Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
RobB said:
colludamatta?
I'm still working out the details.
Colluda Matata! What a wonderful phrase
Colluda Matata! Ain't no passing craze
Trump and HRC were both very flawed candidates. Our primary system along with no sensible campaign finance laws and the public's obsession with celebrities and sound bites all help us insure our candidates are the ones who are least qualified to lead our country.
What difference does it make which candidate colluded more? Not sure why the question is coming up now or even how it can be proved one way or another.
mikescott said:
Trump and HRC were both very flawed candidates.
Of course.
But we knew the general outline of the policies they would pursue.
The election was not just for a person to be President. It was for the policies that person would implement.
Some "anti-Hillary" people didn't comprehend that. And so we have Trump.
paulsurovell said:My "fury" is directed at a knee-jerk, mindless, evidence-free mantra that makes people feel good but pushes us closer to Nuclear War
I think this premise is worth looking a bit closer, as I believe it's flawed. I don't see the prospect of nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia as being all that high, and to the degree that it does exist, I believe Trump (and his supporters, including in this context you) heighten, rather than lessen the odds.
Nuclear war is most likely to break out in North Korea, with India/Pakistan being a distant second (though not distant enough!) and US/Russia being very unlikely. The US and Russia, after all, have a long track record of NOT going nuclear, despite decades of opportunity and motivation to do so. Tension between Russia and the US is real, but on nothing approaching the scale it was during the Cold War. It's hard to imagine exactly what kind of scenario in today's politics would lead to nuclear war here. The most likely military conflict I can imagine happening is the US and Russia clashing in Syria -- but by its nature any US/Russia conflict seems like it would be fairly limited; it's hard to see how that would escalate to full on warfare, much less nuclear war.
A Russian invasion of the Baltics seems a less likely scenario, but the flip side to that is that it would be more likely to escalate into an full scale war, as it directly impacts not just tangential US intersts, but core US interests and allies. This is, of course, exactly the kind of scenario NATO exists to ward against and, fatally for the "Trump makes us safer" school of thought, precisely the kind of scenario Trump makes more likely by his lukewarm defense of NATO and our European alliances.
Secondly, this idea that we need to accommodate Russian interests because of the threat of nuclear war is to essentially argue in support of nuclear blackmail. That's an inherently unstable situation -- a peace secured under threat, rather than one reached by cooperating on mutual interests, is one more likely to eventually lead to conflict.
Finally, keep in mind the man at the center of all this -- Donald Trump. Whatever agreement he believes he may have with Putin, consider the kind of man Trump is, and whether he's the sort you believe we can rely on. Does he strike you as someone particularly inclined to honor agreements? Does the idea of pinning hopes for deep and lasting peace between the US and Russia upon the good faith of Trump inspire you with confidence? It certainly does not for me.
Hugely missing the elephant in the room, which is that Russia is an adversary.
Just for fun, make some substitutions.
Replace "Donald Trump" with "Wendell Willkie"
Replace "Hillary Clinton" with "Franklin Delano Roosevelt"
Replace "Ukraine" with "Great Britain"
Replace "Russia" with "Nazi Germany"
And while you're at it, replace 2016 with 1940.
Does anything start to become clear when you do that?
Is "Franklin Delano Roosevelt colluded with Great Britain in 1940" in any way equivalent to "Wendell Willkie colluded with Nazi Germany in 1940"? Would a reasonable person say, "See! They both colluded!" and expect to be treated as anything other than an idiot?
(Not that Willkie did such a thing, but just for the point of illustration.)
Funniest thing this guy's ever said:
“I’d say it’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion was incompetent and that it didn’t work out,” Charles Krauthammer said, appearing on Fox News Tuesday.
Seriously Tom, remember those fiercely anti-commie GOPers?
A perfect test of character for these cowards: America? Or GOP?
This is the reason that the Kremlin and their related propaganda likes to use this argument. This idea that the only two options currently are appeasing Russia or nuclear war is pretty preposterous. Both the US and Russia are mature enough nuclear nations to know that any large scale nuclear conflict won't end well. Neither nation is known to act rashly in this regard. Trump does change that equation a little bit, but I'd still be more worried about him using nukes against DPRK or ISIS than Russia.
The Kremlin likes the argument, because it can be used to justify anything that isn't quite as bad as nuclear war - which is essentially anything.
PVW said:
Secondly, this idea that we need to accommodate Russian interests because of the threat of nuclear war is to essentially argue in support of nuclear blackmail. That's an inherently unstable situation -- a peace secured under threat, rather than one reached by cooperating on mutual interests, is one more likely to eventually lead to conflict.
Trump's perfect ignorance of history adds to our worries. I doubt he knows anything about MAD except that he used to struggle with the folding puzzle on the back cover when he was a kid.
mikescott said:
Trump and HRC were both very flawed candidates.
Every candidate for President since George Washington has been flawed. DJT is a human piece of garbage.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:My "fury" is directed at a knee-jerk, mindless, evidence-free mantra that makes people feel good but pushes us closer to Nuclear War
I think this premise is worth looking a bit closer, as I believe it's flawed. I don't see the prospect of nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia as being all that high, and to the degree that it does exist, I believe Trump (and his supporters, including in this context you) heighten, rather than lessen the odds.
Trump pushed into confrontation with Russia is far more dangerous than Trump seeking detente.
Your view that the risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia is not "all that high" is not terribly assuring.
Your opinion that I'm a Trump supporter because I don't accept the evidence-free allegations of Russian interference in the election may win you brownie points on this thread but it doesn't speak well of your analytical abilities.
PVW said:
Nuclear war is most likely to break out in North Korea, with India/Pakistan being a distant second (though not distant enough!) and US/Russia being very unlikely. The US and Russia, after all, have a long track record of NOT going nuclear, despite decades of opportunity and motivation to do so. Tension between Russia and the US is real, but on nothing approaching the scale it was during the Cold War. It's hard to imagine exactly what kind of scenario in today's politics would lead to nuclear war here. The most likely military conflict I can imagine happening is the US and Russia clashing in Syria -- but by its nature any US/Russia conflict seems like it would be fairly limited; it's hard to see how that would escalate to full on warfare, much less nuclear war.
Accidental nuclear war is at least as likely as a war caused by escalating crisis.
Many US and Russian nuclear weapons are in "launch-on-warning" mode. Hillary divulged in the campaign that we have about four minutes to stop the launch process, once a Russian attack has been detected. There have been numerous false alarms on both sides. The Russian side, with its inferior technology and management systems is more at risk of launching on a false warning than we are.
Former Senator Sam Nunn and other nuclear experts point to the breakdown of US-Russian relations in their letter to Trump and Putin calling for steps to reduce the growing risks of nuclear war and conventional military confrontation (see text below)
PVW said:
A Russian invasion of the Baltics seems a less likely scenario, but the flip side to that is that it would be more likely to escalate into an full scale war, as it directly impacts not just tangential US intersts, but core US interests and allies. This is, of course, exactly the kind of scenario NATO exists to ward against and, fatally for the "Trump makes us safer" school of thought, precisely the kind of scenario Trump makes more likely by his lukewarm defense of NATO and our European alliances.
The issue is not that "Trump makes us safer" but that a Trump pushed into confrontation with Russia over its alleged hacking of emails makes us far less safe.
PVW said:
Secondly, this idea that we need to accommodate Russian interests because of the threat of nuclear war is to essentially argue in support of nuclear blackmail. That's an inherently unstable situation -- a peace secured under threat, rather than one reached by cooperating on mutual interests, is one more likely to eventually lead to conflict.
We need to find areas of mutual interest, one of which is reducing the risk of nuclear war. The atmosphere of hysteria over the Russian allegations makes it difficult to even acknowledge that Russia has legitimate interests that should be addressed in our bilateral relations.
PVW said:
Finally, keep in mind the man at the center of all this -- Donald Trump. Whatever agreement he believes he may have with Putin, consider the kind of man Trump is, and whether he's the sort you believe we can rely on. Does he strike you as someone particularly inclined to honor agreements? Does the idea of pinning hopes for deep and lasting peace between the US and Russia upon the good faith of Trump inspire you with confidence? It certainly does not for me.
The relevant question is -- should we pressure Trump to be more hostile and confrontational toward Russia, or should we pressure him to seek areas of cooperation and better relations with Russia?
From the Nuclear Threat Initiative:
http://www.nti.org/newsroom/ne...
Open Letter to President Trump and President Putin
With relations between Russia and the West deteriorating and becoming more dangerous every day, former British Defense Secretary Des Browne, former German Ambassador to the United States Wolfgang Ischinger, former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, and former US Senator Sam Nunn have written a letter to Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin urging the two leaders to use the July 7-8 G20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany, to work together on areas of existential common interest, chief among them reducing nuclear and other military risks and preventing catastrophic terrorist attacks.
Browne, Ischinger, Ivanov and Nunn recommend four urgent steps that can be taken now to “stop the downward spiral in relations and reduce real dangers,” including: a new Presidential Joint Declaration declaring that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought; a new NATO-Russia Military Crisis Management Group; a new joint initiative to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; and discussions on cyber dangers related to strategic warning systems and nuclear command and control. The letter is being publicly released Tuesday, June 27, in Moscow, Europe and Washington.
Text of Letter:
Dear President Putin and President Trump,
The chasm between Russia and the West appears to be wider now than at any point since the Cold War. In the absence of new initiatives, the knot of distrust is being tightened, choking off the ability of governments to discuss, let alone advance, steps essential for improving the security of all people living in the Euro-Atlantic region.
Your first meeting in Hamburg will be a unique opportunity to underscore that, despite significant differences, the United States, Russia, and Europe can and must work together on areas of existential common interest -- chief among them reducing nuclear and other military risks, and preventing catastrophic terrorist attacks.
The starting point could be a new Presidential Joint Declaration by the United States and the Russian Federation declaring that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. This would make clear again that leaders recognize their responsibility to work together to prevent nuclear catastrophe, and would be positively received by global leaders and publics.
A second step could be to increase military-to-military communication through a new NATO-Russia Military Crisis Management Group. Restarting bilateral military-to-military dialogue between the United States and Russia, essential throughout the Cold War, should be an immediate and urgent priority. The focus of these initiatives should be on reducing risks of a catastrophic mistake or accident by restoring communication and increasing transparency and trust.
A third step could be to collaborate to prevent ISIS and other terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear and radiological materials through a joint initiative to prevent WMD terrorism. There is an urgent need to cooperate on securing vulnerable radioactive materials that could be used to produce a “dirty bomb.” Such materials are widely available in more than 150 countries and are often found in facilities, such as hospitals and universities, that are poorly secured.
Fourth, discussions are imperative for reaching at least informal understandings on cyber dangers related to interference in strategic warning systems and nuclear command and control. This should be urgently addressed to prevent war by mistake. That there are no clear “rules of the road” in the strategic nuclear cyber world is alarming.
Russia, the United States, and Europe are confronting a range of significant issues today. But none should distract from urgently pursuing practical steps now that can stop the downward spiral in relations and reduce real dangers. The steps we have identified here are a good place to begin. We respectfully urge you to start now in Hamburg.
Des Browne, a former British defense secretary, is Chair of the European Leadership Network
Wolfgang Ischinger, former German Ambassador to the United States, is Chairman of the Munich Security Conference and Professor for Security Policy and Diplomatic Practice at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin
Igor S. Ivanov, former Russian Foreign Minister and Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation from 2004 to 2007, is President of the Russian International Affairs Council
Sam Nunn, a former US senator and chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, is Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative
It hasn't occurred on this thread, but many times daily I read and hear Trump supporters demand that a "special counsel" be appointed to investigate Hillary's alleged campaign malfeasance. This drives me crazy. Hillary isn't in any official role, so there is no need for a Mueller-like appointment. If the allegations that Paul brings up are true and justify prosecution, it could be done through the normal Department of Justice system. So if these allegations relating to the DNC and Ukraine implicate Hillary (though I haven't seen it), take it up with Jeff Sessions.
paulsurovell said:
Your opinion that I'm a Trump supporter because I don't accept the evidence-free allegations of Russian interference in the election may win you brownie points on this thread but it doesn't speak well of your analytical abilities.
What does it say of my analytical abilities that I read the title of this thread that you started and then read the sentence above and see a massive fricking disconnect?
"The Trump team’s habit of lying in public about its contacts with various official and unofficial emissaries of the Russian government is problematic on its own terms, but especially troubling because it raises the possibility that American foreign policy could be influenced by the fear of blackmail. ...
"The theory here is simple. If you lie to the public about meetings with the Russian government, the Russian government will know that you lied and could threaten to release embarrassing and personally damaging information unless you take positions they like."
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
Your opinion that I'm a Trump supporter because I don't accept the evidence-free allegations of Russian interference in the election may win you brownie points on this thread but it doesn't speak well of your analytical abilities.
What does it say of my analytical abilities that I read the title of this thread that you started and then read the sentence above and see a massive fricking disconnect?
I'd rate you B+. There is a bit of a disconnect, but not a massive disconnect.
"Democratic congressmen on the House Judiciary Committee want to know why Attorney General Jeff Sessions abruptly settled a money laundering case in May involving the same Russian attorney who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential election to offer 'dirt' on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton."
Trump isn't seeking detente. (I sincerely doubt he even knows the word's meaning.) He's looking out only for himself and his family.
And passively allowing Russia to hack elections and manipulate leaders to lessen sanctions is not detente.
Stoughton said:
It hasn't occurred on this thread, but many times daily I read and hear Trump supporters demand that a "special counsel" be appointed to investigate Hillary's alleged campaign malfeasance. This drives me crazy. Hillary isn't in any official role, so there is no need for a Mueller-like appointment. If the allegations that Paul brings up are true and justify prosecution, it could be done through the normal Department of Justice system. So if these allegations relating to the DNC and Ukraine implicate Hillary (though I haven't seen it), take it up with Jeff Sessions.
I see nothing illegal in Hillary's collusion with Ukraine govt and Russian govt officials. It's not illegal to get dirt on a political opponent from a foreign govt.
Likewise, I see nothing illegal in Don Jr.'s expression of interest in getting dirt on a political opponent, in response to an email from a British music publicist.
My point in comparing Hillary's actual collusion and Trump's interest in collusion is mostly to show the dishonesty of the media and the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are pushing the evidence-free "collusion" allegations against Trump as part of a campaign for a new Cold War with Russia.
Here's a great interview with Glenn Greenwald on this morning's Democracy Now! that covers these matters quite well. I'll post the transcript when it's available.
The "collusion" wasn't with the Clinton campaign. It was a worker for the DNC, freelancing, and nothing she received moved forward. What's more, it all happened before the convention; and after the convention the worker resigned.
Collusion with Hillary just seems to be a practical impossibility.
paulsurovell said:
I see nothing illegal in Hillary's collusion with Ukraine govt and Russian govt officials. It's not illegal to get dirt on a political opponent from a foreign govt.
Likewise, I see nothing illegal in Don Jr.'s expression of interest in getting dirt on a political opponent, in response to an email from a British music publicist.
There are lawyers with expertise in criminal law and/or campaign finance law who absolutely disagree.
paulsurovell said:
My point in comparing Hillary's actual collusion and Trump's interest in collusion is mostly to show the dishonesty of the media and the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are pushing the evidence-free "collusion" allegations against Trump as part of a campaign for a new Cold War with Russia.
tom said:
The "collusion" wasn't with the Clinton campaign. It was a worker for the DNC, freelancing, and nothing she received moved forward. What's more, it all happened before the convention; and after the convention the worker resigned.
