What can I do to waylay your suspicions and conspiracy theories, Frank? The sooner I can end your gossip and backbiting the better.

What can I do to waylay your suspicions and conspiracy theories, Frank? The sooner I can end your gossip and backbiting the better — NOS4A2

Back off, or I'll sick the deep state on you. The NSA is watching your bathroom as we speak.

But I think you would agree that the majority of Trump supporters are a little more sensible than that. — frank

I think we need to make a distinction between Trump supporters and those who voted for Trump. His staunchest supporters are likely to believe whatever he says. In addition, conspiracy theories are very popular, and in this case play into another popular theme - good versus evil. So I think that what may seem sensible is for them no match for the battle against the Evil Empire. And since the state is so deep, the suspicion can extend to any and all who are critical of Trump.

Ha.

Come on. We’re adults. Let me extend an olive branch.

I think we need to make a distinction between Trump supporters and those who voted for Trump. His staunchest supporters are likely to believe whatever he says. In addition, conspiracy theories are very popular, and in this case play into another popular theme - good versus evil. So I think that what may seem sensible is for them no match for the battle against the Evil Empire. And since the state is so deep, the suspicion can extend to any and all who are critical of Trump. — Fooloso4

There are a lot of people who are going to vote for Trump. They're not lunatics. They just think that overall, he's done a good job. They especially like the state of the economy. Many of them believe that, for all his faults, he's better than a Democrat who represents a corrupt establishment.

They realize that he says stupid things and doesn't show well on the global stage, but they really don't care about that.

They're just normal people. His base is something else. It includes white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Do you know any of the normal ones I'm talking about?

There are a lot of people who are going to vote for Trump. They're not lunatics. They just think that overall, he's done a good job. They especially like the state of the economy. Many of them believe that, for all his faults, he's better than a Democrat who represents a corrupt establishment. — frank

I agree, but what I was addressing is the deep state conspiracy accusations and your question about how believable the voters will think they are.

As to "normal people" voting for Trump because the Democrats are corrupt, I don't think that will play so well in 2020. It may be, however, that they are more concerned with their own financial well-being and believe that they will be better off with Trump. Timing is crucial here. If the economic downturn happens sooner rather than later they may blame Trump.

I don't agree. Trump believes there is a "deep-state" conspiracy. His administration seems to accept it as truth. Senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller is claiming that the whistle-blower is a deep state operative.

Consider it from Trump’s point of view: the spying on his campaign, the spies embedded in his campaign, the bias of the investigators in the FBI, the incessant leaks, the Russian collusion hoax, the whistleblower being CIA, the OP-Ed in the NYT.

There are forces at work within the state apparatus who explicitly “vowed to thwart parts of [Trump’s] agenda and his worst inclinations”, as admitted by a member of the resistance.

I Am a Part of the Resistance inside the Trump Admin

Yes, from his point of view it is spying, biased investigators in the FBI, a Russian "hoax". How dare anyone attempt to shed light on his questionable activities!

Yes, from his point of view it is spying, biased investigators in the FBI, a Russian "hoax". How dare anyone attempt to shed light on his questionable activities!

But in your point of view it is, what exactly?

An attempt to shift focus from what Trump said and did by discrediting those who report on what he said and did.

An attempt to shift focus from what Trump said and did by discrediting those who report on what he said and did.

What I mean is, what do you call the spying on his political campaign, the incessant leaks, the Russian collusion narrative, the self-described "resistance" in his campaign, the CIA whistleblower? Concerned officials, maybe? Duty-bound public servants with American interests at heart?

What I mean is, what do you call the spying on his political campaign ... — NOS4A2

This is a loaded question. I do not call reporting on what he said and did spying. Trump and his lap dog Barr may say otherwise but that don't make it so.

Concerned officials, maybe? Duty-bound public servants with American interests at heart? — NOS4A2

Yes, that does seem to be the case. I know of no credible evidence to the contrary, just unsubstantiated allegations.

Now we have discovered what may be a third cover-up. In its handling of the investigation and a potential campaign-finance violation, the Department of Justice appears to have ignored a rule that a matter under investigation must be referred to the Federal Election Commission. Critically, if the department had followed the rule, the Ukraine affair would have been disclosed to the American public.

Were it not for the efforts of the whistle-blower, everything about this would have been hidden from the F.E.C. and the American people. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/opinion/trump-whistleblower-fec.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage)

This is a loaded question. I do not call reporting on what he said and did spying. Trump and his lap dog Barr may say otherwise but that don't make it so.

