Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

TOTALLY can't wait for the Cult and the Defenders to immediately change their tune from "THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR INTERFERENCE, HOW DARE YOU STATE THAT WITH YOUR EVIDENCE AND PROOF?!" to "This was never about interference. Of course there was. Everyone does it. Obama probably did it. Why aren't we talking about when Obama did it?!"

It's obvious that foreign policy involves quid pro quos. Frankly, a great deal of human interaction is quid pro quo, even implicit. Your friendships are essentially based in an unspoken quid pro quo, even if it's just mutual enjoyment of each others' company.

Foreign policy is likewise partially dictated by domestic gain. Leaders do policy that they hope improves their electoral chances, for sure, although there is the idea that it should also be beneficial for the nation. But to sacrifice sound foreign policy and invite corruption as it is increasingly evident Trump has done... that's just rotten.

Without question.

However, we're not talking about Rotten. We're talking about the actual illegal act that was 'allegedly' orchestrated by the Head of This Administration.

This ole Chestnut [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121].

(a)Prohibition: It shall be unlawful for-
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b)"Foreign national" defined: As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1)a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

Every where we look, we find more and more people tied to this Administration getting caught redheaded in the European Cookie jar. Giuliani's associates can tell you more about that than I could [https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770837095/4th-defendant-arrested-in-alleged-campaign-contribution-scheme-linked-to-giulian].

And still. STILL... the defenders cling to lies and false hopes because this mistake of a human being empowers them somehow. It baffles me.

 

[tstorm823]

It's obvious that foreign policy involves quid pro quos. Frankly, a great deal of human interaction is quid pro quo, even implicit. Your friendships are essentially based in an unspoken quid pro quo, even if it's just mutual enjoyment of each others' company.

Foreign policy is likewise partially dictated by domestic gain. Leaders do policy that they hope improves their electoral chances, for sure, although there is the idea that it should also be beneficial for the nation. But to sacrifice sound foreign policy and invite corruption as it is increasingly evident Trump has done... that's just rotten.

Why do you say such reasonable things to other people?

Anyway, this is interesting and fills some gaps in, but considering this testimony is sort of en media res, I still anxiously await them getting Giuliani on the stand. The meeting where Trump was like "I don't know, talk to Giuliani about Ukraine" was a couple weeks after Giuliani canceled his trip to Ukraine. That's a nice little segue between Giuliani canceling a trip in rage and then a US diplomat setting up a meeting with a Ukrainian aid to the president, and then an explanation for their surprise that Trump agreed to the phone call later.

The one thing I've seen about this testimony I question is Sondland both claiming Giuliani told him straight away they wanted Burisma investigated and claiming he didn't know it had anything to do with the Biden's until much later. That sounds like an obvious lie to me one way or another, like he wouldn't ask or look up himself what the deal with Burisma was (if you set google to search for "burisma" prior to May 23, it's still all about Biden). The most obvious read is him lying to plead ignorance himself of what was going on, but like, if you look back at Sondland's role in those texts, he was the most involved in getting a statement. He was the one saying to Yermak "sounds great" in regards to making a statement about Burisma and election meddling, he was the one who said that he appreciates Zelenskyy doesn't want to be treated as a tool, but they needed to get the conversation going regardless of pretext. He was the one defending Trump in writing and then asking for phone calls instead. Now he goes on stand and claims he was asking for Burisma because he was told to and knew nothing about Biden being involved. Sounds like perjury to me.

But like, it's really all about Giuliani. He's got the answers to what happened between him and Ukraine before this, and he is the incriminating link being pointed to as the tool for Trump's supposed crime. I still don't think this looks like Trump giving marching orders, it still very much looks like he's being fed his information and decisions by Giuliani. Trump's deferred to him about Ukraine consistently, and then agreed to a phone call only after Giuliani was convinced to push for it. And then Sondland's instructions came from Giuliani. I'm not saying that Rudy Giuliani as Dick Cheney part 2 is good for America, but this all really begs the question: does Rudy Giuliani actually believe that Ukrainians hacked the DNC server?

 

[Agema]

Why do you say such reasonable things to other people?

I think I was reasonable with you - it just so happened my reasoning disagreed very substantially with yours.

The quid pro quos that exist between nations are normally those of national interest. I'm pretty sure many regimes lock up Westerners in large part as a means of extracting concessions in other areas. In the case of autocrats, it's much more likely to be personal gain, because they're miore inclined to be selfish megalomaniacs than patriotic, responsible leaders. Likewise where foreign policy aligns to domestic politics, foreign policy is still generally an expression of national interest or democratic preference, therefore represents fair policy.

But I don't think any of the above explains what Trump & team have been up to here well.