So the "dishonesty of the media" and "hypocrisy of the Democrats" charges are baseless. The "a campaign for a new Cold War with Russia" charge is baseless, also. It's a clumsy way to try to deflect any concerns about Russian government actions.
I don't really care that much whether a given poster on MOL chooses deny Russia's interference in our election or not (though I'd observe, as Ridski did, that it's hard to reconcile starting a thread asking "who colluded more" -- which by its nature endorses the idea that there was, in fact, collusion -- with protestations that any claims of collusion are "baseless" or "evidence-free").
What is noteworthy I think, is Don Jr's emails. The email he received said "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," and Trump Jr's response was "I love it." Not "what are you talking about" or "what Russian support," but "I love it."
At this point, it takes an awful lot of motivated reasoning to believe that Russia was not involved in helping out the Trump campaign. As the article South Mountaineer posted noted, Putin knows the truth, meaning he has leverage over Trump. Let me state that again --- the president of the United States is vulnerable to pressure by Vladimir Putin.
So President Trump, who conceives of himself as a master negotiator, a narcissist who can't stand to ever be less than the center of attention and most important man in the room, is in a position of weakness in relation to Vladimir Putin.
If the implications of this power dynamic aren't clear enough, I might recommend re-watching (or watching) The Sopranos. Here in real life we have a weak and incompetent man who find himself head of a powerful organization, in a position of weakness to what he surely believes is a less deserving man and less powerful organization. How do you suppose this is going to end, exactly? I don't see it going well.
Trump needs to be removed from office for the safety of the nation (ie -- impeached). Failing that, he needs to be contained as much as possible.
paulsurovell said:I see nothing illegal in Hillary's collusion with Ukraine govt and Russian govt officials.
Something that didn't happen is definitely not illegal.
https://www.democracynow.org/2...
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. We’re speaking with Glenn Greenwald for the hour.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The White House remains in crisis mode following revelations that Donald Trump’s own son openly embraced an apparent effort by the Russian government to peddle information incriminating Hillary Clinton in an attempt to help Trump win the presidency. Emails show Trump Jr. was told Russia wanted to share incriminating information about Clinton as, quote, "part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump." Trump Jr. replied, quote, "if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer," end-quote. A week after receiving the email last June, Trump Jr., along with Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, met with someone described to them as a, quote, "Russian government attorney." The meeting remained secret until Kushner mentioned it on a revised security clearance form.
AMY GOODMAN: In a new interview with Reuters, President Trump defended his oldest son. He said, quote, "I think many people would have held that meeting." When asked if he knew about the meeting, Trump told Reuters, "No. That I didn’t know, until a couple of days ago, when I heard about this."
Still with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of The Intercept. Well, Glenn, as you look at this, as an American, but from your vantage point in Rio de Janeiro, your response to this latest development and the whole issue of Russiagate?
GLENN GREENWALD: So here’s what I don’t understand about this. Certainly, it’s an interesting email. I’m glad that it surfaced. It does lend some credence to the possibility that the Trump administration colluded with the Russians criminally, meaning with their hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails, if in fact the Russians did that as the intelligence agencies claim, although they’ve produced no evidence for it. It is possible that the Trump administration or Trump officials colluded with the Russians to commit that crime. It’s possible they didn’t. We still haven’t seen any evidence that they have. Remember, this is not evidence suggesting that Trump officials actually colluded with the Russians to commit a crime—the hacking.
