I must sound like a broken record at times, but truly, is there anything more to say? Those who want to believe will accept circumstantial evidence as acceptable and those who are skeptical will not. Nothing has changed that dynamic as of now.
I agree with the second sentence above, but in relation to the first I think the answer is still awaited. Maybe nothing further will come out, but maybe it will. Your post suggests that nothing has changed over the last few months, but that's not the case. Some events, such as sacking the FBI Director over that 'Russian thing', certainly fall under the circumstantial heading at the moment. However, as was discussed previously I think what has already been admitted by Trump Jr about his Russian meeting was direct evidence of illegality. At the moment that would fall under the technical infringement category and therefore I don't think would be likely to affect the support of Republicans in Congress, but that assumes there's nothing further to discover.
What would concern me if I were an American is that it appears that a background briefing / whispering campaign has begun with the aim of laying the foundation for dismissing Robert Mueller. This is a man who is exceptionally unusual in recent US politics as being accepted by all sides as virtually apolitical (he was confirmed unanimously when appointed by Bush despite being a registered Republican). So why might he be dismissed? - one possibility would be that he's doing a very poor job, but that would seem to require a pretty hasty judgment. - another possibility would be that he's making a public nuisance of himself. I don't follow US news sources, but I'm not aware of any leaks at all that have made it into the UK press about what progress he's made since being appointed as a special prosecutor, so this seems an unlikely rationale. On the face of it dismissing him would seem a crazy decision as it gives such an appearance of guilt. Applying Occam's razor the obvious explanation would be that he had been making progress in his investigations and giving the appearance of guilt would be better than allowing him to produce confirmation of guilt.
I'm not ruling out the possibility at the moment that this is just a dirty tricks campaign by the Democrats to make the President look bad. However, clearly if that is the case then Mueller will not in fact be dismissed. If he is dismissed that will be circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of something serious. While I agree that won't be convincing to everyone circumstantial evidence can be used to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example footprints, fingerprints and DNA evidence can all be used to attempt to establish presence at a crime scene. No jury would be likely to convict purely on the circumstantial evidence of footprints, but convictions can and have been made just on the basis of DNA evidence (some of those are being challenged over time, which is a whole different topic, but I'm just making the point that circumstantial evidence can be accepted by a jury as strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the circumstantial evidence of guilt does ever become strong enough I think it is conceivable that Trump would lose the support of Congress and without that his position would be untenable.
I must sound like a broken record at times, but truly, is there anything more to say? Those who want to believe will accept circumstantial evidence as acceptable and those who are skeptical will not. Nothing has changed that dynamic as of now.
I agree with the second sentence above, but in relation to the first I think the answer is still awaited. Maybe nothing further will come out, but maybe it will. Your post suggests that nothing has changed over the last few months, but that's not the case. Some events, such as sacking the FBI Director over that 'Russian thing', certainly fall under the circumstantial heading at the moment. However, as was discussed previously I think what has already been admitted by Trump Jr about his Russian meeting was direct evidence of illegality. At the moment that would fall under the technical infringement category and therefore I don't think would be likely to affect the support of Republicans in Congress, but that assumes there's nothing further to discover.
What would concern me if I were an American is that it appears that a background briefing / whispering campaign has begun with the aim of laying the foundation for dismissing Robert Mueller. This is a man who is exceptionally unusual in recent US politics as being accepted by all sides as virtually apolitical (he was confirmed unanimously when appointed by Bush despite being a registered Republican). So why might he be dismissed? - one possibility would be that he's doing a very poor job, but that would seem to require a pretty hasty judgment. - another possibility would be that he's making a public nuisance of himself. I don't follow US news sources, but I'm not aware of any leaks at all that have made it into the UK press about what progress he's made since being appointed as a special prosecutor, so this seems an unlikely rationale. On the face of it dismissing him would seem a crazy decision as it gives such an appearance of guilt. Applying Occam's razor the obvious explanation would be that he had been making progress in his investigations and giving the appearance of guilt would be better than allowing him to produce confirmation of guilt.
I'm not ruling out the possibility at the moment that this is just a dirty tricks campaign by the Democrats to make the President look bad. However, clearly if that is the case then Mueller will not in fact be dismissed. If he is dismissed that will be circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of something serious. While I agree that won't be convincing to everyone circumstantial evidence can be used to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example footprints, fingerprints and DNA evidence can all be used to attempt to establish presence at a crime scene. No jury would be likely to convict purely on the circumstantial evidence of footprints, but convictions can and have been made just on the basis of DNA evidence (some of those are being challenged over time, which is a whole different topic, but I'm just making the point that circumstantial evidence can be accepted by a jury as strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the circumstantial evidence of guilt does ever become strong enough I think it is conceivable that Trump would lose the support of Congress and without that his position would be untenable.
Robert Mueller has nothing to do with the Democrats. Nothing. People need to understand that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now private citizens with no more power than you or I. They aren't running some government in exile pulling Robert Mueller's strings like a puppet. But furthermore, Democrats hold, at this moment, exactly ZERO power in the federal government. Zero. The Republicans control the House, Senate, the Supreme Court (thanks to a stolen seat) and the Executive Branch. Blaming Democrats from ANYTHING happening in Washington right now is like blaming a player who sat on the end of the bench for 4 quarters for his team losing a basketball game.
I must sound like a broken record at times, but truly, is there anything more to say? Those who want to believe will accept circumstantial evidence as acceptable and those who are skeptical will not. Nothing has changed that dynamic as of now.
I agree with the second sentence above, but in relation to the first I think the answer is still awaited. Maybe nothing further will come out, but maybe it will. Your post suggests that nothing has changed over the last few months, but that's not the case. Some events, such as sacking the FBI Director over that 'Russian thing', certainly fall under the circumstantial heading at the moment. However, as was discussed previously I think what has already been admitted by Trump Jr about his Russian meeting was direct evidence of illegality. At the moment that would fall under the technical infringement category and therefore I don't think would be likely to affect the support of Republicans in Congress, but that assumes there's nothing further to discover.
What would concern me if I were an American is that it appears that a background briefing / whispering campaign has begun with the aim of laying the foundation for dismissing Robert Mueller. This is a man who is exceptionally unusual in recent US politics as being accepted by all sides as virtually apolitical (he was confirmed unanimously when appointed by Bush despite being a registered Republican). So why might he be dismissed? - one possibility would be that he's doing a very poor job, but that would seem to require a pretty hasty judgment. - another possibility would be that he's making a public nuisance of himself. I don't follow US news sources, but I'm not aware of any leaks at all that have made it into the UK press about what progress he's made since being appointed as a special prosecutor, so this seems an unlikely rationale. On the face of it dismissing him would seem a crazy decision as it gives such an appearance of guilt. Applying Occam's razor the obvious explanation would be that he had been making progress in his investigations and giving the appearance of guilt would be better than allowing him to produce confirmation of guilt.
I'm not ruling out the possibility at the moment that this is just a dirty tricks campaign by the Democrats to make the President look bad. However, clearly if that is the case then Mueller will not in fact be dismissed. If he is dismissed that will be circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of something serious. While I agree that won't be convincing to everyone circumstantial evidence can be used to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example footprints, fingerprints and DNA evidence can all be used to attempt to establish presence at a crime scene. No jury would be likely to convict purely on the circumstantial evidence of footprints, but convictions can and have been made just on the basis of DNA evidence (some of those are being challenged over time, which is a whole different topic, but I'm just making the point that circumstantial evidence can be accepted by a jury as strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the circumstantial evidence of guilt does ever become strong enough I think it is conceivable that Trump would lose the support of Congress and without that his position would be untenable.
Robert Mueller has nothing to do with the Democrats. Nothing. People need to understand that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now private citizens with no more power than you or I. They aren't running some government in exile pulling Robert Mueller's strings like a puppet. But furthermore, Democrats hold, at this moment, exactly ZERO power in the federal government. Zero. The Republicans control the House, Senate, the Supreme Court (thanks to a stolen seat) and the Executive Branch. Blaming Democrats from ANYTHING happening in Washington right now is like blaming a player who sat on the end of the bench for 4 quarters for his team losing a basketball game.
Very good point, its not like the Dems can do much of anything with their lack of power/influence.
We've been on the Russa train for months and months now and the charade is getting old. Even the Washington Post, who feed on Russia fever dreams like a vampire on blood, publish polls skewed heavily in the numbers towards democrats and independents, which say that democrats have no principles but Anti Trump sentiment.
