Surrender Summit II: Putin Invited to Washington

[Gori the Grey]

it was the media who pushed the collusion accusation

because of all the evidence of collusion?

 

[red_elk]

Do you comprehend the basic fact that legally it doesn't matter if they find anything "more substantial"?

I don't care what matters according to US law. Dachs said that Russian intelligence tried to "artificially alter the result of the 2016 election" and I was asking whether investigation found anything to support that claim. Assuming that "artificial altering" means hacking.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

does Israel help sympathetic candidates?

There are people who would love to see AIPAC get investigated because anyone with a brain knows that the answer to your question is yes, but there is a subtlety to how it is done and no interest in such an investigation from majority of congress since they are all on that take. One has to wonder why you are willing to appear so stupid as to ask.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't care what matters according to US law.

Then why are you so active in a discussion of a matter of US law? Are you just trolling?

 

[red_elk]

Then why are you so active in a discussion of a matter of US law? Are you just trolling?

If you don't understand what I'm discussing here, re-read my posts. I'm not very familiar with US legal system and not too much interested whether Trump's actions are formally legal or not.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not very familiar with US legal system and not too much interested whether Trump's actions are formally legal or not.

You're like Trump himself in that.

 

[Berzerker]

because of all the evidence of collusion?

Then it shouldn't be hilarious when the Trumpet's address media accusations of collusion, but Tim thinks it is.

There are people who would love to see AIPAC get investigated because anyone with a brain knows that the answer to your question is yes, but there is a subtlety to how it is done and no interest in such an investigation from majority of congress since they are all on that take. One has to wonder why you are willing to appear so stupid as to ask.

Are you one of them? When have you ever gone after Democrats for benefiting from foreign influence? If the answer is yes then why are the Democrats so upset at foreign influences on elections? Oh yeah, because they lost. Hypocrites! And why are you laughing at the Trumpets for denying collusion when the media has been charging collusion? Its like you think Trump just made it up.

I have to ask, hypocrites appear oblivious to their double standards.

 

[metalhead]

You may believe there is no equivalence, but problem is that on bilateral meeting your counterpart may disagree with you. Position "we are good and you are bad, therefore you have to concede" is not very useful for negotiation if you want to achieve something.

Again, this is stupid. The position is, "the people we indicted were indicted on presentment of evidence to a grand jury. The people you want to 'question' have not had your claims examined by anyone."

One side has evidence and process. The other does not. So the equivalence between the two is totally false.

 

[Martin Alvito]

One side has evidence and process. The other does not. So the equivalence between the two is totally false.

If you start from the axiom that the American justice system is hopelessly corrupt in its process and its outcomes are therefore illegitimate, then you can draw that equivalence.

I don't fully agree with that axiom (though I'd be willing to accept it in the limited context of the obviously broken cases which crop up from time to time), and obviously you don't at all.

It is worth pointing out that if the two of you disagree at the axiomatic level, then you're wasting your time trying to have a conversation about the conclusions. The only way you'll ever get anywhere is by having a discussion about the theory and evidence that each of you has to support your position on the axiom that is leading to your divergent logical conclusions.

 

[red_elk]

Again, this is stupid. The position is, "the people we indicted were indicted on presentment of evidence to a grand jury. The people you want to 'question' have not had your claims examined by anyone."

One side has evidence and process. The other does not. So the equivalence between the two is totally false.

Ok and what does it mean in your opinion - that Russian side must provide its citizens to you for interrogation, while you won't provide yours?
That's not going to happen. Either you stick to your belief in due process and false equivalence or you get the deal.
You can't negotiate from position that your counterpart is inferior.

 

[Verbose]

Ok and what does it mean in your opinion - that Russian side must provide its citizens to you for interrogation, while you won't provide yours?
That's not going to happen. Either you stick to your belief in due process and false equivalence or you get the deal.
You can't negotiate from position that your counterpart is inferior.

No point in doing it from a position of false equivalence either.

The conclusion, and there is a lot of supporting evidence for it, is that the US judiciary is (still) an independent branch of the US government, while the Russian is subservient to the executive branch, i.e. the government. Which makes them incomparable. The Russian government has previously struggled with the concept that governments in the US and Western Europe cannot simply tell their courts to go away, or decide the outcome of their processes.

There is technically little point in Russia talking to the US government about what US courts might decide to do. Except, of course, we pretty much all by now expects the Donald to be going after the independent judiciary in the US. Which would arguably be great news for Moscow.

Then that the US has no jurisdiction in Russia, as Russia has no jurisdiction in the US, is another matter.

There is also not really any provisions for if, where and how the Russian government might attempt to directly negotiate with the judiciary branch of the US government.

As far as I understand the two countries have no extradition agreements either, so that's out (viz. Snowden).

 

[red_elk]

The conclusion, and there is a lot of supporting evidence for it, is that the US judiciary is (still) an independent branch of the US government, while the Russian is subservient to the executive branch, i.e. the government. Which makes them incomparable.

Russian position is that they are comparable and the negotiation is possible on equal terms only. Take it or leave it.

As far as I understand the two countries have no extradition agreements either, so that's out (viz. Snowden).

He is a human right activist and most certainly will get unfair trial in the USA. Granting him a political asylum is a moral duty of any country which cares about human rights.

 

[Yeekim]

Dachs said that Russian intelligence tried to "artificially alter the result of the 2016 election" and I was asking whether investigation found anything to support that claim. Assuming that "artificial altering" means hacking.

