmed with help from UK and Dutch intelligence agencies (U.S. Officials Verify Key “Trump Dossier” Claims with Help from U.K. & Dutch Intelligence Agencies).

June 3rd 2016, Donald Trump Jr is contacted requesting a meeting be held with Russians to discuss potential information damaging to Hillary Clinton. The email reads:
"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump jr responds "Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?".

June 7th, emailed agreement that the information will be delivered by a 'Russian government attourney'. The attourney is Natalia Veselnitskaya who is later confirmed by the Swiss to be a Russian intelligence agent who seperately attempted to recruit a Swiss source.

June 9th, meeting takes place at Trump tower. Participants include Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr, Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin.

July 8th, New York Times breaks the story about the meeting. Trump Jr responds claiming that the meeting was a 'short introductory meeting" about adoption and "not a campaign issue".

July 9th, further information comes out about the meeting concerning Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr admits he went to the meeting expecting information damaging to Hillary Clinton.

July 10th, Sarah Sanders tells the press the President only heard about the meeting in 'the last couple of days'.

July 11th, report shows original July 8th statement by Donald Trump Jr was crafted by the President on Air Force One.

July 13th, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski tells press that he and Trump were at a campaign rally when the Trump Tower meeting took place. No such rally existed on that date.

In August President Obama was briefed in a highly classified report from the CIA director that Russia was attempting to interfere in the election to help elect Donald Trump. Evidence was being provided by allied intelligence agancies that supported the case for Russian interference. A meeting was arranged with the leaders of both parties to discuss the information and what to do about it. Republicans refused to cooperate with any public release, stating they would see it as an attempt to undermine the election (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.cea1ed495af2).

By late September the US intelligence agencies were unanimous in their belief that Russia was interfering in the election. A statement was prepared for public release, stating that "The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations" "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities". This statement was released at 3.30pm on Oct 7th. At 4pm the Access Hollywood story broke, completely drowning out the intelligence agency release.

Desperate to avoid the appearance of partisan interference in the election, President Obama avoided public statement. On October 31st, President Obama contacted President Putin directly via the 'red phone' and informed him that that the US knew about Russia's actions, and warned of serious consequences if they didn't stop. After the election on December 29th, President Obama 'expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals'.

In March 2017 the FBI revealed they had been investigating Russian interference in the election since July 2016 (Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia). Also in March Jeff Sessions is revealed to have had multiple meetings with the Russian ambassador despite denying under oath in his confirmation hearing that he had "been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?". Sessions recuses himself from any involvement in the FBI's Russian investigation. Trump reacts with fury, initially demanding Session's resignation. Sessions writes resignation letter, which is then not accepted by the President.

March 21st 2017, House intelligence committee chair, Devin Nunes receives a phone call and immediately heads to an unscheduled nighttime trip to the White House where he is given information reportedly about intelligence agencies incidentally collecting intelligence on Trump and associates whilst spying on Russian agents.

March 22nd, Devin Nunes holds press conference to announce this information to the press. He then proceeds to the White House (where he got the information) to 'brief President Trump. Minority ranking member of the Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff reveals that Nunes had told him that “most of the names in the intercepted communications were in fact masked.” contrary to his public statements. As news of Nunes midnight trip leaks out, John McCain calls for a select committee stating that “no longer does the Congress have credibility to handle this alone.”

March 23rd, Devin Nunes apologizes to the House Intelligence Committee for his actions in not involving them in the previous days activities. He tells the committee they will see the materials within days. This doesn't happen.

March 24th, Nunes cancels open hearing with James Clapper and Sally Yates. Intelligence committee member Adam Swalwell says “it looks like [Nunes is] running his own intelligence service at this point.”

March 27th, Adam Schiff calls on Nunes to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

March 28th, Lindsay Graham describes Nunes as "running an Inspector Clouseau investigation".

April 6th, Devin Nunes steps down from leadership of Russia investigation due to ethics enquiry over his behaviour. Despite this, he continues to use his intelligence chair powers to subpoena documents and interfere with the investigation. (A Brief Timeline of Devin Nunes' Odd White House Ties)

May 2017, Trump fires Comey, initially blaming Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation despite previously having publicly praised Comey for the same (F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump). Trump then tells reporter Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of 'the Russia thing'. In a meeting with the Russian ambassador Trump stated "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." (Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation).

Trump used a memo he had requested from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein laying out reasons for firing James Comey as justication for the firing. Rosenstein reportedly threatened to quit if his memo was used in this way as he felt he was being used as a scapegoat. After the Comey firing, Rosenstein responds by appointing Robert Mueller as Special Counsel with the brief to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”. Mueller's appointment is greeted with wide bi-partisan support, including Rep Jason Chaffetz tweeting "Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted."

Mueller constructs a team including top experts in a wide range of criminal fields including money laundering, financial crimes and organized crime.

August 3rd 2017, Mueller impanels a grand jury. The grand jury issues subpoenas including Rinat Akhmetshin (participant in the Trump Tower Donald Jr meeting), Manafort spokeman Jason Maloni, Sam Clovis and Carter Page.

