Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Russian To Judgement?
In the last 24 hours, two new stories on the Trump-Russia relationship have been published by the New York Times and The Washington Post, respectively.
The NYT headline reads F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia and posits that immediately after the President fired FBI director James Comey in May of 2017, the agency opened up an investigation to determine if President Trump was working on behalf in Russian interests:
Agents and senior F.B.I. officials had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude. But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s firing in May 2017, particularly two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry, the people said.
Buried nine paragraphs in the story comes this reveal:
No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both declined to comment.
The Washington Post says Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration and claims that after a one-on-one meet with Putin in Hamburg in 2017, Trump confiscated the interpreter’s notes:
President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Predictably, the media and Twitter are spinning both reports as “smoking guns” and proof of collusion. What say you, Ricochet members?
Published in General
The NY Times piece does raise the constitutional question of whether a President can, at least as far as the Executive branch is concerned, present a threat to national security /intelligence operations thereby justifying a counterintelligence investigation of him. Also the practical question of what FBI agents should do if they come across information suggesting the President is a Manchurian candidate or is working on behalf of a foreign power?
I think under Article II the answer to the first question is “No” and if the FBI had concern the President was acting as a foreign agent or otherwise being controlled by a foreign power, the proper response is not to open a CI investigation but to inform the congressional Gang of Eight and leave the matter to Congress.
Trump planned to say nothing important and planned to hear nothing important. You know it’s true.
Then why have the meeting?
Comey intentionally did not inform Congress during his quarterly updates. Maybe that is legal, but he should be indicted for it anyway. Add that to his conspiracy to commit treason, lying to public officials, and leaking classified information and he’ll be rotting in broke and locked in jail.
According to the Times, the decision was made after Comey was fired.
Conspiracy to commit treason?
People outside the United States who have a more intimate knowledge of what it’s like to live in a country with a well-entrenched ruling oligarchy probably see things a little bit differently from the majority of Americans reacting to the NY Times story.
Sure he can. That’s why his private phone calls with the Australian PM and the Mexican President were leaked to the press almost before he hung up.
Do we know who leaked the contents of the calls? Was it necessarily a WH aide?
Regardless, I guess you acknowledge he doesn’t hire only the best people?
Actually, now that you ask, it could well have been one of those telephone operators pulling the cords in and out of the switch box. In Washington D.C. the “best people” are definitely graded on the curve. BTW, your man crush on Trump is getting a little out of hand, doncha think?
Or, it could have been a Mexican or Australian official, maybe even John Barron!
Seems to fly in the face of all depictions of him–bull in a china shop. Manchurian candidate ? Is that what was “uncovered” by Chris Steele (ex-MI6) in his infamous dossier (remember, prostitutes, “golden showers” etc)
If it’s not clear this Mueller operation was started, first, to bury the prior administration members’ “indiscretions,” and after, hope to smear the outsider sitting in the White House as the justification for its phony investigationsssss, then the Clinton Foundation is a worthy cause.
That is not only not clear but unsupported by the available information.
What does the Clinton Foundation have to do with the issue?
Russia is a concocted diversion because she lost. If she had won, then the Clinton Foundation is a worthy cause. Nor, any need for an insider “investigation” to cover up what had been done (the Foundation in its corporate form is only the tip of the iceberg of corruption of those in the prior administration, some of whom have lost their jobs, but most have not [or who still got their pension]). They know it, funny not everyone else does.
So, who concocted the plan to get Trump to hire Manafort, Gates, and Page?
How about Roger Stone and his relationship with “Guccifer 2.0?” Was that all part of the conspiracy?
What about Trump’s multiple absurd comments in support of Putin?
That is some conspiracy!
Again, what does the Clinton Foundation have to do with any of this??
Corruption, cover-up, and, again, only the tip of the iceberg of corruption in the prior administration. A totem of it all, to be protected.
There are those who have the assessment Mueller is legit. I do not.
You are still not making the Clinton Foundation relevant. Repeating “corruption” is not an argument.
Your assessment requires you to ignore or refuse to address the numerous Trump – Russia connections?
Uranium One deal.
When Donald Trump brought Miss Universe to Moscow
What about Uranium One?
Miss Universe explains Trump hiring Manafort, Gates, and Page?
I get it. “More flexibility” i.e surrender. Bill speaks = $500K; before, and after which the Foundation, in the $millions.
Trump hired Manafort, Gates, and Page.
What does any of that have to do with Trump or Mueller?
I’m aware. Isn’t that concerning given Russia’s attempt to interfere in the election?
*checks notes* He is the president of the United States.
Ah yes, snark as a substitute for reason.
Does anyone know what the standard protocol is? I’m hearing Obama did it too, especially related to all of the Iran stuff.
There are no Es in Klavan.
There is only one E in judgment.
There is a good reason for this. People are often guarded when being recorded, for obvious reasons. One common example is an “off the record” vs. and “on the record” discussion with a journalist.
I seem to recall Churchill writing about the importance of this, in relation to important, high-level meeting, somewhere in his Memoirs of the Second World War. I can’t recall if it related to his meetings with Stalin, or to joint staff meetings during one or more of his trips to the US. The comment that I vaguely recall reported more candid conversations among the very top officials, once aides left the room.
Churchill also wrote about the extreme importance of establishing a personal relationship with other leaders, particularly in relation to Stalin. Stalin was a horrible person and a brutal tyrant, and Churchill had no illusions about this. But the establishment of a reasonable degree of trust was essential to prosecuting the war successfully, and probably saved many American and British lives. For example, I believe that the Russians coordinated their offensives on the Eastern Front with the Western Allies after the Normandy invasion, to prevent the Germans from shifting forces. This negated much of the German advantage of interior lines.
I also recall (again, vaguely) an interview with Condoleezza Rice discussing the benefits of a decent relationship with Putin after the 9/11 attacks, as we went to a higher level of military alert. My recollection is that Putin actually agreed to reduce the Russian alert level. This was extremely important to preventing our increased military activity from causing an escalation with the world’s #2 nuclear power.
This account suggests Churchill private meeting with Stalin was the exception and he generally had an aide with him for record keeping purposes.
This contrasts with Trump’s practice, seemingly confined only to his meetings with Putin, of meeting exclusively without aides.
Have you considered ice fishing as a hobby?
Never, not once. Why do you ask?