Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless

Colbert's spoof of of Rachel Maddow's tax return fiasco captures the essence of the entire Russia collusion story:

At some point the Trump-Putin apologists not-so-subtly raised the baseline allegations to "collusion."

But I guess that's more interesting than today's revelation that Flynn was paid tens of thousands of dollars by Russian companies while still having top-secret level security clearance.

Paul is it ridiculous for Maddow to question the following relationship:

- Trump's 50+ million dollar profit from the sale to Dmitry Rybolovlev (aka the “Russian King of Fertilizer”).

- On several occasions Rybolovlev has shown up in the same city. It happened during Trump’s victory tour in Concord, North Carolina, a place Rybolovlev had no legitimate reason to be. It happened again when Trump vacationed in West Palm Beach, even though that required Rybolovlev to fly all the way in from Switzerland.

- It turns out Deutsche was funneling that money through Bank of Cyprus. Dmitry Rybolovlev owns a 9.9% share in Bank of Cyprus.

- Wilber Ross - Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bank of Cyprus.

I'm not sure if this was posted on this thread already - but here's a decent breakdown of Russian connections:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/3/1634738/-Evidence-of-Trump-s-Connections-with-Kremlin-Expanded-Now-with-Citations-Links

So the premise that the campaign colluded with Russia - could be unknown - or nothing at all - still doesn't separate Trump and his team from a past with some powerful shady, corrupt, money laundering Russians.

It's also important to realize that Trump has no idea what he's doing when it comes to world affairs - his inability to staff the state department and his budget to cut large parts of it should be very unsettling to everyone. He wants to strengthen the US with weapons over diplomacy.

drummerboy said:

yes, hyperbole by an aging , not-the-sharpest-knife-in-the-block, Senator is McCarthyism.

Who, on the merits, was probably right about this issue anyway.

paulsurovell said:

For those in denial that we're in a new era of McCarthyism, consider this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/15/john-mccain-rand-paul-is-now-working-for-vladimir-putin.html

Here's Rand Paul's spot-on response to McCain on the merits. He references a map with "angry McCains" which appeared in a 2013 Mother Jones piece which I've linked below along with a chart from the article.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/16/rand_paul_john_mccain_unhinged_and_past_his_prime.html

[BEGIN TEXT] PAUL: You know, I think he makes a really, really strong case for term
limits. I think maybe he's past his prime; I think maybe he's gotten a
little bit unhinged.

I do think that when we talk about NATO, there can be a rational
discussion about the pros and cons of expanding it. We currently have
troops, combat troops, in about six nations. We have troops actively
just stationed in probably a couple dozen others. We have a $20 trillion
debt. And one of my favorite articles of the last couple years is one
that talked about the angry McCains, and if they -- if we put active
troops and got involved in combat where McCain wants us to be, they put a
little angry McCain on the globe, on the map. And it's virtually
everywhere. So his foreign policy is something that would greatly
endanger the United States, greatly overextend us. And there has to be
the thought whether or not it's in our national interest to pledge to
get involved with a war if Montenegro has an altercation with anyone.

There's also another argument, is that when you ask the people of
Montenegro, only about 40 percent or slightly less are actually in favor
of this. They are close to Russia, they're close to being sort of, like
Ukraine, in the transition from Europe to Asia. Perhaps it would be
good to be like Switzerland and be more neutral and trade with both.

So, there's a lot of considerations but to call someone somehow an enemy
of the state or a traitor might be considered by most reasonable people
to be a little over the top.

GEIST: But Senator, you just called John McCain unhinged. You said he
was past his prime. Why do you think so many other senators have voted
in favor of this measure if it's so crazy?

PAUL: I think that there is a bipartisan consensus that's incorrect that
we should have the whole world be in NATO. For example, if we had
Ukraine and Georgia in NATO -- and this is something McCain and the
other neocons have advocated for -- we would be at war now because
Russia has invaded both of them.

And so I think having former satellites or former parts of the Soviet
Union is NATO is very provocative. And you have to decide in advance
whether you're ready go to war. If you guys are ready to send a million
troops into Ukraine and fight World War III, you're going to do it
without my support because I think that's a really foolish notion.

