Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

dave23 said:

Parts of both the left and right have become Putin supporters. The small-government right suddenly admires his authoritarianism and the peacenik left overlooks his murderous and war-supporting tendencies.

I guess if you don't agree with Paul Begala, you're a "Putin supporter"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/c...

Long-time Clinton family ally Paul Begala on Wednesday evening seemingly suggested President Trump should consider bombing Russia in response to the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election. Speaking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the former adviser to Bill Clinton lamented how Trump supporters don’t seem particularly outraged about Russia’s meddling in American affairs. “We were and are under attack by a hostile foreign power,” he said, “and... we should be debating how many sanctions we should place on Russia or whether we should blow up the KGB, GSU, or GRU [Russia’s foreign intelligence agency].” He continued: “If I was Trump, I would be mad because it has tainted his victory.”

I don't even know what "blowing up" an intelligence service even means.

dave23 said:

I don't even know what "blowing up" an intelligence service even means.

INdeed it would be damn near impossible to "blow up" the KGB.

paulsurovell said:

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.

Who colluded more?

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

I heard one response from the bowels of the right-wing internet alleging that the Clinton campaign “did the same thing.” The evidence? A Politico investigation showing the DNC gathered information from a Ukrainian political operative. Conveniently left out, though, is that those efforts were to expose Paul Manafort’s very problematic ties to Russia—information that was released to the public and obtained lawfully by a Ukrainian anti-corruption probe.

I don't accept the premise that Putin would have wanted Trump to win more than H. Clinton.  Other countries, yes, I get why they would have wanted Trump over Clinton.  Maybe Israel, for example.  But surely Putin would have preferred the candidate who would be the most likely to continue the status quo.  Which was a good status quo for Russian expansionism, no?

breal said:

I don't accept the premise that Putin would have wanted Trump to win more than H. Clinton.  Other countries, yes, I get why they would have wanted Trump over Clinton.  Maybe Israel, for example.  But surely Putin would have preferred the candidate who would be the most likely to continue the status quo.  Which was a good status quo for Russian expansionism, no?

You're not really paying attention, are you?

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.

Who colluded more?

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

I heard one response from the bowels of the right-wing internet alleging that the Clinton campaign “did the same thing.” The evidence? A Politico investigation showing the DNC gathered information from a Ukrainian political operative. Conveniently left out, though, is that those efforts were to expose Paul Manafort’s very problematic ties to Russia—information that was released to the public and obtained lawfully by a Ukrainian anti-corruption probe.

Doesn't rebut the fact that a DNC operative got dirt from the Ukraine govt compared to an expression of interest by Don Jr. of getting dirt from a Russian lawyer. Who colluded more?

No responses. Has everyone turned into mtierney?

LOST said:

If during the Cold War any American politician or anyone closely associated with an American politician had this kind of contact with a Russian official or anyone remotely connected to the Russian Government the politician would be condemned, ostracized and perhaps even prosecuted.

What is the difference between the Russian Government then and the Russian Government now?

Suppose it was disclosed that people involved in the Clinton Campaign or the Trump Campaign or the Campaign of any Democratic or Republican Politician met secretly with someone tied to the governments of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba or Venezuela, what result?

paulsurovell said:

Trump and his associates lie about a lot of things.  What's wrong with "contacts with Russians?"

Depends upon the purpose and nature of the contacts.

There is nothing inherently wrong with getting a blowjob, but Clinton was impeached for lying about it.

ridski said:

dave23 said:

I don't even know what "blowing up" an intelligence service even means.

INdeed it would be damn near impossible to "blow up" the KGB.

So who's crazier, Begala or Trump?

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.

Who colluded more?

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

I heard one response from the bowels of the right-wing internet alleging that the Clinton campaign “did the same thing.” The evidence? A Politico investigation showing the DNC gathered information from a Ukrainian political operative. Conveniently left out, though, is that those efforts were to expose Paul Manafort’s very problematic ties to Russia—information that was released to the public and obtained lawfully by a Ukrainian anti-corruption probe.

