The Russians said "No" to Romney?

[_Dr. Shades]

I heard this on my local talk radio station yesterday during their "on the half" news break. They reported that, according to the usual British Spy, Trump really was going to hire Mitt Romney to be his Secretary of State, but the Russians told him "No" because they wanted someone who wouldn't implement the sanctions against them.

Now, I for one know that you can't believe everything you hear, and this sounds REALLY extreme. . . but the fact that it was reported as a news story makes me think that someone, somewhere found it credible.

I promise I'm not making this up; I really did hear it. What does everyone think? Is there, or could there, be some truth to this, or is it too far-fetched to be paid any mind?

[_Xenophon]

That little tidbit apparently comes from the infamous Steele dossier:

One subject that Steele is believed to have discussed with Mueller’s investigators is a memo that he wrote in late November, 2016, after his contract with Fusion had ended. This memo, which did not surface publicly with the others, is shorter than the rest, and is based on one source, described as “a senior Russian official.” The official said that he was merely relaying talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but what he’d heard was astonishing: people were saying that the Kremlin had intervened to block Trump’s initial choice for Secretary of State, Mitt Romney.

emphasis mine

It is tough to tell how much truth versus rumor is here, especially given that this memo is as of yet unpublished. I think Trump had plenty of reason to reject Romney of his own volition, there isn't much love lost between them. It really wouldn't surprise me if Trump was going to reject Romney anyways and Russia is just leaking that they had influence over the decision to fluff themselves up. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump's decision actually was influenced by outside forces.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... or is it too far-fetched to be paid any mind?

There is absolutely nothing too far fetched with this presidential regime. Virtually the entire White House can't possess a top secret clearance. Let that sink if for a second. We're in bizarro world territory right now.

For anyone that needs a breakout of the 'Trump Dossier' here is the wiki entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2% ... ia_dossier

And Mr. Steele's wiki entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2% ... ia_dossier

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It really wouldn't surprise me if Trump was going to reject Romney anyways and Russia is just leaking that they had influence over the decision to fluff themselves up.

I'd believe that, too. The projection of soft power, even if it's not true, is hugely important for media management and population control.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

It seems the source for the reports is an upcoming article on Steele to be published in The New Yorker. Relevant quote from that article-

One subject that Steele is believed to have discussed with Mueller’s investigators is a memo that he wrote in late November, 2016, after his contract with Fusion had ended. This memo, which did not surface publicly with the others, is shorter than the rest, and is based on one source, described as “a senior Russian official.” The official said that he was merely relaying talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but what he’d heard was astonishing: people were saying that the Kremlin had intervened to block Trump’s initial choice for Secretary of State, Mitt Romney. (During Romney’s run for the White House in 2012, he was notably hawkish on Russia, calling it the single greatest threat to the U.S.) The memo said that the Kremlin, through unspecified channels, had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions, and who would coöperate on security issues of interest to Russia, such as the conflict in Syria. If what the source heard was true, then a foreign power was exercising pivotal influence over U.S. foreign policy—and an incoming President.

As fantastical as the memo sounds, subsequent events could be said to support it. In a humiliating public spectacle, Trump dangled the post before Romney until early December, then rejected him. There are plenty of domestic political reasons that Trump may have turned against Romney. Trump loyalists, for instance, noted Romney’s public opposition to Trump during the campaign. Roger Stone, the longtime Trump aide, has suggested that Trump was vengefully tormenting Romney, and had never seriously considered him. (Romney declined to comment. The White House said that he was never a first choice for the role and declined to comment about any communications that the Trump team may have had with Russia on the subject.) In any case, on December 13, 2016, Trump gave Rex Tillerson, the C.E.O. of ExxonMobil, the job. The choice was a surprise to most, and a happy one in Moscow, because Tillerson’s business ties with the Kremlin were long-standing and warm. (In 2011, he brokered a historic partnership between ExxonMobil and Rosneft.) After the election, Congress imposed additional sanctions on Russia, in retaliation for its interference, but Trump and Tillerson have resisted enacting them.

[_subgenius]

believing everything you hear is healthy.

[_Bach]

I heard this on my local talk radio station yesterday during their "on the half" news break. They reported that, according to the usual British Spy, Trump really was going to hire Mitt Romney to be his Secretary of State, but the Russians told him "No" because they wanted someone who wouldn't implement the sanctions against them.

Now, I for one know that you can't believe everything you hear, and this sounds REALLY extreme. . . but the fact that it was reported as a news story makes me think that someone, somewhere found it credible.

I promise I'm not making this up; I really did hear it. What does everyone think? Is there, or could there, be some truth to this, or is it too far-fetched to be paid any mind?

Did you bother to do any research on your own to at least determine a minimal standard of credibility to what you believed you heard? Or do you find the fully employed, 24/7 brain trust of this board the best source for informative answers?

[_Xenophon]

It seems the source for the reports is an upcoming article on Steele to be published in The New Yorker. Relevant quote from that article

It is actually already out, I linked it up thread. It is a bit longish but an interesting read.

[_Dr. Shades]

Did you bother to do any research on your own to at least determine a minimal standard of credibility to what you believed you heard?

No. I didn't know where to research it. And I didn't believe I heard it; I really did hear it.

Or do you find the fully employed, 24/7 brain trust of this board the best source for informative answers?

Yes, and I'm still waiting for either your confirmation or your rebuttal.

[_Xenophon]

I'd believe that, too. The projection of soft power, even if it's not true, is hugely important for media management and population control.

- Doc

It's a tough call until we have further evidence. Steele has been vindicated on several counts but some of his research remains unconfirmed, I'm also reluctant to buy any document that I can't read for myself.

Given that Trump has plenty of reason to turn down Romney on his own, I'm inclined to think horsie and not zebra, at least until we can see the source of the hoofbeats.