I didn't say I believe it. I said I wouldn't be surprised if it actually happened. — Agustino

Oh, OK.

Then I wouldn't be surprised if the pee tape is real and is being used as blackmail and if Trump personally conspired with Putin to help swing the election in his favour, with something like refusing to enforce sanctions against Russia part of their quid pro quo.

Yeah, because he was conspiring into what information to share and what information to withhold from the President-elect of the United States. — Agustino

Was he? From what I have read, the concern was with sharing the information with Trump's transition team, given that some of them were under investigation:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/12/politics/susan-rice-email-russia-investigation-trump-team/index.html

"The Obama White House was justifiably concerned about how comprehensive they should be in their briefings regarding Russia to members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. General Michael Flynn, given the concerning communications between him and Russian officials."

There's no suggestion that the FBI should lie to Trump were Trump to ask for information about it. Being the President, I'm pretty sure he's entitled to know everything.

Here's the published parts of Susan Rice's email to herself (to keep an official record, which would be a strange thing to do were this some illegal or unethical conspiracy):

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-uncover-unusual-email-sent-susan-rice-herself-president-trump-s

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

...

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

I don't see anything underhanded here. Do you?

I don't see anything underhanded here. Do you? — Michael

Yes. The underhanded bit is in the blacked out "..." area.

Yes. The underhanded bit is in the blacked out "..." area. — Agustino

How can you know what the ... area says?

How can you know what the ... area says? — Michael

I can't, but since it's not shown, I can only assume.

I can't, but since it's not shown, I can only assume. — Agustino

So you just assume that it's underhanded, in lieu of any actual evidence?

And you accused me of being biased.

So you just assume that it's underhanded, in lieu of any actual evidence? — Michael

I was kidding actually about that part.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

I think that bit is underhanded, since he showed that he was willing to hide things from Trump and his team.

From his transition team, given possible concerns about national security. And notice that he's asking Comey if there are reasons for this, not conspiring with him to hide it (to what end, anyway?).

That's not underhanded at all. It's being responsible with classified information and being mindful of an ongoing investigation.

pee tape is real — Michael

Well, that tape supposedly involves girls taking a golden shower on a bed. Trump is not naked (presumably) in it. Why is it compromising?

Well, that tape supposedly involves girls taking a golden shower on a bed. Trump is not naked (presumably) in it. Why is it compromising? — Agustino

If there was a tape of you watching two prostitutes piss on a bed for you, wouldn't you want that kept out of the public eye?

If there was a tape of you watching two prostitutes piss on a bed for you, wouldn't you want that kept out of the public eye? — Michael

Why is that compromising? He's just watching a golden shower, he's not involved in the activity or anything of that sort.

If you have a video of me watching a dog pee, is that compromising? :s

It's compromising if it can be used as blackmail. A lot of people would be embarrassed to see such a tape of them released and so would do as they're demanded.

Can you explain why it is embarrassing if they are not engaged in the activity themselves?

No, just as I can't explain why it's embarrassing if it's a naked photo of them, e.g. in the shower.

But it's a fact that some people are embarrassed by such things.

I really don't know what you're trying to get at here.

Here's the published parts of Susan Rice's email to herself (to keep an official record, which would be a strange thing to do were this some illegal or unethical conspiracy): — Michael

What if this email served as a preemptive attempt to give the appearance that she was doing things by the book? "The lady doth protest too much" sort of thing.

If you send an email to yourself reminding you that you've done everything by the book--which you likely know may be used as a reference at some point in the future--then I'm inclined to think you're probably not doing things by the book.

I'll admit I'm not following this Russian collusion thing closely at all and have limited understanding if sending these sorts of emails to oneself is standard practice.

I am suspicious of all the actors involved, regardless of political affiliation, and I think this cynicism is warranted right now. At all times, actually, when it comes to the machinations of those in positions of political power.

Anything is possible, but not everything is reasonable. Seems strange to take an email that leaves a record of a by-the-books meeting as evidence that the meeting wasn't by-the-books.

Assume the meeting was by-the-books. What's the best course of action? To keep an honest record or to keep it off-the-record?

Assume the meeting wasn't by-the-books. What's the best course of action? To keep a dishonest record or to keep it off-the-record?

Maybe keeping a dishonest record is better than keeping it secret if the meeting wasn't by-the-books, but keeping an honest record is definitely better than keeping it secret if the meeting was by-the-books.

I find that last scenario to be the most plausible. The first part of it.

Many people will take your (Susan Rice's) depiction of events as outlined in an email sent to yourself at face value assuming it's an accurate portrayal of what happened, whereas I in my cynicism would make the opposite assumption.

