Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked
20 replies, posted
[t]https://i.imgur.com/pOztamV.gif[/t]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/doubting-the-intelligence-trump-pursues-putin-and-leaves-a-russian-threat-unchecked/2017/12/13/b11e67ba-d4ff-11e7-95bf-df7c19270879_story.html[/url]
[quote]In the final days before Donald Trump was sworn in as president, members of his inner circle pleaded with him to acknowledge publicly what U.S. intelligence agencies had already concluded — that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was real.
Holding impromptu interventions in Trump’s 26th-floor corner office at Trump Tower, advisers — including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and designated chief of staff, Reince Priebus — prodded the president-elect to accept the findings that the nation’s spy chiefs had personally presented to him on Jan. 6.
They sought to convince Trump that he could affirm the validity of the intelligence without diminishing his electoral win, according to three officials involved in the sessions. More important, they said that doing so was the only way to put the matter behind him politically and free him to pursue his goal of closer ties with Russian President Vladi•mir Putin.
“This was part of the normalization process,” one participant said. “There was a big effort to get him to be a standard president.”
But as aides persisted, Trump became agitated. He railed that the intelligence couldn’t be trusted and scoffed at the suggestion that his candidacy had been propelled by forces other than his own strategy, message and charisma.[/quote]
[quote]The president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, moved to undermine support for NATO within weeks of arriving at the White House. After securing a position on the NSC, Bannon ordered officials to compile a table of arrears — alleged deficits on defense spending by every NATO member going back 67 years. Officials protested that such a calculation was impractical, and they persuaded Bannon to accept a partial list documenting underspending dating from 2007.
Bannon and McMaster clashed in front of Trump during an Oval Office discussion about NATO in the spring, officials said. Trump, sitting behind his desk, was voicing frustration that NATO member states were not meeting their defense spending obligations under the treaty. Bannon went further, describing Europe as “nothing more than a glorified protectorate.”
McMaster, an ardent supporter of NATO, snapped at Bannon. “Why are you such an apologist for Russia?” he asked, according to two officials with knowledge of the exchange. Bannon shot back that his position had “nothing to do with Russians” and later told colleagues how much he relished such confrontations with McMaster, saying, “I love living rent-free in his head.”
Bannon and his allies also maneuvered to sabotage displays of unity with the alliance. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg arrived for an April visit at the White House, McMaster’s team prepared remarks for Trump that included an endorsement of Article 5 — the core NATO provision calling for members to come to one another’s defense.
But the language was stripped out at the last minute by NATO critics inside the administration who argued that “it didn’t sound presidential enough,” one senior U.S. official said. A month later, Stephen Miller, a White House adviser close to Bannon, carried out a similar editing operation in Brussels where Trump spoke at a dedication ceremony for NATO’s gleaming new headquarters.
Standing before twisted steel wreckage from the World Trade Center that memorialized NATO’s commitment to defend the United States after the 9/11 attacks, Trump made no mention of any U.S. commitment to mutual defense.[/quote]
[quote]McMaster gained an internal ally on Russia in March with the hiring of Fiona Hill as the top Russia adviser on the NSC. A frequent critic of the Kremlin, Hill was best known as the author of a respected biography of Putin and was seen as a reassuring selection among Russia hard-liners.
Her relationship with Trump, however, was strained from the start.
In one of her first encounters with the president, an Oval Office meeting in preparation for a call with Putin on Syria, Trump appeared to mistake Hill for a member of the clerical staff, handing her a memo he had marked up and instructing her to rewrite it.
When Hill responded with a perplexed look, Trump became irritated with what he interpreted as insubordination, according to officials who witnessed the exchange. As she walked away in confusion, Trump exploded and motioned for McMaster to intervene.[/quote]
[quote]After final passage [of the Russia sanctions bill], Trump was “apoplectic,” the adviser recalled. It took four days for aides to persuade him to sign the bill, arguing that if he vetoed it and Congress overturned that veto, his standing would be permanently weakened.
