Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/464374-washington-post-fact-checker-gives-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-whistleblower

Washington Post fact-checker gives Schiff four Pinocchios for whistleblower remark

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column on Friday gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) four Pinocchios for claiming last month that his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower" who raised concerns about President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
 
The New York Times first reported on Wednesday that the whistleblower had consulted with Schiff's committee before filing the complaint.
 
Schiff said in a Sept. 17 interview with the Daily Beast's Sam Stein on MSNBC that "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower."
 
“Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the whistleblower?” Stein, an MSNBC contributor, asked on "Morning Joe."
 
“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to," Schiff responded. "But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.”
 
The Post said Schiff's response was "flat-out false."
 
"Schiff on 'Morning Joe' clearly made a statement that was false," the fact-checker said. "He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the [inspector general's] office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication."
 
"The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity," the fact-checker added. "Schiff earns Four Pinocchios."
 
The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with four being reserved for what the column considers the most egregious statements.
 
A House Intelligence Committee spokesperson told the Post that Schiff's answer to Stein "should have been more carefully phrased."
 
“Regarding Chairman Schiff’s comments on ‘Morning Joe,’ in the context, he intended to answer the question of whether the Committee had heard testimony from the whistleblower, which they had not,” the spokesperson said. “As he said in his answer, the whistleblower was then awaiting instructions from the Acting [Director of National Intelligence] as to how the whistleblower could contact the Committee. Nonetheless he acknowledges that his statement should have been more carefully phrased to make that distinction clear.”

They (neither the committee nor Schiff) didn't directly talk to the whistleblower.  Schiff (nor his aide, nor any member of the committee) certainly did not WRITE the complaint.  As alleged by Trump, his surrogates, and the conservative media.

Schiff's remarks are, I'll grant you, unclear.  But they're true.

The administrations remarks are outright lies.

So....why do you take issue with Schiff being unclear, but not with the administration outright lying on the same topic?

[pilferk]

I obviously wasn't around for the days of Watergate, but i wonder if Nixon supporters had their heads this far up his ass an the Trump supporters.

That's the thing, man....the republican defenders are now having to craft more and more complicated, tin foil hat worthy, Alex Jones/pizzagate type, conspiracy theories to TRY to find some way to justify or excuse or "accept" this conduct by the president. They are beginning to look as unhinged as the guy they support.

The levels of histronics they have to go through, and the sheer desperation (and opposing of Occam's Razor) shows just how serious they know this is.  It's just...again...their identities are so tied up in Trump, they can't accept that their guy is showing a pattern of behavior that indicates corruption.  They won't (outwardly) entertain the notion because it just crumbles their core.  And they are scared, SHITLESS, that, at some point, they'll have to face a truth that shows Trump is corrupt as hell and running the government like a mafia organization.

The Repubs, in the 70's, hung on with Nixon pretty much until the tapes were released.  He lost a few along the way, but for the most part, you see a lot of similar conduct by the Repubs back then.  Once the tapes were released, he lost the Senate and that was it.

[tim_m]

I obviously wasn't around for the days of Watergate, but i wonder if Nixon supporters had their heads this far up his ass an the Trump supporters.

That's the thing, man....the republican defenders are now having to craft more and more complicated, tin foil hat worthy, Alex Jones/pizzagate type, conspiracy theories to TRY to find some way to justify or excuse or "accept" this conduct by the president. They are beginning to look as unhinged as the guy they support.

The levels of histronics they have to go through, and the sheer desperation (and opposing of Occam's Razor) shows just how serious they know this is.  It's just...again...their identities are so tied up in Trump, they can't accept that their guy is showing a pattern of behavior that indicates corruption.  They won't (outwardly) entertain the notion because it just crumbles their core.  And they are scared, SHITLESS, that, at some point, they'll have to face a truth that shows Trump is corrupt as hell and running the government like a mafia organization.

The Repubs, in the 70's, hung on with Nixon pretty much until the tapes were released.  He lost a few along the way, but for the most part, you see a lot of similar conduct by the Repubs back then.  Once the tapes were released, he lost the Senate and that was it.

I wonder if that will even be enough this time, we have the memo of the call already.

[pilferk]

Just...you know....for context...this is directly lifted from government training materials.

Its almost as if they're doing exactly what they are supposed to do, according to the guidelines!!!!

[sandman]

Liberals didnt want war until they realized Trump also does not want war. Now they LOVE war. Truly sad and disgusting.

Trump is the boss!

Continues to keep his most important promise.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Liberals didnt want war until they realized Trump also does not want war. Now they LOVE war. Truly sad and disgusting.

Trump is the boss!

Continues to keep his most important promise.

