@UnderstandMouseMagic: As I said, that first post about Jamaica was based on talking to a couple of local men. One of them said that violent crime was low. And again, I did specify that I did not agree or disagree with them on every point of fact or interpretation.
In case there's any remaining confusion: No, these are not my ideas. They're what I've heard and what I'm passing on for discussion. I made a point of distinguishing between my own ideas and the ideas I heard from them.
When it is all said and done, it is going to come down to the fact that, despite being the party that has called liberals "traitors" for decades for simply disagreeing with foreign policy decisions, the Republican Party is now running interference and harboring the biggest group of ACTUAL traitors who have ever taken power in this country, by completely subverting our free elections:
How many times have I said Trump would order an investigation of his political opponents (officially) when the shit started to hit the fan?? Dozens by this point. Donald Trump will burn democracy to the ground before he surrenders a single inch.
There is also the issue of attempting to out an undercover FBI agent, blowing their cover to serve a political agenda. This is apparently now something of a tradition of in Republican Administrations. It isn't a real GOP Administration until you attempt to out a CIA or FBI operative to serve a domestic political agenda. The idea that this party ever ran on the idea of "law and order" is farcical.
Yes. Republicans are protecting traitors, subverting the rule of law, and covering up crimes.
How else can anyone see it by this point? What can we do besides hope for the best and don't believe the lies.
I'm not a part of party that is complicit in this catastrophe and completely off the deep end. Republicans are doing this they've got to stop it.... I'd say we have to stop it before it gets too far but we're damn near past that point already.
Trump apparently has figured out that a guy in his campaign has passed on information to the FBI about crimes he or his people (sons?) committed. So rather than be mad about the crimes he wants to again blame the guy that turned in the information on the criminal(s). Will this stupid tactic work yet again?
Are Republicans going to let Trump obstruct justice here? Even more than he already has?
We should also clarify the distinction between Republican politicians, who are directly involved in policymaking, and Republican citizens, who do not necessarily agree with GOP officials--even those they personally voted for.
I was not aware that someone had been convicted of treason recently--that would have been front-page news in virtually every domestic source.
I'm not talking about a legal definition of treason, I'm talking about the practical definition. You must have missed it, yeah man, this Russia investigation it's been going on for more than a year. It's actually been in the News quite a lot - surprised you haven't heard about it.
It just came out over the weekend that in addition to meeting with Russia to sell out our democracy, gather intel and help to overthrow the democratic election, Trump Jr. and company also met with two Arab princes and an Israeli social media specialist. Isn't it totally normal right for a Presidential campaign to enlist foreign countries intelligence services to influence the election? No big deal right? Or is that treason? It was the person who reported these meetings that's the real problem! /s
What's worse than all that is that Republicans are running interference to let these guys get away with it! They are actively sabotaging the investigation. Why do that if they are not guilty? Let Mueller conduct his probe and they'll be vindicated if they did nothing wrong? Well they aren't doing that. They are doing the opposite of that. Trump himself is actively trying to sabotage the investigation and Congressional Republicans are helping him. Maybe people are missing that too?
We also need to dispense with this fallacy that the Mueller investigation has gone on too long. When you bring numbers to the table, you find that it hasn't even scratched the surface of the length of investigation into previous scandals:
I'm not talking about a legal definition of treason, I'm talking about the practical definition.
There is no such thing as a "practical" definition of treason, only a legal one. Any so-called "practical" definition is merely an opinion--I could just as easily claim that accusing someone of being a traitor without being convicted of treason is treasonous because it goes against our system of justice, which is built on the foundation of "innocent until proven guilty". Alternatively, I could claim that "attempting to have the United States enter into an international agreement without ratification by the Senate" is "treasonous" because it defies the Constitution.
Most of the guilty pleas from the Mueller Investigation are for charges of "lying to investigators", which wouldn't be a crime if there were no investigation. A lot of charges against Gates were also dropped--that usually happens when the prosecutor realizes they don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
I'm not talking about a legal definition of treason, I'm talking about the practical definition.
There is no such thing as a "practical" definition of treason, only a legal one.
I disagree. A "dictionary definition" can be different to a legal definition. For one thing, the legal definition is obviously dependent on the applicable legal system while a more general definition is not.
I'm not talking about a legal definition of treason, I'm talking about the practical definition.