Doesn't rebut the fact that a DNC operative got dirt from the Ukraine govt compared to an expression of interest by Don Jr. of getting dirt from a Russian lawyer. Who colluded more?

The slanted description doesn't change that the facts show that the situations are completely different.  

paulsurovell said:

BG9 said:

A normal president, who has our interest at heart, would have told Putin that we know you screwed with our election and we will impose consequences.

What did we get? Did you do it? No. OK, fine.

I guess you don't consider Barack Obama to be a normal President:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/20/press-conference-president-obama-lima-peru

[ . . . ]

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward.  I had already made very clear to him our concerns around cyberattacks, generally, as well as specific concerns we had surrounding the DNC hack. 

I don't think this will be the norm, but as I've said before, the concern I have has less to do with any particular misinformation or propaganda that's being put out by any particular party, and a greater concern about the general misinformation from all kinds of sources -- domestic, foreign, on social media -- that make it very difficult for voters to figure out what's true and what's not.  And let me put it this way.  I think if we have a strong, accurate and responsible press, and we have a strong, civic culture and an engaged citizenry, then various attempts to meddle in our elections won't mean much.

If, generally, we've got elections that aren't focused on issues and are full of fake news and false information and distractions, then the issue is not going to be what's happening from the outside; the issue is going to be what are we doing for ourselves from the inside.  The good news is that's something that we have control over.

It is deceptive to claim that Obama's statement excuses Trump's silence.  The full text and context shows that Obama did not have a meeting (at least, unless you want to twist the meaning of:  "With respect to President Putin, I didn't have a meeting.  We talked briefly while we were in between sessions").  The idea that Obama would have silently accepted a blunt denial by Putin is not supported by anything Obama said before or after.  His thinking on this, even post-election, can be found in Obama's December 16 press conference.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...

So the pro-Trump insinuation to the contrary is baseless.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

dave23 said:

I don't even know what "blowing up" an intelligence service even means.

INdeed it would be damn near impossible to "blow up" the KGB.

So who's crazier, Begala or Trump?

I wasn't aware there was a competition. Imagine they are equally crazy, but not equally dangerous.

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

dave23 said:

I don't even know what "blowing up" an intelligence service even means.

INdeed it would be damn near impossible to "blow up" the KGB.

So who's crazier, Begala or Trump?

I wasn't aware there was a competition. Imagine they are equally crazy, but not equally dangerous.

If the competition was "Who says more crazy things", Trump would probably win.

If it was, "Who says (or tweets) more crazy things before breakfast than other people do in a whole day", the winner would definitely be Trump.

You are seriously making that argument?  That's it for your credibility.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.

Who colluded more?

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

I heard one response from the bowels of the right-wing internet alleging that the Clinton campaign “did the same thing.” The evidence? A Politico investigation showing the DNC gathered information from a Ukrainian political operative. Conveniently left out, though, is that those efforts were to expose Paul Manafort’s very problematic ties to Russia—information that was released to the public and obtained lawfully by a Ukrainian anti-corruption probe.

Doesn't rebut the fact that a DNC operative got dirt from the Ukraine govt compared to an expression of interest by Don Jr. of getting dirt from a Russian lawyer. Who colluded more?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

BG9 said:

A normal president, who has our interest at heart, would have told Putin that we know you screwed with our election and we will impose consequences.

What did we get? Did you do it? No. OK, fine.

I guess you don't consider Barack Obama to be a normal President:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/20/press-conference-president-obama-lima-peru

[ . . . ]

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward.  I had already made very clear to him our concerns around cyberattacks, generally, as well as specific concerns we had surrounding the DNC hack. 

I don't think this will be the norm, but as I've said before, the concern I have has less to do with any particular misinformation or propaganda that's being put out by any particular party, and a greater concern about the general misinformation from all kinds of sources -- domestic, foreign, on social media -- that make it very difficult for voters to figure out what's true and what's not.  And let me put it this way.  I think if we have a strong, accurate and responsible press, and we have a strong, civic culture and an engaged citizenry, then various attempts to meddle in our elections won't mean much.