GEIST: Do you think, Senator, places like Albania and Croatia then
should have been allowed into NATO in 2009?

PAUL: I think it's a real debate how big NATO should be and whether or
not it's more provocative than good. And there's also the debate that
the president brought up throughout the campaign, and that is we seem to
be paying for all of it. Whenever there's a war fought, our soldiers
fight it and our dollars pay for it. And so the 45 soldiers that
Montenegro has I think are hardly an asset to our national security.
And, really, our decisions need to be about our national security. And
so I just don't think it enhances our national security to have
Montenegro part of NATO. [END TEXT]

Mother Jones article with "Angry McCains" map and graph:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/john-mccain-world-attack-map-syria

paulsurovell said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176

Morell said Wednesday that he continues to believe that the Russian campaign of hacking, leaking and fake news, which the CIA says was designed to hurt Clinton and help Trump, was a hugely consequential action to which the U.S. has not sufficiently responded.

Putin, he said, has suffered no consequence for his unprecedented interference in the U.S. election.

"This has never happened before in American history on this scale, never not even close. And Putin did not pay any price for this — nothing, zero.

Morell does believe that Russia interfered in the election, which you do not.

jamie said:

Paul is it ridiculous for Maddow to question the following relationship:

- Trump's 50+ million dollar profit from the sale to Dmitry Rybolovlev (aka the “Russian King of Fertilizer”).

- On several occasions Rybolovlev has shown up in the same city. It happened during Trump’s victory tour in Concord, North Carolina, a place Rybolovlev had no legitimate reason to be. It happened again when Trump vacationed in West Palm Beach, even though that required Rybolovlev to fly all the way in from Switzerland.

- It turns out Deutsche was funneling that money through Bank of Cyprus. Dmitry Rybolovlev owns a 9.9% share in Bank of Cyprus.

- Wilber Ross - Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bank of Cyprus.

I'm not sure if this was posted on this thread already - but here's a decent breakdown of Russian connections:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/3/1634738/-Evidence-of-Trump-s-Connections-with-Kremlin-Expanded-Now-with-Citations-Links

So the premise that the campaign colluded with Russia - could be unknown - or nothing at all - still doesn't separate Trump and his team from a past with some powerful shady, corrupt, money laundering Russians.

It's also important to realize that Trump has no idea what he's doing when it comes to world affairs - his inability to staff the state department and his budget to cut large parts of it should be very unsettling to everyone. He wants to strengthen the US with weapons over diplomacy.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.html

How do you know that Rybolovlev had no "legitimate" reason to be where he was? Are you suggesting that he met with Trump to "collude" against Hillary Clinton on these dates? Is there any evidence that he met with Trump at these locations? Where is he now?

Twenty-one Senators voted for Ross. Apparently the allegations of Russian collusion against him were not convincing.

Whenever you look at the details of these allegations, there's nothing there.

As far as relations with shady business people, you don't have to look further than Trump's Cabinet. That's where the threat exists and where the focus should be.

The Russia collusion story is motivated not by facts but by neocons who want confrontation with Russia and by Democrats who want to blame a scapegoat for their election defeat, instead of addressing the real reasons why they lost.

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176

Morell said Wednesday that he continues to believe that the Russian campaign of hacking, leaking and fake news, which the CIA says was designed to hurt Clinton and help Trump, was a hugely consequential action to which the U.S. has not sufficiently responded.

Putin, he said, has suffered no consequence for his unprecedented interference in the U.S. election.

"This has never happened before in American history on this scale, never not even close. And Putin did not pay any price for this — nothing, zero.

Morell does believe that Russia interfered in the election, which you do not.

What do you believe? And, asking again, are you on Twitter?

paulsurovell said:

The Miami Herald did not find anything "suspicious" when it reported the sale of the mansion bought at auction by Trump and sold for twice the purchase prince:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.html

>>> And? They didn't know then what we know now.