The "This is getting old, stop it," isn't a valid argument. I said it before, and I will say it again, Let the Prosecutors do their job. If there are crimes involved, those that are involved will be charged. Those that are innocent won't be. It is that simple.
The reason why it has been going on for "months and months" is due to the fact that the president runs interference as much as he can against the campaign looking into the Russian ordeal. Just look how many people he has already fired publicly both in New York (where state laws would prevent him from issuing pardons) and the federal level in judicial capacities.
First I was surprised at this result, but then I realize it made total sense. Ordinary people know that if you lob accusation after accusation for nearly a year yet none of them stick, you're the boy who cried wolf. You lose your credibility. Very few now buy the notion that this is honest concern for election integrity, and why would they? The entire media cycle began with revelation after revelation of the very same election interference they scream to the moon about.
The thing is, all them are sticking.
Flynn, Manafort were the early causalities to this investigation and Trump Jr just threw a whole lot of other people under the bus recently. Things are sticking, it is just when people hear "Trump Campaign" they expect dirt on Trump, and only Trump. That dirt is coming, only if, let me repeat this again, the prosecutors are allowed to do their job.
The difference between the left and right in this country is accountability.
You are quite right. The Right doesn't have any accountability, by attempting to throw the democrats under the bus when their bills fail.
The right is held accountable for every dumn remark by every dumb politician. Covfefe and ScoopGate became things because the media is blatantly desperate for AntiTrump content no matter how absurd conservative majority in the country.
If Obama tweeted out the Covfefe comment, we'd still be hearing it today by right wing media. Hell we were still listening to cigar jokes about Clinton during the campaign. The thing is, the last president didn't really do anything stupid for the Right Wing media to pounce on, except maybe his "dad" jokes which he owned.
Examples abound from Democrats claiming Russia hacking the power grid to CNN editing out violent remarks by figures they want to be sympathetic to cheated national debates and rigged primary elections, Obama discriminating by race and religion for top level jobs, Ukraine and DNC "collusion" to provide AntiTrump information, the DNC colluding (no quotes) with their favored candidate. No accountability for anything, the media has goldfish memory when it comes to the left and quite naturally blindness among their followers sets in.
This has so much to it, that it is almost an information overload of false statements, and misdirections. But lemme see if I can go through them all
Alleged attempt to hack the power grid. It didn't happen so there is no concrete information. It is not like the FBI or CIA are going to claim straight up that national interests like nuclear power plants are under constant attack. Just think of the hysteria it would cause.
Like "Fox" editing the new story about Omar Khadr to make it sound like Canada abused his Human Rights and not the Americans through Torture during the Iraq war? Editing out a comment that doesn't fit the news story you are attempting to tell isn't "covering something up." Changing facts like Fox did IS. And CNN, isn't considered left. Well it is left if you consider Fox centre. But that is the problem with this left/right debate. You have no centre. So anytime a news organization states something negative about Republicans, it falls to the "well that's Left-wing media for you, don't believe them, they're fake news," which is highly damaging that anything can be shrugged off just because someone who you do not agree with said it.
The was no DNC collusion with Ukraine, this was spelt out to you a couple of pages ago.
The primary elections were not "rigged," once again, explained 100's of pages ago and even currently that Sanders entered the race too late to get any solid traction. And if you are saying it is because of the leaked questions, well the democrats accountability that you said they didn't have fix that with resignations but eh, it is still something republican supporters like to bring up whenever something new the republicans do something stupid "ya, well, you guys leaked one question to your front running candidate, so there".
Obama "discriminating by race and religion" reads "white people didn't get them, so it must be racist!' Which is unfair to those in that administration that did their job properly and fully during his 8 years. It isn't like people got the cushy FEMA job because they were large campaign donors and had no expertise in crisis management and when Katerina hit all their flaws were front in centre for the entire world to see. But once again, accountability, and long term memory that people seem not to have.
Did I get them all? Hope so.
This discrepancy is the sole reason the Russia hysteria continues to be stoked. An honest and fair minded accounting of election integrity would destory the Democratic Party, and they know it.
Once again, you are confusing what is being investigated. It isn't Russia tampering with the election, it is Russia's tampering with the Trump Campaign. There is a HUGE, HUGE difference.
But the DNC laundry is already out for all to see, thanks to, wait for it, Russian Hackers. Everything alleged the DNC does would be old news and most people would probably be just shrug at it (except places like Fox who'd run them constantly instead of any real stories emerging from the investigation). If there was ever an investigation into voter suppression, then Republicans would have to be worried as it is all hearsay at the moment.
But once again, as soon as an investigation like that started, people would be screaming "this is getting old, move on. This is just a witch hunt..."
As an aside, I highly doubt there will be pardons issued, as that implies something actually illegal happened. I say this in regards to Russiaphobia, of course. I dare not speak for the mans personal history even as I agree with his political principles.
Only time will tell, I will tell you though, right now, if pardons are issued, they are just going to spin it as "This isn't an admission of guilt, we just wanted the witch hunting to stop so we can run this country effectively like the majority of Americans wanted us to do."
Never liked Spicer anyway. Too establishment, apologetic where it is not deserved, too afraid to call a spade a spade, nothing like what Trump's administration needs.
If Sean Spicer is such an establishment tool, why did God Emeperor Trump, with his unerring eye for talent, hire him in the first place?? Coincidentally, this is the EXACT same argument I heard Rush Limbaugh make 20 minutes ago when I was driving to lunch.
I just read, Trump was hesitant to hire him (hence why all the talk of him being replaced) because he didn't think he'd be loyal enough.
He will be the first one to throw them all under the bus if he is ever asked to do a book deal or something.
And if you think Trump's communication team was a joke before, it is about to get much worse with Scaramucci at the helm.
It's not a complete lack of power. Although Democrats are the minority in all branches of government, they can still exert some small influence if the GOP is in disagreement and needs some Democratic votes to get something done.
But yes, policy today is dominated by the GOP, and will continue to be that way at least for the next 1.5-3.5 years, depending on the 2018 midterms.
I must sound like a broken record at times, but truly, is there anything more to say? Those who want to believe will accept circumstantial evidence as acceptable and those who are skeptical will not. Nothing has changed that dynamic as of now.
I agree with the second sentence above, but in relation to the first I think the answer is still awaited. Maybe nothing further will come out, but maybe it will. Your post suggests that nothing has changed over the last few months, but that's not the case. Some events, such as sacking the FBI Director over that 'Russian thing', certainly fall under the circumstantial heading at the moment. However, as was discussed previously I think what has already been admitted by Trump Jr about his Russian meeting was direct evidence of illegality. At the moment that would fall under the technical infringement category and therefore I don't think would be likely to affect the support of Republicans in Congress, but that assumes there's nothing further to discover.
What would concern me if I were an American is that it appears that a background briefing / whispering campaign has begun with the aim of laying the foundation for dismissing Robert Mueller. This is a man who is exceptionally unusual in recent US politics as being accepted by all sides as virtually apolitical (he was confirmed unanimously when appointed by Bush despite being a registered Republican). So why might he be dismissed? - one possibility would be that he's doing a very poor job, but that would seem to require a pretty hasty judgment. - another possibility would be that he's making a public nuisance of himself. I don't follow US news sources, but I'm not aware of any leaks at all that have made it into the UK press about what progress he's made since being appointed as a special prosecutor, so this seems an unlikely rationale. On the face of it dismissing him would seem a crazy decision as it gives such an appearance of guilt. Applying Occam's razor the obvious explanation would be that he had been making progress in his investigations and giving the appearance of guilt would be better than allowing him to produce confirmation of guilt.
I'm not ruling out the possibility at the moment that this is just a dirty tricks campaign by the Democrats to make the President look bad. However, clearly if that is the case then Mueller will not in fact be dismissed. If he is dismissed that will be circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of something serious. While I agree that won't be convincing to everyone circumstantial evidence can be used to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example footprints, fingerprints and DNA evidence can all be used to attempt to establish presence at a crime scene. No jury would be likely to convict purely on the circumstantial evidence of footprints, but convictions can and have been made just on the basis of DNA evidence (some of those are being challenged over time, which is a whole different topic, but I'm just making the point that circumstantial evidence can be accepted by a jury as strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the circumstantial evidence of guilt does ever become strong enough I think it is conceivable that Trump would lose the support of Congress and without that his position would be untenable.
