US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 138

The New York Times has published another bombshell with a story that President Trump was named as a possible national security threat in a counterintelligence operation that was launched after his inauguration.

If true, this is likely the only time in history that the FBI has investigated whether a sitting president was either a knowing or unknowing agent of a foreign power. However, the real benefit of the investigative story may not be the original suspicion, but rather how it could explain the course that both sides have taken into our current quagmire. What if there were no collusion or conspiracy but simple cognitive bias on both sides, where the actions of one seemed to confirm precisely the suspicions of the other?

There are now two possibilities. The first of those is that Trump really was some “manchurian candidate” placed in the Oval Office by Russia and controlled from afar by Vladimir Putin. Many are unlikely to ever accept any other possibility, though the New York Times story does not suggest that this counterintelligence operation found any basis for the original allegation. Indeed, the problem arose when part of the operation was made public. Such inquiries are usually completed and never disclosed. In this case, various forces led to a partial disclosure that Trump associates were investigated and that Trump himself might have been compromised.

Now to the more intriguing theory that is more consistent with known facts. We have a clear picture of what the two sides saw at the start of the Trump administration. At the FBI, investigators, including then director James Comey, actively considered the unthinkable possibility that the president was controlled by Russia. At the White House, Trump believed that his associates and campaign had been placed under investigation by federal officials with close ties to Democratic figures. What happened next could be a lesson in cognitive bias, and it could indeed explain a lot.

At the start of the Trump administration, the FBI has a dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and opposition research firm Fusion GPS, alleging a myriad of suspicious financial and personal connections between Trump and Russia. It also had an investigation into the Russia connections of Trump adviser Carter Page. There was Trump encouraging Russia to locate the hacked emails of Hillary Clinton and some evidence of Russia internet trolling and hacking operations. There also was the curious refusal of Trump to criticize Russia, an anomaly within Republican politics.

Soon after the inauguration, Trump started to counterpunch against what he saw as a deep state conspiracy. He asked Comey if he would be loyal and to go easy on resigned national security adviser Michael Flynn. He eventually fired Comey. He lashed out on social media against the FBI. He said in an interview that he had the Russia investigation in mind when he fired Comey. He met with Russians the very next day in the Oval Office and told the diplomats, “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That is taken of.”

No charges were ever brought against Page, who appears to have been pursuing business interests in Russia. Moreover, investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, who broke the dossier story, admitted recently, “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there is good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.” Even the New York Times bombshell now reports that “no evidence has emerged publicly that Trump was “secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.”

However, the FBI back then did not know all of that. From the perspective of the counterintelligence operation, every one of those moves confirmed the concern that Trump may have been working for Russian interests. They understandably began an investigation into whether Trump was acting not erratically but by design to conceal his Russian influence.

Now go back to the same period after the inauguration. Trump had just won an unwinnable election against the establishment. He had expected much of the government to be hostile to his administration. He soon learned that the FBI secretly investigated some of his aides. Then the dossier story hit. The Clinton campaign first denied funding the dossier but later admitted that it funded the effort at a considerable expense, with the money hidden as legal costs by its lawyer and his firm.

From the perspective of Trump, it all fit pattern of a deep state conspiracy of Clinton operatives and establishment officials. Soon, Trump witnessed events that confirmed his suspicions. Key FBI officials like Andrew McCabe had Democratic connections and his wife, Jill McCabe, received roughly $700,000 from a close Clinton ally and the Virginia Democratic Party in her campaign for the state legislature. Then emails surfaced, showing sentiments of clear bias against Trump from relevant figures like McCabe and lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok, including discussion of “insurance policies” against his election and resistance against his administration.

Trump also learned that the dossier was given to the FBI by the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who worked closely with former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Nellie Ohr was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Everything that Trump was seeing confirmed the theory of a conspiracy of Democratic operatives and deep state figures against his administration.

The result is two separate narratives that fed off the actions of each other. There likely was bias in the initial assumptions, with a willingness at the FBI to believe Trump would be a tool of the Russians, and a willingness by Trump to believe the FBI would be a tool of the Clintons. Every move and countermove confirmed each bias. Trump continued to denounce what he saw as a conspiracy. The FBI continued to investigate his obstructive attitude. One side saw a witch hunt where the other saw a mole hunt.

Of course, neither side can accept at this point that they may have been wrong about the other side. In economics that is called path dependence. So much has been built on the Republican and Democratic sides on these original assumptions that it is impossible to now deconstruct from those narratives. In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy. Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation. Instead, this could all prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one in this story wants to admit it.

On January 15 2019 01:51 GoTuNk! wrote:


Presidents can't have, don't have off the record conversations? The absurdity of that claim makes the rest of your drivel untenable.