“Hey, here are the votes,” aides told the president, according to a second Trump adviser. “If you veto it, they’ll override you and then you’re f---ed and you look like you’re weak.”
Trump signed but made his displeasure known. His signing statement asserted that the measure included “clearly unconstitutional provisions.” Trump had routinely made a show of bill signings, but in this case no media was allowed to attend.[/quote]
So how much of Trump's staff is actually just Russian plants steering him in this direction?
The whole "pull the NATO support statement at the last minute" thing seems a bit fishy.
His tantrums with regards to being forced to sign the Russia sanctions are telling. Putin definitely has him by the balls.
[QUOTE]They sought to convince Trump that he could affirm the validity of the intelligence without diminishing his electoral win[/QUOTE]
I have no words.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52975865]I have no words.[/QUOTE]
Translation for non-english people please
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;52975898]Translation for non-english people please[/QUOTE]
It means he could accept their info that Putin was pulling strings with the election, without him feeling like it would cheapen his winning the election.
How is this not everything needed to put every single one of those people into prison?
[QUOTE=c:;52975931]How is this not everything needed to put every single one of those people into prison?[/QUOTE]
It's probably all off the record.
Doubting the intelligence?
Did Trump have any to begin with what the fuck is this lol
This man is dangerously stupid. God fucking damn.
[QUOTE=c:;52975931]How is this not everything needed to put every single one of those people into prison?[/QUOTE]
Money?
The possible future Senator she tells you not to worry about
[media]https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/941371351587311616[/media]
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52976592]The possible future Senator she tells you not to worry about
[media]https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/941371351587311616[/media][/QUOTE]
Imagine a world where Romney is seen as a good guy :disgust:
Never thought I'd cheer for Mitt Romney. Or see him actually say "get real". :v:
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52977828]Never thought I'd cheer for Mitt Romney. Or see him actually say "get real". :v:[/QUOTE]
At this point, Satan himself would be a better pick.
He rules hell and has to put up with Hitler. How bad could he be compared to Trump?
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52977848]At this point, Satan himself would be a better pick.
He rules hell and has to put up with Hitler. How bad could he be compared to Trump?[/QUOTE]
When people say this I can't help but think of South Park's rendition of Satan, which would indeed be quite an improvement tbh
[QUOTE=paindoc;52978177]When people say this I can't help but think of South Park's rendition of Satan, which would indeed be quite an improvement tbh[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, remember that episode about freenium gaming? He has standards and does educate on shit like temptations, greed, and does deal with piece of shit dictators. Overall, a better leader than what we have right now.
So I would need a drink, considering that we are basically in the near darkest timeline.
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;52977818]Imagine a world where Romney is seen as a good guy :disgust:[/QUOTE]
Neither Romney nor McCain were any worse than 90% of the people in the Bush administration or any of the Republican candidates for the 2016 election. Most of the things Romney was teased on during the 2012 elections were trivial compared to Trump's almost daily disasters. The worst thing he did (and I admit it was pretty fucking bad) was say pandering things to rich people in private that most Republicans nowadays say as part of their fucking campaign. I miss the days where people like them were the Republican candidates.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52980237]I miss the days where people like them were the Republican candidates.[/QUOTE]
It's kinda sad how the perception of being a Republican or conservative has changed that at this point, an actually revered and fiscal conservative like Eisenhower (one of the most beloved presidents of all-time) would be blasted as a socialist these days for his policies and high taxation of the rich (which, shockingly enough, actually was associated with things like income equality which itself coincided later on with some of the best GDP growth the country had seen while Reaganomics that modern Republicans praise put us into massive debt, who knew?).
Fiscal conservatism has become a 'liberal' perspective. Libertarianism (Which really is an excuse for a government to sell its people like so much cattle to corporations, to which it hands all the power) is now considered 'conservative'. It's madness.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.