White House Discord: Bob Woodward Book, NYT Op-Ed

[Jonah]

Really, I doubt you'll love this answer, but it's History that will judge all this. It depends in part at what Mueller delivers to Rosenstein, whether Rosenstein decides to release what Mueller brings to the public, whether he then turns it over to Congress and what happens at that point. Everything that is happening,and happened, is part of a story that we don't really know the full outline as yet. I mean, if Trump turned out to be an actual asset of Putin and Russia, the judgement on these FBI agents will not be the same as if the whole thing was truly a nothingburger.

There were plenty of loyalists during our War of Independence. They may have thought, have judged, that the colonists forming Committees of Correspondence to coordinate responses to actions by the Crown, (in that instance, forming the Committees was one reaction to the Crown demanding that the colonists who burned the HMS Gaspee in 1772 be turned over to the Crown) were acting as traitors. Yet, as we know History judged quite differently, as a new nation was born.

Until we know how this plays out, we really don't know how History will judge all the players, large and small. Sure, on the surface, you can say well, we don't want FBI agents acting politically, but until we know what actually happened in the 2016 election, we citizens are still largely in the dark, and History's judgement is only clearest in hindsight. Time will tell, but I understand if these arguments fall on deaf ears or if they are rejected as disingenuous somehow.

Plus it’s not the FBI coordinating leaks but rather two rogue agents. It is true though, history will judge their actions. It was, after all, a rogue FBI special agent (Mark Felt/Deep Throat) who coordinated leaks to Woodward and Bernstein (really just Woodward) and brought down Nixon over Watergate. History judges him pretty well. It is easy to take the comparison too far though. These two current leakers seem a little loopy and much more partisan than Felt.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Are you going to actually provide links to this?

Here's are some examples:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/new-st...leak-strategy-to-damage-trump-after-election/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/batch-strzok-page-texts-shows-fbi-efforts-shape/story?id=57809640
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ike-mad-in-lead-up-to-trump-russia-probe.html

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Harm trump by making him potus?

Lol. Good one! It's pretty clear that their plan backfired, and I think the worst is yet to come.

 

[Zombie]

Neither of those stories support your assertion there Joe. Although the fox News one does bend over backwards trying to insinuate that talking about leaks is the same thing as being responsible for them.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Really, I doubt you'll love this answer, but it's History that will judge all this. It depends in part at what Mueller delivers to Rosenstein, whether Rosenstein decides to release what Mueller brings to the public, whether he then turns it over to Congress and what happens at that point. Everything that is happening,and happened, is part of a story that we don't really know the full outline as yet. I mean, if Trump turned out to be an actual asset of Putin and Russia, the judgement on these FBI agents will not be the same as if the whole thing was truly a nothingburger.

There were plenty of loyalists during our War of Independence. They may have thought, have judged, that the colonists forming Committees of Correspondence to coordinate responses to actions by the Crown, (in that instance, forming the Committees was one reaction to the Crown demanding that the colonists who burned the HMS Gaspee in 1772 be turned over to the Crown) were acting as traitors. Yet, as we know History judged quite differently, as a new nation was born.

Until we know how this plays out, we really don't know how History will judge all the players, large and small. Sure, on the surface, you can say well, we don't want FBI agents acting politically, but until we know what actually happened in the 2016 election, we citizens are still largely in the dark, and History's judgement is only clearest in hindsight. Time will tell, but I understand if these arguments fall on deaf ears or if they are rejected as disingenuous somehow.

Interesting. You think there is a chance that Strozk is going to be judged as a patriot for weaponizing a government agency against a political candidate? Will he be lauded for lying in his testimony to congress? Will people be grateful for his arrogant demeanor when hiding the truth from our elected lawmakers?

Does it seem strange to you that Page has already testified that she's unaware of any evidence of collusion? Would it be okay with you if we ultimately discover that the Russian Collusion angle was nothing but a strategy cooked up by insiders to stop Trump, and that there was no factual basis on which to open this investigation?

Although I definitely don't agree with all of your accusations toward him, I agree with you that Trump is not what we should expect of an American president. To me, thought, that doesn't change the fact that he is our president. It was a crazy set of circumstances that empowered Trump, and an even crazier one that put him up against such a disastrous candidate as Hillary Clinton. I have a hard time believing that things wouldn't have played out better had government insiders not played such a partisan role in trying to protect Hillary and damage Trump.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Neither of those stories support your assertion there Joe. Although the fox News one does bend over backwards trying to insinuate that talking about leaks is the same thing as being responsible for them.