How do you know that Rybolovlev had no "legitimate" reason to be where he was? Are you suggesting that he met with Trump to "collude" against Hillary Clinton on these dates? Is there any evidence that he met with Trump at these locations? Where is he now?
>>> Why would anyone need to be in Concord, North Carolina

Twenty-one Senators voted for Ross. Apparently the allegations of Russian collusion against him were not convincing.
>>> This is disturbing - then Dems had to pick their fights - perhaps if was going for Treasury Secretary - it could have been another outcome. Here's some more on Wilber and Russia: https://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/pol/6035146764.html

Whenever you look at the details of these allegations, there's nothing there.
>>> HUH?

As far as relations with shady business people, you don't have to look further than Trump's Cabinet. That's where the threat exists and where the focus should be.
>>> Um, yeah

The Russia collusion story is motivated not by facts but by neocons who want confrontation with Russia and by Democrats who want to blame a scapegoat for their election defeat, instead of addressing the real reasons why they lost.
>>> There is still no dispute that Russia interfered - whether or not they directly colluded doesn't even matter - but so many of Trump's team have lied about meet the ambassador. And trump has truly played down his Russian contact over the years.

And we haven't even touched Manafort.

@Paul,

I'm not on Twitter, just a lurker.

I think that Russia did interfere in the election using several methods - hacking, RT, anti-Clinton posts on social media and leaks. I don't exactly recall but I think these methods were all mentioned in the unclassified assessment. I differ with you as to how Assange got the leaked information - you think that it was Craig Murray, but Assange said that he didn't get it from Murray and Murray himself said that Assange already had the information. I think that Russia obtained the leaked information somehow and got it to Assange, and that Assange doesn't know who gave him the leaked emails. I've posted upthread about this.

I don't think that there is any "collusion" on the part of Trump associates with Russia, with the possible exception of Manafort. He's the money man. Comey is going to appear before the HIC next week to publicly answer the question of whether the FBI is involved in any criminal investigations of any of Trump associates, which Comey so far has refused to do. If he does answer in the affirmative I have no idea whether he is going to say at that time that the FBI has investigated and found no collusion or wrongdoing on the part of any Trump associate or whether he will say that the matter is still ongoing.

tjohn said:

The Trump Administration has been strangely quiet on both Russia and N. Korea.

The relationship with Russia can, I believe, be managed since Putin's goals are not based on national insanity. N. Korea is a bigger problem since the regime suffers from structural insanity.

In South Korea today, Tillerson said that a preemptive strike against North Korea is not off the table. He ruled out talks with North Korea until it commits to giving up its nuclear weapons.

"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. is considering “all options” to counter North Korea’s nuclear threat while criticizing China over moves to block a missile-defense system on the peninsula.

In some of his most detailed comments yet on North Korea, Tillerson ruled out a negotiated freeze of its nuclear weapons program and called for a wider alliance to counter Kim Jong Un’s regime. He also left the military option on the table if the North Korean threat gets too large.

“If they elevate the threat of their weapons programs to a level that we believe requires action, that option is on the table,” Tillerson told reporters on Friday on a trip to South Korea when asked about the possibility of a military strike. He ruled out talks with North Korea until it commits to giving up its nuclear weapons."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-17/tillerson-doesn-t-rule-out-preemptive-strike-against-north-korea

Tillerson probably should have met with the Chinese first before making his public comments. Talking about a preemptive strike against a country that does not really have a survivable second strike capability adds to instability.

cramer said:

tjohn said:

The Trump Administration has been strangely quiet on both Russia and N. Korea.

The relationship with Russia can, I believe, be managed since Putin's goals are not based on national insanity. N. Korea is a bigger problem since the regime suffers from structural insanity.

In South Korea today, Tillerson said that a preemptive strike against North Korea is not off the table. He ruled out talks with North Korea until it commits to giving up its nuclear weapons.

"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. is considering “all options” to counter North Korea’s nuclear threat while criticizing China over moves to block a missile-defense system on the peninsula.

In some of his most detailed comments yet on North Korea, Tillerson ruled out a negotiated freeze of its nuclear weapons program and called for a wider alliance to counter Kim Jong Un’s regime. He also left the military option on the table if the North Korean threat gets too large.

