Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Aridas]

Foreign commentary may be fine, but in our hysterical political climate created by the Left, where if Trump even breathes he is guilty of treason, completely different standards are assigned to Trump.

Man, pretty much every time you post, you demonstrate that you've swallowed brazen right-wing lies about "the Left" and what is actually being said by the average Lefty. You'll do little more than make yourself a target of derisive laughter as long as you keep claiming such absurdities.

For instance Italian member of the European Parliament, Gianni Pittella, campaigned for Hillary Clinton. From Time magazine:

- http://time.com/4429904/dnc-hillary-clinton-italian-europe/

“I have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton because the risk of Donald Trump is too high,” Pittella told TIME. “I believe it is in the interest of the European Union and Italy to have Hillary Clinton in office. A Trump victory could be a disaster for the relationship between the U.S.A. and Italy.”

So foreign interests wanted Hillary Clinton in power. Yet no one on the Left seems the slightest bit bothered by this.

Some did. Some foreign powers wanted Trump in power. If you're only taking it that far, of course it's a "so what?" thing. In either case, they are certainly allowed to employ legal methods. With that said, of course, it would be incredibly stupid to say that the reactions to each endorsement should be treated the same way. If we have, say, a longtime close US ally whose fortunes are closely tied to the US endorsing a candidate, that's reasonable to give some positive weight to. On the other hand, if we've got a long-time rival that has been rather obvious about its hostility and desire to weaken the US, that endorsement should likely be counted as a negative thing.

This isn't rocket science. This isn't double standards. This is basic common sense.

Now imagine if a politician from the Russian Duma attended and spoke at a campaign rally for Trump. The Left would go into an apoplectic rage, demanding investigations, impeachment and treason trials. They would certainly want to ban all Russian politicians from campaigning on behalf of American politicians. Yet a foreign politician from Italy campaigns for Hillary Clinton and it doesn't even register on their outrage meter at all.

This shows that this Russian interference nonsense is just a pretext to get rid of Trump, in other words a coup attempt.

Man, you totally got Lefties with your made up scenario that ignores basic common sense, logic, and reality. That's the way to do it! Show them that your opinion can be safely ignored!

And in a mildly amusing twist, until Trump, Republicans were mostly loudly anti-Russia, once again showing that their "principles" are largely things of convenience, to be discarded the moment that the right-wing propagandists tell them to believe something else.

I asked what false belief did Americans have due to a Russian disinformation campaign. I gave examples of false beliefs Americans had due to western intelligence and western media.

p.s. I would never accuse our pure, pristine and sacralized intelligence agencies of making up or promoting BS.

Of much more relevance, you're demonstrating false beliefs that are almost certainly held because of right-wing disinformation campaigns about Trump-Russia and "the Left."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

McConnell will neuter any hearings.

I would ask you how but I can already see you don't understand that McConnell has no power in the House.

[/rabbit hole]

 

[I Am The Scum]

This shows that this Russian interference nonsense is just a pretext to get rid of Trump, in other words a coup attempt.

Yup, the Democrats are engaged in a grand conspiracy to make Mike Pence the president. You've figured it out. Good job.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I would ask you how but I can already see you don't understand that McConnell has no power in the House.

[/rabbit hole]

In the scenario I was discussing with dasmiller, the conversation was about the impeachment vote and not house hearings. If the conversation was about hearings, the answer would have been different.

 

[quadraginta]

Except that not even the sainted Robert Mueller, peace be upon him, could bring a conspiracy case against Trump.

Maybe not "conspiracy", but that isn't the only carcass on the table.

He also told us why he couldn't bring an obstruction case against Trump ... and it wasn't because of lack of evidence.

 

[quadraginta]

Suppose a DA had a police report that showed that a powerful person in his district had committed some serious crimes, and the DA decided not to pursue it because he believed that it would politically costly for him. We'd consider him a bad person for putting career considerations above his duty to the public.

Why is it different for Congress? If they (in this case, House Democrats) believe that there's sufficient evidence that Trump committed significant crimes, how can they ethically not impeach?

Of course, the Senate may simply ignore it or vote that Trump is really a great guy, and that would be unethical of the Senate, but the House can't control that. If the House doesn't impeach, then the House Democrats are being unethical so that the Senate Republicans can ethically ignore Trump's crimes.

If your hypothetical D.A. brings charges to trial that he knows he cannot get past a jury, then he is also shirking his duty.

Impeachment is just the House bringing the charges. The Senate is the jury.

 

[Bob001]

If your hypothetical D.A. brings charges to trial that he knows he cannot get past a jury, then he is also shirking his duty.

Impeachment is just the House bringing the charges. The Senate is the jury.

