Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[dasmiller]

I think it just depends on how you define "deep state". It's essentially impossible to discuss something which has not been defined. It kind of a useless concept in that regard, because everyone using the phrase has a private definition.

Concur.

When "deep state" implies some conspiracy of entrenched, corrupt bureaucrats who are willing to sacrifice America's greatness in order to preserve their bribes and kickbacks, I think it's pretty absurd.

When "deep state" implies the thousands of bureaucrats who are, within the scope of their jobs, simply trying to keep the country running despite what they (and I) see as a lot of random and often-destructive nonsense from the executive branch, then . . . well, yeah.

I find it infuriating when the two are conflated; i.e. when an example of the second is presented as proof of the first.

 

[Segnosaur]

Questions for the pro-Trumpers participating in this thread:
1. If given the opportunity would you get on a Manafort jury and vote not guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt if you believed it would help protect Trump?

3. Do you think Manafort is being unfairly prosecuted?
4. Why do you think Manafort isn't flipping?

For some definition of "pro-Trumper"...
1. No. That's stupid.

You'll have to forgive us if we don't believe you.

First of all, as a Trump supporter, your motives and actions are automatically viewed with suspicion. (Comes with supporting a politician who lies habitually, and who's core demographic includes hypocritical evangelicals.)

Secondly, I believe it was you who said the only thing that matters to you is Trump's nomination of right-wing judges. So, getting rid of something that might potentially interfere with Trump's judicial nomination (such as getting Manafort found not-guilty despite evidence) would be right up that alley.

2. Do you see the prosecution of Manafort as part of a deep state effort to undermine Trump?

2. Yes.

And this is another reason I don't trust your answer from question 1.

There is no "deep state effort to undermine Trump". All evidence (that which has been made public) points to Manafort's guilt. Granted his crimes probably flew under the radar until Trump got elected, but his current legal problems were not a 'deep state' effort to undermine Trump, it was likely the result of the added attention brought on by his association with Trump exposing his crimes. No "deep state" conspiracy needed.

The fact that you would assume both the existence and motives of such a "deep state" suggests a lack of rational thought.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It does seem to translate as "Donald Trump is too ignorant to realise that conspiring with the Russians was actually a crime".

I think it is more that they don't think the laws could ever be applied to them. So they just never cared if something is illegal or not.

 

[acbytesla]

It does seem to translate as "Donald Trump is too ignorant to realise that conspiring with the Russians was actually a crime".

I think it is more that they don't think the laws could ever be applied to them. So they just never cared if something is illegal or not.

I don't for a second believe that they didn't know it was crime. That could be reasonably said about some of Trump's behavior such as asking people to back off of Flynn. But Manafort was in that meeting. He's a long time political operative. He knows the law.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can believe almost anything about humanity. Especially corruption. But the idea of a deep state conspiracy run by Bushs/Clintons/Obama is absurd. I also see nothing wrong with politicians on both sides of the aisle being civil and liking each other.

If there was a deep state conspiracy,, there wouldn't have been 3 years of nonsense investigations into Ben Ghazzi and a silly email server. Comey would never have announced that there were more emails right before the election.

Trump is promoting this narrative simply because he is guilty guilty, guilty, guilty.

The joke really is, that both Don Jr. And Don Sr, keep admitting their crimes. There is more proof of Trump crimes than there ever was on Nixon

But it wasn't evidence of his crimes that got the public to turn on Nixon, it was the saturday night massacre. And why would Trump bother? He is safe for now and the obviousness of his crimes really doesn't matter. It isn't exactly going to cost him any republican support and as long as he has that he can not be impeached.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think it just depends on how you define "deep state". It's essentially impossible to discuss something which has not been defined. It kind of a useless concept in that regard, because everyone using the phrase has a private definition.

Well, in this particular case it's being defined as the people behind the prosecution of Manafort. If you believe that the prosecution of Manafort, which is part of the Russia probe, is "part of a deep state effort to undermine Trump", then you must believe that that is true of the Russia probe. And if you believe that that is true of the Russia probe, then you must believe that the people responsible for the Russia probe are part of the "Deep State". And, if you believe that, then see my previous post as to why that is silly.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't for a second believe that they didn't know it was crime. That could be reasonably said about some of Trump's behavior such as asking people to back off of Flynn. But Manafort was in that meeting. He's a long time political operative. He knows the law.

Also there's the question that absolutely no Trump supporter has been able to answer - if they didn't think it was a crime, why did they lie about it, including to Congress under oath? Why risk prison time by lying about something that is perfectly legal and a normal part of campaigning? Why not just say "yes, we met with Kremlin agents because we thought we could get dirt on Hillary Clinton in exchange for an easing of sanctions" from the beginning - to Mueller, to Congress, and to the public?

 

[LSSBB]

I think it just depends on how you define "deep state". It's essentially impossible to discuss something which has not been defined. It kind of a useless concept in that regard, because everyone using the phrase has a private definition.

There is a definition, per Bill Moyers:

a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is a definition, per Bill Moyers:

Quote:
a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process

Also known as "The Jooos".