The one thing I've seen about this testimony I question is Sondland both claiming Giuliani told him straight away they wanted Burisma investigated and claiming he didn't know it had anything to do with the Biden's until much later. That sounds like an obvious lie to me one way or another...

I am also very strongly inclined to the opinion that Sondland is covering his own backside and he knew a lot more than his testimony admitted to. But no-one's going to press too hard about that.

But like, it's really all about Giuliani.

It's a lot about Giuliani. But it demands we ask some extremely difficult questions of Trump too: why is he following his personal lawyer who has no official governmental capacity over the advice of the State Dept.? Trump must know what Giuliani is up to in Ukraine, and ultimately he must also be letting Giuliani call the shots rather than official government employees in the State Dept. It's also a broader and deeper problem than that, in considering the linking in of the likes of chief of staff Mulvaney strongly suggests this is known about more widely in the White House.

The kinder vision of Trump from this is as a negligent, inattentive lump sitting on the throne indulging himself, with a load of minions scurrying around trying to get real work done amidst disruptive outbursts of their leader's whims. He really does seem to me like some medieval king mostly interested in pomp and glory, as functionaries scurry round trying to keep the state running. Stuff gets done by these functionaries flattering and toadying up to the monarch and his favourite courtiers, and indulging their personal agendas. This is what modern democracies were supposed to end.

Thus I can buy the idea of put-upon officials who have a goal they need to acheive (like good Ukraine-US relations) and just doing what it takes to get there, which unfortunately means catering to the corruption emanating from Trump and his close associates. But even this kind view of Trump tells me he is an unfit leader. His seeming reliance on people he holds personally loyal over the apparatus of state is really worrying, especially when they don't hold official posts: this is a massive corruption risk. Indeed this sorry affair is corruption, and even if caused by the machinations of Giuliani more than Trump, it was caused because of the way Trump runs the executive.

But a look through the history of Trump would suggest this is exactly the sort of shit he willingly gets involved in, that he even openly says he supports to the media. Whether it can be proven to the satisfaction of a law court is one thing, but I would really struggle to believe Trump was not fully aware and giving his approval to what was going on.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

US' top diplomat Taylor was told Trump wanted aid withheld until Ukraine said it would investigate Biden [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-deposition-text-messages/index.html]

The top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, testified Tuesday that he had been told President Donald Trump would withhold military aid to the country until it publicly declared investigations would be launched that could help his reelection chances - including into former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a copy of Taylor's opening statement obtained by CNN.

Taylor said he was told that "everything" Ukraine wanted - from a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to hundreds of millions in security aid - was dependent on publicly announcing an investigation that included Burisma, the company that hired Biden's son Hunter, and Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 election.

Taylor's explosive testimony is likely to add fuel to Democrats' impeachment inquiry into Trump and Ukraine, with Democratic lawmakers leaving the closed door session before three House committees declaring Taylor's testimony was damning for the President. The testimony also undercuts White House assertions that there was no "quid pro quo" tying security assistance with the opening of an investigation, as Taylor says he was told repeatedly that the two were linked.

The opening statement from Taylor - 15 pages long - adds a detailed and meticulous accounting of the meetings Taylor had with senior US officials in which he says he learned how Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani were pushing Ukraine to open an investigation into the Bidens and the 2016 election.

Taylor testified that US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told him he'd made a mistake by telling the Ukrainian officials that a White House meeting with Zelensky "was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations."

"In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, 'everything' was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance," Taylor testified, adding that Trump wanted Zelensky "in a public box" by making a statement about ordering the investigations.

Taylor says he was told by a National Security Council official that Trump told Sondland he had insisted Zelensky "go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 interference."

"Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not 'clear things up' in public, we could be at a 'stalemate.' I understood 'stalemate' to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance," Taylor testified.

Cult and Loyalists, please limber up for the amount of contorting you need to do. This will be a rough routine.

Now, Don't hurt yourself while trying to make spin this. It's not worth it.

And I want to pre-emptively want to caution you. If you say "In the last Paragraph, he clearly states that Trump said this was not a quid pro quo" I would love to remind you of something.

If I stand menacingly close to you and state that "I stopped those thugs from coming around your house, and if you don't hand over your car and your wallet, I don't know if I can stop them any more... But this isn't an Extortion."?

It's still an Extortion.

 

[Agema]

Assuming Taylor was telling the truth, I think that's pretty much it as far as I'm concerned.

The argument there was no quid pro quo gets quietly shelved as the lie it was, and the new one is that it's no big deal and not worth an impeachment, and then it's just a case of whether it loosens enough faith in Trump amongst the public that the Republicans see political gain in canning him.

