From Russia with Love?

Doug:

There have been a few claims of Russian connections in the last year in relation to our country. What are you concerned about related to Russia? Anything that you would like to know more about?

David:

That's a pretty broad question.

There are things that we seem to know, and other things that seem to border on being fake news.

Doug:

Let's be careful about using the term "fake news." Let's just use that term for articles that attempt to purposely deceive readers. I think we can agree that there aren't mainstream US news media that would purposively deceive the public. That would surely end their business.

David:

Reporting stories about fake things can also be considered news.  I thought you considered most of the stories reported about Hillary Clinton's potentially illegal server issues was about a fake topic.

Doug:

No! And you are blurring many lines here. "Fake topic" (a term you just made up) is (I presume) not the same as "fake news." The Republican-controlled congress really did investigate Hillary Clinton, and so reports of that action were real.

David:

The investigation was real. Do you believe that the investigation was warranted, and the reporting about her wrongdoing was justified? Or was it reporting about about an investigation about a fake topic?

Doug:

Many people believe that it was what it appeared to be: political theater. But let's not confuse that with "fake news." Fake news is purposefully deceptive created to attempt to sway opinion, or make money. Here is a collection of fake stories that were spread around during the last election cycle:

People don't argue whether those are fake or not. They are not real. Now, there are allegations regarding the Republican campaign that we need to find out whether they are true or not. But "allegations" are not the same as "fake news."

David:

If the allegations are false, what would you call it? False news?

Doug:

No. If the allegations are false then it is "political theater." If the allegations are true, then somebody is going to be in trouble.

David:

Sometimes you only know that the allegations are false after you investigate.

Doug:
Sometimes!? Sometimes!? What world do you live in where the allegations are true even before there is an investigation?

David:
You’re saying if the investigation turns up a crime, it was justified, but if the investigation does not find evidence of wrongdoing, then it was just political theater?

Doug:
In the case where there is no evidence, but an investigation is carried out anyway. Yes, that is the definition of political theater.

David:
That’s like your insurance denying payment for a medical test if the results are normal. You only know the results are normal if you actually do the test. But if the test indicates you have appendicitis, well, then the test is justified. You can’t make those determinations of value in hindsight.

Doug:

You really shouldn't try to make analogies. What is the "denying payment" in the political theater analogy? Here, let me help you: if a door-to-door salesperson told you that you needed to have a medical test done, and then the insurance agency denied payment, then we wouldn't be surprised. If a doctor getting kickbacks (or otherwise benefiting) from a procedure requests the procedure, the insurance agency might also deny payment. The results of the tests are irrelevant to the motivations of having the test done in the first place. But, if you find cancer, great! Well, not great... cancer sucks. But the person is still in trouble.

David:

What we do know is that Russia has aggressively been using cyber-attacks to try to disrupt elections that could undermine democratic nations. Although there is no clear-cut proof top Russian officials were behind the hackings of the DNC and John Podesta, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence they were behind those hacks.

Doug:

That does seem to be the case.

David:

Even though there is no evidence at all that Russia altered any election results, the trickle of emails certainly damaged trust in Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Perhaps that was the ultimate goal.

Doug:

It does seem like it was the goal to damage Clinton and boost Trump.

David:

Not necessarily. The likely goal was to erode trust in the election, no matter who won. Since Clinton looked like a shoo-in for the presidency, eroding trust in her and the office would lead to a weakened US that Russia would be dealing with after the election. When Trump won, the mainstream media (reporting claims made by Democratic leaders) immediately proposed that Russian hacking led to his victory. It appears they succeeded in causing turmoil, as media and social media continue to falsely assert  that Putin altered the election results via hacking.

Doug:

How would you measure the effect that Russia's hacking had on the election?

David:

A poll was done, and found that about 60% of voters felt the Russian hacking had no effect on the outcome. Russia did not change election results. Yet we're still talking about Russian influence on the election.

Doug:

But how can one know whether what Russia did had an impact on the election? Are you claiming that propaganda doesn't work?