On January 15 2019 02:00 Danglars wrote:
The only interesting part is you supposedly said "the only thing this achieves, is increasing the level of scrutiny on him, and his headaches" with a straight face.

The gist is that the administration already has a special counsel investigation, and someone still thinks executive privilege must yield to the millionth time a political hack has said "this gives the appearance you have things to hide."

On January 15 2019 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
I just find it interesting that anyone still takes the Russia collusion narrative seriously. It has been thoroughly shattered. Indeed, the desperation of the people who have been pushing it has become readily apparent has increasingly ridiculous stories have leaked to the press, such as the leak reported by McClatchy about Cohen's cell phone pinging a tower near Prague. Friday's NYT story claiming that the FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened after Trump fired Comey (and let's be crystal clear, that the FBI would dare do this in response to the lawful action of the President is outrageous) is also pure nonsense. We already know that the FBI was conducting the investigation during the campaign.

On January 15 2019 03:34 xDaunt wrote:
The cognitive bias explanation does not work for the FBI. There's too much malfeasance that's already known.

On January 15 2019 02:48 Danglars wrote:
Jonathan Turley had a kind of third-way take on all of this:

Cognitive bias explains a lot for the conspiracy. I'm still leaning towards actual bad actors using Russia to wage a war against the Trump administration from within the bureaucracy and mainstream media, with mixed effectiveness. Short of all that ill intent, this explanation also fits. A large amount of people see anger against the moles within the administration and war against the deep state as just further proof that Trump is actively conspiring with Putin, and react in kind. This prompts more backlash from Trump against the insinuations, which further confirms that he actually is Putin's stooge.

On January 15 2019 03:34 xDaunt wrote:
The cognitive bias explanation does not work for the FBI. There's too much malfeasance that's already known.

On January 15 2019 03:42 Nouar wrote:


What would they stand to gain ? Is the FBI known for being a liberal entity ? Comey was appointed by Bush and a republican. McCabe was a registered republican. Rosenstein is a republican. Mueller is a republican.

Don't you think the investigation would have ended if it was a derangement syndrome from liberals or deep state ? Why was a SC even appointed in that case...

Imagine for a moment that these stories are true. If nothing had been done.... ?

On January 15 2019 03:52 xDaunt wrote:

It's not about liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs republican. It's about the deep state vs. everyone else. What's becoming increasingly clear is that government tools were used to spy on Trump's campaign (the outsider) during the course of the campaign for the purpose of harming his campaign and ensuring that an outsider like him did not take control of the executive branch so as to discover what has really been going on, particularly during the Obama administration.

for the purpose of harming his campaign and ensuring that an outsider like him did not take control of the executive branch

On January 15 2019 03:52 Danglars wrote:

Yes. It can't excuse the actions of the core members. It doesn't excuse whoever leaked unmasked domestic surveillance. Maybe rank and file FBI members went along with it due to cognitive bias.

On January 15 2019 03:52 xDaunt wrote:

It's not about liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs republican. It's about the deep state vs. everyone else. What's becoming increasingly clear is that government tools were used to spy on Trump's campaign (the outsider) during the course of the campaign for the purpose of harming his campaign and ensuring that an outsider like him did not take control of the executive branch so as to discover what has really been going on, particularly during the Obama administration.

On January 15 2019 03:54 Nouar wrote:

Again, please imagine for a second that these allegations end up being true. Do you think the FBI doing nothing wouldn't be worse ?
"Oh hey, we have clues that the candidate/president is being led by a foreign power ? Whatever, just don't do anything, it's fine."
What would you have them do ?

On January 15 2019 03:57 xDaunt wrote:

I don't mind the FBI looking into it. But if they're going to do it, they must do it by the book. They clearly did not do it by the book.

On January 14 2019 14:18 xDaunt wrote:

Given the number of leaks in his administration, Trump has every reason to keep his conversations with Putin closely held.

As for Ukraine and Manafort, that's on Manafort. Besides, you should know that Trump/Russia collusion and Trump/Ukraine collusion are mutually exclusive given that the two nations are enemies. Pick a narrative and stick with it (though both suck).

On January 15 2019 03:52 xDaunt wrote:

It's not about liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs republican. It's about the deep state vs. everyone else. What's becoming increasingly clear is that government tools were used to spy on Trump's campaign (the outsider) during the course of the campaign for the purpose of harming his campaign and ensuring that an outsider like him did not take control of the executive branch so as to discover what has really been going on, particularly during the Obama administration.

On January 15 2019 03:27 Nouar wrote:


You don't think pointing out that xDaunt's views on Russia/Ukraine/Manafort being the opposite of reality is worse noting ?

