"Recruitment in Moscow" - Could this have happened to Donald Trump?

"So you think Trump was colluding back in 2013 and 2008?

"And it came to fruition in 2016? "

Yes, Mike. Because that's how it works. Here's a case study.

You won't read this but others might. And, now that I've spent time on it, I will post it to my wall.

Note that during the recruitment of the KGB asset, Birgitta, she was first contacted by the KGB in '62, gently persuaded to do a few incriminating acts in '64, and - at the time the Swedish government investigated her and removed her access to sensitive information - it was 1966.

And, ALL THAT TIME... she never knew... and refused to believe... she was working for the KGB.

"The Swedish security service described Birgitta as a 52 year old woman who looks about 6(? years old, but who believes she has the charm and beauty of a young girl. She told one of the representatives of the service that she was like a young woman of 25, and she believes it. She is easily attracted to men and falls in love with anyone who flatters her or gives her attention. She told one interviewer that she was still in love with Oleg and refused to believe he was an agent of the KGB. She asked that this be proved to her, and said that she would leave for Switzerland on a moment's notice to meet him if she knew he was there. The fact that Oleg is 16 years her junior does not appear to her to be unreasonable or cause for concern."

*   *   *

"Birgitta's handling by Andre reflected a shrewd knowledge of her character. He catered to her love for fine things, presented her with gifts of "new icons" described to her as antiques, exploited her fondness for gourmet meals, resplendent furnishings and good manners."
Tell me... how effing hard would it be for Russian intelligence, under Putin's direction, to get Trump to incriminate himself without even KNOWING he was the target of a Russian intelligence operation?

I think there's a lot of dirt on Trump. But treason? I think he was very deeply entrapped before that dawned on him... if it ever dawned on him at all.

Recruitment in Moscow (CIA)

The Reformed Republican

A Call for a Repentant, Fact-Based, and Sadder-But-Wiser Republican Party

I have previously posted my beliefs as a Reformed Republican.

I believe government derives its legitimacy through the direct or implied consent of the majority with minority rights protected through the separation of powers and the Bill of Rights. 

I support liberal ideals of individual freedom and equal opportunity that is nonetheless mindful of its responsibility to conserve our common, inherited traditions of civic virtue, the support of families, and identification with a common American culture based on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution rather than on race, ethnicity, or religion.

As a centrist, I possess both left-wing and right-wing tendencies and am unashamed of either. In a media environment that favors and amplifies dramatic conflict we should speak and act in ways that favor and amplifies the new “silent majority”: the non-extremist middle.

I support incremental social reform both as a moral responsibility to our fellow citizens as well as a means of preventing (if possible) a violent, revolutionary reaction that may or may not bring about reform. 

I now add this…

I support the radical reformation of the current Republican party to completely separate itself from the current political tactics to which it is addicted and that hold its representatives in captivity including:

• Ideological extremism
• Aiding and Abetting Racism
• Aiding and Abetting the Manufacture of Conspiratorial Delusions
• Aiding and Abetting the Delegitimization of Institutions of Public Facts Including the Press, the Civil Service, Scientific Consensus, and the Judiciary.
• Demonization of Opponents
• Demonization of the Federal Government to the Extent of Advocating for Shutting Down the Government and Defaulting on America’s National Debt

I support a reformed Republican of fact-based, inclusive, principled but pragmatic conservatism.

America's Most Serious Polarization

I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.
-Donald Trump, Iowa Rally (January 23rd, 2016)

After a year of denials it turns out that Trump associates – including his son - had repeated contact with individuals related to the Kremlin. Several have been forced to correct official forms and potentially perjured testimony under oath. Since Trump was elected he has attacked American allies, NATO, the EU, the media, his own executive branch intelligence community, the judiciary, and alleged voter fraud in the very election he won, all of which furthers Putin's plan of "strategic deterrence" to weaken the Western Alliance. He has been scrupulous not to attack Putin or Russia in any serious way, refusing to accept that Russia attacked our election and endeavoring to weaken existing sanctions. And the list goes on…

And, in the end, in the next several months or years, Special Counsel Robert Mueller may, in the end, do what the Justice Department (as announced by the FBI) decided to do with Clinton's email server issue: talk about appalling judgment, lack of transparency, etc., but determine there is insufficient evidence to seek an indictment.

If, at the end of the day, it is determined by the Special Prosecutor that nothing illegal was done by any of Trump's people and that nothing they did could be traced back to Donald Trump himself, I will be absolutely astonished.

I'd be downright flabbergasted, in fact.

But I would accept it.

But if Robert Mueller indicts any of Trump's folks, or submits a report to congress that results in Trump's impeachment or resignation from office, the 35% – 42% or so who still support Trump despite (or maybe because of) all the media coverage of everything we've found out about his campaign, his transition, and his administration, will never, never, believe he did anything wrong and that, in the end, the jailed are innocent martyrs and Trump was overthrown in a "soft coup."

Those of us old enough to remember are – or should be – sobered by the fact that, "By the end of his presidency, Nixon’s approval rating had tumbled to 24 percent."

In other words, even after…

July 24, 1974: United States v. Nixon decided: Nixon is ordered to give up tapes to investigators.