David:

Sure it works. So does negative campaigning. How much do those things work? I agree that it’s hard to tell for sure.

Doug:

"Hard to know for sure" is very different from "had no influence." According to the poll you cite, 40% of voters felt that the Russians had an effect.

David:

And a clear majority felt their efforts had no effect at all.

Doug:

What is this, a majority rules type of reality? As soon as it gets to 51% then we should investigate?

David:

We know that Russia appears to be behind attempts to influence the ongoing French elections. This is consistent with the reports they were behind the hacks attempting to influence our recent elections. They seem to be intent on stirring up trouble and uneasiness in the elections of democratic countries.

I think we need to know more. The FBI and CIA may already know much more than we're hearing about, but Congressional inquiries into Russian cyber-attacks is a good idea and a good place to start. We might both agree that cyber-security is a very pressing subject that needs to be addressed from Congress.

Doug:

What do you imagine that congress could do?

David:

I'm not sure I understand your question. Any alterations to national security based on information about Russian hacking would come through Congress. Since Congress determines spending priorities, they could shift money to security agencies to combat cyber-attacks.

Doug:

You just said that congress needs to address cyber-security. What does that mean? What can they do?

David:

How would you answer that very question?

Doug:

Congress can collect and allocate money to increased cyber security. That means they need taxes, and they need to invest in tools and expertise. Then they need to make sure that that information is disseminated to US companies.

David:

Or, they could allocate money they already have to cyber-security. Big Government needs to prioritize what it does, and what’s important. They already have our tax dollars. Let’s have them use the financial resources better.

Doug:

Of course. Anyway, what do I have questions about? Surely the firing of Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor raises some questions. Why did Trump fire him? Now Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any inquiry involving Trump, Russia, and the campaign. That seems strange. Why would he do that?

David:

Michael Flynn appears to have mislead Vice-President Mike Pence. He was asked to resign for that reason.

Doug:

Maybe. There seems to be questions now about when did the VP found out about Flynn's activities. Either Flynn lied to the VP, or the VP lied about Flynn. We aren't sure.

David:

We are sure.

Doug:

If you say it with conviction, and say it often, then we can be sure! If you say it with conviction, and say it often, then we can be sure!

David:

To suggest otherwise is to say that the Vice-President is a liar, without any evidence to back that statement up. Let’s try to stick with what we know.

Doug:

Let's consider that the VP is telling the truth. Why did Flynn lie to him? What was Flynn lying about? Was he hiding something? Why did he think that lying to the VP was worth resigning over? What exactly was Flynn saying to the Russians? Did he go "rogue" or did was he following orders? Did he potentially break the law? Since he quit (or was fired) these are questions that independently-minded people should explore.

The other alternative is that the VP is lying. That seems more likely now. It seems everyone knew Flynn was lobbying.

David:

Sounds like a witch hunt to me, but I’m fine with Congress investigating to find those answers.

Doug:

Well, I would think so.

David:

But be careful what you wish for. Late last week, a Russian spokesman stated that Russian officials were meeting with Clinton campaign officials as well. Were they also committing crimes? Is it a crime to talk to foreign officials?

Jeff Sessions recused himself from investigations that might involve Russians trying to influence the current administration. As an appointee of that administration, that was the right thing to do to avoid any appearance of impropriety. That isn't strange, it's what's supposed to happen. It's what Loretta Lynch should have done (but didn't) when she was found to have met with former President Clinton while Hillary was under investigation. I watched the entire back-and-forth between Sessions and Senator Franken, and find Session's response to be answering a question whether he had talked to any Russian officials as part of Trump's campaign, not as part of his job as Senator. Franked was asking specifically about a news story that had just come out that day.

Doug:

Hillary was always under investigation by the Republican congress. I'm not sure why she still isn't. Unless it really wasn't about illegal activity. If she broke the law, she should go to trial. If found guilty, they should lock her up, right? The same with Sessions, or Flynn, or anyone.