“If they elevate the threat of their weapons programs to a level that we believe requires action, that option is on the table,” Tillerson told reporters on Friday on a trip to South Korea when asked about the possibility of a military strike. He ruled out talks with North Korea until it commits to giving up its nuclear weapons."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-17/tillerson-doesn-t-rule-out-preemptive-strike-against-north-korea

"Tillerson probably should have met with the Chinese first before making his public comments. Talking about a preemptive strike against a country that does not really have a survivable second strike capability adds to instability."

That's probably why Tillerson made his comments before meeting with China - to put pressure on China.

"Tillerson said China’s moves to retaliate against South Korea for agreeing to the deployment of a missile-defense program were “troubling” and “inappropriate.” He vowed to proceed with the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or Thaad, against China’s complaints."

“While we acknowledge China’s opposition, its economic retaliation against South Korea is inappropriate and troubling,” Tillerson said. “We ask China to refrain from such actions. Instead we urge China to address the threat that makes Thaad necessary, that being the escalating threat from North Korea.”

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Unfortunately, it takes 20 times the words to explain a lie than to tell it.

Also, this is another example of what happens to the ability to analogize among people who have few facts to base their positions on. They flail away, looking for something with the barest bit of a connection, so as to allow them to play their game of "but what about blah blah?"

I'm sure there are some good arguments to make against the Russia issue. It is largely government driven, with no firm evidence yet - we should be suspicious to some degree.

But Paul and his cohorts on the misguided left employ very few of these arguments, and they increasingly sound like the more unhinged parts of the right-wing swamp - in style if not in content.

South_Mountaineer said:

....

As for your references to Senator McCaskill, a favorite example used by Trump apologists – Senator Sessions, in testimony (for which as someone who was a prosecutor, he knew how to prepare for) made a decision that he would not mention a private meeting he had with the Russian ambassador. It’s not that he forgot about it, he just rationalized that he didn’t have to mention it. On the other hand, Senator McCaskill issued a press statement about not meeting with a Russian ambassador, and it turns out she forgot about two public meetings (as part of groups of senators): a meeting four years earlier about international adoptions, and another two years earlier (part of meetings with other ambassadors) about the Iran nuclear deal. Obviously, the actions of Sessions and McCaskill are not in any way comparable.

More evidence of collusion:

Trump
|
|
V

Netanyahu
|
|
V

drummerboy said:

"what about" is not an argument.

Worse than that, if you say "what about" to show context or hypocrisy you're a Putin agent:

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Putin-Russia-Phobia has gone over the edge.

hardly. it's just pointing out how intellectually dishonest and deficient is "what about-ism"

It's the refuge of the desperate.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

"what about" is not an argument.

Worse than that, if you say "what about" to show context or hypocrisy you're a Putin agent:

www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Putin-Russia-Phobia has gone over the edge.

You're in denial. The article is about "what about-ism" as "One of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics."

drummerboy said:

hardly. it's just pointing out how intellectually dishonest and deficient is "what about-ism"

It's the refuge of the desperate.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

"what about" is not an argument.

Worse than that, if you say "what about" to show context or hypocrisy you're a Putin agent:

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Putin-Russia-Phobia has gone over the edge.

Here's Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder's spin on how Russia won the war:

http://history.yale.edu/people/timothy-snyder

We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of Donald Trump. The war followed the new rules of the 21st century, but its goal was the usual one of political change.
The greatest student of war, Carl von Clausewitz, defined war as "an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." In his own time, the 19th century, force meant battle: "there is only one means in war: combat." Combat is not war, but a means to win a war, to impose one's will.
But what if the enemy's will can be altered without the blood and treasure of military engagement? If that were true, then a country with a smaller military budget, like Russia, might beat one with a better army, like America.
That just happened, and we are still wiping our eyes in foggy denial.