Robert Mueller has nothing to do with the Democrats. Nothing. People need to understand that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now private citizens with no more power than you or I. They aren't running some government in exile pulling Robert Mueller's strings like a puppet. But furthermore, Democrats hold, at this moment, exactly ZERO power in the federal government. Zero. The Republicans control the House, Senate, the Supreme Court (thanks to a stolen seat) and the Executive Branch. Blaming Democrats from ANYTHING happening in Washington right now is like blaming a player who sat on the end of the bench for 4 quarters for his team losing a basketball game.
Very good point, its not like the Dems can do much of anything with their lack of power/influence.
...except stoke baseless conspiracies as a way of hampering their effectiveness. Hey, i'll hand it to them, it has dominated political conversation over all else. Even topics of great concern and importance.
Regarding legality of Trump Jr.'s meeting, there's simply no way a court will interpret items of value as pertaining to just information because it would violate the first amendment, as i've said.
This isn't even just my opinion, it's mostly just the fringe left that remains making this claim. CNN and Washigton Post have both been skeptical of that claim, and they're always hungry for a TrumpRussia scandal. Though I don't trust these outlets judgements on right wing matters often, their analysis is sound, an interpretation such as that would be incredibly overbroad and outlaw perfectly acceptable first amendment activities and, more importantly, potentially deny us access to the truth.
For this reason most of the coverage has shifted to hyperventilating about how many people exactly were in the room.
It's not a complete lack of power. Although Democrats are the minority in all branches of government, they can still exert some small influence if the GOP is in disagreement and needs some Democratic votes to get something done.
But yes, policy today is dominated by the GOP, and will continue to be that way at least for the next 1.5-3.5 years, depending on the 2018 midterms.
It's not really a lack of power that is the Democrat's problem, it's a lack of leadership and direction. Any effective opposition would be ripping the shower of morons in the White House to shreds.
Regarding the ethics of the situation in general, as i've said in so many words before, I basically am neutral to the source of information provided the information is true and a decent argument can be made for it being in the public interest to know. What we got from alleged Russia interference was in the public interest to know, in my humble opinion.
It's not a complete lack of power. Although Democrats are the minority in all branches of government, they can still exert some small influence if the GOP is in disagreement and needs some Democratic votes to get something done.
But yes, policy today is dominated by the GOP, and will continue to be that way at least for the next 1.5-3.5 years, depending on the 2018 midterms.
It's not really a lack of power that is the Democrat's problem, it's a lack of leadership and direction. Any effective opposition would be ripping the shower of morons in the White House to shreds.
Trump is at a 36% approval rating, and doesn't have much lower to go. There isn't anything to be done when the Republicans provide cover for him. The generic Congressional ballot polling is averaging about +10 towards Democrats right now. There aren't many people left to be convinced. Nearly everyone who is going to abandon Trump has already done so. He is never going to fall below 30%, maybe not even 33%.
I must sound like a broken record at times, but truly, is there anything more to say? Those who want to believe will accept circumstantial evidence as acceptable and those who are skeptical will not. Nothing has changed that dynamic as of now.
I agree with the second sentence above, but in relation to the first I think the answer is still awaited. Maybe nothing further will come out, but maybe it will. Your post suggests that nothing has changed over the last few months, but that's not the case. Some events, such as sacking the FBI Director over that 'Russian thing', certainly fall under the circumstantial heading at the moment. However, as was discussed previously I think what has already been admitted by Trump Jr about his Russian meeting was direct evidence of illegality. At the moment that would fall under the technical infringement category and therefore I don't think would be likely to affect the support of Republicans in Congress, but that assumes there's nothing further to discover.
What would concern me if I were an American is that it appears that a background briefing / whispering campaign has begun with the aim of laying the foundation for dismissing Robert Mueller. This is a man who is exceptionally unusual in recent US politics as being accepted by all sides as virtually apolitical (he was confirmed unanimously when appointed by Bush despite being a registered Republican). So why might he be dismissed? - one possibility would be that he's doing a very poor job, but that would seem to require a pretty hasty judgment. - another possibility would be that he's making a public nuisance of himself. I don't follow US news sources, but I'm not aware of any leaks at all that have made it into the UK press about what progress he's made since being appointed as a special prosecutor, so this seems an unlikely rationale. On the face of it dismissing him would seem a crazy decision as it gives such an appearance of guilt. Applying Occam's razor the obvious explanation would be that he had been making progress in his investigations and giving the appearance of guilt would be better than allowing him to produce confirmation of guilt.
I'm not ruling out the possibility at the moment that this is just a dirty tricks campaign by the Democrats to make the President look bad. However, clearly if that is the case then Mueller will not in fact be dismissed. If he is dismissed that will be circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of something serious. While I agree that won't be convincing to everyone circumstantial evidence can be used to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example footprints, fingerprints and DNA evidence can all be used to attempt to establish presence at a crime scene. No jury would be likely to convict purely on the circumstantial evidence of footprints, but convictions can and have been made just on the basis of DNA evidence (some of those are being challenged over time, which is a whole different topic, but I'm just making the point that circumstantial evidence can be accepted by a jury as strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the circumstantial evidence of guilt does ever become strong enough I think it is conceivable that Trump would lose the support of Congress and without that his position would be untenable.
Robert Mueller has nothing to do with the Democrats. Nothing. People need to understand that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now private citizens with no more power than you or I. They aren't running some government in exile pulling Robert Mueller's strings like a puppet. But furthermore, Democrats hold, at this moment, exactly ZERO power in the federal government. Zero. The Republicans control the House, Senate, the Supreme Court (thanks to a stolen seat) and the Executive Branch. Blaming Democrats from ANYTHING happening in Washington right now is like blaming a player who sat on the end of the bench for 4 quarters for his team losing a basketball game.
Very good point, its not like the Dems can do much of anything with their lack of power/influence.
...except stoke baseless conspiracies as a way of hampering their effectiveness. Hey, i'll hand it to them, it has dominated political conversation over all else. Even topics of great concern and importance.
Before I even read your post any further, please tell me how admitting that the Trump's inner cirlce campaign team met with foreign powers stating they had "official documents" that would incriminate Clinton to show Russia's continued support in the Trump campaign, is baseless.
It is all right there, in Trump Jr's emails. There is your base to the conspiracy. How is it baseless? If this administration stopped lying under oath about their dealings, it wouldn't be the "conspiracy theory" it is now.
And yes "first amendment rights" may cover the campaign financial charges. It is how they were going to spin it after release. It does not cover anything else damaging that they may find due to the emails. But once again, for that to happen, the prosecutors must be able to do their job.
Washington Post is now reporting that Sessions discussed campaign related information with Kislyak, per discussions picked up on intercepts of Russian officials. Forget about what this means on it's own. If this is true, it means that, without question, Jeff Sessions perjured himself at both his confirmation hearing, and at his recent appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Again, forget about the Russian details. What are we supposed to believe about the rule of law in this country when the Attorney General is going to the Hill and lying under oath, on purpose, every 3 months or so??
Reports are Manaford and Trump Jr. have cut some sort of deal to get out of their public hearing they were supposed to do Wednesday.
And again in case you missed it, Donald Trump Jr. according to his emails, knew the Russian government supported his dad's campaign prior to eagerly meeting with those Russian spies and money launderers to get promised dirt on Clinton. And Trump himself hours after hearing about the meeting went on TV saying he was going to release info on Clinton and promised to do so at a time after the meeting where his sons and campaign manager attended.
To say there's nothing there is laughable or blind at this point. Especially after Trump says he doesn't want Mueller to look at his finances one minute then starts investigating whether he can pardon himself and his family the next minute.
I must sound like a broken record at times, but truly, is there anything more to say? Those who want to believe will accept circumstantial evidence as acceptable and those who are skeptical will not. Nothing has changed that dynamic as of now.
I agree with the second sentence above, but in relation to the first I think the answer is still awaited. Maybe nothing further will come out, but maybe it will. Your post suggests that nothing has changed over the last few months, but that's not the case. Some events, such as sacking the FBI Director over that 'Russian thing', certainly fall under the circumstantial heading at the moment. However, as was discussed previously I think what has already been admitted by Trump Jr about his Russian meeting was direct evidence of illegality. At the moment that would fall under the technical infringement category and therefore I don't think would be likely to affect the support of Republicans in Congress, but that assumes there's nothing further to discover.