Now, what the Democrats are saying is that the Trump administration and their defenders in the media at Fox News and the like are, quote-unquote, "moving the goalposts" by saying, "Well, this only shows that Trump Jr. was willing to get information from the Russian government about Clinton, but it doesn’t show there was actual criminal collusion." To me, it seems as though the people who are moving the goalposts are the Democrats. The claim all along, the reason why there’s talk of impeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see Trump and his associates criminally prosecuted, is because of the claim that they committed crimes by colluding with the Russians with regard to the hacking. That’s what Harry Reid has always said. That’s what John Podesta has always said. That has always been the Democratic claim. This newest evidence doesn’t in any way suggest that. What it suggests instead is that Donald Trump Jr. was told that the Russian government had incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton and wanted to give it to him. And he said, "Well, I’d love to get it. I’d love to have it." Now, I guess there’s some sense that it’s wrong for a political campaign to take dirt on your adversary from a foreign government. I don’t think it’s illegal at all to do that, but there’s a claim that it’s somehow sort of immoral.
And here’s what I don’t understand. The Steele dossier that everybody got excited about, that claimed that the Russians had incriminating videos of Trump in a Moscow hotel and other dirt on Trump, that came from somebody who was getting first paid by Republicans and then by Democrats, going to Moscow and getting dirt about Donald Trump from Kremlin-affiliated agents in Moscow. In other words, he went to Russia, talked to people affiliated with the Russian government and said, "Give me dirt about Donald Trump," and then, presumably, got it and put it in the memo. Similarly, there’s an amazing Politico article from January of this year that describes how allies of the Clinton campaign, including somebody being paid by the DNC, met with officials of the Ukrainian government, which was desperate to help Hillary Clinton win and Donald Trump lose, and get information incriminating about Trump from Ukrainian officials. In other words, Ukraine was meddling in our election by giving Democrats incriminating information about Trump.
Now, I, personally, although it’s dirty, think all of these events are sort of the way politics works. Of course if you’re in an important campaign and someone offers you incriminating information about your opponent, you’re going to want it no matter where it comes from, whether it’s Ukrainian officials, whether it’s anti-Trump people in Moscow or whether it’s pro-Trump people in Moscow. So, I want to hear the standard that we’re supposed to use to assess Trump Jr.'s actions. Is it that it's wrong in all cases to get incriminating information about your opponent from a foreign government? In which case, why is it OK for the Democrats to do it with Ukrainian officials or for their investigator to go to Moscow and get dirt on Trump? Or is it some other standard that distinguishes what Trump Jr. did in this case versus what Democrats did with the Steele dossier and with Ukraine? And I just don’t see this distinction. And so, for me, at least—
AMY GOODMAN: Well, lawyers—some lawyers are saying—
GLENN GREENWALD: —it’s an interesting—
AMY GOODMAN: Some lawyers are saying it has to do with—
GLENN GREENWALD: Go ahead.
AMY GOODMAN: —breaking campaign finance laws or campaign laws that have to do with getting something of value, not necessarily financial, from a foreign entity, a state or nonstate actor.
GLENN GREENWALD: Right. And there’s, I think, a lot more lawyers and a lot more campaign finance lawyers who have said that just getting information about a candidate would not constitute something of value. But let’s assume that that’s true. Let’s take that theory as though it’s true. Why doesn’t it also apply then to the person working for Democrats who went to Moscow and got something of value, namely information about Trump, from Kremlin-connected people in Moscow, or Democrats, including someone working for the DNC, who got something of value from Ukrainian officials? Why isn’t that the same thing?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me go to what independent journalist Marcy Wheeler of EmptyWheel.net said about the significance of this week’s news. I talked to her yesterday.
MARCY WHEELER: The email adds a bunch of remarkable new details to what we know, most importantly, that the Trump campaign knew that Russia was trying to get Donald Trump elected probably before even the intelligence community. We had known that the CIA had gotten a tip from a foreign partner sometime in June that even today NSA still doesn’t think was that great a piece of intelligence. But, meanwhile, we learned that on—you know, in early June, Don Jr. was getting this email saying, "There is an effort on the part of Russia to get your father elected. And as part of that, we’re going to sent this lawyer to you with dirt on Hillary Clinton." And Don Jr., having read that email, said, "Great! Bring it on! Give me that information."
