
In this post, JUST HOW MUCH SHOULD WE TRUST OUR LEADERS? — PART 2, we considered the possibility that our elites might be more interested in organizing against us than with us. Here we consider the magnitude and comprehensive nature of their deceptions.
It is not really a strange problem. Nature is rife with deception. Deception in animals (en.wikipedia.org) lists numerous examples. Therefore, when people behave like animals we should expect them to be deceptive.
deception noun
de·cep·tion | \ di-ˈsep-shən \1a : the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid : the act of deceiving
//resorting to falsehood and deception
//used deception to leak the classified information
b : the fact or condition of being deceived
//the deception of his audience
2 : something that deceives : TRICK
//fooled by a scam artist’s clever deception
Political leaders have a reputation for audacious deception. Nevertheless, it is still one of the ironies of history that the Nazis developed the expression, the “Big Lie,” to sully the reputation of their enemies.
What about today? What about America? In THE TABLES ARE TURNED, we considered what the Attorney General had to say about Mueller’s report, that is, Muellers findings on the Trump’s campaign’s alleged collusion with the Russians and whether President Trump tried to obstruct justice. Since then the better part of a week has passed. What have people talked about? What else should we be talking about?
What have people talked about?
- There has been much discussion over whether Attorney General Bill Barr and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein properly summarized Mueller’s report. Since Mueller and his team have remained silent, it seems likely that they did. Nonetheless, Democrats demand the whole report, even though there are obvious reasons (enforced by law) that portions of the report need to remain secret.
- Does the report exonerate President Trump? As a practical matter it does. For a straightforward discussion, see King Solomon, Vindication by Who?
- Do we need another investigation? Do we need to look into the circumstances that led to the absurd investigation of President Trump and his supposed collusion with the Russians?
What else should we be talking about? What other lies have we been fed by our leaders and the news media? Consider the ridiculous things that The Establishment (see WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CHALLENGE THE ESTABLISHMENT — PART 3) and their news media cronies want us to believe.
- Mankind “controls” the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. In 10 years we will have irreversibly damaged the climate. The Establishment has been peddling this nonsense for for forty years.
- Illegal immigration is not a problem. The Establishment, people who live behind walls, tell us walls don’t work, that a wall on our southern border would be a waste of money. Meanwhile, we have no control over who is crossing our southern border. Our immigration system doesn’t even make sense, unless all you want is cheap labor and votes that can be bought cheaply.
- Socialism — more government — is a good idea, and Jesus would approve. That’s true? Well, for some reason The Establishment seems unable to explain what distinguishes redistributing the wealth from stealing. However, stealing is not the fundamental problem with Socialism, which is not much different from Marxism. What happens when the state decides the following axiom is correct?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs — Karl Marx (check out the video here (prageru.com))
Then we belong to the state, not ourselves. Then instead of protecting our rights, the state decides what rights our leaders will allow us.
- The Constitution is a “living document.” How is a “living document,” a document that means whatever our leaders think it ought to mean, suppose to protect our rights? Apparently, only the folks wearing black robes can understand the answer to that question.
- It does not make any difference whether we balance the Federal budget. Please observe that us older folks want to believe this factoid is true. Why? Most of the Federal budget goes into Social Security and Medicare, not national defense. Unfortunately, anyone who knows what a Ponzi scheme looks like squirms when he considers Social Security and Medicare. Because they cannot change the rules in the middle of the “game,” our government does not allow private companies to set up Ponzi schemes. In the private sector such schemes go bankrupt, and the cheated investors quickly become outraged. However, when our government operates such a racket, it can change the rules and keep the scheme operating for decades. Then it becomes someone else’s problem, like our grandchildren’s problem.
- Government should run our educational system. When America was mostly rural and neighbors got together to set up schools, “government-run” schools sort of made sense. Now America is predominantly urban, and government-run schools means four different committees of public officials (including a vast administrative infrastructure) run our schools. Thus, we have officials from our school boards, local governments, state governments, and Federal Government all sticking their costly noses into how we run our schools. Unlike the old days, parents working with their neighbors no longer run the schools where they send their children. Unfortunately, our colleges and universities are also dominated by government, and the cost of college is ridiculous too.
Anyway, this is hardly a comprehensive list of all the lies. I wish it were.
Well, I”ve been out all day and the thread has really moved on so I’ll just start a new post.
Thank you, Doug, for providing the text of Schiff’s statement.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign”
What was the dirt? Oh, yeah…that Hillary obtained Russian money to influence the election. Weird.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help — no, instead that son said he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.
At that point he didn’t know whether it was true or not. Do we call the FBI based on forth-hand (a musician told me that his father told him that an influential person said…) rumor?
You might think it was ok that he took that meeting.
AND?!? Why wouldn’t he take it? I’d have taken it too. But nothing came of it.
You might think it’s ok that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting.
It should be mentioned now that the Democratic campaign was using US intelligence to wiretap and spy on the Republican campaign (for same suspected reasons) at the time this meeting took place.
You might think it’s ok that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting.
He repeats himself.
You might think it’s ok that they concealed it from the public. If there were anything to it, they would have made it public I’m sure. It was in their interest to do so.
“You might think it’s ok that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think it’s OK. I don’t.”
Is Schiff saying this with a straight face? Is there any note or hint of irony? I find it hard to fathom a more hypocritical statement considering the subject matter.
“You might think it’s OK that [Flynn] secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining US sanctions & then lied about it to the FBI.
The FBI statements (I’ve linked to before, not going to try to find it again) indicate they didn’t believe Flynn was being intentionally misleading, more that he had forgotten (which is understandable…I can’t remember everything I spoke about just last week, and depending on the number of meetings he went to, I find it very plausible. Next: Was the meeting secret? Meetings with Ambassadors and establishing diplomatic relationships is part and parcel to the job description of National Security Advisor. National Security Advisors are typically appointed from other positions in government where they have recent experience in international affairs. So they would have established relationships. Doing so asap after being appointed would seem the smart thing to me.
I’m going to skip the part about trolls since the statement “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election” makes it clear that is a canard. But it is worth mentioning that trolls also favored Hillary. They targeted BOTH campaigns. The point of the trolling seems more to sow discord than anything else. By that measure, Schiff himself is most certainly a Russian puppet.
“You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent. You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser-designate secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK he lied about it to the FBI.”
So now he’s repeated himself again.
Ends with some rant about collusion.
It wasn’t very long ago the Democrats were asserting that Mueller was Trump’s worst nightmare.
He was, they said, professional and thorough.
Well, let me repeat what he stated, once more: “the Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election.”
@Liz
Great reply! The Republicans could use you on that committee.
Heh, thanks Citizen Tom.
I’m trying to remain calm…kind of glad I wrote that in a hurry. The more I think about it, the more het up I get.
The diplomad is in rare form today. 😆
https://www.thediplomad.com/2019/03/russian-collusion-delusion-as-plan-b-or.html
@Liz
The diplomad is something to look forward to for tomorrow.
Saw your comments at Doug’s civil war post. Doug isn’t rational about Trump.
You showed up at the right time, Liz.. Tom was getting beat up all alone here.
@Liz
Don’t know why, but my cell phone doesn’t like your comments. Guess it is that Liberal Democrat Google OS.
Anyway, I changed your name back from Array to Liz.
Enjoyed the Diplomad post. Thank you!
Hey Citizen Tom…I have that trouble on some blogs. I don’t know why.
I prefer to post with the kitten in the frog helmet image because it’s more distinctive, but doesn’t work everywhere.
I can’t use the “like” button here either. That I really wish I could do. 🙂
@Liz
I think maybe you’re the one who should go to law school.
So your answer then is pretty much that the picture of Trump and his campaign painted by the undisputed facts that Schiff presents is ok with you.
Thanks for at least trying to answer that question. It is informative as to how low the GOP baseline on corruption can sink, and the MAGA hat wearing base (and thus the Republican leadership) will still slavishly fall in line. Maybe I’m wrong, but low seems bottomless to me, the hatred of Democrats is so great.
I have commented further on this father below. Responding point by points seems superfluous given the endless acceptance of Trump’s immorality.
I’m curious about something though. You’re a critical thinker who I know is more than capable of holding opposing ideas in your head at the same. If Clinton had won the election but the damning facts and prosecutions were exactly the same as they are now against Trump, would you be making the same lawyerly defense of her?
@Liz
Oh, and BTW, as to the Trump tower meeting- without notifying law enforcement either before or after, you would have taken a meeting with known Russian agents to receive what you knew to be, at the very least, illegally stolen emails, and at the very worst, the product of espionage against your own country by a corrupt foreign adversary? Somehow I doubt that. Only having gotten to know you here, I don’t think that you are either that stupid or that immoral.
@tsalmon
Hate to tell you this, but most businessmen don’t have security clearances. Most people don’t think the mere prospect of someone sharing a “secret” with them requires a call to the FBI. So before you fall again, please get off your high horse.
Tom, Liz,
Does one have to be a car dealer to know not accept a stolen car? Even if we wish to believe Trump Junior was that incredulous, then Trump’s campaign chairman knew better.
Given the emails that are public, it appears that:
1. The Trump campaign members knew that they were meeting with representatives of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton, and we’re excited about the prospect.