What would concern me if I were an American is that it appears that a background briefing / whispering campaign has begun with the aim of laying the foundation for dismissing Robert Mueller. This is a man who is exceptionally unusual in recent US politics as being accepted by all sides as virtually apolitical (he was confirmed unanimously when appointed by Bush despite being a registered Republican). So why might he be dismissed? - one possibility would be that he's doing a very poor job, but that would seem to require a pretty hasty judgment. - another possibility would be that he's making a public nuisance of himself. I don't follow US news sources, but I'm not aware of any leaks at all that have made it into the UK press about what progress he's made since being appointed as a special prosecutor, so this seems an unlikely rationale. On the face of it dismissing him would seem a crazy decision as it gives such an appearance of guilt. Applying Occam's razor the obvious explanation would be that he had been making progress in his investigations and giving the appearance of guilt would be better than allowing him to produce confirmation of guilt.
I'm not ruling out the possibility at the moment that this is just a dirty tricks campaign by the Democrats to make the President look bad. However, clearly if that is the case then Mueller will not in fact be dismissed. If he is dismissed that will be circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of something serious. While I agree that won't be convincing to everyone circumstantial evidence can be used to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example footprints, fingerprints and DNA evidence can all be used to attempt to establish presence at a crime scene. No jury would be likely to convict purely on the circumstantial evidence of footprints, but convictions can and have been made just on the basis of DNA evidence (some of those are being challenged over time, which is a whole different topic, but I'm just making the point that circumstantial evidence can be accepted by a jury as strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the circumstantial evidence of guilt does ever become strong enough I think it is conceivable that Trump would lose the support of Congress and without that his position would be untenable.
Robert Mueller has nothing to do with the Democrats. Nothing. People need to understand that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now private citizens with no more power than you or I. They aren't running some government in exile pulling Robert Mueller's strings like a puppet. But furthermore, Democrats hold, at this moment, exactly ZERO power in the federal government. Zero. The Republicans control the House, Senate, the Supreme Court (thanks to a stolen seat) and the Executive Branch. Blaming Democrats from ANYTHING happening in Washington right now is like blaming a player who sat on the end of the bench for 4 quarters for his team losing a basketball game.
Very good point, its not like the Dems can do much of anything with their lack of power/influence.
...except stoke baseless conspiracies as a way of hampering their effectiveness. Hey, i'll hand it to them, it has dominated political conversation over all else. Even topics of great concern and importance.
Before I even read your post any further
Perhaps you should read my post further because the answer to your question lies within. There is nothing wrong with it either legally, which has been sourced by desperately AntiTrump sources highly favorable to your political camp and narrative, nor morally, though such things are naturally more open to interpretation, the answer to "when is truth unethical to seek" has no easy answer.
Furthermore, the general thesis of just about every Trump Russia episode of madness is baseless because none of it implicates Trump in any illegality, nor in violation of any principle not repeatedly violated by his very accusers months before the outbreak of hyteria. As i've said and will continue to say, because it is true and highly relevant, if the left cared about election integrity they'd be performing a ruthless autopsy as of now. They're not, because they don't need to, because when they cheat election rules and all sense of fairness and decency nobody calls them out on it because journalists are a liberal class. Instead, they talk about Russia until everyone forgets only one party has decisevely proven themselves to have cheated this election and it wasn't Republicans. Democrats got information from foriegn powers that was passed onto the Clinton Campaign. Nobody cares. Like all things inconvienient to the fable, it is quickly ignored and forgotten in hopes the cracks in the story don't begin to show. Buisness as usual under the left is a deal with satan and hitler when the right does it.
If Trump, or Trump Jr. or Baron Trump did something illegal with Russia prove it already without an entriely circumstantial case. This Russia nonsense has been going on since the election. Since then, not one person has been found guilty of anything, the story of the fabled TrumpRussia collusion has changed a thousand times and taken a thousand different faces yet noone is being punished.
Either Trump is an idiotic incompetent buffoon who can't handle his emotions or Trump committed a grand conspiracy and is getting away with it despite the full glare of the spotlight and a legion of investigators desperate for him to hang for it. These two ideas can not be reasonably held at the same time yet the left seems to believe them both.
The best part about it is that, knowing they have no ground to stand on, the witch hunters have refused to make a solid claim about what Trump *actually* did with Russia that can then be proven wrong in retrospect, perferring vague words like "collusion". So Trump Jr. meeting for oppo research in a perfectly valid act is as good as the smoking gun of Putin and Trump "colluding" in the election. Despite the context of that term having an entirely different meaning when it was first trotted out during Clinton's campaign bid given all available information at the time. If you want to be vague and slippery enough, like a Nostradomus prophecy, you can say you were right all along no matter what happens. That doesn't actually mean you were.
As i've said and will continue to say, because it is true and highly relevant, if the left cared about election integrity they'd be performing a ruthless autopsy as of now. They're not, because they don't need to, because when they cheat election rules and all sense of fairness and decency nobody calls them out on it because journalists are a liberal class.
You continue saying this in nearly every post and never point to a single actual incident of this supposed election illegality that took place in the Democratic primary. You bring up the DNC and never point to single thing they actually DID that supposedly tipped the primary to Hillary. What was there, besides the admitted to tipping of a debate question about the death penalty by Donna Brazile?? And again, you clearly can't stand Hillary, and have admitted that Bernie lost you with his "white people don't understand" comment. So what exactly is your concern about the inter-party rules of a political organization who fielded two candidates you weren't even going to vote for?? This is what many of us would call "concern trolling".
I like Spicer's replacement Scaramucci already. When asked by CNN why the President they lie about calls them fake news, his reponse was, to paraphrase: "You mean like the time you did a fake news story on me?"
Which is 100% true. They did publish a non credible story about him, about the Russia madness of course, that then led to CNN having to lay off the employees involved to save their failing reputation. This isn't uncommon in the Trump era, sadly, yet some wonder why the label of Fake News sticks so well. Despite them inventing the term in the first place
I like Spicer's replacement Scaramucci already. When asked by CNN why the President they lie about calls them fake news, his reponse was, to paraphrase: "You mean like the time you did a fake news story on me?"
Which is 100% true. They did publish a non credible story about him, about the Russia madness of course, that then led to CNN having to lay off the employees involved to save their failing reputation. This isn't uncommon in the Trump era, sadly, yet some wonder why the label of Fake News sticks so well. Despite them inventing the term in the first place
This idea that journalism is now expected to be 100% accurate at all times or the entire profession is illegitimate and untrustworthy is just childish nonsense. In journalism, mistakes get made, retractions are issued, and, yes, people lose their jobs and reputation when stories fall through. That is called taking responsibility for making a mistake and getting things wrong. It's what adults do. Name one time this Administration has done likewise.
As i've said and will continue to say, because it is true and highly relevant, if the left cared about election integrity they'd be performing a ruthless autopsy as of now. They're not, because they don't need to, because when they cheat election rules and all sense of fairness and decency nobody calls them out on it because journalists are a liberal class.
You continue saying this in nearly every post and never point to a single actual incident of this supposed election illegality that took place in the Democratic primary. You bring up the DNC and never point to single thing they actually DID that supposedly tipped the primary to Hillary. What was there, besides the admitted to tipping of a debate question about the death penalty by Donna Brazile?? And again, you clearly can't stand Hillary, and have admitted that Bernie lost you with his "white people don't understand" comment. So what exactly is your concern about the inter-party rules of an political organization who fielded two candidates you weren't even going to vote for?? This is what many of us would call "concern trolling".
Does it actually matter if the cheating led to the desired result? Is it okay to cheat if you still don't win?
Besides the feeding of debate questions, which should be enough in itself frankly, there was Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other coordinating with others to promote Hillary and attack Bernie in violation of their charter, which absolutely should be enough right there, there were news organizations clearing their coverage with democrats to make sure it was acceptable, proven racial and religious discrimination under Obama's admin...
And Brazile the question leaker after her act was given Debbie's seat in interim, proving the DNC's total unrepetance.
You call it concern trolling, I call it consistency. If the left hates the fact that Trump allegedly cheated the election by aid from Russia, they should also hate the fact that the DNC and left media cheated the election to aid Hilary. If they don't, a cheated election isn't something they actually care about, is it?