If, generally, we've got elections that aren't focused on issues and are full of fake news and false information and distractions, then the issue is not going to be what's happening from the outside; the issue is going to be what are we doing for ourselves from the inside.  The good news is that's something that we have control over.

It is deceptive to claim that Obama's statement excuses Trump's silence.  The full text and context shows that Obama did not have a meeting (at least, unless you want to twist the meaning of:  "With respect to President Putin, I didn't have a meeting.  We talked briefly while we were in between sessions").  The idea that Obama would have silently accepted a blunt denial by Putin is not supported by anything Obama said before or after.  His thinking on this, even post-election, can be found in Obama's December 16 press conference.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...


So the pro-Trump insinuation to the contrary is baseless.

You must have missed this:

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward

Red_Barchetta said:

You are seriously making that argument?  That's it for your credibility.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.

Who colluded more?

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

I heard one response from the bowels of the right-wing internet alleging that the Clinton campaign “did the same thing.” The evidence? A Politico investigation showing the DNC gathered information from a Ukrainian political operative. Conveniently left out, though, is that those efforts were to expose Paul Manafort’s very problematic ties to Russia—information that was released to the public and obtained lawfully by a Ukrainian anti-corruption probe.

Doesn't rebut the fact that a DNC operative got dirt from the Ukraine govt compared to an expression of interest by Don Jr. of getting dirt from a Russian lawyer. Who colluded more?

 because . . . ?

South_Mountaineer said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

dave23 said:

I don't even know what "blowing up" an intelligence service even means.

INdeed it would be damn near impossible to "blow up" the KGB.

So who's crazier, Begala or Trump?

I wasn't aware there was a competition. Imagine they are equally crazy, but not equally dangerous.

If the competition was "Who says more crazy things", Trump would probably win.

If it was, "Who says (or tweets) more crazy things before breakfast than other people do in a whole day", the winner would definitely be Trump.

Well at least you conceded that Trump is only "probably" crazier than Begala.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

BG9 said:

A normal president, who has our interest at heart, would have told Putin that we know you screwed with our election and we will impose consequences.

What did we get? Did you do it? No. OK, fine.

I guess you don't consider Barack Obama to be a normal President:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/20/press-conference-president-obama-lima-peru

[ . . . ]

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward.  I had already made very clear to him our concerns around cyberattacks, generally, as well as specific concerns we had surrounding the DNC hack. 

I don't think this will be the norm, but as I've said before, the concern I have has less to do with any particular misinformation or propaganda that's being put out by any particular party, and a greater concern about the general misinformation from all kinds of sources -- domestic, foreign, on social media -- that make it very difficult for voters to figure out what's true and what's not.  And let me put it this way.  I think if we have a strong, accurate and responsible press, and we have a strong, civic culture and an engaged citizenry, then various attempts to meddle in our elections won't mean much.

If, generally, we've got elections that aren't focused on issues and are full of fake news and false information and distractions, then the issue is not going to be what's happening from the outside; the issue is going to be what are we doing for ourselves from the inside.  The good news is that's something that we have control over.

It is deceptive to claim that Obama's statement excuses Trump's silence.  The full text and context shows that Obama did not have a meeting (at least, unless you want to twist the meaning of:  "With respect to President Putin, I didn't have a meeting.  We talked briefly while we were in between sessions").  The idea that Obama would have silently accepted a blunt denial by Putin is not supported by anything Obama said before or after.  His thinking on this, even post-election, can be found in Obama's December 16 press conference.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...


So the pro-Trump insinuation to the contrary is baseless.

You must have missed this:

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward

I didn't miss it.  I pointed out, from statements by Obama, that your claim about his position based only on that, is false.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

BG9 said:

A normal president, who has our interest at heart, would have told Putin that we know you screwed with our election and we will impose consequences.

What did we get? Did you do it? No. OK, fine.

I guess you don't consider Barack Obama to be a normal President:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/20/press-conference-president-obama-lima-peru

[ . . . ]

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward.  I had already made very clear to him our concerns around cyberattacks, generally, as well as specific concerns we had surrounding the DNC hack. 