2. That dirt could have only come by illegal means. If the Russians had hacked and stolen Clinton’s personal emails, that is still illegal. If the Russians had hacked and stolen Clinton’s official emails as Secretary of State, then that is a willingness to participate in Russian espionage, and if the emails had proved that Clinton kept highly classified information in her personal server, that makes the circumstances of conspiracy to commit espionage worse, not better.
3. The fact that the Russians actually hacked the Clinton campaign’s emails instead of the Clinton emails as the Secretary of State that Trump openly solicited of the Russians does not excuse either the idiocy or the traitorous nature of taking this meeting without notifying the authorities. So this ends up being more like Nixon wanting to take and use the burglarized DNC files knowing that they were the product of an illegal break in, except instead of the burglars being bumbling partisan Americans, they were Russian agents. Arguably, whatever else we might think of him, Nixon was a patriot, whereas Trump could care less about his country.
4. What did the Trump campaign expect to trade in return for these emails? The Russians wanted something and in the Republican campaign platform, the Trump campaign gave it to them. Ya, it was all about adoptions.
5. You think the fact that Trump alleged that the Russians didn’t actually present the illegal dirt that they hoped to receive somehow makes it all better? First of all, do you really think that either Manafort or the Russians would be stupid enough to show up at the meeting with actual stolen emails or be stupid enough to accept them there. Why do that when you can simply arrange to release them through Wikileaks? Second, taking the meeting compromises all the Americans involved. If Trump didn’t realize that his campaign and his son had done wrong, why lie and cover it up? Apparent unwittingness does not make compromat less effective – unwittingness is the first tool of the trade and trap of espionage. There is an old saying amongst scam artists that you can’t scam an honest man. Trump has been compromised by so many lies involving the Russians, from this meeting to Moscow Trump Towers to private meetings with Putin, that it is hard to keep up with his vulnerabilities.
See my response below about Steele. How did he obtain his information?
Was it all by legal means? Seems no one knows or cares, they just do the funding and cheer about pee pee sheets.
That dirt could have only come by illegal means
Why? It was a meeting regarding a rumor. With a lawyer (this would be a person who supposedly practices law). “Hey I just talked to a Russian guy who is relatives with a guy who knows a guy who says he has evidence the Russians are paying the DNC and Hillary” doesn’t even hint the evidence is either illegal or obtained illegally.
For all he knew, they had the receipts.
Mueller didn’t just say there wasn’t enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. He said that after 20 months of investigation with a huge team of FBI agents and prosecutors heralded as being the most aggressive and skilled in the world, they found no evidence of the charges. Do you honestly believe that Mueller would allow Barr to make public distortions about the findings in his investigation and say not a word?
Trump’s son was interrogated for hours before Congress, all evidence of which was available to Mueller who could have prosecuted him for perjury or obstruction of justice if he had lied about anything. He said after reviewing all this evidence there was nothing. Face it, you’ve been punk’d.
I’m not talking about “rumors”. The emails between the parties to the meeting show that they:
a) knew they were talking to representatives from the Russian government.
b) knew or believed that that they would receive “dirt” in the form of what could only be illicitly gotten emails.
c) were enthusiastic about getting that illegally gotten dirt on their American opponent from that foreign adversary.
d) never informed the authorities of the attempted foreign compromise of the Trump campaign, but instead covered it up.
Could I defend the Steele dossier as substantially different and not either improper or criminal? Maybe, probably, who cares? When Clinton goes on trial for it, we can have that discussion, but it is Trump’s campaign and presidency that is at issue, and as I’ve said before, the Clinton whining is nothing but irrelevant whataboutism.
Does the Mueller Report substantially refute these known damaging facts about this meeting or the other undisputed damaging facts that Schiff asserts. Don’t know, but nothing in either of the two brief letters that Barr put out would make anyone think anything has changed in these facts. The facts are damning, and they are what they are regardless of whether the media is biased or Clinton is the Antichrist.
@tsalmon
Could you at least use that stupid word correctly?
1. Pointing out that the H. Clinton, Obama, and DOJ/FBI appointees and senior leaders tried to frame Trump is not a whataboutism.
2. Pointing out that the alternative Trump was a more corrupt H. Clinton is not a whataboutism.
3. Point to Barr’s and Rosenstein’s summary and stating it clears Trump is not a whataboutism.
What are whataboutism?
1. We have not read the whole Mueller report.
2. Schiff’s stupid remarks.
3. The fact that Mueller indicted people on charges that had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.
4. The fact that Trump is a womanizer, egotistical, and foul-mouth. Get use to it. The alternative was H. Clinton.
Here is a text of Trump Junior’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4464062-Donald-Trump-Jr-Senate-Judiciary-Committee.html
@Liz
Since Tony and Doug think a summary is not enough, do you expect them to read the whole transcript m
I’m hoping Trump will read it. But not likely.
Since Tony and Doug think a summary is not enough, do you expect them to read the whole transcript
Not really but you never know.
Really the only way to debunk a conspiracy theory is to go to the source.
And the transcript thoroughly debunks TSalmon’s point above.
1) The Trump campaign members knew that they were meeting with representatives of the Russian government –
Nope
2) That dirt could have only come by illegal means-
Nope
3) Something about treason, and something about Nixon-like-
Nope
4) They expected a trade of some sort-
Nope
And so forth.
”Oh, and BTW, as to the Trump tower meeting- without notifying law enforcement either before or after, you would have taken a meeting with known Russian agents to receive what you knew to be, at the very least, illegally stolen emails, and at the very worst, the product of espionage against your own country by a corrupt foreign adversary? Somehow I doubt that. Only having gotten to know you here, I don’t think that you are either that stupid or that immoral.
That’s quite a mouthful above. Let’s remember this was a meeting where a (music producer I think?) who represented a Russian pop star said that he said his father knew a person who could provide evidence that the Russians were funding the DNC and Hillary. That’s a rumor. But be that as it may…
Didn’t Christopher Steele run all around Russia for months looking for evidence against Trump whenever and wherever he could find it? This evidence was not only welcome but actively funded…I don’t recall your admonition that this was stupid and immoral behavior…think the word was “patriot” if memory serves.
We should play the “you could be a Russian puppet” game.
Unlike the “you might be a redneck” game, this one is virtually 100 percent assured (if you work or have ever worked, traveled, or been involved in government in any international capacity).
Schiff himself would fail the Russia agent test on multiple factors, he’s a “colluder” for sure
-Has he ever had any conversations with any Russians who are associated with Putin? Yep all senior politicians have had contact with high ranking Russians.
-Could we find any suspicious trolling related to Schiff’s election that might have involved Russia? The entire Russian troll farm operation is based on ads that are negative for both sides to sow discord. So, yep…
I know a guy who got a vase from Putin, for his wedding years back.
He married a Russian woman whose father was a businessman in Moscow. He went to dinner one night and there was his future father in law, Putin, and (if memory serves) three leaders from three other former warsaw pact countries. He said Putin just stared at him all night. Made him very uneasy. After their wedding, the vase showed up at their new home. He put it in a storage shed somewhere, and didn’t take it out for several years.
At any rate, if he ever runs for president he would fail the Russian agent test for sure. They could really do a lot with that little story.
Just to add, funny how all other countries are forgotten here. As though the only ones who try to influence our elections are those awful Russians.
Helps to keep things simple I suppose (especially if you were the SoS and authorizing weapons transfers during the time your spouse was getting paid to make million dollar speeches all around the world…no foreign agents anywhere, of course..nah, no conflicts of interest there).
@tsalmon
Trump is evil. H. Clinton is not? And why is H. Clinton not evil? The Establishment has decided she should win, and the sacred Oracle we call the mainstream news media has declared he to be without sin?Therefore, the DOJ priesthood has immunized all her associates from prosecution?
Hallelujah?
So your answer then is pretty much that the picture of Trump and his campaign painted by the undisputed facts that Schiff presents is ok with you.
I don’t even understand why you find the “undisputed facts” compelling.
Did the “facts” become more compelling as he repeated himself, rephrased to make it sound like new and different “facts”? It would be one thing if this were an extemporaneous speech and he was on some roll and forgot that he had already made the same points. But this was obviously prepared. That means it was purposely designed to be misleading. This gives you no pause?
Just about every point he made we’ve been over in the past and the bottom line was always, “Wait and see what Mueller determines”.
Now Mueller has made his determination after two years of extensive investigative work
Thanks for at least trying to answer that question. It is informative as to how low the GOP baseline on corruption can sink, and the MAGA hat wearing base (and thus the Republican leadership) will still slavishly fall in line.
You might want to read Greenwald, and (since you have the ability to stream) watch his video debate here.
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/25/watch-a-contentious-constructive-debate-on-the-media-and-political-humiliation-from-the-mueller-report/
He is: Far left in political leanings, homosexual, and lives in South America.
His commentary cannot be so easily dismissed as blind bias.
I’ll quote some of it:
I OBVIOUSLY INTENDED to write about the fallout from Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report: specifically his definitive finding that “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” and that “the report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.” Those two sentences alone permanently destroyed the prevailing Trump/Russia narratives – from blackmail fantasies to collusion tales – that consumed most of U.S. politics and media discourse for much of the last three years.
