This article is examining a different set of measures than the one I provided. They still stand. And they were not Congressional actions.
Yes, Congress and the Democrats may well pursue more confrontation with Russia than Drumpf. But that doesn’t mean he’s a Russian agent.
I can easily believe that “It’s all in spite of him, not at his behest.” Quite possibly the Pentagon and State Department had epic tantrums to force a harder line against Russia. That still means Drumpf is a piss-poor Russian agent for going along with it. The Kremlin should get its money back.
Trump is evil, he tears children away from parents and puts them in cages to satisfy deplorables. I’m baffled that people get all frothy because there are questions about one facet of his evilness.
And we know this was not due to policy debates in Washington? I mean we have Obama refusing to send arms, so we have a ready explanation for the delay – there were differences in national security circles. This is getting far afield from proving something that needs extraordinary evidence. It is also very conspiratorial to considerable every imaginable link between events and secret plotting to be solid evidence.
Many Republicans have been demanding the Obama administration provide a more robust response to Russia’s incursions in Ukraine.
So Republicans trying to insert arms for Ukraine into the platform are differing with Drumpf in that he is too much like Obama. These differences are still within the Overton window of respectable debate, no pee tape required.
Listen, when the Chinese nationalists were losing their civil war in the late 1940s to MaoZedong, the Truman adminstration had to decide whether to send in troops or something. They concluded that Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT nationalists were a hopelessly lost cause, impossible to save, and let them collapse. Refusing to save the KMT easily supports a narrative of Truman being an agent or “soft on communism.” A lot of rightists said as much. I think Anne Coulter said it again with that stupid book Decades of Treason or whatever it was. The Republicans raised the slogan “Who Lost China?” and hammered the Democrats with it for a generation. But Truman’s decision had absolutely nothing to do with being an agent or conciliatory towards communism. His administration started the frigging Cold War.
Point being, there are all sorts of possible explanations for things, yet our inventive minds create all sorts of parallels and faux coincidences. Claiming someone is an actual agent requires very direct evidence, you need more than just “that decision helped the enemy.”
The accusations that Trump is some sort of agent are comically similar to Cold War red baiting.
The point isn’t that Trump is a Russian “agent”, basically it was asserted that Russia may have leverage over him and his campaign had repeated questionable contacts with Russians and benefitted from their interference. Iirc Greenwald treated all of this like crazy talk. Now Trump has been personally deferential to Putin and his foreign policy decisions have repeatedly benefitted Russia and somehow this shows that Greenwald was right because there’s no peepee tape yet? I have no idea whether the leverage claim has an iota if truth to it but Trump certainly behaves as if it does and that’s my entire point.
You know this, I know this, BH knows this. The only reason he keeps phrasing it this way is because the only way he can declare a victory is if he moves the goalposts to an absurdly narrow distance. The Muller Report delivered 34 indictments, including Russian nationals and high-level Trump surrogates, showed clear abuse of office and obstruction of justice by Trump – the dude fucking got on TV and asked Russia for help with the elections-- and somehow the Greenwald stans are still acting like the whole thing was a nothing burger hoax.
Meanwhile, Glen cheerfully gets on Tucker Carlson’s Nazi-ass TV show to parrot out Trumpy talking points and serves Reality Winner up to the feds and somehow he’s still a hero to this army of weird nerds. You guys just need to take the L here.
I honestly didn’t know he did this and it does make me think differently about him, but I still won’t be happy if he gets held out to dry by Bolsinaro.
In the above posts I argued that the story was massively overblown; it has not been proven that Trump was an agent or asset.
The phrase “actively and passively conspired” is flexible enough to invite a long dispute over definitions, impressions, and gut feelings. A sounder approach would be “here is where Trump agreed to X in return for Y,” then we can judge how the evidence stacks up. Or, “here is where Trump did X, and evidence suggests it’s highly likely that he did it in return for Y.” Specific enough to be criminal evidence, not political.
Most of the story has been smoke, so you have to get down to basics. Mostly it’s been like the article mjiggy supplied: here is Drumpf ranting about Nato, which he must be doing out of some nefarious collusion with Putin, because that’s what we already believe. But Drumpf has always spouted about us giving too much away to the ferigners.
The Democrats have put him on trial. Wouldn’t they lead with the worst offenses they can prove? What they can prove is that Drumpf tried to extort sleazy political favors out of Ukraine, not that he “actively and passively conspired” with Russia to throw the election.
Politicians throw slime, and with Russiagate it is very apparent. Therefore we should be very insistent that the evidence be conclusive, even when coming from Democrats.
LMFAO, Trump’s national security advisor is in jail right now for being an unregistered foreign agent and you’re trying to spin this like it was all just Rachel Maddow going hysterical. Take the L, man. Your boy Glen did some good things, but you don’t have to stan for all the dumb shit he pulled.