This line of paranoid thinking falls under a similar class of counter-intuitive observations made by Machiavelli: "when one sees an enemy commit a grave blunder, one ought to believe that there is deception beneath it." Differences, obviously, but that same "don't take things at face value" political warning.

I could very well be wrong though and I'm hoping we can get to the bottom of this Russian collusion thing in the near future. I don't doubt that Trump could and would do something like that if given the opportunity, but I've not seen any solid evidence as of yet that he did and it's been some time.

Even some leftists like Glen Greenwald--no fan of Trump at all--have found this whole thing to be baffling.

just as I can't explain why it's embarrassing if it's a naked photo of them, e.g. in the shower. — Michael

That's easy to explain. That's because their bodily privacy would be invaded, obviously.

I could very well be wrong though and I'm hoping we can get to the bottom of this Russian collusion thing in the near future. I don't doubt that he could do something like that, but I've not seen any solid evidence as of yet that he did and it's been some time. — Erik

I don't think he did. But I think there's evidence that Page, Manafort, Papadopoulos, Kushner, and Trump Jr. did: that the FBI were granted FISA warrants on Page and Manafort, the emails regarding the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting, and Papadopoulos' drunken comments to the Australian ambassador.

For Trump himself I think there's evidence of obstruction of justice (e.g. firing Comey "because of the Russia thing" and trying to fire Mueller), and possibly also money laundering (e.g. the $100 million sale of a $40 million property). His refusal to admit that the Russians interfered, coupled with his refusal to enact the sanctions that were near-unanimously passed by Congress suggests a very strange loyalty to Russia, which I suspect is due to blackmail (e.g. the piss tape, and possibly also evidence of money laundering).

That's easy to explain. That's because their bodily privacy would be invaded, obviously. — Agustino

Why is that embarrassing?

I just told you why.

I just told you why. — Agustino

No, you said that invading bodily privacy is embarrassing. You haven't told me why invading bodily privacy is embarrassing.

This line of paranoid thinking falls under a similar class of counter-intuitive observations made by Machiavelli: "when one sees an enemy commit a grave blunder, one ought to believe that there is deception beneath it." — Erik

Yes, however, there is danger even here. Because if it is a real blunder, then you will have missed an opportunity - and if it's not a real blunder, then you will have fallen into a trap. Sometimes the enemy may commit a grave blunder because, if the blunder is not attended to immediately, it will turn out to be profitable for him later on - and he is banking on the fact that you will interpret the blunder as deception.

No, you said that invading bodily privacy is embarrassing — Michael

No, that's not what I said. I said having others take pictures of you naked in the shower which are then shown to the public is embarrassing because it is invading your bodily privacy. So no more word twisting here please.

No, that's not what I said. I said having others take pictures of you naked in the shower which are then shown to the public is embarrassing because it is invading your bodily privacy. So no more word twisting here please. — Agustino

"is embarrassing because it is invading your bodily privacy"

Why is invading bodily privacy cause for embarrassment?

Why is invading bodily privacy cause for embarrassment? — Michael

Just like the little child, you keep pushing with the why. I've answered your first why, so if I answer this second order why, will you ask another why? Because if you will, we'll get nowhere. So you must decide to come to a stop with the whys at some point. When will this point occur?

Just like the little child, you keep pushing with the why. I've answered your first why, so if I answer this second order why, will you ask another why? Because if you will, we'll get nowhere. So you must decide to come to a stop with the whys at some point. When will this point occur? — Agustino

Right, we must come to a stop. We just have to admit that, for whatever reason, some people are embarrassed by whatever it is that they're embarrassed by.

And it's reasonable to believe that somebody would be embarrassed by a video showing them watching prostitutes they've paid to piss on a bed, whatever the reason for the embarrassment would be (or no reason at all; the embarrassment often just is a visceral reaction).

And it's reasonable to believe that somebody would be embarrassed by a video showing them watching prostitutes they've paid to piss on a bed, whatever the reason for the embarrassment would be. — Michael

No.

Supposedly, so the story goes, Trump paid the prostitutes to piss on the bed because Obama and Michelle slept there? :s I find this reason to be, frankly, unbelievable. If anything, he should have pissed on the bed himself, but why pay the prostitutes to do it? The story just makes no sense. Even if it happened, Trump didn't do anything himself, so I don't see why it would be embarrassing for him.

Even if it happened, Trump didn't do anything himself, so I don't see why it would be embarrassing for him. — Agustino

Whether or not you see a reason for the embarrassment isn't relevant. What matters is whether or not Trump would be embarrassed. If so, he's open to blackmail. That's the issue surrounding the alleged piss table.