As i've said and will continue to say, because it is true and highly relevant, if the left cared about election integrity they'd be performing a ruthless autopsy as of now. They're not, because they don't need to, because when they cheat election rules and all sense of fairness and decency nobody calls them out on it because journalists are a liberal class.
You continue saying this in nearly every post and never point to a single actual incident of this supposed election illegality that took place in the Democratic primary. You bring up the DNC and never point to single thing they actually DID that supposedly tipped the primary to Hillary. What was there, besides the admitted to tipping of a debate question about the death penalty by Donna Brazile?? And again, you clearly can't stand Hillary, and have admitted that Bernie lost you with his "white people don't understand" comment. So what exactly is your concern about the inter-party rules of an political organization who fielded two candidates you weren't even going to vote for?? This is what many of us would call "concern trolling".
Does it actually matter if the cheating led to the desired result? Is it okay to cheat if you still don't win?
Besides the feeding of debate questions, which should be enough in itself frankly, there was Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other coordinating with others to promote Hillary and attack Bernie in violation of their charter, which absolutely should be enough right there, there were news organizations clearing their coverage with democrats to make sure it was acceptable, proven racial and religious discrimination under Obama's admin...
And Brazile the question leaker after her act was given Debbie's seat in interim, proving the DNC's total unrepetance.
You call it concern trolling, I call it consistency. If the left hates the fact that Trump allegedly cheated the election by aid from Russia, they should also hate the fact that the DNC and left media cheated the election to aid Hilary. If they don't, a cheated election isn't something they actually care about, is it?
Donna Brazile was put in interim charge of the DNC on July 24th. The revelation about the sharing of the debate question wasn't revealed until October 11th. So yes, they were unrepentant if this whole incident took place with the help of the DeLorean from "Back to the Future".
I'm not particularly interested in re-writing my fairly long write-up of why Bernie lost the primary for a third time, but it can be easily searched if one wants to find it. He lost by a substantial amount, and the race was over FAR earlier than any media or (especially) online media outlets let on. It boils down to this: he didn't take it as seriously as he should have, he was coasting on the protest vote angle, and, most importantly, he had no constituency with the African-American primary voters in the South, which the Clintons had been cultivating for decades.
Besides, like i've said before, I genuinely liked Bernie and voted for him in the primary. Yes, i'm a registered Democrat. I still think he's the one guy on the left who will push important issues the way Trump is with the right. My concern for half the political spectrum getting honest elections is sincere.
Washington Post is now reporting that Sessions discussed campaign related information with Kislyak, per discussions picked up on intercepts of Russian officials. Forget about what this means on it's own. If this is true, it means that, without question, Jeff Sessions perjured himself at both his confirmation hearing, and at his recent appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Again, forget about the Russian details. What are we supposed to believe about the rule of law in this country when the Attorney General is going to the Hill and lying under oath, on purpose, every 3 months or so??
The timing of this news report is incredibly fortuitous for Trump. Just when it looked like the special investigator was going to dig into family finances and the President cannot directly fire him, suddenly there is new dirt on the Attorney General (who can fire the special investigator), dirt which the President could use for "urge" Sessions to resign and allow a more agreeable Attorney General to fill that office.
What are the odds that Trump would get such a lucky break right when he needed it?
On a lighter note...does Scaramucci do the fandango?
Washington Post is now reporting that Sessions discussed campaign related information with Kislyak, per discussions picked up on intercepts of Russian officials. Forget about what this means on it's own. If this is true, it means that, without question, Jeff Sessions perjured himself at both his confirmation hearing, and at his recent appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Again, forget about the Russian details. What are we supposed to believe about the rule of law in this country when the Attorney General is going to the Hill and lying under oath, on purpose, every 3 months or so??
The timing of this news report is incredibly fortuitous for Trump. Just when it looked like the special investigator was going to dig into family finances and the President cannot directly fire him, suddenly there is new dirt on the Attorney General (who can fire the special investigator), dirt which the President could use for "urge" Sessions to resign and allow a more agreeable Attorney General to fill that office.
What are the odds that Trump would get such a lucky break right when he needed it?
On a lighter note...does Scaramucci do the fandango?
This is really a double-edged sword. On one hand, I think Sessions is an outright dangerous Attorney General in regards to civil rights, and I want him out of the position. On the other hand, you are correct. It does give Trump license to get someone in who will run interference on the investigation and fire Mueller.
I've actually always found "Bohemian Rhapsody" to be fairly annoying, which places me in a small minority. I suppose I like it better than "Hotel California" and "Freebird", but not by much. The only all-time classic rock warhorse I can stand out the 4 I would consider holding that title is "Stairway to Heaven".
If the left hates the fact that Trump allegedly cheated the election by aid from Russia, they should also hate the fact that the DNC and left media cheated the election to aid Hilary.
The GOP and the right-wing media supported Trump. Nobody said they weren't allowed to do that. Yet the Democratic party and the left-wing media are not allowed to support Clinton?
As I've pointed out before, the distinction is that Americans can support one candidate or another. That much is their right, and I have yet to see a single Democrat say that Fox News isn't allowed to try to influence elections just like CNN does. Both groups are Americans; both have the right to support a candidate.
Foreigners, however, do not get to influence our elections unless they've gotten an American citizenship. Putin and his cronies are not loyal American citizens.
There's a difference between a primary that favors a candidate that the establishment wants and what Trump did. Before I explain, I want to say why the heck are we talking about this - Trump's president and doing stuff, there won't be another dnc primary for years?? Who gives a shit. Yes it's something that should be addressed but it's not the most pressing thing going on in the world today.
So the DNC primary has superdelegates and tips it's finger on the scale towards what the establishment wants. Absolutely things should change. But there's no treason going on here. There's no collusion with a foreign adversary that STOLE and hacked and used spies. Hillary wasn't as unscrupulous as Donald Trump and didn't say "I love it" when she was offered some stolen information on Bernie.
The DNC primary process is about the same as the electoral college. Both systems puts the finger on the scale to favor one interest over another. Are these things fair? No, not entirely. Should it be changed? Possibly yeah.
But a weighted DNC primary is not betraying your country because you have no morals. I wouldn't say this but others could even argue that the system is better because it is a system set up to prevent a populist lying candidate who hijacks the party like the Republicans got.
Regarding legality of Trump Jr.'s meeting, there's simply no way a court will interpret items of value as pertaining to just information because it would violate the first amendment, as i've said.
This isn't even just my opinion, it's mostly just the fringe left that remains making this claim. CNN and Washigton Post have both been skeptical of that claim, and they're always hungry for a TrumpRussia scandal. Though I don't trust these outlets judgements on right wing matters often, their analysis is sound, an interpretation such as that would be incredibly overbroad and outlaw perfectly acceptable first amendment activities and, more importantly, potentially deny us access to the truth.
It's not just your opinion, but the issue is not clear-cut in the way you suggest and nor is there any consensus building that there's no case to answer. A quick Google showed plenty of people recently stating they believe it is illegal - one of those is Chris Christie, who apart from being a Republican attorney is about as much a friend to Trump as he's got. Just as a quick re-cap there are 3 arguments that have been advanced to support the 'not illegal' theory: 1) Trump Jr wasn't soliciting. This is a technical legal point about when something is an offer and based on the fact that Trump Jr did not initiate the meeting. Just following Trump Jrs email chain though he clearly welcomed and facilitated it. The definition of solicitation is: A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. and personally I think it's clear that definition has been met even from what Trump Jr has already admitted. 2) There was nothing of value. Again this is a technical point based on the assumption that the FEC has not recognized information as having a value in previous rulings. However, the FEC has consistently accepted that non-monetary contributions are prohibited. There is a particular exception to this in relation to volunteers participating in a campaign, but that does not apply here and again I don't think this defense would hold. 3) It's all First Amendment protected. This is a slightly different form of defense - effectively saying that the act could have been illegal under specific laws, but those are over-ridden by the constitution. As I've said previously though, the prohibition on foreign interference also derives from the constitution and I think it is exceptionally unlikely that a court would construe the 1st amendment so widely as to allow foreign interference to take place. There have been previous court cases relevant to this issue. In Blumen v FEC for instance the judgment said: It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process. That was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh (a conservative). The high court affirmed this ruling summarily with no dissenting opinions.
