So what's going on with the US and Russia?
I've seen that James Comey FBI has just been fired. That Rex Tillerson is in Russia at the moment talking to Lurchrov... Lazrov.
I remember a few months ago a member of this forum talking about how there has been collusion between the US and Russia even during the cold war...
Does anyone know what's going on with this situation?
Thanks,
JJJJS
I remember a few months ago a member of this forum talking about how there has been collusion between the US and Russia even during the cold war...
Does anyone know what's going on with this situation?
Thanks,
JJJJS
Comments (104)
The FBI, House Intelligence Committee, and Senate Intelligence Committee (and probably others) are investigating. Some are saying that Trump fired Comey to undermine the FBI's investigation (with the HIC and SIC being undermined from within by the Republicans in charge).
So how long until the clock strikes 13?
Long.
Besides, if Trump would be even a moderately capable politician this would go away... likely with Michael Flynn and Carter Page etc. getting either slap in the wrist or some sentencing and Trump going with the line that he didn't at all know what these guys were doing being his back. Trump then could then pardon on the last day of his presidency (just like Bush did Scooter Libby, who would have otherwise gone to jail).
But as Trump is his worst enemy and obviously lack sound judgement and basically is ignorant, there is a genuine possibility that he will get impeached. Assuming Trump doesn't make it even worse (which he surely can do), the likely timeline is after the 2018 Midterms. Assuming that the Democrats make gains in Congress. Because if there is a Democrat majority, then there surely will be that special prosecutor.
There's a bunch of Thorongils in the comments section as well
Quoting JJJJS
Crude, sweeping generalizations like this certainly won't endear anything you say to me and likely others on the forum.
Don't try and get others to gang up on me, you Cunt.
I'm not really sure how the first part of the sentence relates to the second. Are you suggesting that it's hypocritical to be critical of Trump firing Comey after wanting him to be fired? Because that's not true; the criticism is direct at the suggested motive, not just the act itself.
If I want a co-worker fired because they're terrible at their job I would still be outraged if they were fired for being black or gay or a woman or something discriminatory like that.
So there's no hypocrisy, even if the speculation that Trump's motive was to hinder the investigation is unfounded.
Mhmm.
Quoting Michael
Right, but they've had to create this motive for their own politicking, so they aren't just making an innocent logical distinction as you are here.
There are no more cunts or dicks on the scene than usual.
It's too early to say whether or not the suggested motive is a fabrication or genuine, and we're not mind-readers. There are supposedly sources within the White House who have said that Trump has been seeking for excuses to fire Comey. Unfortunately I don't have any way of knowing if these sources exist and are telling the truth – and neither are you, which is why "sweeping generalizations like this certainly won't endear anything you say". ;)
And this is exactly why an independent investigation/special prosecutor is needed. To get to the bottom of all of this, without any partisan bias.
Correct, but it's still a creation on their part until then.
Quoting Michael
I haven't technically generalized and for the record don't agree with the firing. I've always thought Comey to be a man of integrity, unlike Trump.
How does that work? If Mr Democrat is told by some White House insider that Trump has ulterior motives for firing Comey then the suggestion that Trump has ulterior motives for firing Comey is a creation of Mr Democrat? Or is it that if Average Joe reads about Mr Democrat reporting his meeting with this White House insider then the suggestion that Trump has ulterior motives is a creation of Average Joe?
It seems to me that you're just assuming that the journalists are lying. What warrants that assumption?
Comey's firing is just fun for democrats to play with.
The Russians would have realized early on that tampering with actual votes will lead to little effect. I think their goal of subversion of the masses through many channels of the media through leaking e-mails and such seemingly incriminating evidence is what would have been done.
I don't think anyone (except the occasional conspiracy theorist) is suggesting that the Russians tampered with the actual ballots. It's that the Russians and Trump's campaign worked together to undermine Clinton and promote Trump through fake media and the hacking and leak of private information. I believe there's also the suggestion that some of the campaign members received payments from the Russians in exchange for having their interests considered in government policy (e.g. with Manafort).