The difference is that a jury is expected to consider the evidence fairly, without preconceptions or prejudice, and to convict the defendant if the evidence requires it. That's more than we can expect from a Repub Senate. Impeaching Trump in the House would at least establish a definitive record of his misconduct for the voters and for history. It would also force Repub Senators to vote, and explain themselves to their constituents.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If your hypothetical D.A. brings charges to trial that he knows he cannot get past a jury, then he is also shirking his duty.

Impeachment is just the House bringing the charges. The Senate is the jury.

You are ignoring the court of public opinion.

Regardless you believe the only reason to impeach is if you can convict, it is not the only reason.

And you don't know that with the evidence brought to light the Senate won't convict. You only know it would be undemocratically partisan at the moment.

Yes, McConnell can ignore the Constitution and refuse or stall the 'trial'. But if public opinion means the GOP will lose the Senate if McConnell does that, I would wager McConnell would throw Trump under the bus. Or maybe that would be McConnell's Hail Mary, to vote and not convict.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

McConnell is not in such a secure position he can afford to ignore public opinion on impeachment.

March 2019: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) approval rating is underwater in Kentucky ahead of his reelection race next year, according to a new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released Thursday.”

 

[quadraginta]

You are ignoring the court of public opinion.

No, I'm not. I was addressing the point brought up in the post I was responding to. Not a point which wasn't.

Regardless you believe the only reason to impeach is if you can convict, it is not the only reason.

And you don't know that with the evidence brought to light the Senate won't convict. You only know it would be undemocratically partisan at the moment.

And I've seen little which suggests it would change, regardless of any evidence which may be brought to light.

I think that House investigations, unfettered by Senate Republican shenanigans, are the right way to bring more evidence to light ... at this time. I think it's too early to start an impeachment process.

That doesn't mean I'm against such a process.

Yes, McConnell can ignore the Constitution and refuse or stall the 'trial'. But if public opinion means the GOP will lose the Senate if McConnell does that, I would wager McConnell would throw Trump under the bus. Or maybe that would be McConnell's Hail Mary, to vote and not convict.

That's a big "if".

Right now I see little sign that any Republicans are going to endanger their primary chances by sticking with Trump, and until they do they aren't going to change their ways.


House investigations will have the same effect on the 'general public', without making Trump into any more of a martyr that he already is with his base.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I will admit that I don’t get it at all. You’re saying that Clinton lost because she alienated voters? Trump insulted women, vets, minorities, and even his own base. It’s clearly a double standard, so it isn’t that.

Here, I will explain it to you...
Trump’s extreme popularity comes from him not being a Washington politician. He is absolutely correct that he can pretty much do whatever he wants with no repercussions. He is enormously popular. He is viewed as a maverick, so when he says or tweets something offensive, it doesn’t matter because it is all about him not playing by political rules; it’s all about him being different than all the other politicians. He is going to win 2020 by a landslide.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Here, I will explain it to you...
Trump’s extreme popularity comes from him not being a Washington politician. He is absolutely correct that he can pretty much do whatever he wants with no repercussions. He is enormously popular. He is viewed as a maverick, so when he says or tweets something offensive, it doesn’t matter because it is all about him not playing by political rules; it’s all about him being different than all the other politicians. He is going to win 2020 by a landslide.

This is wrong. Trump was neither popular during the campaign nor as president.

He is so unpopular, he is underperforming in this economy.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Here, I will explain it to you...
Trump’s extreme popularity...

Can you explain to me how a 40.3% approval rating among adults translates to “extreme popularity”?

 

[Stacyhs]

Can you explain to me how a 40.3% approval rating among adults translates to “extreme popularity”?

In the same way that he had 'the largest inauguration crowd in history', he's our 'favorite President (sic)' and we're having 'the greatest economy that we've had in our history'.

 

[Bob001]

Another short catalog of Trumpian corruption:

We passed the “what did he just say?” moment with Donald Trump years ago, about the time we passed the “what did he just do?” moment. Everyone knows he’s a thief. How many times has it been reported that he stiffed contractors when he built every single building he ever put up? That’s theft of services, a crime. How many times has it been reported that he stiffed the banks that loaned him money on his real estate deals that went bankrupt? That’s bank fraud. How many times has it been reported that he treated his personal foundation like a piggy bank? That’s tax fraud.

Nobody can keep up with the man. He lies as he breathes. He steals money. He conspires with foreign powers – Russia and Saudi Arabia anyone? — to do deals that would benefit himself, his family, and people close to him. He has charged the government tens of millions of dollars so he can travel to his own resorts to play golf. He charges the government rent for the Secret Service agents who protect him. He charges the government for meals for the agents eat which is prepared by his resorts because there are no other sources of food nearby for his protection detail. He refused to divest himself of his personal businesses or to put them in blind trusts and continues to run them as president for his own benefit. We are paying to enrich this man every single day he is in office. He loves it. Being president is the only job he’s ever had where he can’t go bankrupt.