Really? Okay, let's just sit back and watch how this plays out.

 

[Zombie]

Would it be okay with you if we ultimately discover that the Russian Collusion angle was nothing but a strategy cooked up by insiders to stop Trump, and that there was no factual basis on which to open this investigation?

It's absolutely incredible to me that this theory ever gained any traction, much less is still considered. If there was a plot to stop Trump is was the most poorly carried out plot in all of history. We all know that the FBI was investigating both campaigns prior to the election and only clued the public in to one of them, which was Hillary's. This entire deep state conspiracy is belied by that one simple fact.

 

[Red]

Interesting. You think there is a chance that Strozk is going to be judged as a patriot for weaponizing a government agency against a political candidate? Will he be lauded for lying in his testimony to congress? Will people be grateful for his arrogant demeanor when hiding the truth from our elected lawmakers?

Does it seem strange to you that Page has already testified that she's unaware of any evidence of collusion? Would it be okay with you if we ultimately discover that the Russian Collusion angle was nothing but a strategy cooked up by insiders to stop Trump, and that there was no factual basis on which to open this investigation?

Although I definitely don't agree with all of your accusations toward him, I agree with you that Trump is not what we should expect of an American president. To me, thought, that doesn't change the fact that he is our president. It was a crazy set of circumstances that empowered Trump, and an even crazier one that put him up against such a disastrous candidate as Hillary Clinton. I have a hard time believing that things wouldn't have played out better had government insiders not played such a partisan role in trying to protect Hillary and damage Trump.

C'mon. I think it's pretty clear by now that you pay attention to sources that are not critical toward Trump. Like I'm sure all the things you mention here regarding Page, etc. are likely much discussed on Fox, probably Hannity in particular, and not as discussed on MSNBC, and when discussed in the pages of the Washington Post, will have a spin more to my liking. (Not that you pay attention to Fox, or Hannity, you know in fact I have no idea regarding what your sources might be). Which brings me to the simple fact that I pay far more attention to sources that are critical of Trump. I admit it. I do indeed know what side I am on. You have mentioned that you don't like Trump, but think he's not as bad as his "haters" claim. I just disagree. I think he's every bit as bad. And you have, in the past, called me one of those "haters", told me I watch too much MSNBC. Well, maybe I do. Big deal. You want a middle ground. But there is no middle ground where Trump is concerned. Our great national reconciliation, if it is to happen, will have to happen Post-Trump. Just my opinion.

Look, as soon as he announced, I was on this board saying, in so many words, "hey guys, we got a demagogue on our hands. And he has identified scapegoats, so disaffected members of our society have someone to focus their anger on". That alarmed me. I knew what history had to say about such types. I started the first thread on this board suggesting that Trump might be getting help from Putin in the campaign for President. That angered me. I did not like foreign powers infringing on the sovereignty of my country. I thought it called for a response. I wanted to defend my country.

I can't help how I feel. A lifetime study of history helped me recognize what was happening. Nothing has changed for me in that respect. But do I recognize, just to cite an example, that sometimes the talking heads on MSNBC sometimes go a bit overboard? Sure I do. In fact, though you may find this hard to reconcile with my statements on this board, I examine my own motives and biases all the time.

The president has ordered the release of FBI files designed to please Nunes and his other supporters in Congress. I suspect it's part of his overall effort to undermine Mueller. I suspect the president's defenders in Congress and on Fox will cry holy hell about these pages, released while an investigation is still ongoing. I suspect I will pay no attention whatsoever. I suspect I will await Mueller's report.

Now, I don't mind you asking me these pointed questions. But we should understand that neither one of us is going to change. What Trump represents, as I see it, is of far greater importance to me, then these FBI agents. I have not even been following that component of this history we are living. Don't care. Judge me as you will for saying that, sir. I respect you. You are entitled to feel as you please, and, of course, you do not need me to tell you that.

So, I have not examined at all the points behind your question, so I can provide no specific answers. I'm not paying attention to any of that. But, I do believe, as I said in reply to @Stoked, that History will be the judge, of what happened to our democracy in 2016, and of all the characters, major and bit players. And maybe History will be most kind to your point of view. But as to you and I, we are on different sides. And that's OK. You're a decent guy, as am I, and maybe we will live through that great national reconciliation, if we both live long enough.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

It's absolutely incredible to me that this theory ever gained any traction, much less is still considered. If there was a plot to stop Trump is was the most poorly carried out plot in all of history. We all know that the FBI was investigating both campaigns prior to the election and only clued the public in to one of them, which was Hillary's. This entire deep state conspiracy is belied by that one simple fact.