There is no such thing as a "practical" definition of treason, only a legal one. Any so-called "practical" definition is merely an opinion--I could just as easily claim that accusing someone of being a traitor without being convicted of treason is treasonous because it goes against our system of justice, which is built on the foundation of "innocent until proven guilty". Alternatively, I could claim that "attempting to have the United States enter into an international agreement without ratification by the Senate" is "treasonous" because it defies the Constitution.
Most of the guilty pleas from the Mueller Investigation are for charges of "lying to investigators", which wouldn't be a crime if there were no investigation. A lot of charges against Gates were also dropped--that usually happens when the prosecutor realizes they don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
I'm not talking about a legal definition of treason, I'm talking about the practical definition.
There is no such thing as a "practical" definition of treason, only a legal one. Any so-called "practical" definition is merely an opinion--I could just as easily claim that accusing someone of being a traitor without being convicted of treason is treasonous because it goes against our system of justice, which is built on the foundation of "innocent until proven guilty". Alternatively, I could claim that "attempting to have the United States enter into an international agreement without ratification by the Senate" is "treasonous" because it defies the Constitution.
Most of the guilty pleas from the Mueller Investigation are for charges of "lying to investigators", which wouldn't be a crime if there were no investigation. A lot of charges against Gates were also dropped--that usually happens when the prosecutor realizes they don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
What were they lying about?
The sexual relations that person had with someone other than their wife during an investigation on real estate fraud.
I'm not talking about a legal definition of treason, I'm talking about the practical definition.
There is no such thing as a "practical" definition of treason, only a legal one. Any so-called "practical" definition is merely an opinion--I could just as easily claim that accusing someone of being a traitor without being convicted of treason is treasonous because it goes against our system of justice, which is built on the foundation of "innocent until proven guilty". Alternatively, I could claim that "attempting to have the United States enter into an international agreement without ratification by the Senate" is "treasonous" because it defies the Constitution.
Most of the guilty pleas from the Mueller Investigation are for charges of "lying to investigators", which wouldn't be a crime if there were no investigation. A lot of charges against Gates were also dropped--that usually happens when the prosecutor realizes they don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
What were they lying about?
The sexual relations that person had with someone other than their wife during an investigation on real estate fraud.
They were lying in response to questions which would never have been asked had there been no investigation in the first place. The other convictions were for things unrelated to potential Russian involvement with the Trump Campaign.
@FinneousPJ In that case, can you point to any instance where a person has ever been convicted on the *dictionary* definition of "treason"? No, I can't, either. "Treason" is one of those words people like to thrown around, thinking that the very utterance of the word is sufficient to successfully quantify the person about whom it is being used. Trump, himself, just recently tried to suggest that White House Staff leakers were "traitors"...but Trump cares only about people betraying him, personally, not anything else.
I still can't quite tell whether Trump is trying to become Nixon or Reagan, but I am leaning towards Nixon.
In fairly meaningless news, Barack and Michelle Obama have signed a development deal to executive produce content for Netflix. The only thing we can be sure about is that Donald Trump will seek to withdraw from this deal as soon as possible.
In fairly meaningless news, Barack and Michelle Obama have signed a development deal to executive produce content for Netflix. The only thing we can be sure about is that Donald Trump will seek to withdraw from this deal as soon as possible.
Trump probably will go against Netflix now like he's trying to attack Amazon and the Washington Post by personally demanding the Postmaster General double rates on Amazon and other companies he doesn't like. Trump will decide Netflix is an illegal monopoly which is bad only when politically convenient. He has no problem with Sinclair broadcasting owning TV stations 80% of the United States.
They were lying in response to questions which would never have been asked had there been no investigation in the first place. The other convictions were for things unrelated to potential Russian involvement with the Trump Campaign.
@FinneousPJ In that case, can you point to any instance where a person has ever been convicted on the *dictionary* definition of "treason"? No, I can't, either. "Treason" is one of those words people like to thrown around, thinking that the very utterance of the word is sufficient to successfully quantify the person about whom it is being used. Trump, himself, just recently tried to suggest that White House Staff leakers were "traitors"...but Trump cares only about people betraying him, personally, not anything else.
I still can't quite tell whether Trump is trying to become Nixon or Reagan, but I am leaning towards Nixon.
People aren't convicted on dictionary definitions. Are you wondering what type of legal jeopardy the presidents people are in? It must be significant because they keep lying to investigators about their actions like a traitor would do. If they think it's better to lie to investigators than tell the truth they must realize they've done something wrong.