Just three weeks ago – three weeks ago – former CIA Director and now NBC News analyst John Brennan confidently predicted that Mueller was just weeks if not days away from arresting members “of the Trump family” on charges of conspiring with the Russians as his final act. Just watch the deceitful, propagandistic trash that MSNBC in particular fed to their viewers for two straight years, all while essentially banning any dissenters or skeptics of the narrative they peddled to the great profit of the network and its stars:
((snip))But what prevented me from writing anything is that Matt Taibbi brilliantly wrote everything I wanted to say in this definitive article on the debacle, one that I urge everyone to read. It lays out in indisputable, horrific detail the media’s indescribably and relentlessly reckless behavior over the last three years, whereby they abused and exploited valid fears of Trump to sell – for their own profit and benefit – completely false and baseless conspiracy theories that have now been completely debunked by their own anointed authority. I won’t excerpt any parts of it because it should be read in full by as many people as possible.
As Taibbi says, while the Iraq War was far worse in terms of impact (at least thus far), the media’s endless series of deceitful and manipulative behavior and spreading of blatantly false conspiracy theories since 2016 was far worse. In sum, Rachel Maddow is the Judy Miller of the Trump/Russia story, except that unlike Miller – who was scapegoated for behavior that many of her male colleagues also engaged in to the point where her career and reputation was destroyed – Maddow, who makes $10 million a year from NBC, is too valuable a corporate brand and too much of a liberal celebrity for any consequences or accountability to be permitted. Another difference is that Maddow was so far more frequently off the deep end – way off the deep end, in another universe totally devoid of basically rationality – than Miller ever was.
Per Clinton:
The facts on Clinton are far more damning than Trump. Do you really want me to go down that bunny trail? I have a feeling it would be a waste of my time.
Don’t like it that Trump’s son had a 20 minute meeting with someone loosely affiliated with the Russian government? Do you think when the US Secretary of State’s husband goes to Moscow to make a half a million dollar speech he doesn’t run into anyone affiliated with the Russian government?
If you want me to get on a roll like Schiff, I assure you I could go on a much much MUCH longer while with the “You might think that’s okay, but I don’t speech. And I wouldn’t have to repeat any points.
(I haven’t read the other posts yet…I’ll get to them next… I’ll only respond if I’m not repeating the same points)
Why this incessant lament by Conservatives trying to defend Trump to bring up Hillary Clinton?? Trump IS the President. There are performance expectations, decorum, traditions, that we expect from a sitting President. Whether Trump exhibits those or not he IS the President.. not Hillary Clinton. For the most part she’s not even in politics anymore. Trump.. and therefore his lemming supporters… are constantly comparing to her as if she were important. I think we know that child Trump is likely ticked he didn’t win the popular vote in 2016.. put as Conservatives constantly point out.. that means nothing… except to Trump apparently.
Doug,
Don’t you know? If Clinton is the Antichrist, then Trump must be the Messiah. 😏
“Hail Caesar!” 🙂
@tsalmon
That would be a gotcha except for a couple of details.
1. Republicans, not even Conservatives, never made any serious effort to accuse Obama of anything except doing something that they offered evidence to support. Same with Clinton.
2. Obama has this thing about controlling the weather and raising and lowering the level of the oceans.
Yet I don’t recall him walking on water. You?
@Doug
Trump? Walking on water? No. He only promised to Make America Great Again! I thought that promise was incredible enough.
I wasn’t the one who brought her up.
TSalmon did and that was my response.
But I’ve noticed it’s becoming more and more common for liberals to draw a comparison and bring up Clinton, followed by a “what does Clinton have to do with this?” response.
Uh huh…
Liz,
It makes no more sense to prosecute Trump comparative to Clinton’s innocence as it does to defend Trump comparative to Clinton’s guilt. Good luck trying to defend your client for murder by saying that the guy down the street committed two murders. It’s just irrelevant.
@tsalmon
If you would take the time to investigate, you would find that the DOJ treated H. Clinton like she was their queen, one that could do no wrong. You know as well as I do that Comey let her skate on when they found a server with classified on it in her basement.
It beginning to become obvious that you are perfectly willing to apply different legal standards for Republicans and Democrats. At I traced that to your ignorance. It appears you only listen to Liberal Democrat news, but I am beginning to wonder.
Hail Ceasar!
“Uh huh…”
You’re really contributing a lot to the discussion Doug.
Nice work there.
Sometimes to say a lot means saying as little as possible. Sometimes it’s easier to just let the reader apply their own summation to the meaning in order to to dismiss the author for whatever reason. Sometimes the author could be saying, “This is going nowhere, and I’ve got to go clean the bathroom.” Sometimes… just sometimes.. it simply means what it says… whatever the reader wants. We’ve now gone full circle.
Good luck trying to defend your client for murder by saying that the guy down the street committed two murders. It’s just irrelevant.
That’s not the conversation we’re having. The conversation was like this:
X (person who supports double murderer): “Hey! What if my guy did what your guy did? What would you say then?”
Y (person who supports other guy): “Then he’d be guilty of less than he did!”
X: “That’s just irrelevant”
If you think it’s irrelevant why bring it up?
Because the relevance WAS the irrelevance.
If Clinton had won the election but the damning facts and prosecutions were exactly the same as they are now against Trump, would you be making the same lawyerly defense of her?
So, Doug, the statement above is intended to be irrelevantly relevant?
Or is it relevantly irrelevant?
I should warn you, I gave up alcohol for Lent so I might not be able to understand this until after Easter.
Ahh.. but pot is now legal.
No Liz, it’s more like you are defending on evidense that your client committed murder by saying that his competitor down the street committed two murders. In exasperation, the prosecutor says, well if the murderer down the street were guilty of the same facts as your client would you defend her the same way, or would you want her to be convicted? If your answer is “no” to the former or yes the latter, then you’re being inconsistent in your defense. Either way, the defense is irrelevant.
There ya go.. I knew there was something irrelevant here.
I provided a long (ignored) response and ended with an answer to your question. If you didn’t want me to answer the question you should not have asked it.
A man ignoring a woman??? Please say it ain’t so!
@Liz
“I provided a long (ignored) response and ended with an answer to your question. If you didn’t want me to answer the question you should not have asked it.”
No Liz, I always appreciate your responses. Like I said, you’re the one who should go to law school.
You’ve heard the old saw that, if you’re
good on the law, argue the law, and if you’re good on the facts, argue the facts, but if you’ve got neither the law nor the facts on your side, then pound the table and scream like crazy. Keep pounding, you’re doin great.😊
@tsalmon
She must be. St. Mueller cleared Trump.
“Trump? Walking on water? No. He only promised to Make America Great Again! I thought that promise was incredible enough.“
When were we great? When were we not great? How does Trump define “great”? Is it like beauty, a grievance against a mysterious lost Shangri La that only exists in the imagination of each Trump worshiper? Sorry, I digress, but this line always fascinates me.
@tsalmon
There was a time when Americans did not obsess upon the sins of past generations. Instead, they admired and wanted to imitate their accomplishments.
When did America become great? I think that time came when our people started trying to protect each others rights.
When did we begin to lose that greatness? I that happens when we start making something more important in our lives than God.
That said, is Trump a religious leader. No, but Obama and H.Clinton clearly wanted government to make our moral decisions for us. Trump is working to reduce the role of government.
BTW — Thomas Jefferson was the first Democrat, and he was a real Liberal. Democrats now think of him as a dead white male slave owner.
Yeah.. I’ve asked this before… what particular timeline do we go back to “get back” America’s greatness?
I mean the MAGA line can only be diagnosed as the purest type of populist demagoguery, the kind of propaganda we Baby Boomers were warned about our whole life. It’s “The Big Lie”, the carnival barker’s snake oil solution and the ungrateful lament of lost privilege, all rolled into one mantra. It’s like nostalgic longing for a return to Mom’s bosom and home made apple pie, but our geriatric Mom is now is living in a Redondo Beach retirement home on Social Security and Medicare, and we are already morbidly obese on too many frozen pies from Marie Callender.
@tsalmon
Undoubtedly, MAGA means different things to different people, but Trump has been in office for awhile, and we deplorables are still happy with that slogan.
Instead of being so arrogant, maybe you try figuring out why what Obama was doing was not working.
Hehe.. you are correct. 🙂
“BTW — Thomas Jefferson was the first Democrat, and he was a real Liberal. Democrats now think of him as a dead white male slave owner.”
Well, you know, he kinda is a dead white, slave owner. I’m not trying to say we shouldn’t appreciate Jefferson for his accomplishments, but we should also recognize all aspects of the man, including the fact that he was born to great privilege.
The average American is a hundred times better off today than they were in Jefferson’s time, and it’s worthwhile give Jefferson some credit for that slow progress, but Jefferson was also part of a system that only the elite Jeffersons of America would honestly be nostalgic for. Do you seriously long for a return to a greatness where the odds are you would be a slave, an indentured servant or an illerate farm worker? Would you want a daughter to be born a woman in that time? No thanks, I prefer to be grateful for all that God has given in this time and make it better, not return to something that never was. That’s the Big Lie of MAGA,, you know.
You accuse me of arrogance? Perhaps, I’m working on humility, and I have a long way to go. However, pride comes in many forms, not the least of which is a sense or grievance and ingratitude good brother.
@tsalmon
When we judge others, we should judge as we wish to be judged. When I consider Jefferson, I consider what he did with his circumstances, and I wish I could do as well with mine.
That’s fair. Me too.
I feel endlessly blessed and that my blessings are endlessly unmerited. But if God loves me then my self loathing in regard to my lack of deserving would be an insult to God, don’t you think? When God says love your fellow humans like you love yourself, doesn’t that imply that we must start by loving ourselves the way that He loves us, despite our undeservedness, despite our faults?