In 2011, a Russian information war manual concluded that operations in what Russians like to call the "psychosphere" were more important than conventional military engagements. The chief of staff of the Russian armed forces concurred in 2013. The basic aim of war, he averred, was to get inside the national mind of the enemy, reconfiguring habits of mind and frames of discourse so that Americans would do what the Russian leadership wanted.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the main enemy was the United States.
The information manual very well describes the experience of being an American citizen in 2016: "the population doesn't even feel it is being acted upon. So the state doesn't switch on its self-defense mechanisms." Even though many American citizens had a vague sense that something was uncanny about the presidential campaign, and those who read the newspaper knew that Russia was interfering, few realized the scale of the operation or its significance.

In a close election where a few thousand ballots across a few states brought victory to a man who lost the popular tally by almost 3 million votes, the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and the associated WikiLeaks email bombs were easily enough to make the difference.
Still more important was the unexpected advantage Trump displayed over Hillary Clinton in social media. The Trump staff did not exhibit much technical expertise. And yet, somehow, the generators and distributors of fake news were, as if magically, on his side. The Clinton "ground game" was crushed by the Trump meme game. The bots worked 24/7 for Trump.

One can detect three schools of thought in Moscow: the disrupters, the triumphalists and the wise men.
The triumphalists thought that Trump should be supported because his victory, as the head of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian parliament memorably put it, would "can lead the Western locomotive right off the rails."
The disrupters believed Trump should be supported despite his likely defeat because his form of politics would generate weakness and confusion.
The wise men maintained that any intervention would be a mistake because it would generate unpredictability.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/lost-war-russia-article-1.3001640

It's an interesting story noting a parallel (I for one didn't realize how Russia had raised "What-about-ism" to an art that way). It doesn't claim that Trump is following a script from Putin.

Once again, the resort (or really mis-use) of the label "McCarthyism" is ridiculous. It's just like those other Trump defenders, the alt-Right, complaining about how oppressed white people are today. Same type of nonsense.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

"what about" is not an argument.

Worse than that, if you say "what about" to show context or hypocrisy you're a Putin agent:

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Putin-Russia-Phobia has gone over the edge.

I, and a whole bunch of other people I regularly read, have criticized whataboutism for quite some time. Well before the Russia thing.

You're the one in denial, as you think this is a valid form of argument. It isn't - but it certainly is a part of propagandizing, Russian or otherwise.

It is one of the most common tactics of the right - since they're always arguing from a position of weakness, they need to resort to discredited techniques like this.

This wiki article has been around for years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

paulsurovell said:

You're in denial. The article is about "what about-ism" as "One of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics."

drummerboy said:

hardly. it's just pointing out how intellectually dishonest and deficient is "what about-ism"

It's the refuge of the desperate.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

"what about" is not an argument.

Worse than that, if you say "what about" to show context or hypocrisy you're a Putin agent:

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism

Putin-Russia-Phobia has gone over the edge.

drummerboy said:

I, and a whole bunch of other people I regularly read, have criticized whataboutism for quite some time. Well before the Russia thing.

You're the one in denial, as you think this is a valid form of argument. It isn't - but it certainly is a part of propagandizing, Russian or otherwise.

It is one of the most common tactics of the right - since they're always arguing from a position of weakness, they need to resort to discredited techniques like this.


This wiki article has been around for years:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Again, I didn't know how closely it was tied to Russia (or the old Soviet Union) as a tactic.

Although perhaps the predictably response will be that Wikipedia is practicing McCarthyism.

me neither - I just knew it as a bad form of argument.

South_Mountaineer said:

drummerboy said:

I, and a whole bunch of other people I regularly read, have criticized whataboutism for quite some time. Well before the Russia thing.

You're the one in denial, as you think this is a valid form of argument. It isn't - but it certainly is a part of propagandizing, Russian or otherwise.

It is one of the most common tactics of the right - since they're always arguing from a position of weakness, they need to resort to discredited techniques like this.


This wiki article has been around for years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Again, I didn't know how closely it was tied to Russia (or the old Soviet Union) as a tactic.

Although perhaps the predictably response will be that Wikipedia is practicing McCarthyism.

drummerboy said:

I, and a whole bunch of other people I regularly read, have criticized whataboutism for quite some time. Well before the Russia thing.

