Negative responses to Trump's comments in Helsinki

[Albion]

I know these are vague accusations. To claim knowledge of the top levels of our judicial system based on an outsiders view is ludicrous in the extreme..

No, no. The way the FISA courts function has been well ventilated since the recent flap surfaced. And that is sufficient to conclude that these courts are a danger to our system of government, quite apart from how any particular judge has ruled or what bureaucrat withheld critical information in order to get the ruling he was after.

 

[FreeinChrist]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trumps-sad-weak-encounter-with-putin-in-helsinki.html

It’s taking a while for the near-universal stunned reaction to today’s joint Trump–Putin presser to yield to analysis. But this immediate take on the Fox Business Network wasn’t a good sign:

Max Tani

✔@maxwelltani
· 20h

Reaction on Varney's Fox Business show after the press conference is critical of Trump.

Guest Mark Weinberg: "Putin won. Trump missed the opportunity."

Fox Biz's Ashley Webster: "He outmaneuvered our president. I was very surprised. I thought Trump was going to push hard."


Max Tani

✔@maxwelltani

Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney: "It was not a very forceful presentation from President Trump with Putin standing right next to him."

Fox's Neil Cavuto: "I'll give him the benefit of the doubt to maybe jet lag and time differences, but holy moly." pic.twitter.com/UIQWme3BIk

12:11 PM - Jul 16, 2018
​

 

[FenderTL5]

..I find standing on foreign soil and going against our intelligence and siding with his bud Putin goes against the country.

It'd be interesting to see conservatives treat this event with at least a portion of the outrage they expressed toward the Dixie Chicks when they criticized the US government on foreign soil.

 

[FreeinChrist]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/moment-of-decision/565289/

I am old enough to remember Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon telling lies on TV, about Vietnam in both cases, and Watergate for Nixon. I remember the travails and deceptions of Bill Clinton, and of George W. Bush in the buildup to the disastrous Iraq War.

But never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of another country over those of his own government and people.

Trump manifestly cannot help himself. This is who he is.


Those who could do something are the 51 Republican senators and 236 Republican representatives who have the power to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, pass resolutions of censure, guarantee the integrity of Robert Mueller’s investigation, condemn the past Russian election interference, shore up protections against the next assault, and in general defend their countryrather than the damaged and defective man who is now its president.​

 

[NotreDame]

Thank you. It is related to the topic because it demonstrates a causative element. The relationship between the President and the intelligence has been caustic since day one.

While I didn’t like how he stated it and think it is a major error on the Presidents part, I can somewhat see the reasons behind it.

And that I feel is a part of the conversation on negative reporting that is not being spoken of.

Well, I understand this perspective, but the “caustic” relationship perhaps was initiated by Trump, as he publicly denounced, from the infancy of his presidency, the info gathered by the intelligence communities. From the beginning of his presidency, he has been hostile towards the intel community. I digress, however, and want to address your remark in the context of the Helsinki summit.

A caustic relationship with the intelligence community doesn’t, by itself, justify a public declaration by Trump that placed, in a competing relationship, Putin’s denials, which aren’t demonstrated to be truthful, and in which Putin has a very strong motive to deny Russian involvement, against the information of U.S. intelligence communties. Especially when some of the evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 has been disclosed to the public.

Yes, Trump may properly dislike some of the leaks by the intel community (I’m not sure what leaks you reference but I’ll assume they exist, arguendo, I’m also assuming his “reasons” are as you stated) However, the principle of “they’ve thrown me under the bus, so will I in my public presser with Putin,” and that is a principle extending from the “reasons” you given, is so inadequate that it’s mystifying those reasons can help anyone “understand” what he said. What Trump said is unjustifiable to the point that one shouldn’t try and rationalize what he did at all.

This is when people shouldn’t attempt to rationalize Trump’s remarks. Trump is only encouraged when, people who criticize his remarks and conduct, also mitigate his disastrous conduct and remarks by rationalizing his conduct and comments. The effect is a watered down critique of Trump, which facilitates his belief “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

Such a belief will only persist, such a mentality will be perpetuated, as long as people exist who would rationalize his act of shooting a person on 5th Avenue, should he do so.