And, of course, there's the claim that the Russians have compromising material on Trump and the Republicans and that they're effectively being held to ransom.
Quoting Michael
I'll address both of you at once. I get all this, but the way this story has been portrayed by the Democrats and in the media has been misleading, in that they equivocate on the word "influence" to suit their agendas. In my mind, unless the Russians literally hacked the voting machines, I think this story is being overblown to the point of comic absurdity.
I don't imply any deep conspiracy here. I myself am more inclined to believe that Trump was just his usual impulsive, irritable, vindictive, bloody-minded, incompetent self. That he was irked by Comey's pushing the Russia investigation (which is, after all, aimed primarily at his people and possibly himself) seems rather too obvious.
Yes, this is my thinking as well. Well said.
Well, people aren't machines that can be hacked into, although they're prone to subversion tactics such as defaming mud-slinging, etc. (?)
Rosenstein (who is not known to be a political hack) is the 'dupe'. Sessions had recused himself from the Russian investigation. In order for the reasons for firing Comey to officially come from Department of Justice Trump/Sessions needed someone to compose the it, so he could just sign off it and his deputy's recommendation fit the bill.
The real thing is his lack of judgement and ignorance in this case.
So his enterprises went bankrupt and he couldn't get financing from the US, so he instead turned to Russian money and that's how his relationship started. Of course as oligarch-money in Russia is directly connected to the Kremlin, that's how the the Russian twist took off.
Where Trump had the biggest lack of judgement is the cavalier way he approach this "help from friends", saying great things about Putin, even having his "sarcasm" moment of directly asking Russia to interfere with the US elections. He likely thought it as a win-win situation: that he would get support for his campaign and later he could have a diplomatic successes by improving the relations with Russia. His absolute ignorance of the facts and what it means to be the sole Superpower obviously didn't get to him during the election. (Now with picking Mattis etc.and replacing the disasterous Flynn with McMaster the actual Trump foreign & security policy is back to normal)
Because of Putin would be your average US billionaire, a Brother Koch, and Fancy & Cozy Bears just the usual nasty Superpacs & lobbying groups, nothing new under the sun. But because it a foreign intelligence services active in the whole broad operation, that By default made the FBI to react to this as it is it's primary missions is to thwart such operations done by a foreign intelligence service.
People should just use Occam's razor here as what is obvious is obvious.
Any kind of wrongdoing by either side will be naturally politically used in the vitriolic atmosphere of US politics. But then to assume that the wrongdoing is totally fake, a huge conspiracy theory, isn't stupid.
The foundation of Nixon's demise was the break-in at the DNC. He might have gotten impeached for that, don't know. But what really cooked his goose was the prolonged and elaborate cover-up which sucked the sinner ever deeper into sin and involved more and more people.
Trump is appallingly unpresidential, but we knew he was going to be that way on November 9. The man is a slob, but being a slob isn't illegal. He might get smarter, or he might get worse. Time will tell.
Yeah; but, let us not be naive and assume the money came with no strings attached, from the Russian oligarchy.
(All that said, I too believe that the Trump campaign's Russian links story might well be a beat up, but we ought not to forget, Flynn took large sums from Russian media outlets, and the "hacking stories" definitely have some basis to them. Not to mention all of Trump's craven glad-handling of Putin in the lead up to the election.)
Well, that was the way basically referring to, that's how the Russian did get him... recruited.
And likely there is the money trail.
With Carter Page (Trump's liaison to Moscow?) and the Rosneft deal, where it is not know who just bought a major share in the Russian Company.
See The wild and confusing saga of the Trump adviser at the center of the Russia controversy
If that came out... likely grounds for Treason. With an additional case for obstruction of justice for firing Comey in order for "the Russia investigation to go away".
Interesting to see what kind of case the FBI makes out of this:
See Russian oil exec found dead after caught bribing Donald Trump to lift U.S. sanctions
So, you're on the side that thinks Trump and Russia are related somehow?
What I find surprising is that these ties didn't come out during a vetting process of potential candidates for the office?