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/01/go-ahead-impeach-trump/

But the author makes the point that the Constitution requires that the Senate "shall" conduct a trial if the President is impeached, but without schedules or deadlines. Nothing would prevent McConnell from refusing to conduct a trial in an election year, just as he refused to consider Merrick Garland in an election year. Then after the election, if Trump wins McConnell can say "The people have spoken, the matter is closed," and if Trump loses he can say "He's on his way out, the matter is closed." There's no guarantee of a trial in the Senate.

 

[Aridas]

To be fair, he is incredibly popular for a guy who's been openly doing all the corrupt and criminal stuff that he's done for pretty much his entire life. He's the kind of guy who really does help one distinguish between actual patriots and fake patriots, though.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Another short catalog of Trumpian corruption:

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/01/go-ahead-impeach-trump/

But the author makes the point that the Constitution requires that the Senate "shall" conduct a trial if the President is impeached, but without schedules or deadlines. Nothing would prevent McConnell from refusing to conduct a trial in an election year, just as he refused to consider Merrick Garland in an election year. Then after the election, if Trump wins McConnell can say "The people have spoken, the matter is closed," and if Trump loses he can say "He's on his way out, the matter is closed." There's no guarantee of a trial in the Senate.

Further, in the Jackson impeachment, there were 11 articles of impeachment, the senators voted in 3 of them, and just stopped. They do not seem to be required to have a vote.

 

[Upchurch]

He is viewed as a maverick, so when he says or tweets something offensive, it doesn’t matter because it is all about him not playing by political rules;

Or not playing by legal and constitutional rules either, apparently.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just a reminder, the Democrats have to compete with Trump TV. The press has a limited attention span. We lost that game in 2016. We aren't going to beat Trump TV with candidate press conferences.

 

[tanabear]

Don't know. Why don't you encourage impeachment hearings so we can find out?

So what was the Mueller investigation trying to accomplish? Why weren't they able to discover after 30 million dollars and 22 months of "investigating" if Joseph Mifsud was a Russian agent or not? Do you think any of the bozos in the House of Representatives care at all about Joseph Mifsud? If the impeachment is regarding "obstruction" there would be no reason for this bit of information to be looked at.

Note: James Comey in his Washington Post op-ed just 4 days ago wrote: "In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails..."

Here he is referring to George Papadopoulos and his meeting with Joseph Mifsud. Yet, the Mueller Report does not call Mifsud a Russian agent.

Of course, you don't really care about what is 'true'. You care about what is 'useful'. If the belief is useful in getting rid of Trump(Mifsud is a Russian agent) then you'll promote it. If the belief is not useful to that end you will ignore or disparage it.

Also, you're forgetting some differences: Italy is an ally of the U.S., but Russia isn't an ally of the U.S. Italy is in NATO, which requires all members to aid another that is attacked, but Russia isn't in NATO.

You also didn't address my point about the duplicity of Russian attempts to influence our election. Transparency is an important distinction between what Putin did to influence our election and what Pittella, the Italian politician, did. Putin did what he did in secret, Pittella was in plain view.

So an enemy of the U.S. using secret means to influence our election is a different thing than a political of an allied country endorsing or even campaigning for a candidate..

We know that Russia is hostile to the USA because they decided to locate their country next to many of our military bases. Had the Russians been less aggressive and warlike they would have decided to locate their country somewhere else.

During the Cold War, and the struggle between Freedom and Communism it made sense to view Russia as hostile to American interests. However, since the fall of Communism there is no reason for the current hostility with Russia. Why do the warmongers, war criminals and war profiteers who inhabit our Deep State and military industrial complex(MIC) get to decide who is friendly and who is a foe? Why does NATO still exist? The war machine always needs an "enemy" to justify it's bloated existence, same for NATO.

Regarding Russian attempts to influence the election, nothing has been officially proven, unless you consider Deep State propaganda evidence. However, there is evidence that foreigners did surreptitiously influence our election. His name is Christopher Steele and he created wild and crazy conspiracy theories to hurt Trump. He even leaked some of his fake information to the press for Americans to read and which allowed a FISA court to approve spying on Americans. Yet the Left doesn't seem to be the slightest bit outraged by any of this foreign meddling. Anything that hurts Trump is acceptable, anything that helps him is treason.

Of much more relevance, you're demonstrating false beliefs that are almost certainly held because of right-wing disinformation campaigns about Trump-Russia and "the Left."

What false beliefs do I have due to "right-wing" disinformation?