You're the one in denial, as you think this is a valid form of argument. It isn't - but it certainly is a part of propagandizing, Russian or otherwise.

It is one of the most common tactics of the right - since they're always arguing from a position of weakness, they need to resort to discredited techniques like this.


This wiki article has been around for years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Thanks, I didn't realize there were others who have promoted this irrational theory. At least someone had the good sense to submit a "disclaimer" on the Wikipedia entry:

Although the use of whataboutism is not restricted to any particular race or belief system, according to The Economist, Russians often overuse the tactic.

(although the use of the term "race" in this context raises the eyebrows)

are you saying criticism of whataboutism is irrational?

Because that would be odd.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

I, and a whole bunch of other people I regularly read, have criticized whataboutism for quite some time. Well before the Russia thing.

You're the one in denial, as you think this is a valid form of argument. It isn't - but it certainly is a part of propagandizing, Russian or otherwise.

It is one of the most common tactics of the right - since they're always arguing from a position of weakness, they need to resort to discredited techniques like this.


This wiki article has been around for years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Thanks, I didn't realize there were others who have promoted this irrational theory. At least someone had the good sense to submit a "disclaimer" on the Wikipedia entry:

Although the use of whataboutism is not restricted to any particular race or belief system, according to The Economist, Russians often overuse the tactic.

(although the use of the term "race" in this context raises the eyebrows)

to be clear, I think the article linking whataboutism to Russia to Trump is a bit off base in trying to make that connection. It appears the author of the piece just discovered the concept.

That doesn't meant the criticism of whataboutism is without merit. It's still a dishonest (and ineffective) way of making an argument.

drummerboy said:

to be clear, I think the article linking whataboutism to Russia to Trump is a bit off base in trying to make that connection. It appears the author of the piece just discovered the concept.

That doesn't meant the criticism of whataboutism is without merit. It's still a dishonest (and ineffective) way of making an argument.

The merit of "what about" is that it exposes the context and/or hypocrisy of a statement or question. Nothing dishonest about that, even if it makes the recipient uncomfortable.

Footnote on the new Democratic hero, John "$54-billion-increase-for-defense-is-not-enough-Rand-Paul-is-working-for-Putin" McCain: Rick Davis, McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign manager was Paul Manafort's partner in the lobbying firm Davis Manafort & Freedman. Why has McCain hidden this Russian connection?  It all makes perfect sense now. McCain's anti-Russian bluster is a cover for his being a Putin double-agent.  Add him to the dots.

paulsurovell said:

Footnote on the new Democratic hero, John "$54-billion-increase-for-defense-is-not-enough-Rand-Paul-is-working-for-Putin" McCain: Rick Davis, McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign manager was Paul Manafort's partner in the lobbying firm Davis Manafort & Freedman. Why has McCain hidden this Russian connection? It all makes perfect sense now. McCain's anti-Russian bluster is a cover for his being a Putin double-agent. Add him to the dots.

The missing piece, of course, is any reference to (or even allegation of) Russian involvement in the 2008 election. Back then, of course, the GOP candidate wasn't so deferential towards Russia. In fact, in those years the GOP was claiming that Mr. Obama was the one who was too deferential towards Russia.

Your attempt to use ridicule to defend Trump isn't working. In your hands it's a boomerang, smacking down your own credibility.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

to be clear, I think the article linking whataboutism to Russia to Trump is a bit off base in trying to make that connection. It appears the author of the piece just discovered the concept.

That doesn't meant the criticism of whataboutism is without merit. It's still a dishonest (and ineffective) way of making an argument.

The merit of "what about" is that it exposes the context and/or hypocrisy of a statement or question. Nothing dishonest about that, even if it makes the recipient uncomfortable.

No, as defined and practiced, it has no merit. It's a combination of "trying to change the subject" and ad hominem argument.

It's interesting that the aversion to anything which might point to Russian activity in the election, and therefore the need to defend Trump, leads a person to try to justify what is a very sleazy rhetorical tactic.

Mike Rogers and Jim Comey swear under oath that there was Russian hacking.   (Waiting for Greenwald's reaction)