Trump has publicly called for an investigation into the Mueller investigation, accusing the FBI of secretly plotting against him. Just like his claim that Obama wiretapped his campaign, this accusation comes with zero evidence, and I predict that it will end in nothing.
I find it frustrating that Trump simply can't just let law enforcement do their jobs without him objecting to their work. I find it frustrating that Trump views investigations as weapons to use against one's political enemies instead of a means of discovering the truth. I find it frustrating that registered Republicans like Mueller are accused of actually being Democrats somehow. I find it frustrating that the very concept of public scrutiny of public officials is being called into question for the sole reason that Trump is afraid of it. I find it frustrating that the President of the United States is spending what little energy he has on attacking American institutions.
The reason there's an investigation is because there's a question that needs to be answered, a controversy that needs to be put to rest. This investigation is the only thing that can resolve the question of whether people in the Trump campaign broke the law and/or helped the Russian government attempt to sway the result of the election. Without an independent investigation, there is no one to answer that question but politicians and pundits.
The integrity of our elections is important. Public scrutiny of government officials is important. Those are good things, not bad things.
Trump has publicly called for an investigation into the Mueller investigation, accusing the FBI of secretly plotting against him. Just like his claim that Obama wiretapped his campaign, this accusation comes with zero evidence, and I predict that it will end in nothing.
I find it frustrating that Trump simply can't just let law enforcement do their jobs without him objecting to their work. I find it frustrating that Trump views investigations as weapons to use against one's political enemies instead of a means of discovering the truth. I find it frustrating that registered Republicans like Mueller are accused of actually being Democrats somehow. I find it frustrating that the very concept of public scrutiny of public officials is being called into question for the sole reason that Trump is afraid of it. I find it frustrating that the President of the United States is spending what little energy he has on attacking American institutions.
The reason there's an investigation is because there's a question that needs to be answered, a controversy that needs to be put to rest. This investigation is the only thing that can resolve the question of whether people in the Trump campaign broke the law and/or helped the Russian government attempt to sway the result of the election. Without an independent investigation, there is no one to answer that question but politicians and pundits.
The integrity of our elections is important. Public scrutiny of government officials is important. Those are good things, not bad things.
Frustrating is one response it should elicit, but deeply, deeply TROUBLING is the other. Because if you add up all the effort being put into what you just laid out, what do you imagine the REASON he is doing all this is?? The answer is right in front of our faces, and I'm not sure if people simply can't deal with the realization or the gravity of what it means, but based on nearly everything we know about how a guilty person would act, Trump acts that way on a daily basis. If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably isn't a mongoose.
It's one thing to hear about one meeting in Trump Tower with Russians. Now we are hearing about meetings (involving Eric Prince no less) involving the UAE, Saudis, and Israel as well. ANY foreign influence in our elections abetted by the Trump campaign would be illegal. The idea that there is no longer anything here is preposterous. They were at a bare minimum actively seeking the help of foreign governments and actors to win an election. Keep in mind that in regards to the DNC and Clinton campagin emails, we are talking about THEFT. Just as Watergate was about theft. The only difference is that this theft was technological and not a physical act of breaking into a hotel suite. And Nixon didn't break into the Watergate himself. What brought Nixon down was trying to obstruct justice and abuse the power of the Presidency to cover it up after the fact.
Most of us weren't alive back then, even those that were likely too young to remember. But I'll bet any amount of money the exact language and tactics were used against the Watergate investigators. In fact, isn't there video (a State of the Union possibly) of Nixon addressing Congress saying "One year of Watergate is enough"?? Wasn't Spiro Agnew (before he had to resign due to tax fraud) nothing but the proto-Trump screaming about fake news?? It may be of interest of people to know that Roger Ailes, the founder of FOX News, was a close Nixon adviser, and that one of his stated goals in creating that media platform was to make sure Watergate never happened again. Not that no one commit illegal acts again, but that they are never held accountable for them. Nixon would have absolutely survived with the conservative media apparatus that is in place in 2018. I have not a single doubt in my mind about that.
Say what you will about the UK Royal Family, they have finely honed survival instincts. While the country's political parties struggle with Brexit, Grenfell, and the Windrush scandal (concerning the status of immigrants from countries like Jamaica who have been in the country for 40 years).... those cunnin' aristos get ahead of the curve by having a celebration of multiracial harmony with a potential sequel in the works. (Births, deaths, & weddings are the premier products of this brand.) Fascinating that the hereditary parts of the body politic like the Lords and the monarchy are currently on the progressive side of Britain's schizophrenia while the main political parties try to cautiously outflank each other on immigration & anti-globalisation.