About Trump, again, when you take e.v.e.r.y s.t.e.p possible to give this appearance when very simple and sensible measures would help clear it, and you take steps to hinder discovery of that special counsel investigations, conclusions are easy to reach. Would it be so hard for him to just not talk to Putin, or release records to his OWN FUCKING ADMINISTRATION, full of exceptional guys, because he only chooses the best ?
The result is his whole presidency, innocent or guilty, will be defined by that special counsel, where if he had vetted his campaign, or even just did not defend his convicted helpers, he would have cleared himself a bit. Every decision he takes about this investigation is the worst possible, every step along the way. For himself, first, but for the country, even worse.

Executive Privilege as I understand it is the power to not reveal to other branches of government, internal dealings to your own administration, to be able to receive candid advice. I haven't seen it asserted when dealing with a foreign power. It is not a blanket defense meaning the president can do whatever he wants, even if it puts the country in jeopardy. This interpretation you are taking has never been tested, since no president has ever been suspected of that. So we are in an interesting situation, extraordinary, and making sure there are no records *at all* is not reserving the right to use EP, it's plainly hiding informations and is detrimental to the US.

I don't understand how all these little things added one after the other, are not raising flags. I get that you support Trump and his policies, but the behaviour shown is extremely suspect. Even the body language of the self-described alpha male being unusually deferent when dealing with Putin is out of this world.

Did they need to actually write that down for people to understand that ? I mean it looks obvious this is the case. The follow up is what I'm questioning.

This was Trump's job to fix. Being innocent, he could have taken steps to defuse the situation. But playing to his base and having dems oppose reps, feeds into his deep state and "conspiracy against him" narrative. Plus I question him being able to control what he says... So he completely blew it open, and hamstrung himself, hindering his presidency in the process.

On January 15 2019 03:59 Nouar wrote:

As if the US intelligence agencies were doing things by the book all the time... This doesn't mean it's a deep state or a partisan agency. They have been borderline (or even completely) illegal for as long as they have existed. As do French ones.

On January 15 2019 04:17 Danglars wrote:

With every word you say, it's more and more obvious that your verdict is in. You want to rewind the tape and pretend you'd be influenced in favor of Trump if only Trump did this or that or this other thing. That's impossible. You've demonstrated that there is no remedy for him in your eyes. His best move is to give nothing to people that will end of believing whatever they believed in the first place. You're just showing poor judgement hoping others will miss the whole "poor judgement" part and seek to persuade you to judge differently.

He's the president. He can negotiate with foreign powers without fear of his every proposal and counter-proposal being revealed to the public in hopes of hurting ongoing negotiations or making good diplomatic deals impossible. You're really holding up an impossible standard and hoping for cheers. Someone will always think a president is shady and can't be trusted dealing with XXXX foreign power. He should ignore people that think private negotiations increase the shady prejudgment they originally made of him. He's not some teenager that is guilty until proven innocent, and must surrender the rights of office to court your good opinion.

I don't know what you can possibly think about how the US negotiates with foreign powers. Imagine you support Obama's cash for nuclear delay tactic, but some yahoo doesn't trust Obama and Obama must release the news "Obama promises to send billions to state sponsor of terrorism." Try persuading the American people you think it's enough to get something good from Iran in return before they've agreed to do it. It's all bullshit. That's no way to govern foreign policy, regardless of your feelings on Trump.


Nope. He went in against an entrenched bureaucracy that hated his guts, because he campaigned on undoing their regulation and knocking the elites/experts down a notch. You may not like his campaign promises, but that's no reason to say he must go back on his word upon election because it's his "job to fix."

You're better off diverting to things it's actually his job to fix, like his messaging through twitter to become more effective advancing the wall, exposing corrupt government agencies, appointing judges, and the rest.

On January 15 2019 04:30 xDaunt wrote:

Frankly, I don't really care about the full extent of the motive, whatever it was (and it is undeniable that there was huge anti-Trump bias by the actors in question at the FBI and CIA). What matters is that people in power are abusing their power.

On January 15 2019 04:59 xDaunt wrote:


The one thing that I'll add here is that I am interested in why the fingerprints of UK intelligence services are all over this mess.

On January 15 2019 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
I just find it interesting that anyone still takes the Russia collusion narrative seriously. It has been thoroughly shattered. Indeed, the desperation of the people who have been pushing it has become readily apparent has increasingly ridiculous stories have leaked to the press, such as the leak reported by McClatchy about Cohen's cell phone pinging a tower near Prague. Friday's NYT story claiming that the FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened after Trump fired Comey (and let's be crystal clear, that the FBI would dare do this in response to the lawful action of the President is outrageous) is also pure nonsense. We already know that the FBI was conducting the investigation during the campaign.