 

[acbytesla]

You would think that, but these are the people who had no idea they were firing the individual in charge of the nuclear arsenal until they almost did it. I find the idea that there was anything they couldn't possibly have not known a real stretch. They have been constantly demonstrating a total lack of basic knowledge but a disregard to bother learning after it comes up.

Trump is the living embodiment of Dunning Kruger, so why assume some limit on his ignorance?

Trump operates in such a way that he thinks he can and should get away with anything. He actually believes if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue he should get a pass.

But don't tell me that Manafort and Trump Sr. knew this was a crime. Manafort knew because he had been in the game for a long long time. He just thought he wouldn't get caught. Trump may have not known it was crime when it happened, but he damn well knew when he created a false statement about it later.

Criminals don't commit crimes believing they will get caught. But what is plain as day is Trump's obvious consciousness of guilt.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Cohen reportedly under investigation for tax fraud

 

[dasmiller]

Also there's the question that absolutely no Trump supporter has been able to answer - if they didn't think it was a crime, why did they lie about it, including to Congress under oath? Why risk prison time by lying about something that is perfectly legal and a normal part of campaigning? Why not just say "yes, we met with Kremlin agents because we thought we could get dirt on Hillary Clinton in exchange for an easing of sanctions" from the beginning - to Mueller, to Congress, and to the public?

I know you intended that as a rhetorical question, but in this case, there really are plausible reasons.
First, because it doesn't look flattering. This is Trump, after all, and he's routinely lied to make himself look better. Why wouldn't he* do it this time?
Second, because NYT, CNN, and WaPo said so. He'll contradict them any way he can, even if he has to make up facts.

So, weirdly, just for this president, I'm not sure I'd take his denial to indicate that he knew it was illegal.


*Yes, I know it was Don Jr in front of Congress; I assume he was acting on his father's instructions.

 

[dasmiller]

Cohen reportedly under investigation for tax fraud

Quelle surprise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's the one that would be potentially relevant to Steele/Clinton. There are many that would be relevant to the Trump campaign.

"Receive a contribution" is key in that statute. The title of the statute is contributions and donations by foreign nationals (I was wrong about government vs foreign nationals). It is about volunteers and donations, not who you hire.

The law doesn't say you can't hire a foreign national to work on your campaign. Think about it. Are you supposed to check all the people in a firm you contract with to make sure they have no foreign nationals on the payroll?

And what it you buy MAGA hats made in China? Or some other product that originated in another country?

The law is not about who you hire.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Any rules about employing foreigners in this country would apply, but not FEC rules covering people who donate time to work on your campaign.

 

[davefoc]

Cohen reportedly under investigation for tax fraud

Somebody actually wrote a current story based on that theory? OK, so the idea up to now has been that Cohen carefully paid his taxes on all the money he received from illegal activity and suddenly somebody thought, hey, maybe he didn't and we should investigate that?


OK

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"Receive a contribution" is key in that statute. The title of the statute is contributions and donations by foreign nationals (I was wrong about government vs foreign nationals). It is about volunteers and donations, not who you hire.

The law doesn't say you can't hire a foreign national to work on your campaign. Think about it. Are you supposed to check all the people in a firm you contract with to make sure they have no foreign nationals on the payroll?

And what it you buy MAGA hats made in China? Or some other product that originated in another country?

The law is not about who you hire.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Any rules about employing foreigners in this country would apply, but not FEC rules covering people who donate time to work on your campaign.

I never said anything about hiring people.

 

[acbytesla]

Somebody actually wrote a current story based on that theory? OK, so the idea up to now has been that Cohen carefully paid his taxes on all the money he received from illegal activity and suddenly somebody thought, hey, maybe he didn't and we should investigate that?


OK

I think they have been knee deep in his business for a while. Keep in mind the government has been going through all those records they seized. They have been checking and double checking everything. Cohen is a sort of shady lawyer with an even shadier client. That Cohen had been cheating on his taxes was probably considered a given from day one.

 

[dudalb]

Cohen reportedly under investigation for tax fraud

Shades of Al Capone....

 

[theprestige]

The group who are well-aware that Trump is pandering to bigots and hostile foreign powers and doesn't care? That group does't have the excuses of ignorance or stupidity.


Why would an insult affect how that group would vote?

Undecideds who share my sentiments about the political establishment, and whose minds were made up by the insult. Last straw, etc.

 

[smartcooky]

Also there's the question that absolutely no Trump supporter has been able to answer - if they didn't think it was a crime, why did they lie about it, including to Congress under oath? Why risk prison time by lying about something that is perfectly legal and a normal part of campaigning? Why not just say "yes, we met with Kremlin agents because we thought we could get dirt on Hillary Clinton in exchange for an easing of sanctions" from the beginning - to Mueller, to Congress, and to the public?

THIS. Why lie if you think you've done nothing wrong, especially when you know that lying to Federal authorities or Congress is illegal and attracts consequences including jail time? Under those circumstances, lying is beyond stupid.