A lot of charges against Gates were also dropped--that usually happens when the prosecutor realizes they don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
This part isnt right though, is it? The dropping of charges against Gates is in response to a plea deal in which he'll help Mueller by flipping on Manafort. It looks to have absolutely no bearing on insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
The Israeli social media firm doesn't seem that scandalous. A private company from a friendly country is different from a hostile foreign government.
That depends, though - right? The NYT article that we're all referencing largely points at the three individuals as having business and other connections within Russia. So while Israel isnt an enemy of the US, it doesnt mean they may not be an intermediary to a hostile nation.
Also, it's worth noting that the government of Israel's political ideology lines up much more with a Trump administration than with a Clinton one. It's not inconceivable that it was in Israel's better interest to see Trump win than Clinton.
The Israeli social media firm doesn't seem that scandalous. A private company from a friendly country is different from a hostile foreign government.
The Saudis are friendly as well.
They're our allies, but I do notice that the Saudis have a distinct interest in helping a candidate like Trump, since a president who took action against climate change, as Clinton likely would have, might harm their oil interests.
Say what you will about the UK Royal Family, they have finely honed survival instincts. While the country's political parties struggle with Brexit, Grenfell, and the Windrush scandal (concerning the status of immigrants from countries like Jamaica who have been in the country for 40 years).... those cunnin' aristos get ahead of the curve by having a celebration of multiracial harmony with a potential sequel in the works. (Births, deaths, & weddings are the premier products of this brand.) Fascinating that the hereditary parts of the body politic like the Lords and the monarchy are currently on the progressive side of Britain's schizophrenia while the main political parties try to cautiously outflank each other on immigration & anti-globalisation.
Not being British, I can only speak from the outside, but at this point in history the Royal Family seems like something relatively harmless, not a hell of a lot different than the way Americans obsess over Hollywood. Call me crazy, but the wedding over the weekend seemed nice. William and Harry have always seemed pretty likable to me, much like their mother.
Say what you will about the UK Royal Family, they have finely honed survival instincts. While the country's political parties struggle with Brexit, Grenfell, and the Windrush scandal (concerning the status of immigrants from countries like Jamaica who have been in the country for 40 years).... those cunnin' aristos get ahead of the curve by having a celebration of multiracial harmony with a potential sequel in the works. (Births, deaths, & weddings are the premier products of this brand.) Fascinating that the hereditary parts of the body politic like the Lords and the monarchy are currently on the progressive side of Britain's schizophrenia while the main political parties try to cautiously outflank each other on immigration & anti-globalisation.
The royal family have always been very pro multiracial/multicultural matters. The Commonwealth is a very big deal to them and they spend a lot of time promoting it.
That said, they are, shall we say, slightly removed from the problems that large scale immigration have caused the UK. Small country, (and even smaller when you take into consideration how much is unsuitable for people to live in, mountains, moorland, vital agricultural land, ect.) an extra six million people over a short period of time is going to cause problems regardless of where those people come from.
People aren't convicted on dictionary definitions. Are you wondering what type of legal jeopardy the presidents people are in? It must be significant because they keep lying to investigators about their actions like a traitor would do. If they think it's better to lie to investigators than tell the truth they must realize they've done something wrong.
Actually, I don't care what sort of legal jeopardy Trump's people might be in--I didn't vote for him so they aren't "my" people. I do care about using the words "traitor" or "treason" when that hasn't been an indictment against anyone, much less even a suggestion. Only people who thoroughly dislike Trump are using that word. Those words should be reserved for *actual* treason, not as a euphamism for "I don't like him or his policies".
I place Saudi Arabia in the "not an enemy" category rather than "friendly". Those are different things altogether.
The Israeli social media firm doesn't seem that scandalous. A private company from a friendly country is different from a hostile foreign government.
The Saudis are friendly as well.
They're our allies, but I do notice that the Saudis have a distinct interest in helping a candidate like Trump, since a president who took action against climate change, as Clinton likely would have, might harm their oil interests.
That's just one aspect. The US stance against Iran and the various government sponsored business dealings with Saudi Arabia really don't look good against this backdrop. If it were a private company that was involved in this it would clearly be corruption. Trump will no doubt paint this as just realpolitik, but it does seem very likely to me that there were things illegal under US law involved in this and those do need to be investigated. As @jjstraka34 said the Mueller investigation is still in its early stages. I'm impressed that this investigation has been able to make the amount of progress it has so far - particularly given the level of obstruction and hostility it's faced.
Say what you will about the UK Royal Family, they have finely honed survival instincts. While the country's political parties struggle with Brexit, Grenfell, and the Windrush scandal (concerning the status of immigrants from countries like Jamaica who have been in the country for 40 years).... those cunnin' aristos get ahead of the curve by having a celebration of multiracial harmony with a potential sequel in the works. (Births, deaths, & weddings are the premier products of this brand.) Fascinating that the hereditary parts of the body politic like the Lords and the monarchy are currently on the progressive side of Britain's schizophrenia while the main political parties try to cautiously outflank each other on immigration & anti-globalisation.
The royal family have always been very pro multiracial/multicultural matters. The Commonwealth is a very big deal to them and they spend a lot of time promoting it.
That said, they are, shall we say, slightly removed from the problems that large scale immigration have caused the UK. Small country, (and even smaller when you take into consideration how much is unsuitable for people to live in, mountains, moorland, vital agricultural land, ect.) an extra six million people over a short period of time is going to cause problems regardless of where those people come from.
I think this may be slightly more of an English point of view than a British one? Scottish people I've heard speak on the topic seem quite warm on the benefits of immigration for local communities. This probably relates to factors like local population density, the changing job market, and particularly the housing crisis. The undoubted problems which a whole generation have to deal with in the UK, and elsewhere, can't solely be attributed to the increased proportion of migrants. I think a regional approach to immigration could however be beneficial, as part of a wider industrial strategy. Sadly the UK government's processing power is so choked on Brexit right now that they simply can't even attempt to deal with all the other concerns which need addressing, not that they were willing to pre-Brexit! A bit more of an effort managing immigration- as the EU allows- and some more attention paid to helping towns make a transition as large scale manufacturing declined would have done a world of good easy as it is to say...
They were lying in response to questions which would never have been asked had there been no investigation in the first place. The other convictions were for things unrelated to potential Russian involvement with the Trump Campaign.
@FinneousPJ In that case, can you point to any instance where a person has ever been convicted on the *dictionary* definition of "treason"? No, I can't, either. "Treason" is one of those words people like to thrown around, thinking that the very utterance of the word is sufficient to successfully quantify the person about whom it is being used. Trump, himself, just recently tried to suggest that White House Staff leakers were "traitors"...but Trump cares only about people betraying him, personally, not anything else.
I still can't quite tell whether Trump is trying to become Nixon or Reagan, but I am leaning towards Nixon.
No of course you cannot because a conviction is a legal matter. That is a silly question which does nothing to counter my point.
Comments
In case there's any remaining confusion: No, these are not my ideas. They're what I've heard and what I'm passing on for discussion. I made a point of distinguishing between my own ideas and the ideas I heard from them.
How else can anyone see it by this point? What can we do besides hope for the best and don't believe the lies.
I'm not a part of party that is complicit in this catastrophe and completely off the deep end. Republicans are doing this they've got to stop it.... I'd say we have to stop it before it gets too far but we're damn near past that point already.
Trump apparently has figured out that a guy in his campaign has passed on information to the FBI about crimes he or his people (sons?) committed. So rather than be mad about the crimes he wants to again blame the guy that turned in the information on the criminal(s). Will this stupid tactic work yet again?
Are Republicans going to let Trump obstruct justice here? Even more than he already has?
There's been traitorous behavior from Trump Jr., Manaford, Kushner and other Trumpists. Some of them have been charged with felonies. Here's what we have after a year - 19 charged, 5 guilty pleas so far. How can people have missed this?
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/19-charged-5-guilty-pleas-a-year-into-the-mueller-investigation-1236366403827
It just came out over the weekend that in addition to meeting with Russia to sell out our democracy, gather intel and help to overthrow the democratic election, Trump Jr. and company also met with two Arab princes and an Israeli social media specialist. Isn't it totally normal right for a Presidential campaign to enlist foreign countries intelligence services to influence the election? No big deal right? Or is that treason? It was the person who reported these meetings that's the real problem! /s
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/politics/donald-trump-jr-trump-tower-meeting-gulf-emissary/index.html
What's worse than all that is that Republicans are running interference to let these guys get away with it! They are actively sabotaging the investigation. Why do that if they are not guilty? Let Mueller conduct his probe and they'll be vindicated if they did nothing wrong? Well they aren't doing that. They are doing the opposite of that. Trump himself is actively trying to sabotage the investigation and Congressional Republicans are helping him. Maybe people are missing that too?