I don't think this will be the norm, but as I've said before, the concern I have has less to do with any particular misinformation or propaganda that's being put out by any particular party, and a greater concern about the general misinformation from all kinds of sources -- domestic, foreign, on social media -- that make it very difficult for voters to figure out what's true and what's not.  And let me put it this way.  I think if we have a strong, accurate and responsible press, and we have a strong, civic culture and an engaged citizenry, then various attempts to meddle in our elections won't mean much.

If, generally, we've got elections that aren't focused on issues and are full of fake news and false information and distractions, then the issue is not going to be what's happening from the outside; the issue is going to be what are we doing for ourselves from the inside.  The good news is that's something that we have control over.

It is deceptive to claim that Obama's statement excuses Trump's silence.  The full text and context shows that Obama did not have a meeting (at least, unless you want to twist the meaning of:  "With respect to President Putin, I didn't have a meeting.  We talked briefly while we were in between sessions").  The idea that Obama would have silently accepted a blunt denial by Putin is not supported by anything Obama said before or after.  His thinking on this, even post-election, can be found in Obama's December 16 press conference.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...


So the pro-Trump insinuation to the contrary is baseless.

You must have missed this:

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward

I didn't miss it.  I pointed out, from statements by Obama, that your claim about his position based only on that, is false.

You're saying that Obama lied?

Edited to Add:

Are you pro-Begala?

Paul -- hypothetically, if it was 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia was responsible for the DNC hack and had actively colluded with Trump's campaign, would that in any way substantively change your position?

I doubt it. You can tell me if I'm off base here, but from reading your posts what I'm getting is that the overriding issue for you is reducing tension between the US and Russia, and the the question of whether Russia actively meddled in our elections is secondary. Would that be a fair characterization?

The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money (PDF doc)

http://www.interpretermag.com/...

PVW said:

Paul -- hypothetically, if it was 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia was responsible for the DNC hack and had actively colluded with Trump's campaign, would that in any way substantively change your position?

I doubt it. You can tell me if I'm off base here, but from reading your posts what I'm getting is that the overriding issue for you is reducing tension between the US and Russia, and the the question of whether Russia actively meddled in our elections is secondary. Would that be a fair characterization?

Here's my answer:

NSA Dir Michael Hayden has said that what Russia is alleged to have done is "honorable state espionage," no different than what the US does, except that Russia "weaponized" the intelligence from the hacking.  In other words, if you assume that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta, the alleged "crime" was not the hacking but sharing the emails with the American public.

Do I think that such a "crime" would merit increasing US-Russian tensions and confrontation, and what that implies for two nations whose thousands of nuclear weapons are aimed at each other in launch-on-warning status?  Only a fool or madman/woman -- or someone crazed by the media hysteria over Russiagate -- would say yes.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...

Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden on Tuesday implied that the United States, too, has hacked foreign political parties. 

The difference between the US’s actions and Russia in the 2016 presidential election, Hayden said, was that “once they got that information, they weaponized it.” 

But up until they weaponized information, Hayden said their actions were par for the course. 

“I have to admit my definition of what the Russians did [in hacking the Democratic National Committee] is, unfortunately, honorable state espionage," Hayden said during an on-stage interview at the Heritage Foundation. 

"A foreign intelligence service getting the internal emails of a major political party in a major foreign adversary? Game on. That’s what we do. By the way, I would not want to be in an American court of law and be forced to deny that I never did anything like that as director of the NSA,” he said.

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

Paul -- hypothetically, if it was 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia was responsible for the DNC hack and had actively colluded with Trump's campaign, would that in any way substantively change your position?

I doubt it. You can tell me if I'm off base here, but from reading your posts what I'm getting is that the overriding issue for you is reducing tension between the US and Russia, and the the question of whether Russia actively meddled in our elections is secondary. Would that be a fair characterization?