Man, I really hope Trump gets served hard. When I was watching him still campaign, I told my mom that they'd catch him on his prostitute hobby doing cocaine in some hotel in Miami. The above, provided by ssu, makes that look like peanuts.
swstephe. It was swstephe. Where has swstephe gone!?
I think his absence is a sign of protest. It started when Trump became Prez.
Even before Trump and Hillary won their respective nominations, I figured that Trump was the only hope for Hillary to actually get herself elected...
I wanted Trump to win though, because I predicted that if he did win then it would only be so long before his entire administration comes crashing down under the weight of his ridiculousness..
Remember how ridiculous the campaign was? Well it's gotten steadily more ridiculous, and this is not sustainable :)
My long term hope was that if America can actually impeach Trump or shame him into resignation that the next time around people people will be so fed up with the circus that actual reform have get a chance to get off the ground.
Sitting on the sidelines, here in Australia, that of course seems like obvious nonsense. But don't underestimate the power of Trump's delusion to delude others.
In any case, if James Comey's memo comes out - the one where he diarised Trump asking him directly to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn - then it's really hard to see how Trump could survive that, as it would amount to being caught red-handed in the obstruction of justice, and then lying about it. Makes Watergate seem like someone embezzling the tea money from a church fete.
Eh, small fries. Just wait till he fires Rosenstein and has his replacement drop the special prosecutor.
So far he seems pretty resilient.
There's evidence of obstruction of justice. Bit more serious than the usual fuck-ups.
Up until now all the Trump shenanigans have been not illegal. Not releasing personal finances and being a moron as a president are totally above board, even though the former ought to be.
If he did tell the FBI director to shut down an investigation pertaining to his own election campaign, that's blatantly a conflict of interest. This is compounded by the fact that Trump then fired FBI director Comey and took full credit for it on national television.
Trump says: Shut down the investigation.
Comey says: No.
Trump says: You're fired and that's 100% my decision.
Their either need to prove that trump demanded Comey end the investigation, or that Trump fired Comey because he would not end the investigation, as far as I understand it. (conflict of interest + obstruction of justice)
It's not easy to prove intent in either case as he can walk back the allegedly obscure language ("I hope you can drop this Russia investigation") and he has plausible deniability provided by the Justice Department and some other source who advocated he fire Comey (while he did take credit for the decision on T.V, he can always defer to the reasoning of the advice he claimed not to have acted on).
But I'm starting to think that Trump might finally be showing signs of wear. Rather than endure extended investigation and opposition from all sides (now more than ever) he might want to save face and go down as an undefeated legend by resigning. It gives him his freedom, he can keep on with his MSM lies and hate angle, and America is spared the investigation and can try to recover and reform in the next election, hopefully having learned several sore lessons.
I'm interested to see what a Trump resignation or impeachment could do for reform movements within both major parties and maybe even for a third party. Once the American people see first hand how nauseating a daily circus becomes, they're going to crave seriousness, consistency, and depth.
TL;DR: I'm hoping that the failure of the Trump presidency is going to be like an old-school father forcing their child to smoke an entire pack of cigarettes in one sitting to instill a deep seated sense of disgust for them. Personally I'm not above the use of such corporeal punishment if the behavior we're trying to stem is harmful enough. More Trump... MORE!
At the very least there needs to be some law in place to automatically establish an independent investigation if the President/Government/Congress are ever under investigation. The current checks and balances don't work if one party is in control (e.g. Rand Paul with "I just don’t think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party" and Nunes' behaviour).
No. What is now at issue, is that the White House (=Trump) issued a statement categorically denying that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. If Comey's memo comes out - and it hasn't yet - and it records that Trump asked him to do exactly that, then I can't see it as anything other than checkmate.
The infuriating thing, however, is that there are still so many people who refuse to recognise Trump's incompetence, malfeasance, and mendacity.
Infuriating, and also frightening.
Quoting Question
Why do you find it surprising?
Trump had the cozy relationship with the Russians before the elections at least on some level. Just ask yourself: why on Earth would a Trump hire a Paul Manafort, a practical nobody that hasn't done campaign work for ages? But had worked for the pro-Kremlin Yanukovich and earlier for a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin in order to improve US-Russia ties? Coincidence? Nope.