That's fair. Use whatever euphemism you please. The facts are that a covert counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA targeted several individuals connected to the Trump campaign, obtaining phone records, surveilling them and embedding informants around the campaign. At no point did they warn Trump or the campaign that Russia was seeking to influence them. Sure, use whatever euphemism you want, but that's spying by definition.

Yes, that does seem to be the case. I know of no credible evidence to the contrary, just unsubstantiated allegations.

It looks like their concerns, no matter how well intentioned you pretend them to be, were wrong.

The facts are that a covert counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA ... — NOS4A2

The facts are first, that you need to learn what the term counterintelligence means, and second, that the duty of intelligence agencies and their members are not to the president but to the country. The latter point is fundamental to this whole mess. When a president acts in ways that jeopardize the security of the country the duty and obligation of its intelligence agents is to report it. When a president acts in ways that raise questions that are matters of national security there is a duty and obligation to investigate.

The facts are first, that you need to learn what the term counterintelligence means, and second, that the duty of intelligence agencies and their members are not to the president but to the country. The latter point is fundamental to this whole mess. When a president acts in ways that jeopardize the security of the country the duty and obligation of its intelligence agents is to report it. When a president acts in ways that raise questions that are matters of national security there is a duty and obligation to investigate.

The spying operation began before he was president. Instead of protecting Americans, they spied on them, and worse, it was the outgoing administration spying on the incoming administration. So yes, use whatever euphemisms, platitudes and glittering generalities you like to explain all that away, but the conclusions of that investigation aren't out yet. We'll see.

... the conclusions of that investigation aren't out yet. We'll see. — NOS4A2

Well then, what you are talking about are unconfirmed allegations, but you do not refer to it as allegations of spying but spying, as if the conclusions of that investigation that aren't out yet don't matter since you have already drawn you own conclusions.

In any case, even it the allegations are true, even if Trump's microwave oven was spying on him, this has no bearing on whether or not Trump did what he is being accused of doing.

Yesterday Trump tweeted the following:

As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the....

....People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America! — Fooloso4

Well I'll be damned. Next they'll be wantin' to take away our slaves! I'll go to war before that happens!

Well then, what you are talking about are unconfirmed allegations, but you do not refer to it as allegations of spying but spying, as if the conclusions of that investigation that aren't out yet don't matter since you have already drawn you own conclusions.

In any case, even it the allegations are true, even if Trump's microwave oven was spying on him, this has no bearing on whether or not Trump did what he is being accused of doing.

These are in fact confirmed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence regarding their probe into Russian Active Measures.

The same committee found no evidence that meetings between Trump associates reflected collusion, coordination or conspiracy with the Russians.

https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt1110/CRPT-115hrpt1110.pdf

This has a massive bearing on these accusations.

You, echoing Trump, call it a "Russian hoax" and yet the document you cite states in the preface that:

In 2015 Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election.

Instead of dumping a 350 page document on us identify the statements in the report that support your allegations. Where does it expose the nefarious deep state?

I will ask again since in typical fashion you ignore questions posed to you: how does any of this relate to the impeachment investigation?

Instead of dumping a 350 page document on us identify the statements in the report that support your allegations. Where does it expose the nefarious deep state?

I never claimed the document exposes the deep state. What I claimed was, "The facts are that a covert counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA targeted several individuals connected to the Trump campaign, obtaining phone records, surveilling them and embedding informants around the campaign. At no point did they warn Trump or the campaign that Russia was seeking to influence them."

I will ask again since in typical fashion you ignore questions posed to you: how does any of this relate to the impeachment investigation?

The modus operandi is the same: selective leaks, frivolous and unjust investigations, the CIA are involved.

I never claimed the document exposes the deep state. — NOS4A2

But you did raise the possibility of the deep state and it is an essential part of Trump's allegations of spying on him and it is supposed to have operatives in FBI, the CIA and the NSA. Claims of the deep state are being used to attempt to discredit the whistle-blower. As you know, both the Inspector General and Director of National Intelligence found the allegations credible. Perhaps they too are part of the deep state?

What specifically does the report cite say about spying on Trump? Does it use the term 'spy'? Why would the FBI, the CIA and the NSA spy on him?

I will ask again since in typical fashion you ignore questions posed to you: how does any of this relate to the impeachment investigation?

The modus operandi is the same: selective leaks, frivolous and unjust investigations, the CIA are involved. — NOS4A2

This does not answer the question. The question is how all this relates to the specific allegations, allegations which Trump substantiated when he released a version of the phone transcript?

Let's start here: putting aside the question of whether it is an impeachable offense, do you agree that it was inappropriate to withhold military aid that was approved by Congress and ask for a favor that involved asking a foreign nation to "look into" his political opponent?