Let’s not demonize or glorify ourselves or each other, but let’s not fail to see each person’s quest for integrity seen in the circumstances in which they find themselves, not to love them less or to idolize them more, not to judge them, but just to see and love them as they are. Love is not blind. It is not uncritical. But it is open eyed and open hearted I think.
What if instead of proclaiming MAGA, the Trump supporter were to say, “I’m going to make myself great again!” When were they great? When were they not great? How much of their greatness, whenever it was, was a gift of time and circumstances? Of their parents? How much would they be being ungrateful for all they have and for all that that had and squandered?
@tsalmon
Kind of a nuisance. Occasionally a comment just tries to hop into the spam queue. Not sure why or what the key sequence might be.
Anyway, it seems you are trying to be soooo magnanimous, positively reeking with humility. Thank you.
I wonder. What should MAGA mean to a Democrat, a humble Democrat? Has there ever been a time when Democrats, humble Democrats, did not feel obligated to boss their neighbors about? Well, back when there were slaves, I guess Democrats did not feel too inclined to boss their white neighbors about. Bossing slaves around is hard work. Lazy slaves have to be told everything, monitored, and punished when they don’t obey. Since it discourages individual initiative, slavery is not a very efficient use of labor.
What about when slavery ended? Well, then we had the Jim Crow laws, and Democrats still had to keep blacks “in their place.” However, blacks still weren’t slaves. So I guess that reduced the workload on humble Democrats. Nobody to love and fully appreciate their enormous virtues. That’s probably why Democrats took an interest in Socialism and started trying to boss their white, yellow, female, LGBTQ, Catholic, Protestant, abled, disabled, aged, young, children, fetuses, anybody, whatever…. neighbors about.
Hummmmm. I guess that’s why humble Democrats don’t think America has ever been great. They have never fully pushed God aside and been completely in charge.
What if instead of proclaiming MAGA, the Trump supporter were to say, “I’m going to make myself great again!”
Many often do say that, I’m sure.
Now imagine a team, and the cheer goes, “Ra ra ree….let’s all work on ourselves, like, individually…”
The purpose of a unifying slogan is to unify, much like a team cheer, or squadron coins, or even a mission statement.
For a slogan to work as intended, it has to be short and catchy.
Unifying positive themes and working on oneself individually are not mutually exclusive things.
Tom,
So when they go low, you go lower? ??
You’re the one who thinks a slavery was those good ole times when we were “great”. If modern day Democrats really are responsible for that, then shouldn’t you be A Dem. Just asking cause which magic MAGA moment was when we were great is soooo confusingly inconsistent.
@tsalmon
You mean Democrats don’t want to hide their history? The political party that wants to tear down all the statues and change the street names led the slavery movement. At its best, Socialism is just the tyranny of the majority, and the Democratic Party is the party of Socialism.
“Now imagine a team, and the cheer goes, “Ra ra ree….let’s all work on ourselves, like, individually…”
The purpose of a unifying slogan is to unify, much like a team cheer, or squadron coins, or even a mission statement.
For a slogan to work as intended, it has to be short and catchy.
Unifying positive themes and working on oneself individually are not mutually exclusive things.”
Ok, got it. So it’s a “unifying” lament, like a rousing dirge. Good times….
@tsalmon
Think about it. Democrats think Making America Great Again is a lament. And you think I am going low? I am just pointing to where you are already at.
So MAGA is like the Israelites, tired of Roman occupation want to go back to those good ole days of Egyptian enslavement.
@tsalmon
It takes someone who vacillates between choosing a former officer of the KKK as “the conscience of the Senate” and trying to tear down all the South’s Civil War statues to say something that absurd.
Ok, got it. So it’s a “unifying” lament, like a rousing dirge. Good times….
I’m pretty sure the liberals would like “We’re number one!” even less. They sure didn’t like “America first” (which is the actual job of the president).
I’ve heard that Trump rallies are great. Packed with very happy, positive, and energized people.
I don’t see that at all. But then again… our worlds are apparently different.
@Doug
You need a seeing eye dog?
Only if you get glasses.
@Doug
I am wearing my glasses. When you get your seeing eye dog, please don’t hang it on your nose.
“Ok, got it. So it’s a
I’m pretty sure the liberals would like ‘We’re number one!’ even less. They sure didn’t like ‘America first’
(which is the actual job of the president).”
Wouldn’t “America First” be copyright infringement on the pre-WWII anti- Semitic Lindbergh isolationist movement. That worked out well, didn’t it?
I’m fine with “We’re Number One” – we are in so many ways that we should be proud of, but unfortunately it has become only aspirational in so many other important ways.
Maybe SPACE FORCE will make us “live long and prosper” again but I think that maybe better, cheaper health care might actually do more for most Americans longevity and prosperity. What exactly is the Republican plan?
I have had great health care, for the past 20 years because I had a union and recently because I have a government. Two concepts that Republicans hate.
So what actually makes America first? Oh, I forgot, it’s in self dealing, tax evading, con artist, election stealing, adulterous billionaires – we are definitely “first” in that category.
Very good! I like that. 🙂
@tsalmon
There you go with whataboutisms, and after I looked up the definition for you.
I don’t see that at all.
Why would you?
You ever attend a Trump rally?
Know anyone who attends Trump rallies in support of Trump?
I have never been to a Trump rally.. I know no one personally who has attended one… but I actually do have a few Trumpian friends who are, thus far, allowing me to live. I have seen a Trump rally on TV.. but of course, it was on one of those left leaning media sources… that quite obviously doctored up the video to only show maniacally clamoring people in MAGA-wear screaming with every utterance from their Dear Leader. (Why does this guy even need a rally?)
Wouldn’t “America First” be copyright infringement on the pre-WWII anti- Semitic Lindbergh isolationist movement. That worked out well, didn’t it?
Wan’t just Lindbergh, and it wasn’t just a social “movement”. Kellogg–Briand Pact outlawed war officially and along with the corresponding disarmament initiatives which placed strict limits the size of forces as well as the amount of money that could be spent. Japan and Germany signed on but ignored theres. There is a lessen there to be sure, but not an anti-Trump one.
”So what actually makes America first? Oh, I forgot, it’s in self dealing, tax evading, con artist, election stealing, adulterous billionaires – we are definitely “first” in that category.”
If you think Trump is first (or even 50th) in rich political corruption you know far less about the world than I thought you did.
General topic related side note:
Just about all of us get 99 percent of our current information about the world from the media. Anyone who refutes this should do a little thought experiment and list the top five most important things going on right now. Odds are good they will be the things the media has covered the most about. All sorts of stuff is going on in the world all the time, but we see what the media decides we should, when we should. That is what we believe to be most important and true.
We see what the INDIVIDUAL media decides. Unlike what the Right perceives as some grand media, deep state, conspiracy nonsense.. the media is not prone to some united political subterfuge against the Right. How could I possibly know that? Am I part of some inner workings of the media with knowledge to make that statement? Nope. But I know business… and I also know some human behavior… and that knowledge has served me well in the past. Am I saying there hasn’t been some collusion between media companies in the past in some form? I am sure it’s been tried.. and we know for sure past political figures of power have tried to affect reporting and it’s worked in some cases to their advantage.
But here’s the greater picture… media companies are first.. companies. Companies must make a profit. The profit comes from numbers of viewers who want to watch that company reporting the news. Do reporters echo a company owner’s political bias? Of course they can… but the moderating consideration there is how deep will a reporter’s journalistic integrity be compromised. Not every reporter or news anchor is whoring out their time on the job only for the money in exchange for them to report only the boss’s bias.
The HUGE problem with the media that is taxing the public’s ability to absorb the news is that there’s a lot of commentary being supplied WITH the news. It’s very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to separating from cable news the actual news from opinion. Again I bang away at this.. we need to be teaching critical thinking skills in schools… not as some elective but as a requirement. A fair number of people just don’t have the personal priority or wherewithal to want to bother thinking through what’s being reported… and simply accept it as face value.
Nope, Liz. Like our leading the world in prison construction, we are definitely ahead in orange bundles of exploding narcissism, and Trump is number one in that category. “We’re number one, lock everyone else up, we’re number one!”🤬🤡🎃👹😡🥕
@tsalmon
Sigh! Once whataboutism after another.
If too many people are in prison in this country, it is because we put people in jail for crimes that should not require jail time. Do we? Otherwise, why is being number one in locking people up a problem?
You ought to listen to some of the clowns in your party. Half of them want to make denying global warming against the law. You checked out the free speech issues on college campuses. Put Liberal Democrats in charge, and we will soon be replacing prisons with concentration camps. That is what communists do.
Obama was in the White House how long? He was restrained about abusing his power? Don’t think so, and I am glad he is gone.
Did you know Trump just got a law passed dealing with prison sentencing and rehabilitation reform? He is working on reducing our prison population. Obama just worked on making the government bigger.
“All sorts of stuff is going on in the world all the time, but we see what the media decides we should, when we should. That is what we believe to be most important and true.”
Well, a free press is a good thing right? Isn’t it in the Constitution or something.
But I get your point, Liz. At least on a national and international level, we seem to be drowning in media but getting a limited amount of information, and only in two flavors. It gives the illusion of us all being informed enough to opinionate on everything when we lack both a deep knowledge on substance or a broad range knowledge on topics.