Congress moves to impeach Nixon.

• July 27 to July 30, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes Articles of Impeachment.
• Early August 1974: A previously unknown tape from June 23, 1972 (recorded a few days after the break-in) documenting Nixon and Haldeman formulating a plan to block investigations is released. This recording later became known as the "Smoking Gun".
• Key Republican Senators tell Nixon that enough votes exist to convict him.

Timeline of the Watergate scandal (Wikipedia)

…one in four Americans still supported his presidency.

And that's what those of us not living in Alt-America are dealing with.

It's not about the facts anymore… if it ever was.

And, as one pundit put it, Republican congressional representatives are torn between their duty to defend the US Constitution and the fact that, as of April of this year, 88% of those who voted for Trump still support him.

I will, as my evangelical, pro-Trump friends tell me, pray for Donald Trump.

But I will also pray for those Republican representatives in Congress who are trapped in a vicious double bind to verbally distance themselves from the president, or take action to remove him from office.

Their political careers and legacy, the future of the Republican party and our nation, and the realization that whichever course they choose will complicate the American situation (presuming that's still possible) and further polarize their constituencies puts them in the most unenviable of situations.

A Republican in the Age of Trump: Meditation on the Fourth of July

(Note: all italicized text taken verbatim from Wikipedia) 

I believe government derives its legitimacy through the direct or implied consent of the majority with minority rights protected through the separation of powers and the Bill of Rights.

But within those constraints, the minority has a right to be heard and the majority has the right to decide even if I don’t like the result in one case or another.

Republic: A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" – not the private concern or property of the rulers – and where offices of state are elected or appointed, rather than inherited.

Popular sovereignty: Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people's rule, is the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power.

I support liberal ideals of individual freedom and equal opportunity that is nonetheless mindful of its responsibility to conserve our common, inherited traditions of civic virtue, the support of families, and identification with a common American culture based on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution rather than on race, ethnicity, or religion.

I reject ideas of either unrestricted individualism or totalitarian statism in favor of a pragmatic realism recognizing that the individual and their society are codependent entities. It takes a village to raise a child, but it takes mature adult individuals and families to maintain a village.

Individualism makes the individual its focus[1] and so starts "with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation."[6] Classical liberalism, existentialism, and anarchism are examples of movements that take the human individual as a central unit of analysis.[6] Individualism thus involves "the right of the individual to freedom and self-realization".[7]

Civic virtue is the cultivation of habits of personal living that are claimed to be important for the success of the community. Closely linked to the concept of citizenship, civic virtue is often conceived as the dedication of citizens to the common welfare of their community even at the cost of their individual interests.

As a centrist, I possess both left-wing and right-wing tendencies and am unashamed of either. In a media environment that favors and amplifies dramatic conflict we should speak and act in ways that favor and amplifies the new “silent majority”: the non-extremist middle.

While the former’s focus on the clash of ideas is educational and makes great TV, it is the comparative silence of the middle which is making government difficult at the state level and all but impossible at the federal level.

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.

According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself".

I support incremental social reform both as a moral responsibility to our fellow citizens as well as a means of preventing (if possible) a violent, revolutionary reaction that may or may not bring about reform.

Violent revolutionary reform is hard to rule out considering America was founded on such a reform, but the situation should be at least as dire as that faced by the Founders. Simply failing to convince the majority of the wisdom of one’s ideas or the majority being politically outmaneuvered by a minority over this issue or that issue is not sufficient reason to bring about a bloodbath.

Social equality and egalitarianism are uncomfortable allies with liberal individualism. Realism demands that we recognize that people are not born equal, do not have equal opportunity, nor have equal ideas as to what constitutes “the pursuit of happiness.”

While recognizing this reality, society should still endeavor to develop “a more perfect union,” improve opportunity for the less fortunate through the provision of a sufficient safety net for the survival and dignity of those who face catastrophes beyond their control.

To the extent this can be constitutionally addressed at the state and local level, it should be. To the extent that the constitutional scope of federal authority and power can better address the issue as a whole, it should do so - using the “best practices” uncovered through state, local, and private efforts.

Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of social reform.

Pragmatism "emphasizes the practical application of ideas by acting on them to actually test them in human experiences".[4] Pragmatism focuses on a "changing universe rather than an unchanging one as the Idealists, Realists and Thomists had claimed".[4]

Incrementalism is the method of change by which many small policy changes are enacted over time in order to create a larger broad based policy change.

Reformism is a political position that posits that gradual changes within existing institutions can eventually change a society's fundamental aspects, such as its economic system and political structures.

Donald Trump as President IS America's Central Crisis

Republicans MUST invoke the 25th Amendment, initiate impeachment proceedings, or make him sufficiently unhappy that he resigns his office.

Earlier this week I indicated that Trump's tweets were his way of distracting us from the Russia attack, possible collusion, awful (and failed) healthcare legislation, and obstruction of justice.

I've changed my mind. All of those are desperately important but those problems have either been caused or made worse by Donald Trump PARTICULARLY by denying the American people necessary information - mostly, at this point, by attacking a free and professional press corp.

Donald Trump IS our crisis because, until that is solved, none of the rest can be addressed.