As to the substance of the allegations:

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in order to increase political instability in the United States and to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign by bolstering the candidacies of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.[1][2][3] A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership favored presidential candidate Trump over Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process".[3]:7

On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of emails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process.[4] According to the ODNI's January 6, 2017 report, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.[3]:ii-iii,2[5][6][7] Although Russian officials have repeatedly denied involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks,[8][9][10] there is strong forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations.[11] In January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Russia also interfered in the elections by disseminating fake news promoted on social media.[12] On July 13, 2018, 12 Russian military intelligence agents were indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for allegedly hacking the email accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

 

[metalhead]

If you start from the axiom that the American justice system is hopelessly corrupt in its process and its outcomes are therefore illegitimate, then you can draw that equivalence.

I wouldn't say I don't subscribe to it at all. But the people for whom our "justice" system is manifestly broken and unjust are not agents of foreign governments in the highest profile investigation in 20 years. They're getting the good justice system, the one that actually functions like it was intended and tries to protect the rights of the accused.

Whereas Russia uses violence, imprisonment, and murder against anyone it deems a threat to the Putin regime. Which apparently includes Bill Browder and Michael McFaul. To argue that there is any equivalence here just does not comport with reality.

Ok and what does it mean in your opinion - that Russian side must provide its citizens to you for interrogation, while you won't provide yours?
That's not going to happen. Either you stick to your belief in due process and false equivalence or you get the deal.

Of course it's not going to happen. Everybody knows it's not going to happen. And here's the kicker - TRUMP DOESN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN! He doesn't want those Russian nationals extradited to the U.S. He thought he was going to look innocent by pretending he might actually get them brought to justice, without realizing what he was doing. It's just another ignorant thing he did which made us look weak.

You can't negotiate from position that your counterpart is inferior.

Of course you can. Why can't you? Why would the stronger and richer nation want to pretend they're negotiating as equals?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Whereas Russia uses violence, imprisonment, and murder against anyone it deems a threat to the Putin regime. Which apparently includes Bill Browder and Michael McFaul. To argue that there is any equivalence here just does not comport with reality.

I am glad to say that for once I can quite agree with you. US regime destroys, imprisons and uses violence even against those whom it doesnt percieve as a threat to itself.

Of course you can. Why can't you? Why would the stronger and richer nation want to pretend they're negotiating as equals?

I believe its quite rational to treat others and other entities as equals for various reasons and in the foreign affairs its viewed as good diplomacy.

 

[red_elk]

As to the substance of the allegations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

Ok, so that's what I thought. Wikileaks materials compromising one of the candidates and a few thousands of dollars spent on facebook ads. Sounds like grand conspiracy

Of course you can. Why can't you? Why would the stronger and richer nation want to pretend they're negotiating as equals?

Because... otherwise negotiations will fail?
If you have a leverage against other nation and can force it to comply to your will, it's another case.
But you can't force Russia to provide its citizens for interrogation, therefore you can only try to offer something which both you and Russia will consider a fair deal. Though in this particular case the deal is most likely a non-starter for both sides.

 

[Yeekim]

Ok, so that's what I thought. Wikileaks materials compromising one of the candidates and a few thousands of dollars spent on facebook ads. Sounds like grand conspiracy

Indeed. Simple... low risk... cheap... but quite a payoff.

 

[Lexicus]

There is technically little point in Russia talking to the US government about what US courts might decide to do. Except, of course, we pretty much all by now expects the Donald to be going after the independent judiciary in the US. Which would arguably be great news for Moscow.

The Republican Party and conservatives in the US have been engaged in a massive conspiracy to destroy the independent judiciary for decades.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Indeed. Simple... low risk... cheap... but quite a payoff.

Wikileaks is known to be highly reliable. So you if your argument is that simple truth has influenced the election I dont see how anyone with democratic mindset can have anything against it. The facebooks adds were just silly thing not designed to influence the election but to generate revenue and profit. Complete nothingburger.

 

[metalhead]

Because... otherwise negotiations will fail?
If you have a leverage against other nation and can force it to comply to your will, it's another case.

The U.S. does have leverage over Russia. They can sanction rich, connected Russians, freeze their assets, seize their U.S. property, restrict their travel, etc. Russia has no similar leverage over U.S. persons. The two are not on equal bargaining terms, and there is no reason to pretend otherwise.

That's no reason not to approach the bargaining table in good faith, of course, but when the weaker side is waging a successful and ongoing cyberattack against the stronger side, it's kind of ridiculous to go into a summit and not try to use that leverage to get them to knock it off.

But Trump just believed Putin's denial and didn't even bother with it, AFTER GRU agents had been indicted for doing the thing Putin denied they were doing. That's nuts, man. How would you feel if your government built a credible case against a foreign agent, and then your head of state came out and said he believed the denial of the foreign head of state over his own investigators? Wouldn't you find that to be awfully strange, and weak?

But you can't force Russia to provide its citizens for interrogation, therefore you can only try to offer something which both you and Russia will consider a fair deal. Though in this particular case the deal is most likely a non-starter for both sides.

You and I both know this was never a serious "deal" that was going to actually happen. That's what's so ridiculous about it. This wasn't a negotiation about anything real, it was just an instance of Putin using Trump's ignorance to make him look weak and stupid, and it worked.