Watergate: 784 days
Iran-Contra: 2420 days
Whitewater/Lewinsky: 2982 days
Valerie Plame: 1163 days
Trump/Russia: 368 days (and counting)
Most of the guilty pleas from the Mueller Investigation are for charges of "lying to investigators", which wouldn't be a crime if there were no investigation. A lot of charges against Gates were also dropped--that usually happens when the prosecutor realizes they don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
@FinneousPJ In that case, can you point to any instance where a person has ever been convicted on the *dictionary* definition of "treason"? No, I can't, either. "Treason" is one of those words people like to thrown around, thinking that the very utterance of the word is sufficient to successfully quantify the person about whom it is being used. Trump, himself, just recently tried to suggest that White House Staff leakers were "traitors"...but Trump cares only about people betraying him, personally, not anything else.
I still can't quite tell whether Trump is trying to become Nixon or Reagan, but I am leaning towards Nixon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-personally-pushed-postmaster-general-to-double-rates-on-amazon-other-firms/2018/05/18/2b6438d2-5931-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html
I find it frustrating that Trump simply can't just let law enforcement do their jobs without him objecting to their work. I find it frustrating that Trump views investigations as weapons to use against one's political enemies instead of a means of discovering the truth. I find it frustrating that registered Republicans like Mueller are accused of actually being Democrats somehow. I find it frustrating that the very concept of public scrutiny of public officials is being called into question for the sole reason that Trump is afraid of it. I find it frustrating that the President of the United States is spending what little energy he has on attacking American institutions.
The reason there's an investigation is because there's a question that needs to be answered, a controversy that needs to be put to rest. This investigation is the only thing that can resolve the question of whether people in the Trump campaign broke the law and/or helped the Russian government attempt to sway the result of the election. Without an independent investigation, there is no one to answer that question but politicians and pundits.
The integrity of our elections is important. Public scrutiny of government officials is important. Those are good things, not bad things.
It's one thing to hear about one meeting in Trump Tower with Russians. Now we are hearing about meetings (involving Eric Prince no less) involving the UAE, Saudis, and Israel as well. ANY foreign influence in our elections abetted by the Trump campaign would be illegal. The idea that there is no longer anything here is preposterous. They were at a bare minimum actively seeking the help of foreign governments and actors to win an election. Keep in mind that in regards to the DNC and Clinton campagin emails, we are talking about THEFT. Just as Watergate was about theft. The only difference is that this theft was technological and not a physical act of breaking into a hotel suite. And Nixon didn't break into the Watergate himself. What brought Nixon down was trying to obstruct justice and abuse the power of the Presidency to cover it up after the fact.
Most of us weren't alive back then, even those that were likely too young to remember. But I'll bet any amount of money the exact language and tactics were used against the Watergate investigators. In fact, isn't there video (a State of the Union possibly) of Nixon addressing Congress saying "One year of Watergate is enough"?? Wasn't Spiro Agnew (before he had to resign due to tax fraud) nothing but the proto-Trump screaming about fake news?? It may be of interest of people to know that Roger Ailes, the founder of FOX News, was a close Nixon adviser, and that one of his stated goals in creating that media platform was to make sure Watergate never happened again. Not that no one commit illegal acts again, but that they are never held accountable for them. Nixon would have absolutely survived with the conservative media apparatus that is in place in 2018. I have not a single doubt in my mind about that.
Also, it's worth noting that the government of Israel's political ideology lines up much more with a Trump administration than with a Clinton one. It's not inconceivable that it was in Israel's better interest to see Trump win than Clinton.
That said, they are, shall we say, slightly removed from the problems that large scale immigration have caused the UK.
Small country, (and even smaller when you take into consideration how much is unsuitable for people to live in, mountains, moorland, vital agricultural land, ect.) an extra six million people over a short period of time is going to cause problems regardless of where those people come from.
I place Saudi Arabia in the "not an enemy" category rather than "friendly". Those are different things altogether.