Glad that we are getting out of Syria, we should not be the world's policemen.  And the longer we had troops there the better chance of eventually getting drawn into a bigger conflict. But my only reservation  is that we pretty much fucked over the Kurds in the process.

[pilferk]

Glad that we are getting out of Syria, we should not be the world's policemen.  And the longer we had troops there the better chance of eventually getting drawn into a bigger conflict. But my only reservation  is that we pretty much fucked over the Kurds in the process.

Exactly.

I'm all for bringing our soldiers home.  In an organized fashion that does not plunge the region into chaos, give control to a dictator, and doesn't fuck our allies over and leave them to die.

Because we will absolutely reap what we sow over there.  Giving the region to Turkey, to allow them to operate unfettered, shouldn't be the answer.  That will go incredibly poorly for us, and just leave a mess for Trump (or more likely someone else) to clean up.

It's (as is usually the case with Trumps foreign policy) short sighted, feckless, depthless, foreign policy.  It will likely cost us more in resources and, probably, American lives, down the road. And it will create an environment where ISIS is able to rebuild and reload.

Trumps brand of autocratic friendly, xenophobic, isolationism (aka pre-WWII) foreign policy again rears it's ugly head.

[tim_m]

Glad that we are getting out of Syria, we should not be the world's policemen.  And the longer we had troops there the better chance of eventually getting drawn into a bigger conflict. But my only reservation  is that we pretty much fucked over the Kurds in the process.

Exactly.

I'm all for bringing our soldiers home.  In an organized fashion that does not plunge the region into chaos, give control to a dictator, and doesn't fuck our allies over and leave them to die.

Because we will absolutely reap what we sow over there.  Giving the region to Turkey, to allow them to operate unfettered, shouldn't be the answer.  That will go incredibly poorly for us, and just leave a mess for Trump (or more likely someone else) to clean up.

It's (as is usually the case with Trumps foreign policy) short sighted, feckless, depthless, foreign policy.  It will likely cost us more in resources and, probably, American lives, down the road. And it will create an environment where ISIS is able to rebuild and reload.

Trumps brand of autocratic friendly, xenophobic, isolationism (aka pre-WWII) foreign policy again rears it's ugly head.

But but don't you know Trump's wisdom is unmatched! 🙄

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Glad that we are getting out of Syria, we should not be the world's policemen.  And the longer we had troops there the better chance of eventually getting drawn into a bigger conflict. But my only reservation  is that we pretty much fucked over the Kurds in the process.

Exactly.

I'm all for bringing our soldiers home.  In an organized fashion that does not plunge the region into chaos, give control to a dictator, and doesn't fuck our allies over and leave them to die.

Because we will absolutely reap what we sow over there.  Giving the region to Turkey, to allow them to operate unfettered, shouldn't be the answer.  That will go incredibly poorly for us, and just leave a mess for Trump (or more likely someone else) to clean up.

It's (as is usually the case with Trumps foreign policy) short sighted, feckless, depthless, foreign policy.  It will likely cost us more in resources and, probably, American lives, down the road. And it will create an environment where ISIS is able to rebuild and reload.

Trumps brand of autocratic friendly, xenophobic, isolationism (aka pre-WWII) foreign policy again rears it's ugly head.

But but don't you know Trump's wisdom is unmatched! 🙄

 If his wisdom was unmatched he would have never wrote that tweet. Certainly a WTF moment.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Here is an interesting read on the whole Syrian decision -  https://securitystudies.org/the-syrian-decision/?fbclid=IwAR3tGQyy-Nn1XioPGDbAA_-UivcRUtPDDlEhkKJ06dTFtWnf-4YAlEswacU



On the Syrian Decision

Brad Patty

1 days agoOctober 07, 2019

President Trump announced, again, a US withdrawal from positions in northern Syria. This has been a longstanding goal of his, hotly opposed by almost everyone in the American foreign policy community and political establishment. The Security Studies Group (SSG) authored a plan due to a request received nearly two years ago aimed at a withdrawal in line with the President’s intended policy, without exposing our allies — especially the Kurds — to a destructive power vacuum. It was always clear that Turkey would fill that vacuum, and that the Kurds would suffer as a consequence.

As we warned at the time, the American position was much more exposed and much less tenable than was commonly understood. The Turks, should they choose to press the issue, were in a much more powerful position unless the American military reinforced itself substantially.

    The United States military currently deploys about two thousand personnel in an advisory role. Force protection for these elements is provided especially by air and fire support. Such support recently allowed a small contingent of American forces to wipe out a large Russian mercenary element. Nevertheless, the strength of the position should not be overestimated.

    American personnel are spread out and isolated from one another in many places. They are advising, and are thus co-located with, irregular forces that could not have themselves withstood the Russian mercenaries. The Turkish military, which is likely to aim at America’s Kurdish allies, is far more powerful and has integrated air support, fire support, and the capacity to contest control of the air with fighters and anti-aircraft defenses….

    It may be that the Turkish military can be convinced to accept an American plan that does not bring them into conflict with the Kurdish units we are supporting, but at this time there is no guarantee of that….The Trump administration must choose between withdrawing from an untenable position, or reinforcing that position so that it becomes tenable. Otherwise, the deployed American forces are at risk of becoming hostages to the enemy at best. At worst, they are at risk of being destroyed.

The Turks have been threatening an invasion for some time. In January of 2018 they began shelling our allies, and threatening to expand their incursion in Arfin into a general invasion. A year ago it appeared that the Turkish government had finally decided on an invasion, which indicated that American forces would have to withdraw. Diplomatic pressures, particularly leverage around the proposed F-35 sale to Turkey, allowed American policymakers to put the brakes on for a while. However, President Erdogan of Turkey decided to bite the bullet on the F-35, the transfer of which was denied to him over his purchase of Russian S-400 missiles. That removed a key lever from our negotiating position.

Nor can we use NATO as leverage against Turkey: because all NATO decisions must be taken unanimously, Turkey can use its membership in NATO as leverage against us. Turkey can, if it decides to do so, veto any or every NATO initiative. It can effectively end the alliance as a functional organization. Thus, it can use its vote to bid for American accession to Turkish interests — or sell its ability to veto formal action by NATO to both Russia and China.

This realignment of Turkey with China needs more attention than it has gotten by American thinkers. SSG recognizes that the Trump administration desires to restore Turkey as a functional NATO ally, but that is made much more difficult given Erdogan’s ambitions and increased alignment with Chinese interests. Erdogan, with the full cooperation of China’s Xi Jinping, is planning to tie Turkey into the Chinese ‘Belt and Road’ project that China hopes will extend its spheres of control and of influence across Asia and into Europe. Turkey still has a conflicting interest with Russia over control over the Bosporus strait, which could be leveraged by American negotiators. The scale of China’s proposed investments, and the wealth transfers they would enable, nevertheless makes China’s offer a powerful incentive:  and China is only too happy to allow Erdogan to attain his regional ambitions of restoring the Turkish dominance over as much of the fractious region as he can control. The Kurds mean nothing to China, nor do principles of self-determination or liberty. It will be hard for American negotiators to compete with this offer of both great wealth and regionally unfettered power.

That said, while Turkey cannot be stopped by anyone currently present on the ground from seizing as much of northern Syria as it wants, it is almost certain that Turkey will provoke a long and bloody insurgency. China may find its hopes to create a wealth corridor through this part of Asia hampered, and may even come to be an occasional target of such an insurgency. If all this instability raises the price of oil, well, the United States is now a net exporter of oil. SSG was recently exploring the effect of that on China as regards Iran’s similar expansionism.

    …the instability in oil supplies from the Middle East is a much bigger problem for China than for America. Iran’s moves here are creating big problems for China. For the United States, the rise in energy prices is matched by a fracking-rich energy strategy that makes those higher prices a net positive for us. Thus, Iran’s moves redouble the leverage that the Trump administration was already wielding against China’s economy….

    the shipping of oil [to China] from these Iranian/Iraqi oil fields requires shipment through the very Strait of Hormuz that the current conflict threatens to close. The United States does not need to win such a conflict to do crippling damage to China’s economy. It needs only to allow Iran to close the strait, and then prolong the conflict in such a way as to keep the strait close to oil tankers. While this would cause massive economic chaos in Europe and for China, as well as for America’s Asian allies, the United States itself would profit as we transition into a net energy exporter, as we have already become a net oil exporter.

Just as allowing Iran to run wild hurts China much more than it hurts the United States, China is harmed by our allowing the Turks to provoke an insurgency that will bedevil the stability of the very region where China intends its massive investments. The wars that China’s own allies are starting are going to be the biggest tax on China’s growing power and influence, which means it will become China’s problem — and not America’s — to stop those wars. That means that China and Turkey, and not America, will end up paying the cost of Middle Eastern security. The danger they face is that they will overextend themselves, and provoke fights they cannot walk away from in the process. It may be a bigger burden than Erdogan or Xi imagine that they are taking on here.

It is unlikely that President Trump thinks so strategically or so ruthlessly. More likely he is simply convinced that these wars drain American blood and treasure in an unacceptable way, and he just intends to stop doing it whatever it costs. If the foreign policy community, the establishment or the Senate does not dissuade him, Trump will end America’s participation in this war to save American blood and American treasure. American planners who do think strategically (and hopefully also ruthlessly) need to begin to focus on how to support and protect America’s friends as they turn from fighting the Islamic State to fighting Turkish and Chinese oppression. In addition to being the right thing to do, support to those friends is where our largest strategic gains are to be found.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

So what are we doing exactly?  Trump frustrates the hell out of me sometimes. The messaging on this is horrible. 