Regarding Sessions testimony under oath, it does remind me of another careful parsing of language:

It is pretty clear that Sessions did lie, but probably isn't prosecutable as perjury, as Tapper explores here. But I'm not concerned with the lie, I'm concerned with what the conversations between Sessions and the Russians were about.

David:

Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador in his capacity as a US Senator, along with plenty of Democratic senators. Are they all committing crimes? Should they all be investigated so we know just what illegalities Senators like Claire McCaskill are up to?

Doug:

Talking to the Russians as a Senator is, of course, not a crime. Perhaps you are not aware that that is part of their normal jobs. However, discussing the sanctions before taking office could be a serious crime. Lying to the FBI about that definitely is a crime.

David:

So you feel a candidate for POTUS or his aids talking to a foreign official about sanctions the US is enforcing is a crime? Just what is the crime?

Doug:

There are many possible crimes. Why would Flynn lie to the VP (if he did) if there wasn't a crime? Why would he resign/get fired if there wasn't a crime? We just need to find out which crimes were committed.

David:
Or, misleading your boss is a reason for losing your job, without any crime being committed.

What I find more concerning at this point are the new revelations that the Obama Justice Department was wiretapping Trump and his aids since last October  (it’s reported they had tried to get a FISA judge to allow the wiretap as early as June) and then had disseminated all of the information gathered through as many means as possible. Even though they found no evidence of any wrongdoing, The reasons given for these unprecedented actions were to save the information for future investigations, and to prevent the destruction of the information by the Trump team. That narrative create an impression of some type of guilt when there is no guilt. The Obama administration left all sorts of innuendo in many inappropriate places to cast dispersions on the Trump administration, and to create this narrative of Russian collusion well before Trump ever even took office. President Obama was harsh in his rhetoric towards Trump, and this looks like a revenge move after the election. The fact that so many high ranking Democrats have jumped on this bandwagon, asking for resignations before any investigations have even been done,  leaves me with an impression that they may have all been given a heads-up on this information.

Doug:

Well, you certainly have an active imagination! But this just shows that we need a very thorough investigation to know who said what to whom, and who was listening to it and why.

David:

I think we can agree to that.

"It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama. Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said, “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” He added, “There continues to be no there, there.” ~excerpt from the NYT article

Doug:

Not much has been confirmed yet. More evidence that we need to explore what happened.

David:

This opinion piece outlines Russian financial ties that the Clintons had while Hillary was SOS. The Obama Justice Department didn't raise a finger, and the media wasn't interested.

Doug:

Yes, we know who Peter Schweizer is. Which is it:

A) Trump should be treated like Clinton and get a "free pass" (even though they really should not, if we want to get to the bottom of some issue).

B) Clinton, like Trump, did nothing wrong.

It can't be that "Clinton did something wrong" AND "Trump did not do something wrong." It has to be (A) or (B) by your own analogy. I find your argument convincing, but that neither should get a "free pass." We should investigate both, and if either broke the law, they should both be locked up.

David:

It isn’t (A) or (B). There is no evidence Trump has any ties to Russians, or that there was any collusion at all, yet there is a constant drone for investigations.

Doug:

I guess you have added to the "drone" by being "fine" with an investigation. But there are lots of ties between Russians and Trump. How could there not be, with a company as vast as Trump's?

David:

Now you’re just making assumptions. “How could there not be?” is not proof. There is clear, documented financial ties to Russians by the Clintons while Hillary was in office, yet there was never a whisper for anyone to take a closer look. The case against Trump is (so far) unproven allegations, the other (Clinton’s financial ties) is documented facts. Glad to see you’re all in for investigating the Clintons.

Doug:

If the Clinton's broke the law, wouldn't the Republican administration be prosecuting them? I would be in favor of it, if they broke the law. Why aren't you disappointed that Republicans are not investigating!? I would be furious if I thought that the Republican Congress wasn't doing their job. (Of course, I am not furious, because I don't believe that the Clinton's broke any laws. But you don't appear to be consistent.)

