Art: But it wasn’t “proved wrong”. It wasn’t even proved wrong that Trump colluded. Mueller didn’t say that. More importantly, it wasn’t “proved wrong”, but right, that Trump surrounded himself with Russian-compromised people if not outright agents. Trump is just stupid and that makes him a useful idiot. And now, in 2025, he’s straight up repeating Kremlin propaganda. So Dore was a fucking idiot. And we now know he’s a fascist.

Imagine the unmitigated gall of Donald Trump—yes, Donald Trump—presuming to judge who are “good people.”

Trump is definitely a racist. See my comments here and here and the heavily-sourced articles at Vox and The Atlantic. There’s even a whole Wikipedia Page (in which the only substantive defense made of him is refuted by the careful analysis of Shaun in How PragerU Lies to You: Charlottesville; see also the more recent article at NPR). The impact side of the equation is covered by The Brookings Institute.

Second of all, and most importantly on the topic of Trump, It’s commonly claimed that he’s racist. Do you think he’s racist? If so, why? If not, why not? I’m personally not sure.

I think I’ve seen you debate/discuss/argue this with someone in one of your comment sections but I couldn’t find it to save my life (hopefully you can answer again or help me find it).

Third of all, (I’m not sure if you’re willing or allowed to talk about this, so feel free to ignore) who did you vote for in this most recent election? Why?

I’m sorry, but you are the perfect example of what Jimmy Dore predicted what would happen : lefty people back-peddling on the Russia-gate story.
There are many ways to do that, and yours is to make minute distinctions in words and meanings, a trick done by sophists. Perhaps although philosophically, logically and semantically correct, the purpose remains to take away the eyes from the ball, just as any good magician does.
What is the ball in this case ?
The Mueller investigation was specifically targeted towards Russian collusion. Such a collusion is now shown to have no evidence.To say in your words that “This isn’t about Russia” is intelectually dishonest. It was ALWAYS about Russia. And it proved to be wrong. So any story that pushed this narrative was indeed a conspiracy theory and a total waste of time.

You ignored what I described as the collusion—and spoke instead of something else I never discussed. Thus you argument doesn’t even address my article. So there is nothing to respond to.

You then cited a bunch of editorial speculations, as if those trump the actual Mueller report and prosecution, which established Russian involvement in the hack of the DNC. Thus completely ignoring my actual evidence and links (but if you need more: here here here). All of which you ignore.

Hence my point: you wrote lots of words that actually had nothing to do with my article’s actual statements or that ignored all its actual evidence in favor of biased or uninformed speculations.

Just as I said.

You are thus lost in a delusion. You can’t even read what I said. And you ignore all actual evidence.

I can’t help you with that.

I think quite the opposite. I believe my rebuttle destroys your argument, show how you are not logical but emotional and, as such, are unable or refuse to respond to it. In all sincerity, you should consider my points.

Another word wall that simply ignores everything actually said in my article.

When I mentioned that I your blog piece did not seem very Bayesian, it was not do to the lack of equations, and explicit heuristic devices, but rather because of the lack of logical rigor to your assessment of the Trump-Russia affair and what appeared to me at least unconscious or otherwise biases, apriori beliefs and assumption that are not solidly grounded in logic or facts. You appear to base much of your analysis on opinion.

I was rather impressed by the thoroughness and methodology employed in your Historicity of Jesus, so I expected to see, at least the backbone of such an approach to the Trump-Russia controversy.

Let me confess straight away that I am no Trump supporter, and I agree with you that there is a lot out there pointing to his nefarious activities, but I do not believe collusion with Russia is one of those.

You made several important points in your piece, so let me take them one a t a time and show you my take on each.

Evidence of Russian soft agents and influence on Trump.

You said “Insofar as Russia planted soft agents in his entourage to influence and get intel from him (which I do expect the Mueller investigation to confirm; and that investigation has already caught numerous criminals, and netted a lot of wins in rooting out Russian hackers, influence peddlers, and manipulation channels to already fully justify that investigation, even apart from what may yet be revealed in its final report), Trump was almost certainly a total dupe in that enterprise. 100% clueless.”