 

[tstorm823]

US' top diplomat Taylor was told Trump wanted aid withheld until Ukraine said it would investigate Biden [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-deposition-text-messages/index.html]

Follow some links to actual source [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6509151-Billt.html#document/p1]. Take out the editorial decisions. I know it's a long read, but it's plenty enlightening.

To start, I see no reason not to trust this man. He seems to have a good reputation. He's saying things that match the primary sources we have. I don't see any obvious reason for him to lie. Additionally, I assume he's a professional that knows what he's doing, and I assume his statement was reviewed by other professionals to not include falsehoods, so I'm reading this as though it is accurate to the best of his ability.

And basically it tells us what we already knew: Bill Taylor believed they were withholding diplomacy and military aid for US election assistance. Whether that belief was fully justified is a different matter altogether. I'd like to pull a few sentences out of this. I know nothing is as good as full context, but for those not reading the full document, these sentences appear in this order as he recounts a chronology of events:

Let me now provide the Committees a chronology of events.

On May 28 of this year, I met with Secretary Mike Pompeo who asked me to return to Kyiv... I worried about what I had heard concerning the role of Rudy Giuliani, who had made several high-profile statements about Ukraine and U.S. policy toward the country.

On June 27, Ambassador Sondland told me during a phone conversation that President Zelenskyy needed to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelenskyy, was not standing in the way of "investigations".

By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.

July 19, they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting with the Ukrainian officials at the White House. Specifically, they told me that Amabssador Sondland had connected "investigations" with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelenskyy.

On August 16, I exchanged text messages with Ambassador Volker in which I learned that Mr. Yermak had asked that the United States submit an official request for an investigation into Burisma's alleged violations of Ukrainian law.

Just days later, on August 27, Ambassador Bolton arrived in Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy. During their meeting, security assistance was not discussed - amazingly, news of the hold did not leak out until August 29.

It had still not occurred to me that the hold on security assistance could be related to the "investigations".

[September 1st] During the phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that Presdient Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly the Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election... in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, "everything" was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.

September 7th... President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference.

On September 25th... although this was the first time I had seen the details of President Trump's July 25 call with President Zelenskyy, is which he mentioned Vice President Biden, I had come to understand well before then that "investigations" was a term that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections, and to investigations of Burisma and the Bidens.

Bolded emphasis mine.

All throughout his statement, investigating the 2016 election and investigating Burisma are tied together. But were they actually, or was that just his read into the word "investigations"? I'm not suggesting that isn't a reasonable read into what they were saying, but he says himself he was worried about Giuliani's public statements before even taking the job, which mentioned both Biden and the 2016 election, and that could have impacted his perceptions from the beginning. If we look only at where these theoretical investigations are mentioned separated from one another, we are in exactly the same place we were before this testimony.

We know that Trump explicitly wanted investigations into foreign interference in the US 2016 election. That's fine. A US presidential campaign was monitored by federal law enforcement based mostly on foreign intelligence, some of which was paid for by the opposing campaign. Yes, investigate that. Trump wanting that isn't a crime in any way.

We have triple-supreme confirmation here that military aid was never presented as a bargaining chip with Ukraine. Ukraine was not told it was held, they were not asked to do anything to unhold it, they only found out from Politico reporting it the end of August, and when it got out that it was held, US officials avoided the question awkwardly for <2 weeks before Trump released it in full.

We know Trump thinks Biden should be investigated in Ukraine, but we don't have Trump explicitly using the power of his office to further that goal, and we once again explicitly have the Ukrainian side of the exchange trying to involve the US in investigating Burisma. To add to the report that Ukrainians were contacting Giuliani about this a year prior, and Zelenskyy bringing up his conversation with Giuliani and saying he wanted to tell Trump about the fired prosecutor, as well as the text messages where Yermak was the one bringing up Burisma, we now have Yermak asking US officials to formally request they investigate Burisma. Now certainly, I will concede that if the two investigations got tied up in communication to the point that the Ambassador to Ukraine wasn't distinguishing between the two, that's pretty officially tied together. But once again, this is someone talking about events that had already begun before his statement begins, and we need to know what happened before that.

I cannot express enough the gigantic difference between these two things:

Trump: "investigate Biden"
Ukraine: "no"
Trump: "freeze their military aid"

And

Trump: "investigate your meddling in the 2016 election"
Ukraine: "what if we investigate Joe Biden for you?"
Trump: "eh, freeze their military aid"

If the former, that is Trump is committing a crime and he should be prosecuted for it. If the latter, Trump did literally nothing wrong here. And with what we know currently, we can't distinguish between those two possibilities.