Here's my answer:

NSA Dir Michael Hayden has said that what Russia is alleged to have done is "honorable state espionage," no different than what the US does, except that Russia "weaponized" the intelligence from the hacking.  In other words, if you assume that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta, the alleged "crime" was not the hacking but sharing the emails with the American public.

Do I think that such a "crime" would merit increasing US-Russian tensions and confrontation, and what that implies for two nations whose thousands of nuclear weapons are aimed at each other in launch-on-warning status?  Only a fool or madman/woman -- or someone crazed by the media hysteria over Russiagate -- would say yes.


http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...

Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden on Tuesday implied that the United States, too, has hacked foreign political parties. 

The difference between the US’s actions and Russia in the 2016 presidential election, Hayden said, was that “once they got that information, they weaponized it.” 

But up until they weaponized information, Hayden said their actions were par for the course. 

“I have to admit my definition of what the Russians did [in hacking the Democratic National Committee] is, unfortunately, honorable state espionage," Hayden said during an on-stage interview at the Heritage Foundation. 

"A foreign intelligence service getting the internal emails of a major political party in a major foreign adversary? Game on. That’s what we do. By the way, I would not want to be in an American court of law and be forced to deny that I never did anything like that as director of the NSA,” he said.

First of all, Hayden is confident that Putin interfered in the election. He did it "to play with our heads," in Hayden's words. 

Secondly, Hayden says that cyber attacks should not just be put in the "cyber problem" box. It should be part of the "Russian problem box," with all other indicators - actual Russian behavior to which the US should respond. 

"Hayden believes Russian criminal gangs, directed by the Russian state, are behind the hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. Clinton has vowed as president to fight cyberattacks like any other assault on the country, with “serious political, economic and military responses.” Hayden agrees, but thinks cyberattacks should be examined in a larger context.  

“Don’t put this in the ‘cyber problem’ box. Put this in the ‘Russian problem’ box,” Hayden said. “Put this in that box with all these other indicators – actual Russian behavior to which we should respond – in my view, respond more robustly than we’ve responded.” 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is...

Here is a video of Hayden being interviewed July 14 in which he says that Donald Jr.'s email exchange is a "game changer" and provides the linkage between what we already know, i.e, that the Russians interfered in the election, and the Trump campaign. 

At the end of the interview, he also criticizes Trump for the way in which he questioned Putin at the G20 meeting. 

eta: But none of this matters to Paul. 

PVW - Thank you for your posts. 

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.

Who colluded more?

http://www.politico.com/magazi...

I heard one response from the bowels of the right-wing internet alleging that the Clinton campaign “did the same thing.” The evidence? A Politico investigation showing the DNC gathered information from a Ukrainian political operative. Conveniently left out, though, is that those efforts were to expose Paul Manafort’s very problematic ties to Russia—information that was released to the public and obtained lawfully by a Ukrainian anti-corruption probe.

Doesn't rebut the fact that a DNC operative got dirt from the Ukraine govt compared an expression of interest by Don Jr. of getting dirt from a Russian lawyer. Who colluded more?

Which is why I posted a link to the article. The next paragraph reads:

And that’s really the big point. When digging for “dirt,” you should not pursue information obtained illicitly, whether by Russian hackers or Nixonian Plumbers. And if by chance you stumble across it, you do what anyone running for office should do—report it to the authorities.

There is a difference between legally obtained information and illegally obtained information.

Thanks for supplying context and what Hayden actually meant.

cramer said:

First of all, Hayden is confident that Putin interfered in the election. He did it "to play with our heads," in Hayden's words. 

Secondly, Hayden says that cyber attacks should not just be put in the "cyber problem" box. It should be part of the "Russian problem box," with all other indicators - actual Russian behavior to which the US should respond. 

"Hayden believes Russian criminal gangs, directed by the Russian state, are behind the hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. Clinton has vowed as president to fight cyberattacks like any other assault on the country, with “serious political, economic and military responses.” Hayden agrees, but thinks cyberattacks should be examined in a larger context.  