David:

Because Congress is still investigating Clinton.

Doug:

Come on! That was a snarky tweet. There is no evidence that there is any ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton. That would be front page news! If a tweet is all that it takes to convince you of something, you should read my tweets!

Regarding Obama trying to smear Trump: Why did they wait until March 2017 to do it? Wouldn't this have been much more damaging in October 2016? Why did they rely on leaks? Shouldn't Obama have declared the smear himself, via a Tweet in all CAPS! Obama really was the worst in his revenge plots. Sad!

David:

Democrats lost the election. Trump promised to undo all of Obama’s misguided legacy.  How could Obama derail that process? The Obama administration appears to have processed any information (which they admit does not link Trump to any Russian involvement in our election) about Russia, and then disseminated it as widely as they could, through any means possible. Then, they claimed through “leaks” that they had to take these extraordinary steps because Trump would likely destroy the “evidence”. Democrats were already stonewalling everything Trump was doing, even to the point of letting his cabinet through at the slowest pace in American history. Now they’re constantly braying that members of his cabinet should resign, and that Trump should be impeached.

Current media headlines link Trump to the Russians, yet there is no evidence that such a link exists. There was a link between Clinton and Russians, yet little or no reporting was ever done by the majority of the mainstream media. Why do you think that is?

Doug:

I don't believe your premise. As far as I see, the media always tracks down viable stories. Interesting stories sell papers. Interesting stories sell advertising. I just hope that a real investigation is made so that we will eventually know what really happened.

David:

I think it’s typical from both sides of the aisle: Let’s investigate everything the other side does exhaustively. No stone should remain unturned. But let’s turn a blind eye to what’s going on in our own backyards. That’s just politics. I always have to smile when someone is outraged about an administration’s actions, but soon after, a recording is produced showing that same politician endorsing the same behavior in one of their own.

Doug:

Well, if you are speaking for yourself, then I find that pretty disgusting. If I thought anyone was doing something illegal, regardless of what party they were in, then they should be investigated and prosecuted if allegations found to be true. Those are my politics.

David:

I’m speaking of our elected officials, not you and me. You and I were brought up with a code of ethics. It doesn’t take much searching to find blatant hypocrisy in Washington.

We’ve discussed before in the blog how the media is biased against conservatives.

Doug:
We have? Oh, you mean you have claimed that before. Sure, sure you have.

David:
For a man of science, you certainly toss it aside when it doesn'tfit your opinions. There are plenty of scientific studies that have been done showing liberal bias in the media. All media.

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/2637/MeasureMediaBias.pdf?

http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

It is my prediction that the next four years are going to be full of stories that you consider “viable”, but would never have seen the light of day if the same information was about a Democrat. Trump doesn’t help himself by constantly prodding them, but it probably doesn’t make much of a difference. But still, it’s better than Pravda.

Doug:

I would believe you if I ever heard of someone asking to see Trump's birth certificate. If Obama had withheld his income tax forms maybe people would have trusted him more. But alas, I predict that the future really will be filled with many stories that will have to be investigated. But I predict Trump won't make it four years. There is no way he will be able to keep this up, one way or another. I suspect a Democratic congress would impeach him.

David:

Let’s wait for the results of all of these investigations before you make your convictions, shall we?

Doug:

Why is it that your predictions ("It is also my [David's] prediction that the next four years are going to be full of stories that you consider 'viable', but would never have seen the light of day if the same information was about a Democrat.") are fine, but mine indicate that I am willing to jump to conclusions? Is that a debate technique, or do you really see a difference?

David:

In the meantime, let’s enjoy the accelerating economy, the increasing jobs market, and the higher wages employees are now seeing. America is great, and getting greater!

Doug:

I was going to let you have the last word, but that is just too stoopid to end on. If I thought that we were heading into even a remotely better place, then that would be tolerable. But we are not. We can discuss this, and more, next week at the same bat-time, on the same bat-channel...