I doubt there are any soft agents or evidence there of, the Mueller report may confirm it though, let’s wait and see.

Mueller’s investigation did catch some criminals but ironically they had nothing to do with the Russian government or collusion with it. Manafort was convicted of crimes committed at least ten years before the election for work with the Ukrainian government, not registering with the Feds as a foreign agent and tax evasion.

It had nothing to do with Russia. In fact, he was trying to persuade the then Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to take a more anti Russian and pro Western stance. The Podesta Group, with ties to the Democrats, was also involved in this effort. This is well documented. Here is one example: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/manafort-podesta-emails-lobbying-823868

The other main criminals were (on the US side) Flynn and Cohen, but both of these were prosecuted for process crimes during the investigation, essentially lying to the FBI, and had nothing to do with Russian collusion. Flynn in fact was talking to Russian government officials, but, ironically, not in some collusion scheme to influence the US election, but to try to get them to soften their stand on Israeli at the UN.

Russia’s hacking DNC servers.

You said: “and netted a lot of wins in rooting out Russian hackers”.
Actually there is a lot of controversy over the alleged Russian hack of DNC computers. Only one private computer consultancy said the Russians were behind the hack. Others contend it was an inside job by a disgruntled DNC staffer. (https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/) (https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/) Still other reports say that it was not a hack but just a test to see whether the DNC was sufficiently protected. (https://www.vox.com/2018/8/22/17769938/dnc-hack-test-voter-fbi-again)

Curiously, the FBI never examined the DNCs server (I am not sure that means anything) to determine that the Russians were the culprits.

Finally, Wikileaks, the entity that actually released the DNC/Hillary emails said they did not get the emails from the Russians. (By the way, Wikileaks in all its history of leaking documents has never been know to lie. Its releases have time and again been faithfully republished by leading news outlets. So they appear to be a source with a history of integrity.)

Still, in the end Mueller indicted (and remember an indictment is not proof of anything. It is an accusation.) the top echelon of Russian military intelligence who, of course, would never be tried, and he knew that. So the jury is literally still out and will always be out on this one.

Trump the Liar

You stated:
“so Trump’s vast archive of thousands of documented lies will at worst nix his reelection (if even that).” Yes you are absolutely correct.

Trump, indeed, is a liar story teller, bloater. He is very unconventional for a head of state.

But one needs to understand one important thing about Trump. He has two faces. One is his political face that he uses to play to his base, to manipulate the media and his opponents. The other is how he deals with other insiders, other heads of state, and even his prosecutors.

It is probably not wise to conflate the two faces. One is schtick, the other is real. That is why I do not think one will find much evidence of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report. My understanding, in spite of what he says to his base about fake news and hoax etc, is that his legal team has been very cooperative with the Mueller team, quite the opposite of obstructing the investigation.

Other areas of criminality.

You mentioned: “There is an evident case for RICO charges against Trump…” I absolutely agree with you on this point.

There has been such a history of the organized crime in the building and gambling businesses that it is hard to imagine any big developer or casino owner being as successful as Trump without being in someway involved with criminals. Still, it does not seem to me at least that Mueller ever pursued this angle. We may find out when the report come out.

You further state that “Trump has already been caught committing crimes (and further exposures of criminal conduct seem inevitable; indeed, close at hand), and surrounding himself with convicted criminals”.

Correct, but his use of funds from the Trump charity is really small potatoes and, as I already indicated, the people already found guilty were found culpable of crimes that had nothing to do with Russia and (2) were process crimes also having nothing to do with Russia. Even Cohen said under oath to Congress that he never saw a hint of collusion within the Trump campaign. “During his House testimony Wednesday, Michael Cohen offered new details about several matters of importance to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — but said he knew of no direct evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” (https://www.vox.com/2019/2/28/18243151/michael-cohen-testimony-mueller-russia)

Expert opinions.