Because Trump simply from day one accepted Russian help, then surely he had absolutely no incentive to "vet" people. Only after their past came to the focus of the media, then Trump quickly threw under the bus everybody that had anything to do with the Russia thing.
And for obvious reasons, as we will see...
It's called denial.
What I found surprising under the assumption that Trump cooperated with the Russians is in regards to vetting done by some agency in regards to the candidate for the office. Are candidates vetted and scrutinized before they can run for office as for any other governmental job of such importance?
I thought that was what the NSA and DHS were for.
People applying for a job in the intelligence community or the armed forces or those inside them moving to positions where they handle confidential materiel are universally checked in any country.
But in a democracy there's no government official giving a green or red light to a person that is elected to his position by the people. And the President's own staff isn't a similar appointment as some administrative position, a position of a secretary of a department or an appointment like the judge to the Supreme court, which go through a nomination process.
What's wrong with that? Trump was upfront about his views on Russia, he said all along that he considered the Russians to be natural allies in the fight against extremism and that he would work to ease tensions with Russia and put US-Russia relations on a friendlier footing. So what if he had business dealings in Russia or brought individuals into his campaign with connections to the Russian sphere, that would only be in keeping with the explicit position he campaigned on.
My question seems to be of the following,
How is Trump still president if what you say is true?
There's likely some truth in that. Trump is an incompetent blunderer who probably had no idea that the Western establishment has been working for decades to marginalize Russian influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and ultimately to bring Russia under Western neoliberal control, and that Putin has been a major obstacle to this agenda from his first days in power all the way through and up to the present. Trump isn't with the program so he has to either be brought into line or forced out of office because his approach to Russian relations threatens to derail a long running project of major importance to the Western establishment. That's not to defend Putin or Trump, they're both horrid little monsters, but this does seem like the game that's being played here on the old 'grand chessboard'.
The Republicans who control Congress don't want to remove him. Whether that's because they believe he's innocent, because they don't care so long as he's on their side, or because they're as guilty as he is and are only trying to protect themselves.
There is allways a first time and likely nobody believed this could happen... not likely even the Russians at first.
The Russians has for a long time made similar operations. It basically comes from the Soviet Union's playbook. Yet then Soviet intelligence services were hampered down by the official ideology and then simply there wasn't the means as now to have such effective "active measures".
That these kinds of active measures and disinformation aren't anything new, here's one documentary from 1984 about these. (I think I've given this once, but I'll repeat it)
How is Trump president still? Just look at how many investigations there are... and how chaotic is Washington about it.
Likely he will resign before his first term ends ...at the pace things are collapsing now.
Everybody is just waiting to see what the investigation brings to light.
That true. And they will take time.
The only thing is that Trump himself just makes things worse by what he does, what he says and what he tweets. I cannot image a more demoralized administration than this one.
Quoting Sivad
And this whimsical idea just shows how totally ignorant, hubristic and out of touch Trump is with reality. What suits me is important, what other think, who cares?
Having better relations with Russia would be a great thing. But clueless appeasement and praising of Putin simply isn't that. Russia actually despise someone trying to lick their ass.
Perhaps for him this would be a great idea, but it actually doesn't take into account that improving relation is mutual endeavour and the other side ought to also think so. It just shows how self-centered and clueless the idea is. You allways negotiate from a position of strength and reason, not appeasement as then you loose your face.
The reality, which many people seem to be totally blissfull, is that for the present regime in Russia the US is an enemy, the biggest threat there is. NATO enlargement is the no. 1 top threat to Russia in their own military and security doctrine. International terrorism is on their doctrine and threat on number 11. or so. Not at all important. Basically Putin needs the threat of the US to justify his harsh rule in the first place.
So now Russia has annexed parts from two countries and the Trumpian response (during elections) was to improve the relations!
Hence when some idiot like Trump waltzes to the scene with an olive branch, you use him for the time since this clueless flip-flopper will changes his stance as quickly when seated with some of his allies and understands the geopolitics. And as Trump doesn't have the backing of either party in his "let's be allies with Russia" brainfart, the Russians do understand that this is something just temporary.