BREAKING NEWS:
This morning the Southern District of New York unsealed an indictment against President Trump and several members of his family. This has had the unintended consequence of setting off a damaging cataclysmic chain reaction on a national and international scale. The heads of pundits, news reporters and media mavens are literally exploding as they receive this news and attempt to report it. This is sending forth a wave of destruction that is reeking devastation to the news media on a monumental scale.
Oh wait, it’s coming this way. The humanity! The humanity! Good night and good luck America!
Happy April 1.
Honestly, I actually looked up from the keyboard when I read this to glance at CNN on TV and checking the Chyron banner to see if I missed something. 🙂
But, alas,……………………..
Sweet dreams? Don’t think so.
The heads of pundits, news reporters and media mavens are literally exploding as they receive this news and attempt to report it.
For Rachel Maddow it was death by orgasm!
Heh, happy April 1 back at ya!
(and thanks for the warning…I live in a house full of boys and it’s a rare April 1st I’m not pranked before nine AM, but they must’ve forgotten this morning. Now I’m on my guard) 😆
But here’s the greater picture… media companies are first.. companies. Companies must make a profit. The profit comes from numbers of viewers who want to watch that company reporting the news.
Well, FOX news has the most viewership. So by that logic more networks should follow in their footsteps.
Do reporters echo a company owner’s political bias? Of course they can… but the moderating consideration there is how deep will a reporter’s journalistic integrity be compromised.”
And if their integrity outweighs the owner’s political bias, they will be replaced.
See what happened to Lara Logan.
Yes, FOX does lead in the ratings game, to their profit level. But one has to review the reasons why.. to which I have no inside knowledge. Is their strength held by certain shows? Personages? A particular format? Programming? One has to presume subject and content must be holding some interest. But a bit of common sense suggests to me that there might be some skew in regards to viewership as it relates to liberal vs. conservative content. For example… let’s use the normal 60/40 split of Trump supporters to non-Trump supporters as an example. True Conservative content on cable or even regular broadcast media is pretty sparse so a large percentage, if not all, of that 40% could very easily center on FOX. Conversely, the 60% of non-Trumpers could very easily be split among the remaining cable and broadcast sources, and if CNN is #2 in the ratings then very likely they could have, say 35% of that 60% available… the rest being split among the remaining networks.
Just speculating.. as I don’t know the numbers.
FOX is focused on making money from news and entertainment.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FOX/profile?p=FOX
If you look at the other big news outfits, I think you will find that their news organizations are appendages to companies focus on obtaining their revenues from other sources. Hence, FOX tends to see the job of its news channels as providing an audience for advertisers. That is where the money is made. The other news organizations, however, are more likely to see their job as serving the overall corporate interest. That probably has to do more with Crony Capitalism than providing an audience for advertisers.
I would expect no other non-objective nor non-quantitative reply from you on this, Tom.
@Doug
❓
@Doug
You do realize how you ended your last comment?
weird April Fool’s Day joke?
Nope. I fully meant what I didn’t say.
Excellent post, Tom! I so appreciate you and your blog!
@Lynn
Note the reaction of the never Trump Democrats. They can’t help themselves. It is reflexive.
Excellent summary and insight. Thanks. This is sad but true “Anyway, this is hardly a comprehensive list of all the lies. I wish it were.”
Blessings.
It’s more insidious than your list. They want to make you believe that the Earth is a sphere in a vaccuum, circling a giant ball of gas. They have been at it for centuries. How ridiculous can you get?
For all your protestations that this is not a blog on climate change and that you do not want to take the time to look into it, at least you bring it up a lot and your verdict on it is rock solid, undeterred by actual knowledge.
@marmoewp
What are you worried about? Didn’t Democrats vote for the Green New Deal?
@Tom
You know just as well as I do that climate our biosphere can go pound sand for as long as there is no support for addressing climate change in the vast majority of society. As long as half the population believes the lies that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, the politicians vying for their votes will do anything to stop meaningful action from being taken and that alone will be enough to screw the young and future generations.
I am not aware that the Green New Deal is anything more than aspirational goals, so far, without much thought given to feasability of the timetable and details of implementation.
@marmoewp
I have told you repeatedly that I am perfectly willing to vote for the taxation of the use of fossil fuels. I just think we ought to drop all the other taxes and tax the production of pollutants. Instead, the “environmentalists” seem to be much more interested in Socialism. Socialism is clearly a scam.
Is global warming “real”. The “proof” is weak at best. You know that, and I know that. What you have is anecdotal evidence and some computer models that don’t prove anything. So what is there to discuss? Socialism for the sake of sake of solving Global Warming? That’s dumb!
“I have told you repeatedly that I am perfectly willing to vote for the taxation of the use of fossil fuels. I just think we ought to drop all the other taxes and tax the production of pollutants.”
It is good that you support a carbon tax in principle, and I do agree that a carbon tax should not be another tax put on top of the other taxation, however I can not fully subscribe to your rider because of the intended objective of the carbon tax. The carbon tax would have to be raised not to generate a reliable tax revenue, but to drive carbon emitting uses out of competition, fast, which would be driving the tax revenue down to zero in the long run. So you can not just abolish other taxes, but you would have to adjust them on a basically annual basis, such that the total tax revenue remains constant. Another way of implementation that has been proposed, would be to have the carbon tax on top and redistribute its revenue in its entirety as a per capita tax credit to everybody, babies included.
“The “proof” is weak at best. You know that,”
That, my friend, is nonsense.
@marmoewp
Well, then live it up. We only got ten years.
@Tom
You to me: “Hey, look! There’s a rock that needs to be moved and takes two people to move. Go and push it while I make fun of you.”
@marmoewp
Good analogy! There are monuments, pyramids that still stand as monuments to the inflated egos of powerful men. These men enslaved thousands just to move rocks.
You are scared of global warming. I am not. You won’t compromise. I don’t want to be enslaved to the construction of a useless monument. So you can wallow in your fright. I care, but not that much.
Had your predecessors been serious, they would have compromised, we would have started an intelligent system for taxing pollutants forty years ago.
The bliss of wilfull ignorance
@marmoewp
Suppose so. It takes quite a bit of optimism to believe politicians will not want to collect revenue from a tax.
As I said, the object should be a tax on pollutants, and the tax should be related to the overall cost of leaving each pollutant in the environment. That is, we need to establish an economic incentive for designing the things we make and use to be recycled, even energy sources.
When we start estimating the pollution cost of any energy source, it is going to quickly become apparent that all of them come at some pollution cost. Because it is much better for some applications, the idea of completely eliminating fossil fuels probably isn’t going to look so good when compared to the alternatives. Fanaticism doesn’t fix things; it breaks things.
I know that this will just illicit a smoke screen of whataboutisms, but as to each of his points, but seriously, is it ok?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/28/adam-schiff-house-republicans-resign-sot-trump-ath-vpx.cnn
I thought it a good rebut to the committee GOP Trumpsters who are just playing games. I’ve heard this Schiff thing a few times so far.. and it all seems accurate from the standpoint that they are all open ended issues that deserve further query. But then again, I am anti-Trump… so apparently that makes be biased, I’m sure. Seems the GOP “it’s so obvious” crowd presumes Barr’s summations are enough to investigate the culprits wanting to “bring down Trump in a coup” BS.
I guess that there are conspiracy theorists on both sides, but the care that the actual leadership takes with factual accuracy is not close to equal on either side of the party divide – none of the points that Schiff makes are even in dispute.
But the conclusion at the end of Schiff’s speech is what gets me. If the Dems actually are as mendacious and corrupt as Trump obviously, unabashedly is, then they should answer for it. I’m just not seeing close to any equivalency.
How can so many Americans who are so alike in most of the important ways see this reality so differently? Is our confirmation bias really that blinding? Is it something like how New Orleans fans saw that ref’s call as so obviously bad, but the Rams fans just snickered and cheered as if their win wasn’t an undeserved gift? Has honor in government really come down to the level of the blind rage of a shirtless, team color body painted super fan wearing a MAGA hat?
It would seem with Trump there is no bottom his lies as long as he uses most of them to trash talk the other team. Remember when Obama stated with factual inaccuracy what he probably believed – that if you like your healthcare, you can keep it. Those were our salad days of innocent outrage before “Individual 1” could pay off a porn star to hide his affair and then lie about it all right to America’s face, and we accept that as just another Tuesday.
To be fair.. or a tad more accurate.. or a bit more factual… Obama’s oft quoted “lie” ( which wasn’t cause he didn’t need to lie at that point cause the public was already sold on “pre-existing coverage”) is hardly any comparison to Trump’s record of lies and fear mongering across the board.
That being said… yep.. I feel the frustration more than you know.. or maybe you do know. Funny how that 40-45% of Trump supporters is always reflected in the polls. CNN just did one poll asking, after the Barr summary do you feel Trump was exonerated of everything. A crazy 60/40 split yet again… and that 40% apparently prefers Barr’s outcome to waiting for the entire report to be made public. This is a damn crazy political mood in this country. I have no answers as I am just another poor slob in the system trying to make sense of all this. But this I can and will say, Trump after just two years, is the most God-awful image of a president in modern U.S. history… and 40-45% of voting public loves him for that. I see the country going to hell in a hand basket and his supporters see him as some savior of a time past. I’m an old school Republican and I want nothing in common from this GOP bunch of political opportunists with whacked Trumpian ideas.
But, hey.. tomorrow is another day… and the fight begins on at least someone getting to see an unredacted copy of Mueller’s report. The fat lady is far from getting ready to sing.