 

[Silvanus]

Trump: "investigate Biden"
Ukraine: "no"
Trump: "freeze their military aid"

And

Trump: "investigate your meddling in the 2016 election"
Ukraine: "what if we investigate Joe Biden for you?"
Trump: "eh, freeze their military aid"

If the former, that is Trump is committing a crime and he should be prosecuted for it. If the latter, Trump did literally nothing wrong here. And with what we know currently, we can't distinguish between those two possibilities.

Uhrm, even in the latter, Trump is pushing a foreign government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory (for domestic political gain), and relating military aid to factors which should absolutely not be influencing it. Even if the latter, that's grotesquely unethical.

 

[tstorm823]

Uhrm, even in the latter, Trump is pushing a foreign government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory (for domestic political gain), and relating military aid to factors which should absolutely not be influencing it. Even if the latter, that's grotesquely unethical.

Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election isn't baseless conspiracy. It's well reported that they picked Clinton and worked towards that end, in addition to the importance of Ukraine within the Steele Dossier, the origin of which is being actively investigation by the Attorney General. No, that's not a baseless conspiracy theory.

Investigating Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election is not a matter of domestic political gain. I'm sure you don't mind all the Republican-related people who have been charged by the current executive branch. You think if they investigate Democrat-related people, suddenly that's unethically done for domestic political gain? Republicans can only investigate Republicans and Democrats only investigate Republicans and that's perfectly acceptable to you? What crap!

And why shouldn't military aid, or any aid for that matter, be related? Like, early in Trump's presidency, we gave them military aid, we got them javelin missiles, Trump bragged about it. They didn't investigate Biden to get that. Then they started talking to Giuliani about investigating Burisma, and Trump froze the military aid. That could very well be the least corrupt thing Trump has ever done. If Ukraine went to Obama and said "we've got dirt on Mitch McConnell, we can give it to you" and Obama decided "yeah, I don't think we should be giving javelin missiles to the people peddling political dirt to me", you 10000% would be praising his character. If after receiving that problematic offer to meddle in our elections, Ukraine elected a new government, and Obama decided to hold the aid contingent specifically on them investigating their interference in our elections, you would 10000% be praising his character.

 

[Agema]

...and we once again explicitly have the Ukrainian side of the exchange trying to involve the US in investigating Burisma.

This is obviously an issue of procedure. Ukraine has no grounds to investigate Burisma, it's a long closed case which would appear blatantly political (i.e. basically corrupt) for the Ukrainian executive to order reopened without proper justification. A formal legal request from the USA, however, gives them that justification.

This whole idea that Ukraine wanted to reopen the Burisma case on its own is by now beyond reasonable credibility following Sondland and Taylor's testimony.

We have triple-supreme confirmation here that military aid was never presented as a bargaining chip with Ukraine.

The threat was never explicitly made to Ukraine, fine. But it's increasingly clear it was withheld specifically as leverage - potentially as a last resort or just an implicit threat - and we know that Trump ordered it held. I believe it was also Trump that ordered Pence replaced with Perry for Zelenskyy's inauguration. And according to Sondland Trump was actively pressing State Dept. officials to work with Giuliani. It is also highly unlikely that the request to for a call & meeting with Zelenskyy was being arranged by White House staffers without any direction from Trump. Given these factors, it is not credible to assert that Trump was not actively involved in this process.

 

[tstorm823]

This whole idea that Ukraine wanted to reopen the Burisma case on its own is by now beyond reasonable credibility following Sondland and Taylor's testimony.

You weren't saying that was a reasonable possibility before. I dont know why you have so much issue thinking a nation with recent corruption problems might have tried themselves to screw around with US politics.

 

[Agema]

You weren't saying that was a reasonable possibility before.

It was by far the less reasonable conclusion according to the balance of evidence back then.

I dont know why you have so much issue thinking a nation with recent corruption problems might have tried themselves to screw around with US politics.

Corruption generally means individuals exploiting weaknesses in the justice system for selfish ends. It very rarely means the national leader trying to interfere with the most powerful country on the planet, not least because that attracts a lot of unwelcome attention. Interference in the USA might well come from a country with corruption problems, but more likely from private actors who are exploiting the weakness of the justice system to carry out their operations.

 

[Asita]

Uhrm, even in the latter, Trump is pushing a foreign government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory (for domestic political gain), and relating military aid to factors which should absolutely not be influencing it. Even if the latter, that's grotesquely unethical.

Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election isn't baseless conspiracy. It's well reported that they picked Clinton and worked towards that end, in addition to the importance of Ukraine within the Steele Dossier, the origin of which is being actively investigation by the Attorney General. No, that's not a baseless conspiracy theory.