October 3rd, former Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos is charged and pleads guilty to lying to the FBI. Agrees to cooperate in a plea agreement.

October 27th, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his assistant Rick Gates are charged with crimes including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal and false statements.

November 30th, former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn charged with lying to the FBI and agrees to cooperate in a plea agreement. Flynn has been widely alleged (along with his son) to have plotted with the Turkish government to kidnap dissident cleric Fethullah Gülen from the US and return him to Turkey in exchange for $15m.

January 2018, Devin Nunes writes a memo claiming that the FBI "may have relied on politically motivated or questionable sources" to obtain a FISA warrant during early stages of the Russia investigation. Despite most members of the intelligence committee not having been able to view the materials his claims are based on, the intelligence committee votes on partisan lines to release the memo to the full House after members agree to sign an NDA. Various Republican House members demand in the media that the memo be released publicly. Nunes refuses to allow the FBI/DOJ to provide rebuttal of the claims in the memo.

House Intelligence committee minority ranking head Adam Schiff warns the intelligence committee that the memo contains classified materials that could compromise sources and the national interests. Schiff further asks that the DOJ/FBI be allowed to present to the committee in closed session the reasons why the classified materials should not be released. The committee refuses along partisan lines. Schiff asks that an unconnected agency be allowed to review the dangers of the classified information being released publicly, stressing that the FBI/DoJ had described releasing classified information without consultation to be "extraordinarily reckless". This is again voted down along partisan lines. All Republicans vote no. Finally Schiff asked that the minority rebuttal that sets out why Nunes memo is flawed and misleading be released in parallel with Nunes memo. Republicans on the committee vote that this be delayed by a week. (

So that brings us about to today. Despite this being a lot of words, this is just a very brief summary of the allegations, plus I've avoided where possible including the stuff that has yet to be proven. Alongside the above there are many thousands of documents and investigatory journalist articles backing up or providing some level of corroberation of the above.

This is why to many of us brushing Russia off as a hoax is ridiculous. This isn't a single allegation, this is a vast pattern of otherwise utterly bizarre and nonsensical behaviour on teh part of Trump, his associates and various Republican party leaders that only makes sense within the wider context of the investigation. (http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180129.pdf).

So conservatives, what's your evidence (preferably with some material corroberation, not just 'Trump said..') that makes you truly believe there is nothing to the Russia story?

There is nothing to the Russia story because Russia is not a terrorist sponsored country. They are not the boogyman.

...On the otherhand, it's okay for liberals to copycat the politics of Central and Western Europeans. To talk to them is ok.

Why?

 

[Landon Caeli]

People, liberals and conservatives alike, even fancy the idea of visiting China. Can we talk to the Chinese, or is that illegal too?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Personally, I don't like Russia, or even some Russians I've personally met. But I don't think it should be illegal to communicate with them.

 

[Kentonio]

Not really. Your conclusion to this "thought experiment" is: "So conservatives, what's your evidence (preferably with some material corroberation, not just 'Trump said..') that makes you truly believe there is nothing to the Russia story?"

So what you've done here is bait people into thinking this will be an interesting exercise, but then simply feed them your arguments and evidence of your view, and then asked them to, in light of your evidence, defend their view with evidence.

Not really, the thread just never took off in the way intended. How could I draw a conclusion to anything when other people didn't provide a contrary perspective for me to consider?

 

[Landon Caeli]

In my post I provided you with evidence that Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort met a Russian spy in Trump Tower, based on the assumption that the Russian government could provide them with material damaging to Hillary Clinton. That is direct collusion with Russia. I would be interested to hear your explanation of why you think this is not so.


The Democrats paid a US firm who subcontracted to a British spy to take advantage of his contacts in Russia. They found information that was damaging to both Trump AND the Russian government. Describing that as Clinton 'working with the Russkies' is frankly bizarre.

...So, an illegal Russian spy got past homeland security and entered the country? Did he use an alias? That should have been big news.

Why do you hate "the Russkies" so intensely?

 

[Kentonio]

There is nothing to the Russia story because Russia is not a terrorist sponsored country. They are not the boogyman.

...On the otherhand, it's okay for liberals to copycat the politics of Central and Western Europeans. To talk to them is ok.

Why?

Give me a call when Germany or France try and interfere with your election process.

 

[Kentonio]

...So, an illegal Russian spy got past homeland security and entered the country?

Why do you hate "the Russkies" so intensely?

I don't hate Russians in the slightest. The reveal of Veselnitskaya as a definite Russian agent was only revealed by the Swiss very recently.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Give me a call when Germany or France try and interfere with your election process.

I still don't get how that's a problem...

...During an election, no foreign governments, or civilians are allowed to speak to Americans! You must wait until the votes are tallied, only then can we talk!

 

[Landon Caeli]

What is the name of the law that was supposedly broken? "Collusion"..?

...What is the FBI even trying to achieve?

 

[Kentonio]

I still don't get how that's a problem...

...During an election, no foreign governments, or civilians are allowed to speak to Americans! You must wait until the votes are tallied, only then can we talk!

You don't see how a hostile foreign government hacking US citizens and organizations trying to swing an election to their preferred candidate could be an issue?