@Doug
Preexisting insurance coverage? What an oxymoron! We all buy fire insurance after our house has burned down.
What happened before the American Civil War? Southerners convinced themselves there was nothing wrong with slavery, and they wouldn’t debate the matter. They just attacked the abolitionists.
Actually I pretty much was referring to pre-existing medical conditions being accepted under Obamacare. I dunno what you mean.
@Doug
Pre-existing medical conditions. Insurance. Do you insure your car after you have crashed it into a telephone pole?
“Insurance” for pre-existing medical conditions is charity. You can pretend government involvement in such nonsense is some kind of right and wisdom from on God, but that is nonsense. Government does not do charity. Politicians use what they call charity to buy votes, and that’s corrupt.
I dunno where you get all that, Tom. We live in a mobile culture and society where people change jobs, re-locate, etc. and during all that people get sick, acquire medical maladies, and you are saying if one insurance company covers your brain cancer the next company you are “forced” to change to because of geography, should not pick up on that expense and the person should just flounder for that? This is being a Christian?
@Doug
Using the tax system, the government fixed it so your health insurance comes through your employer. Democrats have fought nationalizing health insurance.
So when Trump repeatedly proclaims that Republicans want to continue coverage for preexisting medical conditions, is he lying to you or to everyone else? Are such lies ok as long as Trump does what you want in the end?
This is very confusing to me. If you will just point out which obvious lies magically aren’t really lies, then maybe I’ll see the mysterious pattern that makes all this lying ok to you.
@tsalmon
Except for Jesus, I don’t agree with everything anybody says. And sometimes I don’t understand what Jesus wants as well as I should. 😕
So I suppose I can’t be neatly categorized, not even in the one I want to be in.
Tom,
I like your answer. I like to think that, not only most of us are too complex to allow easy categorization on every issue, but that many of these issues are so complex that they defy simplistic the solutions we spout, even if we actually had the expertise to know what we are opinionating about. 🤓
@tsalmon
Think about what you just said. Our leaders are smart enough to know much much than we do.
hehe.. of course you liked “Tom’s” answer.. cause that was me.
Well yes, I would hope that is one reason why we would elect politicians and they would appoint bureaucrats is because they are better informed on the most relevant issues, or get informed, or listen to the experts who are informed. Why would that aspect of leadership even be controversial? Why even have resoresentative government?
Would you promote a general who didn’t know more than most of us about warfare? Would you want a CEO who didn’t know more than most people about how to run a business? Would you hire a lead scientist who didn’t know more than most of us about science? Would you want to get in an airplane captained by a pilot who didn’t know more about captaining an airplane than the average passenger?
Think about what you are implying. You seem to be implying that I should know as much or more about every issue than the politician we elect to handle to write policy on those issues. I have no such delusions of grandeur nor do I have such cynicism about the superiority of the experts on their areas of expertise.
@tsalmon
When I chose “smart”, I probably did not pick the best word, but it does imply at least some wisdom as well as knowledge and intelligence. Our leaders are not especially smart, but they are definitely cunning. In that respect Trump is unusual. He is brilliant. However, when it comes to running a country as complex as the USA, even Trump is quite limited. No politician has the capacity to make all our decisions or to set up and manage a bureaucracy that can make all our decisions. The USSR tried it. Did not work.
Our success as a nation depends upon minimizing the decisions made by politicians to those it is necessary for them to make. The more we give our politicians, the more difficult it is to get the things that need to be done done.
When we leave decisions to the private market, we do a better job of allocating resources, and we do it more swiftly. Because political solutions require politicians to spend other people’s money, political decisions often involve a bunch of arguments, uncomfortable compromises, and arm-twisting. Wherever it is applied, government become a bottleneck. Slow and painful is just part of the nature of a bureaucracy.
Want an example? Look at our immigration policy. Our immigration policy is such a mess nobody can define the current policy. It looks nothing like what the majority wants, and it doesn’t make anyone happy, unless illegal immigration is what you want. Why is it this way? We have given our “smart” politicians so many things to do we have great difficulty exercising any control over them.
Think of it this way. Our Constitution was designed with numerous checks and balances to give our leaders the incentive to do the right thing. Now our leaders pass legislation to give us the incentive to do the right thing. That’s what earlier generations would have called the tail wagging the dog.
@tsalmon
Of course you are not seeing anything close to equivalency. We have Democrats running the public schools, our colleges and universities, and the so-called mainstream news media, and that’s your question? You don’t know the answer? Over 90 percent of the news coverage of Trump is hostile, and he is still popular. That’s what amazing!
What have you been indoctrinated to do? When someone presents you with politically incorrect facts, facts you don’t want to hear, you attack. That is the same thing Schiff is doing, and that’s why you don’t see anything wrong with it.
What happens when a Conservative speaker is invited to a university these days? Think about it.
Tom,
Are you saying that the reason for the split is that some of us have a superior intellectual ability to overcome our indoctrination by the Orwellian deep state and some of us are just so dumb that we don’t understand that our President’s continuous outrageous lying is somehow truth?
Well then, break each item of what Schiff said down for me so that I can overcome my apparent willful stupidity and so I can finally see the this grand conspiracy the way that the brilliant in-the-know Trump worshippers (like Alex Jones) do. Start with how it’s ok for the highest level of Trump’s campaign, including members of his own family, to take a meeting with people who they know are representing the corrupt Russian government so as to get their illicitly obtained help on trashing their American political opponent. I did serve in the Right leaning military for 20 years and I do get my law degree from a conservative Baptist university so maybe I’m not too far gone in my brain washing by the liberal media and the liberal academia to see that basic decency is somehow just brilliantly camouflaging itself inside all the lies and the corruption Trump continuously, unabashedly exemplifies.
@tsalmon
We do evil when we are willfully ignorant. Instead of God, Adam and Eve chose to believe the devil. Why? You figure it out. Even Adam and Eve seemed to have repented of their stupidity. It is about time you did the same.
We have been breaking down what Schiff said, Trump’s supposed collusion with the Russians, for years. Enough is enough.
Schiff, CNN, and the like have no interest in equivalency. They just attack Trump, and they won’t stop. Fortunately, fewer and fewer people believe them.
Now we need to do a serious investigation of the people who put us through this muckraking nonsense. That would be equivalency.
Where is the evidence you have any interest in such equivalency? Listen to YOU. You almost never defend the Democrats. You just attack Trump.
Nine Republicans told Schiff he needs to resign. That kind of behavior from Republicans is almost unheard of. They are too scare of the news media, but the man is a liar.
C’mon, Tom, Trump brings all this down on himself. What you love about the man’s “style” the rest of the country finds dismal and appalling.. hence reasonable people, across the spectrum, are shocked.. and that is reflected in the media. Just take a gander at late night comedians (I know you don’t watch TV to know this) and you can see the reflection of current social and political trends in their humor.. and across the board they all dislike Trump… SNL, etc. because of Trump. But you and others are mystified as to why everyone picks on Trump so much.
@Doug
He brought the Mueller investigation upon himself?
Well, actually, yes… fire Comey and then admitting on TV it was because of Russia.
@Doug
Why don’t you quote what he said in context?
Just watch the interview video for context. I am always curious how it is the Trump people seem to always know what trump actually means?
@Doug
Well, it helps that we don’t start with the assumption that he is especially evil. Oh, Trump is a womanizer, prideful, and foul mouth, but that doesn’t make him as bad as a Democrat.
Tom, old buddy.. we are all getting grossly fatigued when we get on the verge of teasing the name calling… and I will admit to getting awfully close. No.. not to anyone specifically in here.. but the temptation to scream aloud about Trump and his supporters using language more akin to long shoremen than “civilized” intellectuals we think we pretend to be. Fortunately my TV takes the heat of my exacerbations of our… (ugh.. hurts constantly when I say this).. President and his minions.
I see with your tag… “Oh, Trump is a womanizer, prideful, and foul mouth, but that doesn’t make him as bad as a Democrat.” You’re feeling it too; reverse “deplorables”. From my vantage point it DOES make him as bad or worse than many Democrats I’d not want to see as president… although not any of those running.. so far. Trump is bad. Tom. I’ve been telling you that since the election and he’s not disappointed. Red state middle class working folks I can see having some attraction.. but I am just totally unable to comprehend how smart guys like yourself.. Christian people.. have fallen completely for his garbage.
Anyway.. I respect you can continue the barrage from me and your bro and a couple others here and still stay loyal to him… even if misguided. I fear your shining star sitting behind the Resolute desk has got the piper to pay when these investigations start coming out.
@Doug
We don’t have the luxury these days of electing George Washington’s, Abraham Lincoln’s, and Ronald Reagan’s. We don’t educate very many people to behave like Christians who respect the Constitution anymore. 😥
As far as I can tell Trump respects the Constitution and loves our country. As far as I could tell H. Clinton does not respect the Constitution and loves money. So I voted accordingly, and I see no reason to apologize for my vote or supporting Trump.
Well, of course. Not sure anyone is (yet) asking you to apologize for your vote. Certainly not me.
We were indoctrinated, Tony. Didn’t you feel it? 🙂
Before the last election a number of GOP members of Congress were appalled at Trump and simply thought him a nutcase like most Americans. He gets elected and now most of those same GOP’ers are now Trump lovers simply for politics. So when you talk about Dems being “indoctrinated”.. I’d say your fellow Conservatives in Congress pretty much fit that definition. If Dems are at all fitting what you call “being indoctrinated” against Trump.. I think Trump himself has been the best at indoctrinating people against him.
