“People at the higher ends of intelligence loved my press conference performance in Helsinki”

A typically bizarre claim about his Helsinki press conference and more claims in conflict with US Intelligence are features of the aftermath of the Donald Trump statements and ‘clarifications’ about Russian interference in US elections.

By Rainer Hachfeld / Neues Deutschland, Germany

Most of the immediate reaction was shock and derision. Even close support Newt Gingrich was critical, saying the comments were the “most serious mistake of his presidency”.

Trump’s attempt at clarification just muddied things more, as did subsequent statements.

What Trump actually said at the Helsinki press conference (transcript posted by the White House):

With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.  My people came to me — Dan Coats came to me and some others — they said they think it’s Russia.  I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.

I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.  But I have — I have confidence in both parties.

A day later back in the US Trump said (transcript):

So I’ll begin by stating that I have full faith and support for America’s great intelligence agencies. Always have. And I have felt very strongly that, while Russia’s actions had no impact at all on the outcome of the election, let me be totally clear in saying that — and I’ve said this many times — I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also; there’s a lot of people out there.

So he says he accepts his intelligence community’s conclusion of Russia’s meddling, but then immediately muddies that.

There was no collusion at all. And people have seen that, and they’ve seen that strongly. The House has already come out very strongly on that. A lot of people have come out strongly on that.

On that perhaps the man doth protest too much.

I thought that I made myself very clear by having just reviewed the transcript. Now, I have to say, I came back, and I said, “What is going on? What’s the big deal?” So I got a transcript. I reviewed it. I actually went out and reviewed a clip of an answer that I gave, and I realized that there is need for some clarification.

It should have been obvious — I thought it would be obvious — but I would like to clarify, just in case it wasn’t.

It was not obvious to just about everyone, even his strongest supporters, that he meant the opposite to what he said.

In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word “would” instead of “wouldn’t.” The sentence should have been: I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t — or why it wouldn’t be Russia. So just to repeat it, I said the word “would” instead of “wouldn’t.”

And the sentence should have been — and I thought it would be maybe a little bit unclear on the transcript or unclear on the actual video — the sentence should have been: I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia. Sort of a double negative.

So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.

So he now claims black was white. This switch from “would” to “wouldn’t” doesn’t fit with what he said in Helsinki. This is what he claims he meant to say:

‘With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.  My people came to me — Dan Coats came to me and some others — they said they think it’s Russia.  I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.

‘I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.  But I have — I have confidence in both parties.’

Would/wouldn’t could become an often repeated confusion marking Trump’s presidency, similar to Winston Peters’ No sign (or was it a yes sign?).

And Trumps contradictions haven’t ended there. Reuters: Trump says Russia is no longer targeting U.S.

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he does not believe Russia is still targeting the United States, contradicting U.S. intelligence assessments that Moscow was continuing its attempts to meddle in American elections.

Trump on Tuesday tried to walk back comments that he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin over American intelligence chiefs on Russian interference in the 2016 election, saying that he had misspoken a day earlier after a summit meeting with Putin in Helsinki.

Asked by reporters on Wednesday if Russia was still targeting the United States, Trump shook his head and said, “No.”

U.S. intelligence officials have said Russian election interference efforts are continuing and now target the upcoming congressional elections in November.

NY Times: Russia Is No Longer Targeting the U.S., Trump Says, Contradicting His Own Intelligence Director

Mr. Trump’s comments were the latest in a dizzying collection of conflicting statements from Mr. Trump since he emerged from a private meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Monday in Helsinki, Finland. And they directly contradict assertions from Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, who has repeatedly said that Russia continues to try to interfere with American democracy.

Who of those people at the higher ends of intelligence wouldn’t have loved his press conference performance in Helsinki and afterwards?

I think you’d have to be an idiot to take anything he says seriously, especially single statements, given how much his stories change.

Image result for cartoon trump derangement

 

Who would know who is the most deranged in the US? Or is that wouldn’t?

The meddling (to be) King and Air Miles Andy

Prince Charles is next in line to the British throne. Prince Andrew could also be king.

David Farrar has posted about The meddling (to be) King Charles (metcalph points out he’s repeatedly announced his attention to be King George VII, not Charles III) linking to this in the Guardian:

The future Charles III expects to be heeded, not scrutinised, and above all he expects to intervene in politics with a regularity and partisanship his mother never dared imitate or, as far as we know, ever wanted to imitate either.

There’s no secret. His aides have announced that King Charles will “reshape the monarch’s role” and make “heartfelt interventions”. I can’t see him moderating his stance when his mother dies. He’s 66 and has waited for the throne all his life.

Unlike Prince Andrew, he can move out of the gossip columns and into the history books. Old men in a hurry don’t change when a prize like that is in sight. More to the point, no one is making him change.

A by no means exhaustive list of his political interventions includes: health – he forced ministers to listen to his gormless support for homeopathic treatments and every other variety of charlatanism and quackery; defence – he protested against cuts in the armed forces; justice – he complained about ordinary people’s access to law, or as he put it:

“I dread the very real and growing prospect of an American-style personal injury culture”; political correctness – he opposes equality as I suppose a true royal must; GM foods – he thinks they’re dangerous, regardless of evidence; modern architecture – he’s against; and eco-towns – he’s for, as long as he has a say in their design.

.Farrar responds:

Charles could well live to be 100, so might be King of New Zealand until 2050 or so, unless we decide to make a change.

I don’t know if a future king of England could meddle in New Zealand law or policies but it should never be allowed to happen. The monarchy is past it’s Use By date for us.

Charlie’s brother isn’t doing the image of the monarchy much good either. Andy (I won’t add a rhyming word) has left a skiing holiday in Switzerland amidst some more very embarrassing publicity. Some claims are unproven but he has proven links to the young claimant and his continued association with a convicted sex offender doesn’t look very flash.

Prince Andrew’s friendship with disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was once characterised by lavish parties and exotic holidays. But now it’s dragging the Prince into a sex scandal that threatens to once again raise uncomfortable questions about the Duke of York’s association with the convicted sex offender.

The pair have known each other for at least 15 years. Andrew maintained an association with Epstein even after Epstein became a convicted sex offender.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/facts-about-prince-andrew-and-jeffrey-epsteins-relationships-2015-1

And Prince Andrew tells Queen: I’m innocent, as he flies back for crisis talks with his mother – not innocent of impressions of a sleazy life of privilege.

We have no need for ‘Air Miles Andy’ and meddling Charlie in modern New Zealand.

How long after Liz’s funeral should we wait before we cut our royal ties? Should we be preparing beforehand?