Uh, yes it is. The conspiracy theory in question starts in asserting that it was the Ukraine rather than Russia that interfered in the 2016 elections. And that's a case of falling on its face at the starting line, as literally every reliable source - including the US, British, and Dutch intelligence agencies - asserts that all evidence points to Russia. And before we go any further, let me point out that this conspiracy theory wasn't alleged by anyone in the know or particularly trustworthy. The idea that it was the Ukraine traces to Peter Schweizer of Breitbart News, a man who has developed a reputation as a "serial misinformer" for "incorrect reporting" and "conclusions not supported by the facts", up to and including using non-existent sources.

Moving along, though, this conspiracy theory further alleges that not only was it the Ukraine rather than Russia, but that the interference was done to benefit Clinton rather than Trump (Again, taking an opposed position to every reliable source). It then alleges that the reason all the evidence points to Russia is because Russia was framed, that CrowdStrike - the company that investigated the DNC server hack - had planted evidence on the DNC server to implicate Russia[footnote]Sidenote: in actuality, CrowdStrike was one of several firms investigating the hack, including Fidelis Cybersecurity, SecureWorks, and Mandiant[/footnote]. Furthermore, it alleges that the FBI "wasn't allowed" to examine the CrowdStrike server because it would expose the DNC plot (this aspect traces to Guccifer 2.0).

So let's recap. The backbone of the theory is that in an effort to help Hilary Clinton, the Ukraine collaborated with the DNC to commit a false flag attack on the DNC servers, that they further conspired with the digital forensics company that investigated it to plant evidence implicating Russia for the attack, and that the US government was also complicit in this and forbade the FBI from investigating the case so as to keep the plot a secret. And, finally, that they did such a good job of this that nobody in the domestic or international intelligence communities suspect that the true culprit was the Ukraine/Democrats/US/Crowdstrike/Clinton collaboration. This is already several shades of ridiculous.

And from there it further alleges that Ukraine has "the" DNC server, Hillary Clinton's deleted emails, and that the Ukrainian government is either partially or wholly responsible for the Trump-Russia Dossier. And now it's morphed to include the Biden conspiracy theory as well. Nothing about this is based in reality and much of it has been debunked for years now.

 

[Saelune]

This whole idea that Ukraine wanted to reopen the Burisma case on its own is by now beyond reasonable credibility following Sondland and Taylor's testimony.

You weren't saying that was a reasonable possibility before. I dont know why you have so much issue thinking a nation with recent corruption problems might have tried themselves to screw around with US politics.

So you DO think Trump colluded with Russia?

 

[tstorm823]

snip

Hey look, I googled "Ukraine 2016 election".

Conspiracy theory? [https://observer.com/2017/01/ukraine-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election/]
Conspiracy theory? [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html]
Conspiracy theory? [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukraine-try-to-interfere-in-the-2016-election/]
Conspiracy theory? [https://www.thenation.com/article/ukraine-elections-2016/]
Conspiracy theory? [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446]
And the Steele dossier's wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier] has multiple sections all about Ukraine.

Again, Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election isn't a baseless conspiracy theory. I'm sure you're having fun putting together the least reasonable views to look down on and laugh, but Ukraine definitely involved itself in the 2016 US presidential election, and it's in legitimate US interests to find out who made that happen and what the full extent was. If hating Donald Trump prevents you from recognizing that, I don't know what to tell you.

So you DO think Trump colluded with Russia?

I think Russia involved itself in the 2016 election. Trump didn't collude with Russia to make that happen, and you're downright silly if you think the Russians were acting specifically to be in Trump's interests. Russia was acting in its own interests, that being good for Donald Trump is just a happy accident for Trump.

To my knowledge, Donald Trump did nothing to make Russia want to help him become president other than not be warmonger Hillary Clinton.

 

[Asita]

snip

Hey look, I googled "Ukraine 2016 election".

Conspiracy theory? [https://observer.com/2017/01/ukraine-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election/]
Conspiracy theory? [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html]
Conspiracy theory? [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukraine-try-to-interfere-in-the-2016-election/]
Conspiracy theory? [https://www.thenation.com/article/ukraine-elections-2016/]
Conspiracy theory? [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446]
And the Steele dossier's wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier] has multiple sections all about Ukraine.

Again, Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election isn't a baseless conspiracy theory. I'm sure you're having fun putting together the least reasonable views to look down on and laugh, but Ukraine definitely involved itself in the 2016 US presidential election, and it's in legitimate US interests to find out who made that happen and what the full extent was. If hating Donald Trump prevents you from recognizing that, I don't know what to tell you.

"Putting together the least reasonable views"? You say that as if I had to search long and hard for that and ignore mainstream sources to do so. Let me remind you that what I just related to you is the same version of events that Trump himself has been championing and even referenced in the Zelensky call ("I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with the Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike...I guess you have one of your wealthy people...The server, they say Ukraine has it.") and that he asserted at the UN General Assembly a few weeks ago that Clinton's emails could be in the Ukraine. That aside, I can get a similar summation as easily as going to Wikipedia. Like it or not, that's the story Trump and his allies are trying to make everyone swallow.