Call a spade a spade. You can still support Trump while criticizing him in some areas and not dilute the criticism to the point it’s meaningless.

 

[FreeinChrist]

https://www.jpost.com/International/Trump-kowtows-to-Putin-in-Helsinki-562673

President Donald Trump stood in Helsinki on Monday beside his patron, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and refused to confront him on Moscow’s systematic interference in the 2016 US presidential election on his behalf, its military intervention into a sovereign neighbor or on its continued effort to undermine democratic systems worldwide through propaganda and cyberwarfare.

Instead, Trump spoke defensively of his electoral victory and insisted that he won fair and square without Russian help. He stood next to Putin and attacked domestic political rivals, the Justice Department, and the FBI for investigating what happened while ignoring questions over his own intelligence community’s assessment that Putin did, in fact, order a sophisticated influence campaign in states that ultimately decided the election outcome.......

But pressed directly by US reporters – who Trump has referred to as “enemies of the American people” – whether he would condemn Russia over the empirical evidence of their election meddling, Trump again declined – on the contrary, praising Putin for offering to participate in Mueller’s investigation and nodding approvingly as Putin denied his personal involvement. ....

US national security and intelligence officials were aghast and speechless at the performance.

“The president of the United States essentially capitulated, and seems intimidated by Vladimir Putin,” said James Clapper, a career intelligence official who served as director of national intelligence through the 2016 race. “It’s extremely disturbing.”

Chuck Hagel, a former senator and defense secretary, said that Trump “failed America” in the press conference. And John Brennan, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center under former president George W. Bush and CIA director under former president Barack Obama, said it amounted to an impeachable act.​

 

[Albion]

It'd be interesting to see conservatives treat this event with at least a portion of the outrage they expressed toward the Dixie Chicks when they criticized the US government on foreign soil.

You seriously think that the president of the United States, following a high-level meeting with the head of another nation, and who did not lambaste the United States in his remarks is comparable to the Dixie Chicks who went out of their way to attack the country itself? That's more than interesting; it's amazing.

 

[NotreDame]

How do you feel about the intelligence community saying they will stop a candidate from being elected?

Come on now, that wasn’t a statement from the “intelligence community,” but two members, two fish, among millions of fish in the vast ocean of the intelligence community.

Throw them under the bus, the two fish, no point in netting all the fish and draining the entire ocean for two fish.

 

[LoAmmi]

Come on now, that wasn’t a statement from the “intelligence community,” but two members, two fish, among millions of fish in the vast ocean of the intelligence community.

Throw them under the bus, the two fish, no point in netting all the fish and draining the entire ocean for two fish.

I agree.

I work in the security industry and one thing I can say is that I keep things very separated. My co-workers wouldn't even be able to guess my political leanings because I don't want even the appearance of bias. If these people had strong biases like that, they probably should have asked not to be assigned to the case. Even if they didn't act upon them in any real way, there is the chance of it tainting any findings.

Now, at home and on here is a different story.

 

[Belk]

No, no. The way the FISA courts function has been well ventilated since the recent flap surfaced. And that is sufficient to conclude that these courts are a danger to our system of government, quite apart from how any particular judge has ruled or what bureaucrat withheld critical information in order to get the ruling he was after.

I would be happy to discuss but it is off topic for this thread.

 

[Jamsie]

You seriously think that the president of the United States, following a high-level meeting with the head of another nation, and who did not lambaste the United States in his remarks is comparable to the Dixie Chicks who went out of their way to attack the country itself? That's more than interesting; it's amazing.

Even if the comparison is somewhat stretched it depends on how one chooses to define "lambaste". That he obviously sided with Russia is clear, and in doing so castigated his intelligence agencies, as he has done so all along. Whether ego or incompetence, or a combination, he is an embarrassment, a façade, and cowardly.