And lastly, Trump's actual foreign policy has been the standard US line. The sanctions have been kept, the annexation of Crimea isn't accepted.
The Harvard Boys Do Russia
Post-Soviet Russia, Made in the U.S.A.
I'm curious if calling this an "annexation" is actually fair. If the Crimean people really wanted to be Russian and voted for it, should we really feel so bad for Ukraine that we tell the Crimeans they aren't allowed to join Russia?
Whether or not their referendum was representative seems a relevant question.
EDIT: Ideally we side with the Crimeans. This is one of those points in the narrative that both sides play fast and loose with, which is why I find it interesting.
Clearly both sides just want Crimea to be a part of their economic batteries and not the other's.
It's a courtesy that politicians keep their sloven corruption thoroughly closeted. We're already being physically and mentally fucked, we don't need to be emotionally fucked too.
If you lose enough money at a Casino they treat you real good. Not because they feel bad for you, but because they don't want you to hold it against them.
I don't believe Trump would sell out American interest for Russia, but I do believe he would sell out on American interest if it's in his own interest.
Getting screwed by a world-class villain feels every different than getting screwed by a clown. The villain makes you feel good about yourself, but with the clown things just get weird.
When it comes to "Trump's agenda" I wouldn't be so quick to assume that he even has one beyond securing his own legacy. He is seemingly willing to entertain just about any idea. When the military comes to him with a risky operation they're rearing to execute, Trump will give the nod. If the Republican party could come with a coherent set of asks for medical insurance reform or other bills, he would happily put his name on it (like so many pieces of real-estate he doesn't actually own). It seems like he will do whatever he thinks people will love him for. The only solid promise he actually made was to build a wall, beyond that he's a political and ideological hurricane.
At least the world-class villain operates with precision so as to not risk binging the entire house down...
That said, America needs electoral reform and a shake up of the two party system more badly than ever, so I'm actually grateful for Trump because he just might irreparably damage the corrupt status quo of contemporary Washington politics. It's risky but I'm ready to roll those dice.
That actually makes a lot of sense, good point! :D
I agree, his agenda is just petty self-aggrandizement, beyond that he's rudderless.
Trump's the President. He is the establishment.
That's your conjecture. There were a number of plausible reasons for the Russians to support Trump during the election, him being some sort of a Russian mole being probably the least plausible. Firstly, I don't think the Russians even expected Trump to win, any more than anyone else did. The primary goal pursued by their propaganda during the campaign was probably just more propaganda: to discredit democratic institutions and weaken the future leader of the US (whom they fully expected to be Clinton).
As for why they might have wanted Trump to be President, he had positioned himself as an isolationist and a pragmatist, someone who cared little about international affairs and who wouldn't stand on ideology. He would rather break ranks with Europe, make a deal with Russia and get off its back than carp about democracy, human rights and international law - which would have suited Putin perfectly. He could then indulge his fantasy of being a feared and respected leader of a superpower in a multipolar world, like in the good old days of the Soviet empire. Trump's fawning references to Putin (like Putin, he seems to confuse brutality with strength, authoritarianism with efficiency) would have made him look like an ideal figure in the Oval Office.
Perhaps Putin also thought that Trump would be a weaker adversary, easier to manipulate and outmaneuver. And if nothing else, Trump wreaking havoc in his own country and weakening Europe would also have been considered a win by Putin, for whom international politics is a zero-sum game: what's bad for his adversaries is good for him. At least he wouldn't look as bad by comparison.
As for those "politicians" who were reported to pop the bubbly following the news of Trump's win - they are nobodies, mere figureheads. There is no real politics in Russia, at least not as it is understood in Western democracies. Those kleptocrats in the Russian "parliament" have no insider knowledge of any import and make no real decisions - they were just trying to read the mood of the man in power. Which wasn't at all difficult, since they were just following the trend set by all the major media outlets in the run-up to the US elections.