I'm in complete agreement that the plot was botched. It's pretty clear that we don't see much of the rest in the same way at all.

 

[Zombie]

I'm in complete agreement that the plot was botched. It's pretty clear that we don't see much of the rest in the same way at all.

Not making the very easy step of simply calling a press conference like they did for Hillary is a hell of a way to botch something. That's ****ing dumb man.

 

[Stoked]

@red. I can agree that history will be the judge. It usually is.

But I still feel that we need to be watchful of the FBI, and other government agencies being used for political means. It’s not a precedent we want to really set. Yes a rogue agent is different but they should still be dealt with.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

C'mon. I think it's pretty clear by now that you pay attention to sources that are not critical toward Trump. Like I'm sure all the things you mention here regarding Page, etc. are likely much discussed on Fox, probably Hannity in particular, and not as discussed on MSNBC, and when discussed in the pages of the Washington Post, will have a spin more to my liking. (Not that you pay attention to Fox, or Hannity, you know in fact I have no idea regarding what your sources might be). Which brings me to the simple fact that I pay far more attention to sources that are critical of Trump. I admit it. I do indeed know what side I am on. You have mentioned that you don't like Trump, but think he's not as bad as his "haters" claim. I just disagree. I think he's every bit as bad. And you have, in the past, called me one of those "haters", told me I watch too much MSNBC. Well, maybe I do. Big deal. You want a middle ground. But there is no middle ground where Trump is concerned. Our great national reconciliation, if it is to happen, will have to happen Post-Trump. Just my opinion.

Look, as soon as he announced, I was on this board saying, in so many words, "hey guys, we got a demagogue on our hands. And he has identified scapegoats, so disaffected members of our society have someone to focus their anger on". That alarmed me. I knew what history had to say about such types. I started the first thread on this board suggesting that Trump might be getting help from Putin in the campaign for President. That angered me. I did not like foreign powers infringing on the sovereignty of my country. I thought it called for a response. I wanted to defend my country.

I can't help how I feel. A lifetime study of history helped me recognize what was happening. Nothing has changed for me in that respect. But do I recognize, just to cite an example, that sometimes the talking heads on MSNBC sometimes go a bit overboard? Sure I do. In fact, though you may find this hard to reconcile with my statements on this board, I examine my own motives and biases all the time.

The president has ordered the release of FBI files designed to please Nunes and his other supporters in Congress. I suspect it's part of his overall effort to undermine Mueller. I suspect the president's defenders in Congress and on Fox will cry holy hell about these pages, released while an investigation is still ongoing. I suspect I will pay no attention whatsoever. I suspect I will await Mueller's report.

Now, I don't mind you asking me these pointed questions. But we should understand that neither one of us is going to change. What Trump represents, as I see it, is of far greater importance to me, then these FBI agents. I have not even been following that component of this history we are living. Don't care. Judge me as you will for saying that, sir. I respect you. You are entitled to feel as you please, and, of course, you do not need me to tell you that.

So, I have not examined at all the points behind your question, so I can provide no specific answers. I'm not paying attention to any of that. But, I do believe, as I said in reply to @Stoked, that History will be the judge, of what happened to our democracy in 2016, and of all the characters, major and bit players. And maybe History will be most kind to your point of view. But as to you and I, we are on different sides. And that's OK. You're a decent guy, as am I, and maybe we will live through that great national reconciliation, if we both live long enough.

I respect you, Red. I always have. I agree with you that we stand on different sides of the political spectrum. I've explained on this board many times where I get most of my political news. I listen to Sirus Satellite Radio while driving. I listen in approximately equal portions to CNN, MSNBC and Fox. I rarely listen to Hannity because I am usually eating dinner with my family at that time, but I have heard him, and I have also heard Rachel Maddow. It fascinates me how differently these different sources report the same events. I think it's very useful to see things from the perspective of people who don't agree with you. In my view there is a lot of unhinged and overboard reaction on CNN and MSNBC. I can understand why people become haters when they listen to too much of that hateful rhetoric. Yes, the possibility exists that you will be right and we will discover that Trump is an incredibly hideous threat to our future (comparable to Hitler, etc.). More likely in my mind, I will be right, the Trump era will pass, and some new era will begin with an entirely fresh set of reasons for both sides of the political spectrum to freak out. No matter how this plays out, you appear to me to be a good and well-intentioned person. And I sure do hope you are wrong. I assume that you do too.