But let's go into your sources for a moment. Those "sections about the Ukraine" in the Steele Dossier Wikipedia page? The section is "Veracity on specific claims" and the subsection is "Republican position on Russian conflict with Ukraine and related sanctions", focusing on how the dossier alleges that "the Trump campaign agreed to minimize US opposition to Russia's incursions into Ukraine", not election interference as you suggest. Oh, and look at that, there's another little section at the end under "Conspiracy Theories". It's only a few sentences, so let's go ahead and quote it. "According to The Wall Street Journal, President Trump's actions in the Trump?Ukraine scandal stemmed from his belief that Ukraine was responsible for the Steele Dossier. Trump has insinuated that the dossier had its origins in Ukraine, that the Clintons were involved, and that Hillary Clinton's email server is currently secreted in Ukraine." Hmm...that sounds suspiciously like what I was saying, don't you think?

The Nation talks about the Ukraine's role in exposing Paul Manafort's corruption with the release of the "black ledger", alleging millions in off the books payments to Paul Manafort. Which is interesting and worth discussion, but again, not what you're trying to imply.

The CBS News article is actually talking about the Politico article, and it's again, about Paul Manafort. Again, worth discussion in its own right, but not what you're trying to imply. The article even contrasts it with the Russian interference, saying that "it's not really the same thing as what the Russian government apparently did to help the Trump campaign."

New York Times? Same thing. About the Manafort reveal.

The Observer? Well, before going any further, I'd like to point out a little history tidbit. Jared Kushner was the publisher for the Observer until he accepted a position as Trump's senior advisor in January 2017, at which point he handed the reigns off to his brother-in-law, Joseph Meyer. The article in question dates before Kushner announced his departure. Just keep that in mind for a moment. If we read the article, we once again see that it's once again about the black ledger, only this time they overplay their hand by trying to tie it directly to Clinton and paint it as a pro-Clinton rather than an anti-Manafort initiative. It further tries to imply that through this the Ukrainian government coordinated to push an anti-Trump narrative. Oh, and will you look at that, you remember how you were saying I was stringing together the least reasonable views? Guess what? This article tries to imply those too.

the co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike, the cyber security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the alleged hacks, Dmitri Alperovitch, also serves as a senior fellow to the Washington-based think tank Atlantic Council, which is an openly anti-Russian organization partly . The Atlantic Council is funded by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who also happens to be one of the most prolific donors to the Clinton Foundation. The DNC denied multiple requests from the FBI to access their servers, effectively forcing the FBI to rely on CrowdStrike?s assessment of the hacks.

Note "alleged hacks", tying Crowdstrike to the Ukraine through its CTO's involvement with the Atlantic Council and then to Clinton by way of Pinchuk giving money to the Atlantic Council and the Clinton campaign, and then saying that the DNC forced the FBI to rely on Crowdstrike's version of events. It's textbook priming. They imply a pro-Clinton initiative, then they leave all these dots and rely on the reader to connect those dots and derive a causitive link between that implication and the subsequent statements. The impression that's the end result? "The alleged hacks were investigated by a company with deep ties to the Ukraine and a vested Pro-Clinton/anti-Trump interest, and even more suspiciously, the FBI can't independently verify these alleged hacks and has to take that compromised company's word for it! Why wouldn't the DNC allow the FBI access? Aha! Because these alleged hacks were not as they seemed! And the Ukrainians have an anti-russia bias! So Crowdstrike is able to present whatever evidence they want and make it look like Russia was responsible for these alleged hacks..." Amusingly enough, we can actually tie this back to prior discussions in this thread as this is basically the same way that John Solomon made his phantom scandals.

So yeah, on the whole, not what you seem to be trying to imply, and amusingly enough one of the articles actually touches on the very conspiracy theory you said I patched together from the least reasonable views.

Though going on to the implications about my character, I must admit that I find it morbidly amusing that you've fallen back onto the "you just hate Trump" angle less than a page after I pointed out your past tendency to dismiss opposing positions with exactly that. It's pure appeal to motive and not exactly well evidenced at that. The entirety of the argument basically boils down to assuming that I must be unreasonable because I strongly disagree with you.

 

[tstorm823]

Though going on to the implications about my character, I must admit that I find it morbidly amusing that you've fallen back onto the "you just hate Trump" angle less than a page after I pointed out your past tendency to dismiss opposing positions with exactly that. It's pure appeal to motive and not exactly well evidenced at that. The entirety of the argument basically boils down to assuming that I must be unreasonable because I strongly agree with you.