It wasn't. There wasn't anything like a real referendum, such as what the Scots had. Before Russia made its play, there wasn't even much of a separatist movement there; it was just a sleepy and neglected province, more-or-less content to eke out a living from Russian and Ukrainian summer vacationers. But once the invasion got under way, local authorities toppled, Ukrainian media shut down and the propaganda of fear and patriotism revved up, I think it is plausible that most of the population would have voted to join Russia. But they weren't even trusted with their voices.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If that were so, Russia would've been happy for Ukraine to have Crimea: that battery is shelling their own! Now and in the foreseeable future Crimea is a drain on Russia's resources. And I am not just talking about the international sanctions.
What interest could Putin have in Crimea if not economic? Oil and natural gas (and it's increasing scarcity), is to my knowledge what gives the Russian economy it's strength, and so keeping it out of the hands of economic competitors becomes increasingly valuable while the cost of oil extraction rises. This means Russia gets to sell even more oil and at an even higher price in the long run, doesn't it?
I'm not saying this isn't the case or even out Kremlin-character (the degree of Russia's involvement pre-referendum), but I would like to see evidence as to the extent before I entirely discount the "democratic" narrative RT and it's echo chambers have stuck to.
What concerns me I guess is that both sides seem to care less about the Crimean people than they do about getting what they want and spiting the other, so I'm often left not knowing who's account contains more deceit.
Classic reply would be: so did the Sudetenland Germans want to join Germany. And the question is, just how many do have to have to "join" Russia. Russia has a long track record of staging these kind of "voluntary joining".
Mind you the Russia Special Forces took over Crimea first, and then there was a so-called election. Now Russians in the Crimea have had thoughts of joining Russia even earlier. And people in East Ukraine have them too (so the war in Ukraine really is a genuine civil war). Russia btw. has this method of creating satellite states, like Novorossija (the People's Republics of Donetsk & Luhansk), Republic of Abkhazia and Transnistria), which other countries haven't acknowledged. Furthermore, the leadership of these "states" is firmly in the control of the Russians.
How it started. Russian Spetnaz seizing the regional Parliament in Simferopol:
Also Russia agreed to uphold current Ukrainian borders when Ukraine agreed to give away it's nuclear arsenal. We tend to forget that.And basic Westphalian approach is that you don't annex parts of other sovereign countries. Hence in a multitude of ways Russia broke international agreements.
Now what is true is that there is genuine support at least in part of the population for the annexation. First and foremost, the economic situation in Ukraine is far worse than in Russia, hence there was really an economic incentive to join Russia also. And what united all Ukrainians was there hate towards the corrupt leaders of the country. It's notable that Yanukovich, who fled to Russia, isn't wellcome even in his former base region of Donbass, which now fights against Ukraine.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How about the Tatars in Crimea?
For now Russia has to rely on expensive schemes to deliver energy and other resources to Crimea, with which it doesn't even have a land border. Crimea and Chechnya are among Russia's greatest budget sinks.
There is another distinctive narrative here: that of Crimean Tatars. They are now only some 12% of the population, down from the overwhelming majority that they once were, but they are a very cohesive group, and from the outset they were vehemently opposed to Russian plans (their history has taught them not to expect anything good from Russia, and the events subsequent to the annexation have validated their apprehensions). The Tatar leaders, now in forced exile, are basically using the same rhetoric as the Russians, only turned on its head and used against them: they are arguing that Tatars are the true heirs to Crimea, they are the only people who have the right to call themselves "the Crimean people." And therefore "historical justice," with which Russia likes to justify its actions in Crimea, is actually on their side. (I myself don't approve of either side's rhetoric and think that nationalism and "historical justice" are very pernicious routes to take.)
Don't forget that the actual war happened in Eastern Ukraine, in the Donbass region. It's not a separate issue here. And there the Russians didn't just aid the rebels, but participated with Russian ground forces in combat.
After the Russo-Georgian war of 2008 there wasn't anything else but condemnation. And afterwards there was the Obama "resetting" of the relations. Just as had happened, well, with George Bush (as the relationship had become colder in the end with Clinton). Hence there was a pattern of Russia doing something that the West doesn't like and then the West being OK with it, and then Russia doing it again.
