Status
Not open for further replies.
We could probably turn a special counsel investigation loose on any administration, and come up with a couple dozen assorted indictments.

Such as evading taxes on $60 million in unreported income? I mean, who doesn’t do that???

Bill Clinton got impeached over a nothingburger process crime, completely unrelated to the original subject of the Starr investigation.

Testifying truthfully when under oath is kind of a lynchpin of our justice system.

You think Chicago machine man Rahm Emmanuel doesn't have a closet full of political skeletons? And who knows what shenanigans the Bushes have gotten up to, over the years?

Who knows? Totally irrelevant to current crimes by the current administration/president.

We start special counsel to answer specific questions. If they find other questions that need answers along the way, and answer them, good. But we shouldn't pretend these are the questions we were asking, nor that these are the answers we set out to get.

This entire post was some really weak sauce. IMHO, of course.
 
Last edited:
We could probably turn a special counsel investigation loose on any administration, and come up with a couple dozen assorted indictments.

Bill Clinton got impeached over a nothingburger process crime, completely unrelated to the original subject of the Starr investigation.

You think Chicago machine man Rahm Emmanuel doesn't have a closet full of political skeletons? And who knows what shenanigans the Bushes have gotten up to, over the years?

We don't know, because we don't actually send special counsel on an open ended fishing expedition with each new administration.

We start special counsel to answer specific questions. If they find other questions that need answers along the way, and answer them, good. But we shouldn't pretend these are the questions we were asking, nor that these are the answers we set out to get.

Tu quoque imaginarium.
 
We could probably turn a special counsel investigation loose on any administration, and come up with a couple dozen assorted indictments.

Bill Clinton got impeached over a nothingburger process crime, completely unrelated to the original subject of the Starr investigation.

You think Chicago machine man Rahm Emmanuel doesn't have a closet full of political skeletons? And who knows what shenanigans the Bushes have gotten up to, over the years?

We don't know, because we don't actually send special counsel on an open ended fishing expedition with each new administration.

We start special counsel to answer specific questions. If they find other questions that need answers along the way, and answer them, good. But we shouldn't pretend these are the questions we were asking, nor that these are the answers we set out to get.

We set out to answer questions about Russian involvement in the election and whether the Trump campaign was involved. The former question seems to be clearly addressed. We haven't seen the report, but even if the answer to the latter is "no, Trump's campaign did nothing wrong," then we've gotten the desired answer (ETA: So long as we believe Mueller did his job well, and I have no reason to think not at this point. Certainly, we can't conclude that because he didn't give the answer we might have expected or preferred, he did a crap job.).
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Russians had a concerted effort to alter the election.
The beneficiary of that had extremely pro Russian views

And members of his campaign had multiple interactions with Russians that they attempted to hide.


Qanon is moronic. This conspiracy theory extremely mild in the history of conspiracy theories.

Didn't that just end up being some stupid click generating, pot-stirring outfit that did stuff on both sides?

I haven't paid very close attention to any of this. As far as I'm concerned, if you start poking around in any random group of political players in Washington, you'll find plenty you can indict on. There is a background radiation of corruption and money and influence peddling and shady deals and yes, foreign influence (above all, that influence comes primarily from Israel and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.) so I never thought much of the fact that they could go after some people in Trump's orbit. Of course they could.

Trump is a traitor but not because of anything related to Russia, so far as I can tell. He's a traitor for his limp and now back-stabbing approach to immigration enforcement. He could have revoked the DACA crap day 1, as he said he would. He didn't. He could have made a real effort to end birthright citizenship - he didn't. He could have pulled out every stop to get a proper wall built, and he did not.

Now he's talking about bringing in massive numbers of immigrants to take jobs from Americans and continue (even accelerate) the process of dispossession.

Traitor.

If there's a foreign nation with undue influence on Trump, it's the same one it is for every other American politician with at most, a couple of exceptions: Israel.
 
Last edited:
So there is something I am still not clear on.

The report does not recommend any indictments. I can see that having two possible meanings:

1: The report may conclude that the President didn't do anything indictable.

or

2: The report may conclude that the President committed crimes, but the FBI/Meuller may feel that it is not possible to indict a sitting president. This seems to be the policy of the Justice Department:

The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to legal experts.

Does anybody have ideas as to which is more likely?
 
So there is something I am still not clear on.

The report does not recommend any indictments. I can see that having two possible meanings:

1: The report may conclude that the President didn't do anything indictable.

or

2: The report may conclude that the President committed crimes, but the FBI/Meuller may feel that it is not possible to indict a sitting president. This seems to be the policy of the Justice Department:



Does anybody have ideas as to which is more likely?

The problem for 2 is no one else involved has been indicted for it either
 
Didn't that just end up being some stupid click generating, pot-stirring outfit that did stuff on both sides?

No. Even when it came to that portion of things, though, "did stuff on both sides" is rather misleading, given that the stuff done was quite skewed towards the anti-Hillary/pro-Trump direction.

According to the New Knowledge report, “there appeared to be a strong and consistent preference for then-candidate Donald Trump, beginning in the early primaries,” in the influence operations run by the IRA. By comparison, almost no Russian content favored Trump’s challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the Russians generated an array of anti-Clinton messages in social media posts that appeared to be both left-leaning and right-leaning.

The reports, however, found that a majority of the Kremlin content “focused on societally divisive issues, most notably race.” The IRA’s campaign, Oxford and Graphika wrote, sought to convince African-American voters to “boycott” the elections and turn away from political institutions “by preying on anger with structural inequalities … including police violence, poverty, and disproportionate levels of incarceration.”

Trying to get people who were very likely to vote Democrat not to vote? That sure sounds like an anti-Hillary and pro-Trump move, too. To repeat, "did stuff on both sides" is a dramatic mischaracterization.

I haven't paid very close attention to any of this.

Clearly. Here's another chance to get some summations, either way.

Now he's talking about bringing in massive numbers of immigrants to take jobs from Americans and continue (even accelerate) the process of dispossession.

It may be worth noting that Trump's businesses have quite the history when it comes to knowingly employing illegals, so... expecting him to actually agree with your ideology was quite the long shot from the start.

If there's a foreign nation with undue influence on Trump, it's the same one it is for every other American politician with at most, a couple of exceptions: Israel.

If we go by the Anti-BDS bill, that's looking like just about all Republicans and about half of the Democrats. Waaaaaay too many, yes. Regardless, I am pointedly more concerned about the issue of foreign countries using illegal and underhanded means to exert influence than I am about the issue of foreign countries exerting influence in the first place. That's not to say that the latter isn't important, but that the former is notably more important.
 
Last edited:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ler-report-congress-already-had-facts/585616/
It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that agents purporting to represent Putin’s Russia approached the Trump campaign to ask whether help would be welcome, to which Donald Trump Jr. replied, “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Donald Trump publicly welcomed this help: “I love WikiLeaks!”

It’s solid political science that this help from Russia via WikiLeaks was crucial, possibly decisive, toTrump’s success in the Electoral College in November 2016.
 

One of the most amazing changes of the past 10...wait, 11 years, was Frum being excommunicated by fellow republicans for suggesting that they work alongside democrats on the ACA, so that they could get as many of their favored proposals in as they could. less than 8 years after, and they found themselves in charge of the legislature but too incompetent to legislate, and with a president who is risibly unfit to run a Foot Locker, much less the federal government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom