No Trump defenders left ...?

[_Markk]

... where does it tie the two together ...

Which two? This is not a simple matter of linking A and B, but instead is a huge and complex affair, each part of which links into the others and reinforces them.

So far as I can see, it is becoming clear that the Russian mafia/government has been succeeding admirably in getting its tentacles deep into the conservative/Republican movement, and, as part of that, deep into the Trump team and even the Trump family. And Trump's foreign policy utterances and actions are nicely in tune with what the Russians want.

Either Trump knows that is happening and approves, in which case he is complicit, or he does not, in which case he is frankly as dumb as a rock.

Trump and Putina...

There are times I certainly believe he is dump as a rock, as I do with most politicians...but focus here, there is nothing in the affidavit that ties she and Trump together, in fact it specifically reads otherwise...

"On October 4, 2016. U.S. Persom 1 (Butina) sent an email to an acquaintance. The email covered a number of topics. Within the email, U.S. Person 1 stated, "unrelated to specific presidential campaigns, I've been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key POLITICAL PARTY 1 leaders through, of all conduits, the [GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION.]."

Butina and Torshin, together, met with top officials under Obama, and even high ranking Federal Reserve...and yet we know Obama said. All this happened under Obama's watch, and my guess is if Hillary would have won, it would still be going on, but that is just a guess.

She was also involved in the pre election Libertarian Freedom-fest, which also muddys the water.

Point being there are plenty of "dumb rocks" in Washington. Espionage and counter espionage has been going on since before the cold war...and it is going on right now within all party's of goverment, if anything maybe their largest accomplishment is this whole scandal if not true. Obama seemed to ignore much of it and set the table for much of it. It was not even on the radar until the election.

In your complex scenario, especially in regards to Butina, why does it start with Trump and involve only him when she and Torshin where already meeting with officials from the Obama White House...and a official with the Federal Reserve...that is huge.

Doc's smoking gun is anything but a smoking gun, if anything when read objectively is shows and lead to a failure and complicity of the previous administration.

If Trump is guilty he needs to pay, if Obama or Hillary are guilty (of whatever) they should equally pay...but forcing something into something that is just not there is wrong, and there is absolutely nothing that ties Trump to Butina in the affidavit.

[_EAllusion]

Butina's principle role that we're aware of was to establish connections between Russian intelligence and the NRA which led to laundering dirty Russian money through the NRA to help elect Republicans in general and Trump specifically. Because it's a small world at the top, this put her in close connection with Republican leadership also connected to Trump. This doesn't get you, "Trump deliberately worked with a Russian spy to launder money to his campaign," but if that's your threshhold for seeing a serious problem here, something is wrong with you.

ETA: Obama deserves criticism for failing to adequately respond to Russian aggression in our election process. We know his weakness on this was in part driven by fears of being seen as partisan during an election year as Republicans deliberately tried to stop him from addressing the problem in a bipartisan fashion (!!!). It probably also was in part driven by a widely shared, but mistaken belief that Republicans were imploding on their own leaving time to address it after the election. Criticizing Obama for this isn't on the same planet as, you know, knowingly benefiting from it and (at the very least) running interference for it.

[_Maksutov]

Butina's principle role that we're aware of was to establish connections between Russian intelligence and the NRA which led to laundering dirty Russian money through the NRA to help elect Republicans in general and Trump specifically. Because it's a small world at the top, this put her in close connection with Republican leadership also connected to Trump. This doesn't get you, "Trump deliberately worked with Russian spy to launder money to his campaign," but if that's your threshhold for seeing a serious problem here, something is wrong with you.

[_Chap]

Can someone help me out, please?

I find it quite hard to see exactly what it is that Markk is asserting to be the case in regards to

(a) Obama and Obama's close associates
(b) Trump and Trump's close associates

and the nature and effect of their contacts with Russian mafia/government agents attempting to influence the course of US politics over the last few years. I am anxious not to misunderstand him, but he is not very good at making himself clear.

So, anybody?

[_Markk]

Butina's principle role that we're aware of was to establish connections between Russian intelligence and the NRA which led to laundering dirty Russian money through the NRA to help elect Republicans in general and Trump specifically. Because it's a small world at the top, this put her in close connection with Republican leadership also connected to Trump. This doesn't get you, "Trump deliberately worked with a Russian spy to launder money to his campaign," but if that's your threshhold for seeing a serious problem here, something is wrong with you.

ETA: Obama deserves criticism for failing to adequately respond to Russian aggression in our election process. We know his weakness on this was in part driven by fears of being seen as partisan during an election year as Republicans deliberately tried to stop him from addressing the problem in a bipartisan fashion (!!!). It probably also was in part driven by a widely shared, but mistaken belief that Republicans were imploding on their own leaving time to address it after the election. Criticizing Obama for this isn't on the same planet as, you know, knowingly benefiting from it and (at the very least) running interference for it.

It is wrong, all spying efforts are wrong and troubling...just like them penetrating Obama...but it does not mean Obama colluded with them, nor does it mean Trump colluded with them. Russians have gotten into our goverment in every administration from the Truman era, to the current era, and one of their largest wins in my opinion is dividing so many. These guys are sitting back with their arms folded and legs on their desks as we implode.

Are you kidding me...Obama waited to address espionage..."It probably also was in part driven by a widely shared, but mistaken belief that Republicans were imploding on their own leaving time to address it after the election."

Incredible...in other words you are saying that Obama knowing let the Russian interfere. I prefer the dumb as a rock scenario that Chap introduced. But you may be right that Obama allowed it...which probably means Hillary was equally privy. You may also be correct that it is not on the same planet, it may be on a much larger planet. You just wrote that a standing president allowed, in you words..." ...respond to Russian aggression in our election process."

