[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[Athanasius68]

In a functional democracy, the president receives information from the FBI.

If your type of democracy is one where the president plays the intelligence gatherer in secret meetings with adversaries or allies and decides which information should share with the FBI or not, then you move farther and farther away from the model of a functional democracy which is not surprising since you show a remarkable commitment in this thread to defend any BS you hear from Trump!

And the president receives that information, and the president, the democratically elected and politically accountable president, decides how to proceed.
Not the unelected and politically unaccountable heads of an agency.

 

[pamak]

And the president receives that information, and the president, the democratically elected and politically accountable president, decides how to proceed.
Not the unelected and politically unaccountable heads of an agency.

Correct!

So, since Obama received intelligence from the FBI and the other intelligence agencies you should not try to compare it with the clown in chief now who tells us that he, on his own, is available to collect directly from foreigners any intelligence they have to offer during the 2020 elections without even informing the FBI!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Second, you don't think letting a "foreign adversary" (your words) control a portion of American uranium is a problem?

Since a "foreign adversary" (after all, Mr. Trump has declared that Canada is a threat to the national security of the United States of America and "Uranium 1" was a Canadian firm), there was actually no change in "control". Of course, all that "Uranium 1" actually had was a license to PROCESS Uranium, it didn't really "control" any American Uranium and it couldn't export any of the Uranium it did PROCESS to Russia without an export licence (which it didn't have), and since NINE different departments of the US government had to approve the sale of a CANADIAN company (not just Ms. Clinton [who didn't appear to have actually taken any part in the discussions regarding the approval of the sale]), your point would be - what?

Your categorization of adversaries is quite odd...See, I would think that if you are up in arms about Russian's "influencing" and "compromising" our President thru an election, that you would be equally, if not more concerned by selling the control of such material to them...That you're not smacks of the whole line of thought being full of ****....

If I follow your line of "logic" I can but be of the opinion that you are incredibly upset about the sale of American Unicorns to foreign governments.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh YOU explained why? Well then....:roll:

PS - The Russians did not give a damn about the fact that "Uranium 1" had the right to PROCESS American Uranium. The owners of "Uranium 1" wanted to dump the whole mess and insisted that the Russians take the whole company, NOT JUST the license to extract Uranium in Tajikistan (which is what the Russians actually wanted).

In case you missed it, Tajikistan is NOT a part of the United States of America, the Uranium ore in Tajikistan is NOT American Uranium ore, and the license to extract that Uranium ore was NOT held by an American company.​

 

[j-mac]

Since a "foreign adversary" (after all, Mr. Trump has declared that Canada is a threat to the national security of the United States of America and "Uranium 1" was a Canadian firm), there was actually no change in "control". Of course, all that "Uranium 1" actually had was a license to PROCESS Uranium, it didn't really "control" any American Uranium and it couldn't export any of the Uranium it did PROCESS to Russia without an export licence (which it didn't have), and since NINE different departments of the US government had to approve the sale of a CANADIAN company (not just Ms. Clinton [who didn't appear to have actually taken any part in the discussions regarding the approval of the sale]), your point would be - what?



If I follow your line of "logic" I can but be of the opinion that you are incredibly upset about the sale of American Unicorns to foreign governments.

We have nothing to discuss.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This indirectly responds to my recent question, though I still maintain that you can't prove that Steele's "citizens" were not "operatives."

Equally, you cannot "prove" that the information that you get from an "operative" of a foreign government (especially when it does not concern the personnel or actions of that foreign government) is not true - at least you can't simply from the fact that you got it from an "operative" of a foreign government.

When (at least a part of) that information is confirmed through sources which are NOT "operatives" of the (hostile) foreign government, then the amount of faith that you can put in the proposition "All the information obtained from 'operatives' of a 'hostile' foreign government is false, because it was obtained from 'operatives' of a 'hostile' foreign government." gets much smaller.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

We cannot be sure about most things, including about Trump actually colluding with Russians.

Actually we can be very sure that Mr. Trump AND the Russians DID NOT "collude/connive/conspire".

Why can we be sure about that?

Because the Russians are not stupid enough to ACTUALLY "collude/connive/conspire" with a person of the personality type of Mr. Trump.