Trump Administration Appears to Reverse Syria Decision Following Backlash
An official speaking for the administration pushed back on Trump’s claims the U.S. was withdrawing from Syria.


A senior administration official on an organized call with reporters appeared to contradict President Donald Trump about Syria policy late Monday, refuting interpretations of his statements from earlier in the day that prompted broad outrage from supporters and opponents alike.

The U.S. is not removing its forces from Syria in the face of a Turkish incursion, said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Rather, the president ordered roughly 50 special operations troops in northern Syria to relocate to a different part of the country after he learned that Turkey has planned an offensive against U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in Syria. The official said that offensive had not yet begun.

The latest assertion, however, appears to conflict with a flurry of tweets the president issued Monday, further explaining a White House statement late Sunday that first announced the withdrawal, but offered few details.

"It is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home," Trump wrote in one tweet.

The idea of the U.S. withdrawing any of its roughly 1,000 troops still in Syria – even just from the front lines where they operate with Kurdish allies – prompted widespread outrage on Capitol Hill, including from some of the president's staunchest allies like Sen. Lindsay Graham and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. They feared that the decision amounted to abandoning the Kurds, who have been instrumental in defeating the Islamic State group, but which Turkey has labeled as terrorists and vowed to attack.

The senior administration official did not address whether his comments represented a shift in White House policy following the massive backlash.

He did, however, refute claims that Trump did not first consult top officials at the departments of State and Defense – despite multiple news reports and confirmation from senior lawmakers that Trump's decision blindsided Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon.

Trump has previously announced policy via Twitter without first consulting his top advisers, including his first attempt to withdraw the U.S. from Syria late last year – prompting the resignation of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis – and the overturn of the Pentagon's policy toward transgender service members.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2019-10-07/trump-administration-appears-to-reverse-syria-decision-following-backlash

[tim_m]

https://cnn.it/35ii7YM

For people with nothing to hide they're sure doing a lot of hiding.

[tim_m]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464784-trump-knocks-lightweight-minneapolis-mayor-ahead-of-rally

What a whiny little bitch. Pay your bills asshole.

[tim_m]

And in Surprise to nobody turkey invades Syria.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And in Surprise to nobody turkey invades Syria.

The alternative to leaving would have been staying. And we would have needed to send more troops in if we decided to stay. With Russia,  Iran and now Turkey having their military there, think that would have been a bigger mess.

 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Rep Lee Zeldin schools the media on the Volker testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-U1NwrqLU

[tim_m]

And in Surprise to nobody turkey invades Syria.

The alternative to leaving would have been staying. And we would have needed to send more troops in if we decided to stay. With Russia,  Iran and now Turkey having their military there, think that would have been a bigger mess.

 

Perhaps but throwing the Kurds under the bus is disgraceful. It's no wonder how many in the Arab world hate us. We invade their countries and when they need us we abandon them.

[tim_m]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/trump-urged-top-aide-to-help-giuliani-client-facing-doj-charges?cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business&utm_source=facebook

[pilferk]

The alternative to leaving would have been staying. And we would have needed to send more troops in if we decided to stay. With Russia,  Iran and now Turkey having their military there, think that would have been a bigger mess.

 

Yes, we would have had to stay until we could craft an actual solution, and not just take our ball and go home, all while creating a power vacuum in the region. One that everyone and their grandmother could see Turkey was going to fill. By invading.

Nobody was going to invade as long as the US military (even if it was 5 troops, not 50) in the area.  As long as we had a stated patrol, nobody is going to risk that confrontation with the US military.

So...no mess.  Same situation we've had for years now.

And I agree: We've been there too long.  But you can't just pack up the tents and leave. Not without creating a humanitarian and military crisis.  Oh, and never mind betraying the Kurds just gives ISIS another recruiting tool, and ensures that, if ISIS resurges, we won't be able to count on the Kurds for the kind of help we did this time. 

This is exactly why Trump is so bad at this: He doesn't understand the nuance and complexity.  Or, rather, he doesn't care about it. 

Even Repubs are worried and kvetching about this one.  It's a poor decision.

[pilferk]

Rep Lee Zeldin schools the media on the Volker testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-U1NwrqLU

As we have seen a few times, the Republican "hot take" on testimony (or reports) isn't always super trustworthy.

I agree: Release the transcript.  But the text messages we have make me doubt, highly, the Repubs "take" is the truth.

I've no doubt there's material in there they can try to spin to their advantage....