You pointed out: “The best two articles on that letter yet written are by actual experts in intelligence operations: one authored by an actual former officer of the CIA who actually ran counter-intelligence ops (Alex Finley, writing for Vox), and the other by a professional journalist who specializes in foreign intelligence and espionage (Natasha Bertrand, writing for The Atlantic). (Both women, BTW; so I’m just waiting to see how long it takes for some dude to mansplain to them their own expertise.) ”

Yes these are experts but not unbiased ones, not the only ones, and, more immediately, their beliefs aired in the two articles are speculation, albeit informed.

Other experts, including other ex intelligence officials, have voiced expert opinions skeptical of any collusion with the Russians.

In fact one of the most renowned scholars on the Soviet Union, and Russia, is Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. He has written at least ten book on Russian/Soviet history and current affairs and hundreds of articles. It might be interesting to get his take on the Trump collusion issue. (https://www.thenation.com/authors/stephen-f-cohen/) He is no conservative, and, in fact , is a contributing editior to one of the country’s most progressive journals, The Nation.

A few excerpt from one of his recent pieces:

“At the core of the Russiagate narrative is the allegation that the Kremlin “meddled” in the 2016 US presidential election. The word “meddle” is nebulous and could mean almost anything, but Russiagate zealots deploy it in the most ominous ways, as a war-like “attack on America,” a kind of “Pearl Harbor.” They also imply that such meddling is unprecedented when in fact both the United States and Russia have interfered repeatedly in the other’s internal politics, in one way or another, certainly since the 1917 Russian Revolution.”
…

“In the post-Soviet era since 1992, at least until Russiagate allegations began in mid-2016, almost all of the “meddling” has been committed by the United States. During the 1990s, under the banner of “democracy promotion,” there was a virtual American political invasion of Russia. Washington openly supported, politically and financially, the pro-American faction in Russian politics, as did American mainstream media coverage. US government and foundation funding went to desirable Russian NGOs. And the Clinton administration lent ample support, again political and financial, to President Boris Yeltsin’s desperate and ultimately successful reelection campaign in 1996. (For more on the 1990s, see my Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia.) Conversely, there was almost no Russian meddling in American politics in the 1990s, apart from the pro-Yeltsin lobby, largely made up of Americans, in Washington.”
…

“As for Russia under Vladimir Putin, since 2000, again there was virtually no notable Russian “meddling” in American politics until the Russiagate allegations began. (Not surprisingly, in light of the history of mutual “meddling,” Russian social media were active during the 2016 US election, but with no discernible impact on the outcome, as Aaron Maté has shown and as Nate Silver has confirmed.) American meddling in Russia, on the other hand, continued apace, or tried to do so. Until more restrictive Russian laws were passed, US funding continued to go to Russian media and NGOs perceived to be in US interests. Hillary Clinton felt free in 2011 to publicly criticize Russian elections, and, the same year, then–Vice President Joseph Biden, while visiting Moscow, advised Putin not to return to the presidency. (Imagine Putin today advising Biden as to whether or not to seek the US presidency.)”
Source: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-long-history-of-us-russian-meddling/

So what does this show.

In modern times at least, the Russians do not have a prior history of meddling in US elections or colluding with US presidential candidates, but interestingly the opposite appears to be true.

So I wonder why are you so ready to believe that Russia colluded with Trump to fix the last presidential election. What are your base assumptions and apriori beliefs that you lead you to so easily believe that Russia colluded with Trump when there appears to be no priors for this, and no real evidence?

Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Oh dear no. That tabloid already admitted it had an ongoing agreement to help him (with a regular catch-and-release policy). He didn’t pay the tabloid! He paid the tabloid the money the tabloid then used to pay off the women. That’s Trump using the tabloid as an agent of his policy. Thus when that same tabloid blackmails someone to shut them up about Trump, very obviously they are acting for Trump—not thereby “blackmailing Trump”!