I mean, you just hate Trump. Why should I not say that?

If this was any deeper than that, you wouldn't just slide past the Manafort stuff as though it doesn't count as interference. If it was any deeper than that, you'd see the Steele Dossier alleged a former Ukrainian President was paying Manafort on behalf of Putin. If it was any deeper than that, you would be striving to know the truth rather than striving to demean the falsehoods. Every time you talk to me in this thread you are trying to slide what I'm saying onto something you feel confident criticizing. And that tells me that you aren't responding to me because you want to engage with me, you're responding to me because it's an opportunity to criticize. And who are you criticizing? Mostly Trump. And what makes someone delight in criticizing another? Hatred. How can I think you're typing here for any reason other than hating Trump?

 

[Asita]

Though going on to the implications about my character, I must admit that I find it morbidly amusing that you've fallen back onto the "you just hate Trump" angle less than a page after I pointed out your past tendency to dismiss opposing positions with exactly that. It's pure appeal to motive and not exactly well evidenced at that. The entirety of the argument basically boils down to assuming that I must be unreasonable because I strongly agree with you.

I mean, you just hate Trump. Why should I not say that?

If this was any deeper than that, you wouldn't just slide past the Manafort stuff as though it doesn't count as interference. If it was any deeper than that, you'd see the Steele Dossier alleged a former Ukrainian President was paying Manafort on behalf of Putin. If it was any deeper than that, you would be striving to know the truth rather than striving to demean the falsehoods. Every time you talk to me in this thread you are trying to slide what I'm saying onto something you feel confident criticizing. And that tells me that you aren't responding to me because you want to engage with me, you're responding to me because it's an opportunity to criticize. And who are you criticizing? Mostly Trump. And what makes someone delight in criticizing another? Hatred. How can I think you're typing here for any reason other than hating Trump?

Because ultimately you're deluding yourself in a way not dissimilar to something I've seen in a lot of republicans, including my acquaintances. To use the most overt example - the one that piqued my interest in the phenomenon - when they're simply allowed to react to Trump, their reaction is consistently exasperation, regarding him as something as effectively a loud idiot out of his depth, or as you yourself have voiced "a doofus and narcissist with no concept of subtlety". However, when someone outside of the in-group criticizes him - even voicing the same criticism they have - they jump to his defense insisting that the criticism is somehow unfair and that Trump is a good president that we must support ("If anything, we're backing him more than ever, cause he's done a pretty alright job"). When they say it, it just confirms to them that they're not blindly loyal to Trump because they can see his faults, but when someone they know/assume didn't vote for him says the same thing, it means they're being ignorant, spiteful, and biased against Trump. It's fascinating to watch, really, but it's not wholly surprising, as it bears some similarity to what we see in groupthink, particularly in how they believe unquestioningly in the inherent morality of their in-group, and they stereotype the out-group to dismiss them as evil, weak, biased, and stupid. And I posit that your allegations here are one such stereotype, a comfortable lie you tell yourself to explain why people don't agree with you. They're part of the out-group, so they must be prejudiced, truth is irrelevant to them, they "just hate Trump" and are looking for any excuse to badmouth him. It can't possibly be that actually they find fault in your arguments or the version of events you were told...

But on that note let's also dispute a few of your specific claims:
"You'd see that the Steele Dossier alleged a former Ukrainian President was paying Manafort on Behalf of Putin"
That does not support the claim of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. For starters, "on behalf of Putin" is a very important modifier, punting responsibility back to Russia. Even ignoring that, however, Viktor Yanukovych may have been a prior president of the Ukraine, but he is not a representative of that country. In fact, he's been in exile and wanted for high treason by the Ukraine since February 2014. And finally, that's not an action taken to influence the outcome of the election (the allegation you're making), that's bribery and/or fraud.

"you wouldn't just slide past the Manafort stuff as though it doesn't count as interference"
My specific response was that it was interesting and worth discussion on its own right, but that it wasn't what you were presenting it as. Much like the Observer, you're trying to spin it as a campaign by the Ukrainian government, that "It's well reported that they picked Clinton and worked towards that end", which is a severe misrepresentation to say the least. In actuality all the articles are about the same single instance, Serhiy Leshchenko's revelation of the so-called "black ledger". That's very much not as advertised. But let's actually take a look at that in a little more detail: The ledger's existence was first revealed in Ukrainian media on May 31, 2016. The US media caught wind of it in August 2016, prompting Manafort to resign from Trump's campaign on August 19. However, it is at this point that Trump and his allies (particularly Giuliani) start trying to paint it as an anti-Trump Ukrainian conspiracy, wherein Leshchenko directly and deliberately leaked the ledger to the US media (as opposed to the US media finding out about it two months after it was publicized in the Ukraine) at the prompting of the DNC, with the specific goal of helping Hillary Clinton, usually through alleging that Alexandra Chalupa was the middle-man (side note: the Senate Judiciary Committee actually investigated this and found no evidence of wrongdoing). Later they'd start claiming that the ledger was either doctored or forged (And more recently still, Giuliani alleged on Fox News that George Soros was involved).

