@hightor,
hightor wrote:
A common rhetorical technique is to claim that one's interpretation of an event or statement must be "true" if some verifiable facts are included in the argument. A person can assemble a lot of facts which are true and still come to a conclusion which is ambiguous, prejudiced, or false.
Scarborough devotes his piece to attacking Steele and the dossier — which really aren't the issue here. There would still be a case without the dossier and Mueller would still be digging to find the answers to the question of Russian involvement in the '16 election and in Trump's campaign.
I fully agree that the incidence of verifiable facts in an argument or statement, does not mean that all it elements are true (or complete) and the conclusion valid. This is a fundamental point which could be applied on a broader context as well.
I have from the start been bemused by the allegations of Trump- Russian "collusion. Not every encounter between world leaders or their agents is collusion, and many, even by candidates for our Presidency have been done in the last few decades and beyond. Indeed this is often a necessary and beneficial part of their work. Was Obama "colluding with the Russians" when he privately whispered to then PM Medvedev, asking him to 'tell Vladimir, that he (Obama) will have more flexibility after the (then pending Congressional) election ' ? (He was certainly involving the Russians in our domestic politics.)
The history of Soviet/Russian efforts to disrupt and sow confusion and discord among all contending factions in their perceived enemies is long and continuing. Moreover Putin's KGB/FSA background and his evident ambitions to reclaim former elements of the Soviet Empire in the Caucasus, Ukraine and the Baltic region gives him ample reason to do so - under any and all U.S. Administrations. So far no evidence of any Russian preference (or even expectation of) a Trump election has yet emerged. Could it be that he feared a Clinton election and the prospect that she might hit him with another "reset button"? This is frankly laughable. Indeed the actions taken by President Trump to counter or limit Russian ambitions in the above areas have been far more forceful and effective than what occurred under his predecessor, and what might have been expected from his anointed successor.
I believe it is plausible that Trump may have believed he could improve on the, beneficial management of mutual self-interest on the part of Russia and the U.S. Given Trump's expressed animosity to the deal Obama struck with Putin's ally, Iran and his support of independent Ukraine, and the ongoing civil wars in the Middle East there was plenty to talk about.
So far the evidence of communications between Trump agents and Russians is scanty and lacks any yet detectable and meaningful connection to actual events. Where is the motive and presumable goal for this supposed collusion??
I agree that Mueller will likely find something and bring charges on some matters against someone. He certainly is under pressure to produce something. However, I ask you to consider just what might have been the result if the same dedicated government energy and zeal from the media were to have been applied to Hillary Clinton's management of classified communications; persistent mixing of Clinton Foundation money with government funds in paying for her many political retainers; clear influence-peddling in office to solicit contributions to this foundation - and actions to pay for questionable campaigns against her political opponents including both
Bernie Sanders (via the DNC) and Trump (with the now discredited "dossier").
Do you really believe that Bill Clinton met Loretta Lynch by accident at the Phoenix airport tarmac ( as they alleged) , or that they chatted for 45 minutes "about the grandkids"? Have you considered what might have been behind the subsequently emerged facts indicating that Comey had already started writing drafts of the exoneration statement for Hillary even before the hastily arranged "interview" with her, held just a couple of days after the Phoenix meeting, and which culminated his "investigation"?
The contrast here with the ongoing Trump investigation is stark and troubling.
Mueller will likely bring some action. If recent reports are to be believed the emphasis may be shifting from supposed "Russian collusion" to obstruction of justice, apparently because Trump considered firing Mueller and perhaps even made threats in that direction. Never mind that he indeed has the Executive power and authority to do so, and hasn't done it ! This is truly fatuous.