If Trump Jrs case ever came to court I think therefore his conduct would be found illegal. I think it is possible that the above defences could create enough legal 'noise' to help prevent this getting to court in the first place, but given that Robert Mueller has now started the formal investigation of the meeting and the surrounding circumstances I think there's a decent chance we will find out in due course which of us is right on this issue ...
If Trump, or Trump Jr. or Baron Trump did something illegal with Russia prove it already without an entriely circumstantial case. This Russia nonsense has been going on since the election. Since then, not one person has been found guilty of anything, the story of the fabled TrumpRussia collusion has changed a thousand times and taken a thousand different faces yet noone is being punished.
You seem to be using circumstantial as equivalent to 'lacking credibility', but that's not the legal sense of the word - circumstantial evidence can often be far more persuasive than direct evidence. Consider for instance a court case concerning a stabbing at a nightclub. There could be direct evidence in the case, for instance a witness who says he saw the defendant stab the victim. However, in a crowded, generally dark, environment with flashing lights such witness testimony would be unlikely to be that persuasive. Circumstantial evidence, e.g. the defendant's fingerprints on the knife and blood from the victim on the defendant's clothes, could be considerably stronger.
In relation to timing, investigations into these matters are still in their early stages and there would never have been the slightest chance of anyone having been found guilty by now. It was around a year after the Watergate break-in that testimony to the select committee set up by the Senate started producing troubling results and more than a year after that when Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.
If Trump, or Trump Jr. or Baron Trump did something illegal with Russia prove it already without an entriely circumstantial case. This Russia nonsense has been going on since the election. Since then, not one person has been found guilty of anything, the story of the fabled TrumpRussia collusion has changed a thousand times and taken a thousand different faces yet noone is being punished.
You seem to be using circumstantial as equivalent to 'lacking credibility', but that's not the legal sense of the word - circumstantial evidence can often be far more persuasive than direct evidence. Consider for instance a court case concerning a stabbing at a nightclub. There could be direct evidence in the case, for instance a witness who says he saw the defendant stab the victim. However, in a crowded, generally dark, environment with flashing lights such witness testimony would be unlikely to be that persuasive. Circumstantial evidence, e.g. the defendant's fingerprints on the knife and blood from the victim on the defendant's clothes, could be considerably stronger.
In relation to timing, investigations into these matters are still in their early stages and there would never have been the slightest chance of anyone having been found guilty by now. It was around a year after the Watergate break-in that testimony to the select committee set up by the Senate started producing troubling results and more than a year after that when Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.
Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate if it happened today, or at least would have stood a 50/50 chance of doing so. I'll remind everyone that back then, the same thing happened. Nixon and Agnew relentlessly attacked the media as enemies, most Republican voters stood with him until things really hit the fan. Woodward and Bernstein had too retract stories in their reporting. But in the end, Nixon went to far. The Saturday Night massacre, and the refusal to turn over the tapes, which sparked a constitutional crisis. Trump is going to have his Saturday Night Massacre with Mueller (you could argue he had a mini one already with Comey). The question is if there is a single Republican who will go to the White House and tell Donald Trump what the score is when the time comes. I wouldn't bet on it.
Watergate took years to develop. The Russia scandal is happening in fast-forward comparatively. The very idea that 6 months into an Administration we have had a fired FBI Director, the appointment of a Special Counsel, and now legitimate talk of firing the Special Counsel and preemptive pardons speaks to just how corrupt and dangerous things are right now. We haven't even made it through the summer yet. Now that the goalposts have moved, the next phase is attacks on Mueller directly from the White House. They are going to smear him, they are going to paint his entire investigative and legal team as Democratic hatchet men. The plan is already going into effect, and you only need to listen to 5 minutes of AM radio to see what is happening. This is going to get very ugly. Trump's supporters are now 100% conditioned and of the belief that the ENTIRE media is involved in a conspiracy to bring him down. He can, now, shoot that person on 5th Ave. It wouldn't matter in the least to 30% of the country. Whatever comes out from here on out, he will retain his core support. He would have to sacrifice an infant on live television to lose it.
The Russia investigation is the farthest thing from baseless. An example of baseless is claiming Obama was born in Kenya. A "news" story run by right wing media for well over a year started by America's current President.
There is evidence there of collusion. One thing you need to remember, most of the investigation is being done behind closed doors and not through the media. The FBI isn't doing daily news briefings to keep the American population up to speed. It is completely unethical do that.
What they are doing, is building a case against Trump's Campaign, which is not the same as building a case against Trump himself, although, in the end he may be charge depending on what information is uncovered. No proof of charges are going to be made present until charges are put forward.
But once again, the prosecutors must be able to do his job unhindered for this to happen.
Obama hiring on racial and religious grounds
Once again, this is an extremely racist thing to say without proof that someone in the former administration didn't do their job up to its expected potential, and that person was only hired due to "fill a quota."
An example of a person who didn't do their job to its expected potential is Michael D. Brown. That is the danger of putting the wrong people in the wrong position for the wrong reasons.
There is no proof the Obama administration did this with any of their positions. If there was, it would have blown up during his administration, not after it.
DNC email
This is constantly being brought up as a counter argument to anything that might be found as Russia tampering in the election.
One. Single. Email.
Sometimes it is brought up multiple times in the same post as justification for what any of Trump's team did as justification.
Even though it has been stated numerous times:
It didn't effect the outcome of the DNC primary election
The person's responsible for it were held accountable
It was revealed only through a Russia hack of the servers
It has nothing to do with the current investigation and topics at hand.
"well the DNC did this, so there" isn't a responsible response when it comes to discussing the current's administrations problems. It might give you a slight justification as a reason to why you thought it necessary to vote them in, but it doesn't excuse what has happened and continues to happen because this administration is in charge.
It's not a complete lack of power. Although Democrats are the minority in all branches of government, they can still exert some small influence if the GOP is in disagreement and needs some Democratic votes to get something done.
But yes, policy today is dominated by the GOP, and will continue to be that way at least for the next 1.5-3.5 years, depending on the 2018 midterms.
It's not really a lack of power that is the Democrat's problem, it's a lack of leadership and direction. Any effective opposition would be ripping the shower of morons in the White House to shreds.
Trump is at a 36% approval rating, and doesn't have much lower to go. There isn't anything to be done when the Republicans provide cover for him. The generic Congressional ballot polling is averaging about +10 towards Democrats right now. There aren't many people left to be convinced. Nearly everyone who is going to abandon Trump has already done so. He is never going to fall below 30%, maybe not even 33%.
Trump managed to achieve that all on his own. Imagine what could be achieved if there was an organised opposition!
@jjstraka34 Interesting piece by Marshall. IMO, esp. in regards to the last sentence of that article.
"And the country is likely heading toward a major constitutional and political crisis because Trump is signaling that he will not allow the normal course of the law to apply to him – a challenge which puts the entire edifice of democratic government under threat."
Just to follow that line of thinking, I mention this because I can honestly see somebody on a far corner of the political spectrum (or just disturbed in some major way) taking a hard line interpretation of the 2nd amendment (that free state bit), for example, or some other reason that bugs a person, and going for Trump all out. He is certainly pushing people's buttons.
We really don't need that again. I know, some will sat 'that could/ will never happen', but it has in the past (even recently with shooters like Hodgkinson and Loughner) , to various figures in government, police, and private citizens, for much less or a reason.
Comments
What would concern me if I were an American is that it appears that a background briefing / whispering campaign has begun with the aim of laying the foundation for dismissing Robert Mueller. This is a man who is exceptionally unusual in recent US politics as being accepted by all sides as virtually apolitical (he was confirmed unanimously when appointed by Bush despite being a registered Republican). So why might he be dismissed?
- one possibility would be that he's doing a very poor job, but that would seem to require a pretty hasty judgment.
- another possibility would be that he's making a public nuisance of himself. I don't follow US news sources, but I'm not aware of any leaks at all that have made it into the UK press about what progress he's made since being appointed as a special prosecutor, so this seems an unlikely rationale.
On the face of it dismissing him would seem a crazy decision as it gives such an appearance of guilt. Applying Occam's razor the obvious explanation would be that he had been making progress in his investigations and giving the appearance of guilt would be better than allowing him to produce confirmation of guilt.