That, of course, does not mean that the Russians - independently from "Team Trump" - were NOT doing whatever they thought was in Russia's best interests (regardless of what the laws of the United States of America are). And, if the Russians thought that it was in Russia's best interests for Ms. Clinton to be defeated, then they would have an incentive to do whatever they felt like doing (and which was practicable for them to do) to ensure that Ms. Clinton was defeated - even to the point of undertaking completely independent (from Mr. Trump and "Team Trump") actions that boosted Mr. Trump's chances of getting elected.

But we can be sure about the fact that Trump is pretty clear that even if he is sure about the fact that an adversarial government approaches him to offer dirty laundry about his opponents he would not have a problem. This mentality cannot be compared to that of someone who just fell victim of a successful adversarial intelligence operation.

I think that it would be safe to say that we can be sure that Mr. Trump:

1. is ignorant about what the laws of the United States of America are (in many areas); or
2. simply doesn't care what the laws of the United States of America are (in many areas); or
3. believes that the laws of the United States of America (in many areas) simply do not apply to him;

and that that should worry people.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There is nothing stupid about facts. You guys don't like facts but that doesn't change them.
yes there is a reason which is why we should have been looking at the clinton and the DNC as to why they accepted
information from russian operatives to meddle in the 2016 election don't you agree?

Have you asked yourself this question "Did the DNC (and Ms. Clinton in particular) KNOW that the information that they were receiving from an AMERICAN company that had hired a BRITISH investigator was being provided (in part) by people who COULD HAVE BEEN 'operatives' of the Russian government?".

which is why i still wonder why clinton accepted a putin created dossier knowing where it came from
then had it submitted to a court without the FBI verifying.

An interesting question based on two "facts" [a] that the entire "Steele Dossier" was "created by Putin" and that the FBI had no outside information that confirmed (at least enough of) the information contained in the "Steele Dossier" to give sufficient credibility to the allegations in the "Steele Dossier" to warrant INVESTIGATING the allegations - both of which are false.

Trump was never in league with russia or did you not read the mueller report where there was no evidence?

No one of any intelligence combined with significant experience in intelligence analysis actually believed that there was any DIRECT "collusion/connivance/conspiracy" between Mr. Trump and the Russians. "Manipulation of the American electorate in order to lower the chances that Ms. Clinton would be elected" by the Russians is something else again.

Yet we have plenty of evidence that clinton and the DNC used russia to try and meddle in the 2016 election.

Only if you completely ignore the facts.

it is all documented fact.

"Documented" I will give you, "fact" I won't.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

Yet again-- the CLINTON campaign actually did this and the Obama Admin actually used it.
Why the outrage only directed against Trump on a hypothetical?
BTW-- is Barr correct to investigate the origins of the Russia probe?

Did you know that it is NOT illegal for the government of the United States of America to receive information from other countries - even 'hostile' countries?

Did you know that "the Obama Admin" was actually the government of the United States of America when it received whatever it was it received?

Did you know that it is NOT illegal for a private citizen of the United States of America to receive information from other countries - even 'hostile' countries?

Did you know that it IS illegal for a "political candidate" or a "political campaign" to receive (and not report that it has received) information from other countries - even 'friendly' countries.

Did you know that it IS illegal for a "political candidate" or a "political campaign" to USE information that it has received from other countries - even 'friendly countries - even if the receipt of that information has been reported?

The differences are actually rather significant at law and are aimed at attempting to ensure that foreign government do not surreptitiously influence American elections.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Obama Admin took foreign information about Trump and used it to investigate him.

Quite true.

Of course, in order to work up the appropriate degree of outrage and indignation, you have to completely ignore two facts:

1. it IS NOT ILLEGAL for the government of the United States of America to receive information from foreign countries - even 'hostile' foreign countries; and
2. the "Obama Administration" WAS "the government of the United States of America.

What's amusing is that Trump is being ridiculed for calling that investigation against him "illegal."

I don't see why that would be any cause for ridicule, since the FBI investigation was conducted according to the laws of the United States of America - regardless of the fact that Mr. Trump simply doesn't know what those laws are.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That would be incorrect.

Quite right, provided that you ignore the inconvenient fact that it was the government of the United States of America (which you refer to as "the Obama Admin" as if it was NOT the government of the United States of America) that received the information.

A job of the president is to ensure that laws are enforced.

Not quite. It is the job of the President to DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION of the laws of the United States of America.

It was the Obama Admin who used foregn information in that effort.