“Don’t put this in the ‘cyber problem’ box. Put this in the ‘Russian problem’ box,” Hayden said. “Put this in that box with all these other indicators – actual Russian behavior to which we should respond – in my view, respond more robustly than we’ve responded.” 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is...

Here is a video of Hayden being interviewed July 14 in which he says that Donald Jr.'s email exchange is a "game changer" and provides the linkage between what we already know, i.e, that the Russians interfered in the election, and the Trump campaign. 

At the end of the interview, he also criticizes Trump for the way in which he questioned Putin at the G20 meeting. 

eta: But none of this matters to Paul. 

PVW - Thank you for your posts. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

It is deceptive to claim that Obama's statement excuses Trump's silence.  The full text and context shows that Obama did not have a meeting (at least, unless you want to twist the meaning of:  "With respect to President Putin, I didn't have a meeting.  We talked briefly while we were in between sessions").  The idea that Obama would have silently accepted a blunt denial by Putin is not supported by anything Obama said before or after.  His thinking on this, even post-election, can be found in Obama's December 16 press conference.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...


So the pro-Trump insinuation to the contrary is baseless.

You must have missed this:

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward

I didn't miss it.  I pointed out, from statements by Obama, that your claim about his position based only on that, is false.

You're saying that Obama lied?

Edited to Add:

Are you pro-Begala?

Nothing I wrote could be interpreted as "Obama lied", so obviously I'm not saying that.

All through his presidency and now after it, one could see the right-wing media taking portions of President Obama's statements and attributing meanings which were not his.  It was an example of the contempt they had for him, and for reasoned discourse in general.

And "Are you pro-Begala?" is a stupid thing to add on.  I am in favor of not harping on one off-the-cuff comment during a cable TV shout-fest, as if that cancels out Trumps statements and behavior.

And I'm not a big fan of the argument that since Russia has nukes, we should lay off on Trump and his minions regarding their behavior with Russia.

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

Paul -- hypothetically, if it was 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia was responsible for the DNC hack and had actively colluded with Trump's campaign, would that in any way substantively change your position?

I doubt it. You can tell me if I'm off base here, but from reading your posts what I'm getting is that the overriding issue for you is reducing tension between the US and Russia, and the the question of whether Russia actively meddled in our elections is secondary. Would that be a fair characterization?

Here's my answer:

NSA Dir Michael Hayden has said that what Russia is alleged to have done is "honorable state espionage," no different than what the US does, except that Russia "weaponized" the intelligence from the hacking.  In other words, if you assume that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta, the alleged "crime" was not the hacking but sharing the emails with the American public.

Do I think that such a "crime" would merit increasing US-Russian tensions and confrontation, and what that implies for two nations whose thousands of nuclear weapons are aimed at each other in launch-on-warning status?  Only a fool or madman/woman -- or someone crazed by the media hysteria over Russiagate -- would say yes.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...

Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden on Tuesday implied that the United States, too, has hacked foreign political parties. 

The difference between the US’s actions and Russia in the 2016 presidential election, Hayden said, was that “once they got that information, they weaponized it.” 

But up until they weaponized information, Hayden said their actions were par for the course. 

“I have to admit my definition of what the Russians did [in hacking the Democratic National Committee] is, unfortunately, honorable state espionage," Hayden said during an on-stage interview at the Heritage Foundation. 

"A foreign intelligence service getting the internal emails of a major political party in a major foreign adversary? Game on. That’s what we do. By the way, I would not want to be in an American court of law and be forced to deny that I never did anything like that as director of the NSA,” he said.

First of all, Hayden is confident that Putin interfered in the election. He did it "to play with our heads," in Hayden's words. 

Secondly, Hayden says that cyber attacks should not just be put in the "cyber problem" box. It should be part of the "Russian problem box," with all other indicators - actual Russian behavior to which the US should respond. 

"Hayden believes Russian criminal gangs, directed by the Russian state, are behind the hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. Clinton has vowed as president to fight cyberattacks like any other assault on the country, with “serious political, economic and military responses.” Hayden agrees, but thinks cyberattacks should be examined in a larger context.  