I'm not ruling out the possibility at the moment that this is just a dirty tricks campaign by the Democrats to make the President look bad. However, clearly if that is the case then Mueller will not in fact be dismissed. If he is dismissed that will be circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of something serious. While I agree that won't be convincing to everyone circumstantial evidence can be used to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example footprints, fingerprints and DNA evidence can all be used to attempt to establish presence at a crime scene. No jury would be likely to convict purely on the circumstantial evidence of footprints, but convictions can and have been made just on the basis of DNA evidence (some of those are being challenged over time, which is a whole different topic, but I'm just making the point that circumstantial evidence can be accepted by a jury as strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the circumstantial evidence of guilt does ever become strong enough I think it is conceivable that Trump would lose the support of Congress and without that his position would be untenable.
The reason why it has been going on for "months and months" is due to the fact that the president runs interference as much as he can against the campaign looking into the Russian ordeal. Just look how many people he has already fired publicly both in New York (where state laws would prevent him from issuing pardons) and the federal level in judicial capacities. The thing is, all them are sticking.
Flynn, Manafort were the early causalities to this investigation and Trump Jr just threw a whole lot of other people under the bus recently. Things are sticking, it is just when people hear "Trump Campaign" they expect dirt on Trump, and only Trump. That dirt is coming, only if, let me repeat this again, the prosecutors are allowed to do their job. You are quite right. The Right doesn't have any accountability, by attempting to throw the democrats under the bus when their bills fail. If Obama tweeted out the Covfefe comment, we'd still be hearing it today by right wing media. Hell we were still listening to cigar jokes about Clinton during the campaign. The thing is, the last president didn't really do anything stupid for the Right Wing media to pounce on, except maybe his "dad" jokes which he owned. This has so much to it, that it is almost an information overload of false statements, and misdirections. But lemme see if I can go through them all
- Alleged attempt to hack the power grid. It didn't happen so there is no concrete information. It is not like the FBI or CIA are going to claim straight up that national interests like nuclear power plants are under constant attack. Just think of the hysteria it would cause.
- Like "Fox" editing the new story about Omar Khadr to make it sound like Canada abused his Human Rights and not the Americans through Torture during the Iraq war? Editing out a comment that doesn't fit the news story you are attempting to tell isn't "covering something up." Changing facts like Fox did IS. And CNN, isn't considered left. Well it is left if you consider Fox centre. But that is the problem with this left/right debate. You have no centre. So anytime a news organization states something negative about Republicans, it falls to the "well that's Left-wing media for you, don't believe them, they're fake news," which is highly damaging that anything can be shrugged off just because someone who you do not agree with said it.
- The was no DNC collusion with Ukraine, this was spelt out to you a couple of pages ago.
- The primary elections were not "rigged," once again, explained 100's of pages ago and even currently that Sanders entered the race too late to get any solid traction. And if you are saying it is because of the leaked questions, well the democrats accountability that you said they didn't have fix that with resignations but eh, it is still something republican supporters like to bring up whenever something new the republicans do something stupid "ya, well, you guys leaked one question to your front running candidate, so there".
- Obama "discriminating by race and religion" reads "white people didn't get them, so it must be racist!' Which is unfair to those in that administration that did their job properly and fully during his 8 years. It isn't like people got the cushy FEMA job because they were large campaign donors and had no expertise in crisis management and when Katerina hit all their flaws were front in centre for the entire world to see. But once again, accountability, and long term memory that people seem not to have.
- Did I get them all? Hope so.
Once again, you are confusing what is being investigated. It isn't Russia tampering with the election, it is Russia's tampering with the Trump Campaign. There is a HUGE, HUGE difference.But the DNC laundry is already out for all to see, thanks to, wait for it, Russian Hackers. Everything alleged the DNC does would be old news and most people would probably be just shrug at it (except places like Fox who'd run them constantly instead of any real stories emerging from the investigation). If there was ever an investigation into voter suppression, then Republicans would have to be worried as it is all hearsay at the moment.
But once again, as soon as an investigation like that started, people would be screaming "this is getting old, move on. This is just a witch hunt..." Only time will tell, I will tell you though, right now, if pardons are issued, they are just going to spin it as "This isn't an admission of guilt, we just wanted the witch hunting to stop so we can run this country effectively like the majority of Americans wanted us to do." I just read, Trump was hesitant to hire him (hence why all the talk of him being replaced) because he didn't think he'd be loyal enough.
He will be the first one to throw them all under the bus if he is ever asked to do a book deal or something.
And if you think Trump's communication team was a joke before, it is about to get much worse with Scaramucci at the helm.
Oh well tic tock.
But yes, policy today is dominated by the GOP, and will continue to be that way at least for the next 1.5-3.5 years, depending on the 2018 midterms.
Regarding legality of Trump Jr.'s meeting, there's simply no way a court will interpret items of value as pertaining to just information because it would violate the first amendment, as i've said.
This isn't even just my opinion, it's mostly just the fringe left that remains making this claim. CNN and Washigton Post have both been skeptical of that claim, and they're always hungry for a TrumpRussia scandal. Though I don't trust these outlets judgements on right wing matters often, their analysis is sound, an interpretation such as that would be incredibly overbroad and outlaw perfectly acceptable first amendment activities and, more importantly, potentially deny us access to the truth.
For this reason most of the coverage has shifted to hyperventilating about how many people exactly were in the room.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/14/the-strikingly-broad-consequences-of-the-argument-that-donald-trump-jr-broke-the-law-by-expressing-interest-in-russian-dirt-on-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.eda0648b7568
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html
It is all right there, in Trump Jr's emails. There is your base to the conspiracy. How is it baseless? If this administration stopped lying under oath about their dealings, it wouldn't be the "conspiracy theory" it is now.
And yes "first amendment rights" may cover the campaign financial charges. It is how they were going to spin it after release. It does not cover anything else damaging that they may find due to the emails. But once again, for that to happen, the prosecutors must be able to do their job.
Perjury charges on the other hand...
Again, forget about the Russian details. What are we supposed to believe about the rule of law in this country when the Attorney General is going to the Hill and lying under oath, on purpose, every 3 months or so??
And again in case you missed it, Donald Trump Jr. according to his emails, knew the Russian government supported his dad's campaign prior to eagerly meeting with those Russian spies and money launderers to get promised dirt on Clinton. And Trump himself hours after hearing about the meeting went on TV saying he was going to release info on Clinton and promised to do so at a time after the meeting where his sons and campaign manager attended.
To say there's nothing there is laughable or blind at this point. Especially after Trump says he doesn't want Mueller to look at his finances one minute then starts investigating whether he can pardon himself and his family the next minute.
Furthermore, the general thesis of just about every Trump Russia episode of madness is baseless because none of it implicates Trump in any illegality, nor in violation of any principle not repeatedly violated by his very accusers months before the outbreak of hyteria. As i've said and will continue to say, because it is true and highly relevant, if the left cared about election integrity they'd be performing a ruthless autopsy as of now. They're not, because they don't need to, because when they cheat election rules and all sense of fairness and decency nobody calls them out on it because journalists are a liberal class. Instead, they talk about Russia until everyone forgets only one party has decisevely proven themselves to have cheated this election and it wasn't Republicans. Democrats got information from foriegn powers that was passed onto the Clinton Campaign. Nobody cares. Like all things inconvienient to the fable, it is quickly ignored and forgotten in hopes the cracks in the story don't begin to show. Buisness as usual under the left is a deal with satan and hitler when the right does it.
If Trump, or Trump Jr. or Baron Trump did something illegal with Russia prove it already without an entriely circumstantial case. This Russia nonsense has been going on since the election. Since then, not one person has been found guilty of anything, the story of the fabled TrumpRussia collusion has changed a thousand times and taken a thousand different faces yet noone is being punished.
Either Trump is an idiotic incompetent buffoon who can't handle his emotions or Trump committed a grand conspiracy and is getting away with it despite the full glare of the spotlight and a legion of investigators desperate for him to hang for it. These two ideas can not be reasonably held at the same time yet the left seems to believe them both.
The best part about it is that, knowing they have no ground to stand on, the witch hunters have refused to make a solid claim about what Trump *actually* did with Russia that can then be proven wrong in retrospect, perferring vague words like "collusion". So Trump Jr. meeting for oppo research in a perfectly valid act is as good as the smoking gun of Putin and Trump "colluding" in the election. Despite the context of that term having an entirely different meaning when it was first trotted out during Clinton's campaign bid given all available information at the time. If you want to be vague and slippery enough, like a Nostradomus prophecy, you can say you were right all along no matter what happens. That doesn't actually mean you were.