[_EAllusion]

It is wrong, all spying efforts are wrong and troubling...just like them penetrating Obama...but it does not mean Obama colluded with them, nor does it mean Trump colluded with them. Russians have gotten into our goverment in every administration from the Truman era, to the current era, and one of their largest wins in my opinion is dividing so many. These guys are sitting back with their arms folded and legs on their desks as we implode.

Are you kidding me...Obama waited to address espionage..."It probably also was in part driven by a widely shared, but mistaken belief that Republicans were imploding on their own leaving time to address it after the election."

Incredible...in other words you are saying that Obama knowing let the Russian interfere. I prefer the dumb as a rock scenario that Chap introduced. But you may be right that Obama allowed it...which probably means Hillary was equally privy. You may also be correct that it is not on the same planet, it may be on a much larger planet. You just wrote that a standing president allowed, in you words..." ...respond to Russian aggression in our election process."

I'm saying there is a reasonable chance that part of Obama's risk/benefit analysis of deciding against more aggressive action on Russian interference with Republicans actively attempting to kneecap his administrative response was that Clinton was likely to win, thus extending the timeline to take actions. Yes. This doesn't mean Obama didn't do anything. He just wasn't nearly as aggressive as he could have been, starting with notifying the American public about what was known at that time. He didn't do so because he thought this would be perceived as a partisan shenanigans. This is without a doubt how right-wing media would've covered it and mainstream media likely would've at least treated that as an open debate. This was a real risk. So he held back on this and more aggressive countermeasures the public would get wind of to avoid tainting the election in this manner.

You seem to have reduced this into, "Obama didn't do anything. He let Russians walk over us because Clinton was gonna win," which is a rather obtuse version of what I actually said. It's that this changed the benefit calculus in an environment of real risks. This was obviously a bad call in retrospect. It should've been a bad call without the benefit of hindsight in my opinion, but it isn't in any way comparable to, for example, actively aiding Russian attempts to harm our electoral process by running interference for them which we know without a doubt Donald Trump did. Misjudging how aggressive to be in opposing Russian operations is not equivalent to aiding them. This is so elementary that if I didn't know you, I'd assume you were attempting to mess with me.

To the former argument, your false equivalence attempt is so vague that's it's hard to address. Butina, on behalf of Russian operations against the United States, established a pipeline to launder money through the NRA to Republicans to help secure a Trumpist victory in the US, which Russia perceived (accurately) to be in its interest. This is like Butina's involvement in the Obama admin how again?

[_Markk]

Can someone help me out, please?

I find it quite hard to see exactly what it is that Markk is asserting to be the case in regards to

(a) Obama and Obama's close associates
(b) Trump and Trump's close associates

and the nature and effect of their contacts with Russian mafia/government agents attempting to influence the course of US politics over the last few years. I am anxious not to misunderstand him, but he is not very good at making himself clear.

So, anybody?

Where did I address anything about "close" associates? I do not recall saying that at all?

I think I have been very clear that there is nothing in the affidavit, Doc's smoking gun, that ties Butina to Trump in anyway shape or form...EA understands this and even agreed.

Butina would have done the same things if Hillary, Bush, Sanders, or any other candidate other than Trump would have won. Her attempts in penetrating the NRA started under Obama, as was her getting into Libertarian circles and associating with Obama officials. Do you think Russian spying would have ceased if Hillary would have won?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Because the NRA would funnel $100M toward Democratic politicians who are hostile to Russian foreign policy and the 2nd amendment...



- Doc

[_EAllusion]

may be right that Obama allowed it...which probably means Hillary was equally privy. You may also be correct that it is not on the same planet, it may be on a much larger planet. You just wrote that a standing president allowed, in you words..." ...respond to Russian aggression in our election process."

Clinton was out of the government at that point, but Clinton was eventually aware of Russian interference in a broad sense, yes. She tried to sound the alarms repeatedly on it. Her statements during the debates on this subject turned out to be incredibly prescient.

What we didn't know at that time was the extent of evidence already in hand about Russian espionage and the extent of Russian connections in Trump's campaign. I don't know to what extent Clinton was briefed about this before the election in the briefings the major party candidates get, but she would've been briefed the same material Donald Trump was.

The reason Obama wasn't out there sounding the alarms like Clinton was is he didn't want to be seen as using the government improperly and Republican leadership made it clear they were going to paint his going public as a partisan act. This is so quaint given what the Trump admin does on a weekly basis that it's easy to forget that these kind of political norms used to have power. Not that there wasn't a real potential for that to backfire, but Obama's fealty to bipartisan gestures and appearance is one of his great weaknesses as a politician. This is ironic given that there's an image of him in conservative circles as a leftist firebrand unwilling to compromise.

[_Xenophon]

You seem to have reduced this into, "Obama didn't do anything. He let Russians walk over us because Clinton was gonna win," which is a rather obtuse version of what I actually said. It's that this changed the benefit calculus in an environment of real risks. This was obviously a bad call in retrospect. It should've been a bad call without the benefit of hindsight in my opinion, but it isn't in any way comparable to, for example, actively aiding Russian attempts to harm our electoral process by running interference for them which we know without a doubt Donald Trump did. Misjudging how aggressive to be in opposing Russian operations is not equivalent to aiding them. This is so elementary that if I didn't know you, I'd assume you were attempting to mess with me.

Markk's take also completely ignores that the need for doing the political calculus was due in no small part to the GOP's response to Obama when he said he wanted to go public with it. We're in full agreement that Obama made the wrong call but Markk seems very eager to lay blame at his feet that belongs, at least in part, with a few other individuals.