If you want me to argue a given point, I'm usually quite happy to oblige, but I have no patience for your "you just hate Trump" deflection.

 

[tstorm823]

Because ultimately you're deluding yourself in a way not dissimilar to something I've seen in a lot of republicans, including my acquaintances. To use the most overt example - the one that piqued my interest in the phenomenon - when they're simply allowed to react to Trump, their reaction is consistently exasperation, regarding him as something as effectively a loud idiot out of his depth, or as you yourself have voiced "a doofus and narcissist with no concept of subtlety". However, when someone outside of the in-group criticizes him - even voicing the same criticism they have - they jump to his defense insisting that the criticism is somehow unfair and that Trump is a good president that we must support ("If anything, we're backing him more than ever, cause he's done a pretty alright job"). When they say it, it just confirms to them that they're not blindly loyal to Trump because they can see his faults, but when someone they know/assume didn't vote for him says it, it means they're being ignorant, spiteful, and biased against Trump. It's fascinating to watch, really, but it's not wholly surprising, as it bears some similarity to what we see in groupthink, particularly in how they believe unquestioningly in the inherent morality of their in-group, and they stereotype the out-group to dismiss them as evil, weak, biased, and stupid. And I posit that your allegations here are one such stereotype, a comfortable lie you tell yourself to explain why people don't agree with you. They're part of the out-group, so they must be prejudiced, truth is irrelevant to them, they "just hate Trump" and are looking for any excuse to badmouth him. It can't possibly be that actually they find fault in your arguments or the version of events you were told...

No, it has nothing to do with in groups and out groups. It's that you aren't voicing the same criticism. I can know Trump is a bad person, but still applaud the good results of his presidency. If you think he's a bad person, we agree, if you think his term has been bad, we disagree. That's not a double standard. Not acknowledging the good things doesn't make you unbiased or more consistent then me. Never recognizing the good outcomes means that truth is irrelevant to you.

 

[Asita]

No, it has nothing to do with in groups and out groups. It's that you aren't voicing the same criticism. I can know Trump is a bad person, but still applaud the good results of his presidency. If you think he's a bad person, we agree, if you think his term has been bad, we disagree. That's not a double standard. Not acknowledging the good things doesn't make you unbiased or more consistent then me. Never recognizing the good outcomes means that truth is irrelevant to you.

Quod erat demonstrandum. "Not acknowledging the good things" is something you're projecting onto me, that you're assuming about me. You deciding that I "just hate Trump" has never been about whether or not I give credit. It's an accusation you first made of me when we were discussing the Mueller report. To quote you directly: "the problem is that your conclusions are based on the underlying assumption that Trump's intentions were corrupt because you hate him", and more recently that "hating Donald Trump" prevents me from seeing that the Ukraine tried to influence the elections on Clinton's behalf. "Acknowledging good things" doesn't even enter into the equation. This is wholly about you assuming whole cloth that my disagreement with you must be the result of prejudice. It's pure appeal to motive that can adequately be paraphrased as "well you wouldn't believe that if you weren't fatally biased".

 

[tstorm823]

Quod erat demonstrandum. "Not acknowledging the good things" is something you're projecting onto me, that you're assuming about me. You deciding that I "just hate Trump" has never been about whether or not I give credit. It's an accusation you first made of me when we were discussing the Mueller report. To quote you directly: "the problem is that your conclusions are based on the underlying assumption that Trump's intentions were corrupt because you hate him", and more recently that "hating Donald Trump" prevents me from seeing that the Ukraine tried to influence the elections on Clinton's behalf. "Acknowledging good things" doesn't even enter into the equation. This is wholly about you assuming whole cloth that my disagreement with you must be the result of prejudice. It's pure appeal to motive that can adequately be paraphrased as "well you wouldn't believe that if you weren't fatally biased".

Well, you wouldn't believe that if you weren't fatally biased. And like, almost everyone here has the same bias as you, but I don't see myself boiling everyone's comments down the same as with you. Because it's more than just your bias. I can debate happily with someone presenting their own bias. It's that you act like everyone without your bias is obviously wrong, and since you know better what wrong thing other people are thinking than they do, it's worth looking down on them.

Frankly, if you ever stopped trying to tell me what I think, I wouldn't have to lecture you like this.