“Don’t put this in the ‘cyber problem’ box. Put this in the ‘Russian problem’ box,” Hayden said. “Put this in that box with all these other indicators – actual Russian behavior to which we should respond – in my view, respond more robustly than we’ve responded.” 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is...

Here is a video of Hayden being interviewed July 14 in which he says that Donald Jr.'s email exchange is a "game changer" and provides the linkage between what we already know, i.e, that the Russians interfered in the election, and the Trump campaign. 

At the end of the interview, he also criticizes Trump for the way in which he questioned Putin at the G20 meeting. 

eta: But none of this matters to Paul. 

PVW - Thank you for your posts. 

. . . and Hayden's accurate description of the nature of the alleged Russian hacking -- that it is commonplace, "honorable state espionage," and most important, something that the United States does -- means nothing to Cramer.

Hayden is a notorious neocon, a warmonger, and his call for increased tension and confrontation with Russia is expected.

His admission that the alleged Russian hacking is "honorable state espionage" is a classic statement against interest which confers upon it truthfulness, revealing that the Russian hacking allegation is not a cause for a new Cold War, but merely a pretext.

PVW - Thank you for your posts.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

It is deceptive to claim that Obama's statement excuses Trump's silence.  The full text and context shows that Obama did not have a meeting (at least, unless you want to twist the meaning of:  "With respect to President Putin, I didn't have a meeting.  We talked briefly while we were in between sessions").  The idea that Obama would have silently accepted a blunt denial by Putin is not supported by anything Obama said before or after.  His thinking on this, even post-election, can be found in Obama's December 16 press conference.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...


So the pro-Trump insinuation to the contrary is baseless.

You must have missed this:

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward

I didn't miss it.  I pointed out, from statements by Obama, that your claim about his position based only on that, is false.

You're saying that Obama lied?

Edited to Add:

Are you pro-Begala?

Nothing I wrote could be interpreted as "Obama lied", so obviously I'm not saying that.

All through his presidency and now after it, one could see the right-wing media taking portions of President Obama's statements and attributing meanings which were not his.  It was an example of the contempt they had for him, and for reasoned discourse in general.


And "Are you pro-Begala?" is a stupid thing to add on.  I am in favor of not harping on one off-the-cuff comment during a cable TV shout-fest, as if that cancels out Trumps statements and behavior.

And I'm not a big fan of the argument that since Russia has nukes, we should lay off on Trump and his minions regarding their behavior with Russia.

The simple fact -- which you can't face -- is that Obama said after meeting with Putin:

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward

Your attempts to discredit the statement suggest that he was not being truthful when he said "that's behind us."

Sadly, you are so invested in Russiagate that you can't even bring yourself to criticize the insane and dangerous comments by Paul Begala -- which in Russiagate-mindset are not beyond the pale.  Nor can you admit that pushing Trump into confrontation with Russia has implications for the risk of nuclear war.

It's called denial.

There's no need to respond to the misrepresentations and false accusations, since what I wrote already covered it.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Nothing I wrote could be interpreted as "Obama lied", so obviously I'm not saying that.

All through his presidency and now after it, one could see the right-wing media taking portions of President Obama's statements and attributing meanings which were not his.  It was an example of the contempt they had for him, and for reasoned discourse in general.


And "Are you pro-Begala?" is a stupid thing to add on.  I am in favor of not harping on one off-the-cuff comment during a cable TV shout-fest, as if that cancels out Trumps statements and behavior.

And I'm not a big fan of the argument that since Russia has nukes, we should lay off on Trump and his minions regarding their behavior with Russia.

The simple fact -- which you can't face -- is that Obama said after meeting with Putin:

The issue of the elections did not come up because that's behind us and I was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward

Your attempts to discredit the statement suggest that he was not being truthful when he said "that's behind us."

Sadly, you are so invested in Russiagate that you can't even bring yourself to criticize the insane and dangerous comments by Paul Begala -- which in Russiagate-mindset are not beyond the pale.  Nor can you admit that pushing Trump into confrontation with Russia has implications for the risk of nuclear war.

It's called denial.