 

[FenderTL5]

You seriously think that the president of the United States, following a high-level meeting with the head of another nation, and who did not lambaste the United States in his remarks is comparable to the Dixie Chicks who went out of their way to attack the country itself? That's more than interesting; it's amazing.

An entertainer, who has zero political power/influence and no governmental authority whatsoever makes a relatively benign political/anti-war comment* on stage and the response was outrage vs. the President of the United States siding with an adversarial head of state over his own intelligence community and announcing it on foreign soil - and the same people defend it.. yeah I find it interesting.
It's a mindset that I find puzzling. Maybe you can explain it.


* Natalie Maines introduced a song called "Traveling Soldier" saying, "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."

 

[whatbogsends]

How do you feel about the intelligence community saying they will stop a candidate from being elected?

Hard to answer hypotheticals. The intelligence community said no such thing.

 

[whatbogsends]

Thank you. It is related to the topic because it demonstrates a causative element. The relationship between the President and the intelligence has been caustic since day one.

While I didn’t like how he stated it and think it is a major error on the Presidents part, I can somewhat see the reasons behind it.

And that I feel is a part of the conversation on negative reporting that is not being spoken of.

The causative element was the Trump campaigns communications with Russians which happened while Russia was attacking our election, and their failure to disclose those communications when they were required to do so.

 

[Albion]

Even if the comparison is somewhat stretched it depends on how one chooses to define "lambaste". That he obviously sided with Russia is clear, and in doing so castigated his intelligence agencies, as he has done so all along. Whether ego or incompetence, or a combination, he is an embarrassment, a façade, and cowardly.

You've completely sidestepped what I said in the post you supposedly are responding to, you know.

 

[Jamsie]

You've completely sidestepped what I said in the post you supposedly are responding to, you know.

How so? I stated the comparison may be stretched, but question whether or not trump would fall under the definition of "lambaste". See Post #152

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

When given the choice of taking the word of US Intelligence or the word of the KGB on whether or not the KGB did something illegal, I think the party that does not stand accused of doing something illegal might be the more trustworthy one.

...and what party would that be? The FBI most certainly does stand accused of doing precisely what the Russian government does - that's what last weeks congressional hearings were about. If we have people in US intelligence who are not above interfering in the US presidential election, then it stands to reason we would have people in US intelligence who are not above lying to the American people about Russia interference in the US presidential election.

Taking the word of Putin/the KGB on this is the equivalent of believing your 3-year-old when he denies getting into the cookie jar with chocolate and crumbs smeared all over his face.

That analogy implies actual evidence, which I am still waiting for. The allegations in Mueller's indictment are not evidence, despite the press's eagerness to treat them as though they were established fact.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Liberals....??

Is it only liberals who have accepted the findings of all of your security, intelligence, military and congressional investigations, who have concluded that Russia, under the direction of Putin, attacked the US elections...??

Only liberals...?

Although they weren't the ones I had in mind when I wrote that post, neocons are liberals too. The greatest danger the country is facing is not the Democrats being voted back into power, but that Trump would become another Bush. This conference is reassurance that it is not about to happen.

 

[2tim_215]

Although they weren't the ones I had in mind when I wrote that post, neocons are liberals too. The greatest danger the country is facing is not the Democrats being voted back into power, but that Trump would become another Bush. This conference is reassurance that it is not about to happen.

Another Bush? He's way worse than Bush. At least Bush had a heart (although certainly not brightest bulb).

 

[2tim_215]

...and what party would that be? The FBI most certainly does stand accused of doing precisely what the Russian government does - that's what last weeks congressional hearings were about. If we have people in US intelligence who are not above interfering in the US presidential election, then it stands to reason we would have people in US intelligence who are not above lying to the American people about Russia interference in the US presidential election.



That analogy implies actual evidence, which I am still waiting for. The allegations in Mueller's indictment are not evidence, despite the press's eagerness to treat them as though they were established fact.

There's so much circumstantial evidence it's ridiculous. We need to wait until Muellers investigation is complete before we come to any conclusion before declaring "no collusion" or no "anything.