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Marcy Wheeler. And, Glenn, she wrote, just as you’re describing, the same thing over the weekend, said, "How does this differ, for example, a Democrat going to get information from the British spy Christopher Steele, who then got information from people in Russia?" But she said it all changed with seeing the actual emails.
GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, I mean, I agree with Marcy to a large extent, but not fully, because, you know, I think that—first of all, you know, yesterday, Democrats attacked Bernie Sanders, because Bernie Sanders, when asked about the Donald Trump Jr. email, came out and said, "There are obviously significant questions raised by this, but we shouldn’t rush to judgment. We should wait to see all the evidence." And part of my discomfort with this whole thing all along—and as a lawyer, I know this really well—is that when you get bits and pieces of information leaked through the media without the full context of what’s taking place, it’s very difficult to assess what it actually is. There’s an independent prosecutor, Robert Mueller, who everyone regards as independent and trustworthy, who has subpoena power, who is investigating this.
So, to me, what this email says is it’s from a British promoter who’s trying to lure Donald Trump Jr. into a meeting with someone who is his friend, saying, "The Russians want your father to win, and they’re willing to give you information to help." I think it’s clear the Russian government wanted Donald Trump to win. I don’t think that’s particularly surprising. Nor do I find it surprising that Donald Trump Jr., when told that the Russian government wants to give him information that can help his father shed a bad light on Hillary Clinton, he was willing to do that. Why do we consider that surprising, let alone criminal? Again, I do think it bolsters the Democrats’ view that the Russians—the theory that Russians wanted Trump to win and that the Trump campaign was willing to take help from the Russians. But that’s still—there’s still a lot more steps that need to be completed before we get to any kind of evidence of an actual crime being committed. And that’s why I don’t think that this revelation, interesting though it may be, is as significant or a smoking gun when it comes to the impeachment or the prosecution case.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Glenn, even though the Trump campaign has always denied collusion with the Russians in the 2016 presidential election, in his interview with Reuters yesterday, Trump suggested that there had been interference in last year’s election, saying, quote, "Something happened, and we have to find out what it is, because we can’t allow a thing like that to happen in our election process. So something happened, and we have to find out what it is." So, could you respond to that, Glenn, and tell us what you think it is that he’s alluding to?
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think there are two separate issues there that we shouldn’t conflate. One is the question of whether the Russians were behind the hacks. And when I say the Russians, I mean, was it just some group of Russians, Russian hackers or Russians acting in some rogue way, or was it actually—were they actually Kremlin officials ordered by Putin? We don’t know the answers to any of those questions, even though the intelligence agencies have said that it was Putin who ordered it. So that’s one question that I think, in that quote, Trump is talking about, which is, we have to get to the bottom of who actually hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails, and make the evidence public so that the public can see that these assertions that the intelligence community have been making actually have evidence behind them.
Then there’s a second question, which is independent, which is: If it’s true that the Russian government hacked John Podesta and the DNC’s emails and distributed what they got to WikiLeaks, did the Trump campaign participate in that crime, either by working with the Russians before the hack or working with them after the hack on how to get the information distributed in a way that would most hurt the Democrats? That, to me, is the core question that has been at the center of this controversy from the beginning. And we still don’t have evidence that the Trump administration participated in that part of the crime. Hopefully, we will learn, one way or the other, in a sober, rational, comprehensive way, not through bits and pieces being leaked by agenda-driven anonymous sources, but by an investigation laying forth the case in a way that we can all see the evidence.
AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, we’re going to continue this discussion after break. Coming up, we’ll look at how The Intercept’s parent company, First Look Media, is helping support the legal defense for the alleged NSA whistleblower Reality Winner. Stay with us.
Details in Donald Jr.'s emails align with parts of the Steele dossier.
Featured Events
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
When you say "our" whom are you referring to?