But you did raise the possibility of the deep state and it is an essential part of Trump's allegations of spying on him and it is supposed to have operatives in FBI, the CIA and the NSA. Claims of the deep state are being used to attempt to discredit the whistle-blower. As you know, both the Inspector General and Director of National Intelligence found the allegations credible. Perhaps they too are part of the deep state?

I did raise the possibility, yes. The whistleblower is CIA, according to the NYT. The whistleblower’s complaint is hearsay, appears to be written by lawyers, and riddled with inaccuracies and assumed motives.

The question is how all this relates to the specific allegations, allegations which Trump substantiated when he released a version of the phone transcript?

He did not substantiate the allegations.

Let's start here: putting aside the question of whether it is an impeachable offense, do you agree that it was inappropriate to withhold military aid that was approved by Congress and ask for a favor that involved asking a foreign nation to "look into" his political opponent?

The favor was in regards to the 2016 election and to the activities during past administration, and it correlates to the ongoing DOJ investigation into the 2016 election, which is currently centered around Ukraine. The motives described by the whistle blower are assumed without evidence, and I would argue refuted by the transcript.

The whistleblower’s complaint is hearsay, appears to be written by lawyers, and riddled with inaccuracies and assumed motives. — NOS4A2

GOP talking points and alt-right misinformation.

He did not substantiate the allegations. — NOS4A2

From the transcript provided by the White House

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me. — Donald Trump

I would argue refuted by the transcript. — NOS4A2

The claims of the whistleblower are completely substantiated by the transcript.

You're simply proving the case that Trump supporters are incapable of comprehending simple facts.

The whistleblower’s complaint is hearsay, appears to be written by lawyers, and riddled with inaccuracies and assumed motives. — NOS4A2

You are repeating the Republican talking points, and overlooking the obvious: the whistleblower complaint is within the legal guidelines, is credible, and worthy of investigation. Trump should not be impeached solely on the basis of the complaint, but if the investigation confirms Trump's behavior crossed the legal line, then it will be appropriate to impeach. Alternatively, if the administration makes it impossible to investigate, then this would constitute illegal obstruction and this would be impeachable.

Surely you at least notice the administration's hypocrisy regarding investigations. On the one hand, they argue Hunter Biden should be investigated despite there being no evidence of his having committed a crime, but because of the circumstances of a VP's son being hired for a well-paying job. And yet we have a credible report of actual wrongdoing by Trump, that clearly warrants investigation, and it gets labelled a "witch hunt". Steven Miller said the American people have a right to know the truth about Biden. Don't we also have a right to know about Trump?

I note from this morning's press:

In a new national Monmouth University poll just four in 10 self-identified Republicans believe that Trump mentioned Biden in his call with Zelensky.

This is despite the fact that it's spelled out in black and white. It shows the power of the Trump disinformation campaign.

It's hard to believe Trump has that much power over other minds; is he a hypnotist or are the other 6 just very poorly informed? Odd!

This is one of the reasons why anyone who thinks the problem is epistemic ('we just need to know the facts!/we need more information') is deluding themselves.

So, the story so far: Trump has been caught red-handed in the commission of a crime, namely, soliciting help from a foreign power for domestic political advantage. After the call White House aides quickly realised that the phone call in question was illegal, and took steps to cover it up by moving the transcript to a secure server usually reserved for highly classified information.. However, a CIA agent working in the administration found out what had happened and reported the issue, following all due protocols and guidelines.

At first the Administration tried to suppress the whistleblower report from reaching Congress but were ultimately unsuccessful in so doing.

Shortly afterwards, Trump authorised a release of a transcript of the call, confident that it would exonerate him. IN fact it did the opposite, confirming that he had indeed solicited assistance from a foreign power for domestic political advantage. In the next few days, it became apparent that Trump had been directing many such efforts, implicating the Secretary of State among others in support of a debunked conspiracy theory involving Ukraine framing Russia, and somehow coming into possession of a file server allegedly belonging to Hillary Clinton.

Trump's only answer to this to date has been a blizzard of lies, threats, accusations and falsehoods, some of which constitute impeachable offenses in their own right. But the hundred ton gun of impeachment is being wheeled into place, subpoenas being issued to key witnesses and the process is continuing apace.

The claims of the whistleblower are completely substantiated by the transcript.

You're simply proving the case that Trump supporters are incapable of comprehending simple facts.

The whistleblower complaint alleges Trump “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid.”

Quote the so-called pressure. Show me anything regarding the 2020 election in the transcript. You’re making it up, or worse, pretending DNC dinner-theater are facts. More proof that anti-Trumpists are dupes.