Quite right, provided that you ignore the inconvenient fact that it was the government of the United States of America (which you refer to as "the Obama Admin" as if it was NOT the government of the United States of America) that received the information.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Did you also notice that the Obama Admin never complained that our allies were interfering in our election? I

Did you also notice that no one ever complains about an embezzler stealing money until after they discover that the embezzler was stealing money?

PS - Don't bother to come back with something along the lines of "Well Trudeau said __[fill in the blank]__ about Trump and that is interfering in our elections." because such statements exhibit an almost total lack of contact with the realities of what the laws of the United States of America are.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

Look at the hairsplitting here.
BTW- should a president REJECT foreign information about a candidate, even if that information comes from an ally?

A PRESIDENT[SUP]*[/SUP] need not do so and may lawfully accept such information.

A political CANDIDATE is required by law to do so.

A political CAMPAIGN is required by law to do so.

[SUP]*[/SUP] A "President" is someone who has actually been elected and is neither a "Candidate" nor a "Campaign". There IS a difference.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But allies motives are different from the motives of the adversary and cannot put all motives in the same position.

Only in detail and not in intent.

• The motives of an ally would entail an advancement of the interests of that ally and/or the frustration of the interests of the United States of America where the American interests were in opposition to the interests of that ally.
• The motives of an enemy would entail an advancement of the interests of that enemy and/or the frustration of the interests of the United States of America where the American interests were in opposition to the interests of that enemy.

As you can see, both of those could be written

The motives of an __[This is Blank 1 - fill it in]__ would entail an advancement of the interests of that __[fill in as per Blank 1]__ and/or the frustration of the interests of the United States of America where the American interests were in opposition to the interests of that __[fill in as per Blank 1]__.
​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes-- motives are different. Which is why many have wondered why the Obama Admin treated info they received from Russian sources no different than had they received it from Norway.

The government of the United States of America (which you so quaintly refer to as "the Obama Admin") has an obligation to investigate any information received from any source which gives some evidence of credibility.

As an example, let's say that (through some incredibly bizarre set of circumstances) someone (call them "John Doe") who has been an active agent for the government of China from the time they were 18 years old manages to win the Demlican (or Republicrat if you prefer) nomination for President. Then, let's say that the government of Russia sends the sitting President of the United States of America a complete copy of that person's Chinese government personnel file that includes specific dates, times, places, payments, and activities related to that person's service in the interests of the government of China.

1. Would it be your position that the sitting President should simply shred that file because it came from the government of a "hostile" country, and, if so WHY?
2. If that file had been given to "John Doe"'s opponent in the election, would it be your position that that opponent should simply shred that file because it came from the government of a "hostile" country, and, if so WHY?
3. If that file had been given to "John Doe"'s opponent in the election, would it be your position that that opponent should NOT turn it over to the government of the United States of America to be investigated, and, if so WHY?
4. If that file had been given to "John Doe"'s opponent in the election, would it be your position that that opponent should use the information in the file WITHOUT knowing whether or not it was truthful, and, if so WHY?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

He was asked a question. I thought we established elsewhere we would want our allies to send us information they might have about presidential candidates.

Have we "established" that

1. we would want our allies to send OUR GOVERNMENT information they might say they have about presidential candidates so that OUR GOVERNMENT can investigate the truth of what they receive and act accordingly; or
2. we would want our allies to send OUR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS information they might say they have about presidential candidates so that OUR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS can use what they receive without investigating the truth of what they receive?

I don't have any problem with the first one, and it is also completely legal for the US government to receive (and act on) such information.

I do have quite a bit of a problem with the second one, and it is also against the laws of the United States of America for any political campaign/candidate to receive (without reporting [even if not acted on]) such information.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who is it do you think would investigate foreign information?

Possibly it is going just slightly too far, but it appears that some people believe that NO ONE should investigate information that is not provided solely by Americans to Americans through American channels if that information is not obtained, originally, by Americans in the United States of America.

This is because they believe that the laws of the United States of America which ban political candidates and/or political campaigns from receiving such information from "furrenerz" means that the government of the United States of America is also banned from receiving such information from "furrenerz".

On a REALLY good day, that belief might almost pass for "idiotic".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We have nothing to discuss.

Oh I wasn't "discussing" anything.

I was just pointing out the reality that you don't want to admit to.

 

[pamak]

Possibly it is going just slightly too far, but it appears that some people believe that NO ONE should investigate information that is not provided solely by Americans to Americans through American channels if that information is not obtained, originally, by Americans in the United States of America.