All nine Republicans on Schiff’s committee told him to resign. I doubt they are all Conservatives.
@Doug
You do realize that it took years for Republicans to get this exasperated. Democrats had Trump pegged as guilty before after he made the joke about the Russians and H. Clinton’s emails.
And you know that was a joke how? Ohhh.. you are presuming Trump had to know better since he was a moral human being, hence “it’s obvious to all” it was a joke?
I had the man pegged for what he is before he was sworn in. I had no prediction of the things he would do (and not do) as a result of what I predicted.. but what he ended up doing in further dividing the country and embarrassing the nation falls in line.
@Doug
You are serious. That’s the scary thing. To think Trump was colluding with the Russians about Hillary’s emails while he was onstage campaigning — to still think there was any collusion — is ludicrous.
I refuse to reach that conclusion like so many Trumpsters have, from Barr’s assessment alone. I will prefer to wait until the REAL report comes out. I personally don’t give a damn about what Presidential collusion has led to illegal activity or not.. never have. Trump is guilty of so much more which is why all the current investigations. A VERY glaring issue to me was the meeting with Putin and his performance.. and the secrecy behind it all.
@Doug
You are at the point where you are using the end to justify the means.
Actually…. that’s what Trump supporters have been presenting since Trump got elected… you don’t care a tinker’s damn about the man nor what he does nor how he does it.. you care more about are his precious campaign promises. The end apparently does justify the means.
@Doug
Yeah! Sure! Handing the country over to the Russians will make America Great again.
@tsalmon
All that has been dragged through the media and magnified to look as important as possible. Look at your own reaction. Someone says something about the sins of Democrats and you drag out CNN to rant on some more about Trump.
Yes. I see now. If Schiff was pranked, then it makes all the points he made based on information that that is available to everyone and which is factually undisputed somehow not true. Yes, you’ve peeled away all the layers of Trump corruption and lies and found the brilliant nugget of truth about Schiff that somehow clears up everything. 😏
Does it matter that Schiff suspected the prank and, unlike the Trump campaign, notified authorities both before and after the prank call? Could that be why this brilliant piece of farce hasn’t been covered much be the biased mainstream media?
Hehe..
@tsalmon
What did Trump’s son do that was materially different?
Tom,
Let’s say you really need a car. Someone comes to you and says that they will meet with you to sell you a car real cheap, but that sounds exactly like the car that was recently stolen from your neighbor. Let’s say that, for good or for bad reasons, you hate your neighbor and would like to see her go bankrupt and move out of the neighborhood. Do you:
(a) Refuse to even speak with the person and notify the authorities.
(b) Notify the authorities, but meet with the suspected thief anyway just to make sure that your suspicions are not unfounded, and then notify the authorities afterward when you realize that the car is stolen.
(c) Not notify the authorities ahead of time, but once you see the car and realize that it is probably stolen, refuse the deal and notify the authorities afterward.
(d). Not notify the authorities either before or after the meeting with the suspected thief, but refuse a car that you know is stolen only because it’s a piece of junk.
(e) Not notify the authorities at any point, but realizing that the car will be traced to you, surreptitiously arrange with the thief for a third party to buy it and then sell you a different car so that so you can enjoy the benefit of both having a car and hurting your neighbor.
What has CNN got to do with it? Is what Schiff actually said in and open hearing in response to the Republicans somehow less what he actually said if they show it on CNN rather than Fox? This is so confusing.
What did he say? Cn you quote some of the pertinent points for me?
Liz,
It’s kinda big news. Google Adam Schiff. Videos and transcripts of his rant should fill up the page.
TSalmon, i can’t watch videos up here as I can’t stream.
Let me guess…was he referencing media accounts with uncited, anonymous “sources”?
We know that Mueller directly states, “the Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election.”
That was the basis for the entire investigation.
It wasn’t a tepid, “Well, others have been prosecuted for this, but in this case we’ve decided not to press charges…he did delete a lot of personal correspondence stuff, but ya know, he’s a popular guy…”
Doesn’t the Mueller report lay this stuff to rest?
Liz.. I think this is all of it.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign,” he said. “My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help — no, instead that son said he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians. You might think it was ok that he took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s ok that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s ok that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think it’s OK. I don’t.”
“You might think it’s OK that [Flynn] secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining US sanctions & then lied about it to the FBI. You might say that’s all OK — that’s just what you have to do to win… I think it’s corrupt & evidence of collusion.”
“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility,” he added. “I don’t think that’s OK. You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent. You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser-designate secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK he lied about it to the FBI. You might say that’s all OK, that that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt, and evidence of collusion.”
“I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK,” “The day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day America lost its way.”
Liz,
You should be able to get the transcript, but you’d miss the drama of it without video.
“Doesn’t the Mueller report lay this stuff to rest?”
Don’t know, maybe. I would love to know. If it does, then I imagine it will come out tomorrow.
On the other hand, if the Mueller report simply confirms all the things Schiff says or adds new damaging detail, but still does not rise to the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy, would that change anyone’s mind about Trump? What if the report shows a lesser, unprosecutable standard of criminal behavior, such as a “preponderance of evidense or that it is “more likely than not” that Trump and/or the Trump campaign conspired with Russia? What if the evidence shows collusion (which isn’t a crime) but meets most though not every element of the crime of conspiracy? Has our standard of behavior for politicians reached the low benchmark that anything even slightly above than prosecutable criminal behavior is ok with us? (Imagine if the military standard were, “you are a dishonorable, disloyal, corrupt, lying general, but no prosecutable crimes yet so we are promoting you?).
If every point Schiff makes is upheld or even strengthen by the Mueller Report, if it ever actually comes out, then is what we already know to be undisputedly true about the Trump campaign, Trump businesss dealings, the Trump inauguration and Trump’s incessant lying to us really ok?
We can only speculate about what’s actually in the Mueller Report and perhaps Democrats will never be satisfied
even if it is totally exculpatory on criminality, but honestly, can someone here please explain how just the undisputed facts that Schiff brings up are not damning, and without having to resort to smoke screens about media bias, public school brain washing or whataboutism finger pointing at the Dems?
@tsalmon
CNN is for all practical purposes part of the Democratic Party.
As FOX is the national “Ministry of Propaganda”.
@Doug
😀One cable network and a few newspapers and news mags. But the opposition news is growing. Get use to it.
So if you just watch the same video on CSpan do you still not believe your own lying eyes and ears?
If all the damning fact trees fall in the forrest and you see and hear them all fall, did they really fall? 😊
@tsalmon
You do realize CPAN is a creation of CNN?
I don’t necessarily have any objection to a new network being partisan. It is the pretense of objectivity I find ridiculous. You won’t even consider the possibility that Trump was a better choice than Clinton. Even when the evidence is obvious nonsense you just continue the rant. And there something wrong with Conservatives?
Tom,
Not ranting, just confused by your reasoning. Do you think that hearing didn’t actually happen, or that Schiff isn’t a real person who leads a real House committee, or that he didn’t say what he said, regardless of where you see it? Does lshooting all the messengers of bad news mean that the reality that was reported didn’t happen?
If you are accepting the reality that this actually happened, then what specifically is it that Schiff said that was factually inaccurate?
@tsalmon
Since the founding of the country the news media has been partisan. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams contemporaries would have 🙄😉🤨😏🤣 at newspaper that called itself objective.
Unfortunately, when the FCC controlled the airwaves, the news media decided to portray itself as objective and managed to convince lots of people that reporters could be objective. With the advent of the Internet, we are seeing a gradual return to more normal behavior.
CNN has been slanting the news ever since it started. If you don’t know how that’s done, I see no point in trying to explain it. However, I do believe you know how it is done. The issue is what you want to believe.
And I’m also confused why you bring up the choice thing again as it appears irrelevant.
What if both candidates were credibly accused of murder, but Clinton got elected anyway? Would you not want anyone to investigate the Clinton murder allegations? What if, during the investigation facts of Clinton, facts of complicity arose that did not reach the reasonable doubt level of prosecution for a crime but that definitely demonstrated wrong doing? Would you think that Democrats should recognize Clinton’s moral inadequacy to remain President? What about the Trump murder? Would he be fair game if he wasn’t the leader of your team?
@tsalmon
Trump has been investigated for an accusation that was not credible. What you seem to be objecting to is a serious investigation of the Democrats. Comey obviously never had any intention of charging H. Clinton with anything, and there are good reasons to believe the Obama administration abused the FISA process (using that phony Steele dossier) to spy on the Trump campaign. That is criminal behavior bordering on treason.
I’m sorry, but I still don’t see the relevance of your red hearing. How was the Steele information used by Obama to influence the election when it was not even published until after the election? How does it specifically violate any law for our intelligence agencies to collect counter intelligence information from any source, whether credible or not, but in this case from a trusted former member of an allied intelligence agency?
And regardless, even if hypothetically Clinton and Obama were as criminally corrupt as all get out, how does that exculpate the culpability for each of the items Schiff mentions? Can you even respond how it was ok with you as to each undisputed point Schiff mentions without resorting to shooting every media messenger, Trumping up conspiracy theories about the Dems or spouting irrelevant false choice whataboutisms?
I’m really interested in if you think it is ok. If you are, then why all the evasion? Why not just explain?