Now Russia has officially annexed South Ossetia and attacked another neighbouring country. My guess is that not only the West put sanctions just because of the breaking of international law, but also not to give the idea that it can do similar actions in other places, like Central Asia. And naturally the development changed the situation to worse on the NATO-Russian border in the Baltics and Poland. The eastern NATO countries are naturally worried about the developments.
I'm from Finland myself and I can guarantee you that for the Finns the Ukrainian war was a turning point to a worse security situation. The tensions in the Baltic Sea and in Northern Europe have increased, not to level where is imminent, but to a similar tension as during the Cold War.
Meh, I am pretty sure that many "are not waiting to see what the investigation brings to light". Some have already got him tried, convicted and are only waiting for the sentencing phase.
Heaven help us if Trump actually has his rights respected of being innocent until proven guilty and that 'proof' never comes.
The thing to remember is that the investigation into collusion is directed at the Trump campaign, and not Trump himself. It's entirely possible that there was collusion but that Trump was oblivious to it.
But, of course, Trump hasn't done himself any favours by seemingly obstructing justice. It's hard to not to see him as guilty of that given his remarks to the Russian ambassadors and Lester Holt about firing Comey.
I believe that Trump could have been oblivious to any collusion going on in his campaign as well.
Quoting Michael
Yes but "to see him as guilty" is a far cry from evidence of obstruction or collusion.
The evidence (of obstruction) is his remarks to the Russian ambassadors and Lester Holt (and Comey's memo). My point is that it's hard not to judge him as guilty given this evidence.
How are Trumps remarks to the Russian ambassadors any different than when Obama was caught on a hot microphone talking to none other than the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev? It's all hustle whether it is in private or caught in the light of day.
Firing the head of the FBI to hinder an investigation into you is obstruction of justice, whereas postponing (contentious, I guess) policies until after an election isn't.
But even then, you can't try to defend someone's criminal activity by pointing to someone else's criminal activity (were Obama to have obstructed justice). That's whataboutism.
Because the idea that Trump just By coincidence happened to pick Manafort etc, and they just happened to have this idea of getting Russia involved behind the back of Trump is foolish. Just look at all the praising that Trump has had for Putin. Just like in the Iran-Contra, of course the President/Candidate knew what was being done. But you give a fig-leaf to the President and some minor league actor takes the bullet. That's how you do it.
Unfortunately Trump himself is incapable of the most basic things like distancing himself from this mess. Nope, when the White House team had made an approach how to handle things by giving a fig-leaf to Trump in the firing of Comey with the Rosenstein letter, this idiot grandpa goes on and says in public that he decided it, that he want the Russia thing to go away. This kind idiotic responses can and do happen with Trump. So now we don't only have Comey's memo's about it, we have Trump himself saying it himself.
Oh, we survived Stalin and the Cold War alone, so this isn't anything new.
Actually, the real worry was with the Baltic States. There Putin could truly roll in hours. When the Crimean invasion happened, they were truly worried even in NATO, if the US would uphold it's pledges. It did, and now there are US troops on a rotating basis in the countries. Also, worth mentioning that they aren't afraid of the Trump administration actual NATO policy now when in power.
And this is a notable thing in the Trump Russia ties thing: the pro-Russia stance was actually something that was present only during the election and when Trump sometimes is asked about the issue, otherwise the Trump administration has followed standard US republican foreign policy.
And btw. the US forces are training also in Finland and Sweden now annually, if you didn't know. As I've said, things have changed here after the Ukrainian war. (Hence there is de facto not much if any neutrality in the Swedish and Finnish stance, other than they aren't signed members of NATO)
B-52 alongside Swedish fighters in Sweden in 2015. The B-52s practiced assisting Swedish defence by excersizing laying mines in the coastal Waters of Sweden.
Meh, Trump should be A-ok with assuming guilt without due process. After all, he has extended an invitation to the White House to Rodrigo Duterte, a man who publicly bragged about personally executing criminal suspects.