This is because they believe that the laws of the United States of America which ban political candidates and/or political campaigns from receiving such information from "furrenerz" means that the government of the United States of America is also banned from receiving such information from "furrenerz".

On a REALLY good day, that belief might almost pass for "idiotic".

Just to clarify she things because I am not sure if you followed the whole conversation with Athansius68

At some point his argument moved away from the 2016 elections (when Trump was simply a candidate) and moved towards a hypothetical in the 2020 elections. Essentially, Athanisus68 tried to defend TRump's latest comments that he is open to get information from foreign rivals about TRump's political opponents in the upcoming election and not inform the FBI. Athnasius68 tried to argue that if Trump does such thing and accepts such information from foreign countries it will not be different from what the Obama administration did in 2016. This is why I talked in one of my posts about the huge difference between a president who receives information from the American intelligence agencies and makes decisions about how to handle such information and a president who tries to make himself an intelligence gatherer without informing the FBI. The latter behavior has nothing to do with exercising presidential powers for national security reasons. It has to do with using presidential powers to advance electoral objectives for the 2020 elections.

 

[Athanasius68]

Correct!

So, since Obama received intelligence from the FBI and the other intelligence agencies you should not try to compare it with the clown in chief now who tells us that he, on his own, is available to collect directly from foreigners any intelligence they have to offer during the 2020 elections without even informing the FBI!

That isn't what what Trump said. He was asked whether he would take information from foreign countries about his 2020 rival.
He was also asked about not reporting to FBI back in 2016 and he equivocated.

 

[Athanasius68]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[

QUOTE=TU Curmudgeon;1070240476]Actually we can be very sure that Mr. Trump AND the Russians DID NOT "collude/connive/conspire".

Why can we be sure about that?

Because the Russians are not stupid enough to ACTUALLY "collude/connive/conspire" with a person of the personality type of Mr. Trump.

We can also be assured of that because Russia did not need Trump to hack the DNC or to disseminate the emails.

 

[Athanasius68]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[

QUOTE=TU Curmudgeon;1070240531]Did you know that it is NOT illegal for the government of the United States of America to receive information from other countries - even 'hostile' countries?

This is true.

Did you know that "the Obama Admin" was actually the government of the United States of America when it received whatever it was it received?

This is true.

Did you know that it is NOT illegal for a private citizen of the United States of America to receive information from other countries - even 'hostile' countries?

This is true.

Did you know that it IS illegal for a "political candidate" or a "political campaign" to receive (and not report that it has received) information from other countries - even 'friendly' countries.

Probably. I believe the Clinton campaign reported the Steele dossier.

Did you know that it IS illegal for a "political candidate" or a "political campaign" to USE information that it has received from other countries - even 'friendly countries - even if the receipt of that information has been reported?

That would be false.

The differences are actually rather significant at law and are aimed at attempting to ensure that foreign government do not surreptitiously influence American elections.

 

[Athanasius68]

Quite true.

Of course, in order to work up the appropriate degree of outrage and indignation, you have to completely ignore two facts:

1. it IS NOT ILLEGAL for the government of the United States of America to receive information from foreign countries - even 'hostile' foreign countries; and
2. the "Obama Administration" WAS "the government of the United States of America.

This is true. The false outrage are by those denouncing Trump's comments.

 

[Athanasius68]

Quite right, provided that you ignore the inconvenient fact that it was the government of the United States of America (which you refer to as "the Obama Admin" as if it was NOT the government of the United States of America) that received the information.

As would be the situation in the hypothetical situation of 2020-- The Trump admin-- the government of the USA-- received hat hypothetical information.

Not quite. It is the job of the President to DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION of the laws of the United States of America.

A distinction without a difference. The president is the one responsible.

 

[pamak]

That isn't what what Trump said. He was asked whether he would take information from foreign countries about his 2020 rival.
He was also asked about not reporting to FBI back in 2016 and he equivocated.

I gave his exact quote, and it was obvious that he left opened the possibility of getting information directly from foreigners in private meetings without reporting it to the FBI. So, now imagine a situation of a president trying to access the credibility of a foreigner's claims without getting input from the FBI or the other intelligence agencies...
It makes zero sense to behave like this as a president who is supposedly honest in your intentions to protect a country from a possible foreign influence touching your political opponent. On the other hand, Trump's response makes perfect for a president who wants to use his presidential power to stage meetings with foreigners and bargain with them in secrecy in order to get some electoral advantage.