You continue saying this in nearly every post and never point to a single actual incident of this supposed election illegality that took place in the Democratic primary. You bring up the DNC and never point to single thing they actually DID that supposedly tipped the primary to Hillary. What was there, besides the admitted to tipping of a debate question about the death penalty by Donna Brazile?? And again, you clearly can't stand Hillary, and have admitted that Bernie lost you with his "white people don't understand" comment. So what exactly is your concern about the inter-party rules of a political organization who fielded two candidates you weren't even going to vote for?? This is what many of us would call "concern trolling".
Which is 100% true. They did publish a non credible story about him, about the Russia madness of course, that then led to CNN having to lay off the employees involved to save their failing reputation. This isn't uncommon in the Trump era, sadly, yet some wonder why the label of Fake News sticks so well. Despite them inventing the term in the first place
Besides the feeding of debate questions, which should be enough in itself frankly, there was Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other coordinating with others to promote Hillary and attack Bernie in violation of their charter, which absolutely should be enough right there, there were news organizations clearing their coverage with democrats to make sure it was acceptable, proven racial and religious discrimination under Obama's admin...
And Brazile the question leaker after her act was given Debbie's seat in interim, proving the DNC's total unrepetance.
You call it concern trolling, I call it consistency. If the left hates the fact that Trump allegedly cheated the election by aid from Russia, they should also hate the fact that the DNC and left media cheated the election to aid Hilary. If they don't, a cheated election isn't something they actually care about, is it?
I'm not particularly interested in re-writing my fairly long write-up of why Bernie lost the primary for a third time, but it can be easily searched if one wants to find it. He lost by a substantial amount, and the race was over FAR earlier than any media or (especially) online media outlets let on. It boils down to this: he didn't take it as seriously as he should have, he was coasting on the protest vote angle, and, most importantly, he had no constituency with the African-American primary voters in the South, which the Clintons had been cultivating for decades.
What are the odds that Trump would get such a lucky break right when he needed it?
On a lighter note...does Scaramucci do the fandango?
I've actually always found "Bohemian Rhapsody" to be fairly annoying, which places me in a small minority. I suppose I like it better than "Hotel California" and "Freebird", but not by much. The only all-time classic rock warhorse I can stand out the 4 I would consider holding that title is "Stairway to Heaven".
As I've pointed out before, the distinction is that Americans can support one candidate or another. That much is their right, and I have yet to see a single Democrat say that Fox News isn't allowed to try to influence elections just like CNN does. Both groups are Americans; both have the right to support a candidate.
Foreigners, however, do not get to influence our elections unless they've gotten an American citizenship. Putin and his cronies are not loyal American citizens. We really, really need a citation for a charge as serious as this.
So the DNC primary has superdelegates and tips it's finger on the scale towards what the establishment wants. Absolutely things should change. But there's no treason going on here. There's no collusion with a foreign adversary that STOLE and hacked and used spies. Hillary wasn't as unscrupulous as Donald Trump and didn't say "I love it" when she was offered some stolen information on Bernie.
The DNC primary process is about the same as the electoral college. Both systems puts the finger on the scale to favor one interest over another. Are these things fair? No, not entirely. Should it be changed? Possibly yeah.
But a weighted DNC primary is not betraying your country because you have no morals. I wouldn't say this but others could even argue that the system is better because it is a system set up to prevent a populist lying candidate who hijacks the party like the Republicans got.
1) Trump Jr wasn't soliciting.
This is a technical legal point about when something is an offer and based on the fact that Trump Jr did not initiate the meeting. Just following Trump Jrs email chain though he clearly welcomed and facilitated it. The definition of solicitation is:
A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.
and personally I think it's clear that definition has been met even from what Trump Jr has already admitted.
2) There was nothing of value.
Again this is a technical point based on the assumption that the FEC has not recognized information as having a value in previous rulings. However, the FEC has consistently accepted that non-monetary contributions are prohibited. There is a particular exception to this in relation to volunteers participating in a campaign, but that does not apply here and again I don't think this defense would hold.
3) It's all First Amendment protected.
This is a slightly different form of defense - effectively saying that the act could have been illegal under specific laws, but those are over-ridden by the constitution. As I've said previously though, the prohibition on foreign interference also derives from the constitution and I think it is exceptionally unlikely that a court would construe the 1st amendment so widely as to allow foreign interference to take place. There have been previous court cases relevant to this issue. In Blumen v FEC for instance the judgment said:
It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.
That was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh (a conservative). The high court affirmed this ruling summarily with no dissenting opinions.
If Trump Jrs case ever came to court I think therefore his conduct would be found illegal. I think it is possible that the above defences could create enough legal 'noise' to help prevent this getting to court in the first place, but given that Robert Mueller has now started the formal investigation of the meeting and the surrounding circumstances I think there's a decent chance we will find out in due course which of us is right on this issue ...
In relation to timing, investigations into these matters are still in their early stages and there would never have been the slightest chance of anyone having been found guilty by now. It was around a year after the Watergate break-in that testimony to the select committee set up by the Senate started producing troubling results and more than a year after that when Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment.
Watergate took years to develop. The Russia scandal is happening in fast-forward comparatively. The very idea that 6 months into an Administration we have had a fired FBI Director, the appointment of a Special Counsel, and now legitimate talk of firing the Special Counsel and preemptive pardons speaks to just how corrupt and dangerous things are right now. We haven't even made it through the summer yet. Now that the goalposts have moved, the next phase is attacks on Mueller directly from the White House. They are going to smear him, they are going to paint his entire investigative and legal team as Democratic hatchet men. The plan is already going into effect, and you only need to listen to 5 minutes of AM radio to see what is happening. This is going to get very ugly. Trump's supporters are now 100% conditioned and of the belief that the ENTIRE media is involved in a conspiracy to bring him down. He can, now, shoot that person on 5th Ave. It wouldn't matter in the least to 30% of the country. Whatever comes out from here on out, he will retain his core support. He would have to sacrifice an infant on live television to lose it.
Baseless Conspiracy theory.
The Russia investigation is the farthest thing from baseless. An example of baseless is claiming Obama was born in Kenya. A "news" story run by right wing media for well over a year started by America's current President.
There is evidence there of collusion. One thing you need to remember, most of the investigation is being done behind closed doors and not through the media. The FBI isn't doing daily news briefings to keep the American population up to speed. It is completely unethical do that.
What they are doing, is building a case against Trump's Campaign, which is not the same as building a case against Trump himself, although, in the end he may be charge depending on what information is uncovered. No proof of charges are going to be made present until charges are put forward.
But once again, the prosecutors must be able to do his job unhindered for this to happen.
Obama hiring on racial and religious grounds
Once again, this is an extremely racist thing to say without proof that someone in the former administration didn't do their job up to its expected potential, and that person was only hired due to "fill a quota."
An example of a person who didn't do their job to its expected potential is Michael D. Brown. That is the danger of putting the wrong people in the wrong position for the wrong reasons.
There is no proof the Obama administration did this with any of their positions. If there was, it would have blown up during his administration, not after it.
DNC email
This is constantly being brought up as a counter argument to anything that might be found as Russia tampering in the election.
One. Single. Email.
Sometimes it is brought up multiple times in the same post as justification for what any of Trump's team did as justification.
Even though it has been stated numerous times:
- It didn't effect the outcome of the DNC primary election
- The person's responsible for it were held accountable
- It was revealed only through a Russia hack of the servers
- It has nothing to do with the current investigation and topics at hand.
"well the DNC did this, so there" isn't a responsible response when it comes to discussing the current's administrations problems. It might give you a slight justification as a reason to why you thought it necessary to vote them in, but it doesn't excuse what has happened and continues to happen because this administration is in charge.Stop bringing it up.
"And the country is likely heading toward a major constitutional and political crisis because Trump is signaling that he will not allow the normal course of the law to apply to him – a challenge which puts the entire edifice of democratic government under threat."
Just to follow that line of thinking, I mention this because I can honestly see somebody on a far corner of the political spectrum (or just disturbed in some major way) taking a hard line interpretation of the 2nd amendment (that free state bit), for example, or some other reason that bugs a person, and going for Trump all out. He is certainly pushing people's buttons.
We really don't need that again. I know, some will sat 'that could/ will never happen', but it has in the past (even recently with shooters like Hodgkinson and Loughner) , to various figures in government, police, and private citizens, for much less or a reason.