The Sturm und Drang Over Trump's Meeting with Putin
The predictable sturm und drang erupted after Trump's visit with Putin. Trump, consistent with his typical pattern of behavior added some fuel to all this when he said he believed Putin's denial or meddling in U.S. elections. The next day our President promptly reversed that and said he thought there was meddling.
Now, consistent with my own pattern of behavior, I haven't spent lots of time parsing through the events and the reporting on the events. Life goes on and there's enough for me to do on a daily basis that precludes my spending too much time with what the media reports, never mind obsessing on Donald Trump. But, of course, sometimes it's hard not to notice the noise that surrounds us.
So with that in mind, a few quick takeaways from the summit meeting.
First, the Trump-haters' reactions really did appear as if they were already prepped before the Helsinki summit, ready to be unleashed the second the meeting ended. How thoughtful and objective were those reactions!
Next, one media figure "brilliantly" concluded that Trump is a "liar" because he first said no meddling, then said yes meddling. First of all, changing our mind doesn't make you a liar. Duh. More relevant, though, the idea that a politician would lie shouldn't be shocking or even surprising, should it? So, yes, it's another example of pre-packaged Trump-hating comments.
Finally, a quote from Glen Greenwald, who's apparently known to be a journalist with some experience and expertise investigating government intelligence practices. Admittedly I didn't do an exhaustive, or even a modest, search and review of commentary on this matter, but when I stumbled on this one, it really does make some sense to me. It focuses on the indictments issued by Robert Mueller right before the summit - a release that, of course, seemed planned to undermine Trump. The indictment gets to the heart of whether the Russians meddled or not. It claims they did.
As far as the indictments from Mueller are concerned, it’s certainly the most specific accounting yet that we’ve gotten of what the U.S. government claims the Russian government did in 2016. But it’s extremely important to remember what every first-year law student will tell you, which is that an indictment is nothing more than the assertions of a prosecutor unaccompanied by evidence. The evidence won’t be presented until a trial or until Robert Mueller actually issues a report to Congress. And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we’re simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from George W. Bush’s former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism. But even if the Russians did everything that Robert Mueller claims in that indictment that they did, in the scheme of what the U.S. and the Russians do to one another and other countries, I think to say that this is somehow something that we should treat as a grave threat, that should mean that we don’t talk to them or that we treat them as an enemy, is really irrational and really quite dangerous.
What do you think?
Now, consistent with my own pattern of behavior, I haven't spent lots of time parsing through the events and the reporting on the events. Life goes on and there's enough for me to do on a daily basis that precludes my spending too much time with what the media reports, never mind obsessing on Donald Trump. But, of course, sometimes it's hard not to notice the noise that surrounds us.
So with that in mind, a few quick takeaways from the summit meeting.
First, the Trump-haters' reactions really did appear as if they were already prepped before the Helsinki summit, ready to be unleashed the second the meeting ended. How thoughtful and objective were those reactions!
Next, one media figure "brilliantly" concluded that Trump is a "liar" because he first said no meddling, then said yes meddling. First of all, changing our mind doesn't make you a liar. Duh. More relevant, though, the idea that a politician would lie shouldn't be shocking or even surprising, should it? So, yes, it's another example of pre-packaged Trump-hating comments.
Finally, a quote from Glen Greenwald, who's apparently known to be a journalist with some experience and expertise investigating government intelligence practices. Admittedly I didn't do an exhaustive, or even a modest, search and review of commentary on this matter, but when I stumbled on this one, it really does make some sense to me. It focuses on the indictments issued by Robert Mueller right before the summit - a release that, of course, seemed planned to undermine Trump. The indictment gets to the heart of whether the Russians meddled or not. It claims they did.
As far as the indictments from Mueller are concerned, it’s certainly the most specific accounting yet that we’ve gotten of what the U.S. government claims the Russian government did in 2016. But it’s extremely important to remember what every first-year law student will tell you, which is that an indictment is nothing more than the assertions of a prosecutor unaccompanied by evidence. The evidence won’t be presented until a trial or until Robert Mueller actually issues a report to Congress. And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we’re simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from George W. Bush’s former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism. But even if the Russians did everything that Robert Mueller claims in that indictment that they did, in the scheme of what the U.S. and the Russians do to one another and other countries, I think to say that this is somehow something that we should treat as a grave threat, that should mean that we don’t talk to them or that we treat them as an enemy, is really irrational and really quite dangerous.
What do you think?
Comments