@tsalmon
This information has been unfolding in the news media you don’t believe for years. The most insidious power of the so-called mainstream news media is to withhold or denigrate inconvenient truths.
@tsalmon
Why don’t you just visit websites like “The Federalist” and “National Review? They have cover the Steele Dossier and FISA abuse more thoroughly than I could.
“Why don’t you just visit websites like “The Federalist” and “National Review? They have cover the Steele Dossier and FISA abuse more thoroughly than I could.”
I could ask you the same about the NYT, the Washington Post, or the WSJ, but it is irrelevant. Even if there were damning facts about the Steele Dossier, that does not negate the damning facts that Schiff points out. You say that the Trump campaign never gets investigated absent the Steele assertions. I question that logic, but it doesn’t matter. Facts of wrong doing by Trump, Trump’s family, the Trump Campaign and members of the Trump administration simply exist. Some facts rise to the point that people are going to jail or have plead guilty and some rise to the point of being highly improper, although not prosecutable.
Despite Liz’ protestations, honest, intelligent, well represented people at the level that Mueller prosecuted simply do not cop a plea to a felony unless they have done something terribly wrong, and often they cop to a lesser crime (and cooperate) in order not to be prosecuted on greater crimes that they are guilty of – this appears to be the case with Flynn, but perhaps we will not know for sure until we see the full Mueller report or other indictments appear.
The point is that, regardless of where the factual evidence came from, regardless of whether Hillary is Jack the Ripper in disguise and regardless of whether or not actions are technically prosecutable at the high standard of criminal law, the facts that Schiff points out appear on their face damning enough that Trump should not be our president. Since when have our standards gotten so low that anything above prosecutable criminal character is just fine with the Republican Party?
Everyone here knows Trump is an adulterous, tax evading, campaign law violating, self dealing, Cadet Bone spur service avoiding, Moscow Trump Tower campaign compromised, pathologically lying scoundrel. And this is just the short list of Trump’s unarguable character flaws.
When did the Republicans just quit caring about character in their candidates? The Republicans have so many decent and morally sane public servants that they could promote for president, many of whom I would vote for.
Whether for good cause or not, Clinton was perhaps one of the most unpopular candidates in history and it still took Russian help to elect Trump by only about 80 thousand votes in three states while losing the popular vote by nearly three million.
There’s an old joke which applies to this situation:
At a party, a rich old man goes up to a beautiful young woman and asks her if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. The woman sheepishly says “yes”. “Well then” the old man then asks , “Will you sleep with me for a dollar?” The young woman responds with obvious disdain, “Just what kind of a girl do you think I am?” The old man answers, “We’ve already established that; now we are just haggling over price.”
Maybe Trump lightening will strike twice, but I can’t figure out why the Republican Party even wants it to, why the GOP wants to be the Party of open corruption where basic decency of character just doesn’t even matter. Even if you win, you lose. You’ve already established what kind of Party you want to be and you’re just trying to decide how many Supreme Court nominees the soul of the GOP is worth.
@tsalmon
You, not me, insisted that Mueller is the most honorable of men.
I grew up watching the so-called mainstream news media. I slowly began to realize the Liberal Democrat news media does not debate issues. They propagandize their audience. That includes slandering and libeling their political opponents. So I started looking more carefully at outlets that discuss the other side of the issues. Is it too much to ask you to do the same?
“You, not me, insisted that Mueller is the most honorable of men.”
Mueller is a life long Republican. I may or may not agree with him on any number of political issues, but his war decorations and his lifetime of professionalism of public service in law enforcement give me no reason to distrust either his honor or his professionalism. I have not seen Mueller’s 500 page report. Have you?
Why does everything have to be focused through the lens of Party tribalism. Mueller could be a good prosecutor no matter what his political affiliation. Don’t you think that general can be a good professional soldier no matter what Party his president comes from. Some things like honor, country, belief in the Rule of Law, professionalism and religious conviction are above partisan fanmanship. Those things should own both Parties.
Some press sources tend to be liberal and some tend to be conservative? You’re kidding! Some tend to be more journalistically professional than others? What a shock!
As our father used to say though: “What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?” Facts are facts and character is character and both remain damning to Trump.
Right on!
@tsalmon
Identity politics is an ideological construct used by Liberal Democrats to foment division and tar political opponents. What actually exists is factional politics. We are fighting over control of the Federal Government.
You want a big and powerful Federal Government? Then don’t be surprised when people fight tooth and nail over the government.
The guy who appointed St.Mueller and the new attorney general summarized St. Mueller’s report. They pointed out that St. Mueller found no evidence of a couple of types of sin in the evil Trump. No one in his right mind thinks Trump is without sin. I don’t think most Republicans expect that of their candidates.
Since he is outsider, not part of their team, Liberal Democrats wanted to destroy the evil Trump. Since the Republican Establishment were afraid Trump would upset the status quo, they just sat on the sidelines waiting. That is starting to change.
Is St. Mueller trustworthy? The senior leadership of the DOJ and the FBI has been knee deep in the plot to misuse government powers to whitewash H. Clinton and frame the evil Trump. These people, especially Comey, are close associates of St. Mueller. Unfortunately, you won’t hear much about that in the “journalistically professional” press. Those folks are too busy earning Pulitzers Prizes for writing the best fiction. Our sources tell us……
Ya, and the Sandy Hook babies didn’t die – it was just a plot by Obama too take away your guns. 🙄
@tsalmon
That reply doesn’t make sense. CNN does parrot the position of the Democratic Party on gun control, and it is purely emotional.
Life is not a fairytale. We make tradeoffs. Because some people are evil, we make unpleasant tradeoffs. Sandy Hook was awful, but the Second Amendment is designed to allow us to protect ourselves, including protecting ourselves from the power of an abusive government.
How difficult is it to find examples of out of control governments rounding up unarmed civilians and throwing them in concentration camps? You know the history of the last century, and that history makes Sandy Hook irrelevant. Even now in Venezuela children are starving because of an abusive government run by gangsters.
@tsalmon
BTW. You may find this revealing about the character of Adam Schiff.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/06/russian_comedians_prank_call_rep_adam_schiff_promise_him_naked_photos_of_trump_from_fsb.html
Is there a text of this somewhere? I can’t stream up here so I can’t watch the video.
For the first time we have a leader who is willing and able to drain the swamp and they are running scared.
Well, we sure would have to go back in time, but let’s give Abe Lincoln and George Washington some credit.☺
Amen!
I think our leaders need to get back to doing the jobs they were elected to do. These investigations have been a complete waste of time. It shows what lengths are gone to by those eager to get rid of our president. For the first time I
in a long time
@atimetoshare.me
I would like to agree, but we have just seen what appears to have been a failed takeover attemp. Trump has called it that. The people who did that need to be held to account.
I don’t know if we need to spend two more years in investigations, but we have to drain the swamp.
You’ve seen the entire Muller report to determine it was absurd? Do we know the redactions are justified under the law or some political Trump clod with a marker pen being told what to cross out?
@Doug
Unless there is evidence of a crime, there is no reason to do an investigation. Where is the evidence? Do you seriously think it would not have been leaked?
When prosecutors do an investigation and don’t charge anyone, they seal the evidence to protect everyone’s privacy. Grand Jury testimony is so protected by law.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html
Once Mueller knew about the source of the Golden Showers dossier, he should have gone after the people who were trying to frame Trump. He didn’t. Instead, he pressured people to testify against Trump. So I have my doubts about the man.
If Mueller is so honorable and his report proves Trump is impeachable, why hasn’t he said something?
Anyway, I have no reason to doubt Attorney General Barr. Since he made Rosenstein participate in the summarization of Mueller’s report, he was obviously doing whatever he could to make what he wrote believable. I expect he will also bend over backwards to release what he can legally release. Some of it is classified, and some related investigations (Obama, H. Clinton and company, I hope) may still be in progress. So there are issues as well.
When the Constitution was ratified, there were 3 federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting and piracy. The Founders understood that the central government’s role was strictly to provide the national defense and protect the sanctity of the currency. A few years ago, USA Today estimated that there were 300,000 federal crimes, virtually all regulatory. That’s the Spirit of Totalitarianism in action: control everything and everyone.
@iamcurmudgeon
Good observation! The primary difference between Marxism and Socialism is that the Socialist tyranny is imposed by degrees. With all the regulations, it is extremely difficult for a small business to operate. However, if you are a large corporation and you can afford all the bureaucrats, heavy-handed regulation limits the competition. That’s why the elites are happy with Crony Capitalism.
Crony Capitalism, however, is really the Marxist view of Capitalism. Crony Capitalism is why Communism arose in places like Russia and China, places where the elites ruled with a heavy hand. Because of the cronyism, Communism looked to the peasants like the only way the could free themselves. Instead, they found themselves thrust from the frying pan and into the fire.
Yes, and cups of coffee don’t magically exist until you buy the coffee pot and set it up to make coffee. I don’t see how making thousands of cups of coffee over hundreds of years is a totalitarian violation of that first pot of coffee … but then again, I am a bit of a caffeine addict. 😏
@tsalmon
There is this document called the Constitution. It is not a recipe for coffee. It explains how get we retain the right to choose and make our own brand of coffee, tea, hot chocolate, and so forth.
Yes, good point, the basic hardware and directions for use leave much room for discretion and abundance according to the taste and need of the times. 😊
Watching the Michigan rally— pretty powerful stuff
Well, that is one place it ought